2019-11-25 46 1 1 House of Reps 0 1

Monday, 25 November 2019

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Petitions Committee 1 Report 1 10:01 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay I present the sixth report of the Petitions Committee for the 46th Parliament, together with 53petitions and 15 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented. PETITIONS 1 PETITIONS National Classification Code 1 10:01 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions: National Classification Code 1 Asylum Seekers 1 Asylum Seekers 1 Asylum Seekers 1 Immigration Detention 1 Asylum Seekers 1 Hong Kong 2 Medicare: Surrogacy 2 Hong Kong 2 Hong Kong 3 Asylum Seekers 3 Internet Content 3 Asylum Seekers 3 Petrol and Diesel Cars 3 Asylum Seekers 4 Asylum Seekers 4 Indigenous Australians 4 Voting Age 4 Education 4 Australian Olive Industry 5 Glyphosate 5 Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 5 Climate Change 5 Nuclear Energy 5 Federal Independent Commission Against Corruption 6 Asylum Seekers 6 Climate Change 6 Age Pension 6 Waste Management and Recycling 6 Newstart Allowance 7 Asylum Seekers 7 Parliament 7 Taxation 7 Taxation 7 National Disaster Relief 8 Asylum Seekers 8 West Papua 8 Iraq: Protests 8 Driving Age 8 Climate Change 8 Mental Health 9 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 9 Climate Change 9 Mental Health 9 National Integrity Commission 10 Paris Agreement 10 Pensions and Benefits 10 Federal Election 10 People's Republic of China 10 Extinction Rebellion 11 Medical Funding 11 Family Law 11 Family Assistance 11 Vocational Education and Training 12 PETITIONS 12 PETITIONS Responses 12 10:01 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay I present the following 15 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented: Foreign Affairs 12 Zimbabwe 12 Medicare 13 Disability Support Pension 14 Political Advertising 14 Blood Donation 15 Federal Government: Fixed Terms 16 Endometriosis 16 Treasurer 17 Minister for Home Affairs 17 Minister for Home Affairs 17 Australian Constitution 17 Newstart Allowance 18 Pensions and Benefits 18 Taxation: Religious Organisations 19 PETITIONS 19 PETITIONS Statements 19 10:01 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay It is of interest to note that all of the petitions presented this morning are e-petitions, confirming the growth and the growing interest in this method of petitioning the House. The subjects covered are wideranging. However, in recent times there has been a notable interest in human rights issues, including offshore detention of asylum seekers, the protests in Hong Kong and the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in China. These are all issues on which the House has a power to act—a key requirement under the standing orders. These areas are prescribed in part 5, sections 51 and 52 of the Australian Constitution, which states: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth … Some broad examples include trade, taxation, communications, the armed forces, quarantine, census and statistics, banking, copyright, immigration, marriage, pensions and foreign affairs. Many petitions are received requesting action over which the House does not have the power to act, and these frequently fall under state or local jurisdiction. Some examples of petitions found out of order for this reason include a request to change the law for learner and provisional motorcyclists to be the same as car drivers, a request to reinstate passenger rail services to the Spencer Gulf in South Australia and a request to replace wired fencing with an overpass to protect koalas on Picton Road in New South Wales. Although some petitions do not meet requirements, the committee and the secretariat continue to assist members of the public by providing advice on the best forum to have their voice heard. Thank you, Mr Speaker, I look forward to further updating the House on the work of the Petitions Committee. BILLS 20 BILLS Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Fairer Rules for General Treatments) Bill 2019 20

Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Fairer Rules for General Treatments) Bill 2019

First Reading 20 Second Reading 20 10:05 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Private health insurance in this country is in trouble. Indeed figures released by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority earlier this year show that in December 2018 there were some 65,000 fewer Australians with health insurance when compared to the year before, marking the greatest yearly decrease in private hospital cover in 15 years. No wonder the President of the Australian Medical Association, just last month, warned that the private health insurance sector in Australia is 'on the precipice'. Mind you, other experts go even further, claiming the sector is in a death spiral because, as the premiums for private health insurance go up, more people drop out, which then causes the premiums to rise again, and so on and so on, in a vicious circle. Something must be done about all this and this bill is a start because it would put in place three essential reforms which will help combat the downward spiral of the private health insurance industry and promote the health and wellbeing of patients. Firstly, this bill amends legislation to prevent private health insurers offering differential rebates, which is important to promote patient choice and autonomy. Secondly, this bill prevents private health insurance companies from acting as both insurers and providers of medical treatment, which is important because inherent in current arrangements is a profound conflict of interest. Clearly, the very distinct roles of insurers hoping to minimise payouts and service providers like dentists hoping to deliver quality health care must be kept separate in order to promote patient health and welfare. Thirdly, this bill helps regulate the use of data that private health insurers obtain from HICAPS, because it gives APRA the ability to intervene if it believes private health insurers are inappropriately using data to manipulate the market. This will help prevent an anticompetitive health insurance market and prioritise patient care over maximising profit. Returning to the bill's first reforms: I would add that I agree with the AMA that the government must stop health insurers from favouring one provider over another. This is also entirely consistent with recommendation 12 of the report into the value and affordability of private health insurance and out-of-pocket medical costs conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs in 2017, which urged the government to prohibit differential rebates. To that end this bill enshrines this recommendation and prevents private health insurers from awarding differential rebates for the same treatments provided under the same product in the same jurisdiction. Remember, differential rebates restrict the patient's ability to choose the professional they want to carry out their medical procedure. So when private health insurers push their members to obtain treatment from preferred providers they are engaging in blatant financial manipulation. This is undeniably inappropriate because private health insurers should not be able to exercise such a level of power and control over a patient's health care. It is grossly unfair and a profound conflict of interest. This brings me to the second flawed practice this bill reforms. Currently, private health insurers are allowed to act in a dual role and own and operate medical clinics that provide medical services to patients. This is a blatant conflict of interest. How can health insurers deliver the best possible health care to patients when their primary motivation is to minimise claim payouts, a matter undeniably turbo charged by for-profit companies like Bupa. Clearly, there is a direct conflict of interest that the people who substantially pay for these treatments are also choosing what treatments are given. No wonder reports by the ABC suggest that providers of medical treatments employed by private health insurers are being encouraged to meet targets and KPIs for the number of patients they see and the number of procedures they complete. Clearly, this has a dire potential consequence because the level of treatment and care that patients receive is being directly impacted and potentially reduced by the corporate need to meet specific targets to reduce costs and for some companies at least to maximise profits. This impact can obviously eventuate in a number of ways. For instance, a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs in 2017 stated that some preferred provider practices and those owned and run by corporations put pressure on employed medical professionals to see a certain number of patients per hour. Surely this must be a barrier to medical professionals conducting thorough investigations, diagnoses and treatments. In addition, medical practices motivated primarily by profit may overservice their patients. Indeed, in the same submission to the Senate committee, concerns were raised over medical professionals looking to provide treatments to patients that were clearly unnecessary, simply to meet KPIs and performance targets. Whilst some may criticise this bill and say it would create upward pressure on premiums, it's not like the fees are stable or coming down under the current arrangements. Indeed, statistics released by the Department of Health show that, over the past seven years, private health insurance premiums have risen by an average of over five per cent each year. Left unchecked, things are only going to get worse because the growing dominance of private health insurers in the healthcare market means competition is reducing even more and, with that, smaller independent service providers are being pushed out of the market. Premiums are continuing to rise, and consumers are increasingly price takers. The spread of the private health insurance industry into the provision of health care will also limit claimable treatments, because as the insurers continue to take over and influence the market, decreasing competition, they will be able to decide what treatments are covered under private health insurance schemes and the rebate that is offered for such treatments. No wonder people are increasingly dropping out of private health insurance because they feel they aren't getting their money's worth, and no wonder this decline is having profound consequences—most obviously the shift in large numbers of patients from the private hospital system to the public system. Remember, public hospitals are already struggling to provide satisfactory health care to patients, and most hospitals simply can't accommodate any big increase in their case load. Nor can the public health system easily withstand private health insurers cherrypicking profitable health services, which, again, distorts the market and leaves the public system to pick up the most challenging and expensive case load. Nowhere are the challenges faced by the public system more apparent than at the Royal Hobart Hospital in my electorate of Clark, where there are the additional layers of systemic and cultural problems created by the Tasmanian state government's apathy, inaction and bumbling mismanagement. No wonder, in the last financial year alone, some 1,800 patients waited more than 24 hours in the emergency department to be seen by a doctor. Personally, I've met numerous victims of the broken Tasmanian public health system, like the many constituents who have tried to seek mental health treatment at the royal, sometimes waiting days in the ED or turned away because there aren't enough staff or beds to help them; or the concerned mother who has been told her toddler must wait upwards of seven years to receive urgent treatment and surgery for a medical condition. We must remember that the aim of health care is health care; it is not to utilise information with the intent of exploiting illnesses and ailments of people to make money. This is why the intent of the final reform this bill implements is to protect patients against the inappropriate use of their data obtained by private health insurers, consistent with the recommendation of the Senate standing committee in 2017, and to give APRA the ability to intervene if it believes private health insurers are inappropriately using information obtained from HICAPS to manipulate the market. Currently, data collected through the HICAPS system, where medical clinics register every claim that is made in the clinic, is sent to private health insurers, revealing the amount clinics are charging and how much money they are making. Private health insurers are able to use this data to analyse the market and, in particular, the prices and income of their competitors. This is particularly problematic when private health insurers are also providing medical treatment, because of the way it gives them an unfair advantage over independent medical clinics. It also means private health insurers may choose to pull medical facilities out of smaller communities that are seen in the management's eyes to not be making enough money. In closing, can I just say that the evidence is clear: we need immediate and extensive reform of the private health insurance industry not just to prevent the industry's collapse but also to protect consumers and to ensure independent health service providers, like optometrists, dentists and others, can enjoy a genuinely sustainable future. This bill provides a substantial start to those ends. The SPEAKER 10000 Is the motion moved by the member for Clark seconded? Dr Haines 282335 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. The SPEAKER 10000 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. BUSINESS 22 BUSINESS Rearrangement 22 10:15 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Pursuant to standing order 113, I fix the next sitting Monday as the day for presenting the Australian Banks (Government Audit) Bill 2019. I apologise to the House. There was a glitch in the drafting. We need to put it off for a week. The SPEAKER 10000 I thank the member for Kennedy for his statement. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 22 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Housing 22 10:16 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I move: That this House: (1) notes that:    (a) access to adequate housing is a fundamental right under Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which Australia has ratified;    (b) adequate housing requires safe, secure and affordable accommodation be accessible to all;    (c) 116,427 Australians were homeless on the last census night;    (d) homelessness affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders disproportionately;    (e) homelessness includes those in crisis accommodation, improvised dwellings, temporary accommodation, boarding houses and other insecure forms of housing;    (f) inadequate provision of public housing is a major cause of homelessness;    (g) public housing is a central tenant of an equitable Australia where a fair go requires access to secure accommodation;    (h) public housing is a determinative factor in education, employment, and health outcomes; and    (i) public housing is a means of social mobility and opportunity; and (2) calls on the Government to help build more affordable homes and ensure every Australian has their own safe place to live. This is a very important motion—one that I am pleased to speak on and one that I am pleased to bring to this House. We have a housing crisis in this country. We have a situation where more and more Australians can't afford to live in their own home. We have a situation where the dream of more and more Australians of owning their own home is fading away. The ability to get through their lives and the financial stress of being able to pay the bills is becoming harder and harder for too many Australians. Yet the government does not have a plan to tackle housing affordability and the government does not have a plan to tackle homelessness in this country. I want to start by acknowledging the newly established Labor for Housing group in Victoria. I want to especially recognise Julijana Todorovic and John Webber for their work in leading Labor for Housing. We moved a motion at the Victorian state Labor conference last weekend—one I was pleased to support and one where we are bringing grassroots policy ideas to this important debate. Let's have a look at some of the numbers. The numbers in this debate are crucial. They are crucial to showing whether or not the government has a plan. Right now, the government's doing a little bit. There's a little bit of piecemeal here, a little bit of policy over there, a little bit of financial raising over here, but it is not a plan to deal with the housing crisis in this country. According to a 2017 report that was presented to the government, Supporting the implementation of an affordable housing bond aggregator—a 2017 report by the Affordable Housing Working Group to the Heads of Treasuries—it is estimated that we need to create at least 6,000 new social housing homes in this country to stay afloat; to stay at the current levels. That is combined with the fact that CEDA, as well as a number of other community groups, has made a report that says the actual amount of affordable homes that we need to create in this country is closer to 20,000. How many has the government actually created right now? Well, I can tell you. The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation has helped build around 1,000 new homes since it was established, which is a great thing; in fact, we're seeing complementary statements by Cbus and a number of other organisations. But that is not a housing plan. Doing a little bit is not a plan for housing. Doing a little bit over here, supporting a few homes and supporting some community housing development is a good thing, and the government should be congratulated for doing a good thing, but that doesn't excuse the government from actually bringing a housing plan to this country. It doesn't excuse them from actually bringing a plan to tackle homelessness in this country. What is government for—to do a little bit of policy over here or to actually tackle an issue? Is it to deal with the things that face Australians today? Having a small policy on the side doesn't excuse this government from not actually dealing with the crux of this problem. We on this side of the chamber are not perfect, and I am the first to admit that. We lost a very difficult election, but at least we had a national housing plan. At least we had a plan that dealt with the fact that we have a housing crisis in this country. The plan involved building 250,000 new affordable homes, $88 million for a safe housing fund, reinstating a minister for housing and homelessness, re-establishing the National Housing Supply Council and a number of other reforms. It was a plan. It was something that said, 'We acknowledge the scale of the problem, and here is our policy to deal with it.' Investing in a little bit of renewable energy isn't a national energy plan. Creating a couple of homes on the side isn't a housing and homelessness plan. Actually having the courage, the intellectual rigour, the commitment to the policy—that's what this government needs to do instead of fobbing off their responsibilities. I can't speak on this issue without addressing one of the most fundamental parts of this debate: the staggeringly low rate of Newstart. So many people who are in the social and community housing sector, when they need to be able to live in an affordable home, simply cannot get into the market because of the low rate of Newstart. We have a housing and homelessness crisis in this country. Doing a little bit on the side is not a housing plan, and this government needs to get up and do something about it. The SPEAKER 10000 Is the motion seconded? Ms Stanley 265990 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 10:21 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher As the member for Macnamara notes, 116,000 Australians were identified as homeless on the last census night. However, that bold figure hides a great deal of complexity. We often think of homelessness as living in shelters or sleeping rough, but the issue goes much deeper than that, with nearly 18,000 people couch surfing, 17,000 living in boarding houses and more than 51,000 in severely overcrowded dwellings. Data from specialist homelessness services tells us that those most at risk of homelessness include survivors of domestic and family violence, young people aged between 15-24 years and, sadly, children even younger than that. It includes Indigenous Australians and perhaps, very sadly—and they're all sad—people over the age of 55. Fifty-seven per cent of the older people and 63 per cent of the young people assisted by these services are women. Homelessness is a major challenge across the population, with more than one million people supported by specialist homelessness services since 2011-12. But it's particularly serious amongst some of our already vulnerable demographic groups. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that there were 362 people experiencing homelessness in my electorate of Fisher in 2016. That's why I invited the Sunshine Coast charities, community housing groups and service providers to share their perspectives and ideas on the issue with the Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services in a roundtable I organised in August this year. More than a dozen local organisations met at the Landsborough School of Arts. We discussed the great and innovative work that each organisation is doing and, vitally, the extent to which they are working together to integrate their services and refer cases to one another. Participants also raised issues like the large number of homeless people who are single, the challenges of young people coming out of detention or residential care, the potential role of schools and the reluctance of older people to share housing. We also discussed the huge role of poor mental health in exacerbating homelessness. We looked at the challenges of lower-paid jobs and lower super balances faced by older women and the planning difficulties in building secondary dwellings. Finally, we discussed the importance of housing as a first step on a journey which must include employment, life skills, good health and aspiration to make a lasting difference. Alongside the assistant minister, I want to thank Holly Aston of Caloundra Community Centre, Frances Harper of Compassionate Housing Affordability Solutions, Tom Lew of Gateway Care, Liza Mellon of Suncare Community Services and Sonia Goodwin of Sunny Street for coming and making such insightful contributions. I likewise want to thank Carolyn Wilson of Rosies, Andrew Elvin of Coast2Bay housing, Chris Turner of SunnyKids, Rosemary Campbell of the Salvation Army and Andy Denniss of Churches of Christ Housing Services. Finally, my thanks to Vicky Meyer of IFYS, Carrie Gage of Kyabra, Viki Blaik of Glass Housing 55, Andrew Anderson and Darce Foley of United Synergies and Greg Williams of the Maleny Neighbourhood Centre. Though the states and territories have a responsibility for homelessness, the Morrison government is contributing more than $6 billion a year to support them in combating this challenge. In Fisher the government is also providing more than $3 million in funding to other organisations to make a difference. IFYS has received $1 million to deliver Caloundra Reconnect service. It works to ensure that young people in Beerwah, Glass House Mountains, Landsborough and Caloundra are able to access secure accommodation, stabilise their living situation, maintain family relationships and increase engagement with employment, education, training and the wider community. Further, coalition government funding supports initiatives including $113,000 for the Caloundra Community Centre for children and parent support services, $524,000 for UnitingCare community centres and $120,000 for Suncare Community Services. This government is taking tangible steps to address the issues of homelessness on the Sunshine Coast. (Time expired) 10:26 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise in support of the motion by the member for McNamara and thank him for bringing this national shame to light in this place. In fact, this is an issue that both the federal government and the New South Wales state government have shied away from for a number of years. It's an issue that reflects the attitude of those walking past—ignore it: it's out of sight, out of mind. But we're seeing progress. It's not just the member for McNamara who is speaking out on this issue, and I want to acknowledge all the community organisations who for a number of years and in some cases decades have worked on the streets to feed, house and find employment opportunities for our vulnerable homeless Australians. According to the censuses, between 2011 and 2016 the total number of homeless people in New South Wales increased by 27 per cent. In fact, a closer look at these numbers reveals our national shame in even more significant circumstances. Those census numbers reveal that between 2011 and 2016 the total number of people sleeping rough increased by 35 per cent, the total number of people living in severely crowded dwellings increased by 74 per cent and the number of people living in supported accommodation or boarding houses increased by 19 per cent. These numbers are set against the fact that the total number of people living in temporary lodgings reduced by nine per cent. Of all homeless people in New South Wales, over 2,000 individuals are First Australians. I know that in electorates like mine there are lengthy waiting lists of up to 20 years for social housing. I've seen constituents who, even though they are considered a priority, have been on the priority list for over three years with no offers in sight. Governments post World War II knew they had to house their fellow citizens to make sure that they could contribute to our society and our economy. They are our most critically vulnerable people. Homelessness occurs not just through the loss of employment. There are so many factors that increase both the number of homeless people on our streets and their vulnerability. Domestic violence, sexual assault, racial vilification, sexual orientation, family rejection, mental health issues, chronic disease, acute health issues, the cost of health care and the loss of family and social support systems are all factors in homelessness, as is the low rate of Newstart, as the member for McNamara pointed out. What should break our hearts are the following statistics. The total number of children under 12 who are living in homelessness increased by 10 per cent in the last two censuses. The total number of people aged 55 and over who are living in homelessness increased by 43 per cent in the same period. This is a national crisis, a national crisis of shame, identity and of inaction. One of the key influences of this disgraceful and unacceptable explosion in homelessness is the rise in the cost of living, coupled with stagnating wages. In fact, in the 2016 census 17 per cent of the homeless population in New South Wales was employed full time and over 16 per cent were employed part time. How can it be in a country like that, that if you're employed full time you can't afford to put a roof over your head? Full-time workers that are homeless increased by 45 per cent in the five years between 2011 and 2016. The fact that full-time and part-time workers are homeless now shows the pressures that Australians are facing, and this is partly because of the complete lack of action from both this government and the New South Wales state government. In the area that I live, councils, such as Liverpool City Council, have had to take up the slack. In the past few weeks Liverpool City Council presented the Draft Homelessness Strategy and Action Plan for the area and it is currently out on public exhibition. People in Liverpool are facing some of the highest rates of drivers for homelessness anywhere in the state. That means that Liverpool, and with that parts of Werriwa, may be facing some of the most extreme increases in homelessness in the future. Liverpool council is taking action and so is the New South Wales government and the federal government. We must develop policies at all levels of government to address both the homelessness crisis and the drivers that are causing this crisis. I call on the federal government to take action on homelessness and to put forward a plan that will help address critical housing shortages and the underlying cause of this national shame. Providing housing that is affordable, safe and appropriate makes a profound difference in people's lives and it's the right thing to do in a civilised country like ours. 10:31 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I commend the member for Macnamara on this very important motion. This is an area of public policy that is, indeed, complex. And that complexity and that urgency, because of the types of people that are being affected by increasing rates of homelessness—as identified by the members for Macnamara and Werriwa—means that we need a plan. As the member for Macnamara indicated, there is some action being undertaken at the moment but it is too ad hoc and it is too piecemeal given the nature of the problem that our country faces. I want to indicate some statistics in relation to my electorate that indicate what is going on in my community but also that reflect what is going on across the country. Homelessness in the local government area of Brimbank, which is an area that closely aligns with the federal electorate that I represent, increased by 40 per cent by 2011 and 2016, and that is a shameful statistic in a country as wealthy as ours. The rate of homelessness in St Albans nearly doubled between 2011 and 2016. There were 420 people homeless in St Albans on census night in 2016. That's one suburb in my electorate and that is a number that is shameful and far too high. There were 1,400 homeless in Brimbank in 2016. One-third of those experiencing homelessness in Fraser were aged between 12 and 24. As I said, that supports the arguments that were raised by the members for Macnamara and Werriwa that this is a problem that afflicts those who are most vulnerable in our community. This problem reflects long-term trends, systemic trends, that government needs to address with a large, well-funded, overarching plan, and that is not what is happening at the moment. Across our country in 2017-18 over 800,000 Australians were in social housing, living in over 400,000 dwellings across the country. Most were in public housing with increasing numbers in community housing. What is most striking about that stock of housing is that the stock of social housing has barely grown in the last 20 years, whereas our overall population has increased by 33 per cent. That reflects the imbalance at the moment between those who are seeking short-term, affordable housing and the stock that is available. That's why waiting lists are growing across our country. The construction of new public housing dwellings is currently at its lowest rate for 40 years and existing public housing stock is severely underfunded. In 1974-75 the Commonwealth invested 0.55 per cent of GDP in public housing. Today, it's under 0.1 per cent. As I said, it is shameful, given what a wealthy country we are, that we are underfunding such a critical part of our social safety net. The trend is down. We must reverse that trend. That is something that this government is not paying attention to. There remain 200,000 people on social housing waiting lists across the country. We can look at some of our comparator countries to see how we fare. In Australia, we have a public housing sector that is 4.4 per cent of the total stock. Look at Ireland at 10 per cent, France at 17 per cent and the UK at 18 per cent. They are orders of magnitude higher, providing housing stock that is affordable and secure for the most vulnerable in society. In our country, not only is the stock low but the trend in investment is paltry and falling. This is an environment, as the member for Macnamara pointed out, where we need a plan, not piecemeal activities and not initiatives here and there. We need an overarching plan. The government's lack of action in this area is so reflective of its lack of planning across its economic policy and social policy more generally. Well, what do we need? We need a massive increase in investment. Look at what this party took to the last election. We had a bold plan that included 250,000 new, affordable rental homes at 20 per cent below market rent over 10 years, 20,000 of which would have been in the first term. That is the scale of activity that our community needs. Not only do we need an increase in stock and an increase in investment in the refurbishment of existing stock; we need wraparound services to reflect the complex needs of those who are seeking these housing services. I commend this motion to the House and I call on the government to undertake a much bolder and more coordinated plan of activity in order to assist those vulnerable people in our community inflicted by this scourge. (Time expired) 10:36 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling We hear a lot about the total number of homeless fellow Australians, and it's easy to forget that every single number reflects a tragic situation impacting an individual and, of course, their family. Let me share with you just one example. Thankfully, this example also has a positive outcome. For the last couple of years I have volunteered as an associate board member of the veterans transition centre located in Jarrahdale in WA. This centre provides a beautiful bush location where veterans and their families can spend time together participating in a growing range of proactive programs. The great majority of veterans transition to civilian life in excellent health and with skills and attitudes that enable them to contribute to both businesses and, of course, society. However, some do struggle, and one such veteran got in touch with the transition centre a couple of months ago. Initially for this homeless veteran the veteran transition centre, the VTC, was able to provide short-stay accommodation. Whilst the veteran was there, he jumped in and helped with the maintenance of some of the log cabins and other facilities. Within a couple of weeks, a fellow veteran, Karyn Hinder, through her agency Working Spirit, was able to find a FIFO mining job for the veteran. With his feet back on the ground, the veteran sent his first pay cheque back to his former wife and children, from whom he was separated, and then his next pay cheque went to securing a rental property. Now he has started to volunteer his time back at the veteran transition centre, giving back to those veterans who have hit hard times or just need to spend time away from the city. But not everyone has the supporting resources around them to overcome homelessness, so we need to continue to identify organisations that are providing solutions and back them in. Whilst we continue to require reactive services, prevention is far better than cure. In the coalition, we know that the best form of welfare is of course a job, and a job significantly mitigates the risk of homelessness. The Morrison government has a proven track record of creating 1½ million jobs since coming to government, and has pledged to create another 1.25 million more in the next term. Moving the dial on homelessness has the best chance of success under a model of cooperation between all three tiers of government. However, in WA, although federal funding for homeless services is growing, state Labor have reduced funding for these services. They've also increased fees for utilities and services, adding $850 to households budgets. These mean-spirited actions come as the number of Western Australians who have nowhere to live is at a record high with around 9,000 homeless and 14,000 on the housing waiting list. State Labor have also still not released a homelessness strategy, despite the hardworking advocacy of the shadow minister for homelessness, Tony Krsticevic MLA. By comparison to Labor, the former coalition government in WA expanded funding in 2016-17 for homelessness and domestic violence accommodation and support services to $82 million. The federal government has made combating homelessness a priority. Luke Howarth, Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services, is leading the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, providing $1.5 billion a year to help state and territory governments tackle homelessness. In 2019-20, the government will invest around $4.6 billion in Commonwealth rent assistance to help Australians on low to moderate incomes pay their rent. The government is also providing $78 million for the 'safe places' package to ensure women and children who are experiencing domestic violence have a safe place to sleep. There are great examples happening in local electorates too—like my electorate of Stirling, where the city of Stirling is really pitching in for its Meals on Wheels program; or Uniting Aid, where I visited recently, who are providing food, support, counselling and other services. These are positive examples, upon which we need to continue building, so that we can collectively move the dial on homelessness, helping our fellow Australians who are most in need. 10:41 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler It is well known that homelessness is on the rise. More than 116,000 people live without a safe, secure place to call home. James Toomey, CEO of Mission Australia, stated: Let us not forget that behind those numbers are thousands of men, women and children who are living in the most precarious situations, forced to sleep on the street, or in a car, or on a couch at a friend's house or live in severely over crowded dwellings. His words succinctly put into perspective the distressing and desperate situation faced by many Australians affected by homelessness. While homelessness and housing instability are very real problems across the nation, it is particularly dire in my electorate of Fowler, where we are overrepresented with disadvantaged people, and particularly, people living in vulnerable situations. Issues such as mental health, disability, unemployment, relationship breakdowns, substance abuse, gambling addiction and, in particular, domestic violence all play a very significant role with respect to homelessness. Sadly, I see this disproportionately occurring in my community. The constituents that come to my office are dealing with very complex and multifaceted issues. Researchers have found that women and children are at a heightened risk of homelessness as a result of domestic violence. Tracy Phillips, the executive officer for Bonnie Support Services, a remarkable organisation in my community, sheds light on the interrelationship between domestic violence and homelessness when she said: Women escaping domestic violence and family violence are struggling to find permanent, affordable and sustainable housing. Our society has a serious division between those with, and those without, permanent housing. For communities like mine, particularly where the housing demand is high and public housing lists are long, the only real answer to our homelessness crisis—as Tracy Phillips put it to me—is to emphasise we do, desperately, need an increase in social housing stock. Our local service providers are struggling to keep up with the demand for crisis accommodation and transitional housing. Nevertheless, they continue to do a fantastic job, day in, day out, in addressing homelessness and addressing many of the other issues and challenges that come along—not only putting a roof over people's heads. Recently, I met with Pastor David Delany of the Fairfield branch of the Salvation Army, which administers a number of great programs to address the issue of homelessness and housing affordability in my area. One of the things they do is called 'Soup Kitchen 473', an initiative of the Salvos which aims to provide meals to those doing it tough. The Salvos also run the Moneycare program to help those who are struggling to best handle their financial matters. The Good Samaritan Aid Society is another organisation that is making a difference for the better in the community by working with many homeless individuals not only in my area but across New South Wales. The most recent initiative of the Good Samaritan Aid Society is called Food Angel. It aims to provide weekly hampers to help individuals who are experiencing difficulties when it comes to housing and the high pressures of everyday living. Feeding Heart is another program initiated by the Good Samaritan Aid Society, which administers help to those affected by homelessness. The program, which has been running for the past three years, has been providing nutritious meals to homeless people in the Liverpool and Fairfield areas. This is all thanks to Bishop Mari Emmanuel and his team of volunteers at the St Shimun and St Marys Church. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the Wattle Grove Lions Club for the inspiring work they are doing in supporting women and children escaping domestic violence. The Wattle Grove Lions Club have partnered with Masterton Homes to build crisis accommodation in our regions to support domestic violence victims. This is a momentous achievement, and shows what can be done through cooperation and thinking outside the square. Access to affordable and safe, sustainable housing is a basic human right, and clearly there is much more that this government can be doing to address housing inequity and homelessness now that it has reached a crisis point. Simply put: we're a wealthy country and homelessness should be completely unacceptable in a country like Australia. 10:46 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I thank the member for Macnamara for bringing this private members bill to the chamber. It's an important issue, and one close to my heart given my new position as Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services. After the recent election, Prime Minister Morrison appointed me to this position, as the first assistant minister with community housing and homelessness in their title, to work under cabinet minister Senator Anne Ruston, the social services minister. He also created a separate housing ministry under Minister Sukkar. I think that shows that the government is taking this issue very seriously. I asked the Prime Minister, 'What do we want to get done here?' He has a very caring nature, and he really wants to make a difference in helping people who are homeless and helping people who are on low incomes and finding it difficult to find sustainable long-term housing. Constitutionally, this space has traditionally been an area that state governments have been responsible for, and that continues to remain the case, but the federal government can help—and we are helping already, with more than $6 billion invested through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, through Commonwealth rent assistance. The member for Stirling spoke about the safe places package, which is currently open, and I'd encourage all members of this House—members of the opposition, members of the government and the crossbench—to talk to the providers in their electorates that provide services around domestic violence to make an application for the safe places package. We want to provide an additional 450 safe places for women and children fleeing domestic violence. The safe places package will open at the end of this month. All members in this House, if you're listening, at the end of this month the safe places package opens. It will close on 14 February, so those services have got a bit of time to get that in. We want to make sure new safe places are built right around the country. A number of members spoke about the fact that social housing hasn't grown. There has been an underinvestment by state governments of all persuasions for a couple of decades now and funding isn't keeping pace with what is required. We're also seeing that a number of people move into social housing and they never get out of it. There needs to be more responsibility, I guess, from state governments to help people who are able to get back into the workplace to then move on from social housing so that it will provide a flowthrough effect for people currently on the waiting list. The government, of course, have a number of things that we're implementing as well, including the first home deposit scheme and the First Home Super Saver Scheme, to help people get into their own place. In particular, I want to thank the community housing sector for providing a lot of accommodation right throughout the country but particularly in New South Wales. They are helping people in private sector areas where there are high rents, particularly in Sydney, to have an affordable place to live. In the last few months, one of my responsibilities has been the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, so I've been meeting with state ministers around the country. In the last few weeks, I've met or spoken with Minister de Brenni, the Labor housing minister in Queensland; Minister Wynne, the Victorian housing minister; and Minister Tinley, the Western Australian minister. I've also met in this place with Minister Gerry McCarthy, the Northern Territory minister; Minister Jaensch, from Tasmania; and Minister Pavey. When we look at homelessness, 10 per cent of people who are homeless are rough sleepers. That means that 90 per cent of homeless people have a roof over their heads. I think a lot of members don't know that. I know that many people would think, in relation to homelessness, that it's only rough sleepers. But, as a number of members have already said, it's boarding houses, it's transitional housing, it's couch surfing and it's overcrowding. Every state has different issues. In Tasmania, rough sleepers, particularly around Hobart, are an issue. But, in the Northern Territory, of the 13,000 homeless people, for 11,000 the problem is overcrowding. A lot of those are in Indigenous places. I've written to every member and senator in this place explaining that, and I look forward to working with others, particularly our Indigenous members, to work out ideas around overcrowding and cultural sensitivities there. 10:51 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay As part of the Morrison government's plan for Lindsay, we're backing hardworking Australians to unlock their potential, and we're supporting housing availability and accessibility as Western Sydney grows. I would like the thank the member for Macnamara for bringing the private member's bill to the House. I, too, am passionate, just like Assistant Minister Howarth is, about affordability and, in particular, helping the community sector grow to scale to be able to provide more housing for people across Western Sydney. I've worked in the social housing sector and I've worked with people experiencing homelessness—people who are trying to get back on their feet, get into a secure home and get a job. I know that getting into the housing market is critical to having financial security. The Morrison government is committed to working with the community housing sector. Just this morning, we had a meeting with Wendy Hayhurst, the CEO of the Community Housing Industry Association. We want to make sure that they're getting everything they need to do their job well. Wendy spoke about the growing affordable housing industry and affordable housing sector, including in Western Sydney. I was very fortunate to attend the opening of Evolve's new community housing in Penrith with Minister Sukkar, the Minister for Housing. One of the key things here, as we look at how having affordable housing can make people feel more secure and able to get a job, is that we also have to acknowledge that there are barriers to people having lifelong tenure in community housing. This is one of the barriers to people having that incentive to get back on their feet. When I worked in the community housing sector, we looked at how we support women who want to get back on their feet financially and get financial security so they have housing independence—women who had experienced domestic violence and women who had experienced intergenerational welfare. One of the biggest barriers we have in community housing and social housing is that lifetime tenure. People don't want to get out of social housing unless they have incentives to do so. The Morrison government's First Home Loan Deposit Scheme is also helping other people across my electorate of Lindsay to buy their first home, supporting 10,000 first home buyers each financial year by guaranteeing eligible homebuyers on low and middle incomes, so they can purchase their first home with a deposit of as little as five per cent. Many hardworking Australians are only locked out of this financial security by the barrier of a 20 per cent deposit. We're backing them in and rewarding their hard work by breaking down this barrier. The Morrison government is also unlocking the potential of our diverse and vibrant community with a $5.3 billion infrastructure investment into Western Sydney. This is about 11,000 jobs during the building of the Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport. This is about 28,000 jobs when the airport opens. There will be demand in Western Sydney for skills in science, technology, engineering, space and advanced manufacturing. If we want our kids to stay in Western Sydney to be educated and trained in the jobs of the future, we will also need to help them fulfil their aspiration of working hard and owning their own home, and that is why it is so important to have these policies. The Morrison government is committed to backing hardworking people in Western Sydney and across Australia by helping them reach their aspiration of their very first home by delivering complementary incentives to reduce pressure on housing affordability and to support local communities. The government is investing $1 billion in local infrastructure to unlock new housing supply in partnership with local councils through the National Housing Infrastructure Facility and is releasing suitable Commonwealth land for more housing opportunities. As I said, our First Home Super Saver scheme helps Australians build their deposit for a first home inside their superannuation by making voluntary contributions. These incentives delivered by the Morrison government have helped thousands of first homebuyers to get on to the first rung of the property ladder and to enter the market. In the past year alone, more than 110,000 people have bought their first homes, the highest number since 2009. We are contributing alongside state and territory governments to support a sustainable community housing sector with almost $6 billion in federal funding to improve housing outcomes, are helping 1.3 million Australians pay their rent with $4.6 billion in Commonwealth rent assistance and helping those who do it tough with more than $1.5 billion each year through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. I acknowledge Assistant Minister Howarth on the hard work he is doing in this space. The Morrison government has a proven track record of delivering a strong economy, of delivering the essential services Australians rely on and of providing greater housing accessibility and availability. 10:57 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley In Frankston, there are 2,090 social housing dwellings, yet, at the same time, there are more than 2,000 households on the social housing waiting list for the Frankston area. We can be in no doubt; there is a real and growing crisis in affordable housing, in affordable rent and, commeasurably, in homelessness in our country, and I'm sad to say that crisis has touched my electorate of Dunkley. In my area, anyone who walks around the streets can see there has been a visible increase in the number of people sleeping rough. But, of course, they're just the people that we can see. There are many, many more people who are in precarious and unsafe housing, who are couch surfing, who are staying in people's backyards, who are jumping from home to home, and who are having their income gouged by rooming houses where they're not safe. These rooming houses have sprung up across Dunkley and in many other places to fill the gap in affordable housing. In my electorate, there's no youth crisis accommodation, no youth transitional housing. Some 4,000 young people aged 15 to 24 years in the Bayside Peninsula area were accessing homelessness and support services in a year. Of these some 4,000 young people, twice as many are women as men. It's not just young women who are disproportionately impacted by the crisis in affordable housing and homelessness we're experiencing in this country. On census night, 61 per cent of people supported by specialist homelessness services were female. Women's homelessness rose 27 per cent between 2001 and 2016. Almost 50,000 Australian women experienced homelessness on census night in Australia in 2016. We are a rich country. We are a successful country. That is not a number that we can be proud of and it's not a number that can continue. Because it's not just a number; it's people. Almost 50,000 women experiencing homelessness on one night is not acceptable. Every day, Australian homelessness services turn away 155 women because of a lack of affordable houses. Women over 55 are the fastest growing cohort of people experiencing homelessness in Australia. Women who have worked all their lives, women who have taken time out of the workforce to care for their children, single parents, decent Australians—women over 55 who are homeless. We cannot stand for this. We cannot let it continue. During the election campaign, I met two gorgeous women, Pat and Coral, who live in Carrum Downs. Were it not for Haven; Home, Safe, they would have continued to be part of the large group of Australians over 65 paying unaffordable rents—a group which has increased by 42 per cent since 2011. Pat and Coral are great, decent Australians who would have been on the brink of homelessness had it not been for Haven; Home, Safe, who have been working in the area of providing affordable housing and transitional housing for vulnerable Australians for 40 years. One of their developments which is almost finished is in Carrum Downs in my electorate, the Wattlewood development. It has been built by a terrific local business, Bevnol Homes. It is an $80 million-plus private property development with 237 lots of residential subdivisions and 100 new affordable housing units, and it will be open next year. We need more of these sorts of developments. We need a real plan from the federal government to support the construction of affordable homes, to support build-to-rent construction. It's not enough just to talk about putting a positive spin on homelessness. It's not enough to say, 'If you have a go, you get a go.' We need a federal government that will invest in affordable housing, support people like Pat and Coral and support organisations like Haven; Home, Safe to continue to do the terrific work to help people in my electorate and across the country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Geneva Convention: 70th Anniversary 29 11:02 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I move: That this House: (1) recognises that 12 August 2019 marked the 70th anniversary of the opening for signature of the four Geneva Conventions in 1949; (2) notes that the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the foundation of modern international humanitarian law, remain as fundamental and relevant to armed conflict today as when they were opened for signature 70 years ago; (3) acknowledges that the Geneva Conventions, while universally accepted, are not being uniformly respected in times of war, underscoring the need for ongoing advocacy; (4) recalls that the Conventions and their Additional Protocols protect those who are not fighting, such as civilians, medical personnel, chaplains and humanitarians as well as non-military places such as hospitals; (5) honours the continuing role of Australian Red Cross in: (a) disseminating international humanitarian law; (b) assisting successive Australian Governments to ensure respect for and disseminate international humanitarian law; and (c) educating the general public about the correct use of the red cross emblem; (6) pays respect to the continuing global leadership role of the International Committee of the Red Cross in assisting the victims of armed conflict and working for the greater understanding and advancement of international humanitarian law; (7) determines that Australia should remain, now as always, a global leader in advocacy for, and implementation of, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and all that they stand for; and (8) resolves that this resolution has effect and continues in force unless and until amended or rescinded by the houses in this or a subsequent parliament. In 1949, with the horrors of the previous decade still fresh in their mind, countries including Australia joined together to discuss the failings of the rules of war and unnecessary massive loss of civilian lives that had resulted from the Second World War. As a result, the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War was created. The aim of this treaty was to provide protection for civilians and non-military personnel, such as chaplains and hospital staff, within a war zone and prevent the devastating loss of life that the signatories had witnessed over the decade preceding the treaty's creation. The treaty was subsequently agreed to under the Chifley Labor government and ratified under the Menzies Liberal government in 1957 as the Geneva Conventions Act of 1957. Australia has always had a strong bipartisan approach to ensuring that the armed conflicts Australia and our allies engage in support the application of the conventions as well as ensuring the Australian Defence Force keeps its commitment to providing humanitarian support. It is important that we recognise this, and I would like to thank the member for Moreton for supporting this motion as a co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of the Australian Red Cross. This year marks the 70th anniversary of the creation of this treaty and is a time where we must reflect on the current nature of armed conflict. The undeniable conclusion of this reflection is that this treaty is as significant to conflicts around the world today as it was at its conception. Along with the previous three Geneva conventions of 1864, 1907 and 1929 and the additional protocols, this collective set of treaties has become a cornerstone of international humanitarian law. Since 1993, the conventions have been part of a customary international law and are thus binding on all state actors engaging in armed conflicts. We must also pay respect to the Australian Red Cross and its parent organisation, the International Committee of the Red Cross. This organisation has been instrumental in protecting the sick, the wounded and the victims of armed conflict since its establishment 156 years ago. To this day the Red Cross continues its vision in providing human dignity, peace, safety and wellbeing for all. It tirelessly supports the application of international humanitarian law and has reduced suffering across Australia and around the world by supporting people in times of their greatest vulnerability. Red Cross Australia lists six current strategic goals: building an active humanitarian movement, creating resilience in disasters, championing peace and reducing suffering, overcoming adversity, maintaining an innovative organisation, and providing a safe and secure blood supply. The work of the Red Cross in promoting the 1949 Geneva conventions was recognised recently by the organisation's patron, His Excellency the Governor-General, who described the organisation as being: … pivotal to building and maintaining respect for the conventions and international humanitarian law. Therefore, it is important that we, as a parliament, support the ongoing dedication and leadership of this organisation. A fundamental part of supporting the organisation's mission is examining our involvement in the international application of the Geneva conventions. Unfortunately, the conventions are not universally respected. We are all aware of the current regional destabilisation caused by armed conflicts in the Middle East and Africa. As a global leader in advocacy for these conventions, we must ensure that we remain focused on providing support for the peaceful resolution of these conflicts, such as in Yemen. Furthermore, as international law is becoming increasingly relevant in the global age, it is therefore imperative that we use this anniversary to reinforce Australia's continuing efforts to ensure the implementation of the conventions interuse by state actors. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Is the motion seconded? 11:07 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I'm happy to second the motion, and I rise to speak on the motion by the member for Mackellar and thank him for his fine words. It's a motion marking the 70th anniversary of the opening for signature of the four Geneva conventions of 1949. As I am one of the co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of the Australian Red Cross, along with the member for Mackellar, it is timely to remember that the original Geneva convention, adopted in 1864, was initiated by what is now known as the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. The first treaty protected wounded and sick soldiers during wartime. Other conventions followed, in particular, after World War II in 1949. Collectively, the Geneva conventions and their additional protocols provide minimum protection, standards of humane treatment and fundamental guarantees of respect to individuals caught up as victims of armed conflict. Before the 1949 conventions were adopted only combatants were protected, not civilians. The events of that horrible World War II highlighted the catastrophic consequences of not providing protections for civilians in wartime—for example, there were 15 million battle deaths in World War II and 45 million civilian deaths, and 45 million is probably a low estimate. So the 1949 conventions set out obligations of the occupying power towards civilians and detailed provisions for humanitarian relief for populations in occupied territory. They set out protections on the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war and soldiers who are hors de combat, or outside the fight due to injury or damage. The conventions and additional protocols are known as the humanitarian law of armed conflicts. The conventions and protocols regulate the conduct that occurs during armed conflict. The objective is to have no breaches of the conventions. Where grave breaches occur, including torture or biological experiments and people wilfully causing great suffering, those responsible must be sought and tried, or extradited for trial, whatever their nationality. The Geneva conventions have been ratified by all states and are universally applicable. One of the very visible protections provided by the conventions and their additional protocols is the defined use of emblems. The red cross emblem was settled in the first Geneva convention way back in 1864 as a clear neutral sign on the battlefield to protect medical staff and facilities. It is the exact reverse of neutral Switzerland's flag. The red crescent was adopted by the Ottoman Empire during the Russo-Turkish War as its protective sign while still recognising the red cross. In 2005 the red crystal emblem was adopted as an additional protective sign because it has no national, political or religious connotations. All three emblems are now universally recognised for protective use in armed conflict for the protection of medical services or equipment and buildings of the armed forces under international law. Protection through the emblems is extended to certain humanitarian organisations when they're working alongside the military, attending to the suffering or the wounded prisoners and civilians caught up in a conflict. The emblems can also be for indicative use where they're used to identify national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies around the world. In Australia we're all familiar with the red cross emblem used for the Australian Red Cross. It is a symbol we have come to trust in these times of many emergencies. In the last few weeks, as Australia has been burning, we've seen the Australian Red Cross mobilised to offer support and relief to those caught up in the horrific bushfires raging across the country. Red Cross volunteers are staffing evacuation centres, comforting people who have lost their homes and, sadly, in a few cases, even their family members. In some evacuation centres in New South Wales, Red Cross volunteers have registered more than 1,000 people and even some of their pets. One of the evacuees described knowing the Red Cross volunteers were there to help as being 'the sense of people wrapping around you' which is what the Red Cross did. It might not be a war zone, but the people being comforted by the Red Cross volunteers are suffering and in shock at the devastation all around them. The Red Cross are doing amazing work under very difficult circumstances. Tracy, a Red Cross volunteer at one evacuation centres, said: The reason why I'm a Red Cross volunteer is the empathy we can show people and that we really do care about them and their mental health, their family, making sure that they are in a safe place. It's important work that the Red Cross does in both disaster relief and conflict zones around the world. This motion pays respect to the continuing global leadership role of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and I thank the member for Mackellar and the rest of the bipartisan Parliamentary Friends of Australian Red Cross for their support. I commend their continuing leadership and the Red Cross all around the world. On the occasion of this, the 70th anniversary of the Geneva conventions of 1949, it's important for everyone in the House to remain vigilant of the object and purpose of the conventions and their protocols and to stand ready to defend them. 11:12 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I too rise in support of this motion and I thank the member for Mackellar for his outstanding work in bringing this motion and also in relation to his outstanding work in the committee upon which he serves. I'm a lover of history and I think it's important that we get a bit of a better understanding about where these Geneva conventions came from. Having done a little bit of research on this, I'm advised that the Geneva conventions had their genesis by a gentleman by the name of Henri Dunant. He was a Genevan businessman who was on his way to a trade mission meeting with Emperor Napoleon III's staff in Italy. On his way to this meeting, he stumbled across a battlefield. It was, I understand, a dreadful sight. Based on what he saw at that battlefield, there were many combatants who were treated very badly, particularly if they had been wounded. He took it upon himself to be an agent for change. That was back in 1859. In 1863, the works that Mr Dunant did led to a meeting of various states. I think it was then only 12 states that met, and they concocted what was to then become the first Geneva convention. The first Geneva convention dealt with the care of wounded soldiers and their repatriation. That then led to two more conventions, the second and third Geneva conventions of 1906 and 1929 respectively. Once again, they dealt predominantly with the care of wounded combatants. Interestingly, the one that Henri Dunant developed, which became the first Geneva convention, led to the establishment of the Red Cross. We now know that the International Committee of the Red Cross is an organisation that operates worldwide and, as the previous speaker said, does absolutely remarkable work, some 160 years later, in relation to natural disasters and in times of warfare. I want to send a big shout-out to two of my constituents who have done some terrific work with the Red Cross. Mike and Lyn Gahan are absolutely tireless workers for the Red Cross, and my hat goes off to them because, as we speak right now, they're probably in a place that none of us would want to go to. The Geneva conventions then led to the 1949 fourth Geneva convention. We saw in the conflict of World War II that the first, second and third iterations of the Geneva convention didn't adequately address the harm that warfare does to civilians. Whilst I was representing the Australian parliament in the Inter-Parliamentary Union just a few months ago, I sat in on a discussion with an African parliamentarian who gave the most harrowing story of her own rape and the treatment of her village in times of warfare. We here in Australia may at times think we're doing it tough, but it's times like that, when you sit and listen to a parliamentarian talk about how she was raped and villagers were slaughtered, that really put things into perspective. That's why the Geneva conventions are so important and why Australia signed up to them. 11:18 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I too would like to start by thanking the member for Mackellar for bringing this motion to the House. Last Thursday I joined some very excited year 12 students—along with some very proud parents, some incredibly relieved teachers and other members of the Mount Lawley Senior High School community—for their school graduation. On stage with me was Arthur Leggett OAM. Arthur is 101 years old. He was a prisoner of war in Germany in World War II. He was forced to work in a coalmine for a number of years. He served for some 25 years as President of the Ex-Prisoners of War Association of WA. Now, at 101 years old, he still has the energy and drive to share his story, his experience and his insights with students at Mount Lawley and across Western Australia. In fact, it was because of his generosity of spirit and his sharing of stories that the Mount Lawley high school community named their library in his honour last year. The Geneva convention was to ensure that we treat prisoners of war more humanely than Arthur Leggett was treated. It was the Menzies government that first enacted the Geneva conventions in Australia. Like the member for Mackellar, I commend that government for that action. The conventions are as fundamental and relevant as they ever were. When we enacted them into law some 60 years ago, we didn't know the sort of warfare that we would see today, nor the sorts of circumstances or horror that might come on us with terrorism and other things. But that these conventions have stood the test of time is a credit to those parliamentarians and all who were involved in the drafting of the conventions. Australia does have an important role in advocating for these conventions and the system of international humanitarian law which they underpin, both at home and abroad. We can't take a small view of Australia's role in the world. We are a founding member of the United Nations. We are a voice of reason across the world. We should embrace that role; we shouldn't shy away from it. The first Geneva convention was written in 1864, some 155 years ago, and today in this place we are commemorating the 70 anniversary of the Geneva conventions as we know them today. Following the atrocities of World War II, the international community collectively decided that we should limit the barbarity of war. Some 75 million people were killed in the Second World War. Of those, 40 million of them were civilians—some three per cent of the global population at that time. For Australia, some 30,000 Australians became prisoners of war. Of those captured in the Pacific more than a third were killed. Slaughter like this should never be allowed to happen again. The establishment of the United Nations and the Geneva conventions did create the framework which we now know for our modern international humanitarian law system. It gave us the tools, it gave us the drive and it gave us a stronger sense of moral obligation to make sure that such horrors are never repeated. The fundamental principle, which is a principle that should go through all moments of our life, is the humane treatment of other human beings, and, most importantly, of those who are not involved in combat. The conventions have been ratified by every member of the United Nations, reaching what we know as universal acceptance. Australia has accepted the full scope and obligations of the Geneva conventions and we are a party to the two other treaties adopted in 1977. The history of building international institutions to ensure global peace is something which Australia is proud of and something which Australia must continue to do. We can never take peace for granted and we can never assume that other nations will automatically share our values or see things the same way that Australia sees them. We don't live in a perfect international system. There are many injustices have not been addressed, but the international system we have has, on the whole, made the world a kinder and fairer place and it's a system we should embrace, as we do when we pass motions such as this. I'll finish by noting that last Wednesday was World Children's Day. I'd like to endorse the campaign that UNICEF is currently running to ensure that we do not use schools or educational facilities in the pursuit of war and that we see them as particularly important places in providing safety for all peoples. 11:23 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise to support the member for Mackellar on his motion to mark the 70th anniversary of the Geneva conventions. It would be remiss of me, whilst standing in this place and speaking on this motion, not to first acknowledge our servicemen and women, both at home and abroad, those active or retired, and those who have come before us, and to thank them for their service to our nation. I acknowledge the freedoms we enjoy today are not without sacrifice. The position of this building in which we stand is not an accident. The Australian War Memorial and Parliament House have been purposely geographically aligned with each other. The clear line of sight between these two buildings helps those of us deliberating in this House understand that we should never forget the decisions we make in this place have real, tangible and sometimes terrible consequences. On the 70th anniversary of the fourth Geneva convention, Australia can be proud of its humanitarian record during times of conflict. We continue to uphold the protocols with continued advocacy to champion protections for medical personnel, civilians, chaplains and humanitarian aid workers who can be inadvertently and devastating collateral damage in a conflict zone. Australia not only upholds the conventions in its own affairs but seeks to advocate for the importance of holding these protocols on the global stage. The Geneva conventions form some of the most important sets of protections outlining the conduct of war in human history. In 1863, businessman Henri Dunant, who was shocked by the atrocities he witnessed in the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino in Italy, saw the need for a non-partisan international relief agency that would provide support to those caught up and affected by military conflict. His work resulted in the formation of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which today continues to flourish and is one of the most recognisable and trusted organisations in the world, with its principles such as humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary service, unity and universality. The formation of the Geneva conventions was significant, and remains significant, as it represents a high point in multilateralism following the devastating effects of World War II. Prior to the Geneva conventions there were no guidelines for warfare and no expectations for how states, monarchies, their armies or rogue groups should operate or conduct themselves during times of war. Prior to the Geneva conventions there were no consequences for perpetrators of the atrocities witnessed during wartime. Accordingly, these rules of war provided a true global pledge to protect the sanctity of human life and dignity in war by reducing suffering, saving countless lives during armed conflict. Today, on the 70th anniversary of the fourth Geneva convention, we can reflect on the continued relevance of the protocols for conflict. Almost universally ratified—by 196 states—these rules find particular relevance in the wake of the changing landscape and notions of modern warfare. Wars today are increasingly fought internally between the armed forces of national governments and non-state armed groups. These groups are often radicalised and loosely structured, rendering the resulting conflicts more complex, protracted and widespread than ever before. At a time when our international community is struggling to meet the changing needs arising from emergencies around the world, the need for international obligations which enshrine basic principles of humanity is especially important. Drawing upon the norms and translating the protocols of the Geneva conventions into action presents both a challenge and an opportunity as we embark on the next stages of crafting appropriate standards of humanitarian treatment in times of war. How will our international commitments change as we move towards the challenges presented by emerging technological, biological and cyber types of warfare? How can we adequately take into account the different risks arising from these different types of warfare? In the preamble to the 1949 Geneva convention, contracting parties committed to the earnest wish to see peace prevail among people. 11:28 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I also at the outset thank the member for Mackellar for moving this motion. Having listened to other speakers, I think everyone has begun in that way—it's probably the greatest outbreak of fondness and love for the member Mackellar I've ever heard in the chamber! That's a thing to note. It was just over 70 years ago that the four Geneva conventions were opened for signature and, today, as has been said, they've been ratified by 196 states, including all United Nations member states now and both UN observers—the Holy See and the State of Palestine. The four conventions established critical international norms, if you like, which have now over time assumed the force of customary international law. They apply in times of armed conflict. Of the four conventions, the first deals with the treatment of wounded and sick armed forces in the field; the second deals with the treatment of wounded and sick shipwrecked seamen; the third provides standards for the treatment of prisoners of war; and the fourth relates to how armed forces must treat civilians in times of war. Previous speakers have outlined the history of the conventions from the 1860s and thereafter, but the anniversary is a time to reflect upon the state of the world and the importance of the conventions in modern international humanitarian law. People like me—and, indeed, most people in Australia—have lived their entire lives in a world with these norms. It's easy to forget that and take them for granted. It's as if they have always existed, that you should provide some care for prisoners of war, that you shouldn't rape civilians as part of armed conflict—that there are some international norms which human society has said are outside even the bounds of what is acceptable in times of armed conflict. But from the perspective of history, these four conventions and the three additional protocols are anomalous. They're ahistorical. For most of human history, for recorded and prehistory times of armed conflict, there were no rules, or at least very few. Perhaps we've seen a horrific glimpse of this recently in the brutal, anarchic reality with ISIS, using rape, murder of civilians, coprophagia and the like as tools of war. The member for Fisher gave a powerful anecdote before. We were both in Serbia a few weeks ago representing the parliament at the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Hearing parliamentarians from conflict spheres talk of their experiences does mark you and stay with you. Precursors to the current conventions, although they've been outlined, never held the same legal universality, political acceptance or moral force that the current conventions do and have done for over 70 years. It was in the International Court of Justice's nuclear weapons and Nicaragua cases that it was found that the provisions of the Geneva conventions are now so universally accepted that they have the status of customary international law. The principles enshrined in the conventions should now be recognised as pre-emptory, because they're so fundamental to the maintenance of the international order that no derogation is permitted. While the conventions may be universal in their application, they're not universally respected or valued. Their very survival cannot be taken for granted. I think all members here would regard them as international norms worth fighting for, speaking up for and defending, and precious instruments of our international legal architecture. I'll read a quote from a brilliant and provocative speech that Paul Keating made only last week. He said: The international system is fundamentally anarchic in structure. Two world wars in a century and Vietnam, Iraq, Syria gives the evidence of that. We should not confuse the relative peace of the last 30 years with the anarchy which lies latent. That's something that, sadly, I believe. And, given this fundamentally anarchic environment and our increasingly multipolar and rapidly changing world, those who value the civilising norms of the conventions have to work with like-minded countries to ensure that these important principles are protected for future generations. There's nothing inevitable about these conventions being there in 100 years if the world changes. They are ahistorical. An important part of this work, then, is advocacy: speaking up in international fora and in nations. The public and institutional knowledge of these conventions and principles can guard against authoritarianism and the worst of humanity. In that context, this debate is important. It is a good private member's motion. It's a good thing that member after member in the Australian parliament stand up and pledge their support for the principles of the convention. There is a bit of repetition, but in this instance there's nothing wrong with repetition. The International and Australian Red Cross, of course, are a critical part of that international architecture. I pay tribute to their work to respond to humanitarian needs in times of emergency and warfare and to promote respect for international humanitarian law. The Red Cross were of course founded in 1863 in Geneva on the back of the first Geneva conventions, because it was recognised that a permanent relief agency was needed for humanitarian aid in war. In closing, Australia can and should be a leader in international affairs and ensure that we give voice to our values. I thank the member for Mackellar for bringing this debate to the House. 11:33 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I also draw the room's attention to the member for Mackellar's motion, and thank him for bringing it forward. The member for Bruce makes two very good points. The first was in quoting former Prime Minister Keating. I will put it in a different way: wars and rumours of wars are not new. We've had a relatively stable time since the Second World War, though we've had other wars that we have been involved in, with their considerable consequences for Australian lives and wellbeing. We have had in my lifetime, being a baby born after the war, a relatively peaceful time, especially because we're here, sheltered in this nation. His second point was on the importance of the International Red Cross as a neutral body that can go into war. In 1859 Dunant cared for wounded soldiers, and then first enacted in 1864 the Geneva conventions, with the Menzies government agreeing to them in 1949 and legislating them. Further to that, 70 years after, all states that are connected to the United Nations have signed up to this. We live in an imperfect world where evil men still perpetrate war crimes against their fellow man, men and women. We live in a time of relative safety because we live on this island—this great south land. But it is important for this House to stand up, even in these evil times, even on what we have read recently of what's happened. Sadly, I was able to see a true-story movie about Americans being sent into war-torn Africa to bring out a humanitarian American doctor. At the last moment, the leader of the brigade that was sent in could not leave the local inhabitants there to be slaughtered in that village. He knew what was going to happen to them. They turned the helicopters around and went back, which was seen as an act of frailty and tomfoolery and a ridiculous move by the leader. They eventually got these people out, so it is a good-news story, but to see the barbarity of what happened in that conflict—that's why I say it is a true story. We have a Geneva convention that will never defeat evil men—never—but will give guidelines as to how we should treat others. As the member for Bruce said, we do need to step up as Australians. We've signed this convention and we're giving you a guide as to how people should treat each other in conflict, which we know doesn't happen. Let's be honest: we know that, in times of war, terrible things happen. But we also know that, if we're going to prevail in the good, we have to have these guidelines. So it's good to recognise that all the way back to Dunant, when he saw those people virtually crucified on the battlefield and said: 'There needs to be a group to come in. There needs to be a group to come in and look after these people, and we need a neutral group to do that.' Therefore, the Red Cross was born. These Geneva conventions are important, so that the world knows that there are rules around what we do and how we do it in times of conflict, which we all want to avoid as much as possible. I hope Australia has taken the lead in nuclear disarmament. Australia has taken the lead in giving these Geneva conventions legislation power in this country so that we can say to our own people, 'We will abide by these rules.' And we train our armed services to do exactly that. May they do it well. May they do the job that we ask them to do, and do it within the rules of this Geneva convention. 11:38 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak in support of the motion and also join in congratulating the member for Mackellar for introducing the motion. On 12 August this year, the Geneva conventions turned 70. Around Australia, the Australian Red Cross held numerous commemorations to mark such an important occasion. The Geneva conventions and their additional protocols are one of the greatest humanitarian achievements of the last century. They enshrine legal limits in times of war and have saved countless civilians and combatants, who have ceased to take part in hostilities. As International Committee of the Red Cross president Peter Maurer said: The world has universally agreed that even in times of war humanity must prevail. It is absolute truth that we would be worse off without the Geneva Conventions. But they need better support, more powerful advocates and a spirit of innovation to charter new ways to protect people in today's rapidly changing world. There is no time in history when the laws of war have been so important. They protect people from unacceptable risks and inhumane behaviour. Under the laws of war, the Australian government is required to train its armed forces and others in Australia about the rules and the limits of warfare, which it duly and effectively does. The Australian Red Cross also plays an active role in teaching Australians about the laws of war in peacetime. The great achievement of having every country on the globe sign up to the Geneva convention is that we drew a line. We created a baseline for behaviour in conflict, which might otherwise descend beyond the requirements of military necessity to inhumane levels of barbarism. These laws prohibit the deliberate targeting of civilians; the destruction of schools, hospitals, religious and cultural sites; the use of child soldiers; the rape of women and girls; and the torture of prisoners. People and fighters who find themselves in situations of armed conflict are entitled to rely on this safety net. They're entitled to medical attention, food, water and shelter. They're entitled to maintain contact with their loved ones and to be cared for as human beings. War is no excuse for deliberate violations of human dignity. The existence of these legal limits is sadly not enough to keep citizens safe. The Australian government should be seeking to mitigate the impacts of conflicts and to punish those who commit war crimes. We must show leadership. The Australian government needs to step up and take responsibility for those Australians involved in the conflict in Syria and treat those no longer taking part in hostilities humanely and in accordance with international humanitarian law, and ensure that they face the full force of Australian law where appropriate. This includes detainees or foreign fighters and members of their families, especially innocent children caught up in the conflict. There are two international humanitarian law instruments the Australian government has not signed, despite years of claiming it's considering doing so. They are the optional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and the amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Beyond these two gaps in our IHL architecture, the real issue is doing more to punish war criminals. Australia has jurisdiction to do so and to tackle the many issues the world is facing—in particular, global warming magnifies impacts of conflicts by creating complex emergencies—and reducing the risk of use of nuclear weapons. Australia should take action and be a leader on the humanitarian issues we are facing—in particular, global warming, because it exacerbates humanitarian needs in times of conflict. Tackling this will assist to avert disastrous humanitarian consequences, particularly in Africa. Nine of the top 10 countries most vulnerable to climate change are in Africa, and seven of those nine are affected by armed conflicts. In January this year, the Red Cross warned the UN Security Council that worldwide warming must be addressed. The rules of war specifically prohibit attacks against the natural environment that are intended to cause serious damage, such as the prohibition to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. These are very important requirements that must be further prosecuted and really upheld. The government should also advocate for the upcoming nuclear proliferation treaty review conference in 2020 to reduce the number of nuclear warheads from the current estimate of over 13,800, and can work to have the 2,000 weapons on high alert reduced. (Time expired) 11:43 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman The important 70th anniversary of the Geneva convention is recognised in this chamber—very important. Australia has been a key to supporting the Geneva convention applied around the word. I want to add remarks about the complexity of that challenge. It is not simply a matter of recognising the convention and putting hope in the Red Crosses in every corner of the world where there is conflict. Conflict is changing. I'll run through another couple of practical examples of that and some of the limitations. My personal experience was 1992, when I found myself trapped in a civil war in Afghanistan after the fleeing of the then Russian sponsored leader and the breakdown of the situation in that country. Very rapidly the ICRC hospital became the heart of the Western response to try to maintain a semblance of stability as one side basically occupied the mountains and shelled Kabul, and the other side effectively occupied the city area itself. What I saw in the work of the Red Cross was incredible bravery and spirit. They were working three eight-hour shifts, 24/7, to try to keep up with the casualties. What we saw was an effort in a country where the rules of war are completely different; you can't change the culture of a country by showing up in a few white four-wheel drives. It's one thing to ratify these things and another thing to actually respect the fundamental elements, which aren't hard to understand, about how we treat a captured prisoner and how we deal with prisoners of war—women and children caught in the crossfire—and institutions, like religious and cultural institutions and schools. It's all common sense for us, because Australia has deeply ingrained it in both our military and our society. That work needs to be continued. Democratisation reached a peak in, some would argue, 2006, and we're now seeing many countries that were democracies sliding away from that. That means there's no guarantee that some of these important member states that have ratified this convention will continue to adhere to it. And therein lies the complexity: when everything breaks down and we're in a war-like environment, there's an enormous temptation to do as much damage as possible. That's when the Geneva conventions need to be applied. What I personally witnessed in Afghanistan was an effort to, as you'd be well aware, exact some retribution on families of combatants when they were at their most vulnerable. Often, when the men were away fighting somewhere else, their families were exposed to this. It wasn't uncommon even after a period of fighting to track down the families as the ex-combatants came back and dished out summary justice overnight, saying, 'We're taking your husband'—or your father—'away tomorrow and that will be it.' And those people did actually disappear. There was also the intolerable situation of combatants coming through a Red Cross hospital and selectively picking out people on the other side and shooting them in their hospital beds. That was something the ICRC staff had to survive. Lastly, of course, there's the very questionable area of a party, sensing there's more good being done to their opposition in the local ICRC hospital, firing mortars and rockets into that hospital compound itself for the purposes of making sure their opponent isn't benefitting more than they are from the provision of ICRC support. Those things are always going to confront us wherever we go in wars of the future. Wars of the future will also be more complicated. There'll be more contractors and NGOs involved, and they'll be a lot greater challenges around the coordination of these multiple parties and trying to identify who's actually adhering to the convention and who isn't. We saw this situation in Ukraine. We couldn't always be sure who exactly pressed the button, who was responsible for the atrocity. It's of great credit to the international courts that Ukraine, in particular, has led to, at least, some charges being laid in what would otherwise have been an incredibly opaque process. So it's not impossible but it's certainly very complicated, and I'd argue it's going to get more complicated over time. Let's celebrate 70 years, but let us also make sure we can talk about it 70 years from now. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction 36 11:47 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House: (1) notes that (a) on the evening of 23 October 2019, The Guardian reported the minister for emissions reduction had used incorrect figures from the City of Sydney annual report 2017-18 in a letter to the Lord Mayor of Sydney; (b) the next day, the minister told the House, 'The document was drawn directly from the City of Sydney's website'; (c) despite the minister's claim, all the evidence to date is that no such document ever existed on the website, the altered document has only ever been produced by the minister's office and the doctored figures have only ever been used by the minister in his official ministerial correspondence; including (i) City of Sydney metadata, which shows the annual report on its website has not been altered since it was published on 27 November 2018; (ii) public archives which show the annual report published on the City of Sydney website contained the correct travel figures on 27 March, 20 April, 19 June and 24 October 2019; (iii) a Daily Telegraph report that 'Mr Taylor's office had sent the Daily Telegraph the altered document'; and (iv) the draft letter the minister's department submitted to the minister's office contained no travel figures at all; and (d) deliberately misleading the parliament is both a contempt of the parliament and a breach of the ministerial standards; and (2) therefore, calls on the minister for emissions reduction to make a full and frank statement to the House before it rises tonight explaining how he has not deliberately misled the parliament. Leave not granted. Mr BURKE DYW I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion immediately: That the House: (1) notes that: (a) on the evening of 23 October 2019, the Guardian reported the Minister for Emissions Reduction had used incorrect figures from the City of Sydney Annual Report 2017-18 in a letter to the Lord Mayor of Sydney; (b) the next day, the Minister told the House "The document was drawn directly from the City of Sydney's website"; (c) despite the Minister's claim, all the evidence to date is that no such document ever existed on the website, the altered document has only ever been produced by the Minister's office and the doctored figures have only ever been used by the Minister in his official ministerial correspondence; including: (i) City of Sydney metadata which shows the Annual Report on its website has not been altered since it was published on 27 November 2018; (ii) public archives which show the Annual Report published on the City of Sydney website contained the correct travel figures on 27 March, 20 April, 19 June and 24 October 2019; (iii) a Daily Telegraph report that "Mr Taylor's office had sent The Daily Telegraph the altered document"; and (iv) the draft letter the Minister's Department submitted to the Minister's office contained no travel figures at all; and (d) deliberately misleading the Parliament is both a contempt of the Parliament and a breach of the Ministerial Standards; and (2) therefore, calls on the Minister for Emissions Reduction to make a full and frank statement to the House before it rises tonight explaining how he has not deliberately misled the Parliament. This entire scandal is rotten to the core. We have in front of us what I think would have to be the most clear-cut example I have ever seen of a minister misleading the House. If we want to work through an argument to say that the minister has not misled the House, we have to presume that a document that was never altered on the website—where there is metadata establishing that it has never been altered, where you can go to the public archives that are kept and which show that, on 27 March, 20 April, 19 June and 24 October, it always had the correct figures—somehow magically, at that exact moment that the minister's office accessed the document, contained figures that it never contained before and never contained after on a document that was never altered. That is the argument from the minister. There are very few standards these days that government ministers get held to. Basically, the last one is that a minister must not mislead the House. The words were not, 'I have been advised'; the words were not, 'To the best of my understanding'. The words from the minister were an assurance to the House: The document was drawn directly from the City of Sydney's website. On all the public evidence, that cannot be true. It simply cannot be true. Yet that assurance was given. It wasn't given on a day when the minister wandered into parliament with no idea that he was going to be asked about this, because the scandal had already been published. It had already been published overnight that the figures he had supplied to the City of Sydney in his letter were wrong. You only had to look at them to see they were pretty extraordinary numbers that were in his letter. But he was completely forewarned from the media that there was a fair chance that this question was going to be asked of him on the floor of parliament. And he turned up to the House, was asked the questions that he had expected would come to him and gave the assurance to the House: The document was drawn directly from the City of Sydney's website. It simply cannot be true. It simply doesn't add up. And this is from someone who, we are told—and from time to time it gets reported—is one of the most talented members of the government. Now, that only tells us one of two things: either that is true—and it says something pretty depressing about the government—or that information was given to the media by the same person who published the words: 'Fantastic work. Well done, Angus!' It's (a) or (b). Mr Albanese R36 It could be both! Mr BURKE DYW It could be both, this is true. But there is behind this a pretty serious issue if a minister thinks that he can say something at that dispatch box that is demonstrably untrue. It's not just a political contest; there is documentary evidence from his department on the records online from the City of Sydney, whose website he claims it came from. It is demonstrably untrue at every single level. His statement to the House was unequivocal. There was no hedging in his statement. Does he really think that the standards of Australian governance are so low now that that's okay? We will not get—we haven't seen it before and I hope we won't get it for some time—a mislead as obvious and demonstrable as this one. If the standard of the government is that it's okay to say something at the dispatch box during question time, to the parliament and therefore to the whole of Australia, that on every piece of public evidence looks a tremendous amount like a lie—are we at a point now where the government says, 'Let's just wait for the media cycle to move on'? This doesn't just say something about a deeply incompetent minister. If there's any scandal floating around, if you just hear in the news one day that there is a scandal in the government, you think, 'Ah! The minister for emissions reduction, fair bet'—most days it's a fair place to land. But are we really at the point where— Ms Rowland 159771 He's embattled. Mr BURKE DYW He's more than embattled. Embattled would be a step up for this minister. He could only dream of being embattled. He has been caught out, red-handed. He has such a born-to-rule attitude that he thought he could stand up with complete confidence and everyone would nod and admire him. He has been caught out. Under the ministerial standards, he has today to go to the dispatch box and tell the truth. He has today to go to the dispatch box and make clear exactly what happened. Someone created a doctored document. Someone created a forgery to embarrass a public official. Somebody did that. And we know from all the public evidence that that didn't start from the City of Sydney's website. We know from all the public evidence that that didn't come from where he says it came from. So the obligation is on the minister to tell the truth. And the obligation is on the Prime Minister to demand that the ministerial standards be upheld. If the Prime Minister won't even demand his ministerial standards be upheld on this the most obvious demonstrable example anyone can remember then there are no standards left. If that's what this government wants to become—we will know by 7.30 tonight whether they have given up on the ministerial code completely. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Is there a seconder for the motion? 11:59 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I second the motion. As the Manager of Opposition Business pointed out in the concluding part of his remarks, we don't think anyone expects the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction to come into the chamber voluntarily. This guy has form: whether it was 'watergate', 'grassgate' with Jam Land, or this latest scandal, he simply does not have the genetic capacity to face up to his mistakes. This is now a test for the Prime Minister and a test for the Leader of the House. What do these ministerial standards mean if the emissions reduction minister is not forced to come into the House and either account for the statement he made on 24 October or face the consequences? That is why we have sought to suspend standing orders, because there is no more important question to the functioning of a parliament under the Westminster system than the question of ministerial accountability and the obligation not to mislead parliament. The key statement, as the member for Watson has said, is the statement the minister made on 24 October, with full notice about what was in question: The document was drawn directly from the City of Sydney's website. He could not have been more definitive. He could not have been clearer when we last sat several weeks ago. But we now know that that the national and state libraries and the privately run public internet archives have confirmed that the City of Sydney's annual report has sat on the internet unaltered since November 2018—reinforcing what the city said when they released their metadata, when this parliament was last sitting, that there has not been any alternative version as is suggested by the minister. So does the minister really suggest there was a version in March that was the same version in April, the same version in June and the same version in October, but somehow that was withdrawn in September and an alternative version was put up for a couple of days so that he could access it and then withdrawn? That is the only explanation that conforms to the minister's clear statement. Also since the parliament last sat, we have had testimony in Senate estimates from the department that confirms that the draft letter it provided to the minister and his office to send to the Lord Mayor of Sydney contained no figures whatsoever, and it doesn't know where he got the figures from. They've confirmed they have no idea where he got the figures from and that the minister did not ask for advice about the veracity of the figures included in the letter. The question here is not whether the minister has misled the parliament, because that seems pretty clear. The question is whether the minister has been devious or bumbling or both. What I find utterly baffling is that no-one appears to have asked the question: how could 10 councillors spend $14 million on domestic travel in a year? Do some basic maths. If you're a Rhodes scholar you could do the maths. There are 10 councillors; it's pretty easy to divide figures by 10. This equals $28,000 per councillor every single week on domestic travel, which I work out as being 20 return trips to Melbourne and six or seven business class return trips to Perth every single week for every single councillor across the entire year. Every councillor would be spending 80 to 90 hours in the air every week for every week of the year. Why didn't someone say, 'I think we need to check these figures'? I've just divided the minister's figures by 10, and that is $1.4 million in domestic travel per councillor—$28,000 per week—with no time off at all. There is a serious question about whether this minister is hopelessly bumbling or devious or both. But what every skerrick of evidence confirms about this case is that the document used by the minister to form this letter, which he sent to the lord mayor with the clear intention of influencing her public role around climate change, was not directly downloaded from the City of Sydney website. It is utterly clear that the statement he made on 24 October, a few weeks ago, is simply not right. And if the standards that the Prime Minister has outlined to his ministers mean anything, this minister must, over the course of the next several hours, come before this House, as the Westminster system requires him to do, and explain himself to the chamber. The SPEAKER 10000 The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:08]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 68 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, G Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Mulino, D Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Payne, AE Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Thwaites, KL Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 71 NOES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Marino, NB Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Young, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 41 BILLS Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Work Test) Bill 2019, Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019, Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019, Treasury Laws Amendment (Ending Grandfathered Conflicted Remuneration) Bill 2019, ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019, Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019, Emergency Response Fund Bill 2019, Emergency Response Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019, Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019, Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2019, Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019, Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019, Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and Their Families First) Bill 2019, National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019, Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 41

Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Work Test) Bill 2019

Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019

Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019

Treasury Laws Amendment (Ending Grandfathered Conflicted Remuneration) Bill 2019

ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019

Emergency Response Fund Bill 2019

Emergency Response Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2019

Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019

Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019

Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and Their Families First) Bill 2019

National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019

Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020

Assent 41 COMMITTEES 41 COMMITTEES Membership 41 12:13 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT I have received messages from the Senate acquainting the House of the appointment of senators to certain joint committees. I do not propose to read the messages to the House. Details of the messages will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BILLS 41 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2019, National Health Amendment (Safety Net Thresholds) Bill 2019, Education Legislation Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019, Treasury Laws Amendment (International Tax Agreements) Bill 2019, Medical and Midwife Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 41

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020

Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2019

National Health Amendment (Safety Net Thresholds) Bill 2019

Education Legislation Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019

Treasury Laws Amendment (International Tax Agreements) Bill 2019

Medical and Midwife Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2019

Returned from Senate 41 Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 2019 41

Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 2019

First Reading 41 National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Streamlined Governance) Bill 2019 42

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Streamlined Governance) Bill 2019

First Reading 42 Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019 42

Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019

Consideration of Senate Message 42 12:16 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I move: That the amendment be agreed to. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 42 COMMITTEES Economics Committee 42 Report 42 12:16 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee's report entitled Review of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission annual report 2018, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr TIM WILSON IMW by leave—It's a pleasure to provide a copy of this report. The Economics Committee is one of the most important committees in the House of Representatives, and we periodically engage in inquiries on the annual reports of a number of organisations that we're responsible for or oversee, including the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and APRA, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. We recently met with the ACCC to supervise, oversee and question their lines of inquiry and their focus. The annual report provides an opportunity to go through each one of those step by step. A number of themes emerged from our inquiry into the ACCC's annual report, including a particular focus around competition in the finance sector—finance, obviously, being a critical part of the health and lifeblood of the economy. But, particularly as a consequence of the flowthrough of the Hayne royal commission, a focus on finance and the health of the sector was critically important. Concerns have been raised by others related to competition within the banking and financial services world, particularly as a consequence of a front-page story which, based on the testimony of the head of the ACCC, was perhaps inadvertent but nonetheless drew attention and focus specifically to competition in the banking sector, including some of the concerns that I have previously raised regarding the competition between large banks and some of the smaller banks. As a consequence of that line of inquiry, the committee raised specifically with the ACCC whether it was perhaps prudent to consider focusing on competition in the banking sector at another time, with the forthcoming introduction of the consumer data right and open banking, which is likely to empower consumers to make larger decisions and have much more choice around competition within the banking sector. Energy was also a very significant focus of the committee, in particular a concern about vertical integration across the sector and what that's doing around consumer choice. Also, I know that keeping prices low is a topic that is of strong interest to many members of this chamber—to make sure that households get cheap energy and, increasingly, that businesses do as well, to make sure they're competitive. While there were a number of issues related to vertical integration and competition across energy markets, the ACCC made a particular point of noting that one of the big reasons why there have been increases in price is directly related to generation costs. Finally, there was substantial interest from committee members around the digital platforms inquiry and what that means for competition within lots of different areas in which digital platforms have an interest in commerce, in social media, and in making sure that there's clarity that the ACCC is looking at what it can practically do then to go on and implement reform. The Economics Committee continues to excel itself in providing robust inquiry and robust consideration of these matters for the parliament. We hope that the annual report for the ACCC, along with other regulatory agencies that come along, will help the parliament in its deliberations and consideration of future work. I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 43 12:24 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 43 BILLS Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019 43

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019

Second Reading 43 12:20 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I welcome the opportunity to debate child care in this House today. We don't often get to discuss early education and care in this parliament, but this bill is a bill that is long overdue. The bill is officially named the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019 but it really should be named 'Fixing some of the government's childcare systems stuff-ups bill'. Rather than building on the package, what this bill actually does is fix some of the design faults that the government system missed in the original bill. Almost a year and a half on, the government is finally getting around to fixing up problems that have been evident from day one. This bill will extend the time frame for enrolments ceasing due to nonattendance from eight to 14 weeks. Labor supports this change as it fixes one of the most ridiculous design faults with the government system. It's almost comical that the government designed a system that kicks families out of the system after eight weeks when the school term goes for 12 weeks and the thousands of families using vacation care only access the system every 12 weeks. If you're one of these families you'll be kicked off every eight weeks, meaning you'll have to go through the whole registration system all over again. The amendment before us means that families using vacation care every school holidays won't have to reregister for the system with Centrelink every term. This is something that should have been done and foreseen at the outset of the package and is something that the sector has raised on many occasions. Anything that reduces the amount of time families have to spend trying to contact Centrelink or trying to register with Centrelink is something that Labor will support. The bill also improves the treatment of third-party payments in calculating the childcare subsidy, and this is also welcome. The government designed a system so that a childcare subsidy would only be calculated after state, territory and third-party contributions were applied to the childcare fee, meaning that some low-income and vulnerable families were still facing out-of-pocket fees when the intent of the state and philanthropic programs was to eliminate, or significantly reduce, the cost of accessing early learning and care. State and territory governments and the sector have been lobbying this government since July 2018 to make this change. So it is definitely in this case better late than never when it comes to this government's action. The government has also seen common sense with the provision of this bill to remove the 50 per cent limit on the number of children that a provider can self-certify for the additional childcare subsidy for child wellbeing, although this will not come in for some time. It is a mystery why the government decided to introduce this arbitrary rule in the new system which completely ignores the reality of life for some of the most disadvantaged communities in Australia. Labor will support this change. The additional childcare subsidy for child wellbeing is a vital program that provides a safe and nurturing learning environment for children in extremely vulnerable situations at home. For most of these children it can be the difference between being able to stay at home or having to go into the child protection system. It is critical the government treat this program with sensitivity and ensure that families and providers are not overly burdened with red tape. This Liberal-National government is doing exactly that. The introduction of a number of new requirements and rules to access the additional childcare subsidy came into force last year. The government cut the number of weeks that a provider can initially claim the subsidy on behalf of a family from 13 to six and stopped the provider from handling the application on behalf of the family. They now require the provider to work with the family to collect all the evidence that's required in order to qualify for the payment and to notify state and territory authorities. And they require Centrelink to process and approve the application within six weeks. That's a herculean task. When Centrelink fails to approve the paperwork within six weeks, claims are backdated only 28 days, meaning debts are accumulating. This third-term government like to bang the drum about cutting red tape. It is a media release they put out on a regular rotation. But they go out of their way to increase red tape for vulnerable families and the early education providers that are trying to help those families. The numbers prove that the government's new rules are failing vulnerable children and families. In the first six months of the new system, the number of children receiving the child wellbeing subsidy collapsed by 21 per cent. When asked in Senate estimates if they were concerned about the drop, the department admitted they weren't. They also confessed that they weren't even tracking whether families had dropped out of the system. Unfortunately, this is not surprising behaviour from a government that has not focused on vulnerable children's access to early education. Ensuring that vulnerable and disadvantaged children access early education is of critical importance in ensuring they get the best start to life and don't start school already behind. Most of the other provisions in this bill are minor and technical amendments, which Labor will support; however, there is one provision in this bill that Labor will not support. In the current system, families registering for the subsidy have a 28-day grace period in which to provide their bank account and tax file numbers. Families are able to claim the subsidy and have 28 days to get those details to Centrelink. That is reasonable and rational, as it recognises that people don't always have their personal details handy when they interact with government. Unfortunately, it seems far too sensible for the government. We now see that items 35 to 38, 41, 42, 50 and 51 in schedule 1 of the bill remove the current 28-day grace period, so families will not be approved for the subsidy unless they have their personal details on hand. Of course, the government has claimed that this will reduce complexity in the system, and it's true that it might make it easier for Centrelink. But it won't make it easier for families; in particular, families in stress, who may be fleeing a domestic violence situation or natural disaster and who don't have time to grab all their paperwork as they leave the house. Families in stress still need their child to enjoy the benefits of early learning and care, as they want to maintain some kind of routine or normality for their children, but if they don't have the details then this government will not allow them to enrol in early education. Almost every single submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee's review of this bill was critical of this change. Childcare providers and their peak bodies are clear that this is a regressive change that will impact those families least able to cope. Labor does not find this provision acceptable and so will be moving an amendment to remove it from the bill. I do note that the minister has indicated the government will move an amendment in the Senate to allow families in crisis to apply for an exemption from this new policy. Labor will not oppose this amendment, and I'm pleased the minister has responded to some of the concerns of the sector. But to me it sounds like there'll be increasing complexity in the system for families and providers, because the Secretary of the Department of Education will be required to grant the exemption. Twenty-eight days is not a significant length of time. Why burden the secretary with this type of work? Why not just let families have their grace period of 28 days to get their tax file number or bank account details, rather than have a system that requires an exemption granted by the secretary? By the time that happens, the 28-day period is probably going to be finished. Labor think that our amendment provides a better solution. Retaining the 28-day grace period is a simple and effective response to the concerns raised by both the sector and families. The bill presents modest improvements to the government's childcare system, but it doesn't rectify some of the biggest problems. This is a system which leaves one in four families worse off. It's a design feature that access to early education and care did reduce for approximately 279,000 families. It is a system that only 40 per cent of providers and only 41 per cent of families told the independent evaluation reviewers had resulted in positive change, and 83 per cent of parents told the evaluation team that the new system had made no impact on their work and study. It's a system that has been forcing childcare providers to act as unpaid debt collectors for the government, because families are struggling to stay on top of their complicated activity and means tests. It is a system that has been riddled with software glitches, left providers and families in the dark, and left staff without pay. To claim that this bill before the House builds on the current system is stretching credibility. Labor's view is that this bill is only ironing out a few of the kinks in the system but doesn't really touch the rough edges. A bill that truly built on the childcare package would include provisions that would abolish the regressive activity test. When it implemented the new system, the government acted against all evidence and advice highlighting the benefits of universal access to early education and care, and introduced a new activity test in order to qualify for 24 hours of subsidy. If this bill were to genuinely build on the childcare system, it would restore the guarantee that existed of two days a week of child care for all children and the childcare safety net that occurred under the old system. Families used to receive 24 hours a week of guaranteed access to early education in which they could access the childcare subsidy. This government cut it to 12 hours a week. A bill that truly built on the current system would fix the complete mess the government has made of the additional childcare subsidy. It would stop the government's Centrelink robo-debt letters which are being sent out, blunt letters telling families that they owe the government money, without any explanation. So far, over 91,000 families, or 16 per cent of families audited so far, have been hit with a childcare subsidy debt notice. Many of these families are finding that, if they do pursue this debt notice, they don't actually owe as much money as was stated in the letter. This is more evidence that the new system is too complex and is not working for families. If the government was serious, it would do something to bring childcare fees under control, which have shot up 30 per cent under this government. The latest CPI figures show that childcare fees have increased by 2.5 per cent in the September quarter alone, the fourth successive increase, and have now gone up by seven per cent since last September. The government was very confident last year that their new system, in their words, would put downward pressure on fees and that they were driving down the cost of child care. The minister was keen to spruik the new website as a game changer for families and told families to shop around, but less than half of providers are providing accurate fee information on their website, making it incredibly hard for families to even get accurate information about fees. We don't hear the minister make these claims anymore, which is disappointing. Unfortunately, all the spin has been blown away by the reality. Unfortunately, like with every other portfolio, the government has provided no plan or view about how to actually bring fees under control. We've had a couple of thought bubbles that have been dropped previously to Sunday papers, including the naming and shaming of centres that hike their fees, but nothing has actually come of that. Families are now paying on average $3,000 a year more for early education and care under this government. A bill that improved on the current system would have, if they were serious, restored the $20 million in annual funding that the government have slashed from the National Quality Framework budget. The latest data shows that 21 per cent of services have been assessed as not meeting the national quality standards. The minister needs to restore this funding and assure families that all centres are safe and up to standard. But none of this is a surprise—after all, this is the government that has a senator who believes early education, and I quote, is not the best way to invest in our future; a Minister for Education claiming the taxpayer funding of early education and care is communism; and a Prime Minister who calls the childcare budget a money pit. Unfortunately, this government haven't taken the early years seriously. They see it as a burden, not as an investment. But, of course, it is an investment. Labor are always pleased to ensure we are advocating for children, as I did this morning at an event here at Parliament House. We will advocate for investment in the early years. We will support most of this bill because it does make some progress towards making the system work better for families, but we do believe the government has a long way to go. 12:35 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I am pleased to join my colleague the member for Kingston in rising to speak on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019 because access to affordable and quality child care is something Australian families rightly expect. As we know, this government introduced its new childcare system in July 2018 and since then we have heard stories from families and childcare providers about systemic design flaws and the administrative burdens the new system has imposed on them. So it is pleasing the government is finally addressing some of these concerns. As the member for Kingston said, we don't often get the opportunity to talk about early childhood education in this House but we do know how important it is. It leads to improved developmental outcomes for children and it has positive effects on wellbeing, learning and development. The brain sensitivity of highly important developmental areas such as social skills, language and numeracy peaks in our first three years of life. Across the OECD, data shows us that 22 per cent of students who had attended early education for less than a year performed below the baseline level of proficiency in science yet only 10 per cent of students who attended more than two years of preschool were below the baseline. This means students are twice as likely to underperform in science if they attend less than one year of preschool, which is very important if we think about the skills our children are going to need for the future. Access to quality, affordable child care is not just important for children; it's essential for families who are juggling the responsibilities of working, studying, being active members of their community and raising their children. I know parents in my electorate feel this juggle keenly. In many cases, arrangements about who does pick up, who does the drop off and which day the grandparents are required are so finely tuned that the slightest pressure means the whole arrangement breaks. We know, from this government's own evaluation of its childcare system, that 63 per cent of parents reported they did not understand at all or have much understanding of the new payment system. In fact, one parent reported that they needed to call Centrelink more than 20 times—and anyone who has had to call Centrelink knows it can be a trying experience. I have to admit that, in my own household, I looked at the complicated assessment and application process that the government was expecting for the childcare payment and I promptly handed that administrative burden straight over to my partner. He has handled that admirably, but not everyone is that lucky and it should not be that difficult. The last thing parents need is a system that makes it more administratively difficult for them, that adds extra to the already considerable mental load and stress of parenting. It is good that this bill addresses some of the issues that have proved to be a block faced by families accessing child care. However, there is one element of the bill that is concerning, as the member for Kingston has outlined: the changes to the process for registering for the CSS, which remove the 28-day period in which applicants may provide their tax file number and/or bank account details. We know the child care sector is extremely concerned about this change and its potential impact on families in difficult circumstances who do not have immediate access to their personal documents. This may include families fleeing family violence or those displaced by natural disasters. These families may, in effect, be locked out of the system at a time when they need it most, and I urge the government to reconsider this change. There are also a number of issues that this bill does not address. I'm particularly concerned that the government hasn't taken the opportunity to address the activity test and the minimum number of hours under the childcare safety net or considered the disproportionate effect this has on families from disadvantaged backgrounds. The first five years of a child's life are crucial. In these early years, 80 per cent of their brain develops. These years set up a child for life and they're vital in ensuring they start school with the communication skills, general knowledge, social language, cognitive skills and emotional maturity that will help them succeed. Research tells us that if students start school from behind, they are often left behind throughout their schooling. Research also shows us that children from low-income families are twice as likely to start school developmentally behind their peers from high-income families but that access to early education can reduce that risk significantly. This makes it particularly important that our childcare system is most accessible to those children who benefit from it most—those who need the full value of educators who can help them hit their developmental milestones—and yet the requirements of the activity test lock out families where parents or carers are less likely to be able to engage in work or volunteering activities. So we have an unacceptable gap between advantaged and disadvantaged families when it comes to accessing child care. OECD figures show that Australia ranks below the average in providing access for disadvantaged families; we lag behind New Zealand, Singapore, Japan and Switzerland. The children most likely to benefit from early childhood education, those from disadvantaged backgrounds, are least likely to participate. Of course, one of the obvious barriers to child care is the cost. Under this government, the cost of child care continues to go up and up. Quarterly data released in March this year confirmed what we already know: childcare fees are on the rise at an alarming rate. Since the election of this government childcare fees are up 30 per cent. The yearly cost of long day care, the type that most of us are using, has increased on average by more than $3,000 to more than $14,00 per year, an increase of more than 30 per cent. While the cost of living increases and wages stagnate, families are being placed under the immense stress of ever-increasing childcare fees. I've had these conversations in the playground, the ones where families wonder whether they can make their childcare bill; the ones where women—and it's nearly always the women—decide that they won't go back to work because the cost of child care is higher than their wage. And we've seen the reports about the very difficult circumstances that women then find themselves in later in life: lower wages throughout their careers mean less super and an uncertain future in retirement. This new childcare system is just not putting the downward pressure on fees that the education minister promised it would. While the education minister did say in July last year that teething issues are inevitable, and I don't disagree—all new systems require a period of adjustment—in this case it goes beyond teething issues. Sufficient support for transition just has not been given by this government. Its own data shows that fewer than half of providers feel that the government provided enough support for the transition, and that only 40 per cent of services and 41 per cent of families feel the changes were positive. What an indictment! I spoke earlier about the administrative burden the childcare system places on families and on centres. Now, the fear for those families is that they will be caught up in this government's version of the heartless and cruel robo-debt system. We have heard that the government is planning some changes to that system, but it's unclear what it's looking at in terms of child care and recovery of childcare debts. So families are still facing the possibility that a miscalculation or an unexpected change in their working hours may result in them having a debt they certainly didn't expect and can't afford. We know that there is case after case of people being put under immense strain from receiving these unexpected debt notices, and so this government must take immediate action to ensure that families accessing child care do not face this additional stress. The other area the government must address is secure, long-term funding for the childcare sector. In 2017, state and territory governments commissioned an independent review into early childhood interventions to consider the most effective ways to achieve educational excellence in schools. Seventeen recommendations were made out of this review, including that universal access to early education and care programs be extended to all three-year-olds, with access prioritised for children from disadvantaged families and communities. This would not only benefit children in their development but it would also benefit our productivity and health as a society, and even have the potential to reduce crime as people get the education they need. During the 2019 election campaign I was proud that Labor proposed an expansion of access for three-year-olds, with a new national preschool and kindy program. It was a program that would have guaranteed access to two years of early education and care programs for children for 15 hours per week. Labor also committed to guarantee current arrangements for four-year-olds over the longer term, something the Morrison campaign, and now the government, made no commitment to doing. The investment in ongoing funding that provides certainty to the early education and childcare sector is something that is much-needed, and it would be warmly welcomed by all, and yet the government continues to be silent on calls to secure this much-needed ongoing funding. I was pleased this morning to be at the launch of the State of early learning in Australia 2019 report. In fact, that report shows us that Australia's investment in early learning is below the OECD average and that we're ranked 11th out of 21 OECD nations. Our investment in early learning per child declined between 2016 and 2019. What an indictment. This government must do better. The final point where the government needs to do more is support for childcare workers. For those who have worked with or know or entrust your children to an early childhood education worker, you know those are people of high standard who are professional and deeply caring above and beyond their job descriptions. I want to, in a slightly self-indulgent way, take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the entire team at Heidelberg Goodstart, who are ensuring that my daughter is cared for and supported in her development every day she is there. More than that, she has a lot of fun, and I particularly want to thank Asi and Simran for this because my daughter's face lights up every day when I tell her that's who she's going to see. Quality education and care requires a skilled workforce. We know that salary is a barrier to attracting quality people and it's a barrier to retaining them. The report launched this morning found that the sector is struggling to retain the people it needs. Again, this is something that Labor has looked at, and at the last election we proposed to address it. Early education and care work does not get the recognition it deserves across our community. It's undervalued and, unfortunately, undervalued often means underfunded. We know the benefits are well worth the investment in the early education sector. The ripple effects of children receiving one and, in the better case, two years of education and care before full-time school are well established, particularly for disadvantaged children. There is still a lot of work to do before we see a system that delivers for Australian children and families. I urge the government to do more to realise this. 12:46 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I rise in the House today to speak about the childcare crisis in this country. Affordable child care is one of the most tantalising promises of modern Australian civilised society, but it's also one of the most broken. Our modern economy cannot function without a system for nurturing our littlest citizens. So confounding is the childcare economy that, despite the sticker shock for parents, looking after children remains a very poorly paid job. What we on this side of the House know from talking to parents and from talking to educators is that the system isn't working. There are now 1.36 million Australian kids accessing childcare services—972,000 families across Australia. It's a big part of the country. The government's latest quarterly data, which came out in March 2019, has been released, and it confirmed what we already know to be true, which is that childcare fees are still going up. They're still going up despite the big reforms the government brought in in their second term that promised us things would get better. The cost of long day care, which is the type of child care that most people use, has increased again to approximately $14,328 a year. That is the cost of a fairly ritzy private school education in Brisbane per year. When the Liberals were elected, families paid, on average, $11,016 a year. That is a staggering 30 per cent increase in childcare fees since the election of this government. At a time when cost of living is increasing and at a time when wages are stagnating, families are being crippled by ever-increasing childcare fees. The truth of the matter is that this government's new childcare system has failed. It has failed at putting downward pressure on fees. It has failed to address the problem. Now here we are, debating amendments to childcare legislation with no proposed vision and no proposed plan to fix the childcare crisis in this country. In fact, we appear to be tinkering around the edges with no indication from this government that we will even debate childcare legislation again this term. There is nothing coming down the line to assist 972,000 Australian families. It is so disheartening that we can do so much to get here to this parliament and we can have so much opportunity in this parliament, yet we fritter it away by doing so little when we have the ability to do so much more. This is an issue quite dear to my heart, as you might be able to tell. At this point I have to refer to some notes on my phone because when it was in my diary to write this speech I had my toddler at home with me because I could not get a spot for her in child care that day. So for the purposes of sharing with the people in this House who do not understand what living the hustle is like for Australian families, I thought I would share a little of my experience with child care. On the day of our successful 12-week scan with Celeste we toured two childcare centres near our house and enrolled her at both of them—at the 12-week scan. I don't think she had a fixed due date at that time—she certainly didn't have a name and she didn't have a gender—but she had to be enrolled, because that is what the waiting list situation is like on the north side of Brisbane. When Celeste was seven months old, a place for one day came up at one of our preferred childcare centres. We had to take it, because that's how you get a foot in the door—you take the spot. So she went in two months earlier than planned for a day a week, and I had to find additional work outside of my substantive employment to pay for that day a week, because that was the only way we were going to get her in. At nine months I returned to work and Celeste went to child care for three days a week. At 12 months my parents agreed to take her for an extra day per week so that I could campaign for preselection and then, when I won that, for the federal election. Not everybody has grandparents around. For us, my side of the family are the only people who live in Brisbane, in terms of being able to care for Celeste on an ongoing basis. That stayed the case until the election. Something that people have talked to me a lot about is how Celeste appears in my campaign photos. People ask: 'Is that because you are trying to demonstrate what it's like to be a working mum running for parliament?' Unkind people ask: 'Is it because you're trying to politicise your child? Are you trying to use her as a weapon or an asset?' The reality is that Celeste appeared with me on the campaign trail and Celeste appears in so many photos because often the only way for me to get to a function was for her to come too. I suspect Celeste has had more canapes than many lobbyists on the federal campaign trail! That was the reality for me. I got through it because I knew it was temporary—win or lose, come 18 May. I just had to get through that period of months. But it's not a temporary reality for many Australians. We have an unpaid-care crisis in this country where we and our economy are so dependent upon unpaid care provided by mothers and grandmothers and aunts and fathers and grandfathers and uncles, both caring for their children, who we're talking about today, and also caring for our elders. Our economy is reliant upon millions of hours of unpaid care given by Australian families and Australian workers. If you look at the aged-care inquiry and the crisis going on in aged care, you see it's just the same. The system is underfunded, because for too long we have been entirely reliant on the unpaid care given by Australians. This federal government owes everyone a lot more than that. Returning to the childcare crisis of today, I have a mum squad. We all have our childcare problems from time to time. One of my friends only got a spot for her toddler because once we got Celeste into her child care we arranged for the other centre to give Celeste's spot to Archie directly. We should not have a childcare system that, if you move from interstate and need a childcare spot at somewhat short notice, relies on your knowing some fanatically organised person and federal MP who can give you a spot that they've got as a backup. That's not how our system should work. My parents care for Celeste for a day a week. They went overseas, because they're retired. They worked hard their entire lives and they worked hard to be able to go overseas for periods of time in their retirement. Our childcare system collapsed for that six-week period, because losing that day a week that we relied upon them to look after Celeste meant that we had to find temporary solutions. So at the time I was meant to be writing this speech—and I seriously intended to give gravitas and considered policy thought to this 15-minute speech—I couldn't do it, because I was painting watercolours instead, because there was nobody else around. When I was elected to federal parliament, it took 5½ months to get Celeste that fifth day at child care, 5½ months of us making week-by-week temporary arrangements—my husband taking carers leave; my husband taking annual leave; an elaborate system of neighbours, mum squad and brunch members looking after Celeste to get us through until we could get a permanent spot. That is not how things should be in a modern, developed economy where we claim to look after our littlest citizens and the parents who care for them. We need to do a lot better. I would like to reiterate that this is a failed opportunity today for us to address some of the serious structural reforms in the industry. We can speak to the flaws in these amendments and the merits of the amendments but, at the end of the day, it is disappointing that they are minor amendments that will not address the crisis of child care in this country. I want to read aloud a letter that a lady named Peta gave to me. I have toured many childcare centres in the six months since I was elected to parliament. They are a heart-warming and very fuzzy way to spend your morning, and I recommend the experience to everybody in the chamber. When I go around and meet people for the first time at community groups and businesses and community events I say, 'If you could send one message to Canberra, what would it be?' This lady gave me an answer at the time but came and found me a few weeks later and hand-delivered this letter. Honestly, early educators are just the best people in the world! She said: My apologies Anika, You asked me a question about my message to Canberra and, to be honest, I hadn't considered the question prior to being asked. You see, as an educator I turn up to work day in and day out and give my all and I make myself physically, mentally and emotionally available to the 22 children in my care. I, to the best of my ability for those 6 contact hours, push aside my personal life and become a nurturing, encouraging, patient, knowledgeable TEACHER. I don't often think about or consider the people that have "MADE THE RULES", that make all of .the decisions that decide what my job is and how it should be done and what EXCEEDING PRACTICE should look like. I love my job, and I struggle to call it a job because that word "job" doesn't do it justice. I'm passionate about being an Early Childhood Professional, I believe on some level it's what I was created to do. So, upon pondering your question further, these are my thoughts about our sector, about our work, about our children and families and about our future: 1. Is the current early childhood education and care system serving the right people with the right purpose? Families, more commonly nowadays, BOTH parents are working harder than ever, longer hours than ever to make ends meet for their young families, but the loss of childcare cancels out earnings. It's a LOSE/LOSE scenario. We need to find a WIN/WIN scenario for early childhood education and care. We are on the brink of losing our precious kindergarten structure because parents cannot meet the demands of the workplace and fit in with our hours—however the kindergarten program is a highly valued and regarded institution in the community. Long day care should not be the ONLY option for our young children. 2. If we are struggling more than ever to get students (school leavers) to consider studying teaching and also to retain new & existing teachers we must take a step back and ask WHERE/HOW we are failing our teachers? Stricter regulations, ratio pressures, time constraints, impossible expectations handed down from "desk-sitters" is not the answer to training and retaining HIGH QUALITY EDUCATORS! Assessing services on one set of standards and then re-assessing on another tougher standard is sending mixed messages and de-grading the hard work, the high quality work, the exceeding work of experienced, dedicated and passionate practitioners. …   …   … So you see, this "job", this calling that I love so much, that I live for is under threat. And do you know who is going to pay for that? Our most precious "commodity", our children, the future of our nation, our future world leaders. What message are we sending them? We've got to get real about early childhood education and care and we MUST ask ourselves, is our current early childhood education and care system serving the right people with the right purpose? Thank-you for your time. That is Peta, from C&K Nundah. Touching on the issue of kindergarten and funding, I'd like to finish by talking about something I didn't expect to discuss in an early childhood and childcare legislation debate, and that is the Trump family, currently ensconced in the White House. Previously I have not had many positive things to say about the Trump family. You might recall from my first speech that it was a combination of being diagnosed with autoimmune disease and falling pregnant with my first child, who was born early—a daughter—while watching President Trump being sworn in on the hospital television that acted like a lightning bolt to spur me on to what was then a federal political preselection. But I will give the Trumps this credit: in the midst of a presidential budget process which is generating controversy for its drastic spending cuts, Ivanka Trump, senior adviser to the President, is forcing a conversation about increasing the availability and affordability of child care. She said: You have care providers who are working at below poverty wages, you have parents who can't afford the care and you don't have a robust ecosystem of facilities because it's a low-margin business with high liability. She continued: So, it's like just a fundamentally flawed system. This billionaire heiress, this mother of three, gets it, and she gets it in a way that this federal government does not get it. I want to make the point today that, if you are a third-term federal government and you have to be given advice on how to be in touch with the working families in your country and how to better support them in raising their children, then you are out of touch. I condemn you for being as out of touch as that. In 2018, President Trump signed into law a $2.4 billion funding increase, which provided a total of $8.1 billion to states to fund child care for low-income families. Contrast this with our federal government, who refused to guarantee funding for two years of universal preschool. Contrast the Trumps, who are doing a series of roundtables across the country to learn from early childhood educators and businesses about what needs to be done, with this government, who has referred this out to a private consulting firm to see what they have to say about funding for childcare arrangements. It is astonishing that Australia is one of only a few advanced nations to offer no subsidised early learning to three-year-olds, despite several major surveys and the Gonski review calling for just that. We would have, and you should do it now. 13:01 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth The early years are so important, and you see from the speeches on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill from those on this side of the House just how passionate members in this place are about investing in our next generation. Early learners are shaping their brains when they walk into those childcare centres, those kindergartens, those schools where they get that first sense of their own self-worth and the confidence that will drive them through the rest of their life. They're preparing for a future, and I think what always hits me is that we're trying to educate these children for a future that most of us in this place don't even understand what it will look like. If we walk into an early childhood centre today and say, 'Here's what it will look like when you go for your first job'—we don't have an answer for that. So I think that gives you a sense of how important the work that educators do on a daily basis in giving young people all the life skills that they need to get through whatever the world is going to throw at them. But those early learners are actively involved in shaping what sort of a future they want, and I'm thinking in particular of the kindergarten students at Perth College in my electorate. They have been running a two-year campaign to reduce the amount of plastics in their local community. They have been researching the oceans and the impacts of plastic. They've been talking to local cafes and encouraging local business owners to switch from plastic straws to paper straws. They've got their parents lobbying, and they asked me to come and speak with them so that they could lobby me. It's fair to say that they were some of the more convincing lobbyists I've seen in my time. As a result, I wrote to the Prime Minister and said, 'This is what Perth College is doing, and this is what the kindergarten students want.' To the Prime Minister's credit, he wrote back and was very appreciative of the work that those young people have done. For me, it shows the power of early learning, the power of integration, the power of showing young people that they do have a voice and that they are valued. The thing that gets me when we talk about legislation like this is that it doesn't truly recognise the value of those young people. I want to say to the teachers at Perth College, a fantastic school in the Perth electorate, that it was so great to be part of the student-led campaign on eliminating plastics. I'm sure that, by the time those students are in the workforce, their mission will, hopefully, be close to complete. When we all talk about early childhood education, we have to think about our own experience. As the member for Lilley said, it isn't a well-integrated system. It is a system that you battle with no matter how lucky you are in life because it's poorly designed. It's as simple as that. Jess and I use an early learning centre for Leo three days a week. My mum, Wendy, does Thursdays, and whenever there's a peak point of stress in our lives Leo's nanna, Diane, comes from Brisbane to Perth. It's for that reason we don't have a spare room; we have Nanna's room. We are very lucky in Australia that we have some amazing artists who appreciate the value of early learning. It is the Teeny Tiny Stevies that help us pack away our things every night—sometimes with more success than at other times. It was Justine Clarke who taught us a banana is a banana but that if a butterfly was really made of butter, its wings would melt in the sun. And Bluey doesn't just do a great job of entertaining Leo; he does a great job of teaching Jess and I, in that never-ending piece of learning, how to be great parents. In Australia we are, on the whole, a lucky country, and we do have a very good education system. But I'm a bit sick of talking about the childcare crisis. When the member for Lilley said 'the childcare crisis', I thought, 'We've been talking about the childcare crisis for a decade.' It's not because it sounds good or because people are trying to score political points; it is because there's an actual crisis. Parents can't get their kids into early-learning centres. If they get their kids in, it costs them a fortune; it costs them up to a third of their salary just to have their child in a learning environment in Australia. It is absolutely ridiculous. This legislation doesn't do any of the hard work, any of the hard thinking or any of the heavy lifting to actually fix our childcare system in this country. It doesn't support our educators. It doesn't recognise that families are at their wits' end when it comes to child care. I am absolutely sick of talking about the crisis, but just because I'm sick of it doesn't mean there isn't one. There is a huge crisis. We don't have good enough integration with schooling. We don't have proper professional pay and recognition for our educators. We have our subsidies centred around the activity of parents rather than the interests of the child. We have no way for families to do proper cost control; indeed, the government's approach is, 'We'll just send them a debt notice at the end of the financial year.' Seriously! We talk about where Australia ranks in international rankings. We're sort of hiding in the comfortable middle. We don't want to be at the top. We don't want to be the highest funder. We don't want to have the best student outcomes. We don't want to have the highest-quality pay and conditions for educators. We just hide in the middle. I'm sick of hiding in the middle on things that are important, like education. For all that's wrong in the early-childhood sector, there are some things that are good. We have the National Quality Framework, making sure that every parent has some level of assurance that, when they take their child to a recognised centre, their child is going to get a quality education with a standard curriculum that is focused on that particular child's needs. That's all delivered—and this is the other great thing about our system—by trained, qualified early-childhood educators. Our educators are the real light in this system. They make sure everything else works for parents. For many of us, they spend more waking hours with our children than we do. They are truly some of the heroes of the Australian economy, and I say thank you to every single one of them. When it comes to the specifics of this bill, while it's clear I would like it to go a lot further on basically every possible metric, Labor recognises that it does have sensible amendments that make accessing child care easier for many Australian families. But the amendment that families are no longer able to register for the childcare subsidy without immediately providing their tax file number and bank account details is very short-sighted. The government removing that 28-day grace period will achieve very little other than pain. The Labor Party is concerned about this change and the childcare sector is concerned about this change. Worst of all, it will disproportionately affect the families and, most importantly, the children who benefit most from early-childhood education. We know the sorts of circumstances that lead to people not having access to those things—fleeing domestic violence, fleeing natural disaster, loss of employment and other crises that happen in someone's life. To deny a child the right to an education because their parents can't do the paperwork is just wrong. We should indeed look at what we do in the education system and see that as the model for everything that we build in the early-childhood space. A school will take a student because that child has value, not because of what their parents do or don't do. Removing the 28-day period, blocking vulnerable families, is wrong—28 Days was a terrible movie; 28 days is a terrible policy when it comes to child care. When you think about the implementation of this system—the new bureaucracy—the approach of this government is to cut red tape with one hand and create it with the other. I was lucky to visit, with the shadow minister for education last year, the Leederville Early Childhood Centre—I think it is run by Goodstart and my apologies to the Leederville team and Sally at the centre, if it is not, but I'm pretty sure it is—as they were rolling out this new system. There were delays in being able to register parents and there was conflicting information from different parts of the bureaucracy about what information they had to be collecting. There was no recognition of the huge workload that this had put on centres transferring the work that the government was requiring onto these non-government and private sector organisations. At the time, as many of us will remember, it was a bit of a mess. Thankfully, because early-childhood educators and those that run centres are some of the most resilient people that you'll meet, it kind of just worked. I don't think that was because of good policy design, it's because the people at the coalface of this sector do just make things work. There have also been many families who have struggled with the childcare subsidy and struggled with getting what they are entitled to from the government. I will tell a story of Yelda and JP, who contacted my office. People don't come to a member for parliament's offices because everything is well; they come because something is not clicking within the bureaucracy. They had been struggling with the Department of Human Services for some months as they were being significantly underpaid for their childcare subsidy payments. When they had contacted the department, the only fact that they were given was there was a technical issue. That was it. That was the explanation: 'We can't tell you what you're owed. We can tell you there's a technical issue.' They were promised, of course, that it would be rectified. They waited: one month, two months, three months—big technical issue!—four months, five months, six months, seven months. On the eighth month, the technical issue—which I imagine was just poor policy design, which is a huge technical issue in this place at the moment—was rectified, and they finally got their payments. How many other Australian families are dealing with this on a daily basis or, indeed, being underpaid, because they just can't stand the pain of dealing with Department of Human Services? It is a department that, I might say, also could do with a few extra staff, and maybe some of these 'technical issues' would actually be resolved. We've had about 10 years of major reform, and I think, if we're going to get to where we need to be as a country, we're going to need probably another 10 years of major reform. This morning I helped to launch the State of early learning in Australia 2019 report. I think it's sometimes like saying, 'I believe in climate change,' in that you have to state these really blatantly obvious things just to start the conversation. But it highlighted the 'long-term benefits of early education for children'. We're still having this fight and trying to justify that this is important for young people. The report had many interesting facts but I'm just going to quote a few things. It does note that we haven't realised the benefits of providing early learning for all children in this country. It noted that we are not distributing across key equity groups the benefits of early childhood education. It noted that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, children from low socioeconomic areas and children with a disability are not getting equitable access to early learning. And it noted that we do have structural factors and policy settings, differing across jurisdictions, which hold back our ability to effectively roll out quality early childhood education in all parts of this country. There were some hard truths in it. For my state of Western Australia, it noted that the highest proportion of early childhood education care services receiving lower ratings or working towards the national quality standards was in Western Australia. That's not good enough. But we need to be honest about where we're at and where we want to go. The critical work that is done by educators in the sector is well-known. I think we should also place this in an international context though. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals say universal access to early childhood education should be something we strive to achieve by 2030. Now, Australia is a pretty good country; I'm pretty sure we could get there earlier than 2030 if we wanted to. The Sustainable Development Goals state that by 2030 'all girls and boys should have access to quality early childhood development care and pre-primary education' so that they're ready for primary education. And that's where we get to this discussion about the two years of preschool funding. If the reports of a week ago that the funding for four-year-olds might be on the chopping block, that would just be absolute madness. It would destroy the educational opportunities that young people have. It will cause havoc for families across this country that rely on that funding to help them balance their budgets. And it takes us in the wrong direction. We should actually be talking about how we fund three-year-olds to get into that education environment. It is such a positive start for young people to be able to have that opportunity. And, in terms of what we pay versus what we get, it's a transformative investment. We know that the first thousand days make a huge difference. There was some research from the Telethon Kids Institute that said the cost of late intervention—that is, acting too late; trying to fix these things up because we were too tight, too scared to spend a little bit of money when children are young—is $15.2 billion every year. Children and young people experience serious issues that lead to crises, lead to law enforcement, lead to challenges with child protection that, had we invested earlier, could have been prevented. I'll leave my remarks there. 13:16 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I'm pleased to follow the member for Perth and the member for Lilley today, both of whom are young parents. I'm a long way from being a young parent, and child care has changed a lot since my three children were being looked after in preschool years. As a parent, I used the family day care services as well as their grandmother and early childhood education in a structured way, but that is a long time ago now. As the member for Perth said, the crisis seems to have been going on for an extremely long time. I'll pick up on one of the points that the member for Perth made about this government's approach to quality assurance in child care in general. When it comes to ensuring the safety and the value of early childhood education this government sees red tape in the form of compliance, and yet it sees it as an absolutely good idea for the providers to be used as a quasi-government service in getting families registered so that they can access their CCS. This is what's wrong with this whole sector: on the one hand we approach it as bean counters, trying to make sure that nobody's getting what they shouldn't get and making sure that everybody complies in terms of their ability to access a supplement; but on the other hand there is not nearly enough focus on the compliance around the quality that we are providing. This all comes down to this government's issue that, since coming into government in 2013, it hasn't been able to put 'early education' and 'care' into the same sentence. If you keep separating these two notions and see early education as babysitting then you are not on the same page as the families who are accessing these services. Because families who are accessing early education and child care are doing so to ensure the quality of early learning for their children, as well as their ability to access employment for, in many cases, both parents. Although this legislation is building on the childcare package in some positive ways, there are also some areas that I have concerns with—as I always do, because when this government makes steps in the right direction but builds those steps on the wrong foundations, as it has here in early education, then there's a problem. Alarm bells also ring for me whenever this government says that it's going to simplify something, because when it goes to simplify something, then we get bad news. They planned to simplify the census, and we saw how that went. They planned to simplify business tax and we remember the debacle that that was. The Prime Minister said last week that he wants to simplify the award system, making it easier for business, and we know that is code for lower wages for workers. We should always be wary when this government says it wants to simplify something. When they introduced this package in July 2018 it was to simplify things. The simplification has seen, as we've seen from Senate estimates, families and providers experience significant delays, confusion and additional paperwork—that would be red tape—to register for the childcare subsidy, which has often resulted in families' entitlements being over or underestimated, resulting in overpayments and debts for affected families. Providers have been forced by the government to act as debt collectors—not just registration processors, but debt collectors—and, with the government commencing data matching with the ATO, families are being issued with unexpected debt notices. We stand here to say to the government: 'Good. You've made a few changes. There are some positive things in this piece of legislation, but we have a technical issue over the 28 days in terms of the provision of ATO files and bank account details that could be very problematic for some families.' So some good points and one big negative that will be very easy for this government to fix. They're building on a system that we have found, through Senate estimates and through reports in the last three months, has not simplified the system, has made the system more complex. And not only that, in this simplification there was a promise that families would be better off and yet what we're finding is one in four families are worse off under this system. We're also seeing an increase in costs to child care above CPI. In my electorate, there was a 5.5 per cent increase in the previous quarter in the cost of child care in an area where we have a broad demographic. For a lot of our families the median income is $52,000 a year. A 5.5 per cent increase is extraordinary. It is on this government's watch, which takes me to the other really tricky part of this. In the past week we've seen the Minister for Government Services say that in terms of Centrelink and robo-debt we're going to finally suspend the automatic data matching without human oversight in the process, and yet what we find in the childcare subsidy is—you guessed it—data matching with the ATO. We've found, across the last few weeks, that we've got lots of families already being hit. We all saw the stories that have been run in the media. The most concerning, and out of the blocks very early, was one mother in particular who had overestimated her income by $12,000. That's a pretty good buffer. I would have thought you would have been fairly confident if you had overestimated your income by $12,000 and you'd been meticulous, as she says she was, about reporting your activity. Remember, red tape is only bad for governments. It's okay for parents; as much red tape as we can put in place for them the better. This mum estimated her income on a fortnightly basis, estimated her activity on a fortnightly basis—this red tape's good for the system—and then she found out that she had a debt notice. She overestimated by $12,000, but she was meticulous about the activity reporting. We were told at Senate estimates that this wasn't about the activity reporting; it was just about the estimation of income. This woman got a debt notice. When she went to question this—because she's quite sure in her mind that, 'Having overestimated my income by $12,000 I better check my records'—she found that the records where she'd been reporting her income and reporting her activity hours had disappeared off the system at Centrelink. I don't know where else we can go other than this government seems to put red tape in the wrong places. Then pile everything into Centrelink, starve it of the human resources to do its job and introduce an ATO data-matching scheme that we know has failed already as a quarter of the debts people were being alerted to didn't exist. We've got a minister withdrawing that, but, in the childcare space, what does that mean? Does it mean that we're stopping the automatic data matching when it comes to the childcare subsidy? The human services minister might want to talk to the Minister for Education. They might want to figure out where they're doing in this space and do so very quickly. This piece of legislation, I would suggest, is now almost defunct, with the errors that we've discovered and with the increase in the cost of child care under this government's watch in the last 12 months. The government introduced its simplified system that was going to make all families better off, but a quarter were not better off from the day this started. Now we've got increases above CPI—in fact, extraordinary increases. We've got families being hit with debts and then being told that the debts occurred because of some glitch in the system—data going missing from the system—so families are feeling absolutely stressed. It may be a long time since my kids were accessing early learning and child care, but I certainly remember the stresses of being a working mum with three kids under six. I certainly remember the stresses, and, as a school teacher at the time, I don't know that my lunch hour would have afforded me the time to be on the phone to Centrelink, waiting for 3½ hours. I would have had to hang up every lunchtime. I would have been trying to get on the phone in between classes—remembering that in most secondary schools where I was teaching in those days sessions were 50 minutes. That wouldn't get me onto Centrelink! Fifty minutes won't get me onto Centrelink—try 2½ hours of waiting. I've done this in my office with my constituents. I've sat with them in my office while they have been on hold, only for them to be then cut off—suddenly someone's on the phone and then the phone's dead, after a two-hour wait. Mostly, I've done this when we've been trying to sort out a debt that had been issued to them that we didn't think was real. My office doesn't need to be another quasi-government agency set up to deal with the red tape this government puts in place for parents and for providers; the government is supposed to be simplifying the system. I also echo the words of the member for Perth on the importance of early education and child care in our society, and this government needs to come to terms with the fact that we are dealing with those two things: early education and child care. The two go together, and quality is absolutely at the forefront of this. That quality comes back to the providers and to ensuring that we've got quality on the ground and compliance in the system, but it also comes back—fundamentally in education—to the quality of the people who are working in the sector. I spend a lot of time talking to early educators, and I want to carry to this House their message that they feel absolutely undervalued. They feel that their work—the quality of their work—is less important to this government than ensuring that there are people inside the centres so that we can tick a compliance box. But it's not about quality. This government thinks that reporting against children's milestones—knowing every child in the centre and ensuring that every child in every centre is meeting their milestones on time, having targets set and having engagement and activities planned to ensure that they are progressing towards their next milestone—is red tape. This government says that the quality doesn't matter. Yes, this government's bringing legislation into this House that will make some small improvements; but, in fact, the entire new system that they set up, that has only been running for 12 months, is being dramatically called into question in our communities as we speak today. The problem that I have with this piece of legislation is, absolutely, around the 28-day grace period that had traditionally been given. We've had some inquiries into this, and the Early Learning and Care Council of Australia explained: Currently, families making a claim for CCS have 28 days to provide a Tax File Number (TFN) or bank account details. In the current legislation, the provision of this information is required for the individual's CCS claim to be effective, which affects their CCS eligibility. However, their eligibility is already verified, and this information is only required for the payment (and reconciliation) of subsidies. If the information is not provided within the 28 day window, a family is deemed CCS ineligible and may incur a debt with their provider. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 It being 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 54 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Smith, Mr David 54 13:30 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair The Australian Services Union today is mourning the loss of one of its greatest servants and greatest leaders. Unexpectedly on Friday, following complications after a surgical procedure, National Secretary David Smith sadly passed away. I extend my deepest condolences to Alanna, his wife, and to his family. Dave was decent, wise, humble and compassionate. His sage advice and insightful counsel were appreciated by colleagues and friends. He was a mentor to many. He was a humble man. His extraordinary and amazing contribution to the quality of life for working Australians can't be underestimated. David Smith started work on the shop floor as a clerk for Queensland Rail and got involved in the union at a young age. He was the state secretary of the Queensland branch in 2001, having been the assistant secretary since 1993. In 2011, he was elected as national secretary and he brought cohesion and unity to the union. The Australian Services Union says he ran the equal pay case in the Queensland state commission which provides pay increases over eight years for social and community services workers. Under Dave's leadership, the union delivered the first ever workplace agreement with provision for domestic violence leave—what a tribute that alone is—and his contribution to superannuation and his expertise were invaluable to working women in this country. Dave, vale; thank you very much for what you've done. Page Electorate: Koori Mail 54 13:31 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I would like to recognise a very important organisation in my community. The Koori Mail is a fortnightly national newspaper that reports stories for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Founded in 1991, the newspaper has grown to a point where it is now recognised as the voice for Indigenous Australia. It is 100 per cent Aboriginal owned. Currently it is owned by the five Bundjalung Aboriginal community organisations. The Koori Mail has a great staff made up of general and sports columnists as well as a network of correspondents and contributors from throughout the country. Today it is led by the general manager, Naomi Moran, and its editor, Rudy Maxwell. Naomi has a wonderful story. She joined the paper in 1998 as 15-year-old trainee. Naomi began working as receptionist and she worked in almost all sections of the paper before becoming its manager in 2016. I couldn't speak about the Koori Mail without recognising Russell Kapeen. Russell sadly passed away earlier this year after chairing the organisation for the past 24 years. He was deeply involved with land rights for decades and was an outstanding leader in our community. Every cent of the profit goes to Indigenous Australians. They offer scholarships for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and often sponsor local Indigenous community events. To all the staff, past and present, and everyone who has supported the paper, I thank you. The Koori Mail is a wonderful institution and I'm very proud that its home is in my community. Cunningham Electorate: Family and Domestic Violence 55 13:33 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham Today begins 16 days of activism against gender based violence with the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, culminating on 10 December with Human Rights Day. It is clear the effort to end violence against women sadly never ceases, and the responsibility rests with all of us—each and every level of government, our communities and businesses. The government can and must make it easier for women to escape violent and abusive relationships, improve the social security systems and provide more safe places for women and children to stay. We call on the government to do the right thing and introduce paid domestic violence leave in the National Employment Standards, something that hasn't so far happened but should happen. I want to take this opportunity today to acknowledge the fantastic work done by so many fantastic organisations in my electorate but, in particular, the Illawarra Women's Health Centre, which does important work to help women escape and recover from domestic violence. I was very pleased in the election campaign to get a commitment to support the extension for their program for women and children escaping domestic and family violence. It is very important work they do. While the government during the election campaign didn't match that funding, I do call on them to look at this very important proposal to see if they have the opportunity to also support it. Bridle, Major John, OAM, RFD (Retd) 55 13:35 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar Today I rise to pay tribute to Major John Bridle OAM RFD of Dee Why, a recent recipient of the Order of Australia Medal for service to the community through a range of organisations. Since 1999 John has served as honorary treasurer of Zone 4 of the New South Wales RSL Lawn Bowls Association and he is currently an accredited national bowls umpire, while also being a representative player. John has also been heavily involved in the Dee Why subbranch of the Returned and Services League of Australia. He is currently on the subbranch committee of the Dee Why RSL, which has existed since 1937, while also serving as secretary from 2007 to 2017. Finally, John has been instrumental in the growth and continuing success of the Probus Club of Brookvale. Probus is an association for active retirees and semi-retirees, and provides members with opportunities to join in outings, activities and monthly meetings with interesting and stimulating speakers. I'm sure you have spoken at many a meeting, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough! John has been a member since 1995, served as president from 1999 to 2000 and is currently the public officer. I'm proud that John resides in and supports the community of Mackellar, and commend him on his work. He is a most deserving recipient of the Order of Australia. International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women 55 13:36 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. So far this year 49 women have been killed through violence, according to an advocacy group which keeps a 'Counting Dead Women' register. It goes without saying that we shouldn't have to have this register in existence. However, it does remind us of the amount of work that we need to do as a society to eradicate this scourge. Too many times since I was elected back in 2016, I've found myself at memorials and vigils for young women who have had their lives brutally cut short: Jill Meagher, Eurydice Dixon, Courtney Herron and Aya Maasarwe, just to name a few. Days like today are important; they remind us to note, remember and acknowledge that one in six Australian women experience violence from a partner, that one in five women have experienced sexual violence and that one in three have experienced physical violence. But we need to do more than just remember; we must also work every single day to call it out and stamp it out. We, as men particularly, have a responsibility every single time we see or hear someone showing a woman disrespect or demonstrating sexist behaviours to call it out and say, 'That is unacceptable.' And that goes to the education of our sons, our brothers and our nephews, to respect women. I want to acknowledge the work of the Andrews Labor government in passing all the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Family Violence and the creation of Respect Victoria to spearhead important campaigns, like the Respect Women: Call it Out Campaign. All of us have a responsibility to make a difference and to be an integral part of this solution. Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program 56 13:38 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby Last week I spent three days at RAAF Base Edinburgh in South Australia on the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. I visited the Air Warfare Centre, the RAAF Institute of Aviation Medicine, No. 92 Wing, the Defence Innovation Hub, No. 3 Security Forces Squadron RAAF, No. 1 Remote Sensor Unit, No. 24 (City of Adelaide) Squadron and the 1st Armoured Regiment and the 7th Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment. Here I met highly dedicated and professional men and women who protect our security and safety. They explained, in patient detail, the nature of their work, equipment, roles and capabilities, and they did so with confidence and professionalism. These men and women are a credit to our nation, and today I want to thank them for their service and thank their families for supporting them to serve. I also want to encourage my colleagues who have not participated in the parliamentary program to do so. You will have the experience of a lifetime! You will better understand what we're asking our men and women to do, and the equipment with which we are asking them to do it. You will meet wonderful people, like my host, Wing Commander Glenn Orton, who—for a Ford man—was a pretty good bloke, even if he still regrets selling his amazing 1980 XD Falcon. Glenn, supported by Ms Kim Gibbons, who has spent 38 years serving our Defence Force in various roles, were so welcoming. Colleagues: all of this awaits you. If you haven't already, sign up to the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program today! Paterson Electorate: Domestic and Family Violence 56 13:39 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Like in every community in Australia, the statistics around violence against women in my community are alarming. As today marks International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and the beginning of 16 days of activism against gender based violence, I'd like to recognise some incredible organisations in my community who are doing wonderful things in this space. Let's start with Got Your Back Sista, run by Mel and her amazing team. It provides relief to women and children escaping domestic violence and who are at risk of living below the poverty line. Their vision is to see women and children happy, thriving and living independently after escaping the trauma of violence. They work directly with domestic violence services and refuges to provide things like household items to help these women and children rebuild their lives. Volunteers help to set up their new, safe home, and there is one-on-one counselling with a mentoring program. I've got to say you looked absolutely fantastic dressed in white at the supercars; you were truly angelic. Share the Dignity provides homeless and at-risk women with sanitary products to allow them a sense of dignity at a time when they need it most. Each Christmas they run the It's In The Bag campaign. I'm a donation point at 35 Sturgeon Street, Raymond Terrace. Bring a bag into my office and help these women. Lyne Electorate: Bushfires 56 13:41 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne It's been a devastating week for many across our region who have experienced the devastating bushfires. Many of these fires are still burning and, sadly, a number of lives have been lost. Many houses have been destroyed and there has been enormous damage to both constructed property and physical property. I visited a number of the people devastated by the local fires in their homes and their businesses. There is no doubt that they'll need a lot of support to recover. The grazing industry, the dairy industry and forestry are all suffering as a result. I'm really pleased that the Commonwealth government announced and enacted pretty much immediately the agreement to allow disaster recovery payments, which allow for $1,000 for adults and $400 for eligible children. For those who have lost their income or their business livelihood, or whose workplace has been deemed unsafe or unusable, the Commonwealth government is also providing 13 weeks income support via the disaster recovery allowance. The New South Wales government and the federal government have teamed up to announce a $48.25 million North Coast, Mid North Coast and Northern Tablelands bushfire recovery package, which includes $18¼ million for mental health recovery and grants of up to $15,000 for farmers and small businesses affected by fire. Aged Care 57 13:42 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi No-one was surprised; everyone was appalled. That was the universal response to the aged-care royal commission's interim report, titled simply Neglect. Its findings were nothing new. The commissioners recommended more home care packages to reduce the waiting lists for higher-level care at home. One hundred and twenty thousand people are on that waitlist. In the Hume region alone in my electorate, there are 948. Those are our mothers, fathers, partners and friends waiting patiently to receive what the government has agreed to give them and, while they wait, their health deteriorates, their families suffer burnout and they are hospitalised as there is simply no other way to get them care. In October the commissioners called for immediate funding. Instead the government promised funding before Christmas, and today we hear the government will release 10,000 new level 3 and 4 packages. I'm delighted with this good news, but what of the other 110,000 people? At this late stage, even if Santa Claus himself delivered these packages, there's a strong chance they will remain under the tree as the challenge of operationalising them in the holiday period will take a Christmas miracle. Government officials say $2 billion to $2.5 billion per year is needed to get people care within three months. Today's announcement committed only $496.3 million. This is only a fraction of what's needed. I encourage the government to commit the money and clear the waitlist. Aged Care 57 13:44 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore Increased funding of residential aged care and home care services for our senior citizens remains a priority within my community. There is a level of unmet need as our population ages, and families are faced with long waiting lists. As at 30 June 2019 there were 444 residential aged-care places funded in my electorate with a further 16 short-term restorative care and 121 transition-care places, bringing the total number to 581 places. In monetary terms, during the 2018-19 year $31.6 million was allocated to residential aged care and $17.2 million for home care services in Moore. A further $511,000 was made available for short-term restorative care, $8.6 million for transition care and $3 million for the Commonwealth Home Support Program. I draw the attention of parliament to the growing need for residential-care and flexible-care funding in the northern suburbs of Perth, which is a region of rapid population growth. Local families require improved access to aged-care services and facilities to meet their individual care needs and financial circumstances. Forward planning is required in order to have sufficient resources available. Domestic and Family Violence 57 13:45 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. We as a parliament must agree to do more to tackle the ugly scourge of domestic violence in this country. Today marks the first of 16 days of action against gender based violence. I stand here today, a proud member of this parliament from a proud state, Victoria, that had a royal commission into violence against women and their children. It has taken significant action and will this year again take action to ensure the safety of women. It has done a lot to improve safe places and build more safe places for women and their children to stay. It has done much. It has run advertising campaigns and awareness campaigns, but in this place we seem silent. There is lots of talk but not a lot of action. Our Watch tells us that, in 2019, 50 women have been murdered. We know that one woman a week is killed by somebody who once claimed to have loved her. One action that could be taken in this place would be to make paid domestic violence leave a reality. I call on the government to do that, because I know that we measure what we care about, and making domestic violence leave a reality means we'll measure the economic impact of domestic violence. Maybe if it costs us we'll spend something on it. CliniKids 57 Domestic and Family Violence 58 13:49 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon As my friend the member for Lalor just mentioned, we're coming up to Human Rights Day. There are 16 days of activism around gender based violence that begin today. The effort to end violence against women never ceases, and the responsibility rests with all of us. As the member for Lalor just mentioned, we know that in Australia, the lucky country, on average one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner. That's pretty sobering, but I come from the Northern Territory and our stats make for extremely sober reading. In the NT there are 61 incidents of domestic and family violence a day. We have the highest rates of victimisation, homicide and sexual assault in the country. We're not proud of that and we're working hard on it. But the prevention of family violence is everyone's business. We need to make it easier for women who are in violent relationships to go somewhere safe, to have a safe place for themselves and, if they've got kids, for their children. We need the government to do the right thing and introduce domestic violence leave. That would be a great start. Canning Electorate: Infrastructure 58 13:50 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning The past month has been a big month in my electorate of Canning. The Morrison government is delivering for the Peel region along a number of fronts. Firstly, there's transport. We are congestion busting. The Lakelands train station was announced last week. It is long-awaited—more than 10 years—and we are providing 80 per cent of the funding for this $80 million train station. We've also announced the Mandurah train station car park upgrade, which will provide 600 more car-parking bays for residents. We're going 50-50 with the state. With regard to aged care, a fortnight ago I opened the Quambie Park aged-care expansion. Nine new assisted living aged-care homes were officially opened, and we provided $1.67 million towards that project. Education: I recently opened two brand-new facilities. Salvado Catholic College has new primary school buildings, hard courts and a soccer pitch, and we provided $1.3 million towards those things. There is also the Fairbridge College redevelopment, where we provided a new commercial kitchen, dining area and practical training facilities for young people working in hospitality. Finally, communications: last week I went to two new Mobile Black Spot towers, one in the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale and one in Martin. The one in Martin was particularly satisfying because we had a grassroots campaign to get that funded. I'm very proud of these achievements. International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women 58 13:52 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan Today is International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. It's a timely reminder that women continue to be the victims of domestic and family violence, sexualised and gendered violence in conflict, and random acts of violence. This week we were shocked at the unprovoked attack on a Muslim woman in a cafe in Western Sydney. I'm sure that anyone who has seen the footage will be as disgusted as I was at this unprovoked attack. Unfortunately, these kinds of attacks, both verbal and physical, on visibly Muslim women continue to happen. The report Islamophobia in Australia says three-quarters of Islamophobic attacks are on women, and particularly women who wear the hijab, the visible face of Islam. I take comfort from the words of the woman who was attacked—who, by the way, was 38 weeks pregnant and was hit several times, as well as having her head stomped on in this terrible and unprovoked attack. Her name is Rana Elasmar. Rana says: We are mothers, wives, daughters … and we deserve to feel safe wherever we go. We deserve a night out to unwind without being fearful of an attack like this happening again. Yes, Rana, you do deserve that. Yes, Rana, we all deserve that. We deserve to feel safe in our homes and in public spaces. Australian Bushfires 58 13:53 Mr JOYCE E5D New England Fire is one of the more horrific elements of living in country areas. Over the recent break from parliament, I unfortunately had the experience of seeing one at my own parents' back door; in fact, it burned into my parents' back paddock. There is nothing more frightening than seeing the glow at night and wondering where that fire is, whether it's going to come over the ridge, how you're going to fight it, how you'll deal with spot fires, whether embers are going to fall on your house or on items around your house that can catch on fire, whether you've set up your fire plan to properly deal with it. For me it was frightening, but the people of Wytaliba and Torrington actually lost their houses. Despite the meagre possessions in many of these towns, they lost everything they had. In Nowendoc yesterday I was talking to a friend. They've been blessed with about an inch of rain. That has saved the bacon of some people, but others have been burnt out. I remind those who have been burnt out that there is now $15,000 available—Minister Littleproud has announced that—to help people get back on their feet. It is to make sure that their businesses and lives are back up and running again. We hope that, in reflecting on these fires, we develop the policies that, in the future, will assist them to fight fires in a more able way. Domestic and Family Violence 59 13:55 Mr BURKE DYW Watson As we heard from the previous Labor member who spoke, when we think about violence against women, very often the conversation is about violence in the home. But it's not only in the home. I think there was one thing for me that was even more horrifying than viewing the video of the woman who was attacked in Parramatta—and it was a pretty confronting video for anyone who has seen it. She was sitting down, having coffee with friends in a cafe in Parramatta and someone came up to her, started talking to her and suddenly launched into punches—punching a pregnant woman. But the thing that was more horrifying for me than that was the number of women I spoke to afterward who were not surprised that that had happened. When you look at the 2019 report into Islamophobia, it cites 349 incidents—72 per cent of victims being women—reported in the period between 2016 and 2017. This is based on voluntary reporting, so it's a fair bet that it's only the tip of the iceberg. There have been verbal abuse, profanities, physical intimidation and death threats in public places, most often while shopping and most often made by Anglo or Celtic male perpetrators. We need to remember that part of dealing with violence against women and opposing it is for us to stand together better as a community in solidarity. Hughes Electorate: Rural Fire Service 59 13:56 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I would like to give a shout-out to the Rural Fire Service in the electorate of Hughes—the brigades from Bundeena, Maianbar, Grays Point, Engadine, Loftus, Waterfall, Menai, Illawong, Woronora River, Sandy Point and the command centre at Heathcote—for the fine work they have undertaken around our state in recent weeks. I'd also like to commend them for the hazard reduction burns they undertook earlier this year. Sutherland Shire is well versed in bushfires. The 1994 fires took 91 homes in Jannali and Como West, nine in Alfords Point and five at Bangor. During this fire season in New South Wales, we've already seen close to 1.65 million hectares burnt, but our history tells us there could be a lot more to come as this is well short of the record of 4.5 million hectares burned in the 1974-75 season, the four million hectares in the 1951-52 season, the 3.5 million hectares in the 1984-85 season and the two million hectares in the 1957-58 season and again in the 1968-69 season. So, on behalf of a grateful community, I say thank you to RFS and please stay safe over the coming weeks. Domestic and Family Violence 59 13:58 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton Domestic, family and sexual violence affect everyone. We know that women are disproportionately impacted. It is everyone's business. One woman a week is murdered in Australia. It is a national crisis. But it's not just about the murders; it's also about the injury, the permanent disability and the maiming. Eight women a day are hospitalised as a result of assaults from their partners and others, and Indigenous women's experience of violence is three times higher than non-Indigenous women. Preventing violence against women requires fundamental cultural and attitudinal change through awareness and education, especially the education of young people. Governments are absolutely integral to this, as is this place. We can improve access to social security systems. We can provide more safe places for women and children to stay. We can introduce more perpetrator programs. We can ensure that women from non-English speaking backgrounds and First Nations women are also able to access family violence support services that understand their cultures and are safe spaces. It is a national crisis; violence against women should be seen as a national crisis, not something that is business as usual. It is everybody's business. The SPEAKER 10000 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 59 CONDOLENCES Humphreys, Hon. Benjamin Charles, AM 59 Reference to Federation Chamber 61 14:11 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Tillem, Mr Mehmet 62 14:12 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House of the death, on 9 November 2019, of Mehmet Tillem, a former senator who represented the state of Victoria from 2013 to 2014. As a mark of respect to the memory of former Senator Tillem, I invite all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the House. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 62 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Australian Bushfires 62 Reference to Federation Chamber 65 14:31 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce by leave—I move: That further statements on indulgence in relation to the update on the recent bushfires be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 65 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:32 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I inform the House that the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of this sitting fortnight for personal reasons. The Minister for Home Affairs will answer questions on his behalf. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 65 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:32 The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call on questions, I'd just like to inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from the Czech Republic led by the Deputy Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies and accompanied by the ambassador, His Excellency Mr Tomas Dub. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! The SPEAKER 00APG I also inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon the former federal member for Hasluck, Mr Stuart Henry, and the former member for Calare, Mr Sandy Mackenzie. On behalf of the House a warm welcome to you both. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 65 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Agriculture 65 14:33 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Last week it was reported that an organisation had broken money laundering laws 23 million times. Was it a union or a bank? 14:33 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook It was a bank, and that's why when I was Treasurer I introduced what is known as the Banking Executive Accountability Regime. I note that APRA and ASIC are examining these matters. But, when it comes to these matters, under the BEAR, the legislation which I introduced into this House, which those opposite actually tried to oppose and prevent being passed in this place—they eventually voted for it, but they showed some hesitation—the civil penalty is a maximum of $210 million for large banks, $52½ million for medium-size banks and $10½ million for smaller banks. Individuals can be disqualified, and their remuneration may be reduced. The activity may also fall foul of other corporate laws. The government has increased civil penalties to up to $1.05 million, or to up to $945,000 for criminal penalties carrying 15 years imprisonment for individuals, or to a greater of $9.5 million or three times the benefit gained or 10 per cent of the annual turnover for companies. I note that in the ensuring integrity bill the penalty may be up to $21,000 or two years in prison. So I won't cop it from those opposite who come in here and make those accusations. I think banks should take accountability for their manifest failures and I think union thugs should also. Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety 66 14:35 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is responding to the interim report of the royal commission into aged care, particularly with respect to improvements to home care and supporting those with dementia? 14:35 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Moncrieff, who has given so much of her first six months to focusing on the needs of the elderly and made this a deep, personal passion since she has commenced her time in this place. I want to acknowledge that the royal commission was called by the Prime Minister as one of his first acts after coming to office. It was something he set out at the time as a priority, a need and a matter of great importance. I also want to thank the royal commissioners, Commissioner Briggs and Commissioner Tracey, who has since passed, for their work in bringing together the interim report. Indeed, Commissioner Tracey, even in his sickest days, was determined that he would complete the work of crafting the interim report. That report sets out real challenges for this country. It talks about our national culture over a long period of time and the challenges for successive governments. In particular, it identified three areas of need to which the government is responding today. The first is in relation to home care. We have accepted the directions set out in the royal commission interim report, and we will unify the home care and home support programs. This is an important step forward to make sure that we are tailoring the care for our oldest Australians, for our most vulnerable Australians, to give them the support they need, when they need and where they need it: in their own home. As part of that, we are also going to provide $496 million for 10,000 home care places, which is an immediate response. Those places are in line with what the royal commission noted was absolutely essential: that we build the workforce at a pace and in a scale which is commensurate with safety and quality. This is based on not just this royal commission's findings but also those findings of a previous royal commission. As well what we're doing in relation to those 10,000 places, the first of which will be available on 1 December, we are taking action in relation to dementia and medication management. On day 1 of the royal commission's interim report, we made with the states the safe and quality use of medicines a national health priority. From 1 January, we will make prescription of Risperidone, which is an antipsychotic, for longer than 12 weeks subject to a second-phase approval through the Department of Health. This is about making sure that chemical restraint is not misused. That is backed up by $35 million, including $25 million for medication management and $10 million for ensuring there is funding for dementia support in our workforce, as well as committing to the goals of getting younger Australians out of care by 2022 and 2025 respectively. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 66 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:38 The SPEAKER 00APG I would like to inform the House we've just had join us on the floor of the chamber this afternoon members of an ASEAN parliamentary delegation who are visiting Australia. On behalf of the House, a very warm welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 66 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Aged Care 66 14:39 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is to the Prime Minister. When 16,000 older Australians died in one year while waiting to receive the home care package for which they'd already been approved, why did the Prime Minister announce only 10,000 new home care places today, and why did the Prime Minister today put back only half of the $1.2 billion his own budget papers confirm he cut from aged care? 14:39 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Under our government we've been increasing funding for aged care by $1 billion a year. I invite members of the opposition to engage with the government in the response to the royal commission into aged care, which includes a response to those young Australians who find themselves in aged-care facilities, and to join with the government in progressing the reforms that are necessary to address the matters raised in the royal commission. This has been the practice of the Liberal and National parties. I remember when the previous government was in office and we worked with the aged-care minister at the time to take through some very difficult reforms. I invite the opposition to engage with the government as we continue to address the issues in the royal commission that are necessary. The royal commission has made it clear that the issues that we are addressing deal with a generation of issues within the aged-care system that go back over many governments. I note the very sharp response from the Australian public to the partisan approach which has been exhibited by some—but, I note, not by all—from the opposition. When we came to government there were 60,000 in-home care places; there are 150,000 today. Since the 2018-19 budget, we have put 44,000 additional places into the in-home care aged-care system. On top of that, as the minister was just explaining, it isn't just a system of throwing more places into the system; the system has to be able to absorb them, with the training and the support to ensure that those places are delivered in a way that is safe and supportive of those Australians who need them. Opposition members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L I hear the jeers from those opposite, and I would caution them again. I invite them to work with the government to ensure that all Australians get the support in aged care that they need. That's why we called the royal commission. We're prepared to address the issues that come out of the royal commission into aged care. I invite the opposition to join with us in a bipartisan way to ensure we can deliver the support that they need and they deserve, and to not play partisan politics. Economy 67 14:41 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the Morrison government's stable and certain economic plan is enabling Australians and their families to plan for their futures with confidence? 14:42 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Boothby for her question. Unlike many other countries around the world today, the Australian economy continues to grow, despite the headwinds that Australians know that our economy is facing and the challenges that we have here at home—in particular, the drought that has taken almost nine per cent off farm GDP over the last 12 months. While these headwinds are holding many other countries back, whether it be the United Kingdom, Singapore, South Korea or Germany, who all recently experienced negative quarters of growth, the Australian economy this year has been growing at half a per cent each quarter throughout this calendar year. These pressures being faced are understood by Australians, but they've always been understood by our government as well. That is why our disciplined economic plan has been investing in the Australian economy not just for today but for the future, to ensure that the benefits of our investments are not a generation of debt but a generation of economic opportunity provided by disciplined financial management delivering much-needed infrastructure and relieving the tax burden of Australians. Since the election alone, this financial year and next year some $9½ billion of additional investment and support into the Australian economy has been delivered by this government. That's $9½ billion which constitutes the tax relief through the tax cuts that we provided and legislated in this place through to the additional support we're providing through our drought stimulus and drought support measures, which are much needed in rural and regional communities. On top of that, there is the $3.8 billion of additional bring-forwards and additional investment in infrastructure, which includes things like the Darlington upgrade and the Flinders Link in the electorate of the member who asked me the question. And $1.8 billion of that investment is in infrastructure. It is of the here and now. It is in this year and next year: $1.8 billion to ensure that we are bringing forward the projects. This has been achieved through cooperation with state and territory leaders around the country. Straight after the election I wrote to all of them and said, 'Let's work together to get these projects brought forward.' There was no hurried panic. There was no trying to cobble together figures on a weekend. There was careful assessment and cooperation with state and territory governments of all political persuasions to ensure we could arrive at these important investments. They have now been announced. Those state governments will be rolling out those projects. Whether it's the $1.3 billion extra in Queensland or the $900 million or thereabouts extra in Western Australia and elsewhere around the country, these investments will strengthen the Australian economy. This is being done while keeping our AAA credit rating, bringing the budget back into surplus, paying down the debt and not increasing taxes. Banking and Financial Services 68 14:45 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper My question is to the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister say that the leadership of a bank is up to the board after it has broken the law 23 million times, while at the same time he wants to shut down entire unions for minor paperwork breaches? Why does the Prime Minister have one rule— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right. The member for Cooper will pause. The member for Goldstein. The member for North Sydney. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides. The Manager of Opposition Business. As passionate as members are, I still need to hear the question. The member for Cooper will begin her question again. Ms KEARNEY LTU My question is to the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister say that the leadership of a bank is up to the board after it has broken the law 23 million times, while at the same time he wants to shut down entire unions for minor paperwork breaches? Why does the Prime Minister have one rule for banks and another for working people? Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Goldstein is warned. The Prime Minister has the call. Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith is warned. 14:46 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The next time some union thug breaks someone's arm and they go to the emergency clinic, they'll say, 'It's just a paper cut, because it's a paperwork breach.' For goodness sake! The banks will be pursued by the full force of the law. They will be pursued by investigative agencies such AUSTRAC, who have been given the resources and the powers to get on with the job. They will have the Banking Executive Accountability Regime available to hunt those who are responsible under the law, because of the laws that we brought into this place that can see bank executives sent to prison for up to 15 years. Those opposite, the Labor Party, are looking for any excuse to walk away from what they know is the right thing to do to ensure that militant unionism has no place in this country. Master Builders have made it pretty clear; there has been a 30 per cent increase in costs because of militant unionism in this country. It doesn't just break people's arms; it breaks their businesses and breaks the jobs that are so important. We're investing $100 billion in infrastructure in this country. We're expending more in rural communities on our better roads programs and our stimulus programs through local councils. We don't want to see that money jeopardised and wasted by the militant union activities, which are apparently championed by those opposite. They will not do the right thing. They will not apply to the union sector the same penalties as those in the corporate sector. They won't do it, because all of them are here courtesy of the unions. Ms Kearney interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Cooper is warned! Mr MORRISON E3L They are beholden to the union movement and they are here to do their bidding, not the bidding of the Australian people. Climate Change 68 14:48 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, if exporting pollution were an Olympic sport, you'd be on the podium with a medal around your neck. We're not some 1.3 per cent minnow; we're the world's third-largest exporter of climate pollution. Will you apologise for misleading the public by saying that nothing we would do would make a difference to the climate crisis and catastrophic bushfires? Given that you are so clearly failing in government's first duty, which is to protect its people, will you have the courage to apologise to the victims of the bushfires for exporting record amounts of thermal coal? 14:49 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The government believes in and is taking action to address climate change. The government should and the government is. By 2020, which is when the Kyoto targets were set for by the Labor Party when they were in government, we will meet those targets. And we won't just meet them; we'll beat them by 367 million tonnes. The Australian government is in that group of countries which are beating—beating—the commitments that we made to the world and we will continue to do that with the commitments we have retained for the Paris targets. So Australia is doing its bit when it comes to dealing with climate change. What we the government won't do is engage in the reckless targets supported by the Greens and the Labor Party under this false and, I think, dishonest promise that the member has been spruiking both in this place and outside of this place—that is, to suggest that there is some trade-off, that if the government had adopted economy-wrecking, as the Business Council described them, emissions reduction cuts that were put forward by the Labor party at the last election then these fires would not have taken place. That is an outright lie, it is an untruth and it is grievously misleading for some of those going through the most difficult times of their lives. We will not do that. Our government know about the need to take action on climate change and our record demonstrates we are meeting and beating our commitments. What we won't do is engage in the reckless targets that have been put forward by the Greens—and happily along with the Labor Party—which will take people's jobs and we will not support those reckless targets. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Melbourne on a point of order. Mr Bandt M3C The point of order is just on relevance. It is two minutes in and there has been— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister has indicated— Mr Bandt M3C no mention of exports. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. The Prime Minister's concluded his answer. Infrastructure 69 14:52 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer explain to the House how the Morrison government's record investment in infrastructure is providing a stable and certain pathway to higher growth and more jobs while boosting the productive capacity of our economy. Is the Treasurer aware of alternative policies? 14:52 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Longman for his question and for his background in small business that he brings to this place. He, like other members on this side of the House, knows that when we came to government, unemployment was rising, investment was falling and we inherited the second-largest budget deficit—$48.5 billion—in Australia's history. But by steady, calm, considered, disciplined economic management we now see a record number of Australians who have a job. We have seen the first current account surplus in more than 40 years, we have seen welfare dependency at its lowest level in 30 years, we've seen the biggest tax cuts in more than 20 years, we've seen the first balanced budget in 11 years and we will deliver the first budget surplus in 12 years. The pathway to future growth is through deregulation, like the member for Tangney is engaged in, like tax cuts the member for Deakin is engaged in, like industrial relations reform that the member for Pearce is engaged in and more spending that the members for Riverina and Aston are engaging in. Our $100 billion, 10-year pipeline continues to roll out and boost the productive capacity across the economy. The Prime Minister has announced $3.8 billion is being brought forward into the forward estimates for projects like the North East Link in Victoria, the North-South Corridor in South Australia, the Tonkin Highway in Western Australia, the Princes Highway in New South Wales, the Bass Highway in Tasmania, the M1 and the Bruce upgrades in Queensland. These projects are creating jobs and getting people home sooner and safer. At the last election, there were two competing narratives that were put to the Australian people: they could vote for the coalition and their lower taxes, more jobs and investment in infrastructure, or they could vote for the Labor Party, with their higher taxes and fewer jobs. And they took the advice of the member for McMahon when he told them, if they didn't like the Labor Party's policies, not to vote for them. The reality is this: Labor lost the election. They've had a review. The Leader of the Opposition has made a couple of headland speeches. And do you know what the only thing that has survived has been? Three hundred and eighty-seven billion dollars of higher taxes. That is the reality. The Labor Party have in their DNA higher taxes and fewer jobs. The coalition will always be the party of more spending on infrastructure and— (Time expired) Trade Unions 69 14:55 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister. How can 23 million breaches of the law be a matter for the board if you're a bank, but legislation before the parliament right now says that three breaches of paperwork can get you deregistered if you're a union? How can there be corporate equivalence if unions will get three chances and banks will get 23 million? 14:56 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce The premise of the question is just absolutely and utterly incorrect. The question carries an assertion that somehow a union or a branch of a union would be deregistered for non-serious matters—totally and absolutely wrong. When the opposition talk about paperwork, look at what this bill is actually being targeted towards—assaulting police, five times; assault by kicking, five times; wilful trespass, seven times; resisting arrest, five times; theft; attempted theft by deception; and intent to coerce, nine times. It's paperwork! And that was just one bloke. That was just one guy. That was just John Setka. But it's all paperwork! They're like the Black Knight in Monty Python: the head gets chopped off—'It's a paper cut. It's a flesh wound.' The SPEAKER 00APG The Attorney will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW Yes, on direct relevance. The question asked the minister to refer to that part of the bill that deals with late lodgement, that deals with if address details are not updated quickly enough, that deals with those elements of paperwork that can result in deregistration. He's not referring to any of those. The SPEAKER 00APG I can understand the explanation the Manager of Opposition Business has now given, but it's far more detailed than what was in the question. The question did not go into that level of detail. It talked about equivalent— Mr Burke interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Yes, that's true, but the minister is saying that he contests that. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, the question only refers to those elements of the bill that refer to breaches of paperwork. It refers to no other elements of the bill. That's what it refers to. The minister is not being relevant to any of that. The SPEAKER 00APG I'm going to keep hearing the minister. The minister began his answer by saying that he felt the entire premise of the question was wrong. That was what he said first. It's not up to me to judge the factual accuracy of questions and answers. He was very specific, and I believe he's being relevant to the question. The minister has the call. Mr PORTER 208884 Thank you, Mr Speaker. I actually had forgotten the drug dealing, the drug possession, the criminal coercion—all of these things, the 'paperwork' offences! Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith has already been warned. Mr PORTER 208884 But, you know, there is one person other than members opposite who thinks that these things are just paperwork, and that is the great John Setka himself. When all of this offending was put to John Setka, he had precisely the same response as Labor members opposite. A government member: What did he say? Mr PORTER 208884 He said: 'They are, some of them, just civil breaches. That's all they are, just breaches.' Paperwork! Is that like the paperwork that Cesar Melhem forgot to put in? Is that the sort of paperwork we're talking about? Members opposite no doubt will be familiar with what was found to have been inflating the membership numbers of the Victorian branch of the Australian Workers Union—on a piece of paper, apparently. But don't worry. That was just paperwork! And what happened? The union was penalised $20,000 for that paperwork breach, that tiny little matter of overinflating their membership numbers. What about the Federal Court penalising the Transport Workers Union nearly $160,000 for breaking the law requiring organisations to keep a proper register of their members? It was a case of repeated and serious breaches over 12 years. What about the apprentice who gets bullied and lied to and so intimidated he can't turn up to work because he's got the temerity to not want to join a union? What about the intimidation of a female police officer on a site by the CFMEU? That's paperwork. What about kicking off non-union apprenticeships in Victoria and New South Wales? That's paperwork! This bill is attuned to dealing with the most serious repeated offending of workplace law, what the courts have said is deplorable, abusive, threatening, appalling, disgraceful and recidivist—those are the words of the court. Infrastructure 70 15:01 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government's strong budget is creating stability and certainty in the delivery of national infrastructure, including for regional Australians like those in my electorate of Dawson? 15:01 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Dawson for his question. A $1.9 billion road and rail package for Queensland, to boost the economy, create jobs and certainly help Dawson is what was announced last week when the Prime Minister, the member for Moncrieff, the member for Forde and I were at the M1 motorway. We announced the Queensland package. This government will bring forward nearly $650 million in funding and provide more than $680 million in new funding, with the Queensland government committing a little bit over $600 million. The package includes 20 critical infrastructure projects. For example, there's $225.6 million for the Bruce Highway upgrades. I know how important they are for Dawson. That's the 1,652 kilometre road between Brisbane and Cairns. And there's $18½ million for Roads of Strategic Importance upgrades. In the member for Dawson's electorate, I know he had a rather novel way of putting forward his case for the Mackay Ring Road—once seen, it cannot be unseen. But, by George, we're going to put a ring on it! The Mackay Ring Road: $51 million for that particular project, fast-tracked. I wouldn't urge and encourage members go and look at George's novel way of trying to get encouragement for that, and I don't want anyone else to bring forward those sorts of initiatives to get infrastructure funding. The member for Moncrieff and I stood at the platform of the Gold Coast to Burleigh light rail project. It's 6.7 kilometres, and we're investing $157 million of new funding. As we were there and after we'd made the announcement—it was a great announcement—this woman bounded across the road. We've all had them. You think, 'What on earth is she going to come up and talk to me about?' She buttonholed me and said: 'Finally we've got governments coming together to build this important piece of infrastructure. This restaurant precinct that people will be able to visit will be good for tourists. It's going to be good for the economy. It's going to be good for jobs. Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister. Thank you, local member Angie Bell.' In Tasmania we've brought forward $175 million worth of projects, $95 million of which will be spent over the next 18 months. That includes $46.4 million for the Bass Highway corridor improvements and $45 million for the Hobart to Sorell corridor, including the Hobart Airport exchange. But the value that you see in these sorts of projects is getting people to where they need to be sooner and safer, helping tradies in their utes get to their jobs quicker, helping the school bus get to school safer. They're all aspects of what we do when we build infrastructure. We thank the state governments for getting on board with our $100 billion national infrastructure program, and there's more to come. Pensions and Benefits 71 15:04 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Minister for Government Services. Given that the government has now suspended robodebt after three years of operation, is it because the coalition government, at the time of creating it, either (a) didn't seek legal advice, (b) had inaccurate legal advice or (c) received legal advice but just didn't think that Australians would notice the government unjustly enriching itself at the expense of the most vulnerable in Australian society? 15:05 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I thank the member for his question. Let me say very categorically: this government does not apologise for its efforts to protect the integrity of the welfare system. We will not apologise for collecting $5½ billion worth of debt— Dr Chalmers interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin is warned. Mr ROBERT HWT from 950,000 Australians that we are lawfully required to do. Just last week we made a refinement to the income compliance project. Refinements have been made over time. For example, on 15 June 2010 the then Minister for Human Services, the member for McMahon, said: It is important that the Government explores different means of debt recovery to ensure that those who have received more money than they are entitled to repay their debt. That was from a press release outlining the tax garnishee project. Then, of course, that fateful media release— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will pause for a second. The member for Maribyrnong, on a point of order. Mr Shorten 00ATG On relevance: my question specifically went to the period of this government and the robodebt scheme that the now Prime Minister, then Treasurer, promised Australians in 2015-16. The SPEAKER 00APG I will say to the minister that he is entitled to a preamble, but the entire answer can't be that. There were three specific aspects to the question. The minister will need to bring himself to at least one of those, and move away from the preamble. He's already been going about a minute. Mr ROBERT HWT As we know, the current income compliance program started on 29 June 2011 and has continued from that day. Refinements have been made to that program since that time. The refinement that was made last week has strengthened the program whereby debts raised solely based on income matching will now require greater proof points. Before the election the member for Maribyrnong made it very clear in his interview on 9 May: We want to make sure that people aren't receiving welfare to which they're not entitled to. And no one gets a leave pass on that. The member for Maribyrnong said that. This government agrees 100 per cent with the former Leader of the Opposition that no-one gets a leave pass—no-one at all. We have an absolute legal responsibility to collect debts owed to the Commonwealth. The refinement that has now been made— Ms Burney interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Barton is now warned. Mr ROBERT HWT means that debts raised solely on income averaging will now have greater proof points applied to them. Infrastructure 72 15:08 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass My question is to the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's stable and certain economic plan has allowed for critical infrastructure funding to be brought forward, including in my home state of Tasmania, and is the minister aware of any alternatives? 15:08 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I thank the member for Bass for her question and for her outstanding advocacy for her electorate as well as for Tasmania as a whole. As you may be aware, over the last week we have announced $3.8 billion worth of infrastructure funding that we were able to bring forward. That included $1.8 billion being spent in the next 18 months alone, on top of the billion dollars which is already being spent. Now, what does this mean? It means more jobs, it means it's great for commuters and, of course, it means it's supporting economic growth as well by being able to get these projects done more quickly. As the Prime Minister mentioned, we have been working very methodically with the state and territory governments over the last few months to develop up these packages, state by state. Over the last week we have announced packages for Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales, and today we are announcing a $173 million package for Tasmania—the vast majority of which, $95 million, will be spent in the next 18 months alone. That will go towards four major projects. It will go to the Bass Highway corridor, and it means that work can begin late next year. It will go to the Hobart-to-Sorell corridor, including the Hobart Airport interchange; that money can flow immediately and those projects can get underway. There is $42 million for the Midland Highway, which enables the work to continue to be done along that corridor. And money will be able to flow for the Port of Burnie shiploader, and that project will be able to commence by the middle of next year. As you can see, by bringing these projects forward, we're able to get cracking on more projects, which means more jobs. And, of course, that's not everything that we are doing. That is on top of the 130 major projects which we have underway right now, supporting 85,000 jobs over the lifetime of those projects. And this $100 billion program, of course, is only able to be done—this $3.8 billion, which we're bringing forward—because we've been able to carefully manage the budget through the strict and disciplined financial management which means that we can pay for things like this, as well as cut taxes and, of course, deliver the first budget surplus in 12 years. The contrast is, of course, stark between our disciplined approach to financial management, versus the last time that these people were in office, when they were spending money on overpriced school halls, pink batts, cash for clunkers, sending cheques to dead people and to farm pets— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister's time has concluded. Health 72 15:11 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Minister for Health. Exactly a year ago today the Minister for Health promised that on 1 March 2019 the flash glucose monitor would be subsidised under the National Diabetes Services Scheme. It still hasn't happened. Can the minister explain to Australia's 120,000 type 1 diabetics why not? 15:12 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I'm delighted to respond to the member for McMahon, because, as is frequently the case, his supposition is false. We made the commitment that we would deliver flash glucose monitoring when the company met the terms and conditions of the available program. In particular, let me read from the Department of Health: The Government also announced its intention to include the FreeStyle Libre flash glucose monitoring system on the list of products subsidised under the scheme, subject to price negotiations with the product sponsor. Negotiations with the product sponsor are ongoing and further information will be provided once negotiations are complete. The department also issued this statement: Flash glucose monitoring and sensors to be subsidised through the NDSS Flash GM devices (Freestyle Libre) will be included in the program expansion from 1 March 2019 subject to price negotiations with the product sponsor. But, very interestingly, what we have done is what the previous government never did—what Labor never did. We have provided continuous glucose monitoring. Seven products, at an expected price of approximately $300 million, are now available. And, significantly, as part of that, that means that for children and youths under 21 years of age we have continuous glucose monitoring available. We have also made sure that this program is available for pregnant mothers, and we have also made sure that people over the age of 21 who are on concession cards have access to that program. And, at the same time, we were absolutely clear in setting out the terms and conditions. And the reason we do that is that we have advice from the medical experts that those are the terms and conditions. One of the things that has been the hallmark of this government is we have taken the advice of the medical experts. They have set out those terms, and we set out in writing those elements as well. But when Labor were in power in 2011, they ignored the advice of the medical experts and they stopped listing new medicines. So, we not only listened to the medical experts— Mr Bowen interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon. Mr HUNT 00AMV we incorporated them in statements from the NDSS and in the statements from the department. Mr Bowen interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon— Mr HUNT 00AMV But, whereas we have listed— Mr Bowen interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon will leave under 94(a). The member for McMahon then left the chamber. Mr HUNT 00AMV We will continue to list all of those medicines that the medical experts recommend. But they stopped listing medicines for schizophrenia, medicines for endometriosis, medicines for IVF and medicines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Banking and Financial Services 73 15:15 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister outline to the House the stable and certain approach the Morrison government is taking to protect Australia's financial services from money launderers, from terrorists and from child sex offenders? 15:15 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson It's always a pleasure to get a question from the member for Stirling. He is a very popular choice over that side, I've got to say, and he has asked a very, very important question. The Home Affairs portfolio receives record funding each year because we're able to manage the budget well. One of the principal tasks of the Home Affairs portfolio and all of our agencies within the Home Affairs portfolio is to keep Australian children safe. There is a lot of work that we have done through the cancellation of visas of sexual offenders, people who have committed offences against children. There is a lot of work that the Australian Federal Police do with their international counterparts and with their state and territory counterparts to keep Australian safe. Today I want to commend in particular the work of Nicole Rose, the CEO at AUSTRAC, and all the investigators and analysts at AUSTRAC who have worked tirelessly to make sure that they too can deliver on the Home Affairs portfolio pledge to keep Australians safe. The Morrison government will always make decisions to keep our borders secure and our community safe, and we are adamant that that will continue to be the case. The incidents in relation to Westpac are, as we know, completely unacceptable. It follows on the work that AUSTRAC did to work with the CBA to highlight the failures in the CBA model. A $700 million fine resulted. CBA have paid that money to the Commonwealth, and so they should have. It is clear that the Westpac bosses, through their negligence, have given a free pass to paedophiles, and there is a price to pay for that. That price will be paid, and we have been very clear about it. The work that AUSTRAC has undertaken, as we have seen with CBA and Westpac, will continue with other corporations who continue to go outside of Australian laws. Our laws in this country apply equally to all, and we want to make sure that those companies, those entities and those organisations that breach their obligations under the law pay a penalty for it. We have no more important undertaking as a government than to keep Australian safe. We will continue to do it. It is clear that the Westpac bosses have failed that obligation. We will make sure through AUSTRAC and the other entities within the Home Affairs portfolio that people who commit those egregious offences or breaches of the law will pay a serious price. Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction 74 15:18 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh My question is to the Minister for Energy Emissions Reduction. When parliament last sat, the minister said in relation to his letter to the Sydney Lord Mayor: The document was drawn directly from the City of Sydney's website. Does the minister now accept that he was misleading the parliament? 15:18 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I've already dealt with this and I'll table a copy of my statement from 25 October. Labor and their mates have an insatiable appetite for gossip and smear. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. We won't be lectured to on integrity by the party of Aldi bags and wine boxes full of cash. I can advise the House that the Manager of Opposition Business wrote to me on Friday about my statement—the very same day that Eddie Obeid was paroled. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister can pause for a second. Mr Taylor interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister doesn't have the call. The question was pretty specific. It was not a question that enables him to give an answer by simply contrasting with other examples. The minister has completed his answer. Domestic and Family Violence 74 15:20 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is taking strong and decisive action to combat violence against women and children? 15:20 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I thank my colleague the member for Robertson and commend her on her years of work in the field of women's leadership. Today, on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, my colleagues in the other place the Minister for Women and the Minister for Families and Social Services have released a new implementation plan across all jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth, to support delivery of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. I know that all members of this place would claim to have a zero-tolerance approach to violence against women, but importantly we do have a bipartisan plan that invests in measurable outcomes that help women break the cycle of emotional abuse, physical abuse and, often, economic isolation. We're making the single largest Commonwealth investment in this important area, with $340 million to support this fourth action plan. It is a vision for an Australia free from all forms of violence and abuse against women and their children. It includes $82 million for better frontline services to keep women and children safe; $68 million for prevention strategies to help eradicate domestic and family violence in our homes, workplaces, communities and clubs; $35 million in support and prevention measures for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities; $78 million to provide safe places for people impacted by domestic and family violence; $64 million for 1800RESPECT, the national sexual assault, domestic and family violence counselling service; and $7.8 million for dedicated men's support workers in family advocacy and support services locations. Of course our aim is to prevent domestic violence, but when it occurs we know that victims need more than sympathy; they need practical help. They need a safe place to go, legal advice and help getting back to a normal life. Our budget includes other measures that will contribute to the improved safety of women and girls. The highlight is $1.2 billion over three years, from 2020-21, in Commonwealth funding for a variety of forms of legal assistance. The language of such plans is necessarily technical and can seem abstract, but I want to assure Australians that this plan is practical. It's hands-on, it's on-the-ground support and it's demonstrating the commitment that this government has. Of course, we know that more work needs to be done. Despite all the progress we've made, women are made victims of violence every day. But this fourth action plan, dedicated to countless women and children who are victims and survivors, with the strength of our will and our determination across this parliament, commits to leaving no-one behind. Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 75 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Reports Nos 11 to 13 of 2019-20 75 15:24 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the following Auditor-General's performance audit reports for 2019-20: No. 11, Implementation of the Digital Continuity 2020 Policy: across entities; No. 12, Award of funding under the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development; Department of Industry, Innovation and Science; and No. 13, Implementation of the My Health Record system: Australian Digital Health Agency; Department of Health. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Documents made parliamentary papers in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018. DOCUMENTS 75 DOCUMENTS Presentation 75 15:24 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 75 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Questions in Writing 75 15:25 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland In accordance with standing order 105(b) I ask that you write to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to seek reasons for the delay in answering question 125, which was placed on the Notice Paper on 9 September 2019. 15:25 The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the member for Shortland and I will so write this afternoon. BILLS 75 BILLS Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019 75

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019

Second Reading 75 15:25 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019. Australian families rely on the childcare subsidy scheme to afford appropriate care for their children while they themselves are in the workforce. It is important for Australian children, it is important for Australian families and it is important for the Australian economy that parents are able to be employed. The current childcare system was introduced by the government in July 2018. Since that time, it has become very obvious that there are significant design faults within the current system and high administrative burdens being placed on families and providers. There have been delays, there's been confusion and there's been an abundance of paperwork flowing through the current system. Registering for the childcare subsidy requires onerous paperwork to be completed. Many families, after successfully completing the paperwork, have been hit with a debt as the childcare subsidy entitlement has been overestimated, resulting in an overpayment. For families working on a budget, being faced with a debt notice by a government agency is highly stressful. The department is being forced to act as a debt collector. Robodebt notices are going to families, with many of them not actually owing any money. In Senate estimates last week, the Department of Education confirmed that 91,840 families, or 16 per cent—yes, 16 per cent—have so far been hit with a childcare subsidy debt. The system is complex, it lacks transparency, it has dodgy IT and families have been hit with debts that they can't verify. Many families are worse off under the current system. The government's own figures estimated that one in four Australian families would be worse off under the system brought in by Prime Minister Morrison. Families who are trying to access the additional childcare subsidy, the child wellbeing payment, most of whom are vulnerable and at-risk families, are finding the new system very difficult. The number of children accessing the child wellbeing payment fell by over 20 per cent in the first few months of the new system. More recent data shows there are still fewer children approved for this payment than before the commencement of this brainchild of the coalition government. And child care has become more expensive under this new system. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government claimed the new childcare system would put downward pressure on fees. However, what has actually transpired? The latest CPI figures show that childcare fees increased by 2.5 per cent in the September quarter, the fourth successive increase, and have now gone up by seven per cent since last September. Have wages gone up by seven per cent in the last year? I can assure you they have not. In fact, we've got under the Morrison government the lowest wages growth since they started measuring wages growth. Fees have increased by 30 per cent since the Liberal government was first elected. Here we are in the seventh year of this dreadful travesty that is the coalition government. There is clearly a problem with the current system, despite the government for months denying that there's any problem whatsoever. And, in what is increasingly becoming their usual style—the advertising flim-flam approach to governing—the government tabled this bill without any warning or any consultation. Nonetheless, this bill does improve a couple of the technical design flaws in the system that the Morrison government rolled out. However, there is one amendment in this bill that raises serious concern. Currently, families have 28 days after a childcare subsidy claim is submitted to provide their bank account details and tax file number. In some cases debt notices have been sent to families where the payment has been made but the details have not been provided in the time frame. This amendment will require families to provide those details at the time of the claim being submitted. The coalition government argues that this amendment is necessary so that families will not accrue a debt for not providing their details within the time frame. I'm concerned that these families, who are eligible for the childcare subsidy for early learning and care, are being denied the support they need for urgent care simply because they don't have immediate access to their personal information. The committee report on this bill reveals submissions to the inquiry were overwhelmingly concerned about the negative impact this change could have on families in difficult circumstances. It's not hard to think of a situation where a family may not have immediate access to their personal information—for example, the classic case, which I've encountered as an MP, is of a parent and children fleeing family violence or a family who has been caught up in a natural disaster, which also is a phenomenon I'm very familiar with in Queensland. As we've heard from the insurance companies, the scientists and most sensible farmers, we know that there'll be more and more natural disasters coming our way. Early Childhood Australia, in their submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, pointed out that for families experiencing difficult circumstances this amendment would be detrimental and harsh. They explained that even though some of these families may be able to access the additional childcare subsidy immediately, that will only be possible where the family has disclosed their circumstances. In some situations the parents will not be comfortable disclosing their personal circumstances, nor will they be comfortable being assessed for the additional childcare subsidy. This amendment makes the childcare system less flexible and less accessible for families who may already be in the midst of a stressful, difficult situation. This amendment may make it more convenient for the Department of Human Services, but where it rolls out, where the rubber meets road, it will actually increase the burden on families trying to access early learning and care for their children. This amendment is unreasonable and lacks compassion and understanding about how vulnerable families actually work. Labor believes the bill should be amended to retain the current 28-day grace period for providing personal information to better meet the needs of families and providers, and I urge the minister to consider that. Labor notes that the coalition government is proposing to amend the bill in the Senate to provide exemptions from the new rules for families in crisis. Labor will not oppose the government's amendment but believes that the proposal put forward by Labor's shadow minister is a simpler and less complex solution. 15:32 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I also rise today to speak on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019, and I too support the amendment to be moved by the shadow minister, the member for Kingston. This bill seeks to make a number of changes to the current childcare system to reduce some of the administrative burdens on families, including increasing the number of weeks at which enrolments automatically cease due to nonattendance, removing the 50 per cent limit on the number of children that a provider can self-certify for additional childcare subsidy and improving the application of the third-party contributions to fees, such as state and territory payments. As others on this side of the House have stated, Labor supports the aforementioned amendments in this bill. However, we oppose one amendment that could potentially have negative impacts on families who already face difficult circumstances. The proposed removal of the 28-day period in which applicants have to provide personal information, including their tax file number and bank account details, could reduce access to early learning and make it much harder for vulnerable families to register for the childcare system. We do not support this aspect of the bill. Indeed, we seek to protect access to early education and eligibility for the childcare subsidy by retaining the 28-day period for the provision of bank account and tax file numbers. Labor has always invested in education because we believe that education is the greatest investment we can make to the future of our children and our country. On this side of the House, we know that quality early education leads to a range of so many better outcomes, whether they be education, social or health outcomes. Quality education literally lays down the foundations for life. It's not just Labor that's telling this story. There is widely published research that clearly states that investing in our children's early years leads to a significant return later in life. Studies have shown that children who attended preschool had significantly better reading and maths scores in primary school and better results at age 16. We also know that those children who receive quality early education have higher language and cognition NAPLAN scores in year 3. Children who attend early learning have better success, are more likely to graduate from high school and have better social outcomes. The research confirms that the benefits are, indeed, higher for those vulnerable children. That's why, on this side, we're very proud of our history of investing in early education. Two of the many critical policies that we implemented in government were the national preschool program for four-year-olds and the national quality framework. The preschool program has been a critical policy achievement. Indeed, universal access led by the Labor government has seen enrolments of four-year-olds in preschools increase from 77 per cent to 93 per cent. We backed this preschool commitment with a national quality agenda in order to lift educational quality and safety standards in those early years. The quality framework is also a success story, with 57 per cent of services having improved their quality rating when reassessed, and 75 per cent of services now meeting or exceeding the national quality standard. Australia's four-year-olds are now enjoying the benefit of universal access, and children attending early learning centres and preschools are enjoying getting so much out of the play based learning environment and being educated by qualified early learning educators. I, like many members here, am always able to visit many of the wonderful preschools and childcare centres in our areas. I was pleased recently to visit Gumnuts Early Learning and Preschool in Pottsville as part of the Early Learning Matters Week. I saw firsthand the positive impacts of what we feel is our legacy and our investment in preschool and child care. I want to take this opportunity to applaud those early educators at Gumnuts and, indeed, at childcare centres right across the north coast. I have visited many over the years. They provide such valuable care and support to families in our community. I'd like to recognise the important work they do in laying down the foundation for our children's future. Every day, early childhood educators across the country are carrying out the extraordinarily important work of teaching and caring for our children. It's thanks to them that families can really feel secure that their children are not also being properly cared for but also that they're receiving a very high-quality early education. We know that 90 per cent of a child's brain develops in those first five years, so the quality learning experiences provided by the early educators can have such a positive impact on a child throughout the rest of their education and their life. We recognise early educators as very skilled professionals and we value the important work they do in laying down that foundation. As I said, Labor has been and will always continue to be committed to early childhood development. In contrast, though, we see a very shocking record from this government—which continues to get worse—when it comes to early education and early childhood development. In terms of this bill and the concerns that we've raised, as we've said, it does improve some of the technical design and some of the flaws and problems in the system. As I said, we look forward to supporting the parts of this bill that can make the system better by reducing some of those administrative burdens on providers and families. However, as I mentioned earlier, there is one part that does raise very serious concerns. The government argues that some of the items will simplify the system for families and providers. Amendments require bank account and tax file number details to be provided at the time that a claim is made and not at any other time. Currently, parents and caregivers have 28 days after they've submitted their CCS claim to provide their details. In fact, the government's changes will remove the 28-day time frame. This really does raise concerns about the ability of some families to provide this information. It raises concerns about the impacts it may have on families who are facing difficult circumstances and who, for a whole host of reasons, may not have access to their personal documentation. Families and caregivers who may be experiencing domestic violence or who may be victims of a natural disaster should not be disadvantaged. Removing the 28-day period is unreasonable and lacks compassion. It does not understand the circumstances that many families may find themselves in. The fact is, some families may not be able to access the urgent care that they need for their children, because they just don't have access to that personal information. This aspect could also result in a debt to families when CCS payments are made without information being provided within the required time frame. Indeed, a number of submissions to the recent inquiry by the Education and Employment Legislation Committee into this bill make the point that this change will actually remove flexibility currently in the system, and that it is designed to reduce complexity in the system for the government but not for the families or the providers. The proposed changes might reduce the administrative burden for the department, but they will increase the administrative burden for families. In fact, it will make it very difficult for families to provide that information. The reduced flexibility will also have a disproportionately negative impact on families experiencing vulnerability or disadvantage—in particular, women and children escaping domestic and family violence who, as I said, absolutely cannot access that personal information. Removing the 28-day period and blocking families from registering for the CCS without their bank account or tax file number details immediately available will also reduce access to early learning that is so vitally important. So, as I said, it is, first and foremost, unreasonable and does really lack compassion for the circumstances that many vulnerable families find themselves in. Labor doesn't believe the administrative convenience of the government should be above the needs of families and providers. Those families should come first; those children should come first and get access to that care. We believe the bill should be amended to retain the current 28-day grace period for providing personal information to better meet the needs of families and providers. In talking about the current childcare subsidy system, this government's unfair system was introduced with a multitude of problems, and months on from that introduction of this government's unfair childcare changes the evidence continues to mount about the negative impact that it's having on families right across the nation. According to the government's own figures, we know their childcare changes have left one in four families worse off. We know that vulnerable and at-risk families are finding it harder to access early learning. We know there are so many systemic design flaws and administrative burdens on families, and burdens on providers too have become apparent. There's a very long list, including software glitches leaving families and providers in the dark, two out of three providers saying the transition has been poorly managed, educators going without pay because of problems with the system, an exodus of providers from in-home care, childcare providers being forced to act as debt collectors for Centrelink, the number of vulnerable and at-risk children accessing care dropping more than 20 per cent and, of course, childcare fees going up under the new system. They've increased a staggering 30 per cent under this government. There are so many problems from technical glitches right through to the really concerning aspect of childcare fees going up. We know that the system itself is essentially very confusing. It's buried in red tape for many of the providers, and it has a lot of problems. Families and providers have experienced significant delays, confusion and additional paperwork to register for the CCS. This has often resulted in families' entitlements being over or underestimated, resulting in overpayments and debts for those affected families. So, in addition to leaving one in four families worse off, reports have revealed that families have received payments intended for providers, leaving many parents and caregivers with huge debts. Under the government's complicated new system, when families change their details in myGov, such as updating their income or activity, this changes their CCS payment amount. Providers, unaware of this payment change, are therefore billing parents incorrectly, creating a debt. As a result, Centrelink is then issuing a debt to providers, expecting them to seize this from families. There are even instances where centres are still having CCS withdrawn from their accounts by the government after accounts have closed and been reconciled after families leave providers. So it really is creating such a difficult situation right across the board both for the families and also for the providers. When we look at the impact on those in the regions, when we see the cost of living going up and childcare costs going up as well, it is quite extreme. As I said, a 30 per cent increase in childcare fees right across the country has had a major impact on families. In my electorate of Richmond, recent data shows fees have increased by up to 9.5 per cent over the last year to March 2019. That's a staggering amount. It is well above the average of 4.9 per cent. So it means those families in the regions who are already doing it tough are paying significantly more out of pocket for child care. This is, of course, at a time when we're seeing cost of living increasing and wages stagnating, and now families are finding it really difficult under ever increasing childcare fees. It's an issue they've raised with me many, many times. All of this evidence is overwhelming—the government's childcare system is, indeed, failing Australian families. Yet they continue to do nothing in terms of reining in those increased childcare costs—as they should be doing—and addressing all those systems. So we know those families are worse off, we know vulnerable and at-risk children are finding it harder to access early education and it seems the government is choosing to ignore a lot of the evidence and not act on it. We call on them to act to make child care much more affordable and much more accessible. It's so important for our children's future. We need to have the whole system improved. As I said, in terms of this bill, we support some of the measures the government has introduced but not the measure around removing the 28-day period. We want our vulnerable families to still get access to child care despite the very difficult circumstances that they find themselves in. 15:45 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak in support of the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill. In July 2018, the government introduced its childcare package. At the time, the minister described the package as the biggest reforms of child care since the introduction of the Commonwealth Child Care Act in 1972. It goes a little way, but I call on the government to do more. The purpose of the package introduced last year was to simplify what had become a complex childcare system for both users and the sector. My children are now teenagers, but I remember the difficulty, the red tape and the complexity of the system not that long ago. The two major reforms of the package introduce the childcare subsidy and the additional childcare subsidy, which will either fully replace or partly replace many of the previous payments. There are 1.1 million families who receive the subsidy, supporting the childcare needs of 1.6 million children. Funding allocated for 2019-20 will be $8.6 billion and this is expected to increase to $10 billion over the next few years. There are problems with the package introduced last year. Families and providers are experiencing significant delays, confusion and additional paperwork to register for the childcare subsidy, and childcare subsidy entitlements are often being overestimated or underestimated, leading in some cases to overpayments and debts for affected families. Often providers have had to act as debt collectors and, with the government commencing data matching with the Australian Taxation Office, families are being issued with unexpected debt notices. Providers, particularly those in my electorate, note there was much more flexibility and capability to support vulnerable and disadvantaged families prior to these changes. There is also considerable red tape in order to apply for the additional childcare subsidy. The vulnerable and disadvantaged families who most need access to a secure childcare environment—in particular, culturally and linguistically diverse Australians and families—struggle to navigate the system. The education department's March 2019 Child Care in Australia quarterly report also notes that the number of vulnerable and at-risk children who are accessing the wellbeing payment fell by over 20 per cent in the first few months of the new system, and the data shows that six per cent fewer children were approved for this payment compared to the same time last year. And despite claims that the new childcare system would put downward pressure on fees, fees actually increased by 4.9 per cent in the 12-month period to March 2019 and have increased 30 per cent since 2013. This is a huge cost and impost on working families. This bill amends the provision relating to childcare subsidy and additional childcare subsidy in response to the feedback from families and childcare providers and early findings from the childcare package evaluation. Specifically, key changes of the measures include extending the eight-week enrolment lapse rule to 14 weeks to avoid the re-enrolment process for children returning to care after eight weeks. This will be particularly beneficial for children who attend only during school holiday care periods and is a welcome measure. In-home care will be integrated with the CCS legislation rather than being in regulations, as is currently the case, with the subsidy available to parents and providers. The child wellbeing certificates will no longer be limited to 50 per cent of all children attending the service, with the 50 per cent rule being scrapped. This will enable providers to better meet the needs of children at risk of serious abuse and neglect. It will be a requirement that providers ensure that all educators have a current working-with-children check relevant to their state or territory, as well as their existing responsibility to inform the minister of the details of their working-with-children card and checks. Providers who made a mistake that leads to an overpayment of childcare subsidy to a family or are deemed to be responsible for an overpayment on review are liable for the debt to the Commonwealth, not the family. Overall, the proposed changes that the amendments bring to the family assistance legislation are a step in the right direction to improving some of the issues identified and they're broadly welcomed by the sector. But there are concerns about the removal of the 28-day time period provision. This is not a change that's supported by the sector. It provides that a family's bank details and tax file number must be provided at the time that a childcare subsidy claim is made, and not within the 28 days after the claim is made as under the current rule. As the Childcare Alliance points out, this change, alarmingly, will make an application process, which is already administratively burdensome for families, even more complex and far less flexible and will unfairly impact on families experiencing difficulties, especially for applicants in circumstances of domestic violence and in emergency situations. The minister has assured me that he's taken on board the serious concerns expressed about this measure and has tabled amendments to make an exception of this provision. I commend the minister for listening to the concerns and attempting to address the problem. However, the amendments still only provide that the secretary is to make a determination in some cases. The government's amendment are a minor remedy. I would strongly urge the minister to consider reinstating the 28-day period rule in the legislation. Given the government is open to consultation and listening to concerns of families accessing the childcare system and of providers, it's an opportunity to examine other reforms that will improve the system. These could include providing a minimum level of subsidised access for all children. Children are missing out on a minimum level of subsidised access because their families do not meet the activity test, reducing their capacity to afford early learning services. The activity test is difficult for all families to navigate and is unnecessarily complex, particularly for those families with varying work hours per fortnight, along with those not proficient in English. The turnaround time for families applying for a customer reference number and then the childcare subsidy can be up to two months. In addition, the current base provision of 24 hours per fortnight for low-income earners would better support the policy's objectives if increased to 36 hours. We could also ensure the currency of the childcare subsidy hourly rate. The subsidy is set at an hourly rate and is scheduled to increase annually in line with indexation. However, the indexation rate over the last two years has not kept up with the respective hourly rate increase for educators under the relevant awards, which means the scheduled childcare subsidy hourly rate increase does not necessarily keep up with the running costs for early learning service providers. The current exemption to the activity test for children accessing a preschool program in a centre-based long day care service has been a huge success. If extended to children in their two years before school it would provide more children with access to an early learning program from the age of three. We need to understand: where are we? Is Australia doing well in this space? The OECD have reported that Australian parents pay 31 per cent of their combined income towards child care. The average across the rest of OECD countries is 14½ per cent. Only 18 per cent of three-year-olds in Australia are in early childhood education compared to 70 per cent across the rest of the OECD. Australia's share of GDP devoted to early childhood education is 0.5 per cent and this is our future. There are many young parents in Warringah and the issue of the cost of child care is frequently raised with me. Child care and early childhood education and care is a very real barrier to parents' capacity to work and children's opportunities in the future. If we want to boost our economy—and that is certainly very topical—let's help parents fully participate in the workforce. We still have considerable gender inequity in the workplace, where more improvements are needed to decrease the cost of child care. Our children are our future. We need to ensure the best possible education outcomes are possible for them, and this starts from a very early age, in early childhood. Thank you. 15:54 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to speak on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019. I'm glad the Morrison government are building on their current childcare policy, because the childcare funding system that they introduced in July 2018 needs some work. Poor social policy design is becoming a hallmark of the Morrison government. We have robodebt, a system, now thankfully on hold, that has caused untold anxiety and suffering to thousands of Australians who have done nothing wrong. The implementation of the NDIS raises significant questions, and we've been hearing shocking evidence in Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme hearings over recent weeks. We have Newstart, a system that everyone but the Prime Minister admits is too poorly funded to enable people to support themselves while finding work—the key intent of this payment. And we have youth allowance, which is designed to support students to complete their education but sees them struggling to complete their studies while they try to support themselves with work. And now we have the childcare subsidy, a system that sends incorrect and punitive debts to parents of young children; a system that kicks recipients off at the earliest opportunity, creating an absurd administrative burden for parents; and a system that the government knew, from its own data, would leave one in four families worse off but decided to implement anyway. The Australian government will spend $8.6 billion on child care this year. It is a good thing for government to invest in as there is strong evidence to support the benefits of early-childhood education and care, including improvements to a child's education, social outcomes, gender equality and the economy. But when you are making an investment as significant as this—$8.6 billion—you need to make sure that the system is working and that everyone, including low-income Australians, is able to utilise the full potential of the system. Most importantly, you need to make sure that disadvantaged kids are getting an early-childhood education, because it has the potential to set them up for a better life. In spite of the federal government's sizeable investment in early-childhood education and care, it remains expensive and difficult to access for many families. This means the benefits are not being maximised for Australian children or the Australian economy. Furthermore, our early-childhood educators and workers are poorly paid despite the vital work they are doing shaping the young minds of our children. As the mother of a 21-month-old who spends time in early-childhood education and care, I have seen firsthand their wonderful work, their dedication to the children and how quickly these young minds are learning at that age. The reality for single parents, low-income parents and parents who do shiftwork or any hours outside the normal nine to five can find this a difficult system to navigate. The system created by the Morrison government clearly isn't designed for these people. Families and providers have experienced significant delays, confusion and additional paperwork to register for the childcare subsidy. This has often resulted in families' entitlements being overestimated or underestimated, resulting in overpayments and debts for affected families. Providers have been forced by the government to act as debt collectors, commencing data matching with the Australian tax office as families are being issued with unexpected debt notices. As confirmed in Senate estimates, 91,840 families, or 16 per cent of families who access the childcare subsidy, have received debt notices. When 16 per cent of users have accrued a debt, you know the system isn't working properly. And, like other Australians hit with a debt notice, parents are often unable to verify the debt and end up eating into their household budgets to pay it back, whether the debt is legitimate or not. You would think the government would have learnt from their robodebt disaster, but they are too out of touch with the average Australian family and how they go about managing their budgets. The average Australian household isn't well placed to cover an unexpected debt like the ones being sent out by the childcare system. Furthermore, our childcare providers shouldn't be forced into acting as debt collectors; they are educators. After months of refusing to act, the government tabled this bill without warning or consultation. So now, through a process of amendment, the Labor Party, through our shadow minister for early-childhood education, Amanda Rishworth, is pursuing changes to the bill that the sector and Australian parents are calling for. The government's childcare subsidy system wasn't designed for the realities of Australian families. This bill increases the number of weeks at which enrolments automatically cease due to non-attendance from eight to 14 weeks. Currently, parents across the country have to re-enrol their child following breaks in attendance at child care, especially families using vacation care during school holidays. Re-enrolment requires again engaging with Centrelink, and it is well known how much of a struggle engaging with Centrelink can be. The sector has long been calling for this change, and this change will reduce the administrative burden for parents and reduce the administrative burden for Centrelink. Any reduction in the workload of Centrelink is a good thing at the moment and will certainly benefit other recipients of social security and the wait times they currently endure. The bill will remove the 50 per cent limit on the number of children that a provider can self-certify for the additional childcare subsidy child wellbeing payment. This is a positive change that resolves issues for services that enrol significant numbers of children at risk. The sector is pleased with this change. It is my view that we must do everything we can to ensure that disadvantaged kids get an early childhood education because early childhood education is transformative. The benefits of an early childhood education are well known, particularly for disadvantaged children. James Heckman, a noble laureate in economics, found that investment in early childhood education for disadvantaged children improves their economic and health outcomes throughout their lives. It also delivers a seven to 10 per cent return on government investment every year for the rest of that person's life. In Australia, PricewaterhouseCoopers has estimated that investing in child care for disadvantaged children could boost the Australian economy by $10.3 billion per year. However, the government's own data shows that the childcare system introduced last year has reduced the number of vulnerable and at-risk children accessing early childhood education. The number of children accessing the child wellbeing payment fell by over 20 per cent in the first months of the new system. Thankfully, these figures have corrected to an extent in the latest data from March, but there are still six per cent fewer children approved for this payment compared to the same time last year, prior to the Morrison government's changes to the system. The system was supposed to make child care more accessible. It is clear this hasn't been achieved. Unfortunately, as someone who has observed the work of conservative governments on social security systems, I am unsurprised. Conservatives always degrade the equality-boosting elements of public policy. For those on the other side who criticise this statement, I'll point to your government's claim that the new childcare system would put downward pressure on childcare fees. The latest CPI figures show childcare fees increased by 2.5 per cent in the September quarter, the fourth successive increase, and have gone up by seven per cent since last September. Fees have increased by 30 per cent since the Liberal government was first elected. Where is the money for this massive increase supposed to come from? Wages have stagnated. How does the government expect Australian families to cover this gap? We need to be helping Australians to build their families, not penalising them. Many of the states and territories have identified that targeted spending on early childhood education is an investment in the future of their jurisdiction and the people who live within it. In a competitive global economy, it is crucial that our children receive a world-class education. Ultimately, educating our kids from earlier in their lives will help us achieve this and help Australia to develop the workforce of the future. As such, this bill will improve the application of third party contributions to fees, such as state and territory payments. Currently, the Commonwealth requires state and territory assistance to be applied to fees before the childcare subsidy is calculated, thus reducing the CCS entitlement and potentially leaving families with out-of-pocket costs. The change will allow state and territory fee assistance to apply after the CCS calculation and allow the state to effectively eliminate out-of-pocket costs for vulnerable families as per the policy intent. Parents who utilise the childcare system know the process for registering for the childcare subsidy and making a claim is more difficult than it should be. However, one element of the system acknowledged these realities. Currently, applicants are able to register for the CCS without providing their tax file number and/or bank account details, and they have 28 days to provide this information to Centrelink. For families experiencing difficult circumstances—circumstances which mean that this information isn't readily at hand, such as families fleeing domestic violence or families wanting to retain some normality like child care whilst in the midst of a natural disaster—this leeway enables them to get their kids into child care while they sort out their lives and find the necessary documentation. However, this bill wants to remove the 28-day period in which applicants may provide these details. The government argues that this will simplify the system for families and providers; however, the sector is extremely concerned about this change, and I am extremely concerned about the families who need this provision. Furthermore, the government's own majority report from the inquiry of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee expressed concern about the impact of these changes. The government believes that this change will simplify the system for families and providers and prevent families from accruing debt, but there needs to be a better way of ensuring this. We should be putting the needs of parents above the administrative ease of government departments. I'm concerned about the children who will miss a month of child care, or perhaps never get enrolled, because this leeway has been taken away for the convenience of administrators. Removing the 28-day period and blocking families from registering for the childcare subsidy without this information will reduce access to early learning and is unreasonable and lacking in compassion. I'm also concerned for the providers who are trying to manage this situation. Labor notes that the government is proposing to amend the bill in the other place to provide exemptions from the new rules for families in crisis. Labor will not oppose the government's amendment, but I believe our amendment is a simpler, less complex solution. The government could have done so much more with this bill. There are so many more things we could do in our childcare system with the $8.6 billion we invest every year. For one, the activity test is not right. Parents must predict their hours of work within the reporting system. Parents who work casual or irregular hours or parents who are self-employed can struggle to do this accurately and can receive debt notices if their work doesn't take place as anticipated. Further, parents with a disability or who are suffering from serious illness must be constantly vigilant and adapt to an unforgiving system. You'd think that the Liberals would at least be in touch with small business, as they so often claim to be, but small-business owners are reporting that they find it very difficult to receive the childcare subsidy they are eligible for. The government needs to do better to create a more user-friendly system for all of these groups of people. In my view, Australia still hasn't found the right solution for child care. It doesn't work for families, it doesn't work for parents, it doesn't give children the best start in life and it doesn't provide stable and well-paying work for childcare workers. This morning we saw the launch of the report State of early learning in Australia 2019 from Early Childhood Australia. This is a fantastic report that lays out the evidence of the need for quality childhood education and care and what it contributes to our youngest Australians. But what has raised a lot of concern among those speaking this morning was that becoming an early childhood educator—such an important job—is not an attractive option for people who want to be involved in educating our children, because the pay and conditions are inadequate and it is not something that presents a future progression. We need to find a way to better recognise this very important contribution to our society, which, as I said before, I've seen firsthand in the education and care of my young son—including his being taught to have his naps, which I've not managed at home. We can do better than the Morrison government's childcare subsidy. We can actually achieve the outcomes that the Morrison government promised but failed to achieve within this program. Early childhood education is going to change the lives of Australians and it is going to push back against the creep of inequality in this country. Unfortunately, it's not yet doing this to the extent that it could. The Morrison government's childcare subsidy needs to be better than it currently is and better than this amendment is going to make it. 16:08 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta The Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019 was tabled without warning or consultation with the opposition. Nevertheless, it does improve on a range of things concerning the new childcare system, which was introduced in July 2018. I suspect this bill, as one of the many administrative bills this government has presented to the parliament, has been prepared essentially by the department, as many administrative bills are. When you look at what the government has been doing over the last seven years—and this is a third-term government—what you find, relative to what we've seen from past governments, is an extraordinary number of administrative bills and very little else. It's as if the government has had its finger firmly on the pause button. Departments have been going about fixing up things that went wrong with past legislation, putting together the kinds of bills that we always see them put together. But it's hard to find the bills before this parliament that are about vision: anything that ennobles, or enables growth—anything at all. Nearly all the legislation we see in this parliament is this kind of administrative bill, essentially prepared by the departments, or bills that persecute: drug-testing welfare recipients, the cashless debit card, trying to make pensioners work until they're 70—you name it. There are punitive and vindictive bills, and administrative bills, but virtually nothing else. Here we have, once again, one of those administrative bills. I have spoken to a number of people in the public sector, actually—and I won't say who they are! They commented what a pleasure it is to actually get their administrative bills through. Those of us who have been in the parliament under previous governments know that these bills are quite often pushed down the agenda because more important bills—those to do with vision and growth, and things that make the country and the economy stronger—tend to get pushed up. But the departments are having a field day at the moment; their bills are all getting through. If we look at the speakers lists over time we can see this pattern emerging absolutely. On the speakers list today, government members aren't even bothering to speak on four of the six pieces of legislation. They're not even bothering to speak, because these are clearly purely administrative bills, even though, as I said earlier, these administrative changes are quite important because they fix problems in earlier bills. The new childcare system that was introduced in July 2018 had problems. We said so at the time and the sector said so at the time, and those problems have been apparent. Over the last 12 months we have seen a number of systemic design flaws, and administrative burdens on families and providers have been absolutely apparent. The government has denied that there was a problem—it denied it right up until the moment this administrative bill was tabled in the parliament. Now they're not even bothering to speak on it: they're absent. But we on this side will speak on this bill, because child care is an incredibly important matter. It's important for the children—incredibly important for the children. Anybody in this House who has children or grandchildren knows that you can watch the milestones of a child in child care. You can watch them developing; it's quite extraordinary. And we have, essentially, a very good system with some very qualified and well-trained childcare workers. But there were a number of flaws. The substantive aspects of the bill will increase the number of weeks at which enrolments automatically cease through nonattendance from eight to 14. At the moment, if your child doesn't attend for eight weeks then you have to re-enrol through Centrelink. That means that families using childcare centres for the school holidays, for example, where their child goes there for the school holidays and then is off for eight weeks, have to re-enrol. It's one of those unnecessary burdens on both the centre and the child, and this bill removes that by increasing it to 14 weeks. That's a big improvement, and the sector has been calling for that change since the changes were made in July 2018. It also removes the 50 per cent limit on the number of children that a provider can self-certify for additional childcare subsidy, which is about the child's wellbeing. This is also a positive change, because it resolves issues for services that enrol significant numbers of children at risk. There are centres which are located in places where there are large numbers of children at risk; many of us have suburbs or parts of our electorates where that is the case. Again, the sector has been calling for this. It's pleased with this change, and we on this side are pleased to support it in getting that change through. The third one is to improve the application of third-party contributions to fees. State and territory governments quite often make payments as well, but currently, under the system from July 2018, the Commonwealth requires that state or territory assistance be applied to fees before the childcare subsidy is calculated, thus reducing the CCS entitlement. In other words, it transfers who pays from Commonwealth to state; it doesn't make the family better off. This change will allow the assistance to apply after the calculation, to allow the state to effectively eliminate out-of-pocket costs for vulnerable families. That was always the policy intent, so the requirement that it be taken into account before the subsidy was calculated effectively wiped out that policy intent and simply transferred the cost from one level of government to another. There is also a change in the process for registering for the childcare subsidy. Currently, applicants are able to register without providing their tax file number or bank account details, and they have 28 days to provide this information to Centrelink. The changes here will remove that 28-day period. You've heard many speakers on this side say that we think that's problematic. There will be families who, because of their circumstances, will not necessarily have access to their records—families fleeing domestic violence, for example—but there may be other circumstances on which it's extremely difficult for a family to find that information as required and we wouldn't on this side want to see children excluded from child care and the parents unable to work because they couldn't actually provide this information within 28 days. Twenty-eight days is reasonable. We haven't seen evidence that there's a whole stack of families ripping off the taxpayer for 28 days when they had no intention of providing their TFN. We haven't got any examples of that. So it seems to be, again, a punitive move without any real benefit. The government introduced the childcare system, as I said before, in July 2018. Families and providers since then have experienced significant delays, confusion and additional paperwork to register for the childcare subsidy, and this has often resulted in families' entitlements being over- or underestimated, resulting in overpayments and debts for affected families. Once again, the government is data matching with the Australian tax office and providers have been forced by the government to act as debt collectors if families are overpaid. I want to go back to some things I said early on, when these changes were first made in July 2018, and talk about the complexity in this system. I'm a fairly smart person. I'm good with maths. If I had a full-time paid job or my family received full-time work and we had $65,000 or $70,000 a year, this system that was introduced would actually be quite good for me. It provides a higher level of subsidy. It's quite consistent. It's actually quite good. But I want you to consider what happens to families where one or both parents—or single families with just a sole parent—have sporadic or casual work. People that I meet sometimes in my electorate tell me that they find out at six or seven in the morning each day whether they're working that day. They can't project their annual earnings. They can't even project their weekly earnings. And yet the requirement in this is that you meet two conditions that determine your payment. The first one is how many hours you work; families will receive 36 hours per fortnight when both parents undertake activity for eight to 16 hours per fortnight. If you think you're going to be working for eight to 16 hours per fortnight for a couple then you receive 36 hours per fortnight. But, for many families, sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. For many families, it's impossible to hold their working hours within that frame. There's also that the subsidy rate changes depending on your annual income. If a family earns up to $65,710 per family—and these figures may have been adjusted in the last year, but these were them at the time—then you get 85 per cent, but, if you earn $65,000 to $170,000, it tapers down and eventually gets to 50 per cent if you earn from over $170,000 to up to $250,000. In order to get your childcare subsidy right at the time you register, you have to know what your annual income is likely to be and you have to know what your range of hours is likely to be. You can imagine a couple where one or both parents are working some casual hours where they suddenly hit the next threshold unexpectedly. At the end of the year they suddenly get a dream job and then, instead of their $65,000 estimate being right, they hit 70 and, instead of being entitled to 85 per cent, are only entitled to a lesser subsidy. I would dare anybody in this room who lives a life of casual and sporadic work or who is trying to get back into work, trying to increase their hours or seeking promotion to sit down at the beginning of the year and actually calculate within this ridiculous framework what their actual childcare subsidy should be. I would dare anybody. That could be why, now that the data matching is going on, there are so many families being hit with debt. In Senate estimates last month, the Department of Education confirmed that 91,840 families—16 per cent of families—have been hit with a childcare subsidy debt so far, and it's not over yet. The system is complex, lacks transparency and has substandard IT, and families are being hit with unexpected debt that they then have to verify. Again, I would dare, in spite of your best efforts to keep your payslips and all the rest of it, anybody who's working casual work, taking whatever work they can get or moving in and out of the workforce to actually keep records or project at all. This debt issue is particularly worrying when we have a government that made such a stuff-up of what is known as robodebt. Not everybody knows what robodebt is. It's called robodebt because it's done automatically. For Centrelink payments there's an automatic matching of ATO data and your Centrelink payments. If they don't match, a letter is automatically sent to you telling you that you have a debt—that's the 'robo' bit of it. Then it's up to the person who receives that letter to prove that they don't owe a debt. This is an extraordinary botch-up, because, unlike the childcare subsidies, which are actually calculated on your annual income, Centrelink payments are calculated on your fortnightly income. You could be on Newstart for the first three months of the year. Quite appropriately, you're telling Centrelink if you get a few hours of work, and they're adjusting your Centrelink payment and everything's correct. Then, towards the end of the financial year, you get a job—totally legitimate; you're supposed to do that. Suddenly you earn income. Maybe you earn $20,000 in the rest of that year. Maybe in the last seven months of the year you get a job, you go off Centrelink benefits, you get paid and you earn $20,000 that year. The data matching with the ATO then takes that $20,000 and averages it out over the year, which is not the way the calculation works. This was never going to work. This is ridiculous. It was a ridiculous idea to start with. The shocking thing about it is that the person who receives the letter then has to prove the government wrong. In this data matching, the government has reached back sometimes seven to 10 years. You don't have to keep your paperwork more than seven years. Again, I would dare anybody, if you suddenly had to prove to the government's standards that you didn't owe debt from seven years ago from when you had casual work or had a job where the business is no longer in business—it's incredibly difficult. That's what robodebt is. Now, finally, after a year of people saying it was terrible, with case after case that was clearly a stuff-up by this government, they are finally suspending it while they have a look at it. I suspect that in a year's time, when the 16 per cent of families that have so far been hit with a childcare subsidy debt grows as the rest of the families are covered, we will once again find family after family who, through no fault of their own, who tried to do everything right, are suddenly hit with crippling debts. Many families, particularly low-income families and many middle-income families, would find it very difficult to handle an unexpected debt, particularly when they did everything they could to get it right. I would really ask the government to reconsider what they're doing with this. These changes are essentially good, but there are a lot more problems with the system that you have that you really must address. 16:23 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise in support of the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019. The bill makes a range of technical improvements to childcare subsidy arrangements, and I will touch briefly upon two of them. One of the adjustments in the bill extends the time frame for the cancellation of a child's enrolment at child care or an after-hours school care facility from eight weeks out to 14 weeks. Currently, parents who only use child care during school holidays have to re-enrol every time a holiday period comes around. I would like to thank the minister for the shout out to the Woodside Primary School Out of School Hours Care, the Woodside OSHC. The Woodside OSHC is very proactive and presented me with a petition signed by 20 parents calling for these changes. I'm very appreciative of not only the minister's shout out but, of course, these particular changes that will affect many in my community. They told me—this is the Woodside OSHC—that extending the time frame would ease the stress of having to enrol a fortnight before each holiday break and ease having to go through the stress and wasted time involved in dealing with slow department bureaucracy. I was more than happy to write to the Minister for Education about the problem and submit formal questions in writing to his office, and I thank the minister for recognising this issue and addressing this issue in the bill. The second element of this bill that I'd like to discuss is the amendments to be moved by the minister in the House. The removal of the 28-day grace period for providing tax file numbers and bank account details in order to receive childcare subsidies has caused some concern in the House. In particular, there are concerns—and these are concerns which I share—that the most vulnerable subsidy claimants, such as those facing domestic violence or suffering from natural disasters, will be significantly disadvantaged by the removal of the grace period. I would like to thank the minister for working constructively with my office to find a middle way through. The proposed amendments would allow for discretion to be exercised in the case of exceptional circumstances for people in vulnerable circumstances, and I understand that the minister will be detailing some of the examples where the discretion would apply to give the House a sense of the kinds of protections and exemptions that will apply to people in vulnerable circumstances. We need to make sure that we provide that to people in those circumstances. I won't delay the House any further. I urge the House to support the government's amendments, and I commend the bill to the House. 16:26 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi Child care is not an add-on or a nice-to-have; it's an essential service in a community where we want a thriving economy and maximum workforce participation. For parents, it allows them to work, to train or to study, to open doors and to provide for their families. For children, it keeps them safe and healthy, assists their development and builds their skills for school and into the future. In June last year the government introduced the new childcare package, which it described as the most significant change to the early-learning and childcare system in 30 years. The bill we are discussing today, the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019, is required to address some of the unintended consequences—some might say teething problems—of the childcare package, including any unnecessary regulatory burden. These changes have come about based on the feedback from families in the childcare sector about concerns and possible improvements to the childcare package. They also reflect some of the findings of the interim report that the government commissioned. I recognise the government's efforts in listening to the feedback of the families' childcare providers in developing these amendments. It's this commitment to consultation on this momentous reform to childcare support that makes sure this reform reflects reality and delivers what it sets out to do. In child care, it's important that the voice of the user of the service is adequately reflected. As the Independent member for Indi, I see my role as to neither support nor oppose whatever the government does and to look at legislation on its merits. I see my role as advocating for sensible, evidence based policy that addresses the needs of Indi and the needs of Australia. On this bill, I did consult with people affected by the bill to see whether it is realistic and will make lives better for families with children in child care. I sought the views of leading childcare providers and asked if the proposed changes were administratively burdensome for providers or, indeed, for families. I'm pleased to say that the providers were firmly in support of the amendments and reported that they would welcome them once the bill came into play. They're satisfied that the amendments, particularly the two main amendments, will improve the new childcare package system. The first is to extend the time frame for ceasing enrolments due to nonattendance from eight to 14 weeks. This will mean that children who use child care only during school holidays will not need to go through the tiresome paperwork of being re-enrolled every time. On this change, my constituents told me that this amendment will lessen the administrative burden for both the services and the parents. I recognise the work of the member for Mayo and her persistence in advocating on behalf of the Woodside Primary School out-of-school-hours care service for this really commonsense solution. The second amendment removes the 50 per cent limit on the number of children that childcare providers can certify for additional childcare subsidy. As we know, the additional childcare subsidy is a top-up payment, in addition to the childcare subsidy, which provides targeted additional fee assistance to families and children facing barriers in accessing affordable child care. However, the 50 per cent cap has created unnecessary regulatory burdens for providers and caused delays for at-risk children accessing child care. My constituents told me that the removal of this cap will allow more flexibility for services to offer places for additional childcare subsidy children. I'm pleased to support these amendments and the remainder of the bill. I do, however, wish to recommend that the government consider one further change to the childcare package system. This proposal has come from my constituent Tanya Scott, the CEO of Alpine Children's Services. Alpine Children's Services occupies places in Bright, Mount Beauty and Myrtleford. She's called for the childcare subsidy to be extended to children who need a second year of kindergarten, the year before school, where their parents do not meet the activity test. Currently, there is an exemption from the activity test for one year for parents of kindergarten children, whereby they're still eligible to receive childcare subsidy based on their income only. For children who would benefit from an additional year of kindergarten the removal of CCS from the second year means that these children are being pushed to school when they're not socially, emotionally or educationally ready. We know that the best start a child can get to school is if they're ready to start. Removing this restriction would be advantageous. I would recommend that the government consider this amendment, and I'll pursue this with the minister. Thriving childcare services are critical everywhere, particularly in rural and regional areas, where they build community sustainability. Having services locally means that young families are able to live and work locally. If these childcare centres close then the community loses a main hub. Once the local childcare centre closes down, the parents must take their children somewhere else, which removes their connection with their local community. It leads to a flow-on effect with the child entering schooling in another town and subsequent potential school closures in their home town. It reduces employment opportunity for skilled childcare professionals and, indeed, for primary teachers, contributing ultimately to the desertification of small country towns. The sustainability of rural and regional providers can be challenging given the low numbers of children enrolled on an ongoing basis and the sometimes transient populations in these communities, which makes it difficult for providers to plan ahead. The government has recognised that providers in rural and regional areas sometimes do it tough and offer support through the Community Child Care Fund, or the CCCF. The CCCF provides grants to childcare services to reduce barriers to accessing child care, particularly in disadvantaged, regional or remote communities. Minister Tehan's office has advised me that under the CCCF the government is providing $333 million to eligible providers to continue to operate. The majority of these providers are in regional and remote Australia, and I'm really pleased to hear this. Last week, I was fortunate to see the Community Child Care Fund in action at the Bellbridge Early Years Learning Centre and see how important these targeted supports for rural and regional providers are, both for them and for their communities. I was delighted to get to see through a key piece of work which began before I was elected. In November last year, Albury Wodonga Community College announced that they would stop providing childcare services in the small community of Bellbridge, in the northern end of my electorate. Towong Shire Council stepped in and secured emergency funding, from education minister, Mr Dan Tehan, to keep Bellbridge open for another six months. In June this year the centre received an ongoing grant from the federal government's Community Child Care Fund, which will contribute to the centre's sustainability. I commend the work of my predecessor, Cathy McGowan, in working with the minister; the shire of Towong and, most importantly, the Bellbridge community, parents and friends who helped make this happen. I was so delighted to join the community of Bellbridge on Friday to celebrate this ongoing government funding along with the mayor of Towong Shire and a senior adviser from Mr Tehan's office—this demonstrates to me the seriousness with which the minister sees this issue, and I thank him for that. With certainty about their future and a guarantee of ongoing funding, the Bellbridge enrolment has grown from seven to 18. This is a story of success. However, we do have ongoing challenges in my electorate. Impending closures of Chiltern and Wodonga childcare services will leave families struggling to find alternatives, and people out of work, if another provider cannot be found before December 2020. Chiltern is a small community between Wangaratta and Wodonga, two regional cities with good job prospects. It has affordable housing and is attracting a growing number of families with young children. This is its only childcare service. The ramifications of closure will be wideranging. I understand that negotiations are ongoing to find a new provider; and I commend Indigo Shire, who are working very hard on the issue. In conclusion, I congratulate the government on these reforms and its ongoing commitment to quality, accessible and affordable child care. I am looking forward to seeing the final evaluation report of the package in 2021 and whether there is a reduction in out-of-pocket costs for families across Australia and particularly in my electorate of Indi. 16:35 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I thank those members who spoke on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019. The bill makes some important refinements to the operation of the government's childcare package that was implemented on 2 July 2018. It is clear that the government is delivering on its goal to create a more affordable, accessible and flexible childcare system. With this bill, we will also be making it easier for families and providers to use the childcare subsidy. Since last July, the government has proactively engaged with the industry and continued to listen to feedback from families and the childcare sector on what aspects of the childcare package have worked well, their concerns and what we could improve. I wish to thank the stakeholders for their continued and positive engagement with us. The key measures contained in this bill reflect feedback from families and childcare providers and will benefit them by making life easier by: extending the time frame for enrolments to be ceased due to a child's non-attendance at a service from eight to 14 weeks, reducing regulatory burden; providing more options for providers to deliver services by removing the limit on the number of children childcare providers can certify as being at risk of serious abuse or neglect to receive a higher rate of subsidy under the additional childcare subsidy, enabling services to be more responsive in assisting vulnerable and disadvantaged children in accessing child care; supporting families who have the most to gain by establishing the capacity for a small number of targeted payments made by third parties to be used in combination with the childcare subsidy to ensure cost is not a barrier to vulnerable and disadvantaged families accessing early learning and child care; supporting families with affordability by enabling parents to receive subsidies when their children are ill and cannot attend scheduled care at the start or end of an enrolment; and making life easier for families with a number of other refinements, corrections and consequential amendments to bring clarity to policy intent and achieve closer alignment with related state and territory laws. I note that the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee recommended that the Senate pass the bill and recognise that the measures in this bill will enable families to more easily participate in paid work by making child care more accessible, affordable and responsive to the needs of families and their circumstances. I also thank those who made submissions to the committee for their valuable feedback, and I thank colleagues who have spoken with me directly. I welcome the broad support for the measures in this bill and note suggested changes in relation to one measure in particular. As such, I will be moving a government amendment to allow individuals to request to give their or their partner's tax file number up to 28 days after making a childcare subsidy claim in special circumstances, and to obtain an indefinite exemption to providing their partner's tax file number in special circumstances. This amendment will benefit families by enabling the government to more appropriately respond to their individual circumstances and help them access a childcare subsidy earlier. For example, this may include those who are escaping domestic violence; are homeless, hospitalised or otherwise incapacitated; have recently been released from prison or psychiatric confinement; are affected by a recent death in the family; have lost their homes due to fire or floods; who do not have access to their tax file number due to their or their partner's location; or are experiencing other circumstances beyond their control that affect their ability to provide their or their partner's tax file number. If this amendment is passed, the changes in this bill will make life easier for families and childcare providers; support vulnerable and disadvantaged families' access to quality early learning and child care; and help parents access financial assistance to support their participation in the workforce. I thank members for their contributions to the key debate on important refinements to the operation of the government's childcare package. I commend the bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Consideration in Detail 88 16:40 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) together: (1) Schedule 1, items 35 to 38, page 10 (line 13) to page 11 (line 4), omit the items. (2) Schedule 1, items 41 and 42, page 11 (line 17) to page 12 (line 7), omit the items. (3) Schedule 1, items 50 and 51, page 13 (lines 5 to 18), omit the items. As I outlined in my contribution to the second reading debate, Labor supports this bill; however, we are concerned about the removal of the 28-day grace period. We do welcome the minister's foreshadowed amendments, but on the whole we think it would be much simpler to just continue with the 28-day grace period for families to provide their tax file number and bank account details. The government has claimed that the provision in this bill will simplify the system for families and providers, but unfortunately this is not supported with evidence. The amendments in the substantive bill require bank account details and a tax file number to be provided at the time the claim is made for the CCS and not at any other time. As previously mentioned, currently an individual has 28 days after the CCS claim is submitted to provide these details. When CCS payments are made without that information being provided within the required time frame, it can result in a debt for families. While the government argues it's trying to avoid families acquiring this debt, Labor notes that these families are indeed eligible for the childcare subsidy and for early learning and care, but may be unable to access urgent care because they don't have immediate access to their personal information. This has been substantiated and backed up by an overwhelming concern from the sector about the negative impacts that this change will have on families in particularly difficult circumstances who do not have immediate access to their personal documents. This could be families fleeing domestic violence or natural disasters who do not have time to grab their paperwork as they leave their house, but want their children to keep a routine and keep enjoying the benefits of early education. It could be recently arrived migrant families who haven't had a chance to get a bank account or tax file number, but who want to get their kids enrolled in an early learning setting. A number of submissions made the point that this change will actually remove the flexibility that is currently available in the system, and a bill that is designed to reduce complexity in the system could indeed increase complexity in the system. Early Childhood Australia, Goodstart Early Learning, the Australian Childcare Alliance, and the Early Learning and Care Council of Australia have all strongly opposed the removal of the 28-day period, arguing that removing this measure would be detrimental to vulnerable families. The proposed changes may reduce the administrative burden for the Department of Human Services, but they will increase the administrative burden for families and reduce flexibility. This will have a disproportionately negative impact on those families experiencing vulnerability or disadvantage. By removing the 28-day period and blocking families from registering for the CCS without a bank account or TFN details does reduce that immediate access to early learning. We don't believe that this is warranted or that the government has provided evidence for why this is absolutely necessary. As I said, we understand the government is moving amendments, but we believe that seeking an exemption from the Secretary of the Department of Education adds to the complexity for both centres and families to have to prove why they need the 28-day grace period. It seems a little overcomplicated, and really, when we're talking about 28 days—we're not talking about a year, or three months or six months; we're talking about a mere 28 days—it seems sensible that this grace period should be maintained. Therefore, I moved the amendments circulated in my name. The SPEAKER 00APG The question before the House is that amendments (1) to (3), as circulated and moved by the member for Kingston, be agreed to.

The House divided. [16:49]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 63 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hill, JC Husic, EN Kearney, G Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Mulino, D Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Payne, AE Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Thwaites, KL Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 74 NOES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Evans, TM Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Haines, H Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Marino, NB Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

16:54 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (4), as circulated, together. Leave granted. Mr TEHAN 210911 I move government amendments (1) to (4), as circulated, together: (1) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 12), after item 34, insert: 34A Section 67BE Before "A claim", insert "(1)". (2) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 22), after item 35, insert: 35A At the end of section 67BE Add: (2) The Secretary may make a written determination that paragraph (1)(d) does not apply in relation to a claim for 28 days after the day the determination is made, if the Secretary is satisfied that it is appropriate in the circumstances to do so. (3) If: (a) a determination under subsection (2) is made in relation to a claim; and (b) the Secretary is satisfied that it is appropriate in the circumstances that paragraph (1)(d) not apply in relation to the claim indefinitely; the Secretary may, before the end of the 28 days after the day the determination is made, make a further written determination accordingly. (3) Schedule 1, item 36, page 10 (lines 25 and 26), omit subsection 67BF(2), substitute: (2) A claim is taken not to have been made by an individual if: (a) the Secretary has made a determination under subsection 67BE(2) in relation to the claim; and (b) at the end of the 28 days after the day the determination was made: (i) if the Secretary has made a further determination under subsection 67BE(3) in relation to the claim—the individual has not provided the individual's tax file number; or (ii) if the Secretary has not made a further determination under subsection 67BE(3) in relation to the claim—the individual has not provided the tax file number of each TFN claim person. (3) The Secretary's rules may prescribe other circumstances in which a claim is taken not to have been made. (4) Schedule 1, item 41, page 11 (lines 26 to 30), omit paragraph 67CD(10)(b), substitute: (b) any of the following applies: (i) the Secretary has the tax file number of each TFN determination person; (ii) the Secretary made a determination under subsection 67BE(2) or (3) in relation to the individual's claim no more than 28 days ago; (iii) the Secretary made a request of the individual under section 67FG no more than 28 days ago; (iv) the Secretary has the tax file number of the individual and is satisfied that it is unreasonable in the circumstances for the individual to provide the tax file number of each TFN determination person other than the individual; Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 90 16:56 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Assistance and Access Amendments Review) Bill 2019 90

Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Assistance and Access Amendments Review) Bill 2019

Second Reading 90 16:56 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs Here we are again! This will be the fourth time that I've delivered a speech in this parliament about the measures that were introduced by the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018. Before I continue, it is worth recounting some history. Following its introduction into the parliament, on 20 September 2018, the assistance and access bill was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That committee, of which I was, and remain, a member, was in the process of carefully and methodically working its way through the very many problems with the bill, because, in the form in which it was originally introduced, the assistance and access bill was deeply flawed in many respects. When the bill was referred to the intelligence and security committee for inquiry and report, the government did not indicate a date by which the committee should report. That was appropriate given the degree of complexity of the measures that were introduced by that bill. However, on 22 November 2018, in the wake of a fatal terrorist attack in Melbourne, which killed one person, the Minister for Home Affairs wrote to the committee to ask it to 'accelerate its consideration of this vital piece of legislation to enable its passage by the parliament before it rises for the Christmas break'. The committee was understandably sceptical of the minister's request. My Labor colleagues and I were particularly sceptical in light of the fact that the Minister for Home Affairs had a clear political interest in ensuring that the assistance and access bill was not properly scrutinised by the committee. That was because every time the committee held a public hearing in respect of the bill we heard further embarrassing revelations about flaws in the bill and about the competence of the Minister for Home Affairs and his colleagues. To take just two shocking examples: first, it was revealed that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Commonwealth Ombudsman—the key Commonwealth oversight bodies—found out about the exposure draft of the assistance and access bill from media reports; second, the committee learned that the government, as well as failing to consult with key Commonwealth agencies, had failed to consult with any of the hundreds, and possibly thousands, of the small to medium-sized Australian businesses who could be significantly impacted by the onerous regulatory requirements the bill could impose on them. So rather than immediately acceding to the minister's request for the committee to expedite its inquiry by effectively shutting it down, the committee instead held urgent hearings with relevant agencies to gather evidence from them regarding the necessity and urgency of the proposed new powers. Following those hearings, the Joint Intelligence and Security Committee agreed to expedite its inquiry to facilitate the passage of the legislation before Christmas of 2018, but only if the legislation were substantially amended to address some of the key concerns that had by that time been raised by industry, by digital rights groups, by lawyers and by technology experts. To that end, the committee made 17 recommendations to improve the flawed legislation which the government had brought to the parliament. On 6 December 2018, the final sitting day of last year, the government introduced 173 amendments to the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 in response to the committee's recommendations. No reasonable person accepts the government's fanciful claim that the 173 amendments implemented the committee's recommendations in full. In fact, it was immediately apparent that the amendments which the government had deigned to bring before the parliament were seriously deficient in a number of respects. That is why Labor only agreed to support the passage of the assistance and access bill and the government's 173 amendments to it on the condition that, firstly, the new laws, as amended, be immediately referred to the Joint Intelligence and Security Committee for inquiry and report and, secondly, the government agreed to facilitate consideration of further amendments in early 2019 to ensure that the new laws fully conformed with the Joint Intelligence and Security Committee's recommendations. On behalf of the government, Senator Mathias Cormann agreed to those conditions. As recorded in Hansard, Senator Cormann also said that the government supported, in principle, all amendments that were consistent with the Joint Intelligence and Security committee's recommendations. But here we are, a year later, in the final sitting fortnight of 2019, and it remains the case that Senator Cormann and the government have not honoured the commitment that Senator Cormann made. It remains the case that the Morrison government continues to ignore the bipartisan recommendations made by the intelligence committee, continues to ignore the calls for reform of the now enacted legislation from industry and continues to ignore the very direct commitment that it made. That is not the only piece of unfinished business in relation to the assistance and access act. A number of submitters to the Joint Intelligence and Security Committee's inquiry argued that the bill was not compliant with the United States Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act—the CLOUD Act—which was enacted in March 2018. Under the US CLOUD Act, it is possible for Australia to enter into a bilateral agreement with the United States to allow Australian agencies to request the data of non-US persons, like text messages sent by or to a terrorist subject, from American technology companies directly. This new regime, if Australia is able to enter into a bilateral agreement with the United States, would give Australian agencies much faster access than under the existing regime of making such requests via the US Department of Justice under mutual legal assistance arrangements. The opportunity that the US CLOUD Act offers is hugely significant for Australian law enforcement and for our national security. It is hugely significant for keeping Australians safe. Under current arrangements, it can take up to two years for Australia police or security agencies to access data held in the United States on platforms like Facebook—data which could, if provided in a timely manner, lead to the arrest of a pedophile or assist authorities to thwart a terrorist attack. But there is a catch: in order to qualify for one of these bilateral agreements with the United States under the US CLOUD Act, Australia's domestic laws must afford: … robust substantive and procedural protections for privacy and civil liberties in light of the data collection and activities of the foreign government that will be subject to the agreement. In my second reading speech on 6 December 2018, I expressed concern that the government's assistance and access bill did not afford such 'robust, substantive and procedural protections' and, for that reason, could pose a risk to security cooperation with United States if the bill was not amended. A number of Labor MPs and senators also raised this concern in their second reading speeches on the legislation. Partly to ensure that Australia would be able to take advantage of this vital new security mechanism being offered by the United States, Labor made an election commitment to amend the measures introduced by the assistance and access act to ensure that they were subject, among other things, to judicial oversight. Lest there be any doubt about the significance of the new arrangements that are possible under the CLOUD Act, it's of course the case that the United Kingdom has already taken advantage of what the US has offered by passing the CLOUD Act—that is, the United Kingdom has already entered an agreement with the United States. The United Kingdom is already being offered access under the CLOUD Act because the United Kingdom understood the need to ensure that its domestic legislation conformed to United States requirements, and, indeed, they amended a range of United Kingdom domestic legislation to achieve that end. The current Australian government, this Liberal government, by contrast, is continuing to pretend that no changes are needed to Australian domestic legislation. It's continuing to pretend that no changes will be needed to the assistance and access act so much so that, if one comes forward to 7 October 2019, we learnt from the Minister for Home Affairs in an announcement that he made that the United States and Australia have finally—this is more than a year after the United States passed its CLOUD Act—commenced formal negotiations for a bilateral agreement under the CLOUD Act. It is truly extraordinary that this government has taken so long to recognise the potential value of the CLOUD Act to Australia and Australian law enforcement agencies. As I've said, the British government, by contrast, recognised it instantly, and has already concluded its negotiations and entered into a bilateral agreement with the United States. While it has taken far too long, Labor welcomes the fact that the Australian government has finally commenced negotiations on our behalf. However, less than 24 hours after the announcement made by the Minister for Home Affairs that negotiations had commenced, we received a warning from the United States. The chairman of the United States house judiciary committee, Congressman Jerrold Nadler, sent a letter to Minister for Home Affairs, expressing grave concerns about—you guessed it!—the absence of 'robust, substantive and procedural protections' in respect of the measures introduced by the Australian government's assistance and access bill. That is hugely significant, because the United States Congress can, in effect, veto any agreement that is struck between the government of the United States—that is, the Trump administration—and the Australian government under the CLOUD Act. Of course, the house judiciary committee plays a pivotal role in scrutinising any agreement which is struck between the United States and Australia that comes before congress, and it is a requirement of the US CLOUD Act that any such agreement will have to come before the United States Congress for approval. So let me repeat something I said in this chamber on 6 December last year: it is absolutely vital that the measures introduced by the assistance and access bill, which are now part of the law of Australia, conform to what the United States regards as robust, substantive and procedural protections for privacy and civil liberties, and that in turn will need to take account of what is known as Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in the United States, a key feature of which is judicial warrants. The Fourth Amendment is, of course, the part of the Bill of Rights, the part of the US Constitution, which requires that there be no unreasonable search and seizure. What the United States and United States authorities are always looking for in order to ensure robust, substantive and procedural protections for privacy and civil liberties is judicial oversight of, and judicial warrants authorising, compulsive processes by government, such as those created by the assistance and access act. At present, the measures introduced by the assistance and access act do not include that form of judicial oversight by requiring judicial warrants for their exercise. Let me repeat something else that I said when I spoke about this legislation in this chamber on 12 February 2019: As a matter of principle, Labor does not believe that the Attorney-General or a senior police officer should be given the power to compel an innocent person— including a law-abiding Australian technology company— unconnected to an investigation to provide technical assistance to a government agency without a warrant … That is not to say that the introduction of judicial warrants will fix everything that is wrong with the assistance and access act. The legislation has many problems, and those are currently being worked through carefully and methodically by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and by the intelligence and security committee. The purpose of this particular bill, which is on any view a minor procedural bill, is to ensure that the intelligence and security committee has sufficient time to do that important and difficult job properly. But those processes that I've just outlined—that is, the inquiry that's currently being conducted by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and the inquiry that is currently being conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—should not get in the way of the government introducing legislation right now to ensure that the measures that were introduced by the assistance and access act: firstly, conform to the recommendations that were made by the intelligence and security committee in December 2018; and, secondly, are subject to robust, substantive and procedural protections. As well as ensuring that the rights of the Australian people are properly protected and the interests of Australian business are properly respected, this would address one of the obstacles that may lie in the way of securing an agreement with the United States under the CLOUD Act. It's essential that the government do everything possible, and do so much more quickly than it has been doing, to ensure that Australia is able, like the United Kingdom, to take advantage of the processes that have been made available under the US CLOUD Act to give our agencies access—speedy access—to telecommunications data that is sourced from US telecommunications companies. The Morrison government needs to urgently respond to the significant concerns about the legislation that it has passed. These are significant concerns which have been expressed by Labor. They are concerns which have been expressed by the chair of the US house judiciary committee, Congressman Jerrold Nadler. They are concerns that have been expressed by industry, by digital rights groups, and by lawyers and technology experts. Labor is ready and willing to work with the government to ensure that the measures introduced by the assistance and access act are amended to address any and all obstacles in the way of securing the best outcome for Australian police and security agencies, and for the Australian people. I move the second reading amendment in the terms circulated: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes the lengthy delays currently faced by Australian police and security agencies seeking to access data held in the United States; (2) acknowledges that the Government has finally begun negotiations for an agreement with the United States to decrease the time it takes for Australian police and security agencies to access such data; (3) expresses concern that the absence of robust protections for privacy and civil liberties in the Telecommunications and Other Legislation (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 could threaten the prospects of an agreement being reached with the United States; (4) criticises the Liberal Government for refusing to support Labor's amendments in December 2018 to include such protections; and (5) calls on the Liberal Government to work productively with Labor to ensure that the measures introduced by the Telecommunications and Other Legislation (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 are amended to ensure the best outcome for Australian police and security agencies, and the Australian people". The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Is the amendment seconded? 17:15 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I second the amendment. It's a real pleasure to make a contribution on behalf of Labor to the discussion today. I want to thank the member for Isaacs, who's just taken you through quite a detailed account of the history of the debate that we've had about this bill in the parliament, and he's also highlighted some of the really critical national security issues that this bill has given rise to. Our spokesperson on cybersecurity is going to follow my speech, and he will make a quality contribution about those security issues. I am Labor's spokesperson on technology, and I really want to talk today about the other side of this bill and its implications. That is about the economic impacts, because one of the first things I noticed in this portfolio, coming into the shadow ministry for technology, is that the debate we have about technology issues in this parliament needs to be lifted. I don't think anyone in this room would disagree with that. I'm very much a part of the problem—I've been here for six years—but I do think we need to improve the quality of how we talk about these issues. We don't tend to talk about technology issues at the sort of foundation level where we see them affecting the families and businesses that we represent in the community. When we do talk about tech issues in the parliament, I'm not sure that we are creating the space for the quality conversation that needs to be had. There is literally no better example of that problem than the bill that is before the parliament and the amendment that's been made to that bill. It's absolutely obvious that technology is giving people who want to commit crimes new ways to commit those crimes. It's giving law enforcement a much broader suite of ways that it can determine and build evidence about people who are committing crimes. We need to take advantage of some of those opportunities, but the thing that always needs to be a part of this conversation—that must be central and pivotal to this conversation—is the important economic impacts that all of these decisions will have. One of the things I noticed in the discussion that we had about this bill in the parliament was we talked a lot about national security, but it was Labor people labouring the point and trying to make the case that this is an important and pivotal industry that will employ almost 800,000 Australians by 2022, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas. They're in your electorate; they're in the electorate of every person in this chamber. When we make decisions like the one that led to this bill, we do a disservice to that industry. Instead of trying to sit on that industry's head, we need to be building, nourishing and growing it, because that is our economic future and those are the jobs of the future. The way that this bill was put forward by the government was really poorly done—not just in the technology space, but by any stretch. The shadow Attorney­General talked about two pieces of evidence for this. Because this was a security bill, it went to the PJCIS committee, which reviews security legislation for the parliament. Through the hearings of that committee, it was revealed that when the government first proposed the bill the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Commonwealth Ombudsman, which are the key oversight bodies for the bill, found out about the exposure draft of this bill from media reports. Anyone who is even faintly aware of how government works can see that is ham-fisted. It is no way to make a good law—for the pivotal people who will help oversee the legislation to find out about it from media. It is just unbelievable to hear that a critical piece of national security legislation could be designed that way. The other extraordinary thing that came out of that committee—I thought—was the fact it uncovered that, as well as failing to consult with key Commonwealth agencies, the government failed to consult with the thousands of small businesses that will be affected by the regulatory requirements this bill puts on those businesses. We have the government coming in here every day, and they love to talk about small business and how they see themselves as representatives of that sector in this House. Well it's apparently not true, because they put together a bill with enormous impacts across the whole of the economy without discussing it with the very people who would be most affected by it. We on this side found this whole process incredibly troubling. I think you'll remember, Deputy Speaker Georganas, at the time—this was last December—we had this discussion as a parliament. There were Labor people who were raising really significant issues of concern. The government blasted ahead. They insisted that that bill had to be dealt with before the Christmas break, and Labor agreed. Labor tries to work on a bipartisan basis with the government on national security issues because those are issues, of all the ones we deal with, that should be above politics. We wanted to work in a bipartisan way. We agreed to pass the bill even though we knew there were issues, even though the government acknowledged there were issues, on the proviso that, when we returned here at the beginning of 2019, this would be one of the first items on the agenda. What have we heard since then? Basically crickets from the government. Nothing has been brought back to the House which will help us resolve the issues in this bill. Here we are, almost a year on, having an agreement of trust that was made between the government and opposition completely broken. That's incredibly disappointing. We have our disputes in this place but, usually, when you make a deal like that about how a piece of legislation that affects national security is going to be dealt with by the parliament, you get good faith from both sides and that is how we would like to see it. But unfortunately I stand here today, a year on from an unedifying debate that took place in this chamber, and yet we're nowhere on trying to fix this issue. This is very important to me and the people that I represent in the tech community outside the House, and I say that with absolute categorical confidence. In the five months that I've been in the role of shadow minister for technology I have met the most incredible people who are trying to grow this incredible industry for us in Australia. I've met people who are trying to educate Australians in STEM skills. I've met so many people who are doing that incredibly risky thing and starting their own venture out in the private sector, inventing something completely new, developing new technology, and scientists who are creating new ways of doing things that aren't done anywhere else in the world. The No. 1 issue that is always raised with me by people in this community is this bill. It is not even a broad suite of issues about how we're handling technology; it is this bill. When I say 'What can the government do to help you? What can we do to assist you in growing your business?' They say, 'First principle: do no harm.' That is what they see this bill as. It is the rushed nature, the lack of clarity about what key terms in this legislation mean that a year on have still not been clarified. I'm referring specifically to issues that are core to the way that the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 works, including systematic weakness and vulnerabilities that were added to the bill quite late in the day. Still today there are people out there trying to run technology companies and cybersecurity companies, and the impact of this legislation is not clear. The government has had a year to fix this problem and, despite having promised the opposition, promised the tech community and promised the Australian people that they would come back in here and, as a matter of priority, fix this bill, we're here a year on and nothing much has changed. The clarification of these specific terms that I mentioned is crucially important to the impact of this bill on the sector. That's because—you'll probably remember from the initial debate we had, Deputy Speaker Georganas—the existing systemic weakness or vulnerability limitations don't prevent a tech company being directed by a government agency to do things that would or could compromise the security of their critical systems. This is the No. 1 thing people in the community have been concerned about. I've mentioned some of the stakeholders that I represent in this chamber and I use those words specifically because it's actually not Labor that is alone in criticising the way the government has handled this. I want to share a couple of quotes from people working in technology who have been particularly upset by this bill. Scott Farquhar is one of those. He is the co-founder and co-CEO of Atlassian. He said: We've got to recognise this law threatens jobs. …   …   … The fact is that the jobs of the future—these high paying jobs, export dollars that we bring to Australia, largely in technology—are at risk because of the laws that have been passed. Alan Jones, the general partner at M8 Ventures, has said of this legislation: It won't have a practical effect on monitoring the people they want to monitor, but it will cripple Aussie tech. What I hear from those leaders, as well as the general concerns that they have about this bill, is that they actually see this legislation as emblematic of the government's entire approach to their industry. It is absolutely deaf to the voices in the digital sector, and it's not particularly interested in supporting the future growth of those jobs of the future. I'm really worried about this. One of the other aspects of my role is spokesperson for my party on the jobs of the future. There are communities around this country that are hurting a lot because of the way the economy is changing and the way that's benefitting and hurting different Australians. The very least thing government could do in the face of that problem is, if we as a nation are going to cop some of the downsides of the future of work, we have to capitalise on the upsides; otherwise we pay a huge price for these changes that are occurring and all the benefits and the highly skilled, high-paying jobs that might be created through the new economy are going to end up offshore. This is a very important issue for Australia's economic future, and it's frustrating to see the government deal with it in such a ham-fisted way. I want to speak a little bit more about the digital economy, because it's not just this bill that I'm worried about in the context of the government's failure to support this industry. AlphaBeta, a consulting firm in Sydney, produced a report recently commissioned by the Digital Industry Group. It showed that Australia is lagging behind global peers and failing to capture the economic opportunities of the very fast-growing digital economy. The report found that Australia ranks second-last among OECD countries for the relative size of our technology sector and its contribution to the economy. This is such a wake-up call for us. We're second-last in the OECD when we are one of the richest countries in the OECD. That is a harbinger of very concerning things to come. This is meant to be the way we build our economic future, but we're second to last in the OECD. There's no doubt that the technology sector is making a significant contribution, but we can do so much more to help and support them. We need the active engagement and leadership of our government. The AlphaBeta report indicates that the tech sector contributes $122 billion to the economy every year, equivalent to 6.6 per cent of our GDP. Even with all the neglect and the blithe unconcern on the other side of the chamber about the future of this industry, they are growing against the odds, and there is so much more that we could do to support them. They're creating $44 billion a year in additional value to consumers in the form of free, cheaper and more convenient access to the resources, entertainment and information that improve our lives and wellbeing. We think those figures could and should be higher with the right policy settings. Some of the figures suggest that the Australian tech sector could create an additional $50 billion per year if Australia could catch up and match the tech sector growth rates of our global peers. The research has also shown that small businesses in Australia that have embraced digital technology have experienced a massive productivity boost over the past decade. There is a huge opportunity here to unlock productivity and unlock additional economic impact if we can actually help our tech sector reach the 2.2 million Australian small businesses to make sure that they're accessing and utilising the latest technologies. There's huge growth potential here, but we need to have a coordinated approach to the digital economy. What we have on the opposite side of the chamber is a government which is almost in its seventh year of office and which still has nothing to say on these subjects, except an incredibly damaging piece of legislation that they'd promised to fix within a number of months and haven't done anything about. It's not just the digital economy where we see this sort of neglect from government. One of the other areas that's related to this subject is about innovation and the digital economy. I'm sure many members of parliament read the reports of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull making a rare foray into public commentary to give the government a bit of a whack over its approach to innovation since he left the prime ministership. He said that innovation is not Prime Minister Scott Morrison's comfort zone. I think many people on the Labor side would agree with that. Mr Turnbull also said Australia cannot drop the ball on innovation any longer. I think that when we look at the numbers, there is absolutely no question that dropping the ball is exactly what has happened in the last six years. Despite all the hype and all the talk about the ideas boom and that this is the greatest time to be an Australian, government research and development expenditure fell 19 per cent in real terms in just two financial years. A fifth of our spending disappeared within two financial years. In 2019 there were 2,000 fewer people working in government funded R&D programs than there were in the mid 1990s. Deputy Speaker, think about how much our economy has changed and yet we're short-changing R&D, we're short-changing our scientists and we're short-changing our tech sector. I'm going to have to leave my comments there, but maybe I'll just finish with a call to arms for the people on the opposite side of the chamber who actually understand this industry and care about its growth. This is the pivotal building block of Australia's economic future. We have a government that is not only neglecting to have a plan to do anything about helping that sector grow but actually has introduced legislation—and that's probably the only way that Australia has made the news on this subject in recent years—and it's a downside. We can do better. (Time expired) 17:31 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand It is with some regret that I rise to speak on the Telecommunications (Intersection and Access) Amendment (Amendments Review) Bill 2019 before the House, because this bill represents a series of failures: a failure of process, a failure of bipartisanship on matters of national security, a failure of the Morrison government to keep its word and a failure by this place to legislate in a way that supports the growth of the Australian technology sector. In this way, this bill represents a failure of our own economic future. The impact of the failures in public trust and confidence in this parliament and on the conventions of this place represented by this bill cannot be remedied by amending legislation alone, although many amendments are certainly needed. These failures will only be remedied over time by the conduct and the actions of those of us in this place: by us treating the legislative process with more respect, by putting the national interest above short-term political interests and by actually listening and talking with the technology sector outside this place, as was just so eloquently put by the member for Hotham. We need to be frank in this parliament: in many ways, Australia is viewed as a worldwide joke in technology policy. From former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's infamous war on maths to the new Department of Home Affairs' policy to use facial recognition technology to verify Australians' use of pornography on the internet, those of us who work in technology policy, who move in those circles and travel the world talking to people, know that around the world Australia is viewed as the global village idiot in technology policy. We need to do something about that in this place. One step we can take in this respect is to restore process to this place—to restore accountability and proper consideration of legislation so that the mistakes represented in this bill are not replicated in the future. In this respect, we need to restore the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—the PJCIS—to its former position as a serious institution of our parliament and a place of genuine bipartisanship scrutiny and review of legislation of this kind. Membership of the PJCIS is coveted in this place because it grapples with the most serious issues before the House—issues of life and death, issues of state powers and individual freedoms. Its work has immediate and weighty human consequences. The PJCIS was once a institution where proposals were rigorously interrogated in the national interest and where members from both sides of politics worked together on improving legislation before the House. I acknowledge the cynicism that many on the Left have towards the work of the PJCIS. They see its history of bipartisan reports and then see it as a place of capitulation. I get it—I do. But this cynicism does an incredible disservice to the work undertaken by members of this committee. Bipartisanship on these serious issues is not easily won in this committee. Lengthy inquiries and extensive hearings have been followed by even lengthier and extremely robust debates within the committee and negotiations between members. These negotiations are complex and detailed—they're technical and expert. They regularly produce dozens of amendments to the bills considered by the House, amendments that are then made to the bills not as opposition amendments but as government amendments and as a voice for all of us. The fact that these bills aren't amended further by the opposition doesn't reflect parliamentary capitulation; it reflects the robustness of the PJCIS process. And that's why it was so disappointing last year when the Morrison government abruptly halted the PJCIS inquiry into the assistance and access bill in order to allow the bill to be forced through the parliament in the final sitting week of 2018. The member for Isaacs, the shadow Attorney-General, has recounted in depressing detail the shambolic process that that bill took through both the PJCIS and the parliament last year. The member for Hotham related how this shambolic process resulted in the small business technologies that we hope to grow jobs in the future being cut out of the consultation process. Indeed, key defence exporters, people working in my portfolio of responsibility in cybersecurity, were caught unawares by this bill. This bill represented everything that business hates about government—ramming through legislation, heedless of its consequences, not understanding the impact on their own businesses. Despite the abrupt end to the inquiry—and thanks, frankly, to a herculean effort by the member for Isaacs and the member for Holt, the Labor members of the PJCIS—the committee provided a series of recommendations for the amendment of this bill, the majority of which were not incorporated into the bill by the government. Byignoringthe PJCIS, the government threw out of the window the longstanding tradition of bipartisanship when it comes to national security and protecting Australians' safety. Trust conventions in this parliament take decades to build up but moments to destroy, and that's what happened in the last sitting week of parliament last year. Even more troubling was the tone of the debate in the second reading speech, where those opposite attacked the motivation of Labor members in the most personal and reprehensible ways. They accused Labor members of wanting to assist terrorists and pedophiles merely because we expressed widely held legitimate concerns about the operation of the bill and wanted to exert the scrutiny required to understand these complex proposals in the national interest. It was a shameful performance by those opposite. Surely our politics can be better than this. Nobody in this chamber sympathises with terrorists or child abusers. No human being is soft on this. It is important that we are able to have to have complex, nuanced debates on issues like this in the parliament without resorting to disgraceful slurs of this kind—particularly in the technology sector, where these issues are inherently complex. Technology is a complex field, particularly for those with no experience in the sector. The potential for legislation creating unintended consequences is significant and it puts a premium on the in-depth, high-quality consultation between government and technical experts. That's exactly what didn't happen with respect to this bill. In its politically motivated haste, and its desire to wedge the opposition, the Morrison government passed legislation that potentially closed off access to an important investigative tool for Australian law enforcement agencies. Existing US law prevents US companies from sharing information that they hold outside US borders, outside the existing mutual legal assistance treaty regime, even under warrant from an Australian court. This mutual legal assistance treaty regime is bureaucratic and underresourced. In 2013 the average time to process an MLAT request was 10 months; and, given the dramatically increasing volume of requests we have seen, there is reason to believe this time frame has blown out considerably since then. This means that when Australian law enforcement officials are investigating a crime and they believe that their investigations could be assisted by accessing data held by an electronic communication storage or communications company based in the US—like Facebook, Google or Microsoft—and they are able to convince an Australian court to issue a warrant granting access to this information, it will still take them well over a year to access this information because of this inefficient process. Access to this stored data data—or 'data at rest' in the industry lingo—is likely to be of far greater value for law enforcement than the intercepted communications. It offers a far greater volume of information about suspects and a richer view of the suspects' communications. And the delays in accessing this information are a significant impediment to law enforcement. To streamline this process for obtaining access to US-held information requested under warrant by another jurisdiction, the US Congress passed the CLOUD Act, a law that authorises the negotiation of bilateral agreements between the US and other nations to streamline this information-sharing process, shortening the time to access the information from years to weeks. However, the CLOUD Act provides that the US government may only enter into agreements under the CLOUD Act where the other government's domestic laws have: … robust substantive and procedural protections for privacy and civil liberties in light of the data collection and activities of the foreign government that will be subject to the agreement. By ramming through the assistance and access bill without judicial oversight for the notices issued under it we have put our compliance with this in jeopardy. Well before the Morrison government passed the assistance and access bill in December 2018, they were warned that the bill may not provide these robust, substantive and procedural protections. A submission made to the PJCIS in October 2018b y the Digital Industry Group, which includes representatives from Amazon, Facebook, Google and Twitter, noted: 'If our access regime doesn't contain sufficient safeguards for user privacy, there's a chance the US Congress will not approve a treaty with Australia under the CLOUD Act, which will interfere with legitimate law enforcement investigations.' In my second reading speech on this bill—I quote myself and I couldn't agree with myself more—I said: This bill doesn't resolve, and may even make more difficult, the mutual legal assistance treaties and the CLOUD Act problems in us accessing data from these providers overseas. The government ignored these warnings. They ignored warnings from industry. They ignored warnings from civil society. They ignored warnings from members of this parliament during the scrutiny of this bill in this place. And instead they play politics and they rush through a deeply flawed piece of legislation. Those flaws are now catching up with the government. On 4 October this year, only days before the Minister for Home Affairs and the US Attorney-General, William Barr, announced that negotiations on an Australia-US bilateral CLOUD Act agreement had begun, Congressman Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the US house judiciary committee, sent a letter to the Minister for Home Affairs expressing concerns about the absence of robust, substantive and procedural protections in the assistance and access act. Congressman Nadler's letter highlighted that the lack of judicial authorisation and review under Australia's encryption laws—something those on this side of the House warned about—made it difficult for the US to enter into a CLOUD Act data sharing agreement. This is someone speaking on behalf of the body who will be able to give an up or down consent on any agreement negotiated between the executive of the United States and Australia. It's a warning that we ought to heed. The assistance and access act, rushed through the parliament in the name of protecting Australians against terrorists and paedophiles, now seems to be jeopardising Australian safety. It's jeopardising our law enforcement and national security agencies' ability to access critical investigatory data within weeks, instead of years, when investigating serious crimes like terrorism and paedophilia. Despite the shortcomings in the long-term in this bill, in the last parliament Labor ultimately agreed to support the bill in the last sitting of the year—indeed, on the last sitting day of the year—on the advice of security agencies that the powers of the bill were necessary to protect Australians from imminent security threats during the months-long summer recess of the parliament. In exchange, the government committed to progressing these amendments to the bill recommended on a bipartisan basis by the PJCIS in early 2019. On 6 December 2018 the Minister for Finance announced in the Senate that the government would 'facilitate consideration of these amendments in the new year in government business time.' The Minister for Finance also said that the government 'supported in principle all amendments that are consistent with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommendations in relation to this bill'. I guess his word meant as much to us as it meant to Malcolm Turnbull. The Morrison government pettily broke this promise when parliament resumed in February 2019. Almost a year later the government still hasn't kept its promise. On a crucial issue of national security it's dudded the parliament. It's time the government not only honours its promise to Labor but also honours a longstanding bipartisan tradition in this place when it comes to national security. The assistance and access act is flawed in many ways. It hinders our law enforcement agencies' ability to investigate serious crimes. It hinders our ability to enter into an agreement with the US on the CLOUD Act, undermining our longstanding relationship with the US. The shambolic way that this bill was drafted and reviewed by the parliament has also created a series of enduring myths and public misconceptions about this bill that go beyond even the existing factual flaws of the bill, severely damaging perceptions of the law domestically and abroad. It's really hurt 'brand Australia' in the technology space, hindering the Australian tech industry's ability to innovate and expand their businesses, destroying jobs and causing damage to an industry that should be the engine of creating these jobs of the future. We need to return to bipartisanship on these issues. To this end, I'm heartened by the PJCIS's recent report on the identity-matching services bills and its recommendation that these bills not proceed without being fundamentally rewritten. This creates the potential to restore the PJCIS to its former role as a place of genuine bipartisanship and legislative review in our parliament. It is also why I welcome the assistance and access amendments review bill, the bill before the House, which will extend the reporting date for the PJCIS's review of the assistance and access act from 13 April 2020 to 30 September 2020. It will give the PJCIS a second chance to get this right, to look at this bill in its totality, to do the consultations it should have done the first time, to listen to the experts in the Australian technology sector and to get the drafting right. Issues like the prohibition on issuing notices in a circumstance where it will create a systemic weakness are crucial; they are pivot points for this bill. The amendments only exist in the bill, frankly, because of the work of the Labor members of the PJCIS. To be operative, they need to be appropriately designed, drafted and understood throughout the industry. I welcome the review of this bill, and I commend this bill to the House. 17:46 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I don't buy for one minute any suggestion that this government has suddenly discovered its inner voice when it comes to consultation—that it in some way has suddenly had a revelation in the middle of the night that it's done the wrong thing and needs to listen to people about this bill, the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Assistance and Access Amendments Review) Bill 2019, and, in particular, at the heart of this bill, about the whole architecture that was spawned around encryption, and the access arrangements for that. There were 15,000 submissions made by people in Australia's tech sector about the flaws in this bill. This government refused to take those submissions on board, refused to make a lot of those submissions public and refused to listen to what was said. On top of that, they then tried to shut down the committee when it was considering this bill. They tried to shut down consultation on, and consideration and criticism of, this bill back at the tail end of last year—this time 12 months ago. That is what they did. And, in their inability to manage the legislative program, they failed to bring their own legislation to this place to have it properly discussed in a timely way and to ensure that, when it got to the other place, the amendments could be considered. The finance minister gave his word to us as a Labor opposition. The finance minister made a commitment that, in return for allowing the bill to go through, he would consider the amendments that in good faith reflected what the PJCIS had said needed to be amended; there were 17 recommendations that triggered nearly 200 amendments to the bill. The finance minister made a commitment that those amendments would be considered in the new year. But the honour of the finance minister gave way to his fear of the home affairs minister, and those amendments never got considered. So the government ratted, the home affairs minister ratted and the finance minister yet again bowed to the home affairs minister—we saw how that worked countless times last year—in failing to put those amendments through. And now, all of a sudden, the government say they need extra time to consider the work of both the PJCIS and the INSLM. This is why I say I don't buy what's being put forward by the government, because they're not fair dinkum about making the necessary changes to this. As the shadow assistant minister, the member for Gellibrand, just pointed out a few moments ago, their failure to do the right thing has caught up to the government. Their failure to address the flaws the way the PJCIS recommended that they be fixed, in the face of the criticisms that were raised at the time about our inability to get access to data because our arrangements wouldn't conform with the way the US expects these things to be managed, is now catching up to the government. And their failure to fix that has jeopardised national security. It has jeopardised our ability to access the data that is required and that can be accessed if it's done the right way, in line with the US CLOUD Act. Because the government rammed through the changes, wouldn't listen to advice and ratted on a deal about this, we are now in a position where our national security is not strengthened; it's weakened. It's been weakened fundamentally because we're not allowed to get access to this data. The other reason I don't trust this government's new-found commitment to consultation and extending the period for consideration of this is that the home affairs minister is peddling the idea that he has created a backdoor that will allow a new backdoor to be created in terms of encryption by going around and saying that these legislative arrangements that would never see the light of day in the US will gain them access to information that other jurisdictions could not access on their own turf. They have put in place a weaker, diluted set of arrangements in relation to encryption here and they're now flogging that concept overseas to other jurisdictions. So, when the chair of the house judiciary committee writes to Australia, writes to the government, and says they've got serious doubts about what the Australian government has put in place, I say—through you, Deputy Speaker McVeigh—to that chair: you are spot on the money. Jerrold Nadler is spot on the money. The house judiciary committee is spot on the money, and I absolutely urge US lawmakers to recognise that this act is flawed and that, until this government fixes the flaws in this legislation, this government should get nowhere near, and should not be considered compliant to, the US CLOUD Act at all. The message that should be taken by our friends across the Pacific is that what this government has done is tried to put a shoddy backdoor arrangement into the way that this data should be accessed, and it should not be gifted that access. In particular, the way this government put these so-called judicial oversight arrangements in place with a retired judge and then getting two ministers to agree with each other on getting access to it in terms of the arrangements under this act—this is a terrible arrangement. This is not judicial oversight at all. This is an absolute and utter facade. Why do we need to extend the period of time for this to be considered when we know all these flaws exist right now and they should be fixed? They absolutely should be fixed. Frankly, as the Labor opposition we will not give up at all on pressing the case for these laws to be fixed. They need to be fixed to ensure, from a national security perspective, that we get access to the type of data that is needed to prevent harm to others in the community. On another quite distinct plane, we should make sure that Australia's tech sector is not treated as a pariah on the world stage. There are doubts being expressed by those overseas to tech companies here. They say that they're genuinely concerned about the arrangements the Australian government has put in place and they're questioning whether or not they can work with Australian tech. They're wondering whether or not Australian tech is robust because of what's been unleashed as a result of this act. The Australian tech sector should not be put in that position whatsoever by this government—this government that claims it's pro-business but did everything it could to ignore the views of business on this. Business said it wanted to work with the government to achieve what it wanted to but not in the way that the government was proposing. Australian and overseas businesses, particularly from the tech sector, wanted to work with the government in the way it had sought. As an opposition, many of us on this side of the chamber had said that if someone wants to do harm and there is a way to intercept that information and act on it to prevent that harm from occurring, those arrangements should be made. This government, in its clumsy attempt to try to politicise the debate and make itself look tougher than it was, set in place these measures that have caused this type of concern within the tech sector and which now raise a genuine concern about whether or not we would be in a position to get important advice, data, that could help national security agencies here. It is a complete and utter disgrace that we have reached this position. The constant bravado and politicking of the home affairs minister, who wants to score the political point rather than reach the substantive one, is coming to undo him. But worse still, we're the victims of it as a community, because his politicking means we won't get access to the data that will allow for national security agencies to work efficiently. This is the problem when it comes to those opposite on national security, particularly the home affairs minister, who always wants to play politics when Labor try to work with him, when Labor try to do the bipartisan thing. Frankly, I have on countless occasions raised with him other issues—for example, the rise of far-right extremism that has grown 320 per cent in the last five years—and he won't do a thing about it. But if it's to score a political point, he will. He's an absolute disgrace. We on this side try to talk, try to work with the government quietly and try to get things done. Communities that have seen the rise of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism who are genuinely concerned about this stuff, can't get anywhere. But if it is to make a political point—bam—he's there, trying to score the points. He then brings through shoddy law that affects our ability to perform the roles of national security effectively. The US Democrats are absolutely right to put the spotlight on this shoddy work and then demonstrate how bad this law is and how bad it's being viewed overseas. And they would absolutely be well within their rights to set an expectation about judicial oversight, certain steps to be followed before you get access. They say that you should not do things that weaken the system of encryption that is used by business and others for legitimate reasons to be able to securely ensure the passage of data between parties. People say that the system shouldn't be weakened and this government goes ahead and tries to do just that. And if they say that, no, you're not meeting the standard and therefore you should not be entitled to data in that way, well, guess what? You shouldn't get it. You should not get that free pass. Certainly the US house committee should put a very sharp focus on whether or not this law, this shoddy law that the government has put in place, meets the high standards that they put in place in the US jurisdiction. They should absolutely put that magnifying glass over that law that has been passed in this country, and the government should be held to account for weakening our national security as a result of putting these laws in place. As I said, when I look at this bill and I look at this sudden desire for consultation by the government I finish as I started, by making the point that this government cannot be trusted in terms of national security. It rats on deals that have been designed. When it talks about bipartisanship it does not mean it, and it will not follow through on it. We will be required to do what we must to ensure that the law in relation to encryption is such that our national security is maintained and that we are able to get access to the data that is vital for the work of our agencies, but to do it in a way that's fundamentally better than what has been put forward by a government more interested in politicking than in a genuine pursuit of a much higher quality and a much stronger level of national security than what we'd have as a result of this bill. 18:00 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I'd like to thank my colleagues for their contribution to the debate on this bill. This Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Assistance and Access Amendments Review) Bill 2019 ensures that both the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the INSLM, have adequate time to complete their comprehensive reviews of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018. As such, I urge the timely passage of this bill at the bipartisan request of the PJCIS and with the support of the INSLM. I also acknowledge and appreciate the extensive and continuing work of the PJCIS and the INSLM in reviewing this legislation. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Isaacs has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question, therefore, is that the amendment be agreed to. Question negatived. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 101 18:02 Mr IRONS HYM Swan by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2019 101

Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2019

Second Reading 101 18:04 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2019 and foreshadow that I will move a second reading amendment. This bill contains a collection of proposals to reduce the regulatory burden on the broadcasting and telecommunication sectors. As noted in the explanatory memorandum, the bill proposes to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011, amongst other pieces of legislation. Some of the measures outlined in this bill propose to allow the minister to appoint an industry based numbering manager in place of the ACMA, provided certain safeguards are met; remove duplicative reporting requirements for licensees to notify the ACMA of certain changes in control of regulated media assets; allow NBN Co to dispose of surplus assets whose sale is currently constrained by the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011; provide a consistent classification arrangement by removing requirements for certain television broadcasters to apply different classification standards for films when developing industry codes of practice; remove the requirement for the ACMA to consult with an advisory committee before declaring a submarine cable protection zone, given the ACMA has a legal obligation to consult anyway; and to remove the ability of the ACCC to issue tariff-filing directions to certain telecommunication carriers and carriage service providers. As some might be aware, this bill is not new. Indeed, the bulk of the measures in this omnibus bill were, by and large, introduced on 2 December 2015. The bill was supported in the House, and during debate in the Senate a Labor amendment was passed to expand the financial and deployment forecasts reported by NBN Co. After the bill returned to the House, the government never brought it to a vote and allowed it to lapse at the 2016 election. The then minister, Mitch Fifield, resurrected this bill to the House of Representatives on 27 March 2019. It took him six months after the election to dust off the brief, but eventually he got there. After the initial introduction it took the government a further 12 months before it reached a second reading debate in the House. Talk about enthusiasm; they couldn't wait to get this one passed! The bill then entered the Senate in March 2018 and sat idle for the remainder of that term of parliament—a big year for that bill. It was never brought to a vote and, as a result, lapsed at the May election. So here we are, in the last sitting period for 2019, four years after the bill was first introduced—we should get it a cake!—debating it for the third time. It makes you wonder why this has taken so long. I suspect the origins of this bill provide an important clue. At a time when the government should have been focused on proper reform in this sector, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and his then parliamentary secretary were too busy focusing on the wrong priorities. Mr Turnbull almost exclusively dedicated himself to stuffing up one of the most important things in the portfolio, the NBN and holistic media reform, and left it to his then parliamentary secretary, now the minister, to manage the relevant aspects of the overall fizzer that was Tony Abbott's dereg agenda. So uninspired was the bill that over a span of two electoral terms, Mitch Fifield did not even see fit to bring it to a final vote. I genuinely cannot even recall the last time a stakeholder asked me where the measures in this current bill are up to. The reason I am running through the history is that it points to a broader issue in the comms portfolio. This bill is symbolic of the small-mindedness that dominates the Liberals and their communications agenda. It is nearly 2020 and the first two pieces of communications portfolio legislation this minister has to offer is a window-dressing ABC bill trying to distract from the government's cuts to public broadcasting, and this essentially do-nothing deregulation bill that was drafted in 2015. Maybe those opposite can call it their five-year plan. It really makes you wonder what the point of the Morrison government is. Speaking of the government's window-dressing on the ABC, we're beginning to see the implications of their funding cuts. After years of cuts at the hands of the Liberal-National government, and with a further three years of cuts ahead of it, the ABC has decided to end its 67-year run as the official non-commercial Olympic Games radio broadcaster, citing budget pressures. It is sad and disappointing that the ABC will not pursue radio broadcast rights and live coverage for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games and that 'competing budget priorities' are responsible for the end of an era in Australian sports broadcasting. When the government cuts the ABC, Australians miss out. This government broke its promise not to cut ABC funding. It has since cut $366 million from the national broadcaster. The ABC warned the latest round of budget cuts, totalling $83.7 million over the next three years, would make it very difficult for the ABC to meet its charter requirements and audience expectations, but the Prime Minister locked them in any way. Now it looks like Australians will miss out on much-loved content that is part of Australia's media, sporting and cultural identity. This deregulation bill before us is arguably the last ember for the red tape bonfire initiated by Tony Abbott many moons ago. In the context of the comms portfolio, one only has to look at how much regulatory burden the coalition government has introduced on the telco sector in the past two years. Worse still, much of the regulation in the consumer sphere has been a direct consequence of the government's failings on the multitechnology mix of the NBN. It's worth noting that this bill isn't the only thing in the comms portfolio which has been sitting around for years. Spectrum reform, launched with great fanfare back in 2014, has fallen on its face. The August 2015 joint announcement between Malcolm Turnbull and the now minister stated that the government had considered and decided to implement the recommendations of the spectrum review, and set out an implementation timetable. After helping start it off over four years ago, the current minister is seemingly back at square one, asking basic questions, such as: 'What benefits will the proposed reforms deliver? And are wholesale changes the way to go?' One would assume that the government had a well-considered view on such questions before deciding to commit four years of significant public sector and industry resources to a wholesale spectrum reform process. What we have seen is a government that has consistently lacked a coherent agenda and, as a consequence, which doesn't appear to be in command of the processes it has commenced. I'll move on to the individual measures in this bill. One schedule of this bill proposes changes that would allow the transition of telephone numbering to an industry managed scheme. Self-regulation is an important feature of the telco sector, and has been for a long time. Where appropriate, it allows industry to take responsibility for its own affairs, in turn potentially reducing the regulatory burden and administrative costs, and, in turn, leading to consumer benefits. Numbers are an important scarce resource. Like spectrum, numbers are used but not consumed. The management of telephone numbering has matured over the years, and this presents an opportunity for industry to play a greater role in managing the telco numbering scheme. A move towards self-regulation naturally raises the question of whether there is a risk of misalignment between the objectives of regulators and policymakers and the commercial incentives of industry. We have considered this question, and are satisfied that the legislation before the House sets out sufficiently clear principles and contains adequate reserve powers should the Commonwealth need to re-intervene. One point I do want to stress is the important connection between the integrity of our numbering system and scam calls. Communications technology and digital platforms have made it cheaper and easier for scammers to operate. The telephone line has now become an option of choice for scammers. Everyone agrees that telephone scams are not just a nuisance: they are an assault on the integrity of our numbering system; an incursion on the privacy of Australians and the right to enjoy their homes; and they are criminal in their intent. As I noted earlier in the year in an opinion piece, it has always struck me as odd that criminals based overseas can effortlessly use Australian telephone numbers they don't own to generate calls and to rip people off. The explanations for this vary but, clearly, the international standards and interconnection arrangements that underpinned voice calling were not adequately designed to safeguard against this problem. In the absence of such arrangements, domestic interventions to protect the integrity of the telephone-numbering system and to reduce the impact of scams are beginning to look increasingly desirable. Encouragingly, other jurisdictions are showing that progress is possible and, hopefully, any transition of numbering towards a self-regulatory model could provide even greater operational and technical flexibility to improve the integrity of the numbering system, in turn making it harder for scammers overseas. In summary, this is a straightforward bill that forms part of a rudimentary housekeeping exercise. As such, Labor will not oppose this bill. But the reality is this: these amendments actually do little to reduce the cost of regulation on the broadcasting or telecommunication sectors. As I noted earlier, the government has actually spent the last three years increasing the regulatory burden on telecommunications companies, and this bill does nothing to reverse that trend. While earlier deregulation bills actually did deliver more significant cost savings for industry, in comparison this bill looks by and large inconsequential. What we would like to see is the government developing a genuine and timely reform agenda to advance the interests of citizens, consumers and the communications sector. That is why Labor will move a second reading amendment to this bill. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes that it is nearly 2020, and the first two pieces of communications portfolio legislation presented by Government in the current Parliament are: (a) a window-dressing bill about the ABC designed to distract from the Government’s funding cuts to public broadcasting; and (b) a do-nothing bill about deregulation, which was originally drafted in 2015; (2) notes that it has been more than four years since the Government commenced a spectrum reform process that has yet to deliver any outcomes; and (3) calls on the Government to develop a genuine and timely reform agenda to advance the interests of citizens, consumers and the communications sector". The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 Is the amendment seconded? 18:13 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons ( I second the motion. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2019 is one of the last flames from the deregulation bonfire initiated by Tony Abbott many years ago. The government first announced this bill in December 2015 and declared its commitment to remove outdated regulation. So we find ourselves here, four years later, debating what is effectively the same legislation in the House of Representatives for the third time. Labor supports sensible amendments to remove unnecessary administrative requirements imposed on industry to repeal redundant legislation and spent acts. While this bill does have some utility, its value should not be overstated. This is a straightforward bill that forms part of a rudimentary regulatory housekeeping exercise. These amendments do nothing meaningful to reduce the cost of regulation on the broadcasting or telecommunications sectors. While earlier deregulation bills delivered more significant cost savings for industry, this bill is by and large inconsequential in terms of the true reform task facing the sector. Shrinking news outlets outside the major cities; a growing concentration of media ownership; digital platforms fracturing audiences and soaking up traditional revenue streams; and social media giants that facilitate disinformation—these are the real challenges facing the media landscape in Australia. It is clear that Australian media is facing a crisis, and nowhere is media more threatened than in the regions. Earlier this year we saw the closure of several WIN regional newsrooms and the end of production of five local news bulletins. Last year WIN TV moved its Tasmanian news bulletin to its Wollongong offices, cutting staff from 18 to nine. At the time, it was explained that the decision was based on the commercial viability of funding news in those areas. We know that there are several factors that mean there has been a reduction in demand for local news bulletins in regional areas. The advent of digital media caused audiences to fragment. That meant the importance of an audience for regular broadcast news bulletins declined, reducing the amount that could be charged for advertising. The industry had not fully adjusted to those changes when social media came along and it saw a lot of the remaining advertising revenue diverted from news media to the new platform. Between January 2013 and June 2017 the total advertising market in Australia grew by 11 per cent. But that growth was almost entirely away from traditional media. Digital advertising grew by 87 per cent in this period. That's extraordinary. At the same time, advertising revenue in television fell five per cent and print advertising revenue saw a 46 per cent drop from $373 million in 2013 to $202 million in 2017. Yet it is TV and print that continue to employ most journalists in this country. Additionally, changing consumption habits and increased competition from digital content providers that don't face the same regulatory conditions challenged traditional media further. A recent inquiry into digital platforms by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found that virtually no media regulation applies to digital platforms. This creates regulatory disparity between some digital platforms and some more heavily regulated media businesses that perform comparable functions and, arguably, a much more important social and community function. The disparity exists due to the failure of current regulatory frameworks to keep pace with changes in technology, consumer preferences and the way in which media businesses now operate. Over six years, this government has been asleep at the wheel. Digitisation and the increase in online creation and aggregation of news and media content highlight the inconsistencies in the current sector-specific approach to media regulation in Australia that gives rise to an uneven playing field between digital platforms and some news media businesses. In its report, the ACCC recommended that media regulatory frameworks be updated to ensure that comparable functions are effectively and consistently regulated. Program supply and infrastructure costs also mean that regional media needs to constantly review its operating model to ensure the ongoing viability of business. The crisis in the media's business models is being felt most acutely at the local news level. The availability of local news in the regions of Australia has sharply declined over the past five years and is likely to decline further. The decline is across the board, though it's more marked in the outer suburbs of metropolitan regions and in rural and regional areas. For many Australians, sadly, it's now easier to find out what is happening in the White House than what's happening at the local school, or why the potholes in the road haven't been fixed. Data collected by the ACCC shows that between 2008 and 2018, 106 local and regional newspaper titles closed across Australia, representing a net 15 per cent decrease in the number of these publications in just 10 years—and I know newspapers are not necessarily the remit of this place, but if you wouldn't mind indulging me, Deputy Speaker! These closures have left 21 local government areas without coverage from a single local newspaper. In December 2018, the former Fairfax regional newspaper network became part of the Nine media company, and as part of that deal for the SMH and The Age, the regional paper network was sold to Anthony Catalano and the Thorney Investment Group. This includes 160-plus regional titles and around 130 community based websites and agricultural publications. Two of them are in Tasmania, The Examiner and The Advocate, and we're hopeful that under the new ownership they will continue. As the Australian Communications and Media Authority observed in its 2017 Local content in regional Australiareport, the profitability of regional broadcasting is declining under the same pressures that are affecting media across the Western world, fragmenting audiences and the shift of advertising revenue to social media platforms. Local journalism matters and local news is vital to communities, particularly rural and regional communities. Without it, institutions become less accountable—frankly, so do politicians—citizens are disempowered and power transfers to those with the ability and motivation to manipulate public opinion. This month marks 30 years of the Fremantle Herald—where I got my start as that paper's first cadet—a fearless, independent and locally owned paper that has survived recessions, disgraceful anticompetitive behaviour by its corporate rival and very touchy councils that withdraw advertising over unflattering stories. If more papers were like the Fremantle Herald, locally owned and locally operated, born in and of their communities, then the Australian local media landscape would be a much healthier place. Indeed, in 2016, a study by the Pew Research Centre found that in the United States civic engagement is strongly tied to local news habits. Those with stronger news interest consumption and better attitudes towards the news media, were considerably more likely to feel attached to their communities and to always vote in local elections. In my own electorate of Lyons, there are at least 15 community papers and newsletters. We don't have the weekly letterbox papers like on the mainland; most papers are owned and run in Tasmania by non-profit groups, including online centres and councils. Of those that are businesses, there's the Font PR owned Derwent Valley Gazette, The Sorell Times, the Tasman Gazette and the East Coast View. And there are the Northern Midlands Courier in Longford and The Coastal Column in St Helens. They operate on wafer-thin margins and the blood, sweat and tears of their owners. Mark Thompson, the former director-general of the BBC and current chief executive of The New York Times, suggested recently that closures of local newsrooms and newspapers will only increase without a dramatic shift in policy and investment: A society which fails to provide its different communities and groups with the means to listen and come to understand each other's pasts and presents should not be surprised if mutual incomprehension and division are the consequence. If you doubt that any of this connects to real world politics and national wellbeing, you need to pay more attention. One of the long-term effects of declining local news will be more fractured communities that are less informed, leading to less ability to forge a national consensus. For example, WIN has begun to fill its air time by broadcasting content from the 24-hour news channel, Sky News, across all its markets nationwide. Whilst Sky offers a reasonable news service during the day, Sky News After Dark, modelled on Fox in the US, is a very different beast—populated nearly exclusively by hard Right ideological commentators who have no regard to facts. I admit here, I've never done drugs, but on the odd occasion when I stumbled across Sky 'after dark', I wonder if that's what tripping out feels like—a discombobulation of body and mind. We should expect to see a decline in civic health in areas where there is a lack of local news. A 2016 study by King's College London found that UK towns whose local papers had suffered closure showed a 'democracy deficit' that resulted in measurably reduced community engagement by local people and a heightened distrust of public institutions. It's odd that, in a world where the repository of the world's collective knowledge is literally at our fingertips, distrust in such knowledge and apathetic ignorance of that knowledge have never seemed higher. Flat-earthers, the 'birthers' who hounded Obama, the rise of Nazism in the West and an almost boastful and wilful ignorance of Nazism's causes and effects, the antivaccination movement, the 'death tax' at the May election, the maelstrom of misinformation and disinformation that swirls by the hour around the Trump administration—we have left the information age behind us and are well into the disinformation age. I would suggest that members of this chamber take a look at the recent speech by Sacha Baron Cohen to the Anti-Defamation League, where he warns of the dangers that Facebook, and specifically its strident refusal to act on disinformation and lies in political advertising, poses to our democracies and to social cohesion. You might ask, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the face of the immediate crisis facing the communications and media sector: where is the Australian government in all of this? A few weeks ago the government hosted the Symposium on Choice and Quality of News and Journalism at Charles Sturt University in Wagga Wagga. At this forum, the minister cautioned that there were significant questions and practical issues associated with greater support for local journalism, specifically the government grants for journalists suggested in the ACCC's digital platforms report, an indicator that the government would be taking a wait-and-see approach. In response to this, I would echo the sentiments of the shadow minister for communications, which are that this government has waited and overseen the decline of regional media over the past six years, and it has failed to deliver a plan to address it. This government stuffed up the delivery of the National Broadband Network, crippling digital productivity in Australia's regions and widening the digital divide between city and country, when the NBN could have narrowed that divide. This is a government that has slashed $366 million in funding to the ABC, a broken promise that puts at risk the ABC's exceptional record of delivering programming excellence for our regions. The latest budget locks in $83.7 million in cuts over three years, kicking in this year, when the ABC is doing such a mighty job of keeping Australians informed about the worst drought in living memory. This is a government that has presided over an explosion in scams delivered over the phone and the internet and has not done enough to protect Australian consumers. Australians lost $489 million in 2018, an increase of $149 million on the year before. I shudder to think what the 2019 figure will be. This is a government that delivers small because it thinks small, and that is the essence of the bill before the House today. I have great pleasure in seconding the shadow minister's amendment. Labor's not opposing this bill but, by gee, it's nothing to be excited about. 18:28 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I share the member for Lyons's ambivalence about this bill. Time and time again we have seen this tired, third-term Morrison government demonstrate that it has no plan for our economy. The bill that we are debating today, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2019, exemplifies the government's lack of vision for Australia and shows that they have run out of ideas, run out of things to do. This bill proposes to amend several pieces of telecommunications and broadcasting legislation to reduce the regulatory burden on those sectors. I don't object to a good telco deregulatory bill. Indeed, as a former telecommunications lawyer I embrace this as only someone who has grappled with IP&D, the accounting separation regime and the combinatorial clock spectrum auction process can! The majority of the content of this bill, however, was introduced back in 2015, during the 44th Parliament. Back then it was supported by the House, and an amended version was passed by the Senate. But the government never got around to bringing the bill back to the House for a vote, so it lapsed at the 2016 election. In the 45th Parliament the government resurrected this bill, in March 2017, and it entered the Senate in March 2018. But again it was allowed to lapse, at the 2019 election. Four years on, we are now debating the same content for the third time under a tired, third-term Liberal government. While we support this bill, we recognise that these adjustments and regulations don't really make any substantive, meaningful change. They're not going to transform anyone's life in Australian society. The bill doesn't tackle any of the real challenges facing the communications portfolio, like making sure that Australia is well placed to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the digital economy or ensuring the economic viability of an independent media, so crucial to the functioning of a healthy democracy in our country. Labor supports this bill because it supports sensible amendments that remove unnecessary administrative burdens and repeal redundant legislation and spent acts. Amendments that allow, for example, NBN Co to dispense of surplus assets are welcome. The removal of duplicative reporting requirements for licensees, publishers and controllers to notify the ACMA of certain changes while still allowing the ACMA to maintain accurate control registers is welcome. Providing consistency in the classification range for all television programs and films is, again, welcome. One schedule of this bill would allow the minister to appoint an industry based numbering manager in place of the ACMA provided certain safeguards are met, and self-regulation has long been an important feature of the telecommunications sector. I've participated in it myself in many forums and I can attest to the expertise and national spirit of those who engage in it. It allows industry to take responsibility for its own affairs, potentially reducing the regulatory burden and administrative cost on the industry, with flow-on impacts on the cost to consumers. When it comes to deregulation aspects of the bill, Labor is satisfied that the legislation sets out sufficiently clear principles and contains adequate reserve powers should the Commonwealth need to re-intervene if this self-regulatory approach fails. But we shouldn't overstate the significance of these reforms. They are just part of a long-overdue housekeeping exercise that could have been done two terms ago. Only one other piece of communications portfolio legislation has been introduced by this government: the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2019. Like this bill, the rural and regional measures bill is a study in the Morrison government's small-mindedness when it comes to the communications agenda. In the rural and regional measures bill, the government proposes measures with the aim of increasing regional content, but, instead of dealing with the real issue causing the decline of regional reporting—the lack of a sustainable funding stream—the bill is merely window dressing that tries to distract from the government's funding cuts to the ABC. Since 2013, the Liberals—the coalition government—have cut $366 million from the ABC, forcing the ABC to cut 800 jobs to free up the funds it needs to continue investing in Australian content, educational resources and regional communities. But, instead of reversing these cuts, this bill seeks to amend the wording of the ABC charter and to meddle in its governance structures. The bill amends the ABC's charter to add the words 'regional' and 'geographic' so that the wording will read, 'The ABC's programs contribute to a sense of regional and national identity, inform and entertain, and reflect the culture and geographic diversity of the Australian community.' This measure is a nonsense because there's no evidence of shortcomings with the ABC charter with respect to regional and rural Australia. In terms of governance, the bill seeks to establish an advisory council and amends the ABC Act to stipulate that the board must have two non-executive directors with a substantial connection to or experience in a regional area. This is a nonsense measure because the ABC board already has an advisory council which provides advice to the board on all matters, including rural and regional matters. Section 24X of the ABC Act already provides the minister with the power to establish additional selection criteria for board appointments. It is ironic that, while the government purports to minimise the regulatory burden on broadcasting and telecommunications entities through the legislation before the House, in another bill it is seeking to amend the ABC Act to add more bureaucracy and red tape—bureaucracy and red tape that will not create another hour of broadcasting on regional issues on ABC Radio or ABC Television. It won't fund a single additional journalist in these areas. It won't create any more content that is specific to rural and regional Australia. It just creates more bureaucracy and red tape—and for what? The ABC charter already creates obligations for the ABC to serve rural and regional Australians, which the ABC delivers on with great alacrity. These amendments are simply government virtue signalling that will cost the taxpayer; do little to help Australians living in rural and regional Australia, who face the decline in local reporting; and distract from the lack of a real plan for communications policy in this country. A real plan would progress reforms in the telecommunications and media sector that are urgently needed for the sake of our economy and our democracy, something neither this bill nor the rural and regional measures bill does. As someone who worked in the telecommunications sector before entering this place, I have firsthand experience of sifting through page after page of regulation implemented by parliamentarians and regulators at the sub-legislative level across this country. I can tell you that over the past two years this government has introduced a huge regulatory burden on this sector because of the failure of its multitechnology mix. The government promised its multitechnology mix would be faster and cheaper yet has delivered a network that costs more to build, costs more to run and does less. The decision to shift to the multitechnology mix in the NBN in 2014 has also resulted in Australia falling behind rival networks in the global digital economy. A report by AlphaBeta, commissioned by the Digital Industry Group, found that Australia's tech sector could create an additional $50 billion a year were Australia successful in catching up and matching the technology sector growth rates of our global peers. Based on comparative analysis of successful leading countries, the report states that the key lesson is that governments need to take a coordinated approach to the digital economy—a coordinated approach which includes communications policy, especially considering that communications infrastructure is the foundation of the global digital economy. A coordinated approach requires a government that doesn't shy away from large-scale reforms and a government that has a plan to capitalise on the potential of more jobs and increased productivity in the digital economy. That is not this government. This government's lack of a plan in communications policy isn't just hurting our economy; it's hurting our democracy. While the government drags its feet, it's never been more important for Australia to safeguard a thriving, independent and economically viable media. Experts at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute tell us that a healthy and robust media environment is key to Australia's democratic resilience. There are—it's a sad fact—foreign operatives that seek to undermine our democracy by spreading misinformation in our democratic system. These influence operations operate by finding cracks in the fabric of society and exploiting them, expanding divisions to weaken trust in democratic institutions in our society. We have seen recent media coverage of the pressure on Facebook to combat misinformation on its platforms. But one of the best things we can do to protect Australia from misinformation attacks in our democracy is to ensure our media environment is free, independent and economically viable. That is our magic weapon in defending our democracy from foreign interference. But this government's complete disregard for an independent and economically viable press is highlighted day after day. We have seen it with the raid on Annika Smethurst by the Australian Federal Police, in the $366 million of cuts to the ABC and in the constant flood of complaints to the ABC director and board from ministers of this government. This interference in and dismantling of the ABC further erodes the Australian public's trust in the media institutions, a trust that is so key to building a resilient democracy and to sustaining a resilient democracy in Australia. This government needs to develop a meaningful reform plan to tackle the big issues in the communications portfolio, not just because it is important for productivity in the sector, and not just because it will enable us to reap the benefits of the digital economy, but because it is crucial to Australian democracy. 18:38 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I would like to thank the members who have contributed to the debate on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2019. The bill will amend a range of telecommunications and broadcasting legislation to reduce the regulatory burden on the broadcasting and telecommunications industries. The bill will amend the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Act 2017 to increase the transitional support payments made to network investments to rectify previous underpayments. The bill will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to apply a single classification scheme for all free-to-air television programs by removing the requirement for certain television broadcasters to apply a separate classification scheme for films when developing industry codes of practice. The bill will remove duplicative requirements for licencees, publishers and controllers to notify the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, of certain changes in control. In the area of telecommunications, the bill will remove unnecessary arrangements for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, to issue tariff-filing directions to certain carriers and carriage service providers under part 11(b) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The information captured by these divisions is readily available to the ACCC through other revenues, including through public sources. It will inform the ACMA's statutory information collection powers under the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the ACCC under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to ensure that the information collected from industry is relevant and serves a useful public policy purpose. The bill will also simplify ACMA and ACCC's annual report publication requirements by requiring the reports to be published online rather than tabled in parliament. It will also amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 to enable the transition to an industry based scheme for the management of telephone numbering, subject to public policy safeguards. The bill will abolish the requirement for ACMA to consult an advisory committee especially established under the submarine cable protection regime before declaring, varying or revoking a submarine cable protection zone. This will reduce the administrative costs and reflect the requirements for ACMA to consult publicly on such proposals. The bill will amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 to repeal the ability of NBN Co to issue a statement that it is not installing fibre in a new real estate development, as it is not appropriate for NBN Co as an industry player to exercise a quasi-regulatory power. Changes will also be made to the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 to allow NBN Co to dispose of surplus goods without altering the fundamental line of business restrictions on NBN Co. Finally, the bill will make other various amendments to remove redundant and unnecessary legislation, including repealing over 50 spent acts in the Communications portfolio. The bill is a further step in this government's ongoing commitment to boost productivity by reducing onerous legislation while maintaining consumer and competition safeguards. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Greenway has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. Question negatived. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 108 18:43 Mr IRONS HYM Swan by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2019 108

Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2019

Second Reading 108 18:43 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Labor will not oppose the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2019, which provides indexation to the Australian Research Council. This government, now well into its seventh year of office, let down Australian universities and undermined research and development in this country. Last year's mid-year update saw $328.5 million cut from research funding over four years. Universities Australia has forecast that government investment in research and development in Australia is set to reach its lowest level as a share of our economy in four decades to just half a per cent of GDP in 2019. I say this deliberately: that is a straight-out sabotage of Australia's future. That's a lower percentage than in 1978. Universities Australia said at the time that such deep cuts to university research were 'a ramraid on Australia's future economic growth, prosperity, health and development'. That is why, at the last election, we committed to a target of three per cent of GDP devoted to research and development by 2030. I'll give you a snapshot of the ARC, and why this investment is wise. For every dollar spent, Linkage Projects partners get $1.91 back—a dollar in, $1.91 back. Over the 2018-19 financial year, the ARC funded 4,559 projects, and 81.5 per cent of these projects included collaboration from across the globe. The ARC schemes support researchers at all career stages and provide research, training and mentoring opportunities. They invest in the infrastructure and the equipment and facilities underpinning Australia's research competitiveness and encourage university researchers to productively partner with commercial, government, community and international stakeholders. Key findings from the Engagement and impact assessment 2018-19 national report released earlier this year showed that 43 per cent of research projects were rated as having a high positive impact on everyday lives and 34 per cent had a high engagement with end users. Only Labor understands the value of investment in higher education and research. In 2019, Australia enjoys a reputation for punching above its weight when it comes to the higher education and research sector, and we see the trade benefits of having that reputation. In 2017, Australia was responsible for 2.7 per cent of the world's scientific output, while being home to only 0.34 per cent of the world's population. But we need to run faster to maintain our footing in this ever-shifting global landscape. Labor wants to see our position, our status and the economic benefits continue, and we want the capabilities and the productivity of our nation to thrive. How do we do that? Proper investment in research improves the lives of every Australian through the development of new medical treatments, improvements to drinking water management, innovations using smartphone technology and so many other areas. For example, Australian scientist Howard Walter Florey was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1945 for his role, alongside Ernst Chain and Alexander Fleming, in the development of penicillin. At the time, Prime Minister Robert Menzies called Florey the most important man ever born in Australia, in terms of improving world wellbeing. La Trobe University's Graeme Clark successfully tested the bionic ear in 1978, which has since gifted over 200,000 people the power of hearing and speech. He later established Australia's first university training facility in audiology, the Bionic Ear Institute—now the Bionic Institute—which furthers research into bionic hearing, bionic vision and neurobionics to improve lives. In the 1950s, concern was growing around the effects of X-rays on pregnant women and their unborn babies. Working at the Department of Health, Australia's David Robinson and George Kossoff built the first commercial practice ultrasound scanner in 1961, which changed the way medicine used the technology. Wi-fi, solar technology, the cervical cancer vaccine and the truly exciting developments made now and into the future—I could give examples all night. One of my local universities, and one my alma maters, the University of Queensland, has reaffirmed it's position as a leading research institution for science and social sciences, with 28 UQ researchers identified as among the world's most influential scientific minds. Their research was ranked in the top one per cent of the most referenced papers in their fields from 2008 through to 2018. This is an impressive feat. For example, there is Professor Naomi Wray, whose outstanding work in the field of psychiatric genetics has rightly been recognised. She's written 153 publications and been cited more than 20,000 times. Her publication Biological insights from 108 schizophrenia-associated genetic loci has been cited on nearly 3,000 instances. There is Professor David Paterson, the director at the University of Queensland's centre for clinical research, whose clinical work, research and teaching has been recognised internationally as well. His research focuses on the molecular and clinical epidemiology of infections with antibiotic-resistant organisms, with the intent of translation of knowledge into optimal prevention and treatment of these infections. He has recently conducted the world's largest trial on antibiotics for antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections, and his work has been cited nearly 33,000 times. Maybe, just maybe, it might save humanity from some of those issues. Associate Professor Genevieve Healy is a National Health and Medical Research Council career development fellow at the Cancer Prevention Research Centre in the School of Public Health at the University of Queensland, and an honorary research fellow at the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute and at Curtin University. Her current research builds on the work to examine population-level variation in prolonged sedentary time, as well as the feasibility and acceptability of reducing this behaviour in key seatings, such as the workplace. She is the lead investigator on the BeUpstanding program of research, a program aimed to support workplaces to stand up, sit less and move more for their health and wellbeing. I congratulate the few that I've listed and many, many more. They are fantastic examples of what Australian ingenuity can achieve. But more needs to be done to connect our world-leading research with businesses and industries. Internationally, we are definitely lagging behind on collaboration with research institutions. The 2016 Australian innovation system report ranked Australia as the lowest of 27 countries of the OECD in terms of our higher education and research institutions collaborating with large businesses and small and medium businesses. We're 27th in the OECD—that's an F-minus. Our research sector and our research capacity is one of the keys to being future ready. It will drive future growth in our economy. We need to ensure that we have the capacity to turn our discoveries into something that has concrete benefits for Australians to commercialise. When we get the balance right with combining our research with industry, the results speak for themselves. We could look at wi-fi and so many examples I have touched on. Creating these industry links has been found to more than triple productivity growth in business and increase other performance measures. For example, Queensland Health and Griffith University have enjoyed a longstanding, mutually beneficial partnership ever since Griffith University first offered health degrees back in the 1990s. This partnership allows for clinical placements of health students as well as an array of joint research projects. Queensland Health is a major employer of Griffith graduates. The colocation of Griffith campuses—for example, alongside the Gold Coast University Hospital, or, in my electorate of Moreton, the QEII hospital at Nathan, alongside the Nathan campus of Griffith University—enriches this relationship. This training also facilitates the transition from study to employment, as Queensland Health attracts top graduates who already have hands-on knowledge of their systems and processes. Research collaborations between the university and Queensland Health greatly benefit the two parties, and the benefit then flows out to the community as a whole. Collaborative research projects between Griffith University and Queensland Health continue, and to date have spanned a broad spectrum of areas including nursing, patient management, suicide prevention, cancer diagnosis and treatment, and a range of genetic studies. It is creating jobs and improving productivity. Continued research and development could see Australia expand our capabilities and prosperity. The University of Queensland's partnership with Australian wastewater management technology has developed a new way to treat wastewater which reduces corrosion of wastewater pipes, which obviously lowers maintenance costs. This has led to savings of $400 million for the Australian water industry. La Trobe University has been effective at taking advantage of this, creating its research and innovation precinct with the help of the Victorian Andrews Labor government. It has partnered with 14 industry organisations such as Rio Tinto, Agriculture Victoria and GeneWorks. It is a significant new step forward which will act as a catalyst for economic growth, innovation and, most importantly as far as the Labor Party is concerned, jobs creation—particularly in vital areas of health and wellbeing, digital and cyber innovation, agriculture, food and fibre; the jobs of the future. The benefits of action are clear, and Labor is committed to working with universities and industry and taking on research and turning it into jobs, successful businesses and opportunities for future generations. What is vital for universities is ensuring they are in the position to build their research and development capacity. But what have we seen from this Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government? Sadly, we've seen cut after cut after cut. For them education is a place holder, a portfolio to be taken from, not invested in. Their decision to cap student places by ripping $2.2 billion from the sector was a disaster. What has been the result? Ten thousand students missed out on a place at university in 2018 and 200,000 more students will miss out over the coming decade. Universities have been unable to lift their student profiles, and it's showing in their budgets. Is it any wonder that we have seen articles coming out recently with titles such as 'Enrolments flatlining: Australian unis' financial strife' at a time when Australia's population is increasing? Macquarie University has had to resort to budget cuts due to zero enrolment growth next year. Its vice-chancellor, Bruce Downton, said: Enrolment growth domestically and internationally has slowed significantly at a time when our base operating costs continue to rise […] Current projections are that there will be zero growth— on this government's watch. In 2018 the number of students starting a bachelor's degree fell for the first time since 2003. As I remind you, our population has been increasing over that time. Increased reliance on international students is making up the shortfall, but we can't rely on that forever, especially those universities that are nudging towards having international students as 50 per cent of their student population. Enrolment from key source countries such as China has stabilised this year. Labor is very concerned about how the government is planning on dealing with a drop in international student enrolments, considering education is our third-largest export industry, representing $33 billion to the Australian economy. So when you look at those trains full of iron ore or coal, the next one to consider is our universities. On top of this, the children born in the boom of the mid-2000s are about to reach university age. With the end of the demand-driven system there is no additional money to fund those extra students. What do we see from those opposite? The minister certainly doesn't have a plan. The Prime Minister doesn't have a plan. Without any decent plan, universities could have falling enrolments for both domestic and international students, which will place further stresses on their budgets. That will mean more staff cuts and less money for our world-class research, which will be a further strain for universities in the bush in particular. There are reports that staff at the University of Melbourne are bracing for cuts in response to the cut of $150 million from their university over four years. Up to 100 staff at Charles Darwin University are likely to lose their jobs by next year. That is unacceptable. Labor is very concerned to hear that the ministerial veto has been used to restrict funding for research that doesn't support the education minister's personal world view. Political interference in independent peer reviewed grant processes is completely unacceptable. That's the sort of stuff that goes on in totalitarian states, not in modern Australia. The Australian Research Council has an independent and rigorous process for coming up with its recommendations on research funding. When you lock someone out of an education, you are locking them out of a job, but when you block research you damage Australia's international competitiveness and undermine growth in good, well-paid and skilled jobs. So Labor calls on the previous minister and the current minister to explain their decisions, which they have not done, and on the government to reinstitute a rule for ministers to publicly explain why they have vetoed ARC recommendations. I ask for Education Minister Tehan's new tick-a-box form notification to be readjusted, because when it comes to notification of ministerial intervention it doesn't go anywhere near far enough. He must be prepared to front up and explain such interference in the ARC's decisions. Only Labor will restore independence and integrity to the Australian Research Council and Australia's research sector. That is why I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the government has cut research funding, interfered in independent, peer-reviewed grants processes and abandoned nation-building investment in education and research infrastructure". The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the amendment seconded? 18:59 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I second the amendment. It's a great pleasure to make a comment on the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2019 and also to endorse the amendment that's been moved by the member for Moreton. I really enjoyed the passion that the member for Moreton brought to the address he has just given. I know he's been a very staunch defender of our researchers, our scientists, in Australia and in particular has been arguing in favour of proper investment in the skills we need to grow our future economy. I'm grateful for the amendment he's moved to this bill. The bill before us is not particularly controversial—it's an update to the Australian Research Council's funding cap—but the second reading amendment allows us to put some very important points on the parliamentary record with respect to the coalition government and its approach and record on critical areas related to research, science, universities and innovation in Australia generally. And I'm very pleased to make a contribution on those matters. When the shadow ministry was reshuffled five months ago, I was very lucky to be given the role of spokesperson on innovation, technology and the future of work. One of the absolutely brilliant parts of my role is to be able to spend time with scientists, researchers, inventors and entrepreneurs—some of the most extraordinary people in the Australian economy. When you sit in a room full of these people you think it is eminently possible that we as a society can solve any problem. It's actually an exhilarating area to be working in—and more so because one of the most important things Labor's thinking about at the moment and dwelling on as we go into the next three years is how we're going to make sure we can secure the high-wage, high-skilled jobs of the future for Australians. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that there is a massive opportunity here for the taking. When we look around this beautiful country of ours, we've got all the ingredients we need to become an innovation nation. The thing that worries me, and the thing I think is missing when I talk to global experts about our innovation system, is government and the important role in other economies where the government is playing that critical role of stitching together the different parts of the economy that make up an innovation nation. We see a great deal more engagement and leadership on these questions when we look around the world at best-practice countries. What we see when we look to the Australian government, unfortunately, is inertia—I think 'innovation' and 'research' are dirty words that they don't like to use unless they absolutely have to. We are going to have to change that approach if we are going to attract the jobs of the future to Australia. The bill before the parliament is about research. It's a good opportunity to have a quick reflection on why this matters so much to building the jobs of the future. Put simply, the research that's conducted in businesses, in our universities and in other parts of our economy is our pipeline for future jobs and growth in this country. If we're not getting good ideas, inventing things in this country, thinking about those critical scientific research questions and conducting research that gives us new knowledge and information, we're not going to go far in a knowledge economy. All the research that's the subject of this bill is part of our pipeline; it's part of our ticket to a high standard of living in the future. When we look at the economic future of our country, if we're looking at things like R&D and investment in our universities—the critical building blocks for growth in the future that, frankly, a lot of governments probably don't get much credit for investing in—they are being profoundly underinvested in and the government is profoundly lacking in focus in the way it is going about it. Innovation is part of my portfolio. We did some research looking at the recent election campaign and found that the Prime Minister uttered the word 'innovation' just four times that we could find during the entire election campaign. There's a pretty obvious political reason for that, and that is that we had the failed Turnbull experiment where for a brief moment innovation was put at the centre of our political discussion. Because that was seen as not being particularly politically useful in the way that it was done, the government will not talk about these matters anymore. They won't talk about innovation, they won't talk about research and they won't talk about the strategy for our universities. As we roll on into the seventh year of this lengthy but not particularly notable government we are losing time, while other countries around the world have been much more effective and strategic. I think a killer statistic bears this out if we want the government's approach to research and development in a nutshell: between 2015-16 and 2017-18, so two full financial years, the federal government's research and development expenditure fell 19 per cent in real terms. We lost one-fifth of our spending in two financial years. That's absolutely unbelievable to me. Here's another one: in 2019 there are 2,000 fewer people working in government funded R&D projects than there were in the mid-1990s. Think of how much our economy has changed in that time, yet there are fewer people working in government funded R&D than there were in the mid-1990s. Last year's midyear budget update alone cut $328.5 million from research funding over four years. Of course, it's not just the Labor Party raising these issues and trying to get the government to focus and pay a bit more attention to them; Universities Australia has forecast that government investment in research and development in Australia is set to reach its lowest share of our GDP in four decades. That's lower than back in 1978, before a number of us were even born. Universities Australia, when it released that research, emphasised the impact of those deep cuts to university research. They described it as a ram raid on Australia's future economic growth, prosperity, health and development. I want to talk about some of the specifics of the way in which the R&D program is being designed and funded in Australia. I think the big picture, though, which is really an inescapable fact for us in this House, is that our R&D spend in this country is not high enough at the moment to sustain the improvements to the standard of living that Labor would like to see spread across the Australian community. Our national spending on R&D at the moment is about 1.8 per cent of our GDP. World-leading countries are spending more than four per cent. The OECD average is 2.4 per cent. In fact, 2016-17 was the first year that R&D in Australia went backwards. We actually spent less that year than we did in the previous year. You're probably aware that R&D is usually measured in private and public sector spend. Our low level of private sector R&D spend is also a critical problem for us. We are massively behind leading countries and we need to do better, and I'll talk about some of the ways I see that that's possible a little bit later. The most important mechanism we have for facilitating private sector R&D spend is the research and development tax incentive. The whole point of that policy is to incentivise R&D spend, and $2 billion of taxpayer funds a year is actually a very large amount of money. In a $450 billion a year federal budget, it's quite significant. I think it's pretty clear that there is a reform opportunity here. If we're putting in quite a bit but we're not getting out of the system an impressive amount of private sector R&D spend, I do think we need to put this on the agenda of the very long list of national concerns that we have about how this area is being handled. I want to say something quickly about basic research, which is research without a specific commercial goal in mind. It's the research that scientists usually do in a lab because they've found, with their curious brains, a question that they don't know how to answer. They seek to answer that question, and in doing so can make enormously profitable discoveries, although the focus of that research really is just about scientific curiosity, something that you would think the government would want to nurture. In the 1990s, about 40 per cent of our R&D spend was invested in basic research, and today, even with all I've said about how difficult and low our spending on R&D is in Australia, the figure being spent on basic research is 23 per cent. That has huge ramifications for our economic future, but there are also really immediate impacts on these wonderful scientists, whose work we want to support and nourish in this country. Largely because the funding amounts are so limited, the application process that our scientists have to go through to get research funded is insulting to these incredibly smart people who are just trying to do the right thing by the country. Sometimes it can take scientists months of their year to just submit these applications. Remember that, when they're in the lab, they're often breaking new ground globally in the science that they're doing. In the last round of NHMRC grants for mid-career scientists—I'm talking about the level 1 leadership program here—just over seven per cent of the projects that were submitted for funding actually got funding. That meant 93 per cent of the scientists who put their blood, sweat and tears into creating these research programs basically didn't get funding for the important work that they were trying to do. A competitive process is something that Labor support; we're very much in favour of it. In leading countries you'll see a funding success rate in the order of 30 or 40 per cent. We're talking here about seven per cent of scientists getting their research funded. It is beyond demoralising as a success rate. If a government policy was to be designed to show these brilliant young scientists that we don't value their work, I think this would be a great way to go about it. When the shadow minister for science, Brendan O'Connor, and I talk with scientists—as we do frequently—we hear that we are losing some of the smartest people in the country to Silicon Valley, Oxford and Cambridge—places where they are not having to go through this dispiriting process that indicates a lack of interest in the work they're doing. In a survey for young scientists, one responder said: We are the most educated people in the country and we can barely provide for our families and have at most 3-4 years' job stability. Research from the Australian Society for Medical Research tells us that a very large number of young scientists have considered leaving a career in research, and that 61 per cent have considered leaving the country to continue their work. At a recent roundtable that Brendan O'Connor and I had with leading scientists, we heard of an Australian researcher who had trained at one of the most prestigious universities in Australia. She went overseas, studied again at a leading American university and then returned to Australia to build a career in research. Instead of the encouragement and nurturing that she wanted, she faced a life of precariousness and funding uncertainty. She later left science to become a real estate agent. I hear these stories over and over again. I want to quickly go back through some of the brief history of our research and development, because there are some very important trends here about the way that we are funding research and development that I think need to be put on the record as issues for the parliament to discuss and resolve. In 1996, when the Keating administration left office, Australia ranked 14th in the OECD for research and development spend. Labor increased our ranking to 12th. By 2017 we had fallen back to 17th place, with countries like Slovenia and Iceland in front of us. Over that time, OECD average expenditure on R&D as a proportion of GDP increased from two per cent to 2.4 per cent. Australia's increased from 1.6 per cent to 1.8 per cent. So what you see is that, around the world, countries are seeing the big opportunity. They're increasing quite significantly, they're spending on research and development, and we're doing ours just a tiny little bit—nothing like what other countries are doing. The short point is: we're not keeping up. I think that's really evident in some specific areas of innovation. Investment in energy R&D, for example—Australia should be a global energy powerhouse; I'm hardly the first person to say that. In the final year that Labor was last in office, the multisector R&D spend on energy and the environment was $464 million. Last year it was $296 million. This is in real dollars. If we're going to secure this new energy future and the great wave of jobs that can come with innovation in these areas, we're going to have to invest. That's what we seem to be failing to do at the moment. Medical innovation is another pertinent example. Anyone working in this area would know that this is a core area of expertise for Australian scientists. In the final year that Labor was last in office, the multisector spend on the National Health and Medical Research Council was $223 million. Last year, under the coalition, it was $8 million less. It's very problematic and very concerning. These are areas of natural comparative advantage for us here in Australia, and to see the government not just underinvesting in R&D but ripping dollars out of these crucial areas where we should be spending more is a bit of a problem. Finally, I want to make a few comments about the research and development tax incentive. Bill Ferris conducted a review of our innovation system for Malcolm Turnbull when Mr Turnbull was Australia's Prime Minister. He talked about this balance between providing direct and indirect support through the way that we fund research and development. This is something else that I think the parliament needs to have a really close look at. When we look at best practice countries, we see far more support being given directly. The government is able to design and drive much more of a strategy about how we spend our research dollars, as scarce as they are, in this country. I think that, along with some of the other issues that I've mentioned, there are real opportunities for improvement here. The upshot of all this is the opportunity. There's a huge opportunity for us to create a new wave of employment for Australians to give the very best for our kids. We're only going to get it if we get that focus and energy from the government and, unfortunately, that's what's missing today. 19:15 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan As the member for Hotham and other speakers before me have mentioned, the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2019 is a non-controversial bill which really is only about amending the Australian Research Council Act to apply indexation to the existing appropriation amounts for approved research programs in the forthcoming financial years. The amendment that we have moved to that bill mentions that, whilst we welcome a second reading of the bill, the House also notes that the government has cut research funding, interfered in independent peer-reviewed grant processes and abandoned nation-building investment in education and research infrastructure. While this is a very uncontroversial bill, I take this opportunity, as did the member for Hotham, to talk about research, talk about the ARC and talk about higher education. I'm no stranger to any of those processes. As a professor and academic, I had or was part of four ARC grants. The first Australian Research Council grant that I was involved in was actually for my PhD. That was a discovery grant where the findings of my research informed Australia's first metric measuring behavioural responses to the fear of terrorism. A few years later I was successful in getting an early career research grant, which looked at—gosh, I don't know if I can remember what it looked at! Actually, I do remember: it looked at victims of terrorism and their contributions to policymaking on counterterrorism. In that period I was also involved in a linkage grant that involved several universities. We developed supercomputer software to look at scraping so that I could analyse trends in online terrorism. Then, just before I entered parliament, I was successful in a second discovery grant, which was a collaboration with a university in Dublin and the University of Haifa to look at the nature of terrorist propaganda influence. So I'm no stranger to ARC grants and I can tell you with absolute surety that the process that an individual researcher goes through to get an ARC grant is a gruelling one. It often involves many years of preparation. It involves many years of undertaking things like pilot studies, building up your reputation as a researcher and building up your publications in your particular field just to get a look in to get an ARC grant. When I was an academic, they introduced the ARC early career researcher grants because the discovery grants had such a low success rate, and many of us who had had our PhDs for fewer than eight years—what were called early- and mid-career researchers—were just not competitive in getting discovery grants. So they introduced the early career research grants. Even the early career research grants of the ARC are very gruelling in their process. It is an extremely rigorous process. The application for a research grant, whether it's a discovery, linkage or early career grant, takes you at least a year to develop. You have to develop your project. You have to have written about your project and had that published, often in some of the high-ranking journals. You have to show how your research has a benefit to the research community, a national benefit and an international benefit. It is no easy task. But, what we've seen is an unprecedented case where the previous minister used his ministerial veto to restrict funding for research that doesn't support his particular world view. What we have seen is unprecedented political interference in an independent, peer-reviewed grant process. Absolutely, it is a shame, because, as I said, nobody can assess the value of a piece of research except experts in that field. For a minister to think that he or she has the skills, the knowledge or the experience to make an informed decision about which research projects go through and which don't is a slap in the face to every single person who has put their blood, sweat and tears into getting a PhD and into becoming an academic and going down that path of contributing to Australia's research knowledge and our research capability. When you apply for an ARC grant, you have to put in a particular code, and that code determines which panel of experts—can I just repeat: panel of experts—will assess your application. That code is necessary for that panel of experts to assess your application, because that panel of experts are experts in the field you have selected your research to be assessed under. It's not like somebody who is a specialist in communication is assessing a research project on genomes. It's not like somebody who has a PhD and an international reputation in international relations is assessing a PhD on business in Malaysia. It's not like that. The ARC College of Experts and the panel experts are the top Australian experts in their field. So for the minister to undermine such an independent and such a rigorous process is really quite disgraceful. The fact also needs to be stated that all of the research projects that were vetoed by the minister were in humanities and social sciences. As a social scientist, and somebody with a humanities background, I find that particularly disturbing. They were across a range of fields in the humanities—history, the arts, music and journalism. It was as if those fields could easily be judged on their worth and on the amount and the level of knowledge that they add to Australia's research capabilities by a minister, who—correct me if I'm wrong, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough—I'm pretty sure has no background in history, the arts, music or journalism. The other issue is how we found out about this. Senate estimates was told in October 2018 that 11 grants totalling $4.2 million were secretly vetoed by the then education minister in 2017 and 2018. There were six discovery grants, three Discovery Early Career Research Awards and two Future Fellowships. I particularly think it's damning that the early career researcher awards were vetoed, because many early career researchers, or those who apply for early career research awards, are women who, for one reason or another, usually through having children, have had their academic progress and their academic careers disrupted. Until Senate estimates, the universities and the scholars had absolutely no idea that these applications had been rejected even though they had been approved by the college of experts, who are best placed to determine the worth of an ARC grant application. Apart from this unprecedented undermining of the independence and expert process of the ARC, the government has also made three attempts to abolish the nation-building Education Investment Fund. The most recent attempt is currently before the parliament. The EIF was established in 2009 by this side, by Labor. The purpose of the EIF was to provide important capital funding for transformational education and research infrastructure which would enable Australian universities to compete internationally. We have a very good reputation in terms of education. It's important that we keep that reputation. It's important that we continue to be held up as a great example of a great place for people to come and study and get a good education. Our universities are internationally renowned, but without a commitment to research and without universities being able to do the kind of research that informs teaching and makes us competitive on the international stage, there is a real danger that we are going to lose that reputation and we will stop having students coming here from overseas to study in Australia. It's one of our biggest exports; I think it's our third-largest export. It would be a huge blow to the economy if we were to lose large numbers of international students because our research could not keep up with international trends. The Education Investment Fund was the key plank in the Labor government's move to transform Australian education and research capability. We introduced it in 2009 to address years of underfunding and underinvestment by the coalition government during the Howard era. We doubled, or nearly doubled, the Higher Education Endowment Fund. We brought in the EIF to make substantial investment in renewal and refurbishment of universities and vocational institutions as well as major research institutions. Under Labor, around $7 billion was provided to co-finance the update and modernisation of our vocational higher education and research facilities across 71 projects. Just before I decided to get distracted by a political career, I set up one of those research facilities at Edith Cowan University in Mount Lawley. I set up a research program and the infrastructure to look at global issues. So I know how important the funding for this kind of infrastructure is and how important it is to enable our universities to partner and have MOUs with universities overseas and to develop our international reputation and the international reputation of academics. There was once a time when academia would have been a very attractive option for somebody to work in. You did your PhD, you got your PhD, you joined academia and you devoted your life to your subject area and to increasing knowledge and developing the skills of future generations in a specific subject area. Whether that is something like counterterrorism, whether it is medical research or whether it's in the sciences or the humanities, it's all contributing to knowledge and contributing to our knowledge pool as a nation. Increasingly, academia is becoming less of an attractive option for young people in particular. The member for Hotham mentioned one particular case, but there are many like that where young people are leaving research in droves because they can't get funding, because their ARC grants are being knocked back, vetoed by a minister who knows nothing of their particular area and who continues to undermine the experts of the ARC. In closing, I would urge this government to really put their money where their mouth is and support research, because it's the future of our country. It's the future of Australia and our competitiveness on the international stage. ADJOURNMENT 115 ADJOURNMENT Economy 115 19:30 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I'm pleased tonight to have the opportunity to address the House and to give feedback from local residents and businesses that I consulted with during the recent break. As we head towards the end of the year, they have asked me to place on record their concerns about how the economy is treating people in the south-west of Brisbane, the community that I represent. Despite the claims from those opposite that the national economy is chugging along quite nicely under their leadership, the truth is very much a different story. In an era of fake news and journalists facing oversight and intimidation like we've not seen before in this country, it's important that the facts about what is really going on are clear for all to see. When you peel back the empty rhetoric of those opposite, you'll find that those who have a go are not being given a go by a government that is too focused on austerity, cuts and contracting of the economy. The numbers don't lie. The economy is growing at its slowest pace since the global financial crisis. Wages have stagnated. Almost two million Australians are looking for work or more work, and living standards and productivity are going backwards. In my own home state of Queensland, the alarming number of apprenticeships that have been cut under this government, particularly in the electorate of Oxley, was highlighted in this week's The Courier Mail. So I do remain puzzled when the Treasurer says: Our strong economic performance and the important reforms we are undertaking means a more secure future for all Australians. It might look good on a billboard, but this is not what is happening out in the real world. I'd like to remind the Treasurer that business investment has been down 20 per cent since the coalition came to office, and it's now at the lowest level since the 1990s recession. The Treasurer should also know that consumer confidence is well below average, consumption growth is weak and annual retail trade volumes are growing at the slowest pace since the 1990s. I recently met with the Retailers Association and they echoed the strong concerns I'm hearing from local businesses in the Oxley electorate. Perhaps most damaging, the Treasurer should know that net debt has more than doubled under the Liberals and rocketed to record highs. Those figures speak for themselves. It is not a time for self-congratulations and celebrations. Instead, my message to the government tonight, through you, Mr Speaker, is: instead of smashing unions and trying to dismantle organised labour, instead of ignoring the allegations around Westpac—where we've seen breaches of anti-money laundering laws over 23 million times—the government needs to outline an economic plan that all Australians will benefit from. Not content with this, the Treasurer has taken aim at older Australians, suggesting that 'Australia's ageing population is an "economic time bomb" for the national economy.' Rather than ripping the guts out of aged-care funding—and the government today want to be congratulated for restoring the funding they cut out of aged care—and cutting funding to training and vocational training for older Australians, I call on the Treasurer to focus on helping older Australians to actually find work. We know this government has a long track record of making people work for longer. It tried time after time to increase the pension age to 70, and it was only because those on this side of the House stood up for Australians that the government was forced to back down. We know that they've cut the pension and we know they've frozen superannuation before. The fact is that this House is dealing with further cuts to the pension as I speak. The government simply have no ideas, no plan and no strategy to fix the problem they themselves created. There can be no finger-pointing, no blaming, no saying it's all Labor's fault, and continual cracked record after continual cracked record, but it's probably only a matter of weeks or days before we know what this government's go-to plan will be over the Christmas break, and that is to blame people on income support or people living on social security: 'It's all their fault and it's time we cracked down on them.' That's what they'll say over the Christmas break; you can set your watch by it. But the largest single group of Australians on Newstart were not teenagers and were not those in their 20s, but over-55s. The data confirms that 173,000 people aged over 55 are on Newstart. We’ll continue to keep speaking out for those people and to deliver that message to the government that you simply can't live on an income of $275 a week, or $39 a day. (Time expired) Remembrance Day 116 19:35 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby I was honoured to address the Plympton Glenelg RSL Remembrance Day service on 11 November, and I want to thank Plympton Glenelg RSL's vice-president, Bill Hignett OAM; secretary, Tich Tyson OAM; MC, Chelsea Carruthers; outstanding singers led by Regina Crook; and St Leonards Primary School for their wonderful contribution to the service. This year marked the 100th anniversary of the service. It also marked the 100th anniversary of my great-grandfather returning from World War I in April 1919. It was an honour to have him featured by the Plympton Glenelg RSL in their service booklet, and for me to be able to reflect on his service. My great-grandfather, Roy Gambrell, left for World War I in 1915 aged 18. He survived Pozieres, Bullecourt, wounding, 545 days as a prisoner of war and three years and 145 days abroad. He was 21 years of age when he returned home and would barely last the same number of years again. But he was one of the lucky ones. Had he not been, I would not be standing here today as the fourth generation of my family, continuing the community service he and my great grandmother began in my electorate, in Lower Mitcham in 1920, when they settled in a modest war service home and raised their only child, my grandmother, Gwyneth, whose calisthenics medal I often wear in this place, and am wearing today. To mark the 100th anniversary of my great-grandfather's return to Australia from World War I, I travelled to the Western Front in France with his grandson, my father, Evan, my mother, Glenys, my sister Belinda, brother-in-law, Josh and his great-great grandchildren, my niece, Gwyneth and my nephew, Hugo, to see where he served. There are no words to adequately describe visiting the places where your great-grandfather served—to stand on the very ground where he faced unimaginable horror and where you know so many hundreds of thousands of young lives were lost for our freedom. We went to Poziers, a place where Australian troops faced the heaviest artillery fire ever sustained by our forces, a place that, our first war historian, Charles Bean, wrote, 'is more deeply sewn with Australian sacrifice than any other place on earth,' and a place with 24,000 Australian casualties and 6,800 dead. We then travelled to Bullecourt and stood where he stood, across the open shallow valley, looking towards the German stronghold, imagining how hopeless it must have felt to know what you're about to face. And perhaps it was worse, with 3,000 Australians killed and wounded, 1,170 Australians captured, including my great grandfather. We visited these sites with Sacred Ground Tours, and I want to record my gratitude to Phil Hora for arranging our visit and to our guide, Peter Lloyd, who added so much detail as to what occurred at each place. We visited a number of Commonwealth war cemeteries, and I want to acknowledge the tremendous contribution each Commonwealth nation made, and continues to make, to ensure that these memorials to so many young lives lost continue to be beautifully maintained so that families and visitors can pay tribute to those who did not come home and ensure their lives will never be forgotten. We visited Villers-Bretonneux and the John Monash Centre—and I want to pay tribute to former Prime Minister Tony Abbott for leading the case to establish the centre, and to the work that Director Carolyn Bartlett and Deputy Director Cathy Carnel do at the centre, and I thank them for their assistance during my visit. I also want to thank the Director of the Australian War Memorial, the Hon. Brendan Nelson, for his advice and for arranging our participation in the Last Post ceremony at the Menin Gate. It was one of the most moving experiences of my life and a very great privilege to lay a wreath, with my family looking on, and alongside fellow Aussies, Mick Power AM and his wife, Denise, and Peter Dawes and his wife, Gwendoline. I want to acknowledge the truly incredible work of the volunteers of the Last Post Association including Chairman Benoit Mottrie, who I was fortunate to meet. These volunteers, including the buglers, conduct the Last Post ceremony each and every day at 8 pm sharp, and have done so since 1928. Today will be the 31,600th time they do so. There were hundreds of people gathered on the day we were there. The visit was a very important reminder of the great responsibility we, as members of parliament, have to our defence forces. I acknowledge the service and sacrifice of all our servicemen and women, medical staff and nurses who have served our nation during times of war and times of peace throughout our history, and continue to serve today. At the Last Post ceremony, Chairman Mottrie gave me the privilege, at short notice, of reciting the Kohima epitaph, which I will close with now: When you go home, tell them of us and say For your tomorrow, we gave our today. Lest we forget. Workplace Relations 117 19:40 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean I rise to speak tonight about a very important matter for the people of my electorate of Bean, for the Labor members of this parliament and for thousands of workers across the country, and that is the increasing disrespect and growing occurrence of abuse and sexual harassment of our hardworking retail workforce on the back of a growing number of wage theft instances across the retail sector. I'm sure you would agree, Mr Speaker, that retailers and hospitality workers work hard to provide the general public with customer service, particularly at this time of year. I started my career in retail. I was a Big W Woden worker in my early working life. I know the important role that retail workers play in our community and I know the stress they can often be under, especially at peak times of the year such as the Christmas season. I remember those Saturday mornings with stressed customers who had left their shopping until the last couple of weeks—we've all been there. I remember one customer in particular was rather disappointed that we were out of stock of Cabbage Patch dolls. As a then naive young worker, for the first time I saw another, less joyful, side to the silly season. Unfortunately, in a more modern setting that sort of stress has turned to abuse; disappointment has turned to aggression. In some cases, a simple inquiry turns into a case of sexual harassment. This was confirmed in a recent survey of retail workers by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association in partnership with the Australian Human Rights Commission. The survey of SDA members was designed to find out more about the nature and prevalence of sexual harassment experienced by retail and fast-food workers. The survey belled the cat on what we thought might have been happening in the sector. It found that, unfortunately, 87 per cent of respondents had experienced verbal abuse or aggressive behaviour. This is simply not good enough. And worse, shockingly, 39 per cent had experienced workplace sexual harassment in the last five years, with most of these cases not being reported. Unfortunately, this is because members didn't have confidence that the issues would be addressed. This was highlighted by only 13 per cent of respondents saying that the incidents resulted in a formal report or complaint. I know we all would agree that that's not good enough. Retail workers must have a safe worksite, just like we enjoy here. The workers across this sector have also felt the impact of wage theft, with millions of dollars not being fairly paid to workers. These workers should be treated with respect and dignity. They are entitled to ask for the basics: a safe and respectful workplace, and proper pay and conditions. South.Point, or the Hyperdome, the local shopping centre across the road from my electorate office, is open for extended trading hours in the lead-up to Christmas, with retail staff working until 9 pm, and 10 pm for some of the larger department stores. I've no doubt shopping centres and restaurants Australia-wide will be doing much the same over this period. I say to those workers in that mall, and in other shops, 'You are valued, and we'll stand up for your rights.' I am supporter of the 'No-one Deserve a Serve' campaign, as is every member on this side of the chamber. I dare say it's supported by many members elsewhere in this chamber. It's a campaign designed by SDA members to educate consumers and reinforce the rights of workers to be able to do their jobs without fear of abuse or violence in the workplace. Retailers have worked with the SDA to establish an industry pledge that aims to create a safer environment for retail workers. I commend the sector at large for accepting a leading role in being part of the solution. It's a great example of cooperative industrial relations. I commend the campaign and ask all members and all our community this Christmas to smile, show some respect, say hello and interact with retail and hospitality workers across this country. Just very briefly, I wish to pay my respects to one of my namesakes, David Smith, Secretary of the Australian Services Union, who passed away unexpectedly last week. David Smith was a giant of this Labor movement. Often I was confused with him and it was always to my advantage. Thank you. Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety 117 19:45 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin I rise to speak today about something which is very important in my electorate of Curtin and is actually really important across Australia. The interim report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, released on 31 October, revealed some difficult, confronting and at times unimaginably horrific stories. The report and the hearings to date tell us that some aged-care providers are falling far short of delivering the safe, high-quality care expected by senior Australians and their loved ones. The royal commission has made it patently clear that all parts of the aged-care settings in this country—including funding, legislative and policy framework, standards and quality audit processes—are under the microscope, and significant changes are likely to be recommended and needed to address the systemic issues which are being identified. It was one of the first acts of the Prime Minister to establish this royal commission and this, along with the government responses since that time, have demonstrated the absolute commitment of this government to getting this right. Without seeking to pre-empt the final report of the royal commission or its recommendations, the government recognises that it cannot wait until late 2020 to act and it has been implementing reform and increasing its investment since September 2018. More than $1 billion in aged-care reforms have been announced since September 2018. Some of those reforms include establishing the new Aged Care Quality And Safety Commission, strengthening regulation through risk based targeting and information sharing, implementing new and tougher aged-care quality standards, mandating participation in the quality indicator program and increasing the provision of home care packages. In response to the interim report released on 31 October, the government announced—just today—further steps to identify the three priority areas identified in the report. They include further increases to the number of home care packages; providing $25 million to improve medication management programs to reduce the use of medication as a chemical restraint on aged-care residents and at home; new restrictions and education for prescribers on the use of medication as a chemical restraint; delivering $10 million for additional dementia training; and investing $4.7 million to help meet new targets to remove younger people with disabilities from residential aged care. As I said at the beginning, aged care is a significant issue in my electorate of Curtin, with almost 16.5 per cent of the population aged over 65 years. To cater for this older population there are over 20 aged-care residential providers, providing just over 1,700 beds in Curtin. For senior Australians in Curtin who choose to remain in their own home there are also significant numbers of providers offering transition and home care services. Over the last month, I have been fortunate to visit and engage with a number of these different aged-care providers. I think it is really important to note that, amidst the horrors of what the royal commission is uncovering, what I have found is that there are also many providers who go above and beyond what is mandated or required at law and that their carers, their nurses, their allied health professionals, their cleaners, their admin staff and their volunteers are incredibly dedicated, compassionate and professional. In addition to visiting the providers, I recently held a roundtable discussion with leading aged services in Australia and a number of those Curtin based providers to discuss the current challenges as well as opportunities for future improvement. Among the many issues we discussed were the present and future workforce needs; the funding pressures and flexibility of funding models; the challenges and demands placed on the workforce; the rising number of people requiring dementia care; and that we need to ensure that, in addition to all of the services that we provide, we support the risk of social isolation potentially faced by those senior Australians who choose to live at home. I would like to thank all of the Curtin aged-care providers who've met with me. They have been honest and direct with me and explained some of the more challenging aspects of the aged-care environment. The royal commission is exposing some significant failures in our aged-care system. As I noted before, this government is absolutely committed to doing what needs to be done. It is doing it now and it will continue to do so. Ultimately, the simple fact is that we need to do that. It is our responsibility. We can and we must do better, and we will do better. Skin Cancer 118 19:50 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Cancer is a terrifying word. We use it all the time in this place. We often use it to describe terrible things or sometimes terrible people. But what's really terrifying is when a doctor says it. A couple of months ago a doctor said it to me. It was just after the election, and I'd noticed that a mole on my leg had changed colour. I'd always been paranoid about it and always asked doctors to check it, and they always told me that it was okay, but I noticed what I thought was a dark spot in the middle of the mole. I just thought that something was wrong. So I made the decision to book an appointment to see my doctor. It turns out it was probably the most important thing that I've ever done. I went and saw the doctor, and I told her that I thought the mole was changing colour and that I was worried about it. She said, 'Well, look, let's cut it off and check.' She thought it was going to be okay. She said, 'Look, if everything's okay, we'll just get the office to ring you and tell you everything's okay.' A couple of days later they rang back with the pathology results, and they didn't tell me everything was okay. They said I had to book an appointment to see the doctor in a few days time. I obviously knew what that meant, so I asked if they could put the doctor on the phone. They said she was in with a patient and so she couldn't speak to me at that time. The next 3½ hours were probably the scariest 3½ hours of my life, waiting for the doctor to ring back. She eventually did ring back. She told me I had cancer, that I had a malignant melanoma. But she also gave me some good news, in a sense: she told me that I'd caught it early. That's important, because the next step was that I had to go into hospital and have some surgery. I ended up with about 52 stitches on my leg. The leg now looks like a shark has had a crack at me. But the most important thing is that I'm going to be okay. Here's the really terrifying thing: about every half an hour in Australia someone gets a phone call from the doctor like I did. Every half an hour someone in Australia gets told they've got a malignant melanoma, and every five hours someone in Australia dies from it. It's a wicked disease. Let me tell you about a mate of mine in Melbourne named Jeff. At about the same time I was in hospital getting surgery, Jeff got rushed to the local emergency department with what he thought was a pinched nerve in his neck. They rushed him into hospital and did a CT scan and found two tumours wrapped around his spine and one in his lungs. It turns out that it wasn't a pinched nerve; it was stage 4 melanoma, and they can't find the primary source—they still can't find the mole. Jeff's younger than you or me. He's 40 years old. He has a 10-year-old boy. He has twins who have just turned four. Imagine going to hospital with what you thought was a pinched nerve and being told you've got stage 4 melanoma and automatically thinking: 'Am I going to see those little girls grow up? Am I going to see their big brother grow up?' What happened to Jeff would have been a death sentence if it had happened 10 years ago. He basically would have been told to go home and die, but that's not the case anymore. The survival rate for people with advanced melanoma has jumped rapidly in the last few years. That's thanks to some extraordinary research and great new medicines. Jeff's on two drugs: one called dabrafenib and one called trametinib. A few weeks ago, the government extended the availability of these drugs under the PBS to people with stage 3 melanoma. I want to thank them from the bottom of my heart for doing that. These are drugs that I hope are going to save not only Jeff's life but, extending it to more people, the lives of even more Australians. The bottom line, though, is this: this is a deadly disease. It kills more than 1,500 Australians every year. The best chance of beating it is if you catch it early, which is what this campaign, Game on Mole, is all about. It's a truly Aussie campaign run by Melanoma Institute Australia. Their message is: take a photo of the moles on your body if you're worried about them. Do it this summer before you hit the beach. Slip, slop, slap, but also take photos of your moles and get a skin check. From me to everybody watching this: please do that. It's what I did. I took photos and I went and saw the doctor. It saved my life. Your doing it might just save your life too. Hinkler Electorate 119 19:55 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Can I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Blaxland, which is incredibly important to all Australians. It is a fantastic message that I hope they all heed, and I wish him well in his recovery. But back to the issue of the day. The 12 days of Christmas approach, and for those people I represent in Hinkler, the things that we need for those 12 days are the ones we need from the Labor state government—Premier Palaszczuk's government in Queensland. At No. 1 we have the Paradise Dam, and all we ask for is transparency. Tell us what is wrong with the dam and what you plan to do about it other than send 105,000 million litres of stored water down the river—105,000 megalitres in a drought. Gift wrap that one for us. No. 2 is the Hinkler regional deal. Sign up and put that one in our stocking. There is just a lousy $9 million on the table right now from the state Labor government. We certainly need more. No. 3 is to build a multiuse conveyor at the Bundaberg port. It is 100 per cent federally funded. All you have to do it build it. No. 4 is the demaining of Quay Street in Bundaberg. The federal government has $32 million on the table; the state government, zero. We need Annastacia Palaszczuk to step up and start to put some things in the Christmas stockings of the people I represent. At No. 5 is a $750,000 prefeasibility study for the port of Bundaberg. It is a look at whether an outer harbour is feasible, at the potential for larger ships to use the port and at more use of our local port, because it is the port of Bundaberg which will help drive our local economy into the future. At No. 6 we have the Urraween Road extension. Federally, we've committed $7.7 million and the local council has put up $7.7 million, but Premier Palaszczuk and the Queensland Labor government, once again, have put in zero. They have put not a single dollar towards the road extension, which is an important extension for the people of Hervey Bay. No. 7 is the level 5 hospital in Bundaberg. It's been talked about, talked about and talked about. Planning has commenced—I have to say that that's a positive—but we are yet to see an announcement on a location or a commitment of funding. This is a level 5 training hospital for the people of this region. It could help to service up to 300,000 individuals in Central Queensland. There are very few more important projects than this one. Vegetation laws I know are close to your heart, Mr Speaker, and come in at No. 8. In Queensland at the moment we just want common sense on bushfires. The Queensland Labor government has put in place vegetation laws which mean you can only clear 20 metres—just 20 metres—from a structure without a development approval. That is 10 metres on either side of a fence. Mr Speaker, I know that you know that if you're standing in front of a 60-foot raging inferno with a 30-knot wind up its backside you're not stopping it with a garden hose. So we say to those in power in Queensland: 'Just do something that matters.' These laws would have been introduced across the country if those opposite had been elected in May 2019. We need to back-burn. It is the way we have managed these risks for a very long period of time. Let's bring some sense back to the debate. At No. 9 we have cheaper electricity. I couldn't count how many times I've called for this in this place. In regional Queensland there is one provider, the Queensland state government. They own 70 per cent of the generators, they own all of the transmission and they own all of the distribution. Our local farmers and consumers are desperate for relief. They simply can't pay any more. Cheaper electricity is certainly on our list. At No. 10 is a power upgrade for the state controlled port of Bundaberg. We're doing everything we can to expand the port, but it is limited in capacity. We need an electrical upgrade. Once again, it's all owned by the state. It's a state owned port and there is state owned responsibility for power. No. 11 is water infrastructure. The Labor member for Maryborough has admitted that funding might have been spent on water storage, but he used it on other projects in his electorate. The Queensland state Labor government will take any opportunity to not build water infrastructure for the people I represent. I say to them once again: 'Get on board and build what is necessary. We need to improve water reliability in our region.' We can pop that one on our Christmas card. At No. 12, on the 12th day of Christmas, Premier Palaszczuk gave to me a partridge in a pear tree, because I think that's probably just as likely as them delivering on the other things that I've called for in this House today. The Queensland Labor government are broke. We've just had to prop them up with nearly $700 million of additional infrastructure funding because they cannot get Queensland moving. I say to the Premier of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk: don't be the Grinch this Christmas for the people in my electorate. We do like coal up our way, but we don't want to see it in our stockings. There is an opportunity for Premier Palaszczuk and the Queensland Labor government, once and only once, to do the right thing. You've never done it before. Now's your opportunity. Deliver what we need for our economy. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 120 NOTICES

Monday, 25 November 2019

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr R Mitchell) took the chair at 10:30

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 123 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Richmond Electorate: Centrelink 123 10:30 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I rise today to outline more National Party lies, cuts and chaos. This time it's the issue of the closing of three Centrelink service centres in the Tweed area. The Morrison Liberal-National government intends to close the Centrelink service centre, currently located on Blundell Boulevard, Tweed Heads South; the Centrelink call centre on Enterprise Avenue, Tweed Heads South; and the Centrelink administrative centre, located at Wharf St, Tweed Heads. They're all set to relocate into one premises at a yet to be determined location, and I've been inundated with concerns from locals about these changes. I've since written to the Minister for Human Services on behalf of our community to seek his urgent commitment that there will be no redundancies or cuts to current staff numbers at any of the three centres; no adverse impacts on frontline customer contact; no adverse impacts on claim or payment processing times; and no further decline in the delivery of services to our local community. I've also sought confirmation that any new service centre will be located only in the postcodes of 2485 or 2486; the new service centre will not be located on state significant land; the location of the consolidated centre will be easily accessible and close to public transport; and any land sale or rental agreements entered into by the Commonwealth will undergo a full and transparent process. In total, there are hundreds employed across these centres, and they provide services to tens of thousands of people. The Centrelink service centre based at Blundell Boulevard in Tweed Heads South, which also includes Medicare, provides essential services that locals rely on, and it's imperative that they remain easily accessible. I believe this major Centrelink office should remain at its current location on Blundell Boulevard. Seniors, veterans, people with disability, families, carers, locals seeking work and students all rely on the essential frontline services that our Centrelinks provide. On top of these closures, there are so many people impacted by this government's funding and staffing cuts to Centrelink. So many of our seniors have difficulty in accessing the pension, and I'm frequently contacted by constituents who are waiting months for their age pension claims to be processed—sometimes more than 12 months. This is clearly unacceptable. These seniors are literally living in poverty while their claims are waiting. This is a government that refuses to properly fund and resolve the problems they've created at Centrelink, and now they're closing these three Centrelink centres. My position is very clear: I'm calling on the government to guarantee the three Centrelink centres in Tweed will not be further undermined and that there will no adverse impacts on service delivery and no future job losses to our community. The fact is: the National Party's lies, cuts and chaos are hurting our community and it has to stop. Hughes Electorate: Aviation Industry 123 10:33 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I would like to give a shout-out to those in my electorate that work in the aviation industry and at Sydney Airport—the pilots and the crews; the ground staff; the baggage handlers; the transport operators; the taxi drivers; the Customs officials; the border protection staff; all those who work in the air freight industry and those who rely on the air freight industry for their imports and exports; the tourism industry; the hotels; the bed and breakfasts; the restaurants; the cafes; the list goes on and on. But this industry is currently under attack from the climate crazies. We currently have the concept called 'flight shaming' and we even have an international rock band refusing to fly because of the claims of the damage this important industry does to the world. Bjorn Lomborg has done some calculations. I know you may not like the gentleman, but let's look at his calculations. Currently, there are 40 million commercial flights a year. That's over 100,000 a day. If we took one-third of those flights—we are talking something like 30,000 flights a day—out of the sky and told those people they couldn't travel, if we did that today and kept it up to the year 2100, the calculations are that we would save 0.01 of a degree of warming. That is 100th of one degree by the year 2100. And we have people attacking this industry, to save that. There are not only economic benefits of international air travel; there are also social benefits. One of the greatest benefits to humanity from an airline industry is the ability of people from different nations and different cultures and with different customs to meet with each other, to play sport against each other, to travel and to interact—the quality of life that people get from exploring overseas countries, from exploring the tourist sites of the world. This is of invaluable worth to the world and it is invaluable to world humanity. We cannot estimate the cost of this, yet we have people attacking it. I would call on all parliamentarians to try and join new friendship group the Parliamentary Friends of Aviation and Airports to push back against this nonsense and tell those who work in this important industry that we stand with them. Pensions and Benefits 124 10:37 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I rise today to condemn the Morrison government for the robo-debt scheme. It's an outrageous abuse of power from a callous and arrogant government. The more we learn about this venomous scheme, the more we learn about how it is hurting people in my electorate and across our nation. In many ways, the robo-debt scheme is like an internet scam developed by the Morrison government to extort money from the vulnerable. Hundreds of thousands of letters have been sent out, to vulnerable Australians, demanding payment for debts the government claims are owed, with the onus on the recipient to disprove that debt. This forces anyone who wants to dispute their debt to obtain documentary proof of payments stretching back for years. These demands are sent despite the Morrison government knowing that one in five of these claims are wrong—that's one in five false demands. If a bank or financial institution did this to their customers they'd be in court. Through robo-debt, this government set out to use fear to try to prop up its budget, demanding money from those who could least afford to pay it, whether they owed it or not. The government has caused terrible harm in this process. As journalist Alex McKinnon wrote, in The Saturday Paper, in March this year: Revelations that more than 2000 people died after receiving a Centrelink robo-debt notice highlight the failings of an already flawed system that continues to target the vulnerable. Earlier this year a single mother of two contacted my office, desperate for help because she had received a computer generated robo-debt notice of demand. Two years ago, she tragically lost her partner to suicide. After this heartbreaking loss, she returned to full-time work to keep a roof over her children's heads. She relied on support from Centrelink and let them know when her hours and pay increased. At the end of the 2017-18 financial year Centrelink applied its robo-debt algorithm, to average her increased earnings across the whole year. This fraudulent and discredited process claimed she owed a debt of $6,000, which is an extraordinary amount for anyone, particularly a single parent trying to make ends meet to support their family. She spent months appealing the debt, but the government still forced her to pay it back in instalments, even though the appeal was not resolved. I condemn the Morrison government for the despicable robo-debt scheme, which has caused untold suffering to thousands of Australians. The robo-debt scheme is a brutal, unethical and almost certainly unlawful grab for cash. The Prime Minister should be apologising to the nation for this atrocious failure of policy and decency. Education 124 10:39 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman The State of early learning in Australia 2019 report was released about a half an hour ago in this building. It's an important overview for both sides of this chamber and for the general public to understand exactly where early learning and childcare services are in Australia. It makes some really handy international comparisons, as well. Australia's record of funding—interestingly, it is primarily privately provided—is relatively unique, with probably Australia and Canada following that model. But the outcomes can then be followed not only through the AED census, which 94 per cent of Australian prep children participate in, but even later. When we look at PISA scores, we can attach those scores to whether those students were or were not part of early learning. It wouldn't come as any great surprise that as one moves away from the major cities there's a greater issue around access, attendance and enrolment. More importantly, when we divide the society up into quintiles we are often trying to see the benefit to society of early learning and child care, and making sure that opportunities are afforded, particularly, to those in the lowest quintile. We're pretty lucky to have the census that's performed, because it gives every community—in fact, every postcode in Australia—the chance to identify the proportion of the population that is either vulnerable or at risk. They have five domains—they're pretty basic and it's all performed by prep teachers around Australia—looking at communication, language and social, physical and emotional development of children. Some would argue that it is a little late in the piece. At five years of age a fair bit of opportunity to intervene has already been missed. There's pretty much agreement on both sides that while a previous Labor government came up with a preschool check under Medicare, often referred to by some as a preschool full lube and oil change, it was a little bit late in the process and was taken up mostly by the wealthy families who knew that the item existed. The real point here is that in a universal system like Medicare, and in early learning itself, we need to make sure that we are absolutely focused on the children who benefit from it most. The next few stats I'm going to provide are not well-known. We're having a discussion about the importance of moving from four-year-olds going to preschool to having, for three-year-olds, a second provision of early learning and preschool in particular—not just attending child care—which has shown different outcomes in different countries. In countries that can mobilise the lowest quintile and get them into that additional preschool year, there are undoubted benefits by the age of 15. That's not the case in countries that can't do it, like Australia. In Australia, for three-year-olds there is just a one-point PISA difference, which is obviously not significant, between children who had a second year and those who didn't. There is a simple reason for this. Those who got the second year of preschool were all moderately wealthy, and there are easy-to-access childcare services in and around our major cities. We know that those from highly functional families have the least to gain by being taken from a functional family unit and being placed in preschool. (Time expired) Oxley Electorate: Riverlife Church; Jindalee Scout Group 125 10:43 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I'd like to recognise two groups of people from the Centenary suburbs in the Oxley electorate, the first being a team of 17 students from Riverlife Church in Jindalee, who set off a few short days ago to perform community and health assistance work with not-for-profit groups in Thailand. Their work will include visits to prisons, juvenile detention centres, community development programs and children's homes. This annual trip is an important part of the church's overseas outreach. The communities they work with on the ground always say how vital this support is from this Australia church. I especially acknowledge Pastor John Robertson and his amazing team at the church for their ongoing commitment and dedication to making the world a better place, not only across the globe but also right here in our local community. I have been fortunate to attend a number of services at the church in the past and I know just how much love Pastor John and the congregation have for our community. I send my best wishes to the students and their parents for safe travels, a fulfilling trip, and a safe return home. Just down the road from Riverlife Church is the amazing Jindalee Scout Group, where I recently had the honour of presenting the prestigious Australian Scout Medallion to Brady Schuh, Ari Christodolou and Cole O'Brien. The Australian Scout Medallion demonstrates a scout's commitment to developing their independence and leadership skills. It is the pinnacle award for the scout section. Scouts receiving the award have shown great personal development and commitment to the three scouting principles: duty to one's faith, duty to self and duty to others. The award, which was introduced in 2003, provides an additional challenge for top scouts. It brings together a number of key skills and elements learned through scouting. Participation in a scout leadership course and completion of the Adventurer Cord are required to earn the medallion. Scouts also need to demonstrate an active leadership role by taking part in the Australian Scout Medallion Leadership Activity. The leadership activity is chosen by the scout and showcases their ability to take initiative by following a 'plan, do, review' structure. I send my sincere congratulations to Brady, Ari and Cole for their achievement, alongside their parents and the Jindalee scouts, and everyone else who has helped achieve this significant recognition: the Australian Scout Medallion. Brady, Ari, and Cole, good luck for the road ahead, and I know you will continue to achieve great things for our local community. I really look forward to visiting the Jindalee scouts for their Christmas break-up this Friday evening. Berowra Electorate: Churches 125 10:45 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Yesterday I attended the opening and dedication of the new St Madeleine Sophie Barat Catholic church building at Kenthurst by Bishop Vincent Long. The church has been led by the much-loved Father Vincent Savarimuthu, whose tenure at the church has been extended for another six years. The opening of a new church building is a sign of confidence in, and hope for, the future. The church is the culmination of 20 years of work by the community, who wanted to create a more permanent sanctuary. The original building was always more of a church hall—attached to the local parish schools—than a sacred place of worship. The driving force behind the church was the late Maria Aiossa: a woman of great passion, a leader of the local Italian community and a great fundraiser. Her husband, Joe, donated the altar in the new church in her memory. The project was led by the chair of the parish council, Patrick Tuttle. He was supported by Michael Parslow, the head of the finance committee; Stuart Bennett and Pierre Coppini on the construction committee; and Darren Grech, the project manager. The new church—with its inspiring timber carvings and Australian motifs, like a boomerang-shaped window—was designed by Charles Glanville and built by Tony Falcone. The church was supported by the Parramatta diocese—led by Bishop Long, Geoff Officer and Father Peter Williams—and the Parramatta Catholic Education group, led by Greg Whitby and Mark Holyoake. The new church is not only functional but beautiful, and I hope it provides years of worship and inspiration for our local Catholic community. Congratulations to the community of St Madeleine Sophie Barat. Mt Colah Uniting recently celebrated its centenary with a special service and afternoon tea. Mt Colah Methodist Church was opened in November 1919. At this time, Mount Colah was on the rural fringe of Sydney. The church was surrounded by orchards. Mount Colah township consisted of the church, the police station and the post office. In 1965 a new church hall was built. In 1977, with the formation of the Uniting Church, Mt Colah Methodist became Mt Colah Uniting. By 1989 the congregation had outgrown the original church building, so the Sunday school was moved to the church hall, which was also home to Mt Colah Preschool. In 1994 the original church building was demolished to make way for a new worship centre, opened the following year by Reverend Cornwell. The present minister, Reverend Nich Cole, is also chaplain to the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. I have attended a number of services where he has presided. He's an exemplar of what a good minister should be: well formed in his faith, with great compassion, humility and warmth. Over the past century, Mt Colah Uniting has not only been a place of worship but a place of meeting, at various times providing a timeout centre for young mothers or a hub for young people. In 2015, the Mt Colah Neighbourhood Garden was also established on the church grounds, to provide communal space to grow food and other plants for the community. With a local Anglican church, the church has established a 'chat in English' group to provide opportunities to people who have English as a second language to improve their English together. Thank you, Mt Colah Uniting, for a huge contribution to our community, and all the best for your second century. Shortland Electorate: Indigenous Health 126 10:49 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I'd like to talk today about an organisation based on the Central Coast of New South Wales that is working hard to close the gap in health outcomes for Indigenous Australians. The Yerin Eleanor Duncan Aboriginal Health Centre is an Aboriginal community controlled health organisation that provides services to one-third of all Aboriginal people living on Darkinjung country, or about 4,000 people. As well as the primary care of GPs, Yerin provides home visits and support for patients in hospital; support for mental health clients during hospital treatment and after discharge in the community; and support for young people, in an effort to stop them entering or re-entering the child protection system and the juvenile justice system. It provides support for young people living in out-of-home care and the foster parents they live with. It provides help with transport; allied health services; dental services; nursing services; child care services; support for mums and bubs; drug and alcohol support; access to the NDIS; and health literacy, health promotion and services to help quit smoking. The list is long and the work is important, and yet Yerin's funding levels have not increased in eight years and they have outgrown their workspace. As the population and the demand for services grow, Yerin must be supported to continue its work. We know that appropriately resourced Aboriginal community controlled health care represents evidence based, cost-effective and efficient solutions for closing the gap in Indigenous health outcomes. When services are provided for community by community, they are most effective. Nearly three-quarters of Yerin's staff are Indigenous and the welfare of staff is important too. As the demand for services has grown, the safety of staff has come into focus. Unfortunately, assaults have occurred. Yerin must have a purpose-built fit-out that ensures staff and patients are safe. There are other broader challenges that Yerin faces. Staff say a lack of affordable housing creates problems in the community and that counselling and support services for the chronically ill that bulk-bill are in short supply. There are challenges placing children under 16 in rehab facilities for drug and alcohol problems; children have to travel all the way to the John Hunter Hospital or to Hornsby and places are limited; and there is a shortage of foster carers for Aboriginal children who are disproportionately represented in out-of-home care. There are 600 Indigenous children on the Central Coast living in out-of-home care but fewer than half of them, only 42 per cent, are able to be placed in kinship care. More Aboriginal foster carers and more supports are needed to help Indigenous children and their families and to provide those families with the support they need. We are in grave danger of creating another stolen generation unless we solve these problems. I want to thank Yerin staff for their commitment to our community. They are a bedrock of the northern Central Coast and they do great services for that entire community. Chisholm Electorate: Waverley Valley Aged Care 126 10:52 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm Earlier this month I had the privilege of visiting Waverley Valley Aged Care where I met with many happy residents. Since 2000 Waverley Valley has cared for senior Australians in a comfortable and safe environment. It is a family-run aged-care home. The founder and proprietor, Mr Noel Thompson, has run the home as a place where he himself or his relatives would want to stay. Chisholm is one of the most multicultural electorates in Australia, and this is true of Waverley Valley, with residents coming from all over the world to call Australia home. On the day of my visit, many residents were in the common room having fun watching the Melbourne Cup and enjoying afternoon tea. I also had the opportunity to visit residents in their private rooms. The residents I spoke with told me that they felt well catered for by hardworking and caring staff, and it was also obvious to me that emphasis has been placed on the cleanliness of the facility. The ratio of staff to residents is about one to three. This enables residents to receive care tailored to their unique needs. I was particularly impressed by their dementia-specific care. There are three levels of dementia care areas designed to help residents with dementia to transition into the later stages of life. There are more than 400,000 Australians living with dementia, and it is the single-greatest cause of disability in Australians over the age of 65. Sadly, it is also the leading cause of death among Australian females. It is estimated that more than 50 per cent of residents in Australian residential aged-care facilities have dementia. The emphasis that facilities like Waverley Valley are putting on providing a higher standard of care to these residents is encouraging. I was also impressed by the dedication of the many volunteers. Again, I thank Noel and his staff for the opportunity to visit and see firsthand the important work that they are doing to provide residents with a lovely place to call home. Thank you. Australian Bushfires 127 10:54 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin We're well and truly into the bushfire season, and I want to start by offering my condolences to those people who have lost family members, loved ones, friends, pets and possessions in the last few weeks. As we know, most states around the country have been affected by the bushfires. Last summer I had to stand up in this place and talk about the bushfire that affected my own community, in my seat of Franklin in Tasmania. You would have hoped, after what's been happening on the national scene and what happened in Tasmania last year, that our state Liberal government would be prepared for the fire season—but sadly not. Indeed, in our last round of Stronger Communities grants, I got volunteer fire brigades from my community to apply for grants for what is essential equipment—things like 'the jaws of life' for road accidents, things like UHF radios—to be able to do their volunteer work in the regional communities that I represent. This is simply not good enough from the state Liberal government. I wrote to the minister and I got back some airy-fairy letter that said, 'We give the State Fire Commission all the resources it needs.' Clearly that is not happening. Clearly the volunteer fire brigades on the ground are not getting the essential equipment they need to keep Tasmanians safe. I urge the state Liberal government to do what it should have done months ago: implement the recommendations of previous bushfire inquiries in Tasmania and ensure that our volunteer fire brigades are well prepared for the fire season. I also, of course, call on people in my electorate, and all Tasmanians, to prepare their own properties, to do what is required to make their homes safe and to do everything they can to help the local fire brigades and emergency services to do the job that they do so, so well. I've also been very concerned about the lack of response from the federal Liberal government. We've seen our leader, Anthony Albanese, write to the government about what is required to ensure that Australia—not just one state or territory but the whole nation—is prepared for the bushfire season. We know that, as a result of climate change, bushfire seasons are going to get more intense and longer, and we are going to need more equipment to ensure that Australians remain safe. It is the duty of the government to ensure that Australians remain safe. I call on the state Liberal government in Tasmania and the federal Liberal government to do everything within their power, everything they can, to keep Australians safe over this bushfire season. We've already seen that they haven't been able to do that with what has been occurring. We need to do everything we can. It is tragic. My own family was affected by a bushfire back in 1967, when my father's family home was destroyed. It is heartbreaking, and the repercussions go on for decades. We need to do everything we can, and we need to do more. Reid Electorate: St Nectarios Greek Orthodox Church, Chinese Australian Services Society 127 10:57 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid I'm incredibly fortunate to live in an electorate rich in cultural diversity, made up of people from different faiths. On Sunday 24 November I attended the official unveiling of St Nectarios Greek Orthodox Church, a heritage listed building in my electorate of Reid that has recently been restored. Over the years, the heritage listed church has become a significant place of worship and celebration for the Greek Orthodox community as well as for the broader community of Reid. In fact, many people come from far beyond the borders of our electorate to visit this church for weddings, christenings and major religious feast days. The Morrison government invested $300,000 into the restoration and preservation of this important heritage and cultural asset for the people of Reid. An additional $100,000 was contributed through the fundraising efforts of the local church parish. Members of the St Nectarios Greek Orthodox Church community were absolutely thrilled to see the two-year restoration project conclude. The building was originally built in 1879 by the Methodists, and it was fitting that the official unveiling which took place in November marked 140 years since the church was first built. The heritage listed building's sandstone exterior has been restored and waterproofed, new gates and fences have been installed and the internal walls have been replastered. The significant works were only possible through the federal government's Community Development Grants Program. It's only through a strong economy that we can back community projects like this one—projects that unite people through their connection to culture and faith, projects that uphold our country's diverse history. When I visited the building for its official reopening, members of the parish were thrilled that the newly restored church is ready for the 50th anniversary of the parish and community's establishment, which is to take place in 2020. I look forward to St. Nectarios Greek Orthodox Church's 50th anniversary celebrations, which will be held next year. I'm certain this newly restored church will be at the centre of much of the celebration, as a symbol of the community's history. I also wish to commend another organisation in my electorate, which has sprung from migrant roots but now forms an integral part of the community, the Chinese Australian Services Society, known as CASS. CASS is a community based, not-for-profit service that provides comprehensive care to those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, particularly focusing on people from the South-East Asian communities. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The time for members' constituency statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 128 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Recycling 135 11:41 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein It's wonderful to be able to speak on this motion moved by the member for Higgins, because it goes to the heart of the type of country we want to be. It goes to the heart of whether we're a nation that takes responsibility for itself as part of a global community and the action that we take as citizens, community and country to make sure that we steward our environment from one generation, healthy, to the next. Those are the values and those are the principles that motivated me to be in this chamber in the first place. They're the cornerstone of liberalism itself. This motion is a very liberal motion about the responsibility that we take and this government takes in stewarding the health of Australia's environment to future generations. What we have done as a government has been about how we build the capacity for Australians to care for the bounty of our beautiful continent. We have provided $167 million to fund an Australian recycling investment plan to increase Australia's recycling rates, to tackle plastic waste and litter, to accelerate work on new recycling schemes and to continue to implement our commitment to halve food waste by 2030. It's a plan, yes, that is designed in Canberra, but its focus is on how we work to empower community and citizens to take greater responsibility for themselves and do the right thing by our environment. Day in, day out we see this in our wonderful Goldstein community, made up of the City of Bayside and parts of the City of Glen Eira. Both councils, working with community organisations, continue to lead in caring for our environment. In fact, both recently introduced the capacity to put food waste in bins so that it can be recycled and harvested to generate energy. This is part of a long-term plan to develop compost for our community, to stop the waste, to stop so much food waste being put aside and discarded only to go to landfill. What's been really disappointing is that while we have councils taking such strong action, engaging residents to do the heavy lifting, and we have a federal government that has made this a big priority—and I want to particularly recognise and pay respect to Minister Trevor Evans; he has done a wonderful job in leading a discussion around the improvement of waste management across the country—there has been so little action, frankly, from our state government in Victoria, which seems to say the right things, but when it comes to an action plan for getting things done it has been left by the wayside. It has allowed us to end up in a situation where we have such a big crisis around waste in our state, and ultimately across the country. We are not just focusing our energy on what we need to do at the higher level around strategy. Yes, it is about empowerment, but it is also about the capacity and the opportunity that waste provides to recapture as part of a circular economy and to build the industries of the future. The $167 million that we have provided includes $100 million through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to support the manufacture of lower-emissions, energy-efficient recycled-content products, such as recycled-content plastics, paper and pulp. It includes $20 million for a new Product Stewardship Investment Fund, which will accelerate work on new recycling schemes, such as batteries, electrical and electronic products, photovoltaic systems and plastic oil containers. These important, simple but clear measures from this government stand in such stark contrast to the ineffectiveness of our state government, which is why I was so happy to see the Victorian opposition only yesterday come out with a clear plan on the waste crisis in our state—how it can be harvested and reused and repurposed for fuel energy generation. This is the sort of big-picture thinking that Australians want to see from the federal government and the state governments, where we can turn a burden into an opportunity and set the course for a safe environment that stewards it for future generations. 11:46 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta When I go out into my community and stand at the train stations and shopping centres, I hear from my community that they are, I suspect, decades ahead of our governments, in terms of what they need when it comes to reducing waste and using waste better. They are decades ahead. Mention community composting and they all say they want to be into it, but councils aren't providing it. Talk about the bigger issues of plastics recycling, the overuse of plastics in our packaging and the use of the wrong plastics and they are ready for action. The federal government needs credit for what it is doing now, but it is late and it is not enough. I don't believe it actually recognises the extraordinary opportunity this nation has to play a significant role in reducing waste and using it better, through the circular economy. Waste is absolutely an opportunity. We have had our finger on the pause button on this for the last seven years and we have a lot of catching up to do. Waste is not just plastics. I will get to plastics but I want to cover some other areas that we should be talking about as well. I have seen companies recently working to recycle cotton—96 per cent of our clothing goes into landfill. They can make one cotton T-shirt out of 1¼ cotton T-shirts, by extruding it, like viscose. It is an incredible change, which allows an incredibly valuable material like cotton to be used over and over again and keeps it in its life cycle. We have two scientists in Australia who have announced in the last few days that they can now recycle plastic completely—all plastics mixed together—and take it back to its raw form. But they are going to the UK because there is not enough investment in Australia to support what they're doing. We have companies in Ireland and in Europe that are now taking palladium, rhodium and platinum out of road dust, using enzymes. It falls off the catalytic converters, and they collect it and recycle it—and they are making a living out of doing it. It is incredible stuff. We have phosphorus issues all around the world. We know that the world won't run out of phosphorus, because it is an element, but it will end up in our oceans. We are running out of usable phosphorus for our agriculture, and plants don't grow without it. Science tells us that if we collect it in closed systems we could recycle phosphorus at least 40 times before it becomes unusable, yet we use it once. It is applied to the land and then flushes down creeks into the ocean, where it does damage. We know that it is only a matter of time now, and not a long time, before demand for drinking water exceeds supply—in fact, in some countries it already does—yet in Australia we flush our toilets with drinking water. We don't even use it once before we flush it down our toilets. We don't recycle our washing water or our shower water and use that to flush our toilets. We put drinking water on our gardens. The amount of waste we have in this country that we can address for the future of the world—not just our own future—is quite extraordinary. You can see it in my community: people are starting to take action, to use things they already have—to reuse, recycle, swap and sell, to reduce the land fill of reusable items. We can see the Bower running the campaign Right to Repair, arguing that our toasters, electric jugs and air conditioners should be repairable. Quite often they're not. They also recycle an incredible amount of material through that shop. We have a Facebook group that has 36,340 followers called Parramatta Buy Swap Sell. It has 36,340 members who swap stuff between them around the area of Parramatta. You'll find so many young people now—if you talk to young people—who buy secondhand and swap and sell clothing. It's an incredible commitment to use less. You can see that movement moving right through the community. We have sharing maps for Sydney, where you can go online and look at all the different organisations, not for profits and businesses that are starting to emerge in the reuse space, because the community is ahead of this place and ahead of its local councils. It desperately wants to do better. We already see the green shoots in our community. We've see the Darcy Street cafe as the first cafe in Parramatta to simply ban disposable cups. You have to take your cup in. It's doing incredibly well, and it's starting to work with others to do the same thing. I have small businesses in my community coming to my office every day and complaining that they can't recycle bottles through their waste stream. The council doesn't collect recyclable bottles, so they quite often end up in landfill. There's much more to do for this government to catch up with the community. The announcements they've made are a good step. A lot of it is reusable, recycled money, so it's not new, but there's much more to do. (Time expired) 11:52 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I'm pleased to rise on this motion that was brought to the House by the member for Higgins. It brings attention to a national crisis that is—pardon the play on words—often wasted on us. We, as a country, generate some 2.7 tonnes of waste per person per year, nearly half of which ends up in landfills, our oceans, our rivers or, until lately, overseas. I think this is a timely discussion on the back of National Recycling Week held last week. Contrary to common assumptions, there's no such thing as 'throwing something away'. When we throw something away, it must go somewhere. I know, from speaking to many around my electorate of Forde, people care about recycling and what they throw away. Australians want to be confident that, when they put something in their recycling bin or when they take their rubbish to the recycling centre, it will be repurposed effectively and not simply dumped into landfill or sent overseas, out of sight, out of mind. Our waste is our responsibility and we should deal with it in this country. That's why I think it's important to see the Morrison government taking practical action to ensure this occurs—to better manage our waste and ensure that our valuable resources are recycled and reused effectively and consistently in this country. To that effect, we're investing $167 million to fund the Australian Recycling Investment Plan, with the aim of increasing our recycling rates, tackling plastic waste and fast-tracking work on new recycling schemes while continuing action to meet our commitment to halve food waste by 2030. More importantly, the Morrison government is working with our states and territories to implement an export ban on domestic recycled waste from July next year. We are also committing to waste reduction targets for all states and territories under the national waste action plan. We're always looking to work towards building our country's capacity to generate high-valued recycled commodities and growing associated demand. I've said a number of times at a variety of meetings that I believe we have, in this country, an enormous opportunity to recycle our waste for our economic benefit. Importantly, if we recycle our waste and repurpose it, it reduces our reliance and need to continue to use virgin natural resources to create the products we need. The ability to recycle and reuse has not only enormous economic but also environmental benefits for our country. One organisation just outside of my electorate but in the city of Logan is Substation33, which recycles e-waste. Importantly, it not only recycles e-waste; it gives skills and on-the-job training opportunities to marginalised or disenfranchised people through its program, building their skills and allowing them to get into the workforce. It has a dual purpose: it's about recycling e-waste, but it's also about giving people job opportunities. Importantly, some of the recycled e-waste goes into producing the flood warning signs that Logan City Council, with funding from the Commonwealth government, is installing across the city. So, again, we can see a number of benefits being achieved out of that recycling program. The federal government has also invested $6.2 million in my electorate of Forde—again, in conjunction with Logan City Council—for the biosolids gasification project at the Loganholme Wastewater Treatment Plant. This Australian-first initiative will see sewage sludge turned into energy and biochar, and provide a more cost-effective and sustainable approach to biosolid disposal. The processing of the biosolids in the gasification facility is expected to reduce biosolids waste disposal at the plant by some 90 per cent. This pioneering project, which will be managed in part by Logan City Council, could pave the way for similar projects being replicated in councils across the country. I would like to thank Logan City Council for hosting the very informative waste fair last weekend for families in our community to learn more about how they can reuse, reduce and repurpose their domestic waste. These are just some of the many examples of the wonderful work being done across our country. (Time expired) 11:57 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I thank the member for Higgins for bringing this most important matter to the House. The world is in the midst of a waste crisis. E-waste, clothing waste, plastic waste and food waste all present a serious and pressing problem to global environmental sustainability that ultimately threatens to undermine the world economy and livelihood of millions. Of these categories, no type of waste can eclipse the potential impact that plastics is having on our ecosystems worldwide. According to the McKinsey report, if plastic use continues at the current level, by 2025 a business-as-usual scenario would have global quantities of plastic in the ocean reach 250 million tonnes. The problem is acute in Australia and nowhere more so than in an electorate like Warringah, where, as a coastal electorate, we see it in our oceans. The CSIRO has found that over three-quarters of rubbish along our coast is plastic, with up to 40,000 pieces of plastic per square kilometre. Clean-up days are regularly held to pick up huge quantities of plastic, but we need regulations so that we preserve them and stop using so much plastic. We need to transition away from their use. The halting of Australian waste to Asia has put the onus back on us to determine the future of our race. While this has been a short-term crisis—the challenge has been straining local councils and government's ability to respond—it also represents an unparalleled opportunity to transition our economy to a more sustainable model—a circular economy. In Warringah we have several companies leading the way at the forefront of waste management, from Edge Environment, a certified B Corporation and environmental consultancy, which assists clients with their waste processes and management by helping them shift to a circular economy, to War on Single Use Plastic, WOSUP, which is introducing novel ways to get rid of plastics. Supported by KPMG, WOSUP Australia is developing a cooperative research centre project, bringing together War on Single Use Plastic and the UNSW SMaRT centre to help translate their globally cutting-edge plastic recycling technology into a new commercially-ready prototype microfactory. The project will help to recycle plastics that are currently being stockpiled by local and regional councils. UNSW's cutting-edge microfactory technology will provide efficient plastic recycling at smaller scales than were previously feasible, which will enable recycling hubs to be implemented locally, something that local councils are very focused on. But governments must act, too. There's a lot of good legislation occurring at state level, and for that I give my thanks to Minister Kean in New South Wales for the great success. Great work is being done by councils in my electorate. All three councils have plastic strategies, adopted by council. They include initiatives like Plastic Free July in Mosman; the Northern Beaches Council's Swap This For That program, which aims to reduce single-use plastics; and North Sydney's adoption of the Bye-bye Plastic Hello BYO campaign. We need to expand with federal legislation to guide the transition to a low-waste economy. To that effect, we've got the Product Stewardship Act 2011, which provided a framework for managing environmental, health and safety impacts of products and the impacts associated with the disposal of products. But we need to put the onus back on the companies to make sure that there is incentive to ensure that the use of plastics is phased out. The National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 established a National Environment Protection Council responsible for making national environment protection measures and assessing and reporting on their implementation and effectiveness. Seeing good partnership between states and the Commonwealth and the new plan recently adopted by COAG—the 2019 National Waste Policy Action Plan—are all good steps in the right direction. I must say, everywhere I go in the electorate of Warringah, at every school I visit, there is not a single student not focused on the war against waste and especially the war against plastics—in our beautiful oceans, in our beautiful environment. It is constantly being brought up. I had the pleasure yesterday of launching Operation Crayweed, led by Balgowlah Primary School, where they are looking at the reintroduction of crayweed in our marine habitats because it was all endangered and put into difficulty by waste and plastics. This is something we all have to be focused on. Our kids in our schools know this; they are focused on it. And now, as the adults and here in this parliament, we need to take the steps necessary to reduce our waste. 12:02 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman Australia boasts some of the most beautiful sights and sounds in the world. We have beautiful rivers, creeks, national parks, landmarks and oceans. We have an abundance of wildlife and sea life of all shapes and sizes. We have fauna and flora not seen anywhere else in the world, and this country is home to just 24.6 million people and their families. This is why we must exercise environmental stewardship so that we can stop waste from destroying our creeks, oceans and rivers; harming our wildlife and sea life; hurting our flora and fauna; clogging drains; and littering campgrounds and our national parks. All of this greatly affects the health of Australians, creates major economic losses, hinders economic growth and has devastating environmental impacts. I'm calling on all Australians to take action on waste by taking personal responsibility and standing up and saying, 'Our waste, our responsibility.' Waste is an issue for all of us. We all create it, we all dump it, and that means we are all responsible for what happens to it. This is why I'm placing a high priority on creating new employment pathways through re-used recycling and remanufacturing initiatives in Longman. Data indicates that resource recovery and recycling employs more than three times as many people per tonne of waste compared with landfilling. This data also shows that recycling and resource recovery provides 9.2 full-time jobs for every 10,000 tonnes of waste recycled, compared with 2.8 jobs when sending the same waste to landfill. We have organisations in my electorate of Longman that are already doing amazing work in this area, by encouraging the responsible use and protection of our precious natural environment through fantastic conservation and sustainable practice. For that, I thank them, and I take this opportunity to invite any business, social enterprise or not-for-profit that have as their core purpose reducing waste and creating jobs to come to Longman. The Morrison government is strongly committed to reducing waste, increasing recycling rates and building capacity within our domestic recycling industry. Australians currently generate 67 million tonnes of waste per year, 2.7 tonnes per person, of which only around 58 per cent is recovered. Our government is taking practical action to better manage our waste here in Australia and ensure that our valuable resources are recycled and re-used over and over again. The Morrison government has committed $167 million to a comprehensive Australian recycling investment plan, which includes $100 million through the CEFC to support the manufacturing of products contained in recycled materials, such as recycled plastics, along with $20 million to support research into new and innovative solutions to plastic recycling and waste, $20 million for new product stewardship schemes and nearly $6 million for community campaigns to clean up plastic waste from our beaches and rivers. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Proceedings suspended from 12 : 05 to 12 : 15 Mr YOUNG 201906 We've also invested $22.65 million this financial year for the Communities Environment Program to support a wide range of small-scale, on-ground projects that aim to conserve, protect and manage our environment. The program seeks to support community groups to address local environmental priorities and also seeks to encourage the community to connect with their local natural environment and to build and strengthen local communities. This program is encouraging local groups to take environmental stewardship and responsibility for the protection of our precious environment. In addition, the government is supporting industry-led national targets that include the phasing out of problematic and unnecessary single-use packaging and is continuing to phase out products containing harmful microbeads from the Australian market. In 2016-17 Australians generated about 67 million tonnes of waste, and that figure is increasing. The cost of food waste alone in the economy is estimated at $20 billion each year. Even as householders, we have responsibilities for waste. Usually this means putting our waste and recycling out for collection by our local council. We must always deal responsibly with waste and work together to better manage waste so it doesn't harm the environment. I know that Australians care deeply about recycling and caring for our precious environment and they want to be confident that when they put things in their recycling bin or deliver them to the collection centre these things will be repurposed effectively, not simply dumped in landfill or sent overseas. Together we must take personal responsibility and exercise environmental stewardship to ensure that we take the appropriate measures and actions needed to cut down on waste, manage our waste and ensure that Australia's environment is protected and cherished—because it's our waste, it's our responsibility. 12:17 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley Littering and mismanaged waste is a serious threat to our environment and significantly impacts the use, enjoyment and value of our local parks and waterways. Plastic waste, in particular, has a serious impact on our environment, especially our oceans and fisheries. Australians generate approximately 103 kilograms of plastic per person each year, but only 12 per cent of that plastic waste is recycled. The rest is either burned, buried or sent overseas. Two per cent of our carbon emissions come from waste. It goes without saying that this is a significant issue for environmental protection, for sustainability and for our response to climate change. Unfortunately, when faced with the science and the facts, this government has been too slow in responding to Australia's growing waste problem. Two-thirds of the government's so-called recycling investment plan we're speaking about today is made up of repackaged loan funds. The $100 million Australian Recycling Investment Fund is nothing more than a new label slapped on existing Clean Energy Finance Corporation moneys. This is not a form of new investment and it's not matched funding as previously suggested by the government speakers today. There is no direct funding support, or in fact procurement policies, in place to help establish the necessary Australian recycling industry. There is no doubt that Australians are ready to play their part by trying to use less plastic and re-use and recycle where possible, and businesses are willing and able to be part of major change. As an example, I am proud to stand in this place and speak about the success of my home state of Queensland and our pioneer cash for container recycling scheme. Containers for Change is a statewide program that gives Queenslanders an incentive to collect and return containers to designated collection points in exchange for a 10c refund payment. That 10c can either go back into their pockets or can be donated directly to a community group or sports club. The program is operated by the not-for-profit company COEX and it is backed by the Queensland Labor government. It aims to cut down on littering, encourage recycling and reduce the percentage of waste that ends up in landfill. The program has now been running for 12 months and it's going gangbusters. In the first weekend of the scheme, Queenslanders recycled almost 1.5 million containers. One year on, our recycling rate has increased from 45 per cent to 62 per cent, and a total of one billion containers have been returned across 330 designated collection points in the state. I would specifically like to thank Sandgate District State High School and Stafford State School in my electorate of Lilley for hosting designated drop-off points. The greater Brisbane area alone has recycled over 402 million containers and received back $40.26 million over the past year. While the Containers for Change program has been a great success, with a 17 per cent increase in recycling over the past 12 months, we aren't done yet. Queenslanders have set a target to lift our recycling rate to 85 per cent by 2022. The statistics show that Queenslanders care about recycling and about keeping our state great. Feedback I've been receiving from my constituents at mobile offices in Virginia, Sandgate and Wavell Heights is that they love the program and they want more investment in developing effective and sustainable waste management systems to protect our environment. Cleaning up our community is not the only benefit of Containers for Change. It provides benefits to social enterprises throughout Queensland by funding smaller scale infrastructure projects to set up donation points, to create fundraising opportunities for community groups, charities and not-for-profits. Investment in emerging industries like recycling and sustainable waste management not only has exponential impacts for the environment but it boosts local jobs and is great for our local economy. Through the Containers for Change program, 700 new jobs have been created across Queensland in only one year. Just across the border in New South Wales, new recycling technology is being created by Dr Len Humphreys and Professor Thomas Maschmeyer which can convert plastic back into source materials, including oil. This is a remarkable and promising breakthrough that illustrates untapped ingenuity in Australian scientific research and innovation. It could be used as a better recycling process creates new manufacturing job opportunities. Unfortunately, the company taking the idea to market has been forced to open their first recycling plant in the United Kingdom because this government does not offer the necessary market incentives and clear policy framework to support a plastics recycling facility of this kind in Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Incarceration Rates 140 12:23 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That this House: (1) recognises that: (a) Australia's incarceration rate has now risen to 0.22 percent, the highest level since Federation; (b) rates of homicide, robbery, car theft and assaults have fallen considerably since the mid-1980s, while the imprisonment rate has more than doubled; (c) the direct cost of prisons is almost $5 billion per year; and (d) there is a significant indirect cost of prisons, including the impact on the 77,000 children who have an incarcerated parent, adverse effects on the physical and mental wellbeing of inmates, and high rates of homelessness and joblessness among ex-prisoners; (2) acknowledges that: (a) the Indigenous incarceration rate is now 2.5 percent, the highest level on record; (b) the Indigenous incarceration rate is now over twice as high as when the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody report was delivered; (c) among Indigenous men born in the 1970s, 23 percent have spent time in prison; (d) the Indigenous incarceration rate exceeds the incarceration rate among African-Americans; and (e) Noel Pearson has described Indigenous Australians as 'the most incarcerated people on earth'; (3) notes that in: (a) the United States (US), a bipartisan reform coalition at the state level has led to a substantial reduction in that nation's imprisonment rate over the past decade, with conservative groups such as Right on Crime joining with centrist reformers such as the Pew Charitable Trust's Public Safety and Performance Project to reduce incarceration in states such as Alabama, Texas and South Carolina; and (b) 2018, President Trump signed the 'First Step Act', which reduces the US federal prison population by expanding compassionate release and increasing credits for good behaviour; and (4) calls on the Government to: (a) work with the states and territories to adopt justice targets under the Closing the Gap framework, so that the inequality in justice outcomes can be properly highlighted and to address unacceptable levels of incarceration among First Nations peoples; (b) require the Australian Institute of Criminology to project levels of incarceration (and fiscal costs) in 10 years' time in the absence of meaningful policy reform; and (c) engage states and territories in an data-driven conversation—drawing together victims' rights groups, prosecutors, and criminal justice experts—to identify the policies that are most effective to reduce crime and imprisonment. Prison has an important role to play in incapacitating those who might do the community harm, in deterring those who might contemplate doing the wrong thing and in rehabilitating those who have done the wrong thing. But, in an era in which crime is falling, in which you are half as likely to be a victim of murder as you were in the 1980s, in which robbery rates and motor vehicle thefts are down, Australia is building a lot more prisons. Prisons are expensive and prisoners are expensive. States are currently scheduled to spend billions of dollars constructing new prisons, and housing every prisoner costs over $300 a day. That is more than the cost of a five-star hotel room in a big city. Since 1985, the incarceration rate in Australia has risen from 96 prisoners per 100,000 adults to 221 prisoners per 100,000 adults in 2018. Among Indigenous Australians, the incarceration rate has risen from one per cent in 1990 to 2.5 per cent today. In Western Australia, the incarceration rate exceeds four per cent of adults, meaning that more than one in 25 Indigenous Western Australian adults are currently behind bars. That's only a snapshot at a particular point in time. If you look at Indigenous men of my generation, a quarter will spend time in jail. Recently the Indigenous incarceration rate exceeded the African American incarceration rate for the first time, leading Noel Pearson to describe Indigenous Australians as the most incarcerated people on earth. That's why Labor supports an additional Closing the Gap target of incarceration. As they go to bed tonight, 77,000 Australian children will be without a parent because 77,000 Australian children have a parent behind bars. Those children are more likely to suffer mental health problems, are more likely to experience behavioural problems at school and are more likely to themselves engage in crime and be incarcerated. There is an intergenerational cycle that comes with incarceration. We know that around half of those who are incarcerated will be homeless upon release, that eight per cent say that they shared needles while in jail and that 11 per cent say that they were attacked by another prisoner while in jail. There is another approach to ever-increasing incarceration in the face of declining crime rates. Ironically, Australia can learn from the most incarcerated country on earth—the United States. Since 2007, the US incarceration rate has fallen 11 per cent. Some 35 states have reformed criminal justice policies through justice reinvestment, working with bodies such as the Pew Public Safety Performance Project and the Council on Criminal Justice. These are Republican states and Democrat states. They include Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky and Texas. The reforms include reclassifying and redefining drug offences, revising mandatory minimums, establishing parole board member qualifications, improving electronic monitoring, capping revocation time, piloting specialty courts, requiring fiscal impact statements on expenditure on prisons, improving data collection, and establishing an oversight council. I commend the reformers in the United States, including Republican Jerry Madden from Right on Crime, for their willingness to discuss with Australians the lessons of that country's system. Last week the Ninth International Criminal Justice Conference was held in Melbourne. It included Adam Gelb, the President and CEO of the Council on Criminal Justice in the United States, speaking about the lessons that can be learnt from a country that has sought to make its streets safer and reduce expenditure on incarceration. In Australia I pay tribute to David Robertson, John Paget, Rick Sarre, Andrew Bushnell, Arie Freiberg, Mark Finnane and Adam Graycar, among many others, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that we have evidence based criminal justice policy. This is not about being soft on crime. This is about being smart on crime, reducing the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on incarceration, and increasing the effectiveness of our criminal justice policy. There is no reason why Australia cannot have safer streets and closed prisons while saving taxpayers resources and at the same time improving the wellbeing of those who would otherwise be incarcerated. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Is the motion seconded? Ms Kearney LTU I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 12:28 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I thank the member for Fenner for bringing this motion on the floor today. I commend him for doing so. He's quite correct—this is not about going soft on crime. This is about looking at history and seeing that what has been done in the past has not worked. I speak from experience. I grew up in the township of Kempsey, which in the seventies was second only to Moree in Indigenous numbers. I went to school with a number of Indigenous children. It was very common during my formative years for those kids to have one, and sometimes both, of their parents in custody. It was just an everyday thing. They would speak of that in class or in the playground. In my later years, as a police officer in Kempsey, overwhelmingly the arrests involved Indigenous people. In 1991 the royal commission came out with 339 recommendations, many of which have not been fulfilled. As a prosecutor in Redfern and the Downing Centre, again, I saw the revolving door of Indigenous people coming in and out. And, as a lawyer of 18 years, the usual question was not, 'What's going to happen to me?' but, 'How long will I get?' So what changes do we need to make? Because the past has not worked. We need a holistic approach. We need to break the cycle and recognise that punishment does not work. We firstly need to take a holistic approach and identify why this has occurred—past trauma, dispossession, alcohol. My friend spoke about justice reinvestment. In Kempsey, we are commencing a pilot program of justice reinvestment. The member for Fenner also spoke about reducing statistics of crime. Well, in fact, in Kempsey, criminal incidents, violence and property offences have risen by 25 per cent in the last 24 months. Break and enters have increased by 46 per cent. Fraud has increased by 77 per cent. The community of Kempsey and the Indigenous community of Kempsey realised that something needed to change. There is a great appetite for community change. The justice reinvestment model is that change. While still adopting the policing role, this also involves adopting a community role, where the Indigenous community have their own forum sentencing and their own circle sentencing. It involves recognising that there needs to be leadership within the community and the breaking of the welfare cycle. This has been recognised by Mark Morrison, the principal of Kempsey vocational college. You may have seen this college on the ABC recently. It takes those children who have been abandoned by the school system. Over the past years those kids have graduated with certificates in various courses, their HSC and training in retail. It's giving them a path and giving them a future, because of a vision that policing was not the be-all and end-all. Whether it's an engagement of closing the gap or a mixture of justice reinvestment, we all need to be unified. There needs to be a bipartisan approach with all Indigenous communities to change the system. We need to make sure that the Indigenous are no longer overrepresented in the justice system. Yes, there is a place for punishment. There will always be a place for punishment. But when you have systems like in the Northern Territory—the three-strike rule—where somebody could go to jail for three years for stealing something for $6 or $7, there is something seriously wrong with the system. I again commend the member for Fenner for moving this motion, and I look forward to working together on this issue. 12:33 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper Let me begin by making the most important acknowledgment of all, and that is that I speak to you on Aboriginal land. I pay respects to elders past, present and emerging, and speak to you with humility on these lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people: a proud people, who have survived all challenges over the decades and have prospered. This land is stolen and was never ceded. I want to thank the member for Fenner for his incredibly important work on the subject of Indigenous incarceration. I also want to acknowledge the member for Barton and Senators Dodson and McCarthy. In our First Nations voices, solutions lie. I am committed to listening to their voices, because in their voices we will find the answers. I speak with humility on this topic because I cannot pretend to know the indignity and the suffering that First Nations peoples have endured since the colonisation of this ancient land. Colonisation brought the arrival of disease, the expulsion of peoples from their traditional lands and the separation of children from their parents. The loss of identity and the marginalisation of entire communities decimated our First Peoples. This is what Prime Minister Keating acknowledged when he spoke at Redfern in 1992 and declared that the starting point must be: … to recognise that the problem starts with us non-Aboriginal Australians. It begins, I think, with that act of recognition. Recognition that it was we who did the dispossessing. A year before Keating gave the speech, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommendations were released, a seminal report which my friend Senator Dodson worked on. It's been 28 years since this report was released, yet the vicious circle that drives overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians in our justice system continues. There have been over 400 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander deaths in custody since the 1991 royal commission. Among Indigenous men born in the 1970s, almost one in four has spent time in prison. Nine-tenths of Indigenous men from WA born in the late 1970s have been arrested, charged or summonsed by police. An Indigenous man is 15 times more likely to be imprisoned than a non-Indigenous man. An Indigenous woman is 21 times more likely to be in custody than a non-Indigenous woman. An Indigenous child is 25 times more likely to be in detention. Those statistics should horrify every single person that hears them. Just weeks ago, Kumanjayi Walker, an Aboriginal boy, was killed, and a police officer has been charged with his murder. Nine papers reported: 'No emergency or even general health facilities were available that night in the town.' This should sting every one of us. It should make us sit up and pay attention. It's a story that too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities face with their interaction with the justice system, and too often this interaction ends tragically. Nowhere is the story of unfairness and diminished opportunity more clearly defined than in the justice gap experienced by First Nations peoples. It is unacceptable. For too long our justice system has failed First Nations peoples. As parliamentarians, I think we sometimes struggle to know how to fix it, but we actually have a very good guide to how we reduce Indigenous incarceration. In 2018 the Australian Law Reform Commission produced the Pathways to justice report. The ALRC made 35 recommendations towards systemic reform of how the justice system deals with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Their findings came from 11 months of research, 149 consultations and more than 120 submissions. This government, a third-term government, has not yet responded to it. It's not acceptable to ignore this issue. In tackling the entrenched disadvantage faced by First Nations people in the justice system, we must be guided by those who live the reality of the justice gap, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their community-controlled and representative organisations. I have had the honour of meeting a number of times with the organisation Change the Record, which includes the wonderful young Jessica Peters, an Aboriginal woman who has experienced the justice system firsthand. They are part of the solution. Change the Record are demanding that we do not let another generation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people lose their futures, their dignity and, for some, their lives because of inaction by the Australian government. My seat, Cooper, which is on the lands of the Wurundjeri people, is named after William Cooper, the trailblazing activist who spent his lifetime working to advance Aboriginal rights. In 1935 William Cooper wrote to the King, asking that the Aboriginal people be given a voice. Today, almost 85 years later, we're still fighting to achieve that. We need constitutional recognition, enshrining in it a voice to parliament. We need to keep the process of reconciliation alive. And we need makarrata, a treaty and truth-telling and healing, because, until our communities can reconcile a joint narrative about the history of this country, we cannot be truly reconciled. 12:38 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to support this motion. I would also like to acknowledge the member for Fenner for his extensive work in this area. His words today and over past years have reflected his commitment to accurate research, policy development and social justice for all Australians—in particular, our First Australians. As has been pointed out, incarceration in Australia is one of our biggest social challenges. It has become such an issue. It is a costly exercise for governments, both in the direct cost of incarcerating Australians and the indirect and associated social issues that arise. We often look at the United States and recognise it as the home of incarceration. For too long, African Americans have made up a disproportionate number of inmates across the United States, and they still do today. Here in our own country, the proportion of incarcerated First Australians outweighs that. There is a higher rate of First Australians in our corrective systems than there is of African Americans in the United States corrections system. We must now look to those states of the United States that have led reform in this area and use their examples to reduce the financial and social toll that this incarceration takes. These reforms are not partisan policies. In fact, it was only last year that we saw the First Step Act, which allowed the compassionate release of imprisoned Americans and credits given towards their total time of incarceration for good behaviour. The act also allows for judges to ease mandatory minimum sentences and restricts practices that oversentence offenders, like stacking multiple weapons offences. These are not groundbreaking reforms, but the United States has had an issue with overincarceration and prison crowding for decades. Australia must now have a national conversation about both of these things. It must look inward and outward. We must look inward to our key issue: that our First Australians are more likely than nearly any other demographic in the world to be incarcerated. We must look outward to programs that have been embraced, most notably the First Step Act in the United States. The rate of incarceration of First Australians is deplorable and unacceptable. Since 1990, the rate of incarceration of First Australians has more than doubled. One in four incarcerated adults in Australia is a First Australian. This means that First Australians are more likely to be incarcerated than African Americans. The research has found that, since 1985, the share of women prisoners has nearly doubled, the share of Indigenous prisoners has nearly tripled and the average age of prisoners has increased by seven years. What this research has done is provide us with a chance to analyse data and identify solutions. What must be done now is to appreciate the extensive work that the member for Fenner has done in this area and develop appropriate policies across all levels of government to stem the issues. Significant change in our prisoner population is at the extreme end of the scale. It's no accident that punitive policies and laws are sending more of our most vulnerable and disadvantaged Australians to jail and for longer. While white settlement of our nation was against somewhat of a convict background, I doubt that, a little over 200 years on, Australians want us heading towards another spate of incarcerations. This issue does not call for softer sentencing. It does not mean we should release prisoners earlier. It does not call for alleviated sentences based on gender or on the racial or cultural background of a person. As the member for Fenner has said, it calls for a national approach to a criminal justice system. We need to face these issues head on. We need to work with our states and territories for logical and rational criminal justice policies that do not revert to the modus operandi of incarceration. We need to look at underlying social issues that cause our most vulnerable and disadvantaged Australians to be so unacceptably overrepresented in our jails. At the top level, we're talking about education, wider and easier access to mental health support, and alternatives to incarceration that do not involve the full-time jailing of offenders—alternatives like justice reinvestment in New South Wales, which was discussed earlier by the honourable member, which localises early intervention, prevention and diversionary solutions that can help reduce crime, build local capacity and strengthen local communities. I congratulate the member for Fenner again for his extensive work on this issue and for bringing this motion to the attention of the House. It has highlighted a problem in our society and in our policies that shows that we do need, as proposed, a combined and national approach to policy reform in this area. 12:43 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to speak in support of the motion from the member for Fenner. I want to thank him for this motion and for the research that he's conducted on this very important issue. What the member for Fenner has revealed is the shameful reality of incarceration in Australia. In fact, he points to what he calls a second convict age in Australia, as we now incarcerate a greater share of the population than at any point since 1899. More Indigenous Australians are locked up than ever before, with a higher share of First Nations peoples locked up in Australia than the notoriously high number of African Americans in the USA. And these increases are not due to increasing crime rates; crime in Australia has actually decreased over the same period. More work needs to be done at all levels of government to significantly reduce the number of First Nations people in jail. We need to know more about the future costs, both social and economic, of continuing to lock people up at record levels. We need to take part in a data-driven conversation to determine the best way to reduce crime and imprisonment in Australia. We know that once someone enters the criminal justice system the chances of them leading a happy and productive life decrease significantly, a dire cost for both the people and our nation. Why do we lock up over 43,000 Australians every year, and why, when the average incarceration rate in Australia is 0.22 per cent, do we lock up First Nations people at a rate of 2.5 per cent, the highest level on record? It is shocking that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men remain twice as likely to be in jail than to go to university. This statistic is not new, but it is something that should disgust us all as Australians and we need to keep talking about it until we can address it. Many First Nations people have a culturally ingrained mistrust of our law enforcement agencies, and even fear of them, born out of intergenerational trauma. As the member for Cooper said, I speak with humility on this issue as I have no claim to understand what that is like. When your peoples and communities have faced systemic mistreatment for over 200 years, it is understandable that this would be the case. The number of incarcerated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders supports this position. This is something we need to recognise as policymakers. At a roundtable discussion on the issue of Indigenous incarceration, organised by Change the Record in September, a young mother spoke about the impact of incarceration on her life. After a very tough childhood she sought belonging in all the wrong places, ending up in jail at a young age and then into a cycle of disadvantage and isolation. While in prison, she came to understand that the decades of struggle that her family had faced had played a definite role in her imprisonment and would impact on her children too if she wasn't able to build a better life outside. I promise not to forget her story. A key change she advocated for was increasing the age of criminal responsibility. Here in Australia that age is 10 years. The international average is 12 and the United Nations recommends the age of 14. Why is Australia condemning children to a life in and out of prison by expecting them to make decisions like adults from the age of 10 years old? First Nations people continue to die in jails, police stations and remand centres, despite the fact that we held a royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody in 1991. In the 28 years since the report was published the issue has gotten worse, with 424 deaths between 1991 and August this year, and in recent weeks we have seen the deaths of Kumanjayi Walker and Joyce Clarke. The problem is worse than ever and as Australians we should all be devastated by this. The Aboriginal deaths in custody report was presented to the parliament by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs the Hon. Robert Tickner, on 9 May 1991. He concluded his speech by saying: It is not too late, however, for other deaths to be prevented. The Royal Commissioners have given us their insights, their advice and a clear direction for change. The families of those who have died, and indeed all Australians, have a right to expect that governments at all levels and of all political persuasions will act together to ensure that change takes place. It must be said that the 426 deaths—and continuing and counting—must lead us to conclude that governments at all levels and of all political persuasions have failed. Instead, we have spent the intervening years doubling the Indigenous prisoner population. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 198084 I thank the member. There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Health Care 144 12:44 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan I move: That this House: (1) recognises that precision medicine, enabled by advances in genomics, data analysis and artificial intelligence represents an exciting leap in healthcare that will improve the outcomes of preventative and targeted medicine for countless Australians and their families; (2) acknowledges that: (a) our world class healthcare system ensures Australia is well placed to lead the world in precision medicine innovations; (b) Australian researchers, including those at the University of Queensland, are world leaders in their field and their work is at the forefront of precision medicine; and (c) research in precision medicine stimulates the economy, leads to growth in highly skilled jobs and supports Australia's $185 billion healthcare industry; (3) welcomes the Government's significant investment in precision medicine research including as part of the recently announced $440 million in National Health and Medical Research Council grants; and (4) encourages the Government and private enterprise to continue to invest in the genomics, data analysis and artificial intelligence research required to grow the precision medicine sector in Australia in order to create jobs, keep Australia at the forefront of medical advances and improve the healthcare outcomes for everyday Australians. It is a pleasure to move this motion today. It provides me with the opportunity to highlight the tremendous research originating in my electorate of Ryan in the field of precision medicine. Many people may not have yet considered just how integral and revolutionary precision medicine will be to our future health care, but I hope that this motion is an opportunity to reflect on it. It is clear from talking to the local research practitioners in my electorate of Ryan that precision medicine holds enormous promise—promise for those suffering ill health, promise for those for whom the current treatments are less than effective and promise for people whom we can diagnose and treat early. While medicine and diagnosis are delivered in a personalised way, every person knows, for example, you visit a GP or a specialist and you get assessed based on your individual symptoms, but there's so much more in development to personalise the treatment to individual genetic make-up or disease. Through the utilisation of the human genome sequencing, big data and artificial intelligence, precision medicine allows health and disease to be viewed at an increasingly fine grain resolution, attuned to the complexity of the individual patient, enabling faster diagnosis and personalised treatment options. It's not just the complexities of the individual patient but, in fact, right down to the cellular level, to ensure the right medicine is provided or that the medicine is tailored to a specific patient's DNA. Imagine a future where treatment options are chosen or designed to target the specific disease causing genetic mutations, identified by the gene sequencing or treatments that are selected according to the patient's genetic makeup or, for infections, the specific strain of virus or bacterium affecting a patient. This might sound like science fiction stuff, but the cutting-edge researchers in my electorate of Ryan are doing just that. I spoke recently to researchers undertaking significant work at the University of Queensland. They are identifying a range of common diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, arthritis, diabetes and cancer, and using genetic data, which is relatively cost effective to collect, to flag the risks of these diseases. For example, someone whose genetic information and markers tell us that they have a high risk of breast cancer could be encouraged to get mammograms before the age of 50. People whose genetic information shows they're at higher risk of cardiovascular disease could be identified, long before lifestyle factors trigger them, to see a GP. Someone whose genetic data shows that they have a fast metabolism may need a higher dose of drugs as part of their treatment. It's something that wouldn't require the trial and error that it does now. It would be no surprise to members of this House and to others that Australian researchers and our world class healthcare systems are well placed to pioneer the fields of precision medicine. Already my electorate boasts local resident Ian Frazier—the inventor of the Gardasil vaccine, which is saving lives of women all over the world. But we have a lot of reasons to produce such world-leading breakthroughs. We have the right ingredients for success. We have an excellent healthcare system, regarded as one of the best in the world. We have a strong tradition in research and exemplary research talent that is connected internationally. We have an innovative business community that can realise the potential of precision medicine as an economic growth opportunity. That's why, as the motion points out, the Morrison government is well advanced in supporting and funding precision medicine that will be so important to the future good health of all Australians. In August earlier this year, Greg Hunt, the Minister for Health, and I, announced further National Health and Medical Research Council investments in the area of precision medicine, including over $14 million for precision medicine over nine grants, $33 million for genomics research across 23 grants, $8.7 million for artificial intelligence research across seven grants, and $3.7 million for fellowships that will build bioinformatics capability, including $1.5 million for Dr Adam Ewing at the University of Queensland, in my electorate of Ryan. He is looking into and exploring the relationship between the changes in DNA and changes in health. Australia has the opportunity to lead in precision medicine, in terms of integrating it into our everyday clinical practise, pioneering new methods to individualise treatment and providing data sharing, security and storage. Like any opportunity, it can be lost if we do not seize it with both hands. That is why I encourage all members to consider the future of precision medicine for the health and wellbeing of all Australians and encourage them to support this motion—in doing so, ensuring all sides of politics are properly seizing the opportunity. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the motion seconded? 12:54 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I second the motion pertaining to technological advances in genomics, data analysis and artificial intelligence in health care, and I thank the member for Ryan for bringing these matters to the parliament's attention. I am greatly enthused by the possibility of such advances improving the outcomes of preventative and targeted medicines for many millions of Australians and their families. This is not something of the science fiction future; this is something that is upon us now. My belief is that this is the future of modern medicine. Unfortunately, the government's botched attempts at developing the My Health Record have significantly impacted our ability to introduce some of these newer technologies and medicines. The government has also put limits on the availability of some of these new treatments in our future medical program because of its very patchwork approach to listing medications on the PBS. The government is very fond of making a big deal about its PBS listings, but the PBS is a program that was developed by the Labor government—the Chifley government in particular—and has bipartisan support. The government is politicising what should be a non-political issue. I acknowledge the contributions of all our universities in the development of genomics and the treatment of genetic disorders. There are many institutions around the country that have been at the forefront of this work, including the Walter and Eliza Hall institute in Victoria. The Ingham Institute in the electorates of Werriwa and Macarthur has been instrumental, as have other great medical institutes around the country, such as the George Institute. There are too many mention. I believe the government should be congratulated on the National Health and Medical Research Council grants that have recently been announced, but there is much more that we can do. The government is, for example, limiting treatments for spinal muscular atrophy for people who are over the age of 18 when diagnosed. I've sat in a room and seen patients suffering from type 2 spinal muscular atrophy being told that there's a genetic treatment available for them but that they can't receive it because they're over the age of 18, which is an arbitrary number. There's also the CAR T-cell treatment for advanced lymphoma that has failed to respond to conventional therapy. It can be curative in many instances, yet we know of only about 20 Australians out of 200 or 300 that have been able to access that treatment in the last two years, meaning that about 200 people, for whom that treatment was available, have died. Dupilumab is a new treatment for severe eczema, which can be a very debilitating disorder. That treatment is being denied to Australian patients with severe eczema. It's only available on a compassionate-access basis. It really should be listed by this government. Our world-class healthcare system has the ability to lead the world in these treatments. I congratulate the government for listing the treatment available for cystic fibrosis, a genetic disorder that can now be treated with life-changing genetic medications, but the government has been very tardy in developing some other treatments. In particular, I'd like to mention the concept of mitochondrial transplant, where the fetuses of people who have mitochondrial disorders can receive the mitochondria from unaffected females, enabling those families to have healthy babies. This has been very long in coming to the fore, and we need to legislate to make that available. The government is watching waiting times blow out for a number of treatments. Recently I met with Bowel Cancer Australia, which is recommending more frequent screening for bowel cancer. Yet, the waiting times for colonoscopy in my electorate have blown out tremendously. While our treatments are getting better, and we can target specific cancer treatments to specific genetic markers, the government has been very slow in allowing these treatments to be made available to all Australians. According to the government's own figures, about 1.3 million Australians per year skip or delay services due to cost. 12:59 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise to support this important private member's motion by my good friend and colleague the member for Ryan. All medical professionals drive to maximise the effectiveness of their treatments for patients. Becoming more accurate, precise, proactive and impactful for each individual in our healthcare system has always been the goal of all clinicians, no matter how basic the tools at their disposal. The development of precision medicine is providing clinicians the chance to take this mission far beyond the reach of generations gone by. I've been privileged to work alongside thousands of medical researchers pushing the boundaries of the genomics revolution for the benefit of all. Precision medicine is affording us the opportunity to analyse a person's genetic make-up and target treatments based on their specific needs. While medicine has always had predictive and targeted aspects, the development of precision medicine allows health and disease to be viewed at an increasingly fine-grained resolution, attuned to the complexities of both the biology of each individual and the variation among the population. Precision medicine has the capacity to make a real difference in our healthcare system and for all Australians through three distinct avenues. First and foremost, diagnosing and preventing genetic disease has been transformed by the genomics revolution. Tragically, at least two per cent of all children are affected by a severe developmental or intellectual disability which can result from damage to any one of thousands of genes that encode the proteins we need to function. Genome sequencing can now identify 40 to 60 per cent of genes at the root of such developmental and intellectual disabilities. These advances are giving parents and doctors the answers they need to improve treatment. I'd like to give a shout-out to the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, where I've worked for more than 25 years, for the amazing work that they have been doing in this field, where they are leading both nationally and internationally. Next is cancer diagnosis and treatment. Identification of the distinct genes at the root of different cancer treatments is key to finding a cure. Already the advancements in genetic screening have yielded life-changing findings. Imatinib is a targeted biological therapy that blocks cancer growth through the inhibition of tyrosine kinese and is one such drug that is already improving the lives of many Australians. This new understanding of oncogenic mechanisms has begun to influence risk assessment, therapeutic strategies and the targeting of drugs and antibodies designed to counter the influence of specific molecular drivers. These will improve the way we anticipate, prevent, diagnose and treat cancers—both urgent and evolving. Genomically-informed cancer treatments are already yielding spectacular results for patients around the world. That is why the Morrison government's significant investment in precision medicine research, including as part of the recently announced $440 million in the National Health and Medical Research Council grants, is key in ensuring that patients reap the benefits of these developments. Precision medicine, however, is not solely applicable to the oncology ward. At present, a high proportion of hospital admissions in our healthcare system are due to adverse reactions to prescribed medications. Indeed, many medications currently prescribed around the country may yield little or no results in some patients. This is called pharmacogenomics Such results are due to the unique nature of liver enzymes that each of us have, like a fingerprint in our bodies. It is due to the fact that there's a difference in these liver enzymes that means that we each process and metabolise drugs differently. At present, and by necessity, prescription medicines are targeted at the average metabolic outcome for a patient. However, imagine a world where each of us could be screened prior to prescription to ensure that the style of medicine and dosage were personally tailored to our genome to ensure the best results for each of our required treatments. This is the future of medicine, and it's not far off. I'm excited by the prospects of such advancements and encourage the government and private enterprise to continue to invest in the requisite means to keep Australia at the forefront of medical advances and improve the healthcare outcomes for everyday Australians. 13:04 Mr TIM WILSON ( IMW Goldstein ) ( ): Unlike the outstanding member for Higgins, I don't have a medical background. My position is from the heart, as much as it is about the substance. The reality is that we know Australia is facing a challenge around an ageing population. One of the great challenges coming with an ageing population is the fullness in which people can live their lives, the medicine that can support them in terms of the assistance and the care they need, and increasingly the challenge that people face in managing multiple conditions at the same time. Most people will probably look at some of that story and say, 'That is a point of concern.' But, frankly, it's a sign of just how much progress our society has made. It wasn't long ago that so many people died from conditions that were otherwise curable. But through the rollout of science and technology, and research and innovation, we've seen many conditions which were once death sentences now being mere blips in people's lives. Of course, what we know is that we're only getting stronger. The potential continues for us to be able to cure many conditions or manage chronic conditions so that people can live a full and happy life regardless of who you are and regardless of your circumstances. But we can only support that type of medication, and that type of assistance and support to those who need it, because we are a country that is strong and prosperous. We can fund research innovation and access to medications and medicine that people in many other countries on earth simply will never have the access to because of the cost. That's driven by an innovative model, but it's also driven by our economic base. That's why simple measures that are economic are human. Getting the budget back in the black, making sure that we have a surplus and making sure we live within our means aren't about dollars and cents. It's about making sure that we can fund the medicines that people need. What we know is that we're also on the cusp of great new innovations in precision medicine—with research, development and commercialisation—where we can practise medicine and deliver health care with the potential to revolutionise medication the way that penicillin did many years prior. That's the exciting moment that we sit on right now. The Australian Council of Learned Academies' report The future of precision medicine in Australia highlights how precision medicine will create new care paradigms and shift our health system from one of crisis management to the reality of a genuine health management. In time precision medicine will support new possibilities of disease prevention, saving costs and maximising the benefits to our health system. But why waste time talking about our health system, when the real beneficiaries and the real strength and the real success of precision medicine are not what it does to a system; it's what it does to Australians and the potential for them to be able to live out the fullness of their lives. It's not just that it has enormous potential for those people who need help but also potential in terms of growth in industries and sectors where Australia can lead the world. In August 2019, we had the minister announce a total of $3.7 million for fellowships that will build bioinformatics capacity and capability, including just over $1.5 million to Dr Adam Ewing from the University of Queensland to explore the relationship between changes in DNA and changes in health. That investment sits across the huge investment that this government has made across the board in precision medicine and through bodies like the Medicine Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council. Research into precision medicine does provide a human benefit. But of course it creates an economic opportunity of highly skilled jobs and support for those people in our healthcare sector. Those people who are going through university today and studying health care, medicine and pharmaceuticals can see the pathway to where they can do their research, their science, based on their qualifications, and the job opportunities at the end of it. It creates an opportunity for us as a country to be a world leader so that we can export our services, our health and medical services, and our research base to the world. 13:09 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong For the last 100 years we have been treating diseases the same way: with antibiotics. They are a blunt tool targeting the lowest common denominator in a hit-and-miss way. Terrifyingly, the conditions we are trying to fight are adapting and changing at a pace we are finding difficult to keep up with. Antibiotic resistance could bring about the biggest death rate since the Spanish flu 100 years ago. We need a new response. Something exciting is happening in the medicine space. The way we look at medicine is changing at a rapid pace. Individualised medicines will change the playing field forever and will be the basis of a medical revolution comparable to the revolution that followed the arrival of penicillin. Lives will be changed, lives will be saved and quality of life will be improved. Precision medicine allows health and disease to be viewed at an increasingly fine-grained resolution, attuned to the complexities of the individual patient, enabling faster diagnosis and personalised treatment options and leading to better targeting of care and information. In time, precision medicine will support new possibilities of disease prevention, saving costs and maximising benefits for our health system. Australia has the right ingredients for success and the opportunity to be a leader in precision medicine. We have an excellent health system, regarded as one of the world's best—which has already embraced some of the technologies that underline precision medicine—as well as a strong tradition in research, exemplary research talent that is connected internationally, and innovative business capability that can realise precision medicine as an economic growth opportunity. In recognition of this, the government has made significant investments into precision medicine and its enablers—genomics, data analysis and artificial intelligence. Many of the companies investing in these cutting-edge medicines are based in Macquarie Park in my electorate, which is home to many of the most innovative companies, many of which are pharmaceutical companies with drugs in this space. Janssen has Imbruvica, which targets certain types of cancer. MSD is getting new indications for its immunotherapy treatment, Keytruda, with exciting regularity. Novartis is doing important work in the innovation space around CAR-T treatment. One of the most exciting things about personalised medicine is the effect it can have on rare conditions. By definition, rare diseases have much smaller patient numbers, which makes them very difficult to treat. Despite this, rare illness affects over two million Australians. The variety and complexity of rare illnesses means those who are diagnosed often face a long and difficult treatment. In many cases, the healthcare system is organised towards treating diseases that affect many people. Individuals with rare illnesses are often, therefore, more likely to go without the same level of support and assistance. This leads to preventable impacts on quality of care and life for these individuals. With enough awareness and support, we can assist people with rare illnesses and ensure they receive the care and assistance they deserve. Rare Voices of Australia is an organisation committed to raising awareness and funds to fight these rare illnesses. It has been an honour to represent Rare Voices for the last three weeks on my biannual 100-kilometre walk around the electorate, which concluded on Friday afternoon. Rare Voices do incredible work and I've been delighted to support them by raising money and awareness. But the contribution I can make is insignificant compared to the clinical difference that can be made to people and families with these conditions by the innovations in the personalised medicines space. Personalised and precision medicine offers a huge opportunity for people with rare conditions, and Australians are well positioned to take advantage of this revolution. I would like to thank and congratulate Minister Hunt and the health department for encouraging these innovative medicines and ask that we keep up the pressure to remain at the cutting edge for the sake of all Australians suffering ill health. Debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 13:14 to 16:00 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 149 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Banking and Financial Services 149 16:00 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo ANZ recently announced a statutory profit after tax for the year ended 30 September 2019 of $5.95 billion. Last Thursday ANZ announced that they're closing the Yankalilla branch in May. This is the third ANZ branch to close in Mayo in recent years. Goolwa and Lobethal have closed, prompting the northern Adelaide Hills community to try to establish a community bank. For Yankalilla the next closest branch is Victor Harbor, some 33 kilometres away—and there's no public transport to get there. Every time I've dropped into the ANZ at Yankalilla, customers have been waiting. They deserve a branch, not an app. ANZ aren't closing King William Street or Rundle Mall, which are walking distance from each other; they're closing regional branches, because they see regional branches as fair game. Many in the Yankalilla community do not want to bank online, and nor should they have to. Many can no longer drive. Our regions deserve the same services that are available in metropolitan areas in education, health, transport and banking. We may not have the large populations, but we feed the economy and we make sure that the rest of Australia has food to eat. ANZ—and, in fact, all of our major banks—are abandoning our regional communities. It's shameful to put profits ahead of people—our regional customers. I urge the ANZ to reconsider this position. Yankalilla deserves better. Avalon Community Garden 149 16:02 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar An excellent community initiative is the Avalon Community Garden. It was established in 2010 on the grounds of Barrenjoey High School. The aim was to create a place to share skills and knowledge and to grow delicious organic food. On top of that, it has provided community connections. Well-established community gardens have shown that they can do a lot more than just provide fresh organic produce. Avalon Community Garden has provided benefits for both the individuals involved and the entire community. It has engaged youth, children, the elderly, the disabled and other marginalised individuals. The community garden has many features. People manage worm farms, make compost, create garden beds, weed, and grow vegetables, herbs and fruit. There is also a dedicated chook team, who look after the well-loved chickens of the Avalon Community Garden. It is all sustainable. The chooks eat the vegetable scraps, create manure and lay eggs. The gardeners share the harvest as well as their valuable gardening knowledge. They give back to the community. Once a week they provide gardening lessons for the Montessori school students. They provide the school canteen with a garden to harvest food from for the canteen menu. I commend all those involved in the Avalon Community Garden. It's an excellent initiative, which is well loved by all. Keep up the great work. Aged Care 149 16:03 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham In recent weeks the government has made a call for Australians to work longer and is encouraging people to stay in the workforce until they are in their 60s and perhaps their 70s. I want to point out to the government that the most significant problem for that is that many constituents—generally women, but also men—at that point in life are looking after elderly relatives. I want to raise today that issue in the context of the government's announcement today in the aged-care sector. I'm sure members across this place have almost daily contact from constituents who are waiting for home care packages. An honourable member interjecting— Ms BIRD DZP Yes, 10,000. I ask the member: what's the waiting list? How many are on the waiting list? These people who ring are often the children or a close family member of the elderly person. I have had people in tears. I have had women who have had to give up work because they cannot both work and look after elderly family members. The government has to do a lot more in their home care package space. I would certainly say to them that today's announcement is far from sufficient to address the problems that face the elderly in our community. I can only imagine that members opposite, as well as those on this side, all have constituents who will be putting out exactly the same call, 'Do more and do it now for those people in our community.' Hughes Electorate: Memorial 150 16:05 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes On Sunday 10 November, on the eve of Remembrance Day, I was pleased to unveil a new memorial in the Sutherland Shire that listed all the names of those who served in World War II. I did this with the Sutherland Shire mayor, Carmelo Pesce, at Peace Park, on Eton Street in Sutherland. The new memorial received funding from my office, under the federal government's Armistice Centenary Grants Program, as well as from the Sutherland Shire Council and local RSL sub-branches. The memorial will be a lasting and fitting tribute to the sacrifices made by those from the Sutherland Shire and the cumulated efforts of many dedicated individuals who made the memorial possible. I'd like to convey my thanks to members of the Hughes Centenary of Armistice Commemoration Committee, Jack Abernethy of Engadine RSL sub-branch; Clive Baker of the Shire Military Club; Barry Grant of the Woronora RSL sub-branch; Paul Griffiths of the Bundeena RSL sub-branch; Barry Mcfayden for the Heathcote RSL sub-branch; and Bruce Watt of the Sutherland Shire Historical Society. Special thanks should also go to Marilyn Handley and Sue Hewitt, two local historians who compiled the 498 names from the Sutherland Shire that make up that memorial. I also note that when we say, 'Lest we forget,' we have celebrated the centenary of Anzac and we should continue to commemorate that every year with as much enthusiasm. (Time expired) Chile: Human Rights 150 16:06 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand The Chilean and Latin American communities have a long history in Australia. This first known Chilean to arrive in Australia was a former president of Chile, General Ramon Freire, who came in 1838 as a political exile. Soon after, Australia's first Labor Prime Minister, Chris Watson, was born, in 1867 in Valparaiso. Later, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam would assist Chilean immigrants who were fleeing the Pinochet regime to settle in Australia. Many of the Chileans who came to Melbourne settled in my electorate in Melbourne's west. As a representative of the hundreds of Australian Chileans and Latin Americans in Melbourne's west, I am shocked by the violence unfolding in Chile. Respect for human rights embodied in the concerns shared by the Chilean and Latin American community is fundamental to Australian values. The Chilean community in Australia has known what it is like to live with a government that uses the military against its own people, detains its own people and uses violence against them. They teach us that we should never take these democratic values, our democratic freedoms, for granted. As we do at home, we need to protect the public's right to protest in Chile and reject the anti-democratic practices of the military. As we have throughout history, we need to speak out and stand in solidarity with those fighting in the dangerous situation in Chile and call for an end to violence. Australian multiculturalism works best when we learn from each other. One of the things that I treasure the most from representing so many constituents who have fled repression to settle in Australia is their value for our democratic freedoms. Bennelong Electorate 150 16:08 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong It's a slightly scary thought, but Christmas is approaching at a rapid rate, which means it is time to start thinking about Christmas cards—not do anything; just think about it. This year I have once again asked the great schools of Bennelong to design a card for me. We held a competition, and a number of budding artists sent in their designs, which were of staggeringly high quality and in a range of styles. Runners-up were Vicken Vartikian, from year 6 at Holy Spirit Catholic Primary School, for his cheeky little reindeer; Chansoo Joo, of year 2 at Denistone East Public School, with their colourful decorations; Alhan Odakkal, from kindy at Melrose Park Public School, for a beautiful Chinese Christmas tree; and Alexandra Ryan, of year 5 at Putney Public School, with her beautifully crafted snowman bauble. But there can be only one winner, and that went to Fiona Antonio from year 6 at Our Lady Help of Christians, Epping. Fiona's design was technical, artistic, cleverly designed and a worthy winner. Modesty prevented me from giving one card the recognition that it so deserved—a prop. Kaitlyn Fong, of year 5 at Putney Public, designed a card that featured not only my nickname but also my old racquet, which Kaitlyn recreated with perfect accuracy. The research alone that went into this card is very impressive as the racquet isn't easy to find. Congratulations to the winner and all those— (Time expired) Home Care Packages 151 16:09 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I rise today to discuss the disgraceful wait times this government is inflicting on older Australians trying to access home care. There are almost 120,000 older Australians on the waitlist for adequate in-home care. Today I want to talk about the story of just one person out of the thousands who are waiting. Earlier this year a Jagajaga resident reached out to tell me about her mother who's lived in the area for decades and played a very active part in our local community. Her mother has Alzheimer's disease. She's finding it increasingly difficult to manage daily tasks with the rapid deterioration in her memory and organisation skills, and her safety is increasingly at risk. It's the advice of her doctor and her wish to stay in her home for as long as she can. In March she was assessed for a level 3 home care package. She's now been waiting nine months for her package and, by the time she receives it, it may be too late. Unfortunately, this story is far from being an unusual case. In the year to June 2018, 16,000 Australians died before they got their home care package. We know the best outcome for many of our older Australians is to stay in their home for as long as possible. Home care is economically sustainable and stops people entering residential care prematurely, yet this government's cuts to aged care mean that, instead of these benefits, people are losing their independence. The government received the interim report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety a month ago. Today we finally saw a sliver of a response, but nothing like what we need. (Time expired) Higgins Medal 151 16:11 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins The Higgins Medal is awarded to students who exhibit leadership amongst their peers, demonstrate a degree of excellence in attitude and achievement in their school and community, and display a commitment and contribution to the ethos of their school. This year a record 31 schools from my electorate nominated recipients for the award, and I would like to acknowledge the Higgins Medal winners for 2019. They are: Scarlette Catalano and Nicholas Stoupas of Armadale Primary School; Imogen Roder of Camberwell South Primary School; Jude Pabst and Lucas Exell of De La Salle College; Leonie Kosasi-Papdan of Geelong Grammar School; Alex Verginis and Isabelle Rodriguez of Glen Huntly Primary School; Sophie De Valle and Evan McVey of Glen Iris Primary School; Isabella Armstrong of Hughesdale Primary School; Sophie Carne and Nevani Pillay of Korowa Anglican Girls' School; Angela Gao of Lauriston Girls' School; Gabrielle Kanizay and Clare Tuckwell of Loreto, Mandeville Hall; Matilda Spatt and Christopher Kim of Malvern Primary School; Sophie Dixon and Om Patel of Malvern Central School; Maddisen Rado and Eleisha Banks of Malvern Valley Primary School; Jamie Katic and Maya Wimalasundera of Murrumbeena Primary School; Efthymia Delichristou and Stephania Bitzios of Oakleigh Grammar School; Eva Doulgeridis and Sophie Urquhart of Sacre Coeur School; Erin Bibby and Nerise Perera of Sacred Heart Girls' College— (Time expired) Aged Care 151 16:13 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton It is completely unacceptable what is taking place in the aged-care sector. The royal commission has described this as nothing less than neglect, and the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has failed older Australians. There are 120 older Australians waiting for home care, as other members have attested to, and 16,000 older Australians who have been approved for home care packages have not received them and passed away in the meantime. In a country like Australia, it is completely unacceptable that Australians can't get the care they need in old age. This is no way to treat older Australians. It is absolutely reprehensible. This is no way to treat our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. Older Australians deserve dignity and respect. Older Australians deserve better. Some 120,000 older Australians waiting for home care represents a national crisis. We all have personal stories: my own aunt, who is in her 80s, has been approved for a home care package but has been told it will not be forthcoming. We are fearful she will pass away while waiting for that very package. Australians won't forget that Prime Minister Morrison, as Treasurer, ripped $1.2 billion— (Time expired) Moore Electorate: Roads 151 16:14 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore The Reid Highway and Erindale Road intersection is one of the busiest and most-congested junctions in the northern suburbs of Perth. The Reid Highway is a major east-west traffic link between the residential northern coastal suburbs of Perth and the employment-generating commercial and industrial areas located further east such as Balcatta and Malaga. For motorists in my electorate, it represents a major strategic transport, freight and logistics route, linking the suburbs of Moore to Perth Airport and other economic development zones via the NorthLink project. I welcome the infrastructure announcement in Perth last week by the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure and the Minister for Finance, which included an allocation of $2 million in federal funding for the design, planning and development of a future grade separation of the Reid Highway, with a bridge over Erindale Road. The total project construction cost is estimated at $84 million. It is necessary to plan in advance for this vital infrastructure project in order to alleviate future traffic congestion as Perth's population grows and our economy develops. For residents living in my electorate, this project will save several minutes off the journey to Perth Airport and also shorten their daily commute. Aged Care 152 16:16 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley The stunning reality in this day and age is that there are 120,000 people waiting to get aged care in this country. They're on the waiting list. That 120,000 is a big number, and there will be a lot of families in this country who are wondering how their parents or their grandparents are going to be looked after as they get older and frailer. This government knows this is a big issue. It's why the royal commission was set up. We heard some incredible stories coming out of the royal commission. Just over a month since the interim report was brought down, we've had the government respond today, and they've provided a commitment to 10,000 places. Some people might think that's great, but, in the scheme of things, if there are 120,000 people waiting, the brutal reality is that that is nowhere near enough. I was completely stunned in question time to hear the Prime Minister say that they didn't have capacity to do more—most Australians would expect a higher figure than that—because they needed to know if there were people in the system to provide that quality of care. The other brutal reality is: the first thing the coalition did when they came into office was they completely gutted workforce planning and capability to bring those people online. So we have more people waiting, we do not have enough places being put in and we're not training enough people to look after those people. This is a total mess, under the watch of the coalition. Senior Australians deserve better than this. (Time expired) Women's Legal Service Tasmania 152 16:17 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass I had the privilege last week to launch an initiative by Women's Legal Service Tasmania to assist women escaping domestic violence in Northern Tasmania. I'm committed to addressing and creating effective change in the area of family and domestic violence in my region, and it's an issue that I made particular reference to in my first speech to parliament, just a few months ago. I'm proud to be part of a government that is committed to doing more to address family, sexual and domestic violence. Funding by the Morrison government for the Women's Legal Service Tasmania includes the provision of financial support services such as advice, counselling and financial literacy to support women experiencing family violence. It is so important to have a women's legal service as a specialised service provider to work, in a trauma-informed way, with women who have experienced, are experiencing or are at risk of experiencing family violence. This program recognises that a holistic approach is important in responding to family violence. It aims to build capacity and resilience in our community and enable women to exercise real choice about their lives. Whilst I am delighted that we can support this much-needed service, it is the hope of all of us that these services will one day be obsolete. But we still have a long way to go. Thank you to Yvette Cehtel, CEO of Women's Legal Service Tasmania; Sonia Shimeld, long-time chair of the board; Jonathan Turk from Anglicare Tasmania; and all involved in this area for the incredible work that you do. Aged Care 152 16:19 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Australia's aged-care system is broken. There is not one part of the system that isn't impacted by crisis. The crisis has many numbers, but what we all need to remember is that they are people and they are people with families, grandchildren and children. One hundred and twenty thousand older Australians are waiting for care, with periods in excess of two years for those who need it most. Eight months ago the department provided advice to the Prime Minister about how to fund more home care packages to fix this exact problem. Today he has announced 10,000, but 10,000 is barely a drop in the ocean when there are 120,000 still waiting. The true disgrace is that 16,000 older Australians are dying each year waiting for the government to do something. They're our grandparents. They must be scared and terribly upset when they're at home waiting for that help. Even when thousands of Australians have died, there is still nothing being done. Although they called for a royal commission, it still hasn't been acted on. There have been so many different reports. They need to be acted on and we need to do something about it. It is time for this government to take action, correct the mistakes and fix our aged-care system. Aged Care 153 16:20 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I start by acknowledging all those Australians who are suffering from the terrible bushfires that continue to burn around the country and reassure them that our government is responding to their call. I rise, however, to support the coalition government's actions on the royal commission's interim report into aged care and to support the announcement of a strong, progressive reform agenda: a $537 million funding package to be spent across these key priority areas. It includes: firstly, an additional 10,000 home care packages; secondly, medication programs to reduce the use of medical restraints; thirdly, training programs for dementia carers; and, fourthly, the removal from aged-care homes of younger people living with disability. The Morrison government—and indeed the Prime Minister himself—is to be applauded for instigating the royal commission and for acting on it decisively and swiftly after the interim report was handed down. Solutions, solutions—that's what we on our side deliver. Today's news has been welcomed at home in Moncrieff, in particular by the residents, families and carers at Earle Haven who were affected by a breakdown between providers that resulted in the unnecessary evacuation—by the state, not the services—of frail and elderly residents on Friday 11 July this year. Additionally, our government supports all 23 recommendations of the Carnell report, which investigated what occurred. We are working hard to implement them for older Australians. Since 11 July, I have visited almost a dozen aged-care homes in Moncrieff and I'm pleased to report that the residents I have visited are all doing well and my office continues to give assistance where required. (Time expired) Aged Care 153 16:22 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I often say that we got lucky when my father had to enter a residential facility after having vascular dementia. We were lucky that he entered a facility where he was well looked after. But I also say we should not have had to rely on luck. No Australian, no older Australian, should have to rely on luck. The royal commission has exposed the crisis in our aged-care system. There are thousands of Australians who, unlike my dad, are just not lucky: 16,000 have died waiting for home care packages, 14,000 have had to enter residential care while waiting for home care packages, and another 120,000 people are on waiting lists. This includes people like Eric from my electorate, who had untrained staff changing his colostomy and urostomy bags. They didn't know how to do it correctly and the bags kept leaking on Eric. It was only after he contacted my office that any action was taken to help Eric with changing his colostomy and urostomy bags. The government has failed our older Australians. Their announcement today of 10,000 places is just a drop in the ocean. It goes nowhere towards fixing this crisis. The government needs to act now. They need to stand up for older Australians, especially for those who, unlike my dad, just don't get lucky. Harper, Ms Jessica 153 16:23 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth I wish to highlight the achievements of a constituent of my electorate, soprano singer Jessica Harper of Paddington—where I live—for her success as a young opera singer who has made a resounding impact on the world stage. Jessica grew up in Darling Point and attended Ascham School before achieving a first-class honours degree in classical singing from the Australian National University. Jessica has since been broadcast as a concert soloist and recitalist on ABC Classic FM and has toured much of Australia as a recital performer. She has won a number of Australian awards and scholarships and played in a number of operatic stage roles. Now Jessica has added further to her CV, winning the prestigious American Institute of Musical Study—or AIMS—award. This award will provide Jessica with the opportunity to study and refine her craft in Vienna for a month, a city with a deep tradition of classical music and opera. Jessica is passionate about changing the perception of opera in Australia and making it a more accessible art form for everyone. I wish all the best to Jessica in her studies and her career. I hope she enjoys her award in Vienna, and I thank her for being an exemplar for young Australians pursuing and achieving their dreams. Chau, Mr Van Kham 153 16:25 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Today members of Australia's Vietnamese community have come to Canberra to draw attention to the incarceration in Vietnam of Australian citizen Van Kham Chau, who, earlier this month, was convicted of national security offences. Seventy-year-old Van Kham Chau, who is a pro-democracy and human rights campaigner, was sentenced to 12 years jail after having been denied natural justice by being denied legal representation until shortly before his trial. Again without legal representation, Van Kham Chau has now lodged an appeal against his conviction, which may be heard before Christmas. His elderly mother, his wife, his children and his wider family and friends are understandably concerned about his deteriorating health and future wellbeing. Indeed, I understand he has been hospitalised on two occasions since being in detention. Australia and Vietnam have a strong and growing bilateral relationship that both countries will increasingly benefit from. I call on the Morrison government to provide Van Kham Chau with all of the diplomatic and consular assistance available to him, and I call on the Vietnamese government to honour its human rights obligations and ensure that Van Kham Chau gets full legal representation and a fair trial. Aged Care 154 16:26 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson One of the starkest examples of the seriousness of the insurance crisis in North Queensland is that of an aged-care home in my electorate that has recently been hit with a 1,000 per cent premium increase. They battle on at present, but they face an insurance bill they'll not be able to pay. The consequence could be that we could have 250 aged residents, some of them our most vulnerable citizens, who will lose the aged-care service they depend upon. The Assistant Treasurer heard this horror story as well as many others when he travelled to North Queensland, at my invitation, to hear directly from those affected in Mackay, the Whitsundays and Townsville. We've hit crisis point. Home and unit holders, those in strata title, businesses and hospitality operators are all facing premiums that they can't afford. Some simply can't get insurance at all. The Assistant Treasurer sat down with the insurance industry representatives afterwards to ask them how they can justify the situation. I'm glad to say that they have acknowledged the problem and have agreed to work with the government to look at the option of a re-insurance pool for North Queensland. I thank the Assistant Treasurer for his work on this critical issue, and I encourage other North Queenslanders to come forward with their stories at www.nq insurance.com.au. Aged Care 154 16:27 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley Australia's aged-care system is broken. There is not one part of Australia's aged-care system that is not in crisis. There are currently 120,000 older Australians who are waiting for aged care at home. A few weeks ago I met with one of them, a resident of Aspley, named Joyce. Joyce is delightful. She is 98 years old, legally blind, needs a walker and was assessed as needing low-level residential care. It took over three months to have her care increased from level 2 to level 3, and she has been told there is a 12-month waiting period to get to level 4. Joyce told me that she thinks she will die before getting to level 4 care, and, sadly, more than 16,000 people have died—in one year—waiting for their approved package. Fourteen thousand had to enter residential aged care because they could no longer stay at home waiting for care that wasn't coming. Others enter the hospital system, often, through our emergency departments. With this in mind, there is damning new evidence that the Morrison government received advice from the Department of Health eight months ago on how to fund more home care packages—but it ignored this advice. Why did the Morrison government ignore this advice when it knew 120,000 older Australians were waiting for their approved home care package? On top of the home care packages waitlist crisis, a week doesn't go by without another disturbing account. It's not good enough for Joyce, it's not good enough for me and it's not good enough for older Australians. Movember 154 16:29 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper Well, there's the trucker, there's the pencil, there's the horseshoe—all different types of moustaches. And why am I talking about moustaches? Because, since 2004, men such as me have been making ourselves look ridiculous for a good cause, and that cause is Movember. Movember is changing the face of men's health, recognising that men all around the world need help in health. A little-known fact is that prostate cancer kills more men around the world than breast cancer does women. And there is testicular cancer, and suicide. Over 3,000 people died by suicide last year alone in Australia, and 75 per cent of those were men. So, when you see someone like me walking around looking like a cross between Chopper Read and Rodriguez the mouse—the horseshoe!—thank them. I thank all of my 'mo bros', as we call each other, for your courage. But I also thank those men out in the world, in Australia, for their courage in dealing with testicular cancer and other men's health and mental health issues. Aged Care 154 16:31 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle We can test the values and standards that should be clearly visible in Australian life by looking at how we care for the most vulnerable members of our community, including many older Australians. Thirty per cent of people over 65 years of age rely on some form of aged care. That is 1.2 million Australians. About three-quarters receive some form of assistance while remaining in their own home, and about a quarter are in residential aged care. It should be a foundation stone of our social compact that frail and vulnerable older Australians can live safely, in comfort and dignity, without pain and with love. But unfortunately that's often not the case. Indeed, it's the judgement of the interim report of the royal commission into aged care that our present arrangements constitute 'a sad and shocking system that diminishes Australia'. Among many failures there is an over-reliance on chemical restraints, and there are thousands of young people with disability in residential aged care. There are 120,000 older Australians waiting for a home care package support that has been approved. We know that in the course of a single year 16,000 people died while waiting for a home care package that had been approved but not delivered. This government has not responded to the crisis in aged care. Indeed, they cut $1.2 billion from the sector and they walked away from Labor's workplace compact, with its emphasis on training and fair pay for the carers who are at the heart of quality aged care. Infrastructure 155 16:32 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling Australia is often referred to as the lucky country, and indeed we live in the best country on earth. But, as the PM pointed out over the weekend, Australia's economic prosperity has not—and will never—come purely from luck. Sensible and significant investment in national infrastructure is one important way in which the Morrison government is working towards ongoing national prosperity, with an infrastructure commitment of $100 billion over 10 years. The Prime Minister has now announced an additional $868 million for WA, increasing the total WA spend to $5.4 billion over the next four years. In my electorate of Stirling our locals will benefit from an additional $5½ million to fix the Wanneroo Road and Morley Drive intersection, starting next year, and business case funding to identify a best approach to upgrading the Erindale Road and Reid Highway Intersection, which was long advocated for by local leaders, like ward councillors Karlo Perkov and Chris Hatton. In the coalition, we want Australians to spend less time on the roads and more time with their families. This infrastructure investment fast-tracking is yet another example of the Morrison government looking after the economy and Australian families. New South Wales Bushfires 155 16:34 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell On 12 November large parts of New South Wales faced catastrophic fire warnings for the first time since a new rating system was introduced. The New South Wales government declared a state of emergency. I wish to offer my sincere condolences to all those who lost loved ones, suffered injury or lost property in the fires. Fortunately, so far this season the Central Coast has been spared. We've not been so lucky in the past in the region. Particularly our rural and bush communities are preparing for a long fire season. When the catastrophic fire danger was declared, it was applied to greater Sydney and greater Hunter. The Central Coast was not mentioned, making it difficult for residents to confirm whether the warning applied locally. Some were of the mistaken belief that the warning did not apply, which in the event of a fire may have put residents in harm's way. Locals strongly identify with the Central Coast as the place they live. Following council amalgamations, we have one Central Coast council area of over 340,000 people. Locals don't consider themselves residents of the Hunter or of Sydney. The Central Coast deserves clearer emergency warnings. Central Coast Mayor, Lisa Matthews, and I have written to the Minister for Natural Disaster and Emergency Management seeking his support in putting this matter to federal agencies, particularly to the Bureau of Meteorology. The Central Coast should be a standalone region for forecasts and emergency warnings. Warnings should specify the Central Coast when communicating about future emergencies. I look forward to the minister's urgent consideration of this request. Longman Electorate: Vocational Education and Training 155 16:35 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman Last week the Morrison government broadened the horizons of the people of Longman by providing more pathways into employment and, at the same time, has kept the art of welding alive and assisted welding apprentices and qualified welders to keep developing their skills in an ever-changing world. The coalition government provided $750,000 to establish an Augmented Reality Welder Training Centre in Caboolture to train and upskill local welding apprentices and workers. This new state-of-the-art facility, based at the TAFE college campus in Caboolture, was officially opened by Assistant Minister for Vocational Education, Training and Apprenticeships, the Hon. Steve Irons MP, last Tuesday. The coalition government has collaborated with Weld Australia to invest in this facility, which will include 10 welding simulators and has the capacity to train up to 200 workers each year to international welding standards. These are welding simulators rather than actual welders, although having used one at the opening on Tuesday—very badly—they react and sound like the real deal. The industry authority, Weld Australia, is right behind them. The benefits are that there are no health and safety issues to worry about, there is a monetary and environmental saving aspect as well, and all the different types of welding can be simulated on these devices. Industry experts tell us that companies that are using robotic devices in many trades, including welding, are looking for qualified tradesmen who have completed on-the-job apprenticeships, who will operate these robots, because they are simply the best at it—nothing replaces gut feeling. Calwell Electorate: Sikh Community 156 16:37 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell On Friday, 8 November I had the absolute pleasure of representing my local Sikh community at the 550th anniversary since the birth of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji, the founder of Sikhism, at the Parliament of Victoria. It was a very important first-ever event for our Sikh community, because on that day the Parkash, which is the ceremony of installation and reading prayers, of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji was performed in an Australian parliament. I want to thank the Australian Multicultural Organisation, the Melbourne Sikh Council of Australia and Khalsa Shaouni Plumpton for organising this wonderful celebration. I especially want to thank AMO's President, Mr Giru Singh, who is also my constituent, for organising a fantastic event. I can say to you that our Sikh community was indeed very proud that they were able to celebrate, in the Victorian parliament, this very auspicious and important anniversary. The celebration continued the next day down in Treasury Gardens in Victoria, where I represented the Leader of the Opposition at the Giru Nanak 550—Humanity Walk in Melbourne. It was a great opportunity for our local Sikh community to share this important event with other members of the Victorian community. I congratulate everybody involved for a wonderful event. 2nd Adelaide Scout Group 156 16:38 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby This year, the 2nd Adelaide Scout Group celebrates its 110th birthday. Based in Mitcham, the group is the oldest continuously operating scouting group in South Australia. The group has four sections: Joey Mob, for 5 to 8-year-olds; Cub Pack, for 8 to 11-year-olds; Scout Troop, for 11 to 15-year-olds; and the Venturer Unit, for 15 to 18-year-olds. Each section undertakes a range of activities focused on equipping participants with confidence and skills for life. On Sunday, 10 November my state colleague Sam Duluk MP and I joined the chief commissioner of Scouts SA, Harry Long, City of Mitcham mayor, Heather Holmes-Ross, current and former scouts and special guests to celebrate this wonderful milestone. The occasion was marked with the presentation of artefacts for storage in a brand-new time capsule, as well as singing, led by the joey scouts. The event also provided the opportunity for the annual presentation of the Tom Gilchrist awards for members, leaders and parent helpers who have made an outstanding contribution to the Scouts over the past 12 months. I congratulate all of this year's very deserving recipients. I'd also like to congratulate Scout group leader Natalie Steward, who celebrates 10 years in the role this year; committee chairman, Andrew Hill; Scout leader, David Lawlor; and the MC for the day, and Scout legend, Alex Brown, who spoke beautifully about the confidence and skills scouting provides. Happy 110th birthday to the 2nd Adelaide Scout Group. Aged Care 156 16:40 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I rise today to talk about aged care and the government's response to the aged-care royal commission's interim report. The government seemed to be dragged kicking and screaming to making a response to the royal commission report after Labor had been calling on them to do just this—seemingly deciding to try and ignore what the royal commission had been saying. I want to highlight something that particularly concerns me. Frequently, I have members of our community coming into my office or contacting me for assistance because they—or, usually, their more elderly family member—have been assessed as requiring in-home aged-care support but have not been funded for that package or have been allocated a package that is of a lower funding level and it is not adequate to support them. The consequences are that those people who need that support end up going back into hospital time and time again, putting more pressure on our state public hospital systems, and it also means that they end up in aged-care facilities sooner, because they're not getting the in-home support that they need. Unfortunately, in a number of instances, I have seen members of my community pass away before they have been given the in-home aged-care assistance that they need. We know that 16,000 Australians have suffered that same fate, and, in its response to the royal commission today, the government only announced funding for an additional 10,000. Shame! Roxby Downs Carols Night 156 16:41 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey On Saturday night, I had the great pleasure of attending the Roxby Downs carols night. There were probably 250 or 300 people on the town oval. Well done to Theresa Bunyon, Ben Vandeleur and Alan Stewart, for putting all of that together. There were some terrific performances from a young lady called Codey Napper, who did wonderful versions of 'Have yourself a merry little Christmas', and 'White Christmas'. The kids from St Barb's school were there, and they had a guest appearance from the member for Grey, Rohan Ramsey, I must confess. Thanks to Theresa Bunyon for the loan of her guitar—mine was malfunctioning somewhat—and apologies to Paul Kelly because it was the first time that I played 'How to make gravy' in public. It was not a bad job but certainly not up to Mr Kelly's standard yet. I will keep working at it. It was a wonderful event because families were all together. Roxby Downs is one of the highest income communities in South Australia. It is also one of the youngest and one of the ones with the most families. It's a really good place to bring up kids. The community pulls together on these occasions and really makes it happen. It was one of those wonderful Christmas feelings, being out on the oval with the people of Roxby Downs on Saturday night. We got great weather—and that doesn't always happen. We had a wonderful night together. I thank them for the opportunity to be with them. Cranbourne-Narre Relay for Life 157 16:43 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt I have taken this opportunity, unexpected though it might be, to talk about the Cranbourne-Narre Relay for Life event that was conducted at the Casey athletic fields on Saturday 16 November. The Cranbourne-Narre Relay for Life is an event that raises money for cancer awareness, research and support. This event has been running for about eight years and it is a very successful event. It's a 20-hour walk around the Casey athletics track. There were 19 teams, as I recall, and they walked basically non-stop for that 20 hours to raise money for cancer awareness, for cancer research, for cancer treatment and for cancer support. I was privileged to be there at the opening ceremony and I went back a bit later on to walk around the track with some of the people who are cancer survivors and carers and those who support cancer survivors and carers. One of the great things about this event was that it spoke to the need for people to be able to come together as a community to talk about cancer. Often that's not spoken about. What I really admired about the event that was auspiced by Jodie Hollis and the committee of the Cranbourne-Narre Relay for Life is that it brought together people for a common cause and raised $47,000 in doing so. Diamond Valley Railway 157 16:44 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I had the opportunity on Sunday to visit the Diamond Valley Railway in my electorate, in Eltham Lower Park, on Main Road. It's the largest tourist attraction in the Shire of Nillumbik and transports more than 150,000 passengers a year in a very family-friendly environment. Indeed, the railway's carrying numbers are the second largest in Australia for a tourist, heritage or miniature railway, second only to the famed Puffing Billy Railway. The Diamond Valley Railway was established in 1961 and celebrated its 58th birthday just last month. This is a not-for-profit organisation— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16 : 45 to 16 : 59 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 The time for members' statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 157 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Digital Economy 157 16:59 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I move:    That this House: (1) notes that: (a) according to a report released last month, Australia's Digital Opportunity, Australia is lagging behind global peers and failing to capture the economic opportunities of the rapidly growing global digital economy; (b) Australia ranks second last among OECD countries for relative size of our technology sector and its contribution to the economy; and    (c) the Australian tech sector could create an additional $50 billion per year were Australia successful in catching up and matching the tech sector growth rates of our global peers; (2) recognises that the Government released 'Australia's Tech Future' which read more like a promotional brochure than serious strategy—it described initiatives already in train, was vague on targets and outcomes—and, importantly, offers no bold vision to drive growth in our digital economy; (3) further notes that under this Government Australia is suffering from record low wages growth, more than a million Australians underemployed and a per capita recession; and (4) calls on the Government to urgently take a coordinated approach to the digital economy. Given half a chance, Australians can compete with the best in the world in any sphere, including the digital economy. Take Eddie, a software package developed in Sydney in the 1990s, which enabled filmmakers to create visual effects at one-10th of the cost of rival products and was used in the Oscar-winning special effects in The Matrix. There was wi-fi, which was a spin-off of CSIRO's radio astronomy research and which has transformed the way we use technology in every office and home in the developed world. More recently there has been the Jira software development package, which has made Atlassian a billion-dollar homegrown tech giant. Aussies can invent incredible things. They could invent even more if their government backed them in. But the tired, third-term Morrison government has digital economy policy set to autopilot. Despite the slowest economic growth since the global financial crisis, rising unemployment and underemployment, and declining living standards, with a productivity recession underlying it all, this government seems content to allow Australia's digital opportunity to remain unrealised. The best it could do was an underwhelming strategy document, quietly released last Christmas, titled 'Australia's Tech Future'. It was scant on detail and failed to tackle Australia's serious policy challenges around digital regulation and skills shortages. As a result, 12 months on, a recently released report—prepared by the consultancy group AlphaBeta for the Digital Industry Group, an Australian industry association—titled Australia's digital opportunity argues that, if we stay on the same trajectory, Australia will miss out on the tech sector contributing $207 billion to GDP per year by 2030. We need to do better. We can learn from Australian success stories in this endeavour. To this end, I recently caught up with the House House team in Melbourne, the game studio behind possibly the best thing to happen in 2019 the Untitled Goose Game. This is a game about a horrible goose ruining a lovely morning in a small English village and sold 100,000 copies in the first two weeks after its release in mid-September. It is the latest in a long line of globally successful video games developed by small-team indie developers in Australia. They join the likes of Halfbrick's Fruit Ninja, Hipster Whale's Crossy Road and, my daughter's personal favourite, the Mountains development team's Florence, which won an Apple design award at the 2017 Apple Worldwide Developers Conference. Video game sales in Australia exceeded $4 billion in 2018, up 25 per cent on the previous year. That's bigger than the film and TV industries in Australia. It's exactly the kind of growing digital economy industry that the government would be backing if it was serious about creating jobs in the growth sectors of our economy. Canada is a great case study about what's possible. Thanks to the support of the Canada Media Fund, their video game industry is one of the biggest in the world—21,000 full-time employees contributing $4.1 billion to the country's economy. The contrast with Australia is stark. Rather than backing this growing industry, upon coming to office the coalition abolished the previous Labor government's $20 million Australian Interactive Games Fund. It also continues to exclude the video game industry from any of the tax concessions available to film and television production in this country. Labor understands that, if we want to harness the potential of the video game industry, government needs to be actively involved in job creation in this space. That's why Labor is hosting a creative economy summit next year, to hear from creatives like House House about the conditions that enabled their success. House House told me that it wasn't a coincidence that Untitled Goose Game was created in Victoria. There is an existing game design community in Melbourne that traverses universities and the private sector and is located in collaborative workspaces like The Arcade. There is also a state government that's prepared to financially back the sector. A series of Film Victoria grants enabled House House to market their games and to port them to new platforms in order to grow their business at key moments of their development. The team at House House raised a less obvious point about the role of government in supporting job creation in creative industries, but it is an important point: the need to increase the Newstart allowance. To support the growth of the digital economy, the creatives who are on the vanguard of innovation often need to be able to pay the rent and survive while they take a risk and commercialise their work. House House is a great example of how, when you back Aussie creators in the digital economy, they can compete with the best in the world. Australia needs a government that backs creators like this across the country and that gives them the support they need, when they need it, to take on the best in the world. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 I thank the member for Gellibrand. Is there a seconder for the motion? Mr Josh Wilson 265970 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 17:04 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan I rise to speak about the digital economy, in response to the motion moved by the member for Gellibrand. Obviously the digital economy has unleashed enormous potential for Australian residents and Australian businesses, but it still holds enormous potential. I think all of us in this parliament are keen to see Australians achieve their ambitions and to unleash the potential that is available to them. We are a long way from that old comment 'Everything that can be invented has been invented,' attributed to that poor commissioner of the US Patent Office in 1899. We know that that simply isn't the case and that there are many, many digital marvels to come, in front of us. But where I take umbrage with this motion and the member for Gellibrand's speech just before me is that, once again, it's a classic example of Labor seeking to talk down our economy, to talk down the opportunities. At the end of all that, what was the member for Gellibrand's prescription but yet another summit? We don't need to keep talking about this. We have a road map that the government has put in place. We need to get on and help Australian businesses to harness their potential. There is enormous potential to improve productivity and create jobs. To do that, the digital economy must be considered as broadly as possible, across the whole spectrum of the economy. It is not to be pigeonholed, as perhaps the member for Gellibrand tried to do, in the games sector, although people are doing amazing things in the games sector. It really presents an opportunity for the whole economy, and particularly for SMEs. This is where the biggest productivity boost can come from. We don't want to try and be, in Australia, the next Silicon Valley. We don't want to specifically target just the creation of the next college tech company. We want to help enable SMEs to achieve their tech goals, to take on board and adopt that technology which is right for their business. This is very important, and it's a difference of approach. We don't want to force every small business to be up in the cloud, but we want to encourage those businesses for which perhaps a cloud based payroll system would be best and would help them improve productivity and help them to make those decisions. We want to be there for those businesses that could help boost their sales by being part of the online marketplace and help support them to make those decisions. The government is obviously ambitious in this space. We are ambitious for Australians, as they are ambitious for themselves. And why wouldn't we be? The ingenuity of Australians is second to none. But we need to take a considered approach. As I said, a lot of time and treasure can be put into trying to create the next Silicon Valley, when what is needed is for us to encourage those tech entrepreneurs that we have, to keep capital here in Australia when it has so many other global opportunities, and to play to our strengths. Certainly we are good at games, but in the mining, agricultural and health sectors—areas where we have global competitive advantage—our tech entrepreneurs can apply their know-how to help us create productivity gains. There is the fantastic example in Brisbane of RedEye Apps, a tech company focused on enabling the mining sector. Why are they based in Australia? Because some of the biggest mining players in the world are here. They have structured their business and employ now almost 100 local residents. Their app helps mining companies keep their documents together in a cloud based solution. They have rightly identified, as other tech entrepreneurs have, that, in our leading sectors like mining, health and agriculture, they can develop tech based businesses around those big customers in Australia like they can do nowhere else in the world. That is our technological advantage. But we also want to make sure that we're dealing with the digital economy in a considered way, because there are challenges. We need to make sure that there is proper data security, something that I'm passionate about. But that is a strength in itself for Australia. We are leading the world in terms of data security. That's a service that we can offer, as part of the digital economy, to other parts of the world. We want to make sure that our kids are protected from digital exploitation as well. This is something that a lot of Australians are concerned about and it's going to require us to upskill our kids significantly, to make sure that we are dealing with the threat of bullying and sexual exploitation online. And we need to continue to meet the demand for more tech workers by making sure that the skills are there in universities, like the University of Queensland in my electorate. 17:09 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'm glad to speak on this motion on the digital economy, and I thank the member for Gellibrand, the shadow minister for communications and cybersecurity, for bringing it forward. I can't think of a person in the parliament, actually, who's brought his interest and knowledge to this particular issue more consistently than he has. And it should be a matter of great concern and much sharper focus because of the social and economic importance of digital technology and because Australia is not achieving its potential when it comes to the digital economy. The country that played a key role in developing wi-fi technology, and with a past record of early and rapid adoption of digital communication, should not find itself ranked second last in the OECD when it comes to the relative size of our tech sector. On the contrary, the tech sector and the benefits of digital innovation should be a major contributor to all areas of our economy that are currently lagging—namely, good-quality jobs, increased productivity, greater fairness and more equal and flexible workforce participation. Unfortunately this government, in all its guises—the Abbott version, the Turnbull version and now the Morrison version—not only has neglected the tech sector but also has been a dead hand on this critical aspect of our current and future social and economic wellbeing. And it's done harm in all the key areas: in education, in digital infrastructure and in the form of hastily and badly fashioned regulatory frameworks. Let's start with infrastructure. It is a shame that we're second last in the OECD for the size of our tech sector. But is that any great surprise, when we're currently ranked 62nd in the world—and falling—for broadband speed? We have the 13th-largest economy in the world. We're a nation that prides ourselves on scientific innovation and our capability to deliver first-rate infrastructure, yet in the first five minutes of this now third-term government the decision was made to base a 21st-century broadband network on 19th-century copper wiring. So, at a stroke, Labor's fibre-rich and futureproof national broadband network was thrown out and replaced by the multi-technology mess that is providing a broadband service that's more or less obsolete on delivery. In Western Australia we have the worst of it. Despite being the largest and most remote state, we have the slowest broadband speed of all the states and the highest proportion of substandard services. There's no doubt that for a dynamic tech sector to flourish you need a carefully designed regulatory framework. That isn't easy to achieve. It does mean balancing imperatives that can run counter to one another, if you consider on the one hand access to data for the purpose of national security and on the other hand privacy and freedom from surveillance and the kind of system integrity that is an essential aspect of high-quality tech business products and services. In that context we can only look back with dismay at the telecommunications assistance and access bill, pushed through on the basis that it was an emergency of sorts, in the last few days of the 2018 parliamentary year. In keeping with that sense of panic, the government turned its back on important amendments recommended on a bipartisan basis by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Those amendments addressed very significant concerns in terms of the impact on companies in the tech space and in relation to crucial civil liberty protections. Labor supported the legislation on the basis of the apparent urgency but conditional on a promise from the government that the relevant amendments to the bill would be picked up as soon as possible in 2019. Well, here we are, at the end of that year, and the only thing we have to consider is a bill that allows a further extension of the review process out to September 2020. Meanwhile, everyone in the Australian tech sector and many in the international tech community regard that law as establishing an effective moratorium on large-scale investment collaborations and start-ups. Finally, if we want Australia to achieve its tech sector potential, we need to make sure that our education system is calibrated to that end. On that count, I want to acknowledge the work of the member for Chifley, who led the way for a series of policy announcements during the last term of parliament, including a commitment to deliver 5,000 free TAFE places in ICT education and the establishment of an AI centre of excellence that would bring together business and academic expertise. The value of those kinds of supportive measures was in turn reinforced by the Leader of the Opposition in his 'Jobs and the future of work' speech the other week in Western Australia. I'd also like to acknowledge the work of the member for Hotham, the shadow minister for innovation, technology and the future of work in terms of what she has done to carry forward Labor's work on digital preparedness. As she has rightly argued, if we want technology to work for us and to improve our lives, we must have the right policy framework in place. So I support this motion. Australia should have a flourishing tech sector, because we have the appetite for innovation and because we need the jobs and the productivity that comes with it. 17:14 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I commend the member for Gellibrand for his motion. We in regional Australia are highly alert to these concerns because we understand the gaps in service, delivery and equity. I came to this place to talk positively about what we hope to start in regional Australia. I said that the federal government had a big role to play in that, supporting better connectivity, rail, internet, mobile phone coverage and access to health and education. It's connectivity that advances opportunity in a country like ours. In this context, I was encouraged to read in the Australian Digital Inclusion Index 2019 report Measuring Australia's digital dividethat my home state of Victoria this year achieved an index score of 63.3 points. This is 1.4 above the national average of 61.9 and ranks Victoria second in the federation. Victoria has better access, digital ability and access affordability scores than all other states and territories, except here in the ACT. But I was startled to see that the northern Victorian communities, which include those in my electorate of Indi, scored lowest on the measure of every component of the index for the state. For access, we rank last. For affordability, we rank last. For digital ability, we rank last. Overall, my communities and our neighbours on 53.9 points are 11 behind Melbourne and almost 10 behind the state and eight behind the nation. In February this year, the House of Representatives Select Committee on Regional Australia delivered its report called Regions at the ready. One of the 13 recommendations was: … that the Federal Government increase its investment in building enabling infrastructure to improve connectivity, key services and amenity through coordinated regional plans. As I recounted in my election campaign speech, in April this year, so many people tell me of their frustration with NBN and the remaining mobile phone blackspots, businesses whose EFTPOS machines are out for days, kids who need to be driven into town in order to access the internet and do their homework, isolated people in danger of bushfire, and elderly people trying to access the My Aged Care website. Business Wodonga chief executive Neil Aird last week told my office that digital access for 340 members who employ 7,000 people—almost 17 per cent of Wodonga's population—remains below par. This is in Indi's largest community. On one level, an accounting firm battles slow digital access speeds and bottlenecks, limiting service. On another, poor mobile coverage affects stallholders' ability to transact sales on digital card readers at Albury Wodonga Farmers Market, Beechworth Farmers Market and Oxley Bush Market. At the same time, in Indi, we're alive to the prospects of a vibrant digital economy and the significance of digital inclusion and confidence. In Wangaratta, a $300,000 state grant through the Ovens Murray Regional Partnership has funded a digital hub. People of all ages, backgrounds and digital abilities are engaging in workshops, making new connections, discovering tools and developing skills to access the digital economy. The hub is working with robotics and coding enthusiasts, start-ups and animators. It's also looking at ways to extend literacy that can improve health. Studies show that those who are older, disabled or on low incomes have the most to gain from digital technology, yet they are over-represented among the three million Australians who are not yet online. One example is remote patient monitoring. There is compelling evidence from Australia and overseas that remote patient monitoring significantly improves patient health outcomes for the management of chronic disease. It also realises a five- to six-fold return on investment through reduction in hospital presentations and early management of symptoms. But it takes digital confidence to use this technology and affordable digital connection plans, two things that are still missing in my community. So how can we deliver that access and the confidence that builds better health outcomes? If we in this parliament are governing for all Australians—the quiet and the noisy, the urban and the rural—we need to deliver equity of service, access and opportunity. A cohesive, inclusive and comprehensive plan for regional Australia can shape this prospect and enable all of us to share in the benefits. I call on the Minister for Regional Development to get on with the recommendations of the Regions at the ready report. It's almost one year old but it's yet to walk. I'm eager to work with you and your government to close the digital divide and, most especially, close it in my electorate of Indi. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be an order of the day for the next sitting. MOTIONS 161 MOTIONS Medicare 161 17:20 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion today because it gives me the opportunity to outline once again why the coalition, particularly the Morrison government now, is the best friend that Medicare has ever had. We went to the election with a simple promise to the Australian people: more accessible, affordable health care. My electorate of Ryan is home to just over 39,000 families. Medicines and health care are a priority for them. Health care at times can be a big part of the household budget, and that's why we know the importance of Medicare providing bulk-billed GP rates and the PBS helping with the cost of medicines. Our commitment to Medicare, the PBS and bulk-billing are rock solid. Our commitment is not a one-off; it is a continual investment now and in the future. We have guaranteed the long-term history of Medicare with the Medicare Guarantee Act. That makes us, as I said, on this side of the House, the best friends that Medicare have ever had. Unlike those opposite, we can provide a long-term commitment to Australians when it comes to Medicare because we have the proven strong economic management to back it up. We can manage a budget. We know that when you can't manage a budget you can't invest in vital services like health care and education. So, for all the lofty promises of those opposite, they can't actually deliver them. We saw this with their lack of commitment to the PBS the last time they were in government. Because of—if I recall the quote from their budget—fiscal constraints, they were unable to list medicines on the PBS. Shocking and shameful, yet it is something Labor members are yet to stand up to the Australian people and apologise for. When it came to the crunch, when it came to listing medicines that would save people's lives and improve the quality of life, because of their financial mismanagement, the cupboard was bare. Despite Labor reaching into their bag of tricks time and time again and putting out a scare campaign or two on Medicare, the facts continue to speak for themselves. Since 2012-13 bulk-billing rates have increased by four full percentage points from 82.2 per cent when Labor was last in office to 86.2 per cent now. In 2018-19 patients made 136.5 million bulk-billed GP visits—an increase of 3.3 million on the previous year alone. Medicare bulk-billing is at a record level, meaning more Australians are getting to see a GP without having to reach into their hip pocket. In fact, under this government, nine out of 10 visits to the GP are now free. In my electorate of Ryan last year, this was over 613,000 visits, some 171,000 more than in Labor's last term in government in 2012-13. We're also, of course, broadening the benefits to patients. On 1 July this year, we increased the patient rebate for further GP items on the Medicare Benefits Schedule. Specialist procedures, allied health services and other GP services such as mental health and after-hours services were indexed. In response to the Medicare Benefits Schedule Review, we will increase Medicare funding from $25 billion in 2018-19 to $31 billion in 2022-23. Let me repeat that: we will increase Medicare funding by $6 billion from $25 billion currently to $31 billion by 2022-23. To ensure that patients receive procedures in line with best practice to support high-value care, next year changes will be made to items on the Medicare Benefits Schedule in the areas of intensive care, emergency medicines, diagnostic imaging, neurosurgery and neurology. This builds on the MBS Review and commitments that we have made in the 2018-19 MYEFO in the areas of cardiac items, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis and anaesthesia services. We are not just guaranteeing Medicare, as I've spoken about; we are continuing to make it better for everyday Australians to make sure that when they visit our healthcare professionals they do so with lower costs out of their own pocket and with better services in place. We're not going to stop making these kinds of improvements, because we know how to manage an economy, unlike Labor, which stopped adding medicines to the PBS until 'Fiscal circumstances permitted'. Unlike them, you'll see us continue to list medicines on the PBS at an average rate of one a day. We'll continue to invest as well in the four pillars of our healthcare system, as we set out in our last budget, guaranteeing Medicare and access to medicines, supporting hospitals, prioritising mental health and investing in life-saving research. 17:25 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore In my electorate on the New South Wales South Coast, health is something very close to our hearts. Many local people are forced to travel significant distances to get the health care they need. This results in higher out-of-pocket costs, more time away from their families and support networks, and a significant cost to our health system and economy. That is why early intervention is so important. That is why it is vital that Medicare is functioning appropriately. That is why it is essential that patients can access bulk-billing, local doctors, at-home early-intervention services, local mental health services, and drug and alcohol rehabilitation. We know that when these early interventions are not there or are not sufficient there are higher costs to the patient, higher costs to the system and poorer health outcomes. The member for Lyne's motion talks about the government's commitment to Medicare. What it doesn't mention, however, is the Liberal-National government's freeze on the Medicare rebate indexation. What it doesn't mention is that out-of-pocket costs to visit a GP are up by 25 per cent and that around 1.3 million Australians per year skip or delay Medicare services due to costs. Out-of-pocket fees to see specialists continue to rise, and, when you also have to travel to access this specialist, this can put life-saving medical treatments out of reach. Labor created Medicare, and we have fought to protect it. But all this government has done is cut, attacking the very foundation of Medicare at every opportunity. The Liberal-National government is failing regional and rural Australia on health. Communities like mine struggle to find and retain local doctors, and some of our only bulk-billing medical centres have been forced to close or to reduce the number of doctors because of this government's policies. Demand for home visits, residential care facility visits and after-hours services is greater than the supply of doctors. My electorate has one of the highest numbers of aged pensioners in Australia, and the lack of local GPs is causing significant strain on local services like our hospitals. There is so much more the government could be doing to support our health system. Take, for example, a recommendation in the recent aged-care royal commission interim report. The commission described the unacceptable number of older Australians waiting for home care as 'unsafe practice' and 'neglect'. Where does the government think these people go? They go into the health system. They turn to Medicare for help and support: a system overburdened and underresourced. But there are services out there trying to fill this gap. The Illawarra Retirement Trust saw the gap in home care services for Indigenous Australians and the impact this was having on their health outcomes. After receiving a grant under the Dementia and Aged Care Services innovation funding round in 2017, IRT worked with the Aboriginal community in Batemans Bay to build the Booraja home care pilot program. The pilot has successfully helped Aboriginal people in the Batemans Bay area access home care packages, winning a national award at the innovAGEING awards. Booraja has provided care to 20 older Aboriginal people and has a waitlist of further clients. IRT also found that 75 per cent of Booraja's clients did not know about home care or how to access it before the program. But their grant has expired, and so far they have been unable to secure further funding—an absolute tragedy for this community. Targeted programs like this can lead to improved health outcomes for a community traditionally cut off from these vital services. Booraja has also employed all-Aboriginal caseworkers, training them in a Certificate III in Individual Support and creating a whole-of-community program, but they can't secure additional funding. This government is simply not serious about improving our health system. The Milton-Ulladulla community continues to campaign for a CT scanner at the hospital and has seen the closure of its birthing unit. Local doctors and nurses are doing their best, and everyone in our community has nothing but praise for the wonderful work they are doing. They need the resources to adequately do their jobs, but this government continues to cut funding and support from the health system. It promised not to cut health funding, but it cut $57 billion from hospitals and another $10 billion from Medicare and other health programs in its first year. This is the real record on health for this government—cuts, cuts, cuts. 17:30 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I'd like to acknowledge the member for Lyne for the outstanding motion he moved in the chamber today. The truth is that since 2013 this government has unequivocally demonstrated that there is only one side of politics in Australia which has the pragmatic approach to reform and the strong economic management required to protect and expand Medicare—that is, of course, the Liberal-National coalition. The Member for Lyne highlighted many of the national statistics which make this clear, but people living in my electorate of Fisher have seen it for themselves in the services provided every day in our community. When the coalition took office in 2013 there were 195 GPs providing Medicare funded services in the southern and central parts of the Sunshine Coast. Today there are 260. The government's funding of Medicare in my electorate has increased over that time from $133.3 million to $174.6 million last year—and those opposite call that a cut! This increase in funding has been reflected in the delivery of appointments on the ground. Today, the GP bulk-billing rate in Fisher stands at an impressive high of 88.5 per cent, with 960,161 bulk-billed services delivered in 2017-18. This compares to just 774,000 the last time Labor were in government. That is not to mention the extra $12.1 million the government is spending per year in Fisher on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. However, I'd like to speak to the Medicare reform of this government that is, perhaps, closest to my heart—the transformative changes we've made in mental health and, in particular, the treatment for people living with eating disorders, changes which today are already bringing hope to thousands of vulnerable people. In June 2018 the Minister for Health came to Fisher and joined me in visiting the Lake Kawana General Practice. There we met with Lexie Crouch, a courageous survivor of one of the most brutal of these insidious conditions, and Christine Morgan, who was the then CEO of the Butterfly Foundation. The minister was in Fisher to announce a $3.2 million pilot program, to be administered and evaluated by that foundation, which would provide, for the first time, specialist Medicare supported treatment for people living with an eating disorder. I strongly advocated for a treatment program like this on the Sunshine Coast which would comprehensively address the multifaceted needs of people with an eating disorder. I've had many valuable conversations on the subject with the Minister for Health, who I know shares my passion for tackling these most deadly of mental health conditions. In the end, the pilot came to Fisher. With the coalition government's support, my community is becoming increasingly recognised as a national leader in eating disorder treatment. The Sunshine Coast is home to endED, a life-changing charity founded by Mark and Gayle Forbes, which for years has delivered much-needed support through its recovery coaches Millie Thomas and, more recently, Laura Chamberlain. With $6.2 million in coalition government support, the coast will also shortly also be home to endED Butterfly House, which will be Australia's first ever residential facility for treating people suffering from severe eating disorders. I was pleased that the Minister for Health chose Fisher for this pilot, but I was even more pleased to see what a success it had been and the crucial national outcome that had resulted. From Friday 1 November this year, thanks to this government, the Morrison government, the kinds of treatments offered under the trial in my community are now available to all Australians. Through the government's 64 new Medicare Benefits Schedule items and with $110.7 million in new investment to support them, eligible people living with eating disorders all over Australia now have access to Medicare rebates of up to 60 treatment sessions each and every year. For people living with conditions like anorexia nervosa, bulimia and other complex eating disorders, this includes up to 40 sessions of psychological treatment and 20 sessions for dietetics. That's every 12 months. They'll also be able to claim rebates for sessions to develop an eating disorder treatment and management plan, regular GP reviews of their progress and a formal specialist review. Under this government we have made lasting changes to Medicare, particularly for those suffering from eating disorders, and I'm very proud to be part of it. 17:36 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Medicare ensures that people can access life-saving treatment when they need it. Last year around 21 million Australians accessed Medicare services, including GP visits, vital tests and scans, and hospital treatments. The unfortunate reality, despite what those opposite seem to believe, is: when Medicare loses, people in regional and rural areas in Australia lose too. My electorate is a perfect example of that. In August last year I visited Raymond Terrace Family Practice. I met with principals Chris Boyle, Damian Welbourne and Sarah Bayley—all exemplary doctors. We discussed the difficulties the practice is facing when it comes to Medicare and out-of-pocket expenses, which we know have gone up and up and up. Raymond Terrace is an area with low socioeconomic status. The unemployment rate is 9.8 per cent—well above the national average—and almost 40 per cent of the population didn't finish high school. In 2016, when the national average income was over $1,500, in Raymond Terrace it was $554. Given this, it's unsurprising that Raymond Terrace Family Practice currently bulk-bills over 70 per cent of the patients it sees. And this is a vital service. The Department of Health's Rural, Remote and Metropolitan Areas scale, more commonly known as the RRMA scale, determines how much a doctor's practice will get in cash incentives from the government for bulk-billing. Raymond Terrace Family Practice used to be classified as regional, but after a recent review the centre was reclassified as metropolitan. The reclassification will cost the centre around $60,000 per year, or two part-time receptionists. Reclassifying the centre from regional to metropolitan has taken away their incentive to bulk-bill. There are so many things wrong with this. Firstly, Raymond Terrace, whilst it is a fantastic community, is not metro. Secondly, this medical practice is in a community that desperately needs bulk-billing. It needs good primary health care. The principals at Raymond Terrace Family Practice know that their service is essential to our community, and they do an outstanding job—so much so that they're doing everything in their power to not end bulk-billing, including cutting their own incomes. But this isn't enough. In August the centre told me they had made the difficult decision to stop bulk-billing skin cancer procedures, meaning that patients will need to go to the hospital or pay over $500 and face a wait time as long as 12 months to be seen, because we're in a regional area. Unfortunately this is not an isolated issue. Last week I met with Dr Mark Foster. Dr Foster is from the Community Healthcare Trustees, and he came to my office to tell me about the issues they're facing with GP and primary healthcare services in Kurri Kurri, my home town—in fact, I was born in the Kurri Kurri Hospital. Community Healthcare Trustees established a not-for-profit, bulk-billing GP service across two sites, in Kurri Kurri and in nearby Cessnock, in the seat of Hunter. Recent changes implemented by this government have had a terrible impact on these practices. Similar to the Raymond Terrace Family Practice, the centre is now classified as metropolitan. It's in the same category as the city of Sydney. I have home town bias: I love Kurri Kurri. It's a top place, but it's not Sydney. It's quite the opposite. Kurri Kurri has a population of 6,000, not six million, and an unemployment rate of 8.4 per cent, also well above the national average, with youth unemployment much higher in certain cohorts. The biggest industry is coalmining, and statistically the largest occupation groups are tradies, labourers and machinery operators. We're a great community. The community health care is the only 100 per cent bulk-billing practice in our town. The reclassification from regional to metropolitan has made it difficult to maintain this vital service. Other issues are the changes to the district of workforce shortage boundaries. It's resulted in Kurri Kurri no longer being classified as a district of workforce shortage. This is fundamentally not true. We have difficulties getting GPs, and it's really hard to retain them. It's really hard to get those people there in the first place. I've written to the minister: 'Minister Hunt, come to Kurri; come to Raymond Terrace Family Practice. We'll give you a beautiful afternoon tea. You'll get to meet some great doctors, and we can really thrash out what's going on with Medicare in my community.' 17:41 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I commend the member for Paterson for that. I hope the Minister for Health takes up that kind invitation. It would be good for him to get out on the ground. I invite him up to the Territory as well. I'll get to that later, but there are obviously some difficulties that we face with our health system that the minister would do well to have a better look at. I congratulate you, Deputy Speaker, for trying to put across the government's commitment to Medicare. It is great to see so much love in the House for the Medicare system, especially from those opposite. It almost feels like the 2014 budget never happened. Conservative governments and the labour movement have a fairly predictable relationship around Medibank and Medicare: we build it and you try to break it down. We introduced the universal healthcare system, of course, in the face of opposition from those opposite, from the Liberal and National parties, and we will defend it to our last breath. Despite the efforts of those opposite over the years, as recent as 2014, Medicare remains so important to Australians. It is something that Australians can be proud of. I'm not saying it's perfect, but in the greater scheme of things, it is fair. Wherever I go, when I hear people return from overseas, they're always so thankful that we've defended our Medicare system over the years. We can obviously improve the system, particularly in the Territory. Recent analysis by the Mitchell Institute showed that the current system does not properly factor in the needs of the Territory. We have, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, a much larger health burden to carry, compared with the rest of the country, yet we receive only 65c per person in Medicare payments, which is the lowest of any jurisdiction in the country. Overall, according to that report by the Mitchell Institute, there's an $82 million shortfall for medical services in the Northern Territory. I don't think anyone would doubt that there is inequality of health outcomes and services between rural and metropolitan areas. Addressing that has to be the No. 1 priority of the government. We all know that life expectancy falls as remoteness increases. That's why the definitions the member for Paterson was talking about are important. It is important, whether something is classified as metro, rural or remote, because it means the system is able to apply sufficient resources. We all know that out-of-pocket health costs are increasing for Australians, who currently spend over $30 billion a year on such costs. My friend the member for Gilmore mentioned a little bit earlier that out-of-pocket costs are going up something like 25 per cent. This means Australians are paying a record amount out of their own pockets at a time when wages are not increasing. It is a problem. In the time left, I'd like to flag the Medicare Benefits Schedule review. I'm worried about this review. I'm worried that the federal government is considering a recommendation to reform item 288, if you could take that on notice, please, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is around the provision of an incentive fee of 50 per cent for consultations, by psychiatrists, delivered via video conference to telehealth-eligible areas in Australia. The item is proving valuable by incentivising psychiatrists to provide services to rural and regional places, such as Darwin. So, for veterans and a whole range of other clientele, if that recommendation is taken on, that will decrease the incentive. There are a lot of no-shows in telehealth, so it will make it unviable for the providers of those services, and I ask that that recommendation not be taken up by the government. 17:46 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley Medicare, introduced by the Whitlam government as Medibank, transformed Australia's health system. Before Medicare, Australians who could not afford private health insurance were locked out of proper medical care. They faced the prospect of becoming bankrupt when they became sick. Universal access to health care is an enduring legacy of the Whitlam Labor government. It is, along with the PBS, one of the great manifestations of Australia's commitment to an equitable and fair society. But, as we know, it is not something that we can ever just set and forget. Labor has fought to protect and, where necessary, expand Medicare in the four or so decades since the Whitlam government, and we will always continue to do so. It is the sad truth that today, in 2019, there are still too many people in our community for whom the cost of health care is prohibitive, who either don't access the tests and treatments they need, because they simply can't afford to, or who have the added stress of financial strain on top of the strain of being sick, because they have had to access their superannuation to pay out-of-pocket costs or take out a loan, or continue to work, even though they're not well enough to do so because they're getting treatment. In 2016 the ABS estimated that each year almost 300,000 Australians forgo a radiology service that they have been referred for because the cost is too high. That should never, ever be the case for anyone, let alone for 300,000 Australians. An MRI saved my life twice. I am incredibly lucky that, when I was referred to have an MRI, in July this year, I could afford the out-of-pocket costs. But, for too many people, people in my community and beyond, costs are prohibitive. And, sometimes, if, like me—because I didn't know that I had cancer at the time—the referral is not considered to be particularly urgent, it can be the case that the financial burden may well be enough to make the decision not to have the scan. Had I not had the MRI scan, we would not know that I have cancer, and I would not have started the treatment that I need. On average, a woman diagnosed with breast cancer, according to the Australian Diagnostic Imaging Association, will require at least five services, and that's prior to commencing treatment. For example, I had an MRI followed by nuclear medicine, a CT, an ultrasound, and then further CTs during radiation. The ADIA also estimates that, on average, patients pay a $105 gap and a $473 up-front fee for nuclear medicine, and a $182 gap and a $524 up-front fee for MRIs. Then, once you have been diagnosed and you're in treatment, you require multiple scans, sometimes over many years, as part of the treatment—for many people, accumulating thousands and thousands of dollars in up-front fees. Under the current system, people can only access subsidised scans on MRI machines that have a Medicare licence, and there are only 216 fully licensed MRI scanners across Australia, so patients who can't afford the full upfront costs often wait weeks for an MRI, travel long distances or, as I've said, sometimes don't have one. The MRI is the only imaging service restricted by Medicare in this way, and it's a significant reason why access to MRIs in Australia is poor in comparison to our peer countries. And we must do better. We must. I was very proud that Labor took a policy to the last election to tackle barriers to life-saving scans by scrapping restrictions on MRI machines for cancer patients. Labor's policy was that, if you need a cancer scan, every MRI machine in every postcode would be eligible for Medicare. Restrictions would be lifted so that all MRI providers that met minimum quality and safety standards would be able to bill Medicare for cancer services, provided they bulk-billed. That would mean that scans that would normally cost hundreds of dollars—often accumulating to thousands and thousands of dollars—would be free. This government has made some good steps towards subsidising scans, and I ask the Liberal government to consider looking at Labor's policy and implementing it, because it is a policy that not only will save lives but will make life just that little bit easier for many, many Australians having to go through treatment, The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Sikh Community 166 17:51 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen I move: That this House: (1) recognises that 2019 marks the 550th anniversary of the birth of Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, with his birth being celebrated worldwide as Guru Nanak Gurpurab on Kartik Pooranmashi, the full-moon day in the month of Katak, October-November; (2) joins with all Sikhs in Australia to acknowledge this significant anniversary; and (3) notes: (a) that the Sikh community forms an important and growing segment of our community, with the Sikh faith being one of the emerging religions in Australia; and (b) the contribution that the growing Sikh community makes to our multicultural nation through its commitment to Guru Nanak's teachings of selfless service and social justice. Waheguru ji ka khalsa waheguru ji ki fateh. In this year of 2019, we join our Sikh community in Australia to pay tribute to the founder of the Sikh religion, Guru Nanak Dev Ji, on the 550th anniversary of his birth. On this auspicious occasion, it's also worth reflecting on the integral role the Sikh community have played in developing Australia's national identity. In fact, though Sikhism nowadays might be seen as part of a global religious diversity, it was not always the case. The story of Sikhism in our modern world is one of tenacity, zeal and commitment, taking its lead from the divine inspiration of Guru Nanak. From its very founding, this group of people have shown a revolutionary spirit that has preached equality of all humankind. When it was established back in the 15th century by Guru Nanak, Sikhism was unique in the social, political and gender equality it expounded. Through his teachings and practice, the guru espoused that all humankind is unified under the divine teachings of God, famously saying that there is no Muslim and there is no Hindu. That was at a time when religious conflict was rife between Hindus and Muslims. The spiritualism of equality and unity was an appealing but radical prospect for many people. It takes a person of great conviction, belief and a keen sense of justice to have the courage to go against the grain and preach this world view. That is why Guru Nanak was a progressive well ahead of his time. He believed in gender equality and he refused to wear the thread of caste, arguing that caste should not be used as a means of judging a person. He believed in living as a participant in society, rather than outside of it. Nowadays Sikhs do not adhere to the word of any living man but they adhere to the holy scripture developed by the 10 gurus from 1469 to 1708. Across this time, the key tenets of selflessness, earning an honest living and naam japna, which means 'meditating on God's name', were stressed as the most important aspects of Sikhism. The gurus also taught that disciples should strive to develop God's consciousness and carry out God's will on earth. That is why, from the earliest days, Sikhs preached and practised the principles of equality, freedom and justice at considerable risk to their own lives. Without a doubt, these are the reasons why Sikhism has found such a welcoming home in Australia. The very principles of equality and justice that embody Australia's identity are also key to the Sikh faith. Perhaps they were even developed together, because the first Sikhs came to Australia from Punjab in the 19th century, mainly as labourers in the cane fields of Queensland. It's no secret that these early arrivals faced substantial discrimination, including harsh conditions on plantations as labourers. Open discrimination and violence was a theme of the White Australia policy, which stifled the potential of this community and ensured it remained a tiny proportion of the overall population. Yet, despite the unfortunate past, Sikhs have a long and proud history of engagement with Australia. The British Sikh Regiment fought side by side with the Aussies at Gallipoli, earning Australia's deep respect. It wasn't just in this battle where Sikhs showed their strength; they fought with us in the battle of Malaya, the Battle of Singapore and other hostilities. Nowadays Sikhs serve as members of the ADF, the police and the emergency services without having to compromise any article of their faith or religious beliefs. On a local level Sikhs have contributed to our community in deep and enduring ways. One interesting example is a gravesite in my home town of Whittlesea, commemorating the death in 1873 of a Sikh merchant killed by a horse in a shoeing accident. These historical insights are dotted around the electorate and speak to the layered history of Sikhs there. Another example of engagement is the AFL Hume Bombers Football Club, started by my friend Avtar Singh. As a Carlton supporter, it pains me to support Essendon, but what they've been doing has been absolutely sensational. This is a club for Sikh kids that's gone from strength to strength with equal gender opportunity at its core. One of the young players Divjot Singh even got the opportunity to toss the coin at the Essendon-Western Bulldogs game at Marvel Stadium recently. I'm proud that my home state of Victoria houses the highest proportion of Sikhs in any state or territory, standing 53,000 inhabitants. Indeed, recently, we had the privilege of hosting a delegation of Sikhs from the electorate of McEwen to Parliament House to celebrate this. Headed by Mr Avtar Singh, this group representing the Australian Multicultural Foundation was a true cross-section of society. There were antique furniture restorers, trucking business owners and healthcare professionals just to name a few. It warmed my heart to see the integration of Sikh communities into Australian society, and I sincerely hope this process continues. It's only right that, after the Sikhs have contributed so much to the strength and diversity of our nation, we celebrate the very man, Guru Nanak Dev Ji, who began this important religion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 Is there a seconder for the speech? 17:56 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I second the motion. Many people in my community and millions of people around the world have celebrated the 550th birthday of Guru Nanak. His birth is celebrated worldwide on Kartik Pooranmashi, the full moon day, in the month of Katak. This year it was celebrated on the 12 November. Guru Nanak was the founder of Sikhism and the first of the 10 Sikh gurus. These gurus were responsible for shaping the beliefs of the Sikhs. Their birthdays are occasions for celebration and prayer among the Sikh community. Guru Nanak was a wonderful philosopher. His timeless teachings remain a source of inspiration for millions today, and the global Sikh community bring his teachings into their own lives. He brought equality, good actions, honesty and hard work to the core of the value system of his followers. He offered dignity to the people in the lower hierarchy of society by emphasising that everyone was equal—man or woman, rich or poor—and rejecting religious hatred. Here in Australia, Punjabi is the fastest-growing language groups with about 130,000 Sikhs calling Australia home. These qualities are ones I see evident amongst the wonderful Sikh community in my region. The importance of the Sikh community in the Coffs Coast and surrounds is immense. It's a very beautiful part of our country and it has the added bonus of having a large Sikh component in its population. Many Sikhs began to settle here post-World War II where they were able to acquire leaseholds and freeholds on banana plantations. Indeed, Gurmesh Singh, a mate of mine, a Woolgoolga local, is the first elected member of any Australian parliament to the New South Wales parliament from the Sikh faith. His great-grandfather Bella Singh came to Australia in 1895. The family moved from Ulmarra to Woolgoolga in 1950. The first permanent Sikh resident of Woolgoolga was Labu Singh from Belga and Booja Singh from Malpur Arkan district in Jalandhar. Booja Singh was the first Sikh to purchase a banana plantation and had a residence in Beach Street. There are now more than 2,500 people of Sikh heritage in the Coffs Harbour City Council centre. At Woolgoolga Public School, 21 per cent of the student population are Sikh; and at the Woolgoolga High School, more than 12 per cent of children have Sikh heritage. Australia's first Sikh temple was established in Woolgoolga. By maintaining their culture, religion and heritage the Sikhs have contributed to the ethnic and cultural diversity of our region, giving the Coffs Coast area a vibrant and unique character. As well, the Sikh community has utilised their inherent agricultural background and skills in creating great economic success. Woolgoolga has the largest regional Sikh Punjabi population in Australia. Over the past 70 years the community has flourished. Sikh leaders say the town's Indian heritage would not have been possible without the welcome tolerance and encouragement of the wider Woolgoolga community. Regarded as an oasis of Indian culture and home to Australia's first Sikh temple, Woolgoolga is known among local Sikhs as the missing piece of paradise. Woolgoolga and the Coffs Coast truly are microcosms of today's multicultural Australia. I am grateful to our local Sikh population for making their home in our region. I thank them for the wonderful contribution they have made over many generations not only to our community but also indeed to our nation. I acknowledge the birthday of Guru Nanak earlier this month. 18:00 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt I rise to support the motion of the member for McEwen, which marks and recognises the 550th anniversary of the birth of Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism. His birth is celebrated worldwide as Guru Nanak Gurpurab on Kartik Pooranmashi, the full-moon day in the month of Katak, in October and November. In this place in particular, I wanted to extend my warmest wishes to the Sikh community in Australia and particularly in my area. I join them in celebrating the 550th birthday of the founder of Sikhism, Guru Nanak. The 550th anniversary should serve as a reminder to us all about the importance of the values that Guru Nanak espoused and promoted throughout his life, which include compassion, equality and humility. Sikhism is the world's fifth-most observed religion. It is a faith that believes in equality and service to others. Sikhism emerged, obviously, 500 years ago in Punjab. It was founded by Guru Nanak, who was a non-practising Hindu who was against rituals and praying to idols. According to CNN, Guru Nanak taught a message of love and that all religions were good. If you were Hindu, he said, be a good Hindu. If you're a Muslim, be a good Muslim. If you're a Christian be a good Christian. According to CNN there are 25 million Sikhs around the world, who hold services at temples and gurdwaras, where everyone is welcome. ABS census data from 2016 confirms that there are about 126,000 followers in Australia. Sikhism is now the fifth-largest religion in this country after Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. Victoria is home to Australia's largest Sikh community, with more than 52,000 Sikhs calling Victoria home. The Sikh community forms an important and growing section of our community, with the Sikh faith being one of the emerging religions in Australia. The growing Sikh community makes an important contribution to our multicultural nation through its commitment to Guru Nanak's teachings of selfless service and social justice. On this special occasion we are thankful to Sikh Victorians for their extraordinary contribution and service to our local community. I want to take the time to congratulate the Andrews Labor government on establishing the Sikh Celebrations and Events Fund, which provided $200,000 in funding for 20 events through October and November this year, including a humanity walk in the Melbourne CBD, with over 20,000 in attendance. Also, to recognise the 550th anniversary, on 12 November the Andrews government illuminated buildings and landmarks around Melbourne in the colour of saffron, which is a very important colour. The locations at which it was done included the Bolte Bridge, Arts Centre Melbourne and the AAMI Stadium. Locally, in the City of Casey, Bunjil Place was lit up to celebrate this anniversary. Also, an event was organised in October by Sikh Volunteers Australia, which was attended by hundreds of people, at which various community groups were awarded, in recognition of their service to and cooperation with multiculturalism and support for people in need. This seminar was called Share and Care. In my electorate we have a large Sikh community and we have incredible groups, like Sikh Volunteers Australia Inc., which provides free food to community welfare events, assists in emergency and relief efforts, and provides services to local community organisations, local councils and non-profit events. We see them everywhere. Last year we were fortunate to award a government Stronger Communities grant in Holt to the Sikh volunteers to help purchase a volunteer bus. The aim is to purchase a 10- to 15-seater bus that will take people in the local community to events. We also had an amazing event in my electorate—the 32nd Annual Australian Sikh Games at Casey Fields. Over 130,000 people attended the event over two days. We welcomed over 3,500 athletes, and they competed in over 14 different sports. It was over the Easter weekend. It showed, in conjunction with the athletic and sporting events, some of the culture. The cultural events and cultural stalls that surrounded it were quite amazing. In my time remaining I wish to thank the Sikhs for the contribution that they have made to Australia since coming to this country. I certainly wish them all the best and celebrate with them the birth of a remarkable individual—Guru Nanak. 18:06 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls Like all other communities, the seat of Nicholls has a very strong and vibrant Sikh community. Some 40-odd years ago the first families came to Shepparton. They were able to locate themselves in predominantly a fruit-growing area where they were able to achieve the employment that they wanted. Certainly they have over the years really established themselves with their tremendous work ethic. They worked as casual orchardists on the farms and worked in the pack houses and the cool stores. For a couple of generations now they've owned their own farms. Certainly it is an amazing success story. So many Sikh families live in Shepparton. The Shepparton experience started with only 15 families. When there was fundraising for the Sikh temple in Shepparton, people did whatever they could to achieve the outcome that they wanted. They borrowed money and got grant money. They borrowed from other Sikh communities around Australia. They worked their way through so that they ended up with the result that they did. What we currently see is certainly an amazing result. I was at the Sikh temple last Wednesday to catch up with Dhami Singh, among others. Dhami was kind enough to invite me there for the 550th anniversary of the birth of Guru Nanak. It was a great opportunity. I met many of the women who were preparing food for the evening. I sat around and talked to them. I tried the special drinks, breads and curries that they have. It was a tremendous way to welcome somebody into their community. It was also an opportunity to spend some time quietly talking with some of the elders in relation to the challenges that they have in accommodation. Without a lot of backing they look after people who turn up on their doorstep. Also they look after their community back home. Many of the Sikh community in Shepparton have ageing parents who they are very concerned about. They look after them as well. I think the Prime Minister has been very well regarded. He wrote a letter to the Sikh community commemorating the birth of Guru Nanak. He stated that this is a moment of deep significance for those of the Sikh faith and for all inspired by his teachings of honesty, equality and goodwill. The Prime Minister went on to say that Sikhism is one of the fastest-growing religions in Australia, with over 125,000 adherents. It is the values of the Sikhs and their faith that we have all spoken about here today that align so much with mainstream Australia. We see the major values of equality, honesty, respect and the belief that anyone can achieve anything and that your status at birth should not define you nor restrict you in what you wish to achieve throughout your life. I've often said in this House that Shepparton is a great example of multiculturalism. It's fair to suggest that the Sikh community, which now numbers over a thousand, is a great example for all within that multicultural community. As I mentioned earlier, the Goulburn Valley Punjabi started to arrive around 40 years ago in the early eighties. Whilst they were first attracted to the orchards and the casual work that the horticultural industry was able to offer, many of them have since moved into professional fields as well as into transport operations. You can now see the Sikh community spreading its web not just throughout manual labour but also into the more professional outcomes that they are able to achieve as well. We also find that the temple, which was originally built with the hard work of only 15 families or so, now has over 300 to 350 families that currently and consistently use the temple there on a Wednesday evening and a Sunday as well. It's a six-hour ceremony on a Sunday. Certainly they have come an enormously long way since that land was purchased way back in 2001. They have had a range of priests going through. The priest I met the other night there is relatively new and is certainly making a big impact on the community. It really is an honour to work with this group and to be their local member. This is a very significant celebration for the Sikhs. I want to wish them all the best and hope that this respect, this honesty and this equality that they push forward can maintain their faith into the future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Discrimination 170 18:12 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Last week, I think people would have been stunned to hear the release of the Global Terrorism Index for 2019. Some of its findings were pretty disturbing. In particular, the report found there had been a 320 per cent increase in far Right terrorism in the West over the past five years. According to the index, far Right terrorism is more than five times deadlier, on average, than far Left terrorism. This rise in far Right extremism is not happening in isolation; it's being mirrored by an increase in hate crimes. I have previously spoken in this chamber about the fact that we have seen some pretty terrible incidents, even in the last few months. Putting aside the horror of the Christchurch event—if that is an evil even conceivable to put aside—and looking to our own shores, you can see significantly smaller, but still disturbing, actions. I recounted to the chamber only a few months ago about a person approaching a mosque in Brisbane, in Holland Park, with a machete. That mosque itself had been vandalised with swastikas painted on it and tributes to the person who undertook those truly heinous acts in Christchurch, glorifying that person in the process. Last week, a pregnant Muslim woman was bashed in the head 14 times by someone who was known to police. This is happening. Dare I say, I frankly wonder how that would be treated if that person were of another faith. The concern about the rise of Islamophobia is real, as has been demonstrated. The concern about anti-Semitism being on the rise is real as well. And where is the response? I keep raising with the home affairs minister the need to take this seriously. Whether the threat is from Jihadists or if it's from right-wing extremists, they're both threats and they should be treated the same. They are threats to national security, they are threats to the safety of the general public, yet there is no genuine response to this. The claim is that the bulk of the threats that are being tracked are Jihadist. Yet we've got a global terrorism index that's showing, firstly, the rise of far-right extremism—320 per cent in five years. This whole notion that that would be ring-fenced in one country is ridiculous. These groups are using the internet, using channels like 8chan, to talk amongst each other and one-up each other in a most disgraceful way, saying that they are doing things for Tarrant, they are doing this inspired by those terrible acts in Christchurch, and we don't see any serious response out of the government at all—none whatsoever. Again, I am not raising this in this chamber without having done the work of raising it privately with government. I most certainly have. But I don't think there is any serious treatment or any serious response to this. Where is the resourcing? Where is the raising of this as an issue? Nowhere. There is no response from the government about this. Are we to see anti-Semitic and Islamophobic behaviour on our streets escalate? The reason I feel so strongly about dealing with vilification is that vilification is the gateway to more-serious acts. When people feel that they're given some a licence to say something and incite hate, they can then act upon it. There are grounds for having legitimate debate—absolutely. But it is not legitimate to incite hate. What we are seeing should be of concern to fair-minded people, regardless of what political party they're from, and it should be treated far more seriously. 18:17 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin I thank the member for Moreton for moving this important motion and thank those members who have contributed to this debate. I rise to speak on this on the International Day of the Elimination of Violence against Women. I also do so less than a week after a 38-week pregnant Muslim woman was brutally attacked while out at a cafe with friends in Parramatta—shocking and horrifying. I reiterate what everybody else who has spoken on this motion has said: there is absolutely no place in Australia for violence, vilification or incitement of hatred on the basis of a person's religion or religious belief. The examples of this occurring, as detailed in the member for Moreton's motion, and in many of the speeches of members who have spoken before me, are reprehensible and abhorrent. Australia is a nation of great cultural diversity, from the oldest continuous culture of our First Australians to our newest arrivals. Nearly half of all Australians were born overseas or have at least one parent who was. Similarly, we are a country of diversity in religious beliefs, with 12 million people identifying as Christians and over two million identifying as a religion other than Christianity. We also have a rising number of Australians, 30 per cent, who identify as non-religious. Australia's success and stability as a nation, as with all other nations, is dependent on all of us—regardless of our religious beliefs or lack of them, regardless of our cultural identity, regardless of any of our differences—finding ways of getting along with the other. We need, as a nation, to recognise the importance of social cohesion to our individual and national wellbeing. Without an appropriate degree of social cohesion, we cease to be a strong nation. Acts inciting hatred against others, acts of violence against others, and extreme vilification of those who are different to us cause wide-ranging harm and damage. The most significant harm and damage is obviously the physical and emotional harm done at the individual level. There is, of course, harm to our society, a greater harm, the creation of fear, of mistrust, of antagonism. There is, for those who like to put a dollar value on everything, also damage done to our economy—lost productivity, increased need for health services, police services, damage done to our international reputation. The government's role in protecting religious communities at risk of endangerment, and protecting all Australians from incitement of hatred and violence, is primarily done by ensuring that we have the right legislative framework with appropriate deterrence and punishment and that we also invest in and support and encourage, through policy frameworks, initiatives which help to build cohesion across society. There are always dangers in legislative action, and any legislative action must be carefully nuanced. But it must be clear: when it comes to stopping violence and hatred, there must be decisive and clear legal prohibitions. We also need to realise, however, that legislation in and of itself will not ensure social cohesion. We need concrete actions that promote understanding, tolerance, self-responsibility and resilience, and which are undertaken and driven at grassroots levels in families, in schools, in workplaces, in communities. To this end, I note the $71 million package that was allocated in this year's budget to support locally-led initiatives, which will, amongst other things, build interfaith and intercultural understanding through sport, in classrooms and in cultural institutions. There are other programs that will encourage a diversity of perspectives in the public debate and promote resilience against harmful and divisive messages, particularly those that promote violence. I also want to note existing local initiatives, such as Courage to Care, which is a community outreach and education program that has been developed and delivered by a team of trained volunteers to teach young Australians of the dangers of prejudice and discrimination. I conclude by repeating what all those who have spoken on the matter before have said: there is absolutely no place in Australia for violence, for vilification or incitement of hatred on the basis of a person's religion or religious belief. There is a role for government in building the social cohesion of a nation, and government is doing this, but there is also a vital role for each of us individually. We need to accept personal responsibility to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. 18:22 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I also rise to speak on the motion before us, and I want to thank the member for Moreton for bringing this very important motion on the vilification of minority groups for discussion here in the chamber. I also want to thank all colleagues who have made a contribution to the debate. As the member for Calwell I have spoken many times about my culturally diverse multifaith electorate and I've spoken about the aspirations and tribulations of both the established and emerging migrant and refugee communities who live in my electorate. They are the waves of migrant Australians who, in making Australia home, continue to add to our country's nation-building enterprise by bringing with them their unique cultures, their languages and faiths, their skills and experiences, and their investments and business acumen, ensuring always that Australia continues to remain a dynamic and vibrant contemporary multicultural society with a viable and strong economy. This is why this motion today is very important. Despite best efforts, there are still religious communities that face vilification, which is why this motion calls on the government to protect all Australians from incitement of hatred due to religious beliefs. Calwell has one of the largest Muslim communities in Australia. In our case, Islamophobia is a real and pressing issue. Our community, over the years, has endured its fair share of vilification. I have previously, in this parliament, talked about the abuses and verbal assaults and insults, and even attacks on individuals and buildings, that my constituents have endured. We, however, continue to fight against the intransigent prejudice of those who view their Muslim neighbours as threats or incompatible to the Australian identity or the Australian way of life. Since 9/11, Australia, as with other Western countries with Muslim minorities, has experienced a profound surge of Islamophobia. Islamophobia is defined by the Runnymede Trust's Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia as: The dislike of or prejudice against and fear of Islam or Muslims. Against the backdrop of international conflict, terrorist incidents and counterterrorist measures, Muslims have become the subject of rising mistrust and suspicion and, in some cases, outright hostility. In the case of my local Muslim community, the effects of the post September 11 period have been profound. Recently I met a young man from my electorate who, at 22 years of age, told me that he has known no other way than post the 11 September period, because he has grown up having to deal with suspicion and discrimination because he is a Muslim. That's a shocking revelation for any Australian, especially a young Australian, to have to go through. I say this because together we have all built a successful Australian democracy. Our social cohesion has been key to our social harmony. We have resisted and must continue to resist any threats to our social cohesion by protecting our community from any discrimination, vilification or incitement of hatred based on race or faith. Since its inception in 2001, the Hume Interfaith Network in my electorate is an example of such resistance, with faith leaders from across the electorate working with the Hume City Council, strengthening social justice, deepening mutual respect and promoting community participation and wellbeing through interfaith dialogue and community engagement. The network celebrates the rich diversity that is found in Calwell by dispersing misplaced fears. It plays a key role in promoting unity through opportunities for people from diverse cultures and faiths to meet and to learn from one another. From second generation Turks to recently arrived Pakistanis, from Iraqis, Egyptians and so many more to Christians from Iraq and Syria, from Hindus to Buddhists—we all work together. All of our good work can only succeed if government responds by providing the necessary protections in terms of statements, policies and legislation. I want to focus on protecting young people, because they are most vulnerable, especially in their formative years. If we don't protect them, they can easily feel alienated and unwanted, and that can lead to an identity crisis that renders some susceptible to zealotry and misplaced antisocial behaviour. Over half of Australian youth have witnessed harmful content online according to an Office of the eSafety Commissioner research study. Equally alarming is that 53 per cent of children surveyed by Charles Sturt University for their report Islamophobia in Australia have been subject to an incident of Islamophobia. 18:27 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Deputy Speaker Wallace, I know you are one of the great champions of this country with a sense of unity and purpose. You know better than anybody that Australia is a place of welcoming, no matter who they are. We welcome a full breadth of society on the condition that people take responsibility and respect each other's freedom. That is the fundamental point of this motion today: to acknowledge our mutual obligation and responsibility to respect others by standing up against racism within the community, particularly for minorities. It's not the only type of 'ism' we should stand up against. We should stand up against anyone who seeks to draw a line of prejudice against others. The success of our liberal democracy is, in part, due to our unqualified support for the rights of individuals to live their lives in a society that respects people's diversity, individuality and faith. For decades, Australia has always stood firm on these principles. We should be rightly proud of it. Going back to the UDHR in 1948, we spoke of 'all men' without distinction to race, sex, language or religion, having certain inalienable rights. These rights are subject only to the rights of others, as individuals, to the just requirements of society to which they are enable to develop wider freedom. Today we are facing a concerted challenge to these values as demonstrated, sadly, by the 2019 Executive Council of Australian Jewry's report into anti-Semitism. The report lays bare a sobering reality of the anti-Jewish sentiments that exists, sadly, in some parts of our community. As the MP that represents the third-largest Jewish community in Australia, it's appalling. We should never let it go unremarked. From October 2018 to September 2019 at least 225 attacks and 143 threats were made against Jewish Australians, despicably so. The character of anti-Semitism has only worsened, with more incidences of direct verbal abuse, harassment and intimidation. That sits against a global backdrop where, sadly, we're seeing the same sorts of behaviour, particularly in the UK. A new generation of Jewish people are facing the same anti-Semitic bile that flooded through Europe in the 1930s. In one instance a group of Jewish primary school children faced verbal abuse and harassment on Halloween. The perpetrators, boys in their mid-teens, performed Nazi salutes and taunted them with racial slurs. There is no place for that type of behaviour in our country. In July this year a 12-year-old Jewish boy at a public school was physically assaulted in a corridor. He was punched in the face, had skin gouged out of his shoulder and was bruised on the left side of his back, requiring hospital treatment for the injuries. We all have a responsibility to shine a light on the dark recesses of a community. Nobody should find it acceptable that a generation of young Australians are growing up accustomed to walking past armed guards and bulletproof glass as they go to school. This is an indictment of the values of freedom and tolerance that built this country up to its position of strength, and that's why we must stand firm. While we must condemn overt harassment, similar forms of vilification shouldn't be left unnoticed. In our suburban streets, graffiti supporting Hitler and Nazism have more than doubled. Holocaust and Nazi minimisation continues to demean the millions of Europeans who lived and suffered under the Nazis, and their descendants who live in our wonderful community. Additionally, we must recognise the demonisation and delegitimisation of Israel that is, sadly, finding a home in some nefarious quarters of Australia's political parties. Abroad, Israel has faced a prejudicial contempt and international sanction from the United Nations unendingly, while many other countries that have appalling human rights records go completely unremarked. Jewish Australians are not alone in facing discrimination, hatred, violence and harassment. Many of the atrocities I've highlighted also befall Muslim Australians and other minority groups. Everyone in our society has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and their right to exercise those freedoms should be respected. A person's faith does not end at the church door. It informs part of their identity and their individuality, and they should be free to express it in the public square. When Australians of faith are harassed, the foundations of our free society are also threatened. If the vilification of minority groups continues to worsen, every Australian loses, not just the individuals who are targeted. That's why we must stand up as part of this motion and part of our country. When we set the tone in this place we set the standard for the nation, and Australians look to us to find the courage and confidence to stand up and speak out, sometimes when it's difficult. That includes confronting ourselves and holding a mirror up to the nation. So we say to racism across this country, and every other type of prejudice: it has no place in our great country. 18:32 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Our democracy is based on a fundamental principle of equality before the law, regardless of one's faith, race, ethnicity or gender. Indeed, it should be regardless of one's postcode as well. That is an important principle. It's not one that is actually practised in most countries in the world. And I think it's been the basis for our multicultural model, which has been a spectacular success over the decades. We've had our difficulties with race and ethnicity, yes. But it has been a successful model—similar, obviously, to other new world models, like the US's melting pot and others, but unique in the sense that Australians can be Australian and feel Australian, regardless of their background. Also, they don't have to choose between their identities. They can be proud of their Irish heritage, or their Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Egyptian, Lebanese, Italian or Greek heritage. Wherever they've come from in the world, they don't have to choose between that identity or heritage and being Australian. In fact, being Australian is being multicultural, in many senses. We've all come from somewhere else. Unless you're an Indigenous Australian, you've migrated to this country. It might have been many generations ago or it might have been a month ago. That's an important point. And it works because we embrace that diversity as a strength of our nation, not just tolerate it. Growing up, I had a lot of trouble with my identity. I had a big question mark about whether I was actually fitting in, whether I was an Australian, because I used to get told, 'Go back to where you came from,' or 'Piss off, you wog.' That is probably unparliamentary, but it happened—and much worse. So I questioned my own identity. Was I an Australian? Did I belong here? But I came to understand that, yes, I am Australian, because we are part of that multicultural story. We've all migrated to this country and made it what it is. I've experienced hate speech. I've experienced the vilification that we're talking about today. It does have an impact on you. It changes you. And it hurts. I know there's a lot of debate about the law having normative change that leads to cultural change, but in this country there have been many instances where the parliament has led the way with changes in laws that have had a normative change, which have led to cultural change and acceptance of others. It may not have been popular at the time of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. I'll use an even earlier example: female suffrage, which was one of the foundations, during 1901, when we became a nation. It was agreed upon by all, but it probably wasn't very popular at the time. Unfortunately what we remember too is that the main part of that law was the White Australia policy, but female suffrage was part of it as well, the start of our Commonwealth. So the law can have an impact in changing culture and cultural attitudes, and in shifting attitudes, cultural change and acceptance. Free speech has never been absolutely free. There are exceptions. There's defamation. There are laws that restrict free speech. We should be entitled to say and articulate and have freedom of expression in this country, but there are limitations on that free speech. You can't just shout 'Fire!' in a theatre and get away with it. That's a famous legal case. And there are other exceptions. The law has, in the past, through this parliament and other state parliaments, sought to adjust and provide certain exceptions and restrictions around the way that we exercise that free speech, because with it comes an obligation as well as a right. That's an important point that we have to remember. In many respects, this motion goes to the heart of this point. I know there's a debate we're having about how far free speech can go and how far we can regulate behaviour, attitudes and so on, but let me tell you this. It is very true, at least from my experience, that when faced with the kind of deep-seated hatred based on my ethnicity—and I went through many of these examples growing up—if there had been laws that restricted people from doing that, it would have changed a lot. I am thankful that there was the foresight in several parliaments to put forward and pass the Racial Discrimination Act and other laws that made Australia a better, more egalitarian country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 Order! I thank the member for his contribution. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Telecommunications 174 18:38 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I move: That this House: (1) recognises the importance of reliable communications services for rural and regional Australia; (2) notes the launch of the Sky Muster satellites in 2015 and 2016 as a way of connecting rural and regional Australia to the National Broadband Network; and (3) congratulates NBN Co on the introduction of the Sky Muster Plus service, providing unmetered data for activities including some web browsing, select emailing and PC and Smartphone operating system software updates. Communication is essential to life. While urban and metropolitan Australians often take access to digital and mobile communications for granted, those of us who live in regional and rural settings find ourselves frequently unable to access a reliable signal or internet connections. Farming communities across my electorate of Mallee are frustrated when connection to the internet or getting a phone signal is a struggle. People who live in regional and rural communities deserve to have access to digital connectivity as much their counterparts in the city do. I have 561 blackspots in Mallee, and I will continue to advocate for more base stations to be established. Reliable and accessible phone and internet connections play a vital role in every aspect of our regional lives. They allow farmers access to global markets for their products, networking with agronomists and other agricultural specialists to improve their business, and to complete business needs, such as superannuation. In remote communities, they also increase access to services, such as School of the Air and telehealth. The future of telehealth cannot be overestimated, in terms of saving lives, breaking through the hazards of isolation, and saving patients' time, money and energy. The National-Liberal government's Mobile Black Spot Program is making significant inroads in improving connectivity for many in the regions, with new base stations and towers being installed. I was very pleased to be with the Deputy PM, Michael McCormack, and Minister Coulton recently to announce the 750th black spot tower at Nullawil in Mallee, one of the 41 installed or in the final stages of installation across Mallee. Improved mobile coverage isn't a solution that only most businesses need. I recently had discussions with NBN Co to make sure they understand that everyone across Mallee should be able to access the NBN as quickly as possible. This may happen through a range of mixed technologies, be it a fibre solution, fixed wireless, Sky Muster or Sky Muster Plus. These connections are vital. The launch in 2015-16 of the Sky Muster satellites signalled that, as a nation, Australia was taking the next important step towards delivering broadband internet to every Australian, especially those in rural and remote settings. Countries such as South Korea, with a population density of 503 people per square kilometre, make delivery of technology both cost-effective and commercially attractive. In comparison, Australia's population is 3.1 people per square kilometre, which presents significant challenges for the commercial viability of technology and the cost of infrastructure. The Sky Muster service is an innovative way to deliver broadband internet to those living in remote areas of Australia. This service has resulted in better quality and speed at a lower price point. However, as with many new technologies, its initial rollout had its flaws. The government received feedback from a wide variety of users since the rollout of Sky Muster. This feedback highlighted issues with the amount of data available to users. Data caps have been an issue for regional small businesses and families on satellite services, and performing everyday tasks is a challenge once users hit their monthly data cap. I am pleased that NBN Co has responded to these issues and introduced Sky Muster Plus. The government welcomes this product as an important step forward for regional Australians who use the Sky Muster satellite service. It reflects the government's unwavering commitment to supporting regional Australians. Sky Muster Plus delivers peace of mind for rural and remote Australians by providing unmetered data usage for essential broadband activities such as completing schoolwork, banking, accessing health or government services, keeping software up to date and simply staying in touch with work, friends and family. Those who rely heavily on broadband connectivity can now access these essential services in the knowledge that they will not contribute to a household's monthly data allowance, and they can continue to access these services even if their monthly data limits have been reached. Minister Coulton told me that he uses Sky Muster Plus himself and that it is much better than the original Sky Muster. The Sky Muster Plus service is a great example of the flexibility of the NBN satellites, delivering tailored products to allow consumers— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 Is there a seconder for the motion? Mr Ramsey HWS I second the motion. 18:44 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore I rise today to speak about the importance of reliable communication services for rural and regional Australia. I thank the member for Mallee for the motion and for bringing attention to this important issue. I absolutely agree that reliable communication services are vital for electorates like mine in regional Australia; however, I would have to say that this is where my agreement on this motion ends. This government's record on communications policy across regional and rural Australia is outrageous. The policies of those opposite are creating a complete digital divide in our communities, the haves and have-nots of digital technology. The type of technology provided to regional and rural communities like mine matters. The gap between the city and the regions continues to grow. But the government's so-called technology mix is not only creating a divide between the city and the regions; it is creating a divide within towns; it is creating a divide between suburbs; and its creating a divide between neighbours. There are many suburbs in my electorate that have three or more different technologies in individual suburbs. This is fast becoming the norm—a frightening thing. There are suburbs where some houses have fibre to the node; some have fibre to the curb; and some have Sky Muster satellite or fixed wireless. Culburra Beach is just one example of this. It is a great community in my electorate and, as the name might suggest, it is right on the beach. It is a beautiful area on the New South Wales South Coast, but this government's rollout of the NBN is creating a digital divide in this community. The NBN is being rolled out there at the moment, and much of Culburra Beach and Orient Point is receiving fibre to the node, thanks to Malcolm Turnbull and his second-rate NBN. A few years ago the government all but acknowledged this failing and decided to introduce fibre to the curb, the superior technology to fibre to the node—nothing compared with Labor's original fibre-to-the-premises plan but an improvement nonetheless. Here is the tricky part: instead of completely scaling back the fibre-to-the-node plan and replacing it with fibre to the curb, the government inconceivably just decided to roll out both. So what is the consequence of this? In Culburra Beach the consequence is that one side of the street has a better technology than the other. One neighbour is locked into the ageing and deteriorating copper to the node and the other has fibre all the way up to the curb. This brings a whole new meaning to the term 'digital divide'. The divide is no longer just between city and region; it is between neighbour and neighbour. There is absolutely no doubt that this will have a flow-on effect: it will impact house prices; it will impact businesses; and it will impact students and families. The government had a choice. They had the choice to abandon their second-rate fibre-to-the-node rollout. They had the choice to scale up fibre to the curb and make sure that as many houses as possible had access to the better technology. Instead, they have chosen to do both—a decision that the people of Culburra Beach and Orient Point cannot comprehend. It's a decision that they will now have to live with, and they will be the ones to deal with the consequences. The technology mix NBN rollout of this government is a failure. In August an Infrastructure Australia audit stated: The technology mix for the NBN has diversified, meaning different users will receive different types of connections. This change will deliver varied outcomes for users, and some may shoulder higher costs or receive lower-quality services. Australia is ranked last out of 36 OECD countries on entry-level fixed broadband affordability. We are being left behind. These are problems that won't go away. These are problems that this government created and has left communities like that of Culburra Beach and Orient Point to deal with. Those opposite have had opportunity after opportunity to fix the mess. This motion wants to show that the government has helped to improve things for regional and rural Australia's communications, but we know that Sky Muster satellites are expensive, unreliable and causing more divide, not less. This government has failed rural and regional Australia with its communications policy. Those opposite simply seem uninterested in fixing the problems they have created. It is time the government took real action to address these problems for people like those in Culburra Beach. Our community deserves to have the technology of the future. We deserve better than a government that is dividing neighbours with poor policy and poor choices. 18:48 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey It is interesting to listen to the member for Gilmore and her very negative outlook on the world, I must say, as she leaves the chamber. Towards the end of her speech, she rounded on the satellite service, saying it was second-rate and substandard. It was interesting because my opening remarks were going to be a little bit about the history of the NBN. It originally was designed of course by Kevin Rudd on the back of an envelope to be built for $4 billion, and he immediately hoovered $2 billion up out of the national Future Fund for communications in the regions. That said, former minister for communications Malcolm Turnbull said that we would have never built a system like this but we were bequeathed it by the former government. I was going to say in relation to the member for Gilmore's remarks that I said at the time that the smartest thing that the Labor regime did was order two new satellites, because there will always be parts of Australia that will never be reached by a fibre optic cable. I say to the member for Gilmore, 'Come and have a look at my electorate, and you will understand how important the satellite service is.' In fact, it's working very well. Initially with the Sky Muster satellite my office was fielding quite a number of complaints. There were teething issues. When you roll out new technology of any type it takes a while to knock the bugs out of it. They had to reprogram some of the software. 'Beam me up, Scotty.' We fixed up the satellites and away we went. Then we found that we have more capacity than we need. Perhaps that was because of the insight of the former Labor regime. They should take credit for it. Now we've been able to increase the size of packages available to homes and, through Sky Muster Plus, we've been able to increase the speeds to businesses that require greater input. I'm pleased to announce that just this afternoon the Ramsey household at Buckleboo became consumers of Sky Muster. We've taken a little while to get ourselves hooked up. My wife today has been dealing with these issues. She called me about half an hour ago to say, 'I'm on.' I said, 'How's it going?' She said, 'Hang on, I'll check some sites. It's very good. It's far better than what we've had.' We had been using a mobile phone service with a tall aerial on our house and a Telstra smart aerial fitted inside. It worked better than the old landline system, but this is streets ahead again. A download speed of 25 megabits is pretty good at the Ramsey household. But there are other things that we've been doing for regional communications. Those opposite might listen to this. We are investing in the mobile phone network. This has been a really serious job for this government. Only this side of the chamber has invested in the mobile phone network in regional Australia. More than 800 towers have come about as a consequence of the Mobile Black Spot Program. It is a fantastic outcome. There's more to come. There are another two rounds. In my own electorate I think about 30 new towers have been built under the program. Of course I'm still getting complaints from people who are in-between. I understand that, but there is an economic imperative when you build mobile phone towers to have some kind of return on them. The government's Mobile Black Spot Program does provide the financial incentive. A number of new technologies are being developed. Small cells are now allowing for backfill in some of these regions. I think the network will keep getting better. With the launch of the new low-orbiting satellites by Southern Launch from just near Port Lincoln, with any kind of luck we will see another range of communication satellites come into being over the next five or 10 years. All these things are changing every day as technology does. It's important that we adapt as it comes along. But I have to say that, when I look back from where we are now to when we came to government, I see that we have made enormous strides, whether it be in mobile phone technology or with the rollout of the NBN network. I point out that my electorate of Grey is over 99 per cent enabled—over 99 per cent are ready to connect—and we've had about 50 per cent connect at this stage. It will obviously take a little time, but we'll get over that. (Time expired) 18:54 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham I want to take the opportunity in this debate today to touch on some of the matters raised in the motion moved by the member for Mallee and talk more generally about major regional cities and the NBN rollout in my area. When the Labor government proposed the rollout for the seat of Cunningham there was no requirement for the satellite based technology. All of my area was being covered by the rollout of fibre. However, when those opposite came to government and introduced the mixed technology solution—which was supposedly going to be so much cheaper but, I will point out, has ended up being so much more expensive—I ended up with one area in my electorate that was put onto the satellite service, Darkes Forest. The previous speaker commented about the nature of seats like his own, which cover huge broad expanses. But Darkes Forest is probably an hour from Sydney. It's in the northern part of the electorate, halfway between Sydney and Wollongong. It's certainly not out in the broad expanse of the Australian continent. The premises in this area are listed as 'ready to connect', but the technology available through the Sky Muster satellite service is a poor second choice for many people when they considered they were getting the fibre solution originally. The area has little to no mobile coverage, and many residents have already been experimenting with satellite solutions themselves—at a significant cost, obviously. They found the satellite options to be unreliable, slow and temperamental, depending on weather. So they are very concerned and they have been raising with me their concerns that the Sky Muster service is costly and insufficient to their needs. So they're certainly not pleased that they were moved under this new technology mix, away from getting fibre, to a satellite service. The other consistent problem that is raised with me—and we have just about completed the rollout in my region—is that there are places where the fibre-to-the-node solution is leaving streets, individual houses and business areas unconnected and not able to be activated because of the copper in the ground, the quality of the copper or the distance they are from the node. The Port Kembla business chamber are constantly raising with me the very poor NBN service and the drop-outs they get, mainly because they were on the fibre-to-the-node rollout. Phone lines can be down for days, even weeks, particularly if there's heavy rain and there are impacts on the pits. This is a very serious impact on their businesses. The most common complaints from individuals are around the extended delays to the rollout due to copper lines being too far from the node cabinet. For example, Raquel from Mount Kembla, applied for the NBN in November 2018 and was told it would take six months. She was then given a completion date of August this year. That date came and went, and she was still not ready. The completion date was pushed back to December this year. In early September contractors attended her premises for equipment tagging and advised her it would take another two weeks for the work to be completed, but the NBN could not advise her that it would actually be completed. It was just an absolute disruption to their lives and it took far longer than it needed to. She was particularly angry about the failure of anyone to take accountability and to communicate effectively with her as a consumer. Many of us could appreciate that. When you have to take time off work and make these appointments and people don't turn up, or people you didn't expect turn up, it can be very frustrating. James Lancaster of Coaldale has been trying to get connected to the premises since he moved there in April 2017. His neighbours are actually connected. He has no ADSL service. Mobile reception is almost nonexistent, even with a booster. Every time he contacts NBN, they say it will be six months, then another six months, then another six months. My office has been chasing it up and have been told it won't be at least until January 2020. This is a gentleman who is sitting in a street where his neighbours have it, so there's still much work to be done. I particularly want to reflect my constituents' concerns that the quality of communication and engagement with people could be vastly improved. 18:59 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor We have heard from many speakers this afternoon on the importance of regional connectivity and regional communications. I think we are all agreed that it is a critical issue. As a member representing a very large electorate, 860,000 square kilometres, I think I'm in a pretty good position to comment. I want to highlight some of the reasons it's such an important issue for regional people. Firstly, the liveability of our communities: people who live in our regional and remote communities deserve to have access to the enjoyable things in life, just like everybody else. If they come home from work they need to have the capacity to be able to turn on the TV and watch a streaming service, whether it be Netflix, Stan or one of those sorts of services. So liveability is important. There is business. There's a lot of business conducted in regional communities across my electorate, whether they be mining communities, farming communities or individual farmers. Some of these are quite large businesses, and they need to have the capacity to conduct their business over the internet. And of course, possibly the most important issue about regional connectivity is the safety of our regional communities. We've seen bushfires, recently, where people need to be absolutely informed of the situation on the ground at a given time. Unfortunately, we have road accidents along the coast. Unfortunately, all too often, we have people washed into the water, and so we need to have that connectivity across our regional communities. That connectivity is made up of two components. The first of those components is phones and mobile phone connectivity. I am very, very proud that my electorate of O'Connor has been the major beneficiary of the Mobile Black Spot Program. We had the member for Grey speaking a few moments ago. He said his electorate had received 30 mobile phone towers under our three current rounds. I can report that the seat of O'Connor has received 129 mobile phone black spot towers. While I'll claim all of the credit, the fact is that the previous Barnett Western Australian government co-funded with the Commonwealth government many of those towers, which gave Western Australia a big head start when we were applying for those mobile phone black spots. We are getting near the end of that program. We're down to the last few towers. There's a couple where I'm very proud of the work that I've done to get them across the line. The mobile phone tower at Ocean Beach in Denmark, one of the premier holiday locations in Western Australia—we had 11 sites rejected by the Denmark shire before we could finally find a suitable site for that particular mobile phone tower. I know that the owners of the Ocean Beach caravan park, where I take my family every year, are over the moon that, finally, the up to 3,000 people that are in that caravan park at the peak of summer will have a mobile phone signal. So that's a great result. The other tower that caused us a lot of angst and took some work to get across the line was the tower at Salmon Holes. Salmon Holes is a very popular fishing spot just around the coast from Albany. Unfortunately, in the last decade we've seen six people washed off the rocks there and lose their life. The coroner had recommended very strongly that better communications be put into that site. Once again, trying to find a suitable location that was compliant with the Department of Parks and Wildlife's national park, which surrounds that area, was fairly challenging. Thankfully AMSA, who owned a decommissioned lighthouse site on the coast, handed that over to DPAW. They have now made that old lighthouse available for us to mount a mobile phone tower. So we are finally going to get the connectivity off the south coast that we so badly need. In the last 30 seconds, I want to talk about Sky Muster and Sky Muster Plus. The Sky Muster service is not a Rolls-Royce service—I'll be the first to agree with that. It's much better than the satellite service that we inherited when I was first elected in 2013. The Sky Muster Plus initiative is going to give families much more data and much more access to data to conduct those daily tasks like homework, business and so on, without impacting on their data usage. 19:04 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I'm conflicted about congratulating NBN for their Sky Muster satellite service. On the one hand, I do want to acknowledge that the launch of the Sky Muster satellites in 2015 and 2016 has vastly improved the delivery of satellite NBN services and customer satisfaction with the service. The original satellite service was not a success. The constant dropouts and slow speeds did enormous damage to the reputation of the technology, and NBN Co is paying the price for that now. Unfortunately, due to these early experiences my community views satellite as an inferior product. They're not mincing their words, expressing their views in the calls and emails to my office, and then telling me in person at the NBN sessions I've been holding across my community in recent months. The NBN representatives have assured me and my community that the launch of the Sky Muster satellites in 2015-16 has improved the service. More needs to be done to articulate that message. With my NBN information sessions I've certainly attempted to help spread the message; however, it is a hard sell. Essentially, people are now paying a premium for their service when just down the road their neighbour has fixed line NBN and is paying much less for unlimited data. Rubbing salt into the wound is the fact that satellite customers still have to pay for a landline if they want a reliable voice service. This is essential in my community of Mayo, which encompasses some of the highest-risk bushfire zones in South Australia, and where we still have more than 130 mobile phone blackspots. Mobile phone technology is not part of the universal service guarantee, but our community considers mobile phones to be an essential service, and rightly so. We need to continue with the Mobile Black Spot Program and with pursuing bespoke solutions for different communities. Cherry Gardens has advocated for such a bespoke solution. I've been pleased to work with that community and the state Liberal MP, the member for Davenport, and the federal minister, the member for Parkes, to set up 4G equipment on the existing NBN tower. My Centre Alliance colleagues and I have been pleased to advocate for funding for this project and we look forward to its official launch. I acknowledge and welcome the launch of the Sky Muster Plus service, which provides unmetered data for activities such as emailing and web browsing. This will help regional communities, which need to continually function in a digital world, especially if the teenager in the house uses up the household's data allowance on Netflix—and I have a couple of those in my house, so it goes down quickly! But this product doesn't compensate for the fact that far more households in Mayo are being placed on satellite technology than the national average of three per cent. I've been advised that 5,630 premises have been assigned satellite technology in my community, which represents more than five per cent of my community. Our community is close to the city. Some can see the CBD, the outline of Adelaide, from their front porch, but they've been assigned satellite. One such neighbourhood was promised fibre to the node. Only two months ago they found that they were allocated satellite, because the technicians hit rock and it was going to be too expensive to dig. That is not acceptable. I have nearly 500 residents in Mylor who have been promised wireless NBN for more than two years now. Thanks to a deal falling through with a landowner over a tower site, they are now most likely going to get satellite. I say most likely, because they still can't get a decision out of NBN. I would like to take this opportunity to again urge NBN Co to make a decision for the Mylor community, prior to Christmas. I have spoken to the regional services minister about my community's expectations. I acknowledge that NBN has been a boon for the many communities that have had to put up with poor and non-existent ADSL broadband. ADSL was so bad for one member of my community, in Bridgewater, that he doorknocked neighbours to ask if he could put antennas on their roofs. He now has NBN fixed line and runs a tech company from his home. I would like to thank NBN for coming to my community to host information sessions. I particularly thank Kym Morgan, who has been to every single one of the sessions, even when the community has naturally and rightfully been fired up and wanting to talk about NBN. NBN has been something of a lottery for my community. Like all major infrastructure projects, I believe it should be built once and built well. There are issues in our community that we can work together on, and I'm sure that NBN will come to the table. We need to fix Mylor and we need to fix Crafers and we can do this; it's not above us. Debate adjourned. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:09   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 180 QUESTIONS IN WRITING National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 118) 180 118 Ms Sharkie 265980 To ask the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme—(1) As at 1 July 2019, how many National Disability Insurance Scheme participants are awaiting the outcome of a review in: (a) the electoral division of Mayo; (b) South Australia; and (c) Australia.(2) Of the participants listed in (1) (a), (b) and (c) how many participants are under 7 years of age. Mr Robert HWT The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Enhancements on the recording of data captured on reviews under section 48 and section 100 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 is required before this can be publically reported. However, the National Disability Insurance Agency reports on unscheduled reviews in the quarterly reports to COAG using a business working definition – plans that were reviewed more than 100 days before the scheduled review date. Between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2019, 68,565 plan reviews were unscheduled based on this definition. (2) As per the above, enhancements are required before this can be publically reported. National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 119) 180 119 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, in writing, on 9 September 2019: (1) As at 1 July 2019, how many National Disability Insurance Scheme participants havebeen accepted as a participant but are awaiting a planning meeting in: (a) theelectoral division of Mayo; (b) South Australia; and (c) Australia.(2) Of the participants listed in (1) (a), (b) and (c) how many participants are under 7 yearsof age. Mr Robert HWT The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As at 30 June 2019, the number of National Disability Insurance Scheme participants that have been accepted as a participant (access met) but are awaiting a plan is: (a) 144 in the electoral division of Mayo; (b) 2,161 in South Australia; and (c) 22,571 in Australia. (2) Of the participants listed in (1) (a), (b) and (c) the number of participants under 7 years of age is: (a) 68 in the electoral division of Mayo; (b) 893 in South Australia; and (c) 7,011 in Australia. Note: The data provided is as at 30 June 2019 to ensure it is consistent with the Agency's publically available quarterly report. 2016 Integrated Investment Program (Question No. 120) 180 120 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister Representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 9 September 2019: At the time of the release of the 2016 Defence White Paper and the accompanying 2016 Integrated Investment Program, for each of the projects listed in tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the 2016 Integrated Investment Program, what were the scheduled years of: (a) first pass approval; (b) second pass approval; (c) initial materiel release; (d) initial operational capability; (e) final operational capability; and (f) investment value. Mr Dutton 00AKI The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the member's question: The 2016 Defence White Paper and accompanying Integrated Investment Program (IIP) brought together for the first time the key elements of investment to deliver and sustain Australia's defence capabilities. The public unclassified 2016 IIP provided more information than had been released previously in some key areas, such as more extensive and longer term information on major Defence facilities, infrastructure and information communications and technology enhancements. The public unclassified 2016 IIP presents a rolling program of investment that included banded program timeframes and approximate investment values. To maintain Defence's security, strategic and commercial leverage, Defence does not publish a comprehensive list of all projects in the IIP or provide forecast or actual Government approvals, delivery milestones or investment values. A range of publicly available unclassified information provides industry and the public with information regarding Defence investments including: a. 2016 Defence Industry Policy Statement; b. Portfolio Budget Statements; c. Defence Annual Reports; d. 2017 Naval Shipbuilding Plan; e. 2017 Defence Industry and Innovation Program Update; f. 2018 Defence Export Strategy; g. 2018 Defence Industrial Capability Plan; h. Defence Portfolio Budget Statements; i. Ministerial announcements; j. Defence's Annual Procurement Plan; k. business opportunities advertised on AusTender; l. Equipping Defence (e.g. CASG website); and m. Industry engagement via industry briefings environmental working groups and Defence conferences (e.g. Defence and Industry). In addition, the Australian National Audit Office, in conjunction with Defence, conducts an annual Major Projects Report (available at: https://www.anao.gov.au/pubs/major-projects-report) that is provided to Parliament on the status of major approved Defence acquisition projects. The report includes unclassified information relating to the cost, schedule and the progress towards delivery of required capability of individual projects as at 30 June each year.   2016 Integrated Investment Program (Question No. 121) 181 121 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister Representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 9 September 2019: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence—In respect of the 2016 Defence White Paper and the accompanying 2016 Integrated Investment Program, for each of the projects listed in tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the 2016 Integrated Investment Program, what are the current scheduled years of: (a) first pass approval; (b) second pass approval; (c) initial materiel release; (d) initial operational capability; (e) final operational capability; and (f) investment value. Mr Dutton 00AKI The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the Member's question: The 2016 Defence White Paper and accompanying Integrated Investment Program (IIP) brought together for the first time the key elements of investment to deliver and sustain Australia's defence capabilities. The public unclassified 2016 IIP provided more information than had been released previously in some key areas, such as more extensive and longer term information on major Defence facilities, infrastructure and information communications and technology enhancements. The public unclassified 2016 IIP presents a rolling program of investment that included banded program timeframes and approximate investment values. To maintain Defence's security, strategic and commercial leverage, Defence does not publish a comprehensive list of all projects in the IIP or provide forecast or actual Government approvals, delivery milestones or investment values. A range of publicly available unclassified information provides industry and the public with information regarding Defence investments including: a. 2016 Defence Industry Policy Statement; b. Portfolio Budget Statements; c. Defence Annual Reports; d. 2017 Naval Shipbuilding Plan; e. 2017 Defence Industry and Innovation Program Update; f. 2018 Defence Export Strategy; g. 2018 Defence Industrial Capability Plan; h. Defence Portfolio Budget Statements; i. Ministerial announcements; j. Defence's Annual Procurement Plan; k. business opportunities advertised on AusTender; l. Equipping Defence (e.g. CASG website); and m. Industry engagement via industry briefings environmental working groups and Defence conferences (e.g. Defence and Industry). In addition, the Australian National Audit Office, in conjunction with Defence, conducts an annual Major Projects Report (available at: https://www.anao.gov.au/pubs/major-projects-report) that is provided to Parliament on the status of major approved Defence acquisition projects. The report includes unclassified information relating to the cost, schedule and the progress towards delivery of required capability of individual projects as at 30 June each year. Pacific Labour Scheme (Question No. 124) 182 124 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 9 September 2019 : In respect of the Pacific Labour Scheme Budget estimates published on page 105 of the 2017-18 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook:(1) In making the revenue estimates for the Department of Home Affairs how many Pacific Labour Scheme participants were assumed to pay visa charges to the department in: (a) 2018-19; (b) 2019-20; and (c) 2020-21.(2) In making the revenue estimates for the Australian Taxation Office how many Pacific Labour Scheme participants were assumed to be earning income in Australia in: (a) 2018-19; (b) 2019-20; and (c) 2020-21. Mr Morrison E3L The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The original estimates for the Department of Home Affairs, published in the 2017-18 Mid-Year Economics and Fiscal Outlook, were based on an estimated maximum intake under the Pacific Labour Scheme (PLS) as follows: a. up to 2,000 participants in 2018-19; b. up to 4,500 participants in 2019-20; and c. up to 6,500 participants in 2020-21. The purpose of the estimates was to inform maximum revenue based on a scheme that started with an annual cap of 2,000 in the first year. The PLS was uncapped in November 2018. Growth of the Scheme (and therefore revenue generated) is now dependent on demand for the Scheme from Australian businesses. The pace of growth of the PLS in its first year has been steady with a strong focus on worker welfare with careful vetting of Approved Employers. By way of comparison, in the first year of the SWP pilot deployed 56 workers, whereas the first year of PLS deployed 203 workers. (2) The original estimates for the Australian Taxation Office, published in the 2017-18 Mid-Year Economics and Fiscal Outlook, were based on an estimated maximum intake under the Pacific Labour Scheme (PLS) as outlined in the response to (1). Additionally, revenue collected through taxation will depend on income earnt by PLS workers. Contract Notice CN3617410 (Question No. 126) 182 126 Mr Conroy 249127 : asked the Minister representing the Minister For Trade, Tourism and Investment on 9 September 2019 : In respect of Contract Notice CN3617410 published on Austender on 6 August 2019: (a) what are the details of the market research to be provided by Taylor Nelson Sofres; (b) what subject matters will the market research cover; (c) what methodologies will be used in the market research; and (d) why has the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade commissioned this market research. Mr Tehan 210911 The Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question as follows: (a) The market research was conducted to further understand the barriers faced by services sector firms in exporting their services. (b) The market research covered: a. identification of barriers to exporting services; b. identification of opportunities to boost services competitiveness and c. understanding the practical experience for Australian firms delivering services overseas, including: i. government policy or regulation impacts; ii. the confidence level of services exporters; iii. cross-border data management impacts; iv. intellectual property issues; v. legal impediments and vi. use of resources and intermediaries to facilitate exporting. (c) The research methodology included: a. a scoping meeting; b. six discussion groups; c. 40 in-depth interviews conducted Australia-wide and d. a final report, with results broken down by a number of demographic factors, and presentation of the results. (d) The market research was commissioned to better understand the barriers faced by Australian services exporters. It forms part of a larger project to develop a Services Exports Action Plan to strengthen the international competiveness of Australia's services exporters. This research complements business consultations undertaken by DFAT and Austrade with the services sector, and will further inform the Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio's work with services exporters.   Sporting ground upgrades at Malak Oval (Question No. 128) 183 128 Mr Gosling 245392 asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, in writing, on 9 September 2019: In respect of the $5.85 million promised during the 2019 federal election campaign for sporting ground upgrades at Malak Oval, Fannie Bay Oval, Bagot Oval, Rinaldi Park, Gray Oval and for the Hellenic Athletic Club: (a) have the funds been released to the grant recipient; if not, why not and when will the funding be released; and (b) when will the projects be completed. Mr McCormack 219646 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Funding has not yet been released to the funding recipient/s. The recipient is required to provide project information to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development in order to enter into a Deed of Agreement. (b) The completion dates of projects are up to the funding recipient and will be advised to the Department by the recipient as part of their project information.   Home Care (Question No. 131) 183 131 Mr Gosling 245392 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, in writing, on 09 September 2019: (1) Is it a fact that the national package queue for home care packages grew from 88,000 in June 2017 to 108,000 in March 2018, to 121,000 in June 2018 and to 128,000 in December 2018. (2) What number of the approximately 128,000 people waiting to receive their approved level of home care packages reside in the electoral division of Solomon, and of these, how many: (a) have been approved for Level 1, 2, 3 and 4 packages; and (b) are on an interim home care package and awaiting their approved package level. (3) What is the average waiting time for the receipt of approved levels of home care package applications in: (a) Australia; (b) the Northern Territory; and (c) the electoral division of Solomon. Mr Hunt 00AMV The Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Answer: (1) Yes. (2) The Department of Health (the Department) does not collect this information at electoral division level. (3) The Department does not break down data on elapsed wait times beyond the national level. The most recent published wait times showing the expected wait time in months that a person with a medium priority approval would wait if they joined the National Prioritisation System (NPS) on 31 August 2019 is provided in the table below. The NPS ensures that people are eligible to be assigned a lower level home care package at an earlier date. The aged care system also allows for those in urgent need of a home care package to be assessed as high priority and for them to be assigned a package or access other supports quickly. Threatened Species (Question No. 132) 184 132 Mr Gosling 245392 asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 09 September 2019: (1) Which species in the Northern Territory (or adjacent waters) are on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act's threatened species list.(2) For each of those species: (a) as a percentage, what are the species' chances of extinction in the next ten years; (b) what steps have been taken to decrease the chance of extinction; (c) which species do not yet have an up-to-date recovery plan; and (d) for each species with no up-to-date recovery plan, when will there be a plan.(3) What steps have been taken to restore significant tracts of habitat in the Northern Territory. Ms Ley 00AMN The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Which species in the Northern Territory (or adjacent waters) are on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act's threatened species list. There are 106 species on the EPBC Threatened Species List which are 'known' and 'likely' to occur in the Northern Territory or adjacent waters. Attachment A identifies these species. (2) For each of those species: (a) as a percentage, what are the species' chances of extinction in the next ten years; The percentage of each of the 106 species' chances of extinction within the next ten years is not available. (b) what steps have been taken to decrease the chance of extinction; Once listed, a threatened species becomes a Matter of National Environmental Significance. An action which has or will have a significant impact on a listed threatened species cannot be undertaken without approval of the Minister. (c) which species do not yet have an up-to-date recovery plan; All of the 106 threatened species likely or known to occur in the Northern Territory have a recovery plan and/or a conservation advice in place. (d) for each species with no up-to-date recovery plan, when will there be a plan. All of the 106 threatened species identified at Attachment A have a recovery plan and/or a conservation advice in place. (3) What steps have been taken to restore significant tracts of habitat in the Northern Territory? The Australian Government invests in recovery actions for threatened species, such as habitat restoration, threat reduction and revegetation through projects delivered under the National Landcare Program, and in research to inform threatened species management under the National Environmental Science Program. Further information is available from: www.nrm.gov.au/national-landcare-program and http://www.environment.gov.au/science/nesp Attachment A: Species on the EPBC Threatened Species List – 'likely' and 'known' to occur in the Northern Territory and adjacent waters Centrelink (Question No. 133) 186 133 Mr Gosling 245392 asked the Minister for Government Services, in writing, on 09 September 2019: (1) By postcode (or if not available by postcode, for the electoral division of Solomon or the Greater Darwin Region) in the electoral division of Solomon, what is the: (a) average processing time; (b) minimum processing time; and (c) maximum processing time, for the following payments, (i) Newstart, (ii) aged pension, (iii) carers payments, (iv) disability payments, and (v) Austudy. (2) How many applications in the electoral division of Solomon or in the Greater Darwin region are processed in: (a) less than the average processing time; and (b) more than the average processing time. Mr Robert HWT The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Table 1 provides the following detail for 2018–19 for the electoral division of Solomon: a. Median days to process b. Minimum processing time; and c. Maximum processing time for the following payments i. Newstart ii. Age Pension iii. Carers Payments iv. Disability Support Pension; and v. Austudy *Includes claims that are unactionable as they wait for information from the customer 2. Table 2 provides how many applications in 2018–19 the electoral division of Solomon were processed in: a. less than or equal to the median processing time b. more than the median processing time. *Includes claims that are unactionable as they wait for information from the customer Bulk-Billing (Question No. 134) 187 134 Mr Gosling 245392 asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 9 September 2019: (1) How many general practitioners in the electoral division of Solomon bulk bill. (2) What percentage of general practitioners bulk bill in: (a) the electoral division of Solomon; and (b) Northern Territory; and    (c) Australia. (3) What percentage of patient consultations were bulk billed in: (a) the electoral division of Solomon; and    (b) Northern Territory. (4) What is the average out of pocket cost for a standard consultation with a general practitioner in the electoral division of Solomon: (a) for the period 1 July 2018 to 30 March 2019; and (b) for the same period, excluding those patients who attended a bulk billing practice Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (2) (3) In 2018-19, the majority of GPs bulk billed some proportion of their non-referred attendance services. Number and Percentage of General Practitioners (GPs) who bulk bill, 2018-19 Notes (1) The number of GPs is a count of Primary Provider IDs where providers with multiple provider number stems are collapsed to a single identifier, reducing potential over counting of doctors operating under multiple provider number stems. (2) Providers have only been counted if they claimed at least one NRA service in the reference period, have a non-negative number of NRA services (zero permitted) and have a Derived Major Specialty (DMS) 010101, 010201, 010301 for the 2019 June Qtr. The headcount figure includes GPs working casually and part-time. (3) Provider counts derived from fractional provider stem, location headcounts. This ensures that a single practitioner is not counted multiple times if they provide services across multiple electorates or states during the reference period. (4) Totals may differ from those published elsewhere due to the exclusion of those providers with negative service counts. Ref no. Q20499 Source: Department of Health, unpublished Medicare statistics (4) The Department of Health does not have information on the bulk billing behaviour of individual practices and cannot produce figures that exclude patients who attend a bulk billing practice. The Average out-of-pocket costs per service, below, are calculated excluding services that were bulk billed. This is consistent with published Medicare statistics. GP Non-referred Attendance Average out-of-pocket, Year-to-Date 1 July 2018 to 30 March 2019 Source: Department of Health, unpublished Medicare statistics   Home Care (Question No. 135) 188 135 Mr Gosling 245392 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, in writing, on 09 September 2019: What is the: (a) national average management fee; (b) average management fee in the Northern Territory; and (c) average management fee in the electoral division of Solomon for, (i) Level 1 home care packages, (ii) Level 2 home care packages, (iii) Level 3 home care packages, and (iv) Level 4 home care packages. Mr Hunt 00AMV The Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a)(b) 'Management fee' is taken to be Package Management costs as defined by the User Rights Principles 2014. The following table provides a breakdown of the average package management fees per fortnight that had been published by home care services on the My Aged Care Service Finder at 30 August 2019, split by location and package level. Notes: 1. Only services which have at least one client receiving a home care package have been included in the calculations. 2. Only services who have reported a value above $0 have been included in the calculations. 3. Figures are reported to the nearest dollar. (c) The Department of Health does not collect this information by electoral division level. Home Care (Question No. 136) 188 136 Mr Gosling 245392 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, in writing, on 09 September 2019: For each Northern Territory federal electoral division: (a) how many people are awaiting a home care package at their approved level; and (b) what is the longest period that any of those people have been waiting. Mr Hunt 00AMV The Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Answer: (a) -(b) The Department of Health does not collect this information at the electoral division level. National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 138) 188 138 Mr Gosling 245392 asked the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, in writing, on 9 September 2019: For each Northern Territory federal electoral division, how many National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participants have: (a) sought a review and are awaiting an outcome; and (b) have been accepted as an NDIS participant but are awaiting a planning meeting. Mr Robert HWT The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Enhancements on the recording of data captured on reviews under section 48 and section 100 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 is required before this can be publically reported. However, the NDIA reports on unscheduled reviews in the quarterly reports to COAG using a business working definition – plans that were reviewed more than 100 days before the scheduled review date. Between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2019, 68,565 plan reviews nationally were unscheduled based on this definition, and 1,127 in Northern Territory. (b) As at 30 June 2019, for each Northern Territory federal electoral division, the number of NDIS participants that have been accepted as an NDIS participant (access met) but are awaiting a plan is: 124 in Lingiari; and 84 in Solomon. Climate Change (Question No. 144) 189 144 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 09 September 2019 : Would there be less need for Australia to assist Pacific countries in adapting to climate change in coming years if the Government did more to avoid climate change by increasing Australia's emissions reduction targets. Mr Morrison E3L The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: No. Pacific island countries are particularly vulnerable to climate change and disasters. Pacific island countries will continue to need substantial assistance to face the challenges associated with climate change. This is why Prime Minister Morrison has announced an increase in our financial support for Pacific climate change and disaster resilience to $500 million over five years from 2020-21. Australia is responsible for around 1.3% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Our emissions reduction targets are responsible and we will meet them. However, global action is required to limit global warming in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.   Land Transport Network Determination (Question No. 145) 189 145 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, in writing, on 9 September 2019: 1) Is it a fact that the Government announced a review of the Land Transport Network Determination on 15 December 2017. 2) Has the review concluded; if not, why has there been such delay. 3) In which quarter of which year does the Government expect to undertake a new determination. 4) In its review of the determination, has the Government considered including any or all of: (a) Victor Harbor Road; (b) Main South Road; (c) Hog Bay Road; (d) Playford Highway; and (e) the Southern Expressway; if so, what did it conclude for each road; if not, why not. Mr McCormack 219646 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Government announced the Review of the National Land Transport Network (the Network) on 15 December 2017. The Review is to ensure the Network continues to support the current major freight movements across the country. The Network was last reviewed in 2014. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development wrote to state and territory governments in 2018 seeking their proposals for variations to the Network. The timing of the review was aligned with the negotiations on the National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure projects to streamline processes and consultation with states. The Review's findings and recommendations are under consideration by Government. Once the Review is agreed, state and territory governments will be advised of the outcome prior to a new determination being tabled in Parliament by the Deputy Prime Minister.   Deductible Gift Recipient Applications (Question No. 148) 189 148 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 09 September 2019: (1) In respect of Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) specific listing applications since 1 January 2013, what is the: (a) average; (b) median; (c) longest; and (d) shortest time between the receipt by government of applications for specific listing as a DGR in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and provision of final advice by Treasury (or another department if it is involved) to a minister about whether or not the application should be declined or agreed to.(2) For any DGR specific listing applications that had been submitted twice (or more than twice) because the first application was not or could not be decided (such as because the Government entered into caretaker mode), what was the timeframe starting from the day the first application was received, and ending on the day the final advice on the last application was provided to a minister to be declined or agreed to.(3) As at 1 September 2019, how many: (a) DGR specific listing applications were pending final advice being provided to a minister; and (b) full time equivalent staff were employed in the unit in Treasury that deals with DGR specific listing applications.(4) What administrative rules, guidelines, practices or precedents (including internal administrative rules, guidelines, practices or precedents) relating to DGR specific listing applications exist, including guidelines about timeframes in which final advice must be provided to a minister.(5) If administrative rules, guidelines, practices or precedents of the type referred to in (4) exist, are they 'operational information', within the meaning of Subsection 8A(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 .(6) In respect of paragraph 8(2) (j) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 , which provides that operational information must be published on an agency's website: (a) does Treasury hold operational information about the handling of DGR specific listing applications; (b) at what URL on the Treasury website is that information currently located; and (c) if that information is not currently located on the Treasury website, why not.(7) During the caretaker period prior to each of the 2013, 2016 and 2019 federal elections: (a) how many entities were advised that they would need to resubmit their applications for DGR specific listing after the election; (b) why were they so advised; (c) what were the names of those entities, and on what dates were they so advised; and (d) how many of those entities subsequently resubmitted their applications.(8) Since 1 January 2013, has any entity that has applied for DGR specific listing been advised twice (or more than twice) that they would need to resubmit their application following a federal election; if so: (a) what are the names of those entities; and (b) on what dates where they so advised.(9) Against what criteria does the Treasury provide advice to a minister about whether or not an entity should be specifically listed as a DGR, and is such criteria publically available; if not, can the criteria be provided.(10) Does Treasury specifically include or exclude any criteria from consideration in its assessment of whether or not an entity should be specifically listed as a DGR (for example, the cost to revenue); if so: (a) what are each of the criteria that are specifically included or excluded; and (b) why are they included or excluded.(11) What process is currently available for an organisation to track the progress of their DGR specific listing application.(12) Is merits review available for organisations whose applications for DGR specific listing are declined; if not, why not.(13) Are DGR specific listing decisions currently based entirely on the merits of an entity seeking DGR specific listing; if not, why not.(14) Will the Government undertake a review of the DGR specific listing application process; if not, why not; if so, will this review be published; if not, why not. Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) It would be difficult to provide a response to (a), (b), (c) and (d) without a significant diversion of departmental resources. However, the time between receipt of applications and final advice provided by Treasury to the Government is generally about six months. This time period involves engagement with the applicant to ensure all relevant documents are submitted, and costing processes to determine budgetary impact based on donation estimates. (2) Applying to become specifically listed in the tax law is generally an iterative process. In reponse to an organisation's initial application, Treasury provides guidance outlining what information is required from the applicant for the Government to make an informed decision. This guidance is described in response to question (4). It is not uncommon for the organisation to provide this information to Treasury in multiple tranches. As per answer (1), the assessment process generally takes around six months, although it may be longer or shorter, depending on applicant response times. Specific listing applications are not voided when the House of Representatives is dissolved. Treasury continues to assess the merits of an application during the caretaker period. Any applications pending are submitted to the Government after it takes office. (3) For (a) as at 1 September, the merits of 21 applications were being assessed and (b) six staff were employed to work on not-for-profit policy issues, including assessing deductible gift recipient (DGR) applications. (4) As a general rule, in order to be a DGR, an organisation must fall within one of the general DGR categories set out in the gift provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Where an organisation is not eligible for DGR endorsement under one of the general DGR categories, they may apply to the Minister responsible for DGRs (or directly to Treasury) for specific listing. The ATO website provides extensive resources to help organisations wishing to apply for endorsement as a DGR determine whether they fall under a general DGR category. Should the organisation wish to apply for specific listing, the ATO website also contains Treasury's DGR email address for organisations to submit their application. Once an organisation applies to become specifically listed, Treasury sends the applicant guidance on documents that the entity should provide to inform the Government's decision whether to accept or deny the application. Unless the organisation has already provided the following information in their initial application, the guidance seeks the following: a description of circumstances that have led to the request; a copy of or link to the governing document for the organisation; a copy of or link to the latest Annual Report for the organisation; a summary of the organisation's activities (such as specific projects recently undertaken and projects planned for future years, as well as those organisations or groups who directly benefit from these projects); and an estimate of the amount of donations that the organisation expect to receive per year for the next four years, and the source of those funds (individuals, business and/or ancillary funds). Additional factors the Government considers when assessing the merits of an application include whether there are exceptional circumstances to warrant specific listing; and whether the organisation provides a broad public benefit to the community. Treasury's guidance to applicants also notes that as specific listing requires a change in the tax law, Ministerial and Government approval is required, along with passage of a legislative amendment through Parliament. Applicants are also informed that it can take around two years to finalise a successful application, depending on the priorities of the Government's legislation program. If the Government approves the organisation's request, an announcement will likely be made in the Budget or Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook documents. (5) The guidance provided by Treasury to applicants does constitute 'operational information.' (6) For (a) refer to answer (5). In response to questions (b) and (c), the Treasury website is being updated to include information on the handling of DGR specific listing applications. (7) For (a), (b), (c) and (d) refer to answer (2). (8) For (a) and (b) refer to answer (2). (9) Treasury does not apply formal criteria. Rather, Treasury considers two broad principles – whether the organisation has demonstrated that there are exceptional circumstances to warrant specific listing, and whether the organisation provides a broad public benefit to the community. These are weighed up to arrive at a recommendation to government. These principles are articulated in the guidance Treasury provides to each applicant. (10) For (a) and (b) refer to answer (9). (11) Organisations may contact Treasury or the relevant Treasury Minister's Office to seek information on the status of their application. Treasury's DGR inbox is dgr@treasury.gov.au . (12) A merits review is not available. A DGR specific listing is a not an administrative decision, but a policy decision of Government. (13) Yes. (14) No. The Government has no current plans to review the DGR specific listing process. National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 150) 191 150 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, in writing, on 9 September 2019: (1) In 2017 did the National Disability Insurance Agency introduce a National Review Team (NRT) to address delays in completing reviews? (2) How many full time equivalent staff comprised the NRT as at: (a) 1 January 2018; (b) 1 July 2018; (c) 1 January 2019; and (d) 1 July 2019? (3) Are staff allocated to conduct reviews from participants in specific states and territories; if so, can a breakdown be provided of staff for each state and territory; if not, how are staff allocated. Mr Robert HWT The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. The National Disability Insurance Agency formally established a dedicated National Review Team in October 2018. 2(a). Not applicable. 2(b). Not applicable. 2(c). As at 1 January 2019 the National Review Team comprised of 88 full time equivalent staff. 2(d). As at 1 July 2019 the National Review Team comprised of 139.4 full time equivalent staff. 3. The National Review Team is a national team and allocates work based on a number of factors including assessments, priorities and intake. National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 151) 191 151 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme: (1) How many reviews for assistive technology were lodged in each state and territory during: (a) 2016; (b) 2017; (c) 2018; and (d) 1 January 2019 to 30 June 2019.(2) What is the average waiting time in days for a review of assistive technology between lodging an application for review and a final determination of the review by the National Review Team.(3) Of the reviews that were finalised in the timeframes referred to in (1), how many were: (a) confirmed; (b) varied; and (c) set aside and another decision substituted. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The NDIA does not capture data on the number of participants awaiting the outcome of a review under section 48 and section 100 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013. However, the NDIA reports on unscheduled reviews in the quarterly reports to COAG using a business working definition – plans that were reviewed more than 100 days before the scheduled review date. Between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2019, 68,565 plan reviews were unscheduled based on this definition. (2) As per the above, this data is not captured. (3) As per the above, this data is not captured.   National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 152) 192 152 Ms Sharkie 265980 To ask the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme—(1) How many reviews for plan allowances, excluding assistive technology, were lodged in each state and territory during: (a) 2016; (b) 2017; (c) 2018; and (d) 1 January 2019 to 30 June 2019.(2) What is the average waiting time in days for a review of plan allowances, excluding assistive technology, between lodging an application for review and a final determination of the review by the National Review Team.(3) Of the reviews that were finalised in the timeframes referred to in (1), how many were: (a) confirmed; (b) varied; and (c) set aside and another decision substituted. Mr Robert HWT The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Enhancements on the recording of data captured on reviews under section 48 and section 100 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 is required before this can be publically reported. However, the National Disability Insurance Agency reports on unscheduled reviews in the quarterly reports to COAG using a business working definition – plans that were reviewed more than 100 days before the scheduled review date. Between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2019, 68,565 plan reviews were unscheduled based on this definition. (2) As per the above, enhancements are required before this can be publically reported. (3) As per the above, enhancements are required before this can be publically reported. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (Question No. 155) 192 155 Ms Sharkie 265980 the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, in writing, on 09 September 2019: (1) Is the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) the sole agency relied on by the Commonwealth to investigate, assess and set exposure limits and standards with respect to the roll-out of 5G. (2) How is the membership of the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council (RHSAC), the Radiation Health Committee (RHC), and the Nuclear Safety Committee (NSC) that advise the Chief Executive Office of ARPANSA decided. (3) How is the Government satisfied that the advice provided to the RHSAC, RHC, NSC and ARPANSA is: (a) independent of commercial interests; and (b) based on peer-reviewed scientific research. (4) In respect of the 2017 article in The New Daily in which ARPANSA health services assistant director Dr Ken Karipidis was reported stating the agency had recommended further research into 5G networks, particularly for frequencies above 6 GHz: (a) has that research been undertaken; if not, why not; if so, what were the findings of that research; (b) has there been any action to address the gap in Australian standards on compliance assessment of base stations and devices operating beyond 6 GHz; and (c) since 2017 has there been any further research conducted into the health effects of 5G and/or whether cell phone radiation could be a possible or probable carcinogen; if so, is that research publicly available, and what did it conclude. (5) Has ARPANSA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, or the Department of Communications and the Arts instigated any public education campaigns to address community concerns about the safety of 5G; if not, why not; if so, what do those campaigns involve. Mr Hunt 00AMV The Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Question 1 ARPANSA is the Australian Government's primary authority on radiation protection and nuclear safety. Within the context of the mobile telecommunications sector, ARPANSA's role extends to conducting its own research and monitoring the outputs of global research with respect to non-ionising radiation, as well as developing exposure limits that are designed to protect people of all ages and health status against all known adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic energy (RF EME). ARPANSA conducts these activities with respect to RF EME generally, not just specifically as part of the planned the roll-out of 5G. These RF EME exposure limits are captured within the Radiation Protection Standard for Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields - 3 kHz to 300 GHz (ARPANSA RF standard), which already covers the radio frequencies in which 5G currently operates and will in future (such as millimetre radio waves). Question 2 In accordance with the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998, appointments to the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council (the Council) are made by ARPANSA's Minister, while members of RHC and NSC are appointed by the CEO. Nominations are sought through national advertisements, and members are appointed taking into account expertise in and knowledge of radiation protection and nuclear safety from a broad range of backgrounds. Further details on the Council, RHC and NSC are available in the 'Roles and expectations for advisory bodies' document available on the ARPANSA website (https://www.arpansa.gov.au/about-us/advisory-council-and-committees/roles-and-expectations-advisory-committees). Question 3 a) Independence: o ARPANSA and its advisory bodies are independent statutory entities which primarily provide (rather than take) advice. The advice that ARPANSA provides is based on peer-reviewed scientific research. o The Council, RHC and NSC operate in accordance with the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Regulations 2018 and the procedural arrangements in the 'Roles and expectations for advisory bodies' document which received endorsement from all bodies. b) Peer reviewed: o ARPANSA considers advice from international organisations (such as the World Health Organisation and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) in addition to its own analysis of scientific research, when forming its own evidence-based and risk-informed advice to the Australian Government and the Australian public. o As a matter of process, ARPANSA's analysis of research always considers such factors as whether it is peer-reviewed and reputable science. A detailed summary of this approach in assessing scientific evidence can be found on the ARPANSA website (https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/radiation-sources/more-radiation-sources/how-is-scientific-evidence-assessed) Question 4 a) Research recommendations and follow-up: o This statement referred to ARPANSA's Technical Report 178 - Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy and Health: Research Needs which was aligned with recommendations of international reviews including The Royal Society of Canada (2014) and The Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR 2015). A range of these research gaps are now being addressed by the global scientific community. The ARPANSA Technical Report can be found on the ARPANSA website (https://www.arpansa.gov.au/research-and-expertise/technical-reports/radiofrequency-electromagnetic-energy-and-health-research) b) Revision of Australian standards on compliance assessment of base stations and devices operating beyond 6 GHz: o There are existing Australian standards for the assessment of EME from base stations operating on frequencies above 6 GHz. o Standards Australia technical committee TE-007, the committee responsible for developing Australian Standards on EME and for providing Australian input into the review and development of international standards, continues to examine international developments in standards for devices above 6GHz. The ACMA understands, through its participation in TE-007, that international standards continue to evolve and TE-007 participates in the development process. o The ACMA supports Standards Australia's consideration of adopting the international standards into Australian Standards as soon as practicable after they are finalised. c) Recent research and findings: o The Australian Government recently granted (via the National Health and Medical Research Council) $2.5 million over five years to the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research (ACEBR) to undertake a range of research projects in this area. ACEBR are currently investigating several aspects regarding the absorption and possible interaction of 5G exposures with the body. Further information about ACEBR's research is available through its website at www.acebr.uow.edu.au. o A recent Australian study lead by ARPANSA in conjunction with the University of Wollongong, Monash University and the University of Auckland found that the widespread adoption and use of mobile phones in Australia has not correlated with an increase in the rates of brain cancers. The study was published in the British Medical Journal Open and is freely available online at https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/12/e024489.full Question 5 ARPANSA been has actively working to ensure the media have access to factual information to inform their reporting with over 40 media enquiries related to mobile phones/5G in 2019 compared to five in 2018. ARPANSA has received extensive media coverage of our public statements on our website related to 5G (approximately 257 so far this calendar year compared to eight for the same period last year). ARPANSA and ACMA have also developed a range of materials on both agencies' websites which specifically address 5G and related technologies such as small cells. ARPANSA has also engaged with all levels of government (local, state and federal) to ensure that relevant bodies have access to information on 5G and health. Identity Information Protection (Question No. 157) 194 157 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 09 September 2019: In respect of the Review of National Arrangements for the Protection and Management of Identity Information commissioned in 2018 by the Department of Home Affairs: (a) has the report been presented to the Government; if not, what is the reason for the delay; (b) if the report has been presented, when will it be made public; and (c) if the report is not going to be made public, what are the reasons for keeping it confidential. Mr Dutton 00AKI The answer to the honourable member's question is: The Review's report has been provided to Government and is currently being considered. Identity Information Protection (Question No. 158) 194 158 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 09 September 2019: In respect of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) submission in November 2018 to the Review of National Arrangements for the Protection and Management of Identity Information commissioned by the Department of Home Affairs:1. How will the Government respond to ACCC's recommendation that telecommunication companies and the Australian Communications and Media Authority should re-examine phone porting regulations and systems to ensure there is a more robust and secure process in place.2. If the Government will not act on the recommendation to tighten phone porting security processes, why not.3. If the Government has decided to act on the recommendation to tighten phone porting security processes, what actions will be taken and what is the timeline for their implementation.4. Will the Government take up the ACCC's recommendation that there be larger penalties for businesses that fail to secure data; if so, what action will be taken and what is the timeline for implementation of that action; if not, why not.5. Will the Government act on the ACCC's recommendation to improve protections against personal information mail theft; if so, what action will be taken and what is the timeline for implementation of that action; if not, why not.6. Will the Government act on the ACCC's recommendation to discourage identity verification via biographical information; if so, what action will be taken and what is the timeline for implementation of that action; if not, why not.7. Will the Government act on the ACCC's recommendation to improve resources for victim care providers; if so, what action will be taken and what is the timeline for implementation of that action; if not, why not.8. How much is the Government spending over the forward estimates on consumer education on phone porting.9.Will the Government act on the ACCC's recommendation to provide more support or funding for consumer education; if so, what action will be taken and what is the timeline for implementation of that action; if not, why not. Mr Dutton 00AKI The answer to the honourable member's question is: 1. The matters raised in questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 do not fall within the Home Affairs Portfolio and should be referred to the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts as the Minister responsible for telecommunications and postal regulation. 2. The matter raised in question 4 does not fall within the Home Affairs Portfolio and should be referred to the Attorney‑General as the Minister responsible for privacy. 3. In relation to question 6, the Government is currently working to legislate necessary laws that will help implement a Face Verification Service. This service complements name-based identity checking processes by enabling agencies to match a person's photo against a government-issued identity document. Scams (Question No. 159) 194 159 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 09 September 2019: Mr Dutton 00AKI In respect of the 2018 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) report Targeting scams: Report of the ACCC:1.What is the Government doing to ensure Australia's banking and financial services sector, information technology sector and telecommunications sector: (a) are proactively preventing their systems from being exploited by scammers; (b) have systems in place to compensate their customers for scam activities using their platforms; and (c) are penalised for not adequately protecting their customers from scammers exploiting their platforms.2.Will the Government consider advocating that the Australian Banking Association strengthen the Banking Code of Practice 2019: (a) so that it includes active commitments regarding keeping customer accounts safe and secure, such as a commitment to alert customers if banks detect a suspicious transaction; if not, why not; and (b) to list victims of crime as a category of vulnerable customers that Australian banks should take extra care with; if not why not.3.Is it a fact that in 2018: (a) Scamwatch received over 177,000 scam reports with $107 million in financial loss; and (b) the Australian Tax Office (ATO) received 114,625 reports of ATO impersonation scams with over $2.8 million in reported losses.4.Is it a fact that: (a) the Department of Human Services received 6506 reports about government impersonation scams with $1.3 million in reported losses; and (b) in 2019 the ACCC reported the average losses to NBN scams were more than $110,000 for every month between January and May.5.Between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2019, has the Government actively prosecuted Australian-based perpetrators of scam activities using the relevant sections under the Criminal Code (for example impersonation of a Commonwealth official offences; financial information offences; identity offences or telecommunication offences); if so, how many prosecutions were successful and what range of penalties were imposed; if not, why not.6.Between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2019, has the Attorney-General's Department used: (a) extradition processes; (b) mutual assistance processes with overseas law enforcement agencies; or (c) police-to-police assistance to pursue internationally-based perpetrators of frauds and scams; if so, how many attempts were made in respect of (a), (b) and (c), and what was their level of success; if not, why not. The answer to the honourable member's question is: This is not a matter for the Department of Home Affairs. Please refer to response to House Question in Writing 160, provided by the Attorney General. Scam Activities (Question No. 160) 195 160 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 09 September 2019 (1) What is the Government doing to ensure Australia's banking and financial services sector information technology sector and telecommunications sector:    (a) are proactively preventing their systems from being exploited by scammers;    (b) have systems in place to compensate their customers for scam activities using their platforms; and    (c) are penalised for not adequately protecting their customers from scammers exploiting their platforms. (2) Will the Government consider advocating that the Australian Banking Association strengthen the Banking Code of Practice 2019:    (a) so that it includes active commitments regarding keeping customer accounts safe and secure, such as a commitment to alert customers if banks detect a suspicious transaction; if not, why not; and    (b) to list victims of crime as a category of vulnerable customers that Australian banks should take extra care with; if not why not. (3) Is it a fact that in 2018:    (a) Scamwatch received over 177,000 scam reports with $107 million in financial loss; and    (b) the Australian Tax Office (ATO) received 114,625 reports of ATO impersonation scams with over $2.8 million in reported losses. (4) Is it a fact that:    (a) the Department of Human Services received 6506 reports about government impersonation scams with $1.3 million in reported losses; and    (b) in 2019 the ACCC reported the average losses to NBN scams were more than $110,000 for every month between January and May. (5) Between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2019, has the Government actively prosecuted Australian-based perpetrators of scam activities using the relevant sections under the Criminal Code (for example impersonation of a Commonwealth official offences; financial information offences; identity offences or telecommunication offences); if so, how many prosecutions were successful and what range of penalties were imposed; if not, why not. (6) Between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2019, has the Attorney-General's Department used:    (a) extradition processes;    (b) mutual assistance processes with overseas law enforcement agencies; or    (c) police-to-police assistance to pursue internationally-based perpetrators of frauds and scams; if so, how many attempts were made in respect of (a), (b) and (c), and what was their level of success; if not, why not. Mr Porter 208884 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. The Attorney-General does not have portfolio responsibility for this matter. This is a matter for the Treasurer, the Hon Josh Frydenberg MP. 2. The Attorney-General does not have portfolio responsibility for this matter. This is a matter for the Treasurer, the Hon Josh Frydenberg MP. 3. The Attorney-General does not have portfolio responsibility for this matter. This is a matter for the Treasurer, the Hon Josh Frydenberg MP. 4. The Attorney-General does not have portfolio responsibility for this matter. This is a matter for the Minister for Government Services, the Hon Stuart Robert MP. 5. Please refer to Attachment A below for a detailed response. 6.(a) The Attorney-General's Department is responsible for preparing extradition requests for the Attorney-General's consideration, in relation to any country except New Zealand (extraditions between Australia and New Zealand are managed by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions). The Attorney-General ultimately determines whether that request should be made to another country, in accordance with the requirements of the Extradition Act 1988. In practice, the Attorney-General will only make an extradition request where an arrest warrant has been issued by the relevant State, Territory or Commonwealth law enforcement agency, and where the relevant State, Territory or Commonwealth prosecutorial agency has provided an undertaking to prosecute that individual for those offences. The department has used extradition processes to progress six extradition requests for fraud‑related offences between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2019. The frauds did not relate to a scam. Of the six extradition requests: two of the requests did not result in the surrender of the person, due to restrictions under the laws of the requested country regarding the time limits and circumstances under which extradition requests can be actioned; three extradition requests resulted in the successful surrender of the person to Australia to face domestic prosecution; and one extradition request is still undergoing judicial challenge in an overseas jurisdiction. 6.(b) The department has made 168 mutual assistance requests to a range of countries for fraud-related offences. However, the data does not distinguish the nature of the fraud, so it is not possible to say which of these requests related to scams. Of the 168 Australian mutual assistance requests, Australia was provided assistance, or given reasons why assistance could not be provided, in response to 92 of these requests and 76 requests are in progress. 6.(c) The Attorney-General does not have portfolio responsibility for this. This is a matter for the Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon Peter Dutton MP. Where a court is satisfied that the offence in question has been proven, it may choose to impose a good behaviour bond without entering a formal conviction in certain circumstances (see Crimes Act 1914, s 19B).   Attachment A Relevant offences While the Commonwealth Criminal Code does not contain any offences which are expressed to target 'scam' activity, the Code contains a number of offences which could be used to prosecute Australian-based activity of this kind. Many of these offences are offences of general application which could be used to prosecute both scam and non-scam based behaviour. These general offences include the identity crime offences in Part 9.5 of the Criminal Code and most telecommunications offences in Part 10.6 of the Criminal Code. There are a range of relevant state and territory offences that are also used to prosecute scam-type conduct, for which the Commonwealth does not have available data. From the statistics available, it is difficult to determine whether prosecutions for these general offences relate to scam-type conduct. However, my department has identified some offences in the Criminal Code where scam-type conduct is integral to the offence: Division 148 offences - impersonation of Commonwealth public officials section 150.1- false representations in relation to a Commonwealth body section 474.2 – general dishonesty with respect to a carriage service provider Part 10.8 offences - concern financial information (eg section 480.4, 'dishonestly obtaining or dealing in personal financial information'). Referrals received Of those offences mentioned above, there were seventeen matters referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2019. There were no referrals received in relation to section 474.2 during the relevant time period. The manner in which matters under the other relevant offences were dealt with is explained below. Matters not prosecuted The CDDP decided not to prosecute five of the relevant matters. These five matters relevantly concerned offences against: section 148.2 which makes it an offence for Commonwealth public officials to impersonate other Commonwealth public officials; section 480.4 'dishonestly obtaining or dealing in personal financial information'; and section 480.6 'importation of thing with intent to dishonestly obtain or deal in personal financial information'. Of the five matters which the CDPP decided not to prosecute: Three matters were not prosecuted due to insufficient evidence; One matter was referred to State prosecutors who had carriage of related State charges; and One matter was assessed as presenting sufficient evidence for prosecution, but the offender absconded overseas and the file was ultimately closed without charges being laid. When and if the offender returns to Australia, the file may be reopened and assessed again in accordance with the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth. The CDPP does not monitor absconders, as this is the responsibility of the relevant investigative agency. Matters prosecuted Nine of the relevant matters proceeded to prosecution. These nine matters involved a total of 22 charges for relevant offences. These charges were resolved as follows: a) Seven charges resulted in convictions for offences against section 148.1, which makes it an offence for a person other than a Commonwealth public official to impersonate a Commonwealth public official. The sentences imposed in respect of these charges were as follows: Good behaviour bonds with a recorded convictiona1a were imposed in respect of three charges. A community service order was imposed in respect of one charge. A four month term of imprisonment was imposed in respect of each of the three remaining charges (the prison sentences were suspended for all three charges). b) Ten charges resulted in convictions for offences against section 480.4, 'dishonestly obtaining or dealing in personal financial information'. The sentences imposed in respect of these charges were as follows: A good behaviour bond without a recorded convictiona2a was imposed in respect of one charge. Terms of imprisonment ranging from two months to two years were imposed in respect of the other nine charges (the prison sentences were suspended in at least some cases). c) Three charges resulted in convictions for offences against section 480.5, 'possession or control of thing with intent to dishonestly obtain or deal in personal financial information'. An 18 month term of imprisonment was imposed in respect of each of these charges. d) One charge resulted in a conviction for an offence against section 480.6, 'importation of thing with intent to dishonestly obtain or deal in personal financial information'. A suspended term of imprisonment (18 months) was imposed. e) One charge for an offence against section 480.5 was dismissed (the matter in which this charge was dismissed, however, was successfully prosecuted on an offence contrary to section 480.4). Matters before courts As at 27 September 2019, there were three matters before courts for offences against the following provisions: section 148.1 which makes it an offence for person other than a Commonwealth public official to impersonate a Commonwealth public official; section 150.1 'false representations in relation to a Commonwealth body'; section 480.4 'dishonestly obtaining or dealing in personal financial information'; section 480.5 'possession or control of thing with intent to dishonestly obtain or deal in personal financial information'. ______________ 1 Where a court is satisfied that the offence in question has been proven, it may choose to impose a good behaviour bond without entering a formal conviction in certain circumstances (see Crimes Act 1914, s 19B). 2 See preceding footnote.   Kainaki II Declaration for Urgent Climate Change Action Now (Question No. 161) 197 161 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 9 September 2019: With respect to the Kainaki II Declaration for Urgent Climate Change Action Now adopted by leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Tuvalu from 13 to 16 August 2019: (1) Did the Prime Minister agree to the declaration; if so, did the Prime Minister express any reservations or exceptions to any elements of the declaration, and what were these. (2) Does the Prime Minister agree that: (a) Pacific Island nations are facing a climate change crisis; and (b) the prosperity and security of Pacific nations can only safely exist if the international community pursues efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. (3) Will the Government adopt emissions reduction targets consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. (4) Does the Prime Minister agree that the international community should continue efforts towards mobilising global climate finance commitments of US$100 billion a year by 2020 from a variety of sources, including the replenishment of the Green Climate Fund. (5) Will the Government contribute towards the replenishment of the Green Climate Fund Mr Morrison E3L The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Prime Minister, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, joined other Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leaders in issuing the Kainaki II Declaration. The Declaration states that climate change is the single greatest threat to the Blue Pacific region, and acknowledges the efforts of all PIF members to address climate change. This was the strongest statement the PIF has ever made on climate change. Through the Pacific Step-up, the Australian Government is providing direct support to our Pacific family to help them address the challenges of climate change. This is more targeted and effective than directing those funds through multilateral instruments. The Government's target under the Paris agreement is responsible and ambitious. The Government will meet it with a strong economy, low unemployment and a budget surplus. The fully costed $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package and technology advancements will ensure Australia meets its 2030 Paris climate commitments: Reducing emissions with a $2 billion Climate Solutions Fund; Continued support for the transition to reliable renewables through a $1.38 billion equity investment in Snowy 2.0 and $56 million for a feasibility study to accelerate the delivery of MarinusLink, a second interconnector with Tasmania; $61.2 million to establish the Energy Efficient Communities Program, to help businesses and community organisations improve energy efficiency; $18 million for households and businesses to improve energy efficiency to lower energy bills; and $0.4 million to develop a National Electric Vehicle Strategy to ensure a planned and managed transition to new vehicle technology and infrastructure. The fully costed $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package and technology advancements will ensure Australia meets its 2030 Paris climate commitments. Climate change is a global problem, requiring a global solution. We will do our bit, but we contribute just over 1 per cent of the world's emissions. Home Care (Question No. 164) 198 164 Mr Zappia HWB asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, in writing, on 11 September 2019: For each state and territory: (a) how many people are awaiting a home care package at their approved level; and (b) what is the longest period that any of those people have been waiting. Mr Hunt 00AMV The Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Answer: (a) The following table shows the number of people waiting on a package at their approved level on the National Prioritisation System (NPS) at 30 June 2019, by state and territory of residence and level of approval. (b) The Department does not break down data on elapsed wait times beyond the national level. The most recent published wait times showing the expected wait time in months that a person with a medium priority approval would wait if they joined the NPS on 31 August 2019 is provided in the table below. The NPS ensures that people are eligible to be assigned a lower level home care package at an earlier stage. The aged care system also allows for those in urgent need of a home care package to be assessed as high priority and for them to be assigned a package or access other supports quickly. Housing Affordability (Question No. 165) 199 165 Mr Gorman 74519 asked the Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 11 September 2019 – Will the Treasurer consider entering into an agreement with the Western Australian Government to waive historical housing debt of $343 million on similar terms to that agreed with the Tasmanian Government. Mr Sukkar 242515 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Commonwealth is always willing to consider proposals from state and territories on ways the Commonwealth can assist in addressing housing affordability issues. The Morrison Government continues to support Western Australia across the housing spectrum with funding of $165.9 million of the 2019-20 financial year under the National Housing and Homelessness agreement as well as a one-off final payment of $121 million for remote indigenous housing. Random Drug Testing for Commonwealth Employees (Question No. 166) 199 166 Mr Gorman 74519 asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 11 September 2019: 1. What departments and agencies currently have random drug testing programs for Commonwealth employees. 2. Does the Prime Minister intend to implement random drug testing for employees of any other government department or agency. Mr Morrison E3L The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) can only respond on behalf of the Department. PM&C does not conduct random drug testing programs for employees and implementing such programmes is a matter for individual departments and agencies. Random Drug Testing for Commonwealth Employees (Question No. 166) 199 166 Mr Gorman 74519 asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 11 September 2019: 1. What departments and agencies currently have random drug testing programs for Commonwealth employees. 2. Does the Prime Minister intend to implement random drug testing for employees of any other government department or agency. Mr Morrison E3L The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) can only respond on behalf of the Department. PM&C does not conduct random drug testing programs for employees and implementing such programmes is a matter for individual departments and agencies. Perth Treasury Office (Question No. 168) 199 168 Mr Gorman 74519 asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 11 September 2019: (1) What is the head count of the Perth Treasury office.(2) Has the two-year pilot program to establish an office in Perth concluded; if so: (a) how was success measured in the pilot program; (b) will the office continue to operate; and (c) will the Government commit to employing more staff in the Perth Treasury office. Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) At 1 September 2019, the headcount of the Perth Treasury office (Perth Office) was four. (2) Yes. (2) (a) In March 2019, Treasury's internal auditors undertook a review of the management of State Offices, including the Perth Office, and concluded that their objectives were largely being achieved. The objectives were: building capability through attracting (and retaining) talent; stakeholder engagement and profile; and policy advice and development. (2) (b) Yes. (2) (c) While there is no plan to increase staffing numbers in the Perth Office, resourcing requirements will be reviewed regularly. International Trade Agreements (Question No. 169) 200 169 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 12 September 2019 ‑ Has the Government considered requiring the Productivity Commission to review international trade agreements: (a) prior to signing; if so, what did it conclude; if not, why not; and (b) at a set interval (such as a decade) after they are signed; if so, what did it conclude; if not, why not. Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Refer to 170. Trade (Question No. 170) 200 170 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment on 12 September 2019 : Has the Government considered requiring the Productivity Commission to review international trade agreements: (a) prior to signing; if so, what did it conclude; if not, why not; and (b) at a set interval (such as a decade) after they are signed; if so, what did it conclude; if not, why not. Mr Tehan 210911 The Minister for Trade Tourism and Investment has provided the following answer to the honorable Member's question: (a) Current arrangements already provide for a high level of scrutiny of the impact of new trade agreements. Cabinet receives a Regulatory Impact Statement and a National Interest Analysis. The text of the agreement, details submissions and National Interest Analysis are then subject to public scrutiny by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, through roundtable consultative discussions with stakeholders, including business and unions, and through Parliamentary discussion, prior to ratification. Economic modelling, prior to the signature of trade agreements, is only one tool to assess whether an agreement is in the national interest. Current models have statistical and methodological limitations that mean it is difficult to accurately model the impact of changes to non-tariff barriers, trade facilitation, increased regulatory certainty and other aspects of an FTA such as rules. (b) The Office of Best Practice Regulation has mandated Post Implementation Reviews (PIRs) of three of Australia's more recent trade agreements - the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement (JAEPA), the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA) and the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP). These PIRs are to be produced five years after each of these agreements entered into force. The first of these, JAEPA, is due in January 2020. The Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (IA-CEPA) will also be reviewed five years after entry into force. Foreign Investment (Question No. 171) 200 171 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 12 September 2019: (1) What is the economic justification for different Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) thresholds based on the foreign investor's country of origin; if there is no economic justification, what is the justification.(2) Does the FIRB publish the reasons for rejection and acceptance of significant foreign investment applications; if not, why not. Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1) Economic justification for Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) thresholds The foreign investment review framework is designed to strike an appropriate balance between three issues: maintaining community confidence in foreign investment; protecting the national interest; and providing investors with certainty to ensure Australia remains an attractive destination for foreign capital. FIRB thresholds were introduced to facilitate investment while ensuring transactions are reviewed to allay community concerns where appropriate. Different thresholds apply to private investors from certain countries as the Government is honouring commitments made in existing free trade agreements. 2) Publishing significant foreign investment transactions Where a prohibition order, interim order, disposal order or variation or revocation is made under the foreign investment review framework, the Government is required to publish the order in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette within 10 days after it is made. A decision to approve a foreign investment proposal is not required to be published in the Gazette. However, an applicant may choose to publicly disclose the decision. Under the foreign investment review framework, the Treasurer may reject applications that are contrary to the national interest. In circumatances where a foreign investment application is rejected as contrary to the national interest, Treasurers have typically published reasons. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (Question No. 172) 201 172 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 12 September 2019: (1) Has the Government considered providing the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) with a market studies power that would enable it to investigate public interest issues; if so, what did it conclude; if not, why not. (2) Does the ACCC systematically conduct reviews of its approvals of mergers after the merger has occurred; if not, why not. (3) Has the Treasurer considered instructing the ACCC to conduct such systematic reviews; if not, why not. Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, if directed or approved by the Treasurer, the ACCC may hold an inquiry into a specific matter (section 95H) or monitor the prices, costs and profits of an industry or business (section 95ZE or 95ZF). In addition, the ACCC may undertake market studies under its power to conduct research into matters that affect the interests of consumers (section 28). The Government has no plans to amend these provisions at this time. 2. The ACCC has conducted internal reviews of past merger decisions. 3. The Treasurer may give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission a direction about the exercise of its functions and powers under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. However, the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 precludes the Treasurer from making directions to the ACCC in relation to competition issues, including mergers under section 50. Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Question No. 173) 201 173 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 12 September 2019 Further to the answer to question in writing No. 112 (House Hansard , 10 September 2019, page 120):(1) What steps is the Government taking to improve the quality of consumer information required about the ingredients in cider products, for example, fruit content and the country of origin.(2) How is the definition for cider in the legislation governing the wine equalisation tax consistent with the definition of cider in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1) The Government is confident that policy settings as reflected in the relevant provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code) provides appropriate information to Australian consumers in relation to cider products. Individuals or entities seeking to change ingredient labelling requirements for particular items can apply to amend the Code with Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). 2) Both the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999 (WET Act)and the ANZFSC define cider as being the product of the complete or partial fermentation of apples. The WET Act and the food standards differ primarily in their allowable additions. The food standards allow the addition of flavourings, such as fruit and vegetable juices, honey, and sugar. The WET Act does not allow the addition of flavourings or colourings other than water or the juice or must of apples. The food standards also allow the addition of alcohol from any source, whereas the WET Act and regulations prohibit the addition of alcohol from any source other than apples. Cider that meets the definition under the food standards, but not the WET Act, may be sold as cider in Australia, but will be taxed as an 'other excisable beverage' under the excise system, rather than the WET. Modern Slavery Business Engagement Unit (Question No. 174) 201 174 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 12 September 2019: 1. Why has the Modern Slavery Business Engagement Unit been placed within the Australian Border Force (ABF) rather than within the National Security and Law Enforcement Policy Division in the Department of Home Affairs. 2. Is this placement reflective of a change in approach in relation to modern slavery, and will it now be more compliance oriented as a result. 3. Given the placement of the unit in the ABF, will it be 'branded' as part of: (a) the ABF; or (b) the Department of Home Affairs; or (c) will it receive its own branding in order to differentiate its approach. 4. Given the reporting period for most Australian businesses has already begun, when will the final guidance material on modern slavery for businesses be released. 5. How many full time equivalent staff members will the unit employ when it is at its full staff complement. 6. Has the unit reached its full staff complement; if not, when will this occur; and can the Minister explain how this complement will be sufficient to undertake the tasks required in the Modern Slavery Act 2018. 7. Will the repository of modern slavery risk statements: (a) be in an easily accessible, useable and searchable database; and (b) generate reports that assist; (i) business to self-assess the effectiveness of their practices that address modern slavery, and (ii) the Government to evaluate the Act in three years' time. Mr Dutton 00AKI The answer to the honourable member's question is: Q1. The Modern Slavery Business Engagement Unit (the Unit) has been established within the Customs Group in the Australian Border Force (ABF). The Customs Group was established on 1 July 2019 and encompasses a range of traveller, trade and customs related policy with a strong focus on industry engagement. This aligns with the Unit's mandate to support business compliance with the Modern Slavery Act 2018. Q2. The establishment of the Unit in the Customs Group does not reflect any change to the Australian Government's response to modern slavery. Q3. The Unit will use ABF branding. Q4. The Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs, launched the Commonwealth Modern Slavery Act 2018: Guidance for Reporting Entities on 26 September 2019. Q5. The Unit is led by an SES Band One Officer and currently comprises six full time equivalent positions. Q6. One of the six positions allocated to the Unit is currently vacant and will be filled as soon as practicable. The ABF monitors staffing levels required to implement the Act and may adjust the Unit's staffing levels if necessary. Q7. The ABF is developing a repository which fulfils the requirements under the Modern Slavery Act. The ABF is carefully considering additional options to enhance the functionality of the repository. Human Trafficking (Question No. 175 & 176) 202 175 & 176 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 12 September 2019: 1. What steps has the Government taken to provide support for victims of human trafficking.2. Has the Government considered a national compensation scheme for victims; if so, what did it conclude; if not, why not. Mr Dutton 00AKI The answer to the honourable member's question is: Q1. The Australian Government provides a comprehensive range of support services for suspected victims of human trafficking and other forms of modern slavery through the Support for Trafficked People Program (Support Program), administered by the Department of Social Services. The Support Program meets clients' basic needs for safety, food, accommodation, mental and physical health and well‑being. Australia also has a comprehensive visa framework in place that enables people who are suspected victims of trafficking or other forms of modern slavery to remain lawfully in Australia if they do not already hold a valid visa. The visa framework allows suspected victims to stay in Australia for a period to recover, and if they choose to, to assist with a criminal investigation. For victims who choose to assist in investigations and prosecutions, the Government also provides tailored support services and a range of vulnerable witness protections. Q2. The Australian Government carefully monitors the needs of victims of human trafficking and other forms of modern slavery, including access to compensation. The Government does not intend to establish a national compensation scheme. Under Australia's federated justice system, victims' compensation is generally a matter for the states and territories. Each jurisdiction has a victims' compensation scheme, which may be available to people who have been subject to human trafficking and other forms of modern slavery. A number of trafficked people have accessed compensation from these state and territory schemes. Under section 21B of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 a court may also order a person convicted of a federal offence to make reparation to a victim, including victims of human trafficking offences. Reparation can be made through monetary payment or other means in respect of any loss suffered, or any expense incurred, by a victim by reason of the offence. Regional Industry Corporation (Question No. 177) 203 177 Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 asked the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management, in writing, on 16 September 2019: In respect of the administration of the Regional Industry Corporation (RIC): 1. To date, how many loan applications have been made under the RIC schemes, including:    (a) farm investment loans;    (b) drought loans;    (c) AgRebuild loans (North Qld flood); and    (d) water infrastructure loans. 2. What is the state breakdown of the loans granted. 3. In 2018-19, how many loan applications, in each loan scheme were: (a) granted; and (b) denied. 4. To date, how many applications are awaiting processing. 5. How many RIC staff are currently based in Orange. 6. What is the travel budget for RIC staff. 7. As of 1 July, why was the re-evaluated RIC interest rate higher than that of some commercial loans. 8. Why did the RIC fail to pass on interest rate cuts on the same scale as some commercial banks with Agribusiness loan schemes. 9. What are the RIC's arrears management policies and procedures. 10. To date, has the RIC Board waived any loans. 11. What are the criteria the board must have regard to when considering a decision on foreclosure of a farm business loan. 12. Under what circumstances would the board consider enforcing a foreclosure. 13. To date, has the board exercised its foreclosure powers pursuant to section 11(4) of the Operating Mandate Direction. 14. In respect of the Government's commitment that the RIC will develop and provide special Plantation Development Concessional Loans: (a) when will the loans be available; and (b) who will be able to apply for the loans. 15. In respect of the Government's commitment that the RIC will amend the Operating Mandate to allow local governments and the private sector to access water infrastructure loan funding: (a) has the mandate been amended; (b) when will the loans be available; and (c) who will be able to apply for the loans. Mr Littleproud 265585 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. The Regional Investment Corporation (RIC) has advised the following loan applications have been received as at 30 September: * These applications include both complete and incomplete applications. 2. The state breakdown of approved loans is: *Note that the RIC does not report details of loans where loan applications total less than 10 in the jurisdiction in order to maintain privacy of its customers. 3. Loan decisions in each loan scheme during 2018-19 were: 4. The RIC have advised they are currently undergoing assessment of 147 applications. There are currently 85 applications that have not supplied sufficient information to progress to assessment. There are no complete files currently awaiting assessment. 5. As at September 2019, the RIC has 13 staff operating from its Orange Headquarters. 6. The 2019-20 annual travel budget for RIC staff and the RIC Board is set at $643,000. 7. The re-evaluated RIC interest rate did not take effect until 1 August 2019. The RIC variable interest rates are based on the Australian Government 10-year bond rate and are reviewed in November and May. The rate is revised if there is a material change to the Commonwealth 10-year bond rate, with any interest rate change effective from 1 February and/or 1 August each year as applicable. Interest rates for farm business loans dropped 47 basis points on 1 August 2019, with the next review to take place in November. Any material change to the average bond rate over the most recent six months will be reflected in a change to the interest rate effective from 1 February next year. 8. Under the Regional Investment Corporation Operating Mandate Direction 2018 the interest rate for each program is reviewed every six months in November and May and so are not reset with the same frequency of variable commercial rates. RIC interest rates are based on the Australian Government 10-year bond rate and are independent of commercial lending rates and the RBA cash rate. Movements in the average bond rate will be reflected in the RIC interest rate. 9. The RIC has an Arrears and Problem Loan Management policy and procedure for managing loans that are experiencing difficulty. In developing its policies and procedures in relation to farm business loan management activities, the RIC has taken into account the concessional nature of the farm business loans, the marginal nature of the majority of the RIC's clients (having suffered financial hardship) and the impact on the farm business of any proposed action. In all cases, the RIC will attempt to work with the client to find a mutually acceptable solution. 10. No. 11. There are no legislated criteria or ministerial directions that the Board must have regard to when considering a decision on foreclosure of a farm business loan. 12. Section 11(4) the Operating Mandate Direction states the Corporation may take farm business loan recovery and foreclosure action. Any decision on foreclosures of a farm business loan must be made by the Board and cannot be delegated. It is expected that every distressed client's situation will be different and the RIC will work with each client individually to seek mutually beneficial outcomes. A recommendation to foreclose on a business would only be made to the Board once all other possible alternative courses of actions have been fully explored. 13. No. 14. The department is consulting with stakeholders to determine the impact of the concessional loans on plantation development. This will help inform policy settings and eligibility to achieve the policy objective of increasing the plantation forestry estate. Consultation is expected to continue throughout November and December. 15. The Operating Mandate has not yet been amended. The Department of Agriculture is working with Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development toward a commencement date early next year. As the details of the amendment have not yet been finalised, it is not possible to confirm at this stage who will be able to apply for the loans. Global Fund (Question No. 179) 204 179 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 16 September 2019 : In respect of the forthcoming replenishment of The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which aims to raise $US14 billion to support programs which would save 16 million lives:(1) What ministerial representation is the Government planning to have at the Replenishment Conference on 10 October 2019.(2) What level of pledge is the Government considering for the replenishment. Mr Morrison E3L The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Government was represented at the Global Fund replenishment on 10 October 2019 by the Honourable Mr Warren Entsch MP. (2) The Australian Government pledged AUD242 million for the sixth Global Fund replenishment (2020 – 2022). Pacific Labour Scheme (Question No. 180) 205 180 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for International Development and the Pacific on 17 September 2019 : In respect of the Minister's statement, 'Vanuatu has now got over 5000 participants in the Pacific labour scheme' reported in the Australian Financial Review (13 September 2019):(1) In 2018-19, how many Vanuatu nationals participated in the:    (a) Pacific Labour Scheme; and    (b) Seasonal Worker Program.(2) If the Government wants Australian firms to increase their use of Pacific labour mobility arrangements, why has it made the Pacific Labour Scheme and the Seasonal Worker Program less attractive to Australian employers by deregulating working holiday maker visa arrangements. Mr Hawke HWO The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Over 5,000 ni-Vanuatu workers were granted visas to participate in Australia's Pacific labour mobility initiatives, the Pacific Labour Scheme and Seasonal Worker Programme, in 2018-2019. (a) There were 53 visas granted for ni-Vanuatu workers under the new Pacific Labour Scheme in 2018-19. (b) There were 4,964 visas granted for ni-Vanuatu workers under the Seasonal Worker Programme in 2018-19. (Source: Department of Home Affairs, 30 June 2019). 2. Australian employers currently engage workers under the Working Holiday Maker program, the Seasonal Worker Programme and the Pacific Labour Scheme. The different visa programs are complementary. For Working Holiday Maker program issues, please refer to the Department of Home Affairs as the responsible agency.   National Broadband Network (Question No. 182) 205 182 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts in writing, on 18 September 2019 (1) How many members' and senators' electorate offices are National Broadband Network (NBN) ready, but not using the NBN for landline services.(2) Why are these electorate offices not connected to the NBN for landline services, despite its availability in their area.(3) How many members' and senators' electorate offices are NBN ready, but not using the NBN for internet services.(4) Why are these electorate offices not connected to the NBN for internet services, despite its availability in their area.(5) How many members' and senators' electorate offices are NBN ready, but not using the NBN for both landline services and internet services.(6) Why are these electorate offices not connected to the NBN for landline and internet services, despite its availability in their area. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the member's question is as follows: NBN Co's response: The availability of NBN services to particular locations can be determined through searching for the address on NBN Co's website. NBN Co does not manage the connection of electorate offices and this question would be best referred to the Department of Finance. Centrelink (Question No. 183) 205 183 Mr Georganas DZY asked the Minister for Government Services, in writing, on 19 September 2019: (1) Since 4 December 2017, how many Centrelink clients who were notified of a debt or the likelihood of a debt with Centrelink through its Online Compliance Intervention program have subsequently had their debt: (a) reduced; and (b) cancelled completely. (2) What is the breakdown of the above by: (a) state and territory; and (b) postcode. Mr Robert HWT The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1(a), 1(b) and 2(a), the number of debts reduced to zero and reduced but not to zero in total, by State and Territories between 4 December 2017 and 30 June 2019: 1Changes to debt amounts (Debt Reduced to Zero, Debt Reduced non-Zero) are based on the latest recalculation date in the period and by comparing the recalculated amount with the initial debt amount. 2(b) The breakdown by postcode is at Attachment A. To protect individuals' privacy, where the reporting by postcode is less than 20, these are not specified. The State and Postcode are based on the Customer's last known location as at the end of the reporting period. Attachment A OCI Debts by Postcode for the period 4 December 2017 to 30 June 2019     Retirement Income System Review (Question No. 184) 238 184 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 19 September 2019: In respect of the terms of reference for the forthcoming review of the retirement income system, will the Government include a specific reference relating to: (a) improving retirement outcomes for women; and (b) assessing the adequacy of the Commonwealth Rent Assistance payment for older Australians; if not, how will the Government ensure these topics are given due consideration in the review. Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government announced the terms of reference for the Retirement Income Review on 27 September 2019. The terms of reference support a broad examination of the retirement income system as a whole and are publicly available on the Treasury website at: www.treasury.gov.au/review/retirement-income-review/TOR   Superannuation (Question No. 185) 238 185 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 19 September 2019 ‑ (1) Does the Government measure the 'superannuation gender gap'; if so, how often.(2) Will the Government publish 'superannuation gender gap' figures; if not, why not.(3) Has the Government considered removing the $450 monthly income threshold on Superannuation Guarantee contributions; if so, what was the conclusion of that consideration; if not, why not. Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The ATO and ABS measure superannuation account balances, which can be used to calculate the gender gap in superannuation savings. Account balance figures are produced on an annual basis. (2) The ATO and ABS publish superannuation account balance statistics which can be used to calculate the gender gap in superannuation savings. (3) The Government does not comment on policy deliberations. Asbestos Related Illnesses (Question No. 186) 238 186 Mr Zappia HWB asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 19 September 2019: (1) How many people in Australia: (a) suffer from mesothelioma or any other asbestos related illness; (b) have died from an asbestos related illness over the last decade;(c) are affected by silicosis; and (d) have died from silicosis? (2) How much do asbestos related illnesses cost the Australian economy? Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) How many people in Australia: a. Suffer from mesothelioma or any other asbestos related illness Data on the incidence of mesothelioma, and the number of deaths from mesothelioma, is published in the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), Mesothelioma in Australia 2018: Supplementary data tables, available at https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer/mesothelioma-in-australia-2018/data. Data on the number of people diagnosed with mesothelioma in Australia is in Table 1. Whilst specific data is collected on the incidence of mesothelioma, specific data on the incidence of all asbestos-related diseases in Australia is not available, as it is not collected for this purpose. b. have died from an asbestos related illness over the last decade Data on the number of deaths from mesothelioma is in Table 2. An estimate of asbestos‑related deaths in 2017 can be obtained from the Global Burden of Disease Study (for Australia), shown in Table 3. Table 1: Number of people diagnosed with mesothelioma, by year, 2011 to 2018 Source: Australian Mesothelioma Registry (AMR) data at 1 May 2019. Notes 1. Rates have been age-standardised to the 2001 Australian Standard Population. 2. Due to delays in the AMR receiving notifications, the number of cases for more recent years, particularly 2018, is expected to increase as further notifications are received in future and this should be considered in making comparisons over time. Table 2: Number of deaths among people with mesothelioma, by year, 2012 to 2018 Source: AMR data at 1 May 2019. Notes 1. The total number of deaths for 2018 are preliminary and are expected to rise as more information becomes available. 2. Rates have been age-standardised to the 2001 Australian Standard Population. Table 3: The number of estimated deaths caused by asbestos-related diseases in 2017 c. are affected by silicosis; and d. have died from silicosis? States and territories have varying approaches to reporting on silicosis screening programs and disease notification through their work health and safety authorities. As such, a nationally consistent approach to the identification and notification of cases of silicosis is not available. The National Dust Disease Taskforce (the Taskforce), established in July 2019, aims to develop a national approach to the prevention, early identification, control and management of occupational dust diseases in Australia. As part of its Terms of Reference, the Taskforce is considering the existing activities, policy and regulatory arrangements across jurisdictions, including the gathering of data on silicosis incidence, to develop its advice to the Australian Government. (2) How much do asbestos-related illnesses cost the Australian economy? Data on medical conditions is reported using the Australian Burden of Disease Study groups and conditions, and published in the AIHW Disease Expenditure in Australia 2015‑16 data tables, available at https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/health-welfare-expenditure/disease-expenditure-australia/data. Citizenship Applications (Question No. 188) 240 188 Mr Zappia HWB asked the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, in writing, on 19 September 2019: Of the people waiting for a citizenship application to be finalised, how many are: (a) over the age of 18; and (b) under the age of 18. Mr Coleman 241067 The answer to the honourable member's question is: As at 30 September 2019 there were 163,926 applications for citizenship by conferral which were on-hand. Of these applications, 31,617 were lodged by clients under 18 years of age and 132,309 were lodged by clients aged 18 years and over. Defence (Question No. 191) 240 191 Mr Conroy 249127 The Member for Shortland asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 19 September 2019: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence—In respect of the current Defence Projects of Interest list:(1) Why did the Minister respond to question in writing No. 90 (House Hansard, 17 September 2019) by stating that the Projects and Products of Interest list is not for public release when the Department of Defence in June 2019, in response to Freedom of Information request 378/18/19, publicly identified all but one of 14 projects on the Acquisition Projects of Interest list as at the December 2018 Capability Acquisition and Sustainment: Quarterly Performance Report.(2) How many projects are on the current Acquisition Projects of Interest list. Mr Dutton 00AKI The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The response to question in writing No.90 accurately represented the Department's practice of not publicly releasing the Projects and Products of Interest lists on the grounds of commercial and national security considerations. Since June 2019, Defence has released redacted versions of the Products and Projects of Interest as part of the CASG Quarterly Performance report (QPR) twice in response to FOI requests. In relation to the detail requests relating to part (ii) of the question in writing No. 90, it remains Defence's practice to release the Project of Concern, but not the Projects and Products of Interest. In the QPR released under FOI, the detailed data on Projects and Products of Interest has been redacted and will not be released as the detailed performance information on sustainment and procurement activities may indicate Defence preparedness levels. Defence will continue to review the information prior to any release to ensure that classified information is not released or allows such information to be deduced or inferred. Defence will also consider the relationship between Defence and industry and the strength of the Projects of Concern process prior to releasing the information. (2) The Projects of Interest list contains 14 projects as at 30 June 2019. Community Sports Grants (Question No. 193) 240 193 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Youth and Sport, in writing, on 19 September 2019: In respect of the $240,000 funding commitment made to the Morningside Panthers AFL Club, announced prior to the 2019 federal election: (1) Has the money been released to the recipient. (2) If the money has not been released to the recipient, why not. (3) If the money has not been released to the recipient, when will it be released. Mr Hunt 00AMV The Minister for Youth and Sport has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The responsibility for the program and associated administered funding that the Morningside Panthers AFL Club are a part of, the Community Grants Development Programme, has been transferred from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development to my portfolio. The payment of $240,000 was released to the Morningside Panthers on 5 November 2019. Community Sports Grants (Question No. 194) 241 194 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Youth and Sport in writing, on 18 September 2019: In respect of the $20,000 funding commitment made to the Coorparoo Cricket Club, announced prior to the 2019 federal election: (1) Has the money been released to the recipient. (2) If the money has not been released to the recipient, why not. (3) If the money has not been released to the recipient, when will it be released. Mr Hunt 00AMV The Minister for Youth and Sport has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The timely implementation of our commitments is a priority for the Australian Government. The Hon Richard Colbeck, Minister for Youth and Sport, wrote to the Coorparoo Cricket Club on 23 October 2019 to confirm delivery of our commitment of $20,000 to the Coorparoo Cricket Club in the electorate of Griffith. I can confirm that the Department of Health has been in contact with the Coorparoo Cricket Club to progress funding arrangements for the Coorparoo Cricket Club's safety nets project. National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 195) 241 195 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme in writing on 19 September 2019: 1. How much funding does the Commonwealth provide to Stepping Stone Clubhouse in Coorparoo, Queensland, for the provision of services other than mental health support.2. What is the Government doing to ensure that National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) providers, that also provide mental health support, are adequately funded to provide both services. 3. How is the Minister addressing the shortfalls in funding for mental health and NDIS service providers, that were previously funded by state governments, and are now funded through the NDIS. 4. Can the Minister guarantee that funding will be restored to Stepping Stones Clubhouse in Coorparoo, Queensland, for their continued provision of mental health support services as an NDIS provider. Mr Robert HWT The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: 1. The Department of Social Services does not provide any funding to Stepping Stone Clubhouse in Coorparoo, Queensland. I understand you have asked the Minister for Health, the Hon Greg Hunt MP, to provide information about Stepping Stone Clubhouse funding provided by the Department of Health. 2. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) provides funding to NDIS participants for reasonable and necessary supports. The NDIS does not directly fund NDIS providers. 3. State and territory governments remain responsible for funding and provision of public specialised mental health services and mainstream psychosocial support services outside the NDIS. The NDIS Pricing Strategy and NDIS Price Guide lists the maximum permissible charges under the NDIS. This is critical in transitioning markets of supports to cope with the significant demand growth, while longer-term options for price deregulation are considered in line with improved efficiency and quality of supports and services. The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) recently published the Pricing Review of therapy services, which included increases in the maximum charges permitted for most therapy supports from 1 July 2019. In addition, psychologists may be eligible to charge higher prices based on the location in which supports are delivered. The NDIA works with participants to ensure their plans are adequately funded for reasonable and necessary supports. 4. See response to question 2. Mental Health Services (Question No. 196) 241 196 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 19 September 2019: (1) What specific funding, if any, is the Commonwealth providing for the provision of peer-to-peer mental health support services. (2) Of this funding, how much is provided to Stepping Stones Clubhouse in Coorparoo, Queensland, for the provision of mental health services. (3) How many organisations is the Minister aware of that are experiencing funding shortfalls and providing mental health support without funding. (4) Does the Minister expect organisations, like Stepping Stones Clubhouse in Coorparoo, Queensland, to provide mental health support without funding. (5) Can the Minister guarantee that funding will be restored to Stepping Stones Clubhouse in Coorparoo, Queensland, for their continued provision of mental health support services as an NDIS provider. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Peer-to-Peer mental health support services are within scope for appropriate services commissioned by Primary Health Networks (PHNs). PHNs are receiving $1.48 billion over three years from 2019-20 to plan and commission regionally appropriate mental health services. Some peer-to-peer mental health services are also directly funded by the Department of Health. These services may include online, group or individual interaction supported by appropriate clinical governance arrangements. Digital mental health services that provide online peer support forums within their service include: ReachOut.com - $1.7 million (GST exclusive) each year to 30 June 2021; CanTeen online support for young people affected by cancer – $0.7 million (GST exclusive) each year to 30 June 2021; and SANE Australia carer and lived experience forums - $1.8 million (GST exclusive) each year to 30 June 2021. Through the Maternity Peer Support Program, the following organisations are funded to provide telephone and online-based peer support for Australian families experiencing, or at risk of, perinatal depression, or experiencing grief after the death of a child: $742,218 (GST exclusive) in 2019-20 to Sands – Miscarriage, Stillbirth and Newborn Death Support, to deliver telephone and online peer support for stillbirth, miscarriage and infant death; $456,646 (GST exclusive) in 2019-20 to Red Nose, to deliver bereavement peer support to assist parents and families after the death of a child; and $1,431,124.20 (GST exclusive) in 2019-20 to PANDA – Perinatal Anxiety and Depression Australia, to provide telephone-based peer support for families experiencing or at risk of perinatal mental illness. (2) Brisbane South Primary Health Network has provided Stepping Stones Clubhouse in Coorparoo with $412,856.95 in 2019-20 under the National Psychosocial Support Transition program. This funding is to provide psychosocial support to people who were previously clients of Commonwealth community mental health programs (Partners in Recover, Day to Day Living, and Personal Helpers and Mentors) to test their eligibility for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). If clients are found eligible for the NDIS they will receive funding through an NDIS Individual Funded Plan and can choose their provider, which may include Stepping Stones Clubhouse. If clients are not eligible for the NDIS, they will continue to receive support through the Continuity of Support program. (3) The Australian Government provides funding to Primary Health Networks to plan and commission mental health and suicide prevention services. PHNs commission services based on assessed needs of their local communities and funding is distributed based on identified need. The Department of Health does not survey organisations on their financial status. (4) Refer to Question 2. As an NDIS registered provider, individuals who have an NDIS Individual Funded Plan may engage Stepping Stones Clubhouse as their provider of choice enabling Stepping Stones Clubhouse to charge for services delivered through individual NDIS plans. These arrangements enable individual's choice of service provider and also for Stepping Stones Clubhouse to tailor supports to meet individual needs. (5) See response to questions 2 and 4.   Regional Broadband Scheme (Question No. 197) 242 197 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts, in writing, on 19 September 2019: In respect of the Regional Broadband Scheme (RBS) legislation, which is scheduled to be introduced into Parliament, and is expected to provide funding support for NBN Co's Statutory Infrastructure Provider (SIP) obligations, and will contribute to the cost of providing high-speed broadband access to regional Australia:(1) Has the Government done the costings of the new SIP obligations; if so, what is it going to cost; if not, when will the costings be done.(2) What proportion of the SIP costs is going to be met from the income from the RBS.(3) How will the Government meet the shortfall?(4) If the RBS legislation fails to pass both Houses of Parliament, how will the Government fund the SIP obligations.(5) What is the timeframe for the Government's development of the legislative framework to transition from the Universal Service Obligation to the Universal Service Guarantee (USG).(6) With three per cent of Australians expected to be allocated satellite under the NBN, what alternative infrastructure options are being considered to deliver voice services under the USG, given the technical limitations of satellite in delivering adequate voice services.(7) In respect of the twenty one premises in Crafers and Upper Sturt that have been assigned satellite, rather than fibre to the node as promised on the NBN website because the infrastructure was considered too expensive to install, what avenue do these residents have to challenge this decision.(8) Is Telstra obliged to make ADSL infrastructure available to retail service providers.(9) Does the Minister have any insight and any technical or financial reasons why retail service providers are refusing to offer the ADSL product and are telling consumers their contracts are being cancelled because the exchange is being disconnected. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) NBN Co Limited has been established to provide superfast broadband services to premises across Australia. The statutory infrastructure provider (SIP) regime puts into law the existing service delivery expectations on NBN Co. The provision of services by NBN Co to the majority of premises, that is those in the fixed line footprint, is commercial. The provision of services in NBN Co's fixed wireless and satellite footprints in not commercial for NBN Co and is currently dependent on an internal cross-subsidy inherent in the NBN Co business model. As such the need to cost the SIP obligations does not arise because they are already funded. That said, the Regional Broadband Scheme (RBS) is intended to ensure transparent and sustainable funding arrangements for NBN Co's fixed wireless and satellite networks in a competitive marketplace. The RBS will make NBN Co's internal cross-subsidy transparent and create a level playing field by spreading this cost across competing NBN-comparable networks. Detailed costings have been prepared in relation to the RBS. The funds collected through the RBS are to be used to fund the net losses of NBN Co's fixed wireless and satellite networks, which provide access to essential broadband services predominantly in regional Australia. The charge amount includes an administrative cost component (starting at $0.01) which will fund the administrative costs incurred by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in the operation of the Scheme. Further details on these arrangements are provided in the Explanatory Memoranda to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2018 and the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2018, which contain the regulatory impact statements for the SIP regime and RBS. They are available at https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5923 and https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5916. (2) Please see the response to question 1. (3) Please see the response to question 1. (4) Please see the response to question 1. (5) The Government announced in December 2018 that the Universal Service Guarantee (USG) will use the National Broadband Network (NBN) to deliver broadband services and will continue to use the Universal Service Obligation (USO) to deliver voice services. The SIP legislation will lock in the broadband component of the USG. The Government has announced that this legislation is scheduled to be reintroduced into the Parliament this year. (6) As announced in December 2018, the USG maintains the existing USO. Telstra supplies voice services in NBN Co's satellite footprint in accordance with the USO. Generally it uses its existing copper network in the satellite footprint where it has been required to maintain that network under its contract with the Government. However, in some instances it uses other technologies where it has not been cost-effective to deploy copper. (7) NBN Co is building the National Broadband Network in the most cost-effective way using the best matched technology for each area in line with the Government's Statement of Expectations. This provides NBN Co with flexibility and discretion with respect to network design. NBN Co advises that it is not until NBN Co arrives on the ground in a locality that it has a clear view of the most effective technology for individual premises. In Crafers and Upper Sturt, a different solution was determined to be more appropriate than fibre to the node as originally planned. NBN Co's detailed examination found extensive sub-surface rock. The sub-surface rock would significantly increase the cost of civil works. NBN Co also considered the topography of the area. Following this consideration, it decided to provide services by satellite technology. Where individuals and groups prefer a different technology from that which NBN Co has allocated, NBN Co offers the opportunity for individuals and owners' groups to contribute to the costs of providing their preferred technology type via its 'Technology Choice' program. Technology Choice' costings will be based on the difference between the cost of the originally planned technology and the alternative technology requested by the applicant. While the rollout will be built to NBN Co's standard rollout specifications for the given technology, the costs will vary according to the design, deployment and equipment required in each case. (8) As the NBN rollout progresses, the extent of Telstra's legacy ADSL networks will continue to decline. Within NBN Co's fixed-line footprint, end-users can choose to migrate to the NBN (or another network where available) as the legacy copper lines are replaced by the NBN. At present, Telstra's ADSL network still remains relevant to many end-users. On 26 October 2018, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission reviewed and extended the Fixed Line Services declarations. The declarations provide for access to wholesale services on Telstra's copper network, including those required for Telstra's retail competitors to provide ADSL services, that is, the unconditioned local loop service (ULLS) and the line sharing service (LSS). Telstra will continue to be obliged to provide these services over its legacy copper network to retailers. Further, where Telstra offers retail ADSL services, the declaration also requires it to offer a Wholesale ADSL service. The LSS and ULLS declarations expire in June 2024 and the Wholesale ADSL declaration expires in February 2022. (9) Telstra has advised the Department that it has not exited or decommissioned any exchanges in the identified areas of Crafers and Upper Sturt. It is a commercial decision for a retail service provider, whether Telstra or an access seeker, whether it provides ADSL services over that network. Regional Arts Fund (Question No. 198) 244 198 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts, in writing, on 19 September 2019: In respect of Regional Arts Australia and the management of the Regional Arts Fund which in 2008, was valued at $22 million across four years, was halved in 2012, being valued at $12.54 million over four years, and is currently valued at $13.85 million over four years to 2022: Will the Government consider Regional Arts Australia's request to increase the fund by at least $2 million a year to restore the fund to its pre-2010 equivalent value in order to support creative endeavours in regional and rural and remote Australia; if not, what is the rationale for keeping the funding pool so low when 70 per cent of applicants to the Regional Arts Fund are unsuccessful. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the member's question is as follows: The Australian Government considers the Regional Arts Fund to be a very important program for regional Australia. Many valuable projects have been supported which have provided opportunities for regional and remote artists to develop and present their work enhancing the local community. The Regional Arts Fund is just one of a suite of programs offered by the Australian Government to support regional arts. The Festivals Australia program and Visions of Australia also have great outcomes for the regions. I am aware of Regional Arts Australia's request for additional funding for the Regional Arts Fund. I have asked my Department to continue to work closely with Regional Arts Australia to enable the most appropriate funding and policy settings. Agriculture (Question No. 200) 244 200 Dr Haines 282335 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, in writing, on 19 September 2019: In respect of the Agricultural Ministers' Forum (AGMIN) request to Agriculture Victoria to advise the forum on the impacts of climate change on Australian agriculture: 1. When will the next AGMIN be held. 2. Will the final outcomes of Agriculture Victoria's work be presented at this forum. 3. Will AGMIN make the outcomes of the work public. 4. Following the tabling of the work with AGMIN, what next steps will the Minister take to develop a national strategy on agriculture and climate change. Mr Littleproud 265585 The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 1. The Agriculture Ministers' Forum was held on Friday 25 October 2019 in Melbourne. Ministers met to discuss and progress priority issues affecting the sector including climate change. 2. The advice prepared by the Agriculture Senior Officials' Committee (AGSOC) about climate change and agriculture requested by AGMIN on 27 April 2018 was presented by the Hon. Jaclyn Symes MP, Victorian Minister for Agriculture. Agriculture Victoria coordinated the development of the advice, working with representatives from all jurisdictions and engaging a consultant to help deliver the work. 3. An AGMIN communique was released on 25 October 2019 to make public the outcomes of this meeting. In relation to climate change and agriculture it states that Ministers endorsed: the coordinated national approach and proposed work program to support the agriculture sector adapt to climate change and manage emissions. tasking the AGSOC to oversee delivery of the proposed work program, in line with proposed governance and implementation arrangements. releasing the initial reports commissioned as an input to the project. The reports commissioned for the project have been made available at: www.agriculture.gov.au/ag-farm-food/climatechange/climate/national-approach-agriculture. 4. The next steps for implementing the proposed work program to deliver a coordinated national approach for climate change and agriculture, is the establishment of the Climate Change Task Group (CCTG). The CCTG will be established as a subcommittee of the AGSOC to oversee delivery of the work program and report to AGSOC and Agriculture Ministers on progress. Initially the CCTG will undertake scoping of actions under the work program including delivery responsibilities, costings and stakeholder engagement. The first progress report will be provided by CCTG in the first half of 2020 and will include agreed principles and objectives for the work program, the implementation plan and summary of action already underway. Health Services (Question No. 202) 245 202 Dr Haines 282335 asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 19 September 2019: (1) Why does the Minister not have portfolio responsibility for the delivery of health services to rural, regional and remote Australia. (2) Does the Government have plans to re-instate the position of Minister for Rural Health. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As Minister for Regional Services, Decentralisation and Local Government, the Hon Mark Coulton MP, has responsibility for rural, regional and remote health. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Question No. 203) 245 203 Dr Haines 282335 asked the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, in writing, on 19 September 2019: In respect of the Government's target to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 per cent by 2030 on 2005 levels:(1) Is the Department of Environment and Energy's December 2018 emissions projection report correct in reporting that Australia's greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 were 605 Mt CO2e.(2) Is the Department of Environment and Energy's March 2019 Quarterly Update correct that 'emissions for the year to March 2019 are estimated to be 538.9 Mt CO2e, up 0.6 per cent or 3.1 Mt CO2e on the previous year' and that Australia's emissions are therefore increasing.(3) Is it a fact that a 26 per cent reduction in emissions on 2005 levels would therefore equate to 448Mt CO2e, and that a 28 per cent reduction on 2005 levels would equate to 436 Mt CO2e.(4)Is the Department of Environment and Energy's December 2018 projection entitled 'Australia's emissions projections 2018' correct in reporting that 'total emissions in 2030 are projected to be 563 Mt CO2e which is 7 per cent below 2005 levels'.(5) Is the Department of Environment and Energy's January 2019 update entitled 'Tracking to Australia's emissions reduction targets' correct in reporting that 'Australia's emissions in 2030 are projected to be 563 Mt CO2e'.(6) Can the Minister confirm that the Government's own projections therefore indicate that Australia's emissions in 2030 will be 115-127 Mt CO2e above the Government's target.(7) What steps will the Government take to increase the rate of emissions reduction such that Australia will reach its 2030 emissions target. Mr Taylor 231027 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Australia's greenhouse gas emissions in the 2005 financial year were 610.6 Mt CO2‑e according to the Quarterly Update of Australia's National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (March 2019). 2. The Quarterly Update of Australia's National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (March 2019) estimated: a. emissions for the year to March 2019 to be 538.9 Mt CO2-e, up 0.6 per cent or 3.1 Mt CO2-e on the previous year, primarily due to increased LNG exports; and b. emissions have declined 14.0 per cent since the peak in the year to June 2007 and were 11.7 per cent below emissions in 2005. 3. Australia uses an emissions budget approach to account for its emission targets. Under an emissions budget approach, achievement of a target is measured in terms of emissions over a number of years, not at a single point in time. Inclusive of the estimated overachievement of Australia's first and second Kyoto target commitments (367 Mt CO2-e), the task required to meet the 2030 target is 328 Mt CO2-e and 395 Mt CO2-e for a 26 and 28 per cent reduction on 2005 levels respectively. 4. While the figures correctly quote Australia's emissions projections 2018 ('the 2018 projections'), the 2018 projections do not take into account new policy announcements since December 2018, including the Government's $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package announced in February 2019. The Department of the Environment and Energy will publish updated projections later this year. 5. While the figures correctly quote the fact sheet published in January 2019, the fact sheet is derived from the 2018 projections and does not take into account new policy announcements since December 2018. The fact sheet will be updated when the Department publishes updated projections later this year. 6. Australia's 2030 target is tracked against an emissions budget over the period 2021 to 2030. Inclusive of the estimated overachievement of Australia's first and second Kyoto target commitments (367 Mt CO2-e), the task required to meet the 2030 target is 328 MtCO2-e and 395 Mt CO2-e for a 26 and 28 per cent reduction on 2005 levels respectively. In February 2019, the Government announced the $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package. This package outlines, down to the last tonne, how the Government will achieve its 2030 target. For more information, please visit https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-solutions-package or search 'climate solutions package'. 7. The Government has already accounted for every tonne of abatement required to meet its 2030 emissions reduction target. Aged Care (Question No. 204) 246 204 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, in writing, on 14 October 2019: In respect to the answer to question in writing No. 33 (House Hansard, 9 September 2019, page 201), were disciplinary proceedings commenced against any employees of the department as a consequence of the failure to follow the Minister's direction on the unreasonable use of chemical and physical restraints in the aged care sector; if not, why not. Mr Hunt 00AMV The Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The approach for strengthening regulations in relation to the use of physical and chemical restraint in aged care homes was ultimately agreed and decided by the then Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care. National Broadband Network (Question No. 208) 246 208 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, on 14 October 2019 : (1) How many electorate offices have the National Broadband Network (NBN) connected.(2) Of these with an NBN connection, how many are using their NBN connection for: (a) telephone only, not data; (b) data, not telephone services; and (c) telephone and data services.(3) What other connection methods or services are used by electorate offices, and: (a) how many use each; and (b) of these, how many have NBN available or are in an NBN-ready area.(4) Of the electorate offices located in NBN-ready areas that are not using the NBN for data, why are they not doing so. Mr Frydenberg FKL The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) 130 electorate offices are connected to NBN for telephone services. (2) 130 electorate offices use NBN for telephone services. The Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) is responsible for the provision of data services to electorate offices. (3) Other connection methods used for telephony services to electorate offices are PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network), ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network), SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) via 4G and Copper. a. PSTN - 8 ISDN - 3 SIP via 4G – 8 Copper - 106 b. 29 A number of offices located in Commonwealth Parliament Offices, currently on ISDN, are excluded from the above numbers. (4) DPS is responsible for the provision of data services to electorate offices. Pensions (Question No. 211) 246 211 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 15 October 2019 : (1) What steps has the Government taken to seek an unfreezing of British pensions paid to Australian citizens.(2) Has the Government had any indications from the British Government that such pensions paid might be unfrozen in the future.(3) Will the Government raise this issue in post-Brexit trade negotiations with the United Kingdom; if not, why not. Mr Morrison E3L The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government has made a series of representations to the UK Government. (2) No. (3) No. Commitments on social security are not negotiated in FTAs. Incarceration Rates for Indigenous Australians (Question No. 214) 247 214 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Indigenous Australians in writing, on 16 October 2019: To ask the Minister for Indigenous Australians—Further to the answer to question in writing No. 189, parts (3) and (4) (House Hansard, 14 October 2019, page 207), when does the Government expect to conclude their consideration of the report. Mr Wyatt M3A The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Consideration of the Australian Law Reform Commission report is expected to be finalised before the end of 2019. Deductable Gifts (Question No. 217) 247 217 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 16 October 2019: In respect of page 20 of Budget Measures: Budget Paper No. 2, 2019-20 , in which month and year does the Government intend to introduce legislation to extend deductible gift recipient status to Men's Sheds and Women's Sheds. Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The measure to extend deductible gift recipient status to Men's Sheds and Women's Sheds was announced as part of the 2019-20 Budget. The Government is progressing implementation of this measure in time for the intended commencement date of 1 July 2020.