BILLS

2020-02-25 46 1 2 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 25 February 2020

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

BILLS 1 BILLS Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019 1

Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019

First Reading 1 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Sport Integrity Australia) Bill 2019, Trade Support Loans Amendment (Improving Administration) Bill 2019 1

Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Sport Integrity Australia) Bill 2019

Trade Support Loans Amendment (Improving Administration) Bill 2019

Returned from Senate 1 Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020 1

Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020

Second Reading 1 12:03 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to speak in support of that amendment and as part of the debate on this bill, Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020. Labor supports these changes to paid parental leave, which will make it more flexible for many families to use the scheme as it suits them. This is a good thing. I wanted to begin by reflecting on the introduction of Australia's first paid parental leave scheme, which was under the Labor government, the Julia Gillard government, and the then social services minister, Jenny Macklin. It is one of Labor's great legacies that we have delivered for this country and something we're very proud of. At the time when paid parental leave was first introduced in 2011, we were one of only two OECD countries—the other being the United States—that did not have a state provided paid parental leave scheme, so it was about time that we got one, and it was a very good thing. When the scheme was first introduced there were four very distinct objectives of the scheme. These were looked at at the time by the Productivity Commission, and the scheme that was introduced was very similar to what was recommended by that process. These four objectives were: to allow primary carers to take time off work to care for the child after the child's birth or adoption; to enhance the health and development of birth mothers and children; to enable women to continue to participate in the workforce; and to promote equality between men and women and the balance between work and family life. Each of these objectives is very important in its own right, and the scheme serves those objectives. I would like to talk a bit more about that. Since it was introduced, in 2011, over 1.2 million families have used the scheme. That is almost 150,000 parents each year who have benefited from the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Importantly, at the time it was introduced, many women in Australia had no access to employer funded leave either. This is something that continues. Many women in particular industries and, in particular, lower paid work have no access to anything from their employers. Women in casual work, seasonal work and low-paid jobs are particularly disadvantaged with no access to any paid leave when they have a child. This disadvantages them in two key ways. When they have their child, they have no financial support at a time when they need to take some time off to recover from having a baby and to raise and bond with the baby. Also, in many cases, they find it very hard to return to the workforce; they actually have to leave those jobs. So one of the key objectives of introducing the scheme was to support those women who had no access to support at that time. An evaluation that was conducted at the time showed that it sparked a conversation with employers and, for the first time, many employers introduced their own scheme in response to the government scheme being introduced—either to augment the 18 weeks provided by the government or just generally introducing their own scheme. And this has continued on since then, which is a great development. The gender pay gap remains a problem in Australia. Despite the Treasurer's contention in question time in September that it had closed, it does in fact continue. Female workers in Australia still earn 14 per cent less than their male colleagues. It is a fact that the gender pay gap in Australia has remained stubbornly higher over the past two decades, with any minor changes being widely attributed to the ending of the mining boom. If the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were genuinely serious about fixing the gender pay gap, they would oppose cuts to penalty rates. The vast majority of workers who had their penalty rates cut are women and the cuts to penalty rates are exacerbating the gender pay gap, not just making it harder for women to pay the rent and cover the bills. But paid parental leave is also an important part of this. There are many reasons why we have a gender wage gap in Australia and why women face disadvantage in the workplace more generally. As I said, there are many reasons, and those are all things that we should look at. But I do believe that one of the key reasons that inequality continues in our workplace is that it is still primarily seen as a woman's role to take time off to care for children. I feel that we will not really address this gap until it is seen as normal for both men and women with children to take time out of the workforce—be it leave they take after the birth or adoption of a child or the part-time work that can continue in the years after that. I really think that paid parental leave begins that process early. Labor's scheme also provides dad and partner pay, which is two weeks of leave for dads to take after the birth of a child. And paid parental leave can be exchanged between both parents so that the father can take some time for the primary caring. I think the sharing of this role is not just beneficial for equality in the workplace. For generations, men have missed out on that wonderful time with children in those young years because they have primarily been at work and women have primarily been in the home. I think both men and women have a lot to gain through the better sharing of that role. We are seeing that happen more and more. Many fathers I know who have either gone part-time or have taken full-time leave to be with their children say it is the best thing they have ever done for the relationship with their children and their partners. So it is wonderful thing and, as a nation, I think we could be doing a lot more with paid parental leave to enable that sharing of the roles. One particular issue that has been raised with me by some of my constituents is the fact that there is a means test of the mother—$150,000 a year. It is quite high. In the case where the mother exceeds that amount but the father does not, they can't actually transfer that leave over to the father because they themselves are not eligible. Whilst there are obviously very good reasons for that means test, I think it is something that could be looked at in terms of enabling fairer sharing between both genders and not assuming that the male partner is always the higher earner. Paid parental leave signals to employers and the Australian community that parents taking time out of the paid workforce to care for a child is part of the normal course of life. I think this is one of the most important objectives of the scheme. It also enables women to continue participating in the workforce. As I said, many women were faced with the choice of just leaving their job. This enables them to keep in contact with the employer, which is another important aspect of the scheme. And it also goes some way towards addressing the gender pay gap at retirement age, where we see a third of women facing poverty. Again, perhaps the major cause of that is the time taken out of the workforce to raise children over the course of a woman's career. This bill will enable mothers and families to split their paid parental leave entitlements into blocks of time over a two-year period with a period of work between. Currently the scheme only allows paid parental leave to be taken as a continuous 18-week block within the first 12 months after the birth or adoption of the child, and then only when the primary carer has not returned to work since the birth or adoption of the child. This bill will change the rules by splitting the 18 weeks of paid parental leave into a 12-week paid parental leave and a six-week flexible paid parental leave. The 12-week paid parental leave entitlement will only be available as a continuous block but will be accessible by the primary carer at any time during the first 12 months, not only immediately after the birth or adoption. The six-week flexible paid parental leave period will be taken at any time during the first two years and does not need to be taken as a block. In practice, this will mean families can split their entitlements over a two-year period with periods of work in between. And, as with the current rules, the primary carer can be changed during this time. It is likely that the most common use of the increased flexibility will be parents returning to work part time and spreading their flexible paid parental leave over several months. This is a really positive change. However, as I said, we could be doing so much more with paid parental leave in this country. Some of the other countries around the world provide much longer leave, better paid leave and, importantly, sharing between fathers and mothers. There is more leave provided for fathers or a 'use it or lose it' policy where there is an amount of leave that must be taken by the father. Another important issue with paid parental leave is that the current scheme provides 18 weeks. The Productivity Commission had recommended that, for the health of the mother and the child, it is ideal that the mother take 26 weeks off work. Eighteen weeks was based on budgetary constraints at the time and the idea that many women had other leave they could access. Increasing that at some point would be a great thing we could do for families in this nation to enable women to have a full six months of paid parental leave home with their children—and for fathers to have leave is a great thing. Another issue is that there is a gap in superannuation when women come to retire because of the time they take out of the workforce to raise children. Attaching that to paid parental leave is another thing that could one day be considered. I want to reflect again on the fact that without Labor having introduced this we still would not have a paid parental leave scheme in this country. We have one that many families—almost half of new mothers—are benefiting from, and that continues to grow. It's wonderful to see dads increasingly taking more time off when their children are born and also going part-time. I know in my own family, this is something that my husband and I had always wanted to do, planned to do, when we had a child so that we could both share the time looking after them. And it has been a really wonderful thing, a real richness, for men in their lives to have that one-on-one time with their child that perhaps in generations past they didn't have. As I said, we support these changes. 12:15 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley It's a pleasure to be able to speak on this really important issue today in the House, an issue that is very close to my heart and one of the reasons that drove me to make the decision to spend time away from my toddler and do this important work on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020. I thank the government for bringing the amendment to the House today. It is a good amendment and it's one that we're pleased to support. I would also like to recognise the contributions of the member for Jagajaga and the member for Perth last night in this debate, and the member for Canberra just now. It is really heartening to be part of a class of 2019—and I acknowledge the member for Stirling across the way—who are parents of young children. We are living the hustle, and we understand the hustle of parents across Australia: we navigate these jobs and have the flexibility required to do them whilst caring for our young children. This is a bill essentially about levelling the playing field for women and for their working families. I think it's important to note in discussing the detail of the amendments that paid parental leave is just one element within a plan to level the playing field for women and their working families. It's an important one, but it is one of the prongs. I wanted to use this opportunity today to highlight the thoughts of a constituent of mine named Felicity, who has written to me recently about paid parental leave and her experience within the current regime. She says: 'My experience has highlighted that women in the later stages of pregnancy are at a special disadvantage in that the policies around childcare and PPL are structured around a parent's ability to be able to obtain work should they wish to do so. It is unfortunately the reality that employers are not willing to provide employment to these women. I recognise that policy cannot anticipate all individual circumstances and that the issues I'm bringing to your attention would only affect a small subset of the population. However, that population is especially vulnerable and uniquely exposed to a high risk of mental health issues, which are made considerably worse with these kinds of worries and stress. In terms of suggesting how to resolve the issues, it would be simple enough to introduce an exception to both tests should a pregnant woman cease employment unexpectedly more than halfway through her pregnancy. The second proposal is attractive, as it provides some accountability to organisations ceasing women's employment at this especially vulnerable time.' I think it's a good suggestion. I thought it was worth mentioning in the House today, and I thank Felicity for taking the time to highlight to people like myself how the scheme actually lives and breathes with you as you are navigating it, as opposed to something that we academically consider as we bring it to the House for introduction or for amendment, as we're doing today. Returning to the topic of how we level the playing field for women and how paid parental leave is an important prong of that, we need to do more than that. We need to lift their wages, because, like the member for Canberra before me spoke about, the gender pay gap can add up to hundreds of thousands of additional wages over a lifetime of work for women doing the same job as their male colleagues. In Australia, the gender pay gap is currently at 14 per cent. The average salary for a woman is $57,168. So 14 per cent of the average salary of Australian women over 45 years is $360,163. What that means in real life for women like Felicity is that as they consider what the impact will be over the course of their career at the moment, today, in real terms, it's $360,000 per child, considering the wage gap. So we need to protect women like Felicity and their right to organise. We need to provide additional insurance to workers who need to take time off to care for a loved one, whether they are a newborn or an elder, in a way that doesn't financially punish them for doing something that helps us all. We do not value care enough in our society, and that is reflected by how we pay people who do the caring work in our economy. Childcare workers and aged-care workers are some of the most minimally paid people doing the most essential work in our society. We know that from birth to five years of age is the most critically important time for a child's physical and mental development across their lives, yet at the moment the people who work in our childcare sector are paid minimum wages and we can't get them to stay, when it would be in everybody's interests for them to do so. I note also that currently the House awaits the findings of the royal commission into aged care, where we know that the same problem exists. People doing the work of caring and respecting our elders—at a time when they return to being incredibly vulnerable, like at the start of their lives—face extremely low wages and difficulty around their working conditions. This is all relevant; this all comes together. We need to use opportunities like we have today, even with amendments to help in respect of paid parental leave, to consider what we are doing for working women, particularly those who care for young people and for elders alongside the work that they do to contribute to our economy and the growth of our economy. I would also note that we need to expand the rules of the road around flexibility, and that's one of the things we're doing today. Our amendment assists with flexibility for the existing scheme, and it's a good thing and I'm glad that we're doing it. But too many low wage earners have little or no say over when they work or how much they work. Too many operate in a situation where they get a text calling them into work the night before or at the last minute in the morning. That is difficult in itself, but it's particularly difficult when you have to arrange care for your child. It is also very hard to run a household budget and to pay childcare fees when you have wages that fluctuate so much as a result of uncertainty and volatility in your hours. We also need to note that insecure work and casual work are on the rise, and both of these things make paid parental leave, in its existing scheme, more difficult for women and their families to navigate. At the moment, what I see today is a failed opportunity to address that problem. I also think we should note that, after a lifetime of work, retirement with dignity should be guaranteed to every Australian, particularly to women and to the working mothers who have got us all here. But we know that women over 55 are currently the largest cohort of recipients of the Newstart allowance. We also know that women over 55 are the largest growing group of people experiencing homelessness in Australia. You can draw a line between women who take time out of the workforce or had to leave the workforce in previous decades to care for children and have now come to the point in their lives where they are retiring and women who are in need of the pension and are experiencing homelessness or are reliant on Newstart. We need to address things like paid parental leave—which could make that situation easier, with the resulting impact on superannuation—now, in opportunities like we have with today's amendment, rather than not address them, and we need to consider the problem as a whole. I would note that, on average, women have 47 per cent less superannuation than men when they retire. That is largely because, when people take leave to care for their children, they do not get paid super. Very few sectors and workplaces pay women superannuation when they are on parental leave. It is far more frequent and common to do so in Europe and in Scandinavian countries. I note again that, whenever we discuss issues around working women, we ultimately turn to Scandinavia to see what the best practice policies are, what we could be doing and how far we have to go to get there. It has been shown that women who spend time outside the paid workforce have a tendency to hold multiple roles and live on a system of payments throughout their lives, not just wages—whether that be, for example, the paid parental leave payment or the baby bonus, as it was in a previous decade. In this context, having a $450 threshold, not providing superannuation to women of all ages and not accumulating super in periods outside the workforce all bundles together to mean that women suffer an economic penalty from undertaking vital caring roles. That's a penalty that isn't shared equally across the average family, no matter how well intentioned you are and how hard you try. This is something I talked to Gai about. Gai is a widow who came to parliament in the previous sitting fortnight to talk about this issue with parliamentarians. Gai has just retired, but she still needs to work 10 hours per week to supplement her pension and her super. She has to work to get by, but she's thankful that she owns her own home. Gai is someone who took time out of the workforce to care for her children, who was not paid during that time and who now suffers an economic penalty in her later years. In particular, Gai is concerned about women who are renting, rather than owning their home like her. Her super was hurt by the freeze a few years back. She thinks she lost approximately $4,000, not including compounding interest in rates. She talks about the discussions she has with other Australian women over 55—people who are asking us in this place to do better. They say that in their retirement they can't afford to go on holidays. They feel socially isolated because they can't afford to go out with their friends or take their grandchildren on excursions because, to survive, they need every cent for their existing expenses. You can draw a line from how we treat paid parental leave and new mothers to how we support them re-entering the workforce, which increases productivity and helps our economy to grow, right through to what those women face three or four decades later when they do not have accumulated salary and superannuation equivalent to that of their male counterparts, and what that means when they are no longer in the same relationship they were in and were perhaps reliant upon when they first had children. Ultimately, we are falling behind on paid parental leave, which I'll narrow my remarks to today, but it's something we need to do more about. This is a failed opportunity. This is an amendment to make our Paid Parental Leave scheme better. It a good amendment, but it should have been one of 28 amendments. The scheme is now 10 years old. We're still working on the same information and data from 10 years ago, but the world has moved on since then. Last night, in this debate, the member for Perth spoke about the international comparison and how we have one of the least generous paid parental leave policies in the OECD. Current rates of Australia's paid parental leave entitlement cover only an average of 42 per cent of the previous earnings of participants; it amounts to about 7.6 weeks of full-time pay. In Norway, parents can access 35 weeks of paid parental leave at the full amount. Estonia offers mothers 85 weeks of paid leave, Hungary offers 72 weeks and Bulgaria offers 65 weeks. Finland, with a 34-year-old female prime minister, recently announced that their paid parental leave will be extended to nearly seven months, in line with paid maternity leave. That is paid parental leave in line with maternity and paternity leave. They have listened to UNICEF, who asks: how can we make sure that our kids get the best start in life and how can we give each parent the chance to bond with their children to form relationships that will last a lifetime? We should also value the work that people do when they give up financial reward to care for our little children and to care for our elders. It's really important. We're falling behind. I would also like to note the member for Jagajaga's comments about this, and her important work over the years, from 10 years ago and right up to today, to try to make this the best scheme we could possibly afford. But it should also be the best scheme that we deserve. I conclude my remarks by reiterating that this is a failed opportunity to help level the playing field for Australian women and for the families that they work for. We need to lift their wages. We need to fix the gender pay gap. We need to protect women's right to organise. We need to insure and support our workers who take time off to care for loved ones. We need to support them financially while they support the cohesion of our community and the strength and the productivity of our economy. We need to enforce the labour laws that we've already fought so hard to achieve. We need to expand flexibility for all workers, not just those lucky enough to work in best practice workplaces. We need to tackle insecure work; we need to address that. We need to push back against casualisation of our workforce. We need to make laws that allow all workers to retire with dignity. Days like today are a missed opportunity to get to work on these imperatives. Days like today remind me that to change the country, to get us the country that we all want, we're going to have to change the government. I thank the House. 12:29 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley Like everyone else in this House, I rise today to support the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020. I'd like to start by noting that this is the sort of legislation that comes before a parliament when we are moving towards having more women in parliament. It is an initiative of the former member for Higgins Kelly O'Dwyer when she was the Minister for Women, and it is a positive step forward for gender equality. It is an example of why it is important that we have diversity in parliament—gender diversity, ethnic diversity, diversity of backgrounds. It allows this parliament to reflect the reality of people's lives. Gender equality is important because gender inequality is not just bad for women; it's bad for men and it's bad for society. This sort of legislation today, which is aimed towards giving men, fathers, more opportunities to be involved in the care of their children when they are young—and we all very much hope it is successful in its aims—is good for women, as many of my colleagues have spoken about, but it's really good for men. Gender stereotypes harm both men and women because they deny us the opportunity to do things which don't fall within those gender stereotypes. Unlike a number of my colleagues in the class of 2019, I'm not a millennial. I was born in 1973. Mr Bowen DZS Borderline! Ms MURPHY 133646 I know. Bring generation X back; I think we're the ignored generation, but that's a speech for another time! Honourable members: Hear, hear! Ms MURPHY 133646 I hear some 'hear, hear's! I think my campaign is going to get some legs! My parents were married in 1971, and they met when they were both schoolteachers. They were PE teachers at the same public high school. My mother was a career woman in her mind, in her practice and in her intentions. She was in fact going to go off into the department of education and work on policy, but she fell in love and got married in 1971. She said it was at the relatively old age of 27, but we all think that is quite young now. When she got married and wanted to have children, she had to resign from the public service. That's in my lifetime. Things have changed a lot. My mother, being the woman that she is, had three children—three girls—and raised them but also went back to work as a casual teacher when she could. In effect, during my childhood, she worked almost full-time as a teacher by being that casual teacher who is at school teaching a different subject every day. It was because work was important to her and was fulfilling for her. Like everybody else in this place when we talk about our parents, we're here by and large because of the love and support that they gave us—if we were lucky enough to be brought up in that sort of family. My mother gave everything she could to her daughters and instilled in us the attitude that women can and should do anything they want at any time. To some extent, she was denied that opportunity, because she had to resign from the Public Service when she was young and got married. But she demonstrated to us how important it is to do what you love, because she kept teaching whilst bringing us up. Had there been a paid parental leave scheme back in 1973 that would have supported my father staying home to look after me and then my two younger sisters when we were young, I know that he would have taken that up. Fast forward to 2020, and we are in a much better place. Thanks to the Labor government in 2011, we have a paid parental leave scheme. As the member from Jagajaga, the member for Canberra, the member for Lilley and many others in this place have said, that introduction of the Paid Parental Leave scheme in 2011 changed the world for many women, for many men and for their children. But we still have a long way to go, because for too many men the gender stereotype is that they don't take time off to look after their children in 2020, even if they really want to. For too many men, it's not even just the gender stereotype that prevents them from taking the time off; it's the financial reality. This piece of legislation is welcomed, but I echo the sentiments of my friend the member for Lilley: it's welcomed, but there is a lot more to do. Like so many people, I also look to Scandinavia in particular for a number of reasons and Iceland. Obviously Finland is an inspiration with its current leadership team of all women—although it makes some of us who were born in 1973 feel insecure about how young they are—and the moves they have made towards equality in parental leave for men and women of seven months. I personally am very attracted to a scheme which says: here's a block of paid parental leave—and I think 18 months is a really good block; you must share it between the two partners, and if you don't, you lose six months of that 18 months. We know that where that has been implemented, it has led to a significant change in the number of men taking leave to stay home with their young children. It is also an example of why parliament, why policy and why legislation are important, because they can help with social change and can give the opportunity for social change that people want to experience. Changing gender stereotypes and bringing about gender equality are also important because it's not just about who looks after the children. As other people in this place have talked about, it is also about financial security, particularly for women who have had to take time out of the workforce and who find it difficult, notwithstanding what the law says, when they go back to work; they find their career path has been hampered that little bit. They find they don't get that promotion or offered that partnership and no-one says to their faces, 'It's because you've got children,' but we know that's the reason. No-one says to their faces, 'It's because you took time off and the men that were in your cohort didn't,' but we know that's the reason. We know that allowing women to have that career is not only going to fulfil them but is going to enable them to have some financial security, if the thing that no-one ever wants to happen happens and their relationship breaks down and they find themselves on their own. But even if they don't, it allows them to keep working. Until we have that change in gender stereotypes, that sharing of the early years and taking time off, career progression, in my opinion, is not going to improve. It's particularly an issue in white-collar professional jobs, higher paid, well-educated jobs. I have a number of friends who are incredibly smart, incredibly hardworking lawyers who, for some reason, have found themselves just stalled on the progression in their firm to partnership. It doesn't matter how hard they work; there's just something that means that they're not getting that step up and, if everyone is honest, it's the time they took off each time they had their one, two or three children, which their male counterparts didn't have to take. That's not only why a paid parental leave scheme is important but why, in particular, a scheme that encourages and allows both parents to take time off is important. The other thing I want to talk about in terms of gender equality and changing gender stereotypes is something that this parliament has addressed this week—that is, gendered domestic violence. What's the link between paid parental leave and domestic violence? It is gender equality. It is breaking gendered stereotypes. It is allowing men to understand that it's okay to be a care-giver, it's okay to be caring, to show the traits that sometimes we've talked about as feminine traits—wanting to be a homemaker, wanting to be empathetic, wanting to just be a good role model—and not be a big tough, strong man. It's showing men that women are their equal and deserve respect in the workplace as well as at home. There are so many things that, as a community, as politicians, as parents and spouses and sisters and brothers that we need to do to reduce the epidemic of domestic violence in our country. But one of the things—and I'm not unique in saying this—that we really have to do is not just talk about respect but put in place systemic change and policies that allow that respect to flourish in homes and in the workplace. I, like everyone else in this place, want to extend my condolences not only to the women who have been murdered recently by their partners but also to every woman—the one a week who is murdered—and their family, and to all of the other women who are living in situations of violence and oppression. They're scared, they're vulnerable and they're subject to financial violence, not physical violence or emotional violence. I want to let you know that, whilst we don't always say your names and you're not always the people who the campaign is about, we do know what is happening to you, and when we talk about wanting to change society we are thinking about you as well. The member for Lilley, who spoke before me, talked about workplace equality in terms of the conditions of work for women, the gender pay gap and why legislation like this is important in addressing the gender pay gap, and I could not agree with her more. We know that the gender pay gap is still 14 per cent in this country. I represent an electorate, Dunkley, that's named after a unionist feminist activist from the 1890s who campaigned for equal pay for women in the post and telegraph office and succeeded in 1902—one of the first pieces of Commonwealth legislation was the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1902—in getting a provision into that act of equal pay for women. If we fast forward to 2020, I sometimes wonder what Louisa Dunkley would think about the progress we've made in more than a century since her time, because she fought for equal pay for women, but she also, to paraphrase her words, fought for equal pay because it was about the value of the work. If you don't pay people that do the work equally, then you're undervaluing the work. So whilst we've made progress, we still have a long way to go. The other area, of course, that we have a long way to go in is equal pay for feminised industries compared to male industries. Yes, the work is different, but I'd like anyone who suggests that someone who works in child care or, in particular, someone who works in aged care doesn't have a harder job than someone who works as a fitter and turner or in construction to go and spend a couple of days doing the job of an aged-care worker—lifting; cleaning; caring for people who are vulnerable, who often have Alzheimer's and who are difficult; working shift work. I'd like them to go and spend a couple of days looking after 30-odd toddlers for hours on end, and not just looking after them but providing them with the basic education that they need at that young age of three years old and four years old, and then come back to this place and say that those feminised workforces don't deserve a pay rise, because I really don't think that you will if you take that time. The other thing we need to look at when talking about workplaces is the fact that, even in feminised workplaces, when you look at the roles of leadership—managerial roles, CEOs, directors—men predominantly hold those roles, even in schools. Those of us who go into schools all the time know that the principals are often men. It is terrific that men are teachers more and more now, particularly primary school teachers, and all of us support that continuing, but you often go into schools and the principals are men. So what is happening in society that it's predominantly men who are still holding the roles of leadership in feminised industries? Well, it comes back to things like women not having the freedom to not have to take the extended time off to care for the child when the men don't have to. It comes back to making sure women have the same opportunities as men. And I want to end where I started: it also comes back to giving men opportunities to be fulfilled and to have whole lives and great relationships with their children and be able to break the gender stereotypes that hold them back as much as it holds women back. So when those of us who are women stand up and talk about gender equality, we are advocating for women 100 per cent of the time, but, be in no doubt, we are also advocating for men and for a better society. 12:44 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'm really pleased to rise to support the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020. It's actually good to have a positive debate in this place about paid parental leave. It wasn't so long ago—in fact, it was on Mother's Day—when then Treasurer Joe Hockey accused parents of being double-dippers when they took the government paid parental leave and, if they were lucky enough, took employment based parental leave. That was a very polarising debate and a very disappointing debate, because we know that even our current scheme of paid parental leave is actually way behind the rest of the world. While the bill here today is a small but important step along the journey of improving paid parental leave, we are behind the rest of the world. Indeed, the government called anyone, but particularly women, who was taking advantage of two paid parental leave schemes—people cobbling together enough time to spend with their newborn baby—a double-dipper. I had just had a baby at that time and I remember the outrage at my mothers group. My mothers group, or parents group—only women were there—was outraged. Those women weren't necessarily political but took great offence when they were trying to balance work and family—trying to work out how they were going to get back to work, how they were going to balance their childcare responsibilities, how their husband was going to get time off and who would do the pick-ups and drop-offs. When they were managing all of that as new parents and new families, guess what—the government basically told them they were robbing the taxpayer. It was absolutely outrageous. I hope that we won't see any movement from this government to, once again, go down the path of ripping away the government paid parental leave scheme if you are lucky enough to have a small amount paid by your employer. That is just outrageous. It is a really important issue. As I said, we are behind the rest of the world. Even with our current system, the rest of the world is miles ahead of us. It's not just the Nordic countries, which we so often point to as being very progressive; there are many other countries around the world that are doing much better than Australia. I think that, as time goes by, we are not going to see this as a really important issue in terms of gender equality in this country—in fact, it is really important—but we are going to start to see that this is about economics. It is about ensuring that companies don't lose their skilled workers from the workplace after they've put in the training. It makes economic sense to keep the caregiver, predominantly the woman, connected to the workplace. It is really important that women come back to work and don't lose out on the pathway to promotion. That is also important. As previous speakers have said, it's also important that we have a cultural change in this country so that either men or women take paid parental leave. I feel very lucky that I have just had another baby, and here I have my partner who has taken 12 months of unpaid leave to raise our child. That works for our family, but I want to get to a situation where I am not an anomaly. I want to get to this situation: when a couple is having a baby, the question is, 'Who's taking the paid parental leave? Who's doing the caring? Are you sharing it? Who's taking it first and who's taking it second?' It's only in that type of society that we will really ensure that women and men are equal. Everyone has a free choice. I'm not suggesting the choice that my family has made will work for everyone, but what we need is a scenario where both cultural levers and policy levers are working together to make sure that it is a free choice for families on how they care for their child and stay connected to the workplace. The bill before the House will enable working families to split their paid parental leave entitlements into blocks of time over a two-year period with a period of work in between. Currently the Paid Parental Leave scheme only allows for leave to be taken as a continuous 18-week block within the first 12 months after the birth or adoption of a child. The primary carer is not allowed to return to work before they take the leave. This bill will change the paid parental leave rules by splitting the 18 weeks of paid parental leave into a 12-week paid parental leave. And a six-week flexible paid parental leave, allowing the primary carer to access a 12-week block any time during the first 12 months and making the six-week flexible block available anytime during the first 12 years and allowing it to be used as required, not as a block. I think it's important that these changes will introduce more flexibility to the Paid Parental Leave scheme. It's likely that the most common use of the increased flexibility will be parents returning to work, perhaps part time or casual, and spreading their flexible paid parental leave over several months. I think this is a really important thing. We see more and more opportunities for flexible work. While we still have a long way to go, there is opportunity to work at home and do bits and pieces with technology. We do have a situation where those on paid parental leave don't feel that they are breaking the rules or are guilty if they take up some of those flexible opportunities to work at home, work part time and do a little bit here and there so that they can continue to have that connection with the workplace. Indeed, as the secondary caregiver to my child, coming to work sometimes feels like a break! There is no doubt about it. For me, the connection to my work, which I feel very passionately about, was really important. It needs to be recognised that some primary caregivers would want to have that connection. But I think the key here is making sure that we are listening to what families want. I would like to congratulate the former member for Higgins, Kelly O'Dwyer, for pursuing the changes in front of the chamber today. She was a fierce advocate and a good role model for women in politics. I know that she had an uphill battle with her own party a lot of the time. She didn't tell me that; I just witnessed it. I would like to recognise the work she has done, but I think it's important to recognise that the changes before us are modest. What they don't do—and it's something that many of us on the side of the House feel very passionately about—is make the change to pay superannuation on the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme. The shadow minister for health is here in the chamber. This is an issue that he has been pursuing with a passion—ensuring that we can have superannuation paid on parental leave. While it's important that we are paying women—and men—for the time they have off work, their superannuation balances take a hit when they take this unpaid leave. That has ramifications in the later years, in retirement. And we know that that hit is compounding: for every dollar that doesn't go in early, it compounds so that there are many more dollars that those individuals miss out on when it comes to their retirement savings. This isn't something that is part of this bill, and I think we need to look very closely at ensuring that we address the issue of superannuation on paid parental leave. I know that many companies pay parental leave as part of their enterprise agreement. They have chosen to do this, and I commend them for it. But let's be frank. Many companies do this not because it is the right thing to do—although they might think that—but because it makes economic sense. They don't want to lose their talent. Especially in specialised industries, where there is a real labour shortage, they need to be competitive and attractive—and they need to be attractive to skilled women workers as well. That's why many of them have chosen to do this. It is time that the government scheme caught up with that. I would certainly be very keen to look at that. The paid parental leave scheme that we have in this country, the government Paid Parental Leave scheme, is a legacy of the Rudd-Gillard government. This was something that was pursued at the time. It is well out of date. What it did was provide a safety net for many women who were in casual work who did not get a paid parental leave scheme as part of their base employment conditions. It was a very important social reform in this country. But we cannot stand still. I think we need to very much look at both government levers and cultural change where we can do better when it comes to paid parental leave. The new government in Finland has announced it will provide each parent with more than 6½ months of paid leave, with a further six months to share. Iceland has recently introduced three months of paid parental leave for fathers or the secondary caregiver, making sure that the burden of domestic, at-home, unpaid work is shared with the secondary caregiver. The world is moving. I think we need to have a serious look at how we are doing. When we look at the duration of paid parental leave and the rate of pay, we are now ranked near the bottom of the OECD, only ahead of the United States and Ireland. We need to work as a parliament, as the Australian political class, to do better. We know that women currently retire with superannuation balances 42 per cent lower than those of men, and so part of that is looking seriously at the time out that they have not just during the paid parental leave period but also during a much broader spectrum of their caring responsibilities. That is something that I know weighs heavily on the minds of many on this side of the House. How do we make sure that women don't retire into poverty? It is a critical question. Of course, we need to also look at how we change and model the culture of dads and partners taking more time out of work. As I started, it would be great to have a situation where a new baby is coming and the question is: 'So, how are you going to split your parental leave? How are you going to manage it? Who's taking the first bit? Who's taking the second bit?' That should be the question. There shouldn't be an automatic assumption that it is the woman, no matter how much they are paid. I've heard many scenarios where it has actually been the woman earning more than the man but the automatic assumption is that the woman takes the time off. I have to say, I think dads in this country are yearning for this. I probably shouldn't disclose this, because my husband is here in the building, but I will: I think he was very concerned about taking unpaid parental leave off work. He was concerned about how his work might perceive it and how his colleagues might perceive it. I think he thought he would get daddy day care T-shirts left on his desk and things like that. Indeed, many of his friends and colleagues had said to him, 'I wish I could have done that.' I think there is a yearning for dads to want to play more of a role in the caring responsibilities. I think we need to send a clear message as policymakers that we welcome it. We want this to happen. The best outcome that I see for my children is that if one of them gets hurt they are able to go to either mum or dad for comfort. That is ultimately what I want for my children, that we are equal partners in achieving this. I commend the bill in front of us. It is a modest measure, but we do need to do better. We can do better. I think all of us owe it to the Australian community to put our heads together about how we help Australian families to juggle their care and work responsibilities. 12:59 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I also rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020. I join all of my colleagues in supporting this bill, and particularly the shadow minister who has just spoken as a parent, so passionately and eloquently about the need for reform in this space. We know that the national paid parental leave scheme was introduced by the Rudd government and started on 1 January 2011. The passage of the original legislation was really a landmark reform in Australia. It created a new national standard that gave all women the right to take a period of paid leave, a major benefit to child health and development. Women who need to take time off because of difficulties during their pregnancy, even they didn't meet the work test, could take the leave under this scheme as well. Every year in Australia there are around 300,000 births, with half of the families involved in those momentous occasions utilising this scheme. Currently the paid parental leave scheme provides 18 weeks of payments at a rate based on the minimum wage of $740.60 per week, a total of about $13,330 a year. We know that this bill seeks to implement changes that would allow for more flexibility for working families, amending the way families can actually receive the payments. The bill would change the paid parental leave rules by splitting the 18 weeks of the public paid parental leave into a 12-week paid parental leave period and a six-week flexible paid parental leave period. The 12-week-period entitlement would only be available as a continuous block, but would be accessible by the primary carer any time during the first 12 months after birth, not just immediately after the birth or the adoption of a child. And the six-week flexible paid parental leave period would be available at any time during the first two years and does not need to be taken as a block. That's good flexibility for families. For those of us who have gone through the wonderful gift—that is, having a baby born to the family—having that flexibility makes a big difference. It will allow, in practice, greater flexibility for these families so they can split their entitlements over a two-year period, going back to work in-between. I think it would also encourage a greater take-up of paid parental leave by secondary carers, allowing mothers to transfer their entitlements to their partners at a time that suits their family circumstances. There are about 4,000 families that are expected to benefit from these proposed changes. I'm a dad, and I've got two young kids, a seven-year-old and a four-and-a-half-year old. I know, as I think many of us in this place know, what it means to have to find a way to balance your work—particularly the work of being a member of parliament—and your family life. It is very, very hard. We all know that; we've shared those experiences, especially with the trips to Canberra. With young children, you're away from your kids for considerable periods of time. With my kids at least—I got elected here the first time in 2016—being seven and 4½ they didn't know much else. They were used to me going away: 'Dad's going away again.' They got used to that. Many of us who have younger families will find this, that as they get older they start thinking about it and they start talking about it, saying: 'I miss dad. Why are you going? We don't want you to leave.' It's contracting. It used to be by Wednesday or Thursday that they'd say this. Now it's happening a couple of hours after I leave for the airport on the Sunday, because they know now; they're much more cognisant of time as they get older. It is very difficult for families to balance, especially if your partner is working, and full-time. There is an amount of strain and stress that puts on your partner, having to do those parental responsibilities while you're away for a couple of weeks in Canberra, because it is very, very difficult to juggle all of those scheduling issues and all of the commitments that we might have. And, not always, but often, it is the women in the family who suffer the greatest because the burden is placed on them. We try and share our parenting responsibilities as much as possible. We try and do that in the best possible way. So I'm very encouraged by these changes because they provide much more flexibility for families. They provide them with a way of actually relieving some of that pressure that I was talking about and making things that little bit easier, because we know how young families can struggle in this period. Labor introduced the Paid Parental Leave scheme because we understood that and we wanted to provide that kind of relief and support for young families. The Labor government at the time decided to offer that financial support to new families to remove the detriment of having to take time off work to care for new members of the family and to enable women to continue to participate in the workforce if they wanted to do so. My wife spent a whole year after our son was born, the first time, but with our daughter, our second child, she went back to work within three months. It's a choice, but we want to be able to give women that choice and not have them restricted with respect to their decision to go back to the workforce or not. It is about promoting that equality, that sharing of responsibility, between the parents. We're all working professionally. It's unusual for us, as members of parliament—we have some strange commitments over the weekends, and travelling to Canberra and so on places a greater stress. But most young families now try to share the burden, and both are usually working. So it's important that these arrangements can give those couples, those families, the flexibility to get that balance between their work life and their family life right. It shouldn't be such a stressful time, with a new child in the family. It should be a joyous time that you can enjoy and cherish. I don't know this yet, but I've been told: 'Just wait until they hit adolescence! That's when you get really stressed.' I'll wait for that. I'm proud of Labor's efforts in this space. Almost 150,000 parents a year, half of all new mothers, benefit from Australia's Paid Parental Leave scheme. When it was introduced, Australia was one of the two countries that didn't have a national scheme; the United States was the other. In a sense we're playing catch-up. We were playing catch-up back then and unfortunately, in many respects, we still are. According to last year's OECD data, Australia's Paid Parental Leave scheme was ranked among the lowest in terms of duration of leave and rate of pay. This bill does nothing to change that. In Iceland, fathers are entitled to three months of paid parental leave. I'd move there, but it's a bit cold. In Finland it's even better: the new government just announced plans to give all parents the same parental leave, in a push to get fathers to spend more time with their children. We've heard from previous speakers about the importance of having fathers take more time to help with and be part of raising their children so that the burden is not just placed on one parent, usually the mother. In Finland each parent will receive 6.6 months leave, including a further six months to share. What a paradise that would be—to spend all that time with your kids! Some of us have said that it sometimes feels, given the pressures we're under, like we're taking a break by going to work; I certainly understand that feeling. It's important for single parents to be entitled to use allowances as well. As a father, I always wanted to be involved in raising my children. I wanted to be able to do so with my partner in such a way that we could share the joy, the experience and the responsibility as evenly as possible, avoiding the stress of one partner having to step in and do all of the work. The Australian scheme still falls short with respect to fathers, and I hope that we look at some of these reforms in the future, to give fathers more flexibility to be able to spend more time with their children. It is a small step in the right direction, what we are debating today. It's great that this bill allows more flexibility for working families, but, as I said, I think more needs to be done. We can do more. We've got examples, as I mentioned—Finland, Iceland and so on—of improvements in the take-up of secondary carers. We can improve on one of the lowest rates of investments in parental leave, as we're just a third of the OECD average. I don't think the government can ignore this. The gender pay gap also remains a problem; it flows from this as well. Because women have to take time off work, as we heard earlier their super gets hit. The government shouldn't ignore this either. I know that the Treasurer thinks it's all done; he thinks that the pay gap is closed. That was news to us! Last time I checked the stats, female workers in Australia still earn around 14 per cent less than their male colleagues. So the pay gap is still stubbornly high, despite what the Treasurer would have us believe, and it has been that way for the last two decades. If the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were genuinely serious about fixing that gender gap they would oppose things like cuts to penalty rates, because the majority of workers who have had their penalty rates cut are women. So they're exacerbating the pay gap, the pay gap that they apparently think doesn't exist. I think the Treasurer needs to pay more attention to that and have a look at the statistics we are seeing so he can put some policies forward to address it. I'm surprised that the government has put forward this bill. I think it's testament to the previous minister Kelly O'Dwyer. The former minister pointed out her work in pushing this forward and the challenges that she faced, so kudos to her. Even though she is no longer in this place, it was a lot of good work by her in that respect. We saw unfair cuts by the Turnbull government which hit families who could least afford them and which reduced access to things like early education for kids who needed it the most. When we talk about stress on young families, these are the things that add up. One in four families are worse off because the then Turnbull government made changes to childcare. There were 279,000 families nationwide, and 2,225 just in my electorate of Wills, impacted by these cuts, the families that have to adhere to a very complex system of subsidies for child care where a fortnightly period of work is used to determine financial relief. What about shift workers? What about casual workers? What about seasonal workers? Don't they exist as well? In many respects those arrangements are arbitrary and inflexible and discriminate against large swathes of the working population. We have seen this. There are data and evidence from the department of education and training's report on early childhood and child care. In summary, the report shows that hourly fees at early learning facilities have risen by an annual average of 5.4 per cent since 2013. The obvious pressure this puts on those young families we've been talking about, working families with both partners working, trying to juggle their responsibilities, who rely on early learning services and early education services has been echoed regularly when I go on my many visits to childcare centres or early education centres in my electorate. Because it's not just about childcare; it's about early education. Of course access to early education and early learning is more than just about giving flexibility to parents; it is so important for the development of the child at that early stage. It amplifies the child's development, improves school results, boosts economic outcomes and is an investment in our nation's future. Labor made an election promise before the last election to take pressure off family budgets, to make access to early education and care more affordable and to support parents' return to work. We know the Liberal Party also promised to make child care more affordable for Australian families, but I haven't seen it. I don't think anyone else here has seen it; it hasn't happened. It is just another empty promise. In my electorate we have families from a vast array of diverse backgrounds—young families, migrant families, same-sex couples, single parents, newlyweds. I find it distressing on their behalf that, particularly in an electorate that has notable financial hardship, we will see some of these problems persist and deepen, and those financial strains become amplified with some of the policies or non-policies of this government. But I do welcome these changes because they are a step in the right direction. Even though we are falling behind internationally and we still need to do more and can do a lot more, these changes are welcome. They're modest, but Labor obviously welcomes this bill because Australian families deserve this and so much more. 13:14 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I rise to speak in support of this Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020 and in support of the amendment moved by my esteemed colleague, the shadow minister, the member for Barton. I don't propose to give a history lesson to the House but I do think it is fascinating the way the nature of Australian society has changed over the generations. I know that neither of my grandmothers worked after they were married. My mother, who was a teacher, stopped working when she had her first child. My mother-in-law, my wife's mother, was one of the rare breed in her generation who worked full time—as a very esteemed nurse in my electorate—all her working life, including when she was raising three children with her husband, who was a farmer. The nature of Australia and Australian society has changed. Labor has always been there supporting families throughout all of those generations. As many would recall, Australia's national Paid Parental Leave scheme was first introduced by Labor, commencing January 2011. That was in response to the changing nature of Australian families and Australian society. At that time, Australia was one of just two OECD nations without such a scheme, alongside the United States of America. We sought to fix that in government, creating a scheme that would provide growing families and primary caregivers with financial support upon the arrival of a newborn or newly adopted child. For many families within my community of Macarthur, this scheme was absolutely groundbreaking and provided them with the financial security and stability they needed in times of great change. I believe and have remarked on many occasions that there's nothing more rewarding than raising a child. However, I know that this period of time can be quite challenging and daunting for new parents in terms of the way their families change, in terms of social circumstances and in terms of finances. In particular, the stresses of parenthood are exacerbated in times of financial insecurity. With more and more people living paycheque to paycheque, and with wages growth stagnating, I'm certain that the scheme provides great comfort to many families across the nation, and certainly in particular to those in my electorate of Macarthur. This national scheme introduced originally by Labor was groundbreaking in the sense that it provided Australian mums and dads with certainty. It allowed the primary caregivers of newborns and newly adopted children to take time off work to spend with their child. It enhanced the health and development of birth mothers and children. It enabled women to continue to participate in the workforce, and promoted this participation, and fostered equality between males and females. Certainly in my own profession of paediatrics I could see how important gender equality was in retaining the skills of my many female colleagues who were raising families. It has been great. This scheme provided many young families with the ability to balance work and family life, providing two payments: paid parental leave and dad and partner pay. The scheme created by the former Labor government signalled to employers in the broader community that it was normal and part of life for parents and primary caregivers to take time out of work to share the care of a child, and nothing could be more important than that. It provided for a shift in some attitudes in our nation, signifying to new parents that their careers and professional prospects would not and should not have to be sacrificed in order to raise a child. If you wanted to do both, the government would be supportive of this aspiration. I think it's a general view across the House that these aspirations should be supported, that the care of a child should be the responsibility of both parents. Labor's scheme promoted the participation of women in the workforce and enabled our workforce and our economy to prepare to adapt for an ageing population, for which a high workforce participation rate is essential. That's certainly true today and will be more important in the future as our population ages. The Paid Parental Leave scheme also sought to improve the gender pay gap, particularly for those women who live on low to middle incomes and who tend to have less access to employer funded parental leave. While it is true that many Macarthur residents have benefited from this scheme, the same can be said for those in many other communities across Australia, with around 150,000 parents benefiting from Labor's Paid Parental Leave scheme each year. It's also important that this scheme should apply to those who have stillbirths. Nothing could be more distressing for families than suffering a stillbirth. The fact that this scheme can be applied or should apply to parents who have lost a child to stillbirth, and also to those who've had a neonatal death, is very, very important. This is a very important part of their coming to terms with and coping with such a traumatic event, one which affects the whole family. So this scheme is very important for all those families. Nearly half of all the benefits from our national Paid Parental Leave scheme benefit young mothers. The bill before us today seeks to amend the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, further building on amendments made in 2019 as well as introducing elements from the women's economic security package as announced in the 2018-19 MYEFO. It's very important that we will need to continue to adjust this scheme in future, as our society changes. I want to acknowledge the contribution in this field made by the former member for Higgins and the minister—amongst many other roles—for women, Kelly O'Dwyer, because she was certainly a primary driver of this, and recognised the importance of using skills across the community throughout our workforce, and the importance of the scheme in allowing women to do that. This bill implements many changes announced by her and the government through the women's economic security statement. The bill before us seeks to improve upon the Paid Parental Leave scheme's flexibility—and flexibility is certainly what we need. Many families are involved in very flexible lifestyles. My own family certainly has benefited by it. My grandchildren have benefited by it, as have my children, and I can see benefits for the future for them in this as their lives continue. This bill will amend the Paid Parental Leave rules through splitting the 18 weeks of paid parental leave into a 12-week paid parental leave period and a six-week flexible paid parental leave period. Under these amendments, the 12-week paid parental leave period entitlement will not only be available as a continuous block but will be accessible by the primary carer at any time during the first 12 months, not only immediately after the birth or adoption of a child or a stillbirth. Additionally, the six-week flexible paid parental leave period will be available at any time during the first two years and does not need to be taken as a single block. This is certainly very important for mothers who are involved in flexible work or who are still also studying and who are working part-time. In short, the amendments will provide young and growing families with flexibility, providing mothers and fathers with the ability to split their paid parental leave entitlements into separate units of time, allowing for leave to be taken over a two-year period or the period of work in between the blocks. Under present arrangements, the paid parental leave accessed through our national scheme must be taken as a continuous block of 18 weeks, to be taken within the first 12 months after the birth or adoption of a child. So these new amendments are very important for the flexibility of work for many families. As we know, many families work in very flexible periods, often in different areas around the country or even overseas. So, importantly, not only will parents be able to split their entitlements over this two-year period under the amendment before us, but parents will be able to alter who the primary caregiver of the child is during this period. We know that, in many families, the primary caregiver varies between husband and wife, according to their circumstances. It is anticipated that this will encourage parents to use this increased flexibility by returning to work part-time and giving their skills back to our economy and by spreading their flexible paid parental leave out over a period of months. I want to reiterate my and Labor's support for these amendments and the flexibility that they will provide for young families. I would stress that Labor understands about the needs of families and will continue to support young families in the future. These changes are relatively modest, compared to some of the schemes provided overseas. They will hopefully enable Australian parents to share parenting and work responsibilities in a way that is deemed suitable to themselves. This flexibility will benefit many families who seek greater flexibility in our Paid Parental Leave scheme. However, while there are certainly positive aspects to these changes, it's important we note the bill does not increase the paid parental leave entitlements for Australian families. While there is more flexibility, there's no increase in entitlement. The reality is that Australia is falling behind internationally in the support it provides for new parents and for growing families. This bill does very little to change that. Over the Christmas break, I was fortunate enough to spend time with my daughter, my son-in-law and my latest grandchild, Frankie, who came to visit my family from Germany. Mr Gosling 245392 Congratulations! Dr FREELANDER 265979 Thank you. I can't claim all my own work. The system of support that's made available to young and growing families in Germany is quite extraordinary compared to the Australian system. New parents in Germany are able to take paid parental leave for up to 24 months and can use this flexibly between either parent. While the German system in part can be quite confusing and complicated, it certainly fosters equality in the sense that it is gender neutral. Now without going into full details of the German scheme, Australia's expenditure on paid parental leave per child is significantly lower. In fact, according to OECD data, Australia's paid parental leave scheme ranks amongst the lowest schemes of other developed nations in the duration of leave and the rate of pay it provides. The trend is clear—other nations are expanding on their parental leave schemes to increase the support they provide to fathers and partners, with the goal of enabling them to spend more time at home during the first year of a child's life, while also fostering their ability to provide their skills to the workforce and economy. Iceland affords fathers up to three months paid parental leave. Finland is expanding its scheme, having announced plans to provide each parent with over 6½ months of paid parental leave and an additional six months to share between them. Finland also allows parents to transfer part of the leave to their spouse, and single parents are even able to receive both allowances. Australia has one of the lowest rates of investment in parental leave at a third of the OECD average. I think we can do much better than this. The gender pay gap also remains a problem in Australia and that is why I support these flexibility arrangements that will help to close this gap. While the Treasurer may assert the gender pay gap is closed, female workers in Australia still earn 14 per cent less than their male colleagues and it is a folly to deny it. The gender pay gap has remained unclosed in Australia and has been stubbornly high over recent decades. Minor changes have even been attributed to the end of the mining boom; hence, there is a long way to go. The vast majority of Australians who have suffered from cuts to penalty rates have been women. Not only are these cuts making it harder for already-struggling families to pay the bills, put food on the table, pay rent and service their mortgages, these cuts to penalty rates are exacerbating the gender pay gap as they disproportionately affect women. Now if those opposite were serious about addressing inequality and disparity in our society, they would cease their attacks on people's incomes and reverse their cuts to penalty rates. They would expand the paid parental leave scheme and provide better support for the things that Labor stands for such as health care and education. Their actions speak volumes. Those opposite have made consistent and deliberate attempts to attack penalty rates, attack families and slash the take-home pay of many women. A government member interjecting— Dr FREELANDER 265979 I don't know to what end. The economy is still floundering as evidenced by the recent employment rates. People now have less disposable money to spend, and trickle-down economics, which those on the opposite side support, absolutely does not work. Labor stands up for young families. Labor stands up for young people. Labor will stand up for those being attacked by those opposite. You can hear by the wining from the opposite side, they have no credibility in this space. Labor stands to support women. Labor stands for the basics of education. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 10000 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43 and may be resumed at a later time. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 14 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Lyons Electorate: Australia Day Awards 14 13:29 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Today I recognise five men and women from my electorate who were honoured with Order of Australia medals in the Australia Day honours list. Colin Howlett, a former mayor of the Southern Midlands, was recognised for his service to local government and the community of the Southern Midlands. He may now live in Hobart, but we won't hold that against him! Sarah Lloyd of Biralee is an author, photographer and naturalist. She was recognised for her service to conservation and the environment. Douglas Renshaw of Bicheno—president of the Bicheno RSL, chair of the local Men's Shed, a life member of Lions and a volunteer firefighter—was recognised for his service to the community of Bicheno. Paul Wilson of Oatlands is a life member of the bowls club and the Oatlands RSL, a founding member of the Oatlands Christmas pageant and a former volunteer ambo. He was recognised for his service to the community of Oatlands. Lexie Young of Deloraine is president of the Deloraine branch of the Red Cross and Deloraine Probus. She is a member of the Deloraine Agricultural and Pastoral Society and a founding member of the CWA Deloraine branch. She was recognised for her service to the community of Deloraine. Each and every one of them is a very worthy recipient of the Order of Australia award. All they have done, and continue to do, is bring dignity to the Order of Australia to which they now belong. They are fine examples of the best that Australia has to offer, and I take my hat off to everything they have achieved in life and everything that they continue to bring to the communities they represent. Usher 1F Collaborative 14 13:31 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Four hundred million people globally are affected by rare genetic diseases, many of which are not well understood. In a quest for more treatment options, patients with rare diseases and their families deserve recognition for helping push the frontiers of molecular and cellular biomedicine. The Usher 1F Collaborative, an organisation dedicated to finding a cure for Usher syndrome, is proof of the power of community led crusades for rare disease treatment. Babies with Usher syndrome type 1F are born profoundly deaf, have severe balance problems and become progressively blind throughout childhood. Currently there is no cure. The Usher 1F Collaborative recently attracted a $450,000 contribution from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, which is teaming up with Genetic Cures Australia, an advocacy group for Australian based research into rare diseases. Hollie and Daniel Feller, fine Goldstein constituents I might add, founded Genetic Cures in 2016. Their mission is to support clinical trials or novel therapies that may one day help children like their son Harry, who was born with Usher syndrome eight years ago. Harry has the most awesome blue glasses. Hollie and Daniel, thank you for your tireless efforts bringing these 21st century medicines to the fore for those who need it most, and for your incredible efforts. You make us proud. Liverpool City Council 15 13:32 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa The majority of the Liverpool City Council falls within the boundary of the electorate of Werriwa. The council has had a chequered history: ICAC raids, four CEOs in eight years, police being called to council meetings and industrial unrest. The election of Mayor Wendy Waller and the appointment of Kiersten Fishburn as CEO in 2016 put that to bed. Under this new leadership, Liverpool has experienced unprecedented growth and reform, emerging as Sydney's third CBD. It is recognised in both public and private sectors as a progressive, transparent, accountable and forward-thinking council. Ms Fishburn and her team have led important conversations on the future of the region: the airport and the Aerotropolis, the Liverpool Innovation Precinct and the Fifteenth Avenue Smart Transit. The budget position is strong and it has won numerous accolades, including the Committee for Sydney Smart City Award three years running. I am disappointed to advise the House that this may all be derailed. Some councillors appear to be putting their personal short-term electoral aspirations ahead of the community they were elected to serve. They have chosen not to endorse or renew the CEO's contract. They have forgotten the chaos, division and dysfunction that marked previous terms of Liverpool council. The people of Liverpool do not need to be dragged back to the bad old days. They deserve better and Kiersten Fishburn should be reappointed. O'Reilly, Ms Laura 15 13:34 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I rise today to acknowledge a young and determined member of our Mackellar community, Ms Laura O'Reilly. A recipient of the 2019 Westfield Local Heroes award as well as a finalist for the 2015 Young Australian award, Laura has accomplished so much at such a young age. Alongside her two young brothers, Laura grew up in a household which placed value on social justice and fairness above all. Laura received her undergraduate degree at Cambridge university before continuing to receive her juris doctor from the University of New South Wales. Just what the world needed, another lawyer! When Laura first began studying law her youngest brother, Shane, had just graduated high school with a passion for IT. Shane was a bubbly and intelligent young man. He also had profound cerebral palsy. Unfairly, this eliminated the prospect of further training or employment in any field. He was left to traditional day programs; his IT talents remained underutilised. In 2009, Laura knew this had to change. Laura is co-founder, CEO and director of Fighting Chance, a charity which designs, builds and then scales social enterprises which aim to move the dial for Australians with a disability and, in turn, their families. Fighting Chance has continued to grow. It now operates two businesses—Jigsaw and Avenue. The former employs those with a disability, paying them the minimum wage to do administrative tasks. (Time expired) Macarthur Electorate: Unemployment 15 13:35 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur 'Unemployment'—it's a phrase that is often thrown around in this place when we are discussing the budget and the stagnant economy. We use it, and associated figures, as throwaway lines so frequently that I'm afraid people forget the real-world implications of unemployment. Unemployment can ruin lives, tear families apart and force people to go hungry. We should be conscious of this every time we discuss unemployment figures in this place. Recently we've had the Commonwealth unemployment figures released. Unfortunately, whilst we know that unemployment is rising, the figures in south-west Sydney are much worse. It is estimated that unemployment in south-west Sydney is 6.1 per cent, significantly above the national average, and underemployment, at an estimated 12.9 per cent, is terrible—and it's worse for those aged below 24. The families of Macarthur cannot handle much more in terms of financial burdens. Families are struggling to make ends meet. The cost of living is far too high and wages growth is stagnant. Australians need a pay rise. We need improvements in our employment. People cannot find enough work. Mass casualisation in the workforce is forcing members of my community to work more than one job. In doing so, they forgo spending time with their loved ones just to stay afloat. This is a national shame. The Macarthur community is in desperate need of jobs. With unprecedented levels of mortgage stress in south-west Sydney, we are in desperate need of local jobs. Chisholm Electorate 16 13:37 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm As much as I love my work in this place, I must confess that I like spending time in my community and talking to people face-to-face even more. This is why, last Friday, I went out to Blackburn for a coffee and chat with some local residents. Firstly, let me thank the Food Republic Cafe in Blackburn for hosting me. Businesses such as these are benefiting from the Morrison governments instant asset write-off. Cafe owners can invest in an extra coffee machine or oven with confidence. It was great to speak to a wide range of people—from kids enjoying their curriculum day off school to workers in nearby offices and factories and older people about to celebrate their 90th birthday. I got to hear how glad they are that we have a strong economy and more jobs. I got to hear how this government's aged-care policies are having a positive impact on the lives of senior Australians. More than 16,000 age pensioners in my electorate of Chisholm are better off because of this government. I always enjoy meeting people I represent, and I love hearing their views. If you see me out and about, please feel free to come and talk to me in person. Apollo Bay Seafood Festival 16 13:39 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite During the break between sitting weeks, I had the great pleasure of opening the Apollo Bay Seafood Festival, a fantastic event that celebrates the amazing local produce of Bass Strait and the unique heritage of this seaside village. Thanks must go to organisers Bill Hurley-Fraser, Marcus Nolle and Bob Knowles and festival founders Cate Thomas, Yvette Hill and Trish Goodlet. Their stellar efforts in attracting hundreds of visitors during the ongoing travel ban due to the coronavirus must be commended. Visitation to Apollo Bay and right along the Great Ocean Road is severely reduced. Accommodation providers, traders and tourism operators are doing it tough, so I urge everyone to take a trip down the Great Ocean Road. Stay a few nights and explore the magnificent Otways, the sweeping surf beaches, our fabulous local produce and our native wildlife. There is certainly a generosity of spirit that exists in our seaside towns. In Apollo Bay, the local chamber of commerce has just announced local accommodation providers will donate 25 weeks of accommodation to firefighters who have fought to protect our nation's families and homes during the devastation of the past few months. Local bakery proprietor Sally Cannon will even throw in one of her fabulous scallop pies and a loaf of bread for every visiting firefighter and family. So do come along and explore the region. I'm sure you will have a great time. (Time expired) Wauchope Bonny Hills Surf Life Saving Club 16 13:39 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne The Wauchope Bonny Hills Surf Life Saving Club has been patrolling Rainbow Beach at Bonny Hills since 1958, and last weekend they took four crews to Mollymook Beach because the surf conditions forced the event to move to Long Beach, up the coast in Batemans Bay. The reserve men scraped through their division, but that was after competing against 100 other boats. What the Wauchope Bonny Hills crews learned is that there are some very large and fast crews throughout Australia which include Olympic rowers and coaches. It is an incredibly competitive field that they were competing in. They only missed out making the finals by one point, but the club's under-23s Boatettes competed very well. They received a third and two fourths out of the six races the four crews competed in. The club now heads to the state titles at Blacksmiths Beach on the weekend of 6, 7 and 8 March. They have also been supervising and training nippers for over 30 years. Last weekend a small group of the nippers, cadets, opens and masters all competed at the surf lifesaving branch championships at South West Rocks. The carnival was a big carnival. A lot of fun was had. A lot of people learnt the skills that make them strong in the surf and save people. (Time expired) Indigo Power 16 13:39 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi Indi has for many years been a leader in renewable energy. This month that leadership continues with the recent launch of Australia's first community owned renewable energy retailer, Indigo Power. As a retailer, Indigo Power allows everyday people to sign up to buy affordable, locally generated renewable energy, enabling our ever-growing network of solar and batteries in the north-east to share power seamlessly across the region. It means renewable energy is transferred from where it's made to where it's needed. Starting 12 March, Indigo Power are holding 14 community events across Indi to explain how it works and are inviting people to sign up for cheaper, cleaner power through community energy hubs. I encourage everyone in Indi, from Wodonga to Corryong, from Euroa to Alexandra, to head down and hear them out. I congratulate the Indigo Power board and Ben McGowan, Cam Klose and Lysander Tyrrell and the rest of the team from Indigo Power for leading the nation on this. The dynamic economy of Australia's future is here, and it's being built in those parts of regional Australia with the vision and the grit to make it happen. Edith Cowen University 17 13:39 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore Teaching, research and development, and scientific activities at Edith Cowan University in my electorate have taken a quantum leap with the recent opening of the new science building at the Joondalup campus. Built at a cost of $48 million, the state-of-the-art five-level science building includes 2,500 square metres of laboratory space. The laboratories are large-scale and purpose-built to Australian safety standards for handling hazardous materials. A further 3,600 square metres will be available for ECU's scientists and students to engage with the cybersecurity industry. The architecturally designed building's facade features the elements of the periodic table in what is uniquely the largest periodic table in the southern hemisphere. Professor Steve Chapman, the vice-chancellor of the university, took me on a guided tour of the facility, which represents the first stage of an ambitious $200 million building program over the medium term, as outlined in ECU's Buildings strategic asset management plan. Edith Cowan University is developing a strong reputation for its commercialisation of research and development as well as its collaborative partnerships with industry, ensuring that graduates have the requisite practical experience to make them workforce ready. Students studying science, medical or nursing— (Time expired) National Rental Affordability Scheme 17 13:45 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Just in my electorate of Wills there are many people who have and are currently benefiting from the National Rental Affordability Scheme, which was created and put in place by the Rudd Labor government in 2008. This program enables eligible tenants to rent private properties at 20 per cent below their market rental value. Right now this includes 5,633 dwellings in the state of Victoria. That's 423 dwellings in my electorate of Wills: 49 in Brunswick, 194 in Brunswick East, 40 in Coburg, one in Fawkner, 37 in Glenroy, four in Hadfield, 10 in Oak Park and 88 in Pascoe Vale. But by 2026 there will be zero dwellings under this subsidised scheme—zero in Wills; zero in Victoria—because this coalition government has no plans to fund the program beyond 2026. It's hard enough for so many people to pay rent in my electorate of Wills and across the country. For people struggling to pay rent and pay their bills, just to make ends meet, this has been an important program. The coalition government's actions—or, I should say, nonactions—are making it even harder for those people struggling. Cat Haven 17 13:46 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin I rise today to recognise the Cat Welfare Society, also known as Cat Haven WA, which is based in my electorate of Curtin in the suburb of Shenton Park. Established in 1961, it is WA's largest shelter for homeless, lost and abandoned or abused cats, taking in over 8,000 cats and kittens every year, with a zero euthanasia rate for treatable, rehomable cats. I recently had the opportunity to visit the shelter during one of their regular twilight markets, a fantastic event to encourage the community to visit the haven, see the work they do, raise funds for the cats and hopefully adopt a new family member. But Cat Haven is more than just a homeless shelter for animals. They run various community programs, including free emergency cat boarding for people in crisis and outreach programs to support financially disadvantaged people to provide for their companion cats. They also provide subsidised sterilisation and microchipping and deliver education about cat welfare issues and responsible pet ownership to help safeguard cats and kittens and protect local wildlife. So, if you're looking for the purr-fect companion, I encourage you to visit your local animal shelter. When you can adopt a cat or kitten from Cat Haven, you know that it's sterilised, microchipped, properly vaccinated and very, very cute. Roads 17 13:47 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor The Prime Minister has proven that there isn't a taxpayer funded program that he won't use for his own political purposes. This time it's the congestion-busting fund. This time it's high rhetoric about how we're going to help people in the suburbs to get in and out of their suburbs. I represent the seat of Lalor, one of the fastest growing areas in the country. It is a growth area that is extraordinary. We now have over 270,000 people living in the city of Wyndham. And what did we get from this government? Zero! In fact, in Victoria, coalition seats and some marginal seat received 89 per cent of the $1.26 billion allocated across Victoria, leaving 11 per cent for the rest of us. Well, nothing for Lalor. Absolutely zero. The crime here is that Lalor has the highest number of residents who commute for more than two hours a day for work. That's who we are. I have been on my feet in this chamber so many times talking about parking at train stations and talking about Labor's commitment to build the Wyndham west link and create two bridges on the edges of our city to move us in and out. This government claims we didn't ask. Well, what's the people's house for? Are you not listening? Defence Industry 18 13:49 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning Australia may be one of the wealthiest, resource-rich countries in the world, but our manufacturing base is under great pressure, and the demise of Holden and our car industry is of great concern. As history shows us, it is vital that we have a vibrant manufacturing base both in peace and in times of war. We must also remember this enduring reality: we are a country before we are an economy. We have a duty to preserve assets, industries and infrastructure essential to our flourishing together. This is why the preservation of our sovereignty is so important, and I'm pleased by the efforts of the Morrison government to build a strong and sustainable Australian defence industry. This government's expansion of our defence capability is designed to maximise the involvement of Australian businesses. In doing so, we are creating new jobs that will grow Australia's skills base in strategic industries. I am pleased to visit small and medium businesses that are leading by maximising Australian manufacturing in their operations and supply chain. Last week I visited WOMA, who are an original equipment manufacturer of industrial high-pressure and vacuum pumps. Ian Blevin, the business owner, a Canning local and an ex-captain in the British Gurkhas, explained how he had resisted the trend to manufacture overseas. Instead, WOMA manufacture locally, and Ian has built a dedicated team and is proud to be investing in Australian young people through his apprentices. We need more strategic thinkers in business like Ian who are prepared to make tough decisions in the national interest and build up our strategic industries. Toukley 50 Plus Leisure & Learning Centre 18 13:50 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell Last Monday I was delighted to join the official opening of the Toukley 50 Plus Leisure & Learning Centre Art & Craft Show with David Harris, the member for Wyong. The centre proudly boasts that it's the largest seniors' club in Australia. I've heard it's the largest in the Southern Hemisphere. The exhibition was held as part of the New South Wales Seniors Festival, and all art and craft was created by members. The People's Choice Award was won by Heather Leaity for her painting inspired by the Norah Head Lighthouse. Heather is a volunteer who teaches watercolour classes each Friday. Originally known as the Toukley Senior Citizens' Club, it was founded in 1978 and now has close to 2,000 active members. For just $6 a year, Toukley 50 Plus Leisure & Learning Centre boasts that you can join a club where life begins at 50 and old dogs learn new tricks—from art, cards, choir, computers, crochet, knitting and spinning to tennis, tai chi, housie and indoor bowls. The centre also has its own tour group, coordinated by Pamela Gallagher, with regular day and away trips with over 1,500 passengers each year. Thank you to president Carmen Mouat, senior vice president Lynette Groves, junior vice president Cheryl Halpin, secretary Lyn Prpic, assistant secretary Fran Hammill, treasurer Lynn Wheildon, assistant treasurer Helen McCormick, activities coordinator Robyn Earley and board members John Mahaffy, Geoff Peebles, William Russell, Pamela Gallagher and Chris Foley for all you do for all our community. If you're not a member and over 50, drop by. Everyone's welcome! (Time expired) Coronavirus 18 13:52 Mr JOYCE E5D New England Obviously today we saw that the markets went down by two per cent with regard to concerns about the coronavirus. They are clawing back some ground as we speak. This is an issue that is going to be so important for every person in every electorate as to how we, in a sober way, deal with this issue, which is obviously having ramifications on our nation as we speak, especially in the financial sector. It's very important that we clearly get some facts out as to exactly what the attributes are, or, basically, how this disease works—not the attributes; that is a very bad turn of phrase—what its fatality rate is like and what its transmission capability is like. From what we hear at the moment, it has an R0 of around about two, which makes it virulent, and it has a fatality rate, which we are uncertain of, somewhere between, we believe, two and three per cent. It is also incredibly important that we understand, after watching Four Corners last night, that there could be a form of hysteria that comes into play, and I think that that is not going to help anything. It is going to be incumbent upon this chamber to get the facts out to our electorates and to work in a sober way as to manage this disease. International Mother Language Day 18 13:54 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Friday was United Nations International Mother Language Day. On this day, UNESCO and UN agencies participate in events to promote linguistic and cultural diversity. In particular, in Bangladesh, it's a public holiday known as Shaheed Day, where locals celebrate Bangladeshi culture and the Bengali language. They commemorate the service and the life of four students who were killed on 21 February 1952 while fighting for the right to use their mother language, Bengali. I am blessed to represent a community that has a very active and passionate Bangladeshi community, and it's something that I'm very, very proud of. I would like to again wish the Australian Bangladeshi community a very happy Shahid Day. In the wake of International Mother Language Day, it is important to reflect on the 6,000 languages that exist throughout the world. But according to the United Nations, 43 per cent of those are endangered languages. In our own country, where we have the oldest continuing culture in the world in our first Australians, many of the original Indigenous languages have unfortunately disappeared. It is important that we continue to work to preserve Indigenous languages as a link to our First Nations culture and history, and to recognise the importance of these languages that help to give a voice to modern Australia and tell the important true history of Australia. Grant, Mr Barry 19 13:55 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I would like to congratulate Mr Barry Grant, the President of the Woronora River RSL Sub-branch for being recognised in the most recent Australia Day honours and awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia, an OAM, for his service to veterans and their families. Barry served as a medic in the commando unit, whose motto is 'Duty first, strike swiftly and without warning' and as a former Army Reservist. Barry also served as President of the Australian Commando Association, New South Wales branch, for seven years and was made a life member in 2018 before retiring last year. Barry has been a member of the Woronora River RSL Sub-branch since 1995 and has served as its welfare officer as well as president. The sub-branch of 40 members supports the local community, including four nursing homes, and organises the Anzac Day and Armistice Day ceremonies down at the beautiful Woronora River, which attract over 1,000 people each year. Barry was the driving force in establishing a new war memorial recording the names of all Sutherland Shire residents who enlisted in World War I, which was erected in Peace Park, Sutherland, in time for the Armistice Day commemorations earlier this year. Congratulations, Mr Barry Grant OAM, well done and well deserved. Anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin 19 13:57 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon On Wednesday 19 February, about a thousand people gathered at the Darwin Cenotaph to pay their respects on the 78th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin. Among the crowd was Sam Logan. He travelled all the way from California to pay homage to his late father, a US naval officer Sam Logan Sr. Sam Logan Sr was stationed on a US navy vessel in Shanghai when Pearl Harbour was bombed. He was quickly captured by the Japanese and tortured but, with a mate of his, he escaped, made it onto a Dutch vessel and all the way down to the Philippines where he joined the USS Peary, a US destroyer that then steamed to Australia, fighting off attacks along the way. They got into Darwin Harbour before that fateful day, 78 years ago. During the bombing of Darwin, the USS Peary suffered the greatest loss of life, about 88 souls lost. Sam Sr survived because he was blown off the Peary. He was in the water, which was on fire. It was burning. He was evacuated south and recovered in a hospital in Melbourne. After the war, he said he would never forget the support he got from Australians. He was a veteran of the bombing of Darwin. I also want to acknowledge a veteran and Territorian here with us today in the gallery, Captain James Hook. Thank you for your service. Education 19 13:58 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman A word of congratulations to Queensland and to its curriculum assessment agency, QCAA, for releasing important data on school performance. I table a couple of graphics supporting the great work of Queensland schools. I want to recognise some the schools with the least government funding that have some of the best results in my state. They are Fairholme College, Redeemer Lutheran College, St Rita's College, Citipointe Christian College, All Saints Anglican School, Brisbane State High School, St Joseph's College Gregory Terrace, Moreton Bay, Ormiston College and Cannon Hill Anglican College, along with the Brisbane grammar schools, which perform at the top but as expected. That important work of QCAA is backed up by the shift to ATAR happening in 2020. So, yes, Queensland will finally report its school graduates the same as the rest of the country, bringing Queensland in line with the rest of Australia, if that is ever going to be possible. At least it will be possible for tertiary entrants and there will be comparison across state borders. The data of Australia's ACARA will be coming out on 18 March. For those boffins that love Eurovision, for those who stay up all night to watch the Super Bowl, I want to give a pat on the back to ACARA for releasing their data at 1 pm on Wednesday the 18th so that we get it in office hours, recognising the achievement of Australian schools reporting around the nation equivalent school performance so that we know how they're performing. Finally, to our education minister: thank you for your work on the childcare subsidy, on the Choice and Affordability Fund and on the capacity-to-contribute legislation. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 10000 It being 2 pm, the time for members' statements has concluded, in accordance with standing order 43. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Thalidomide 20 14:00 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the global thalidomide disaster meant that babies were born with injuries including hearing loss, shortened limbs, loss of sight and missing limbs. There are now about 130 Australian survivors, including Lisa McManus, who is today pleading with the government to respond to the parliamentary report into Australia's thalidomide tragedy before more survivors die. Why hasn't the Prime Minister responded to this report, which was handed down in March last year? 14:00 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I'm actually very pleased to receive this question. It's a matter of extreme importance. No government in the last 50 years has taken it as seriously as us. Those Australians who suffered from thalidomide and all of the consequences were given a grave injustice. On my watch, in my time, on our watch, in our time, it is our goal to do what no government has previously done, and that is to ensure that there is justice, that there is an apology, that there is vindication and that there is support going forward. I heard an interjection from the member for Maribyrnong. This was an issue he raised before the election but for which he did not provision at the election. Having said that, we are now working very carefully through a once-in-a-generation response to an issue which has not been dealt with previously by any Australian government in any systemic fashion over 50 years. We will provide that response in a way that no other government has ever done. As I said, I note that, given the opportunity to make a provision for this, the opposition did not, the member for Maribyrnong as leader did not and the shadow minister as shadow Treasurer did not. But we will take steps to do what no government has ever done, and we are working through that calmly and carefully and appropriately to deliver justice to those thalidomide victims, who have never before been given that justice. Economy 20 14:02 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House why it is important to take responsible and considered decisions when it comes to economic and financial management in the face of challenging economic circumstances? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:03 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Sturt for his question. As I reported, together with the health minister and the Treasurer, just before question time, the coronavirus's impact is ongoing. There are many things that remain unknown in relation to not only the coronavirus's health impacts, not just here in Australia but around the world, but of course the coronavirus's economic impacts being felt here domestically. The government is continuing to monitor very closely and respond, based on the best possible health advice in relation to what is a global health crisis, and we will continue working with states and territories to ensure that we can provide the best possible responses. Australians are also dealing more generally with the response to fires, to floods and to drought, and the government has responded in each and all of these cases, whether it was the North Queensland floods of a year ago; the National Bushfire Recovery Agency and the $2 billion commitment that we've provided, without putting a levy on the Australian people to provide that disaster response; and the more than $7 billion in support and commitment that we've been providing to our rural and regional communities as the drought has continued to ravage so many parts of this country. It's true to say that the Australian economy, with the Australian people, has had its fair share of damaging impacts, particularly in recent times and in recent years, and we certainly don't need any more. We are not immune from these things, but we are well prepared. Our government, over the course of the last six years, has been ensuring that, as we go into these very difficult crises that we've been managing in recent times, our sensible and disciplined economic management has been putting Australia in the best possible place to deal with these types of crises. When we do things in a disciplined and responsible way, we think them through. Where we have goals to create jobs, we have plans to create jobs and we implement those plans to create jobs. When we go to the Australian people and we say we've got record funding to put in schools and hospitals and to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme, we have careful, disciplined budget management so the Australian people know we can deliver on those commitments, which we are. That's what careful, disciplined, responsible economic management is based on. The leader of the Labor Party does not embrace that approach. Sure, he's got a proposal to commit to a net zero carbon target by 2050—30 years from now—but he can't even tell the Australian people what he'd do 10 years from now, not 30 years. But the real problem with the Leader of the Opposition's approach is that he has no plan to deliver it, he can't tell the Australian people what it would cost and he can't explain to them what the implications will be for them. It is a rash plan, it is an ill-considered plan, it is a plan that has not been thought through, and the Australian people would— (Time expired) National Security 21 14:06 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio My question is to the Prime Minister. Last night, the Director-General of ASIO said the extreme right-wing threat in Australia is real and it's growing. Also last night, the UK government proscribed additional right-wing extremist groups. Why has the Australian government not listed a single right-wing extremist group as a terrorist organisation? 14:06 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook It is this government that restored the funding to our intelligence agencies, our border protection authorities, which those opposite, when they were in government, stripped out, which left Australians vulnerable on their watch. In 2013, this government came to office to keep Australians safe. No government has invested more and applied itself more to give those who are working on counterterrorism in this country the resources they need to go after those who would seek to do Australians harm. That includes right-wing extremists; that includes Islamic terrorist extremists. Whatever their cause of hate, whatever their motivation to do Australians harm, this government is standing up to them with the resources and the commitments and the legislation and the powers and the tools that those opposite never had the stomach to put in place. It would seem that every time we've sought to get stronger national security legislation achieved in this place, those opposite have sought to water it down. Economy 21 14:07 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax My question goes to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please— Mr Dreyfus interjecting— Mr Dutton interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 I ask the member for Fairfax to resume his seat. The member for Isaacs and the Minister for Home Affairs will cease their interchange. I can't hear the question. The member for Fairfax will begin his question again. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My question goes to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please update the House on how the Morrison government is maintaining the resilience of the Australian economy in the face of some challenging economic circumstances? And, also, is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches which may undermine the strength of our economy? 14:08 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Fairfax for his question and note his extensive experience in business before coming to this place and the fact that, in his electorate, more than 20,000 small businesses will be able to access the extended instant asset write-off announced in last year's budget and will get a tax cut from 1 July this year. We know that the Australian economy has faced a number of economic shocks that are outside of our control: the trade tensions between China and the United States, the drought, the bushfires, the floods and, most recently, the coronavirus. When I was recently at the G20 meeting in Riyadh, the impact of the coronavirus was the most significant topic for discussion. We know that it's affecting the global economy, with the IMF saying that economic growth will be down by about 0.1 of a percentage point this year, in 2020. Here in Australia we've seen an impact as well—on agriculture, on tourism, on international students and in disruption to end-to-end supply chains across the economy. But our economy is resilient. The economic discipline that we have undertaken over the last six-and-a-bit years has put Australia in a strong place to weather these economic shocks. Unemployment today is lower than when we came to government. We've delivered the first balanced budget in 11 years and the biggest tax cuts in more than 20 years, and that is putting Australia in as strong a position as any other country to weather these economic shocks. But I'm asked: are there any alternative approaches? There's a very innovative approach from the member for Rankin, who likes to tax a lot. His very innovative approach, which he gave when he was burnishing his leadership credentials the other day at The Australia Institute, is to deliver a 'wellbeing budget'. Gone are the days of measuring GDP. Gone are the days of measuring unemployment. Gone are the days of lower taxes and balanced budgets. What are you going to get from the member for Rankin's wellbeing budget? Double the hugs and triple the taxes. When Labor haven't delivered a balanced budget since 1989, when the Berlin Wall was still standing, of course they're going to look for something else to measure. We know the member for Rankin, with the member for McMahon, was co-architect of the $387 billion of higher taxes. Only the coalition can be trusted to create a stronger economy and more jobs. Economy 22 14:11 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Treasurer and refers to his earlier answer. Why won't the Treasurer admit that, since he took over, economic growth has almost halved, wages growth has stalled, consumption growth has weakened, business investment and productivity have declined, underemployment has increased and government debt and household debt have reached new record highs, and that all of this happened before the fires and the coronavirus hit? 14:12 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong Where's the member for Rankin when you need a hug in this place! Where is the member for Rankin now? The member for Rankin mentioned unemployment. These are the facts. When Labor was last in office, unemployment was 5.7 per cent. The SPEAKER 10000 The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. The Treasurer will resume his seat. Just before I call the Leader of the Opposition—members on my right!—I'm going to say to the Leader of the Opposition: the Treasurer is 21 seconds into his answer; I'm happy to hear a point of order, but I remind him that only one point of order can be taken on relevance. It is quite extraordinary that he's only 21 seconds in. Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 That's alright. You wrote the standing order. I thought you might've remembered it. The Treasurer has the call. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL If I was each way, I'd be watching my back right there, because the member for Rankin is gathering the kitchen utensils. The question referred to employment growth and unemployment. Unemployment was 5.7 per cent when Labor was in office; today it is 5.3. When Labor was in office, employment growth was just 0.7 per cent; today it is 1.9 per cent. Investment was referred to by the member for Rankin. Under Labor, non-mining investment was in freefall, falling 10 per cent over their six years in government; there's been growth of over 30 per cent since we came to government. Under the last year of Labor, 62,000 small businesses shut their doors, whereas— The SPEAKER 10000 The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Hindmarsh, on a point of order. Mr Butler HWK We're well into the second minute; it is on relevance. The question was clearly restricted to the time during which the member has been the Treasurer of this country, not any previous period. The SPEAKER 10000 I'd just say to the Treasurer that is a reasonable point. He is entitled to compare and contrast, which he has done. But there was another problem with the question that I'm happy to point out now, which is that, when it begins with 'why won't you admit', it does kind of leave things wide open. But the Treasurer needs to come back to the question. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL I can inform the House that in January of this year—while I've been the Treasurer, Mr Speaker—the IMF said that Australia's economic growth in 2020 and 2021 will be higher than the United States', higher than the United Kingdom's, higher than France's, higher than Germany's, higher than Japan's and higher than Canada's. The facts tell the story that the Australian economy has grown on the coalition's watch. More small businesses have been created, more people have found jobs and, importantly, we have delivered lower taxes. More than $300 million of lower taxes have passed through the parliament. Only the coalition can be trusted to deliver a stronger economy and more jobs. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 22 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:16 The SPEAKER 00APG I'd like to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the German-Pacific Parliamentary Friendship Group of the German Bundestag. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you all. We also have present the former member for Paterson, the Hon. Bob Baldwin—welcome back. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Broadband 22 14:16 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts. By November 2019, NBN had assigned satellite NBN to 2,379 premises within 25 kilometres of the Adelaide GPO. Sydney has just 139 within the same distance. Now NBN has assigned satellite NBN to 495 residents in my community of Mylor, just 20 kilometres from the CBD as the crow flies. Why has the government assigned technology that was designed for remote Australia to these nearly 3,000 properties, and will you review the decision with respect to Mylor that has so angered my community? 14:17 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I thank the member for Mayo for her question. Of course, the Morrison government is rolling out the National Broadband Network around Australia. There are 10.7 million premises able to connect and some 6.6 million premises are connected, which is a very interesting contrast to the number that were able to connect when we came to government in 2013. Barely 51,000 premises were able to connect to the NBN in 2013. Now there are 6.6 million premises connected around the country. An essential feature of the design of the NBN that we inherited from the Labor Party is the mix of technologies—fixed wireless and satellite—and that mix of technologies is deployed according to the needs of the communities that the NBN serves. Everybody gets at least 25 megabits per second, peak speed. The NBN rollout will be completed this year. The member for Mayo asks me about what is proposed in relation to the areas around the Mylor township—that is, beyond the fixed-line footprint in the township, in the areas which surround the township. It's important to be clear that specific network design decisions are ones for NBN Co. The board and management are required to meet the statement of expectations which has been set for them by the government, but they make the specific decisions, and the majority of premises around the Mylor township are expected to be connected via the Sky Muster satellite service. There will be some who will be connected via fixed wireless through towers at locations such as Echunga North, Littlehampton, Scott Creek and Cherry Gardens. An assessment will be done on a case-by-case basis to determine which premises can be served by those fixed-wireless towers, but the majority of premises are expected to be served through the Sky Muster satellite service. That footprint will be determined relatively soon. NBN Co has committed to keeping you and your office informed, Member for Mayo, and I am advised by NBN that your constituents will be able to place an order for either fixed wireless or satellite well before 30 June this year. I make the point that the NBN will be completed four years sooner and for $30 billion less of taxpayers' money, thanks to the work that we've done to correct the ramshackle mess we inherited from this hopeless, incompetent lot on the other side. National Bushfire Recovery Fund 23 14:20 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government is building resilience in regional communities, particularly those affected by fires, flood and drought? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:20 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The Great Lakes, the Hastings and Manning Valley areas, suffered dreadfully from the fires in November, in the member for Lyne's electorate. He was there, alongside them, supporting them, putting his arms around them, making sure whatever federal assistance that he could offer, that we could offer as a government, was provided. I thank him, on behalf of the parliament, for the dutiful work that he did, like so many members right across the parliament, to help our fire-stricken residents. Last Sunday, in Sydney— Mr Albanese interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I am being bipartisan, Opposition Leader. I'm being very bipartisan about this. There was a very moving memorial service held in Sydney in Homebush for the 25 victims, one of whom was a Johns River resident. Of course, hundreds of homes and outbuildings were either damaged or indeed destroyed in the Lyne electorate. As I say, a resident was sadly, tragically taken, along with 24 other residents in New South Wales alone. They were remembered. They were mourned. The nation mourns with New South Wales. We will build back better. The member for Lyne knows that. That's why we've established an initial outlay of $2 billion that's gone to the National Bushfire Recovery Agency. It's headed by former Australian Federal Police Commissioner Andrew Colvin, who's doing a very, very good job making sure that he's out in the communities. Whether it's Kangaroo Island, whether it's Yeppoon, the North Coast of New South Wales, Batlow, Tumbarumba, the east Gippsland area or Mallacoota, he's out there. He's making sure that people know that we will build back better. We're there for the here and now. We're there for the weeks and months, indeed, years ahead, to help rebuild those communities, rebuild and restore those towns and villages. Regional Australia is a very resilient area. I was at Geraldton late last week talking to the tourism operators, and talking to the cray fishers and lobster fishers about the coronavirus and the effects it's having on their industry, given the fact that with the Chinese Lunar New Year they've lost their markets, they've lost their exports to be able to reap the rewards of their harvest. Unfortunately that opportunity for them this season is lost. Dave Towers, a 40-year veteran, said he was thankful for what the government's doing as far as the $76 million tourism outlay for both domestic and international tourists but realises that, for them, the coronavirus is taking its toll. Regional Australia is heavily impacted by fires, by floods and by the coronavirus. I'm asked about alternatives. The alternative is the zero net emissions target that Labor wants to take us down. That will particularly affect regional Australia. It will hurt farmers. It will hurt the transport sector. It will hurt those people who call regional Australia home. The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister's time has concluded. Climate Change 24 14:23 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh My question is for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister critical of the New South Wales government for committing to net zero emissions by 2050? 14:24 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook We're working with the New South Wales government. Just a few weeks ago the Premier and I stood together and we agreed a plan, some $2 billion to invest in what is happening in New South Wales and in Australia to achieve important targets. We have a plan. You see, that's the thing, Mr Speaker. That's what the Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand. He doesn't have a plan. He just has some sort of vague commitment to something 30 years from now. I'm happy to work with the New South Wales government, because they have a plan and we have a plan and, together, we're implementing that plan. And I'll tell you what a big part of that plan is: it's about getting access to the gas that this country needs to ensure that we firm up renewable investments— Mr Josh Wilson interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Fremantle is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L in this country, which are at record levels, to put stability into our electricity grid. That's a plan. The problem with what the Labor Party is proposing with their commitment of a net zero target by 2050 is they have no plan. Where's the $22 billion going to come from every year for the next 30 years? Where's the more than $1 trillion investment that is supposed to be in place to achieve what they say can be achieved? Labor has no plan to deliver this. I know why they don't have a plan. It's because all this is about is trying to avoid the hard question about what Labor's commitment is to 2030. Those opposite cannot agree amongst themselves— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hindmarsh on a point of order. Mr Butler HWK The Prime Minister is a minute and a half in. It was a very tight question about whether or not the Prime Minister was critical of the New South Wales government. It is not— The SPEAKER 00APG I'm not sure what the point of order is. Mr Butler HWK It is on direct relevance. He has had a wide range, but it was a very specific question. The SPEAKER 00APG You're right. The question was asking whether he was critical, and the Prime Minister answered by saying that he was working with the New South Wales government. You can't demand a yes or no answer. I was about to say to the Prime Minister, though, whilst he can compare and contrast over the 2050 target, he wasn't asked about alternatives. Whilst he has canvassed that by way of compare and contrast, he'll need to bring himself back to the question. Mr MORRISON E3L A key part of what we're working with the New South Wales government on is how we meet our 2030 commitment to ensure we reduce emissions by 26 per cent. A key part of that is how we've been able to agree with the New South Wales government to get access to the gas, get the gas out from under our feet, to ensure that we can firm up the renewable investments that put stability into the electricity grid. That's what we're doing because we have a plan to meet our commitments. When we make a commitment, we have a plan to meet those commitments. We took that plan to the last election, and it was endorsed. The Labor Party took a commitment of a 45 per cent emissions reduction target. They had no clue how they were going to achieve it, they didn't have any clue what it would cost and they were rejected by the Australian people. This Labor leader is doing exactly the same thing. He is the same bill we couldn't afford last time, and you can't afford him now. (Time expired) Energy 24 14:24 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is delivering on its commitment to reduce our emissions while supporting greater reliability in electricity generation? Is the minister aware of any threats associated with any alternative approaches? 14:24 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the member for her question and acknowledge her very strong focus on affordable, reliable energy whilst also delivering emissions reductions. Of course, we are doing exactly that. In fact, in the latest data update, we can see that Australia's domestic emissions are down 2.3 per cent year-on-year. More than that, in the national electricity market, we've seen in the last year emissions down 3.2 per cent. Central to that has been world-leading levels of investment in solar and wind. Indeed, it was 6,300 megawatts and $9 billion worth of investment in the last year, and we expect the same level of investment—or a very similar level of investment—this calendar year. But that creates a challenge, because we have to have a solution for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. That's why we're taking practical action to make sure that there is reliable energy in the system. Central to that is an investment of almost $1.4 billion in Snowy 2.0, with 175 hours worth of storage and a huge battery in Tantangara Dam in the Snowy Mountains. We're supporting transmission upgrades through the billion-dollar Grid Reliability Fund, and we're focused on 24/7 supply coming into the market. There are two new gas generators being underwritten under our Underwriting New Generation Investments program, and gas is absolutely central to ensuring we have enough storage and backup in the system. The Prime Minister has just talked about the New South Wales deal: 70 petajoules of new gas for the domestic market coming into a market of 120. That will move the dial on making sure we have affordable and reliable gas and affordable and reliable electricity. I'm asked about alternatives. The alternative is to have a target without a plan. South Australians, in particular, have seen how this works, because we saw in South Australia a previous Labor government that had a net zero target without a plan. Mr Josh Wilson interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Fremantle will leave under standing order 94(a). The member for Fremantle then left the chamber. Mr FLETCHER L6B In 2016, South Australia saw widespread blackouts which the South Australian Chamber of Commerce said cost businesses $367 million—$5,000 per business—and now the Leader of the Opposition wants to do it all over again. They haven't learnt from their policy mistake. They are all target and no plan. Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program 25 14:31 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has now had more than one full sitting day to correct his mislead of the parliament—that only eligible projects were funded under his sports rorts scheme. Why has he failed to correct the record when the Auditor-General has given evidence to the Senate that his claim is just not true and that, in fact, 43 per cent is the correct figure? 14:31 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for his question. The comments that I made on that matter were made on the basis of the information that was available to me from the ANAO report. That ANAO report, at the time of my making that comment, made only one reference to ineligible projects, as best as I'm aware. On page 9 it said 'no applications assessed as ineligible were awarded grant funding,' and that point was reiterated by the ANAO during the committee hearing. In fact, the ANAO's Brian Boyd reiterated this when speaking to the committee on Thursday 13 February. In response to a question from Senator Canavan, 'Was there a project that received funding that was assessed as ineligible by Sport Australia?' he answered, 'No.' That's what the ANAO responded in relation to that matter. I would refer the ANAO report to the Leader of the Opposition, and he will not find in that report anything to contradict the statement that I made at that time, relying on that report. But I can tell you about another report. In a program administered by the member for Grayndler— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hindmarsh on a point of order? Mr Butler HWK On direct relevance, Mr Speaker. We're halfway through this question. The question was specifically about one report and whether or not the Prime Minister will correct the record. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the Leader of the House seeking the call? The Leader of the House. Mr Porter 208884 The question couldn't have been answered more explicitly and directly. There is always an ability to compare and contrast when we're talking about reports of this type. The SPEAKER 00APG The point I make is that I have allowed an ability for a brief compare and contrast. The member for Hindmarsh knows that. That's certainly been the practice of previous speakers as well. If you examined the Hansard all the way back, you'd see that, but I also say to the Prime Minister: it's brief; it's not an opportunity to then move on to previous audit reports for the rest of the answer. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L I'm happy to be brief in quoting from page 38 of ANAO Audit Report No. 3 of 2010-11, relating to the program administered by the member for Grayndler. It says: ... in one instance, Ministers— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, Mr Speaker. It goes to the Prime Minister's misleading of the parliament. The SPEAKER 00APG What's the point of order? Mr Albanese R36 My point of order is: paragraphs 4.32 and 4.33 of the report— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I just say to the Leader of the Opposition that he has other forms of the House to pursue what he's referring to. Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lyons can leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Lyons then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG It might be better for the member for Lyons to leave the tactics to others when I'm trying to address the House. I'm making the point that the Leader of the Opposition has other forms of the House to pursue that, which he could do almost immediately or later on. One of those forms of the House isn't the ability to raise a point of order and debate the matter. He's asked the question. I've made my ruling on the brief comparison. I think the Prime Minister has almost finished. Mr MORRISON E3L In one instance it says: … Ministers made an explicit decision to approve an application that was known to be otherwise ineligible under the Guidelines That's what the member for Grayndler did. That's what he did. The hypocrisy of him to come into this place, when his hands are blackened by his own failures in this area, is disgraceful. Agriculture Industry 26 14:36 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Given the significant challenges facing our agriculture sector as a result of the drought and recent bushfires, how is the Morrison-McCormack government backing our agriculture industry during— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Mallee will resume her seat. I just say to the members for McEwen and Bruce—of course—and others who are up there, they might be having a few jokes amongst themselves, but I can't hear the question. I would like to hear it again. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I tell you what, if you keep impeding me hearing the question, I can solve it quickly. I just want to hear the question, if that's okay by the Second Deputy Speaker. Dr WEBSTER 281688 Given the significant challenges facing our agriculture sector as a result of the drought and recent bushfires, how is the Morrison-McCormack government backing our agricultural industry during these difficult times? 14:37 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the member for Mallee for her question. She has seen firsthand the devastation of this drought in her electorate in western Victoria, which is still at risk of bushfires. We have to understand that the bushfire season is still alive in Victoria and we need to make sure that we prepare for those fires. But we also need to be agile enough to help with the recovery in the here and now. That's why the federal government, because of our economic stewardship, have been able to commit more than $10 million to both fire and drought recovery. In some places, where the drought and fire intersects, we're doing both, with $8 billion for the drought under our national drought strategy, under our three pillars. The first pillar, in the here and now, is supporting the farmers and putting money in their pockets. Under the second pillar, we are supporting the communities that support the farmers, because the drought extends past the farm gate and into the communities that support them. Under the third pillar, for the first time, we are looking to the future. We're looking to build the dams and infrastructure. We're saying to the states who have the responsibility to dig the holes: 'Here's the money. Here's $3.2 billion. Come and get it.' But we've also said, 'Here's the Future Drought Fund.' For the first time there is a fund that invests in building the resilience of agriculture in future droughts, a $5 billion fund giving a $100 million dividend each year. With the fires, we've committed over $150 million in direct support immediately to help those who have been impacted by the fires and a $2 billion initial investment in rebuilding the lives and the communities that have been impacted by these fires. You have to understand that these are now fragile regional economies, ones that need sound policy settings around them and need government not to put shockwaves through them with reckless policies not conceived and not costed. That's what the alternative government said last weekend when they said they committed to a zero emissions target by 2050; they sent shockwaves. You have to ask, why would they do that with no costings and without understanding what impact that would have? But their 2030 target, only 10 years down the track—the member for Hindmarsh has said, 'We're going to have to take advice about what proper responsible'— The SPEAKER 00APG I ask the minister to resume his seat. Mr Littleproud interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No, your microphone's off. I refer the minister to what I've said about the ability to briefly compare and contrast. I'm glad I listened to the question. Mr Morrison interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No. I can tell the Prime Minister and others that what was actually asked did not include alternatives. I listened very closely to the question. I have a transcript of it here. Let me be blunt: I'm not sure it was planned, but I know what was asked. The minister was not asked for alternatives, so he needs to confine himself to the question, which was: given the significant changes facing the agriculture sector as a result of drought and bushfires, how is the government backing industry during difficult times? It ended with the words 'difficult times'. Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Being someone from regional Australia, I do fear the alternatives, but I will stick to our plan. Because of the economic stewardship that we have put in place, understanding how these regional economies work, knowing how intricate they are—every part is intertwined in making sure that every part of that economy is stimulated. That takes responsible stewardship. That takes understanding. That's what this government has because of the strong economic foundations that we put around our economy. Community Sport Infrastructure Program 27 14:40 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answer, where he again misled the parliament when he said there was nothing in the Audit Office report that contradicted his previous statement to the parliament. I refer him to sections 4.32 and 4.33 of the report, which say: 4.33 In addition to program ineligibility, this situation suggests that — particularly in respect of the eight completed projects — those selected for funding under the program may not have required Australian Government funding in order to deliver their projects. And it speaks about the— (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG I don't think there was a question there within the 30 seconds, so we will move to the member for Bowman. Coronavirus 27 14:41 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on what actions the Morrison government is taking to keep Australians safe and to protect Australians from the outbreak of coronavirus? 14:42 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Bowman, who throughout his career has been a great advocate and practitioner of public health. Shortly before coming to question time, I was informed by the national incident centre that for the first time— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Health has the call. Mr HUNT 00AMV Shortly before question time, I was informed by the national incident centre that for the first time the number of diagnosed cases of coronavirus has exceeded 80,000. That number is sadly backed up by almost 2,700 people who have now lost their lives to coronavirus. The situation globally has seen significant jumps in Japan, South Korea, Iran and parts of northern Italy. All of these things come together to create a very real and significant global challenge, declared by the World Health Organization as a global emergency. Against that background, as the Prime Minister has said, while we are not immune as a country we are as well prepared as anybody could possibly be. I say that because on 21 January the extraordinary Chief Medical Officer, Professor Brendan Murphy, made the decision to declare coronavirus, very early on, a disease of pandemic potential. That triggered a series of actions in Australia: the standing up of the national incident centre, the standing up of the National Medical Stockpile, the readiness and activation of the national trauma centre and the daily meetings of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee—three meetings now of all state, territory and Commonwealth health ministers through teleconference, including on the weekend, to discuss pandemic readiness. I have to commend all of the states and territories for their work, their readiness, their hospitals, their fever clinics—everything which has been prepared if the worst were to pass. At the same time, our hospitals have done an extra ordinary job. There are 15 cases which have been identified in the general population in Australia. I can now inform the House, as the Prime Minister did shortly before question time, that all 15 of those cases have now been cleared and discharged from hospital. That is a very positive step and a positive reflection on the whole of the Australian health and medical services system. So there are great challenges afoot in this world, but I say to the Australian people that we are prepared, we are ready and we will get through this. We will get through this because as a country we are united, as a system we are prepared and as a parliament we are ready. Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program 28 14:45 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his misleading of parliament in a previous answer. Isn't it a fact that the evidence given by the Australian National Audit Office to the Senate committee referred to sections 4.32 and 4.33 of the Audit Office report, which indicate that 272 ineligible projects were funded? 14:45 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I note the member has asked me a question in relation to my earlier answer. In my earlier answer I made reference to the audit report findings in relation to the program administered by the member for Grayndler. So let me speak a little to those matters, as he's introduced that into his question. Of that project, it said in the report: … eligibility and compliance checking process was developed by the department but was abandoned part‐way through its implementation and was not replaced with an alternative … … … … … projects located in electorates held by the— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, Mr Speaker. This is about the misleading of the parliament. The question was clearly about— The SPEAKER 00APG Yes, the point of order is on? Mr Albanese R36 relevance—the misleading of the parliament with regard to the ANAO report, sections 4.32 and 4.33. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition can resume his seat. I get his gist. Mr Albanese R36 It wasn't about anything else. Mr Buchholz interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wright is not helping. This is why I don't like people interjecting, as you saw with the earlier question from the member for Mallee, because it's my job to listen very closely. The Leader of the Opposition was making statements about misleading—that's a very abject term, and if he wanted to pursue that he'd need to pursue that by way of a motion of deliberately misleading, which he well knows. Even asking a question about a minister or a prime minister misleading does open things up. That is quite a claim, and I think it opens things up for a minister or a prime minister to be able to defend themselves—that's the first point—and there's lots of precedent with that. The other thing I listened to very closely, because I have allowed it, is reference to a previous answer. As I've made clear in previous rulings, that does open the door, but it doesn't open it to an extent—as the member for Isaacs discovered—that you can just, by merely stating that, go to any matter you wish to. But I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister, who said that he would refer to that, on that basis, a little. I've been listening to him, and the Prime Minister's able to do that briefly by way of comparison, but not for the entire answer. Mr MORRISON E3L Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was referring specifically to the report I cited in my earlier answer. In that report it says: … in one instance, Ministers explicitly decided to waive the project eligibility criteria for an application they wished to fund. … … … The awarding of funding to projects also disproportionately favoured ALP held seats … It went on to say: the Minister's Office did not make any records outlining the extent to which each application had been assessed … or how the application was ranked in respect to other, competing applications. What I am aware of is that the Leader of the Opposition threw the rule book away when he ran programs for infrastructure grants— Mr Dreyfus HWG You've misled the parliament. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs! Mr MORRISON E3L when he was the minister. How dare he come here and throw mud when he's covered in it himself. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs is warned. The reason I said 'briefly', before I call the next question, is the reference to previous answers, as I said—and I probably didn't express it clearly enough—enables ministers and prime ministers to be questioned on matters in previous answers. So the nature of the question did curtail it a little more than is normally the case. National Security 29 14:49 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is keeping Australians safe by delivering on its commitment to protect Australians from terrorism and unprecedented levels of foreign espionage? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:50 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I want to say thank you very much to the member for Ryan for his support of our national security agencies. Frankly, the government was very proud of the speech Mike Burgess made last night. I am very proud of the work ASIO does on a daily basis to keep Australians safe. I'm very proud of the work the Australian Federal Police and the other agencies of the Home Affairs portfolio do, day and night, to make sure they can defeat the scourge of terrorism and foreign interference as it is conducted in our country. As the Director-General of Security pointed out last night, we are facing an unprecedented level of threat in terms of terrorist cells and people who would conduct themselves in the dark art of foreign interference. We know young people now are influenced online, that young minds are indoctrinated in a matter of days or weeks, and that we have had a record number of people who have gone to fight in the Middle East. Those people have come back to Australia, and we have seen a high level of activity here since that time. We want to make sure ASIO are well resourced, and we've provided them with record resourcing. We want to make sure that they have the requisite ability, through legislation, to deal with those people who would seek to conduct a terrorist attack on our shores and also those foreign state actors who would seek to interfere with democratic processes on our university campuses or in businesses et cetera. It was a very stark reminder—and I think all Australians now have heard the message—that Australia is not immune from a terrorist attack. Like any Western democracy, whether it's the United Kingdom, the United States, France or anywhere in the world where we've seen these people act out, there is the capacity for these people. Whether they're on the right wing, the left wing or anywhere in between, it doesn't matter. The fact is that we will deal with that threat and we will make sure that— An opposition member interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI It's funny that the Labor Party should interject, because they cut money from ASIO. On 19 occasions when we've introduced legislation to support ASIO and the Federal Police, they have opposed it or have sought to water it down; and when they were in government they cut money from ASIO. Don't take a lecture from the Labor Party. They want the public to believe that there is no difference between the Labor Party and the coalition when it comes to border protection and national security. They are weak on both. We know that the previous Leader of the Opposition was particularly weak when it came to border protection, but this guy, with his glass jaw, takes the cake. Watch him in question time. He has a glass jaw and he demonstrates it every day. Defence Procurement 29 14:53 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Can the minister explain why she counts nights in the Novotel Barossa Valley Resort as Australian industry content for the Future Submarines? 14:53 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I thank the member for his question. Our $50 billion investment in the Future Submarine program has economy-wide benefits that extend beyond the defence industry—that goes to the answer to the question from the member opposite—and this includes businesses and organisations that were mentioned by the member opposite. Some of those businesses will contribute to the capability of this program, that is for sure—if you looked at the list. But we will also receive investment in a whole raft of different organisations. This investment across the Australian economy will support Aussie jobs in the decade ahead. That is for sure. This is a generational job-creating program. In my eyes, any investment in Australian companies is a good investment. That's what a long-term investment will deliver us: guaranteed Aussie jobs and opportunities for small businesses. Mr Speaker, you might have heard: last night, the Minister for Defence and also the Naval Group announced a commitment of at least 60 per cent AIC in the Future Submarine program. That is what we should be celebrating today. That is what we should be doing. We will achieve beyond that 60 per cent AIC. As the Vice President of Naval Group said last night— Dr Chalmers interjecting— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin is warned! The member for Sydney is warned! Ms PRICE 249308 this government is a demanding customer, and I wear that as a badge of honour. We are a demanding customer because, when we are a demanding customer, we are backing small defence industry and medium defence industry in this country. We will maximise the Australian industry involvement, because that is the contractual objective. We are backing Australian businesses every day and every night. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney has been warned. Defence Industry 30 14:55 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister outline for the House how the Morrison government is keeping Australians safe by delivering on its commitments to back Australian defence industry? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies? 14:56 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I do thank the member for Stirling for his question. How we ever follow that, I'm not quite sure, but I really would like to acknowledge his performance within the Australian Defence Force and also his strong passion for the defence industry. Because of a strong economy and the Morrison government's strong budget management, we are keeping Australians safe by delivering on our commitment to the defence industry and also delivering for our defence forces. Last week, the Prime Minister and I had the great pleasure of visiting RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory, where we announced that our government will invest some $1.1 billion in the base, which is on top of the $495 million that we've already invested in the new air combat capability infrastructure at the base. As part of that investment, $242 million in work flowed into the Northern Territory community, with 38 local companies sharing in some 64 per cent of the work. This is good news for the Territory. That's Territorian businesses being able to test their capability and Territorian businesses being able to grow their capability, and over 300 Aussie jobs will be created in the next phase of the project. The Prime Minister and I had the great pleasure of seeing firsthand the quality of work being undertaken at the base by local Katherine contractors like Mr Jeff Usher from Custom Cabinets, who supplied the benchtops, the cabinets and custom joinery during the upgrade. I'd also like to acknowledge and commend Savanna Solutions, who provided services including developing opportunities for Indigenous businesses to be a part of this program. I think it's worth mentioning that some $27 million was invested in local Indigenous businesses for this $495 million investment. For the next $1.1 billion phase, the managing contractor expects that the local content will actually exceed 70 per cent. So this is great news for Territorian businesses and great news for Territorian construction industry and defence industry, but, more importantly, great news for developing new jobs in the Northern Territory. When you compare that to the record of those opposite, I think it's pretty clear that we on this side are backing defence industry. In Labor's six years of office, defence spending was cut by $18 billion, bringing the defence budget to its lowest level since World War II. Our government has spent the last six years reversing that neglect to our Australian defence industry. We are investing a record $200 billion in our defence capability, which will create more jobs and more opportunities for our Australian defence industries. Defence Industry 31 14:59 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio My question is again to the Minister for Defence Industry. Can the minister explain why she counts the work of a French language school, Adelaide's Alliance Francaise, as 'Australian industry content' for the future submarines? 14:59 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I thank the member for his question. As I said in a previous answer, our $50 billion investment in the Future Submarine program has wide economic benefits. This includes a variety of businesses and organisations that were mentioned by the member opposite. We know some of those businesses will contribute to the capability of this program, but all will receive investment under this program. What we do know is that this supports a raft of small- and medium-sized businesses, supporting jobs. What we're focused on on this side of the House is we're backing the growth of Australian jobs. Mr Perrett interjecting— Ms PRICE 249308 We're going to deliver on that $200 billion that we've committed to determine our defence capability. Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member fore Moreton will leave the House. The member for Moreton then left the chamber. Ms PRICE 249308 That includes developing and creating 57 new vessels built in Australia by Australians using Australian steel. We are committed to delivering the submarine program on time, on budget and on spec. National Security 31 15:00 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney outline to the House how the Morrison government is delivering on its commitment to keep Australians safe, including through critical national security legislation, and is he aware of any alternative approaches? 15:01 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the member for his question and his abiding interest in this important part of the government's agenda. Since coming to government in 2013, this government has passed 19 separate tranches of national security legislation. They've covered a very broad range of issues, and they're meant to deal with a very broad range of threats, from removing abhorrent violent terrorist material to disrupting espionage and foreign interference. In this answer, I'd like to concentrate and focus on one very important area, which are the counterencryption laws that we introduced. Those laws, as introduced and passed by this government, give federal and state agencies the ability to use powers for counterencryption against a broad range of offences—not just terrorism but also drug trafficking, murder, slavery and espionage. The very, very important speech that was given by the new director-general of ASIO last night showed why those laws are important, why it's important they don't get watered down and why it's important that they come through this parliament in a reasonable time and in a timely way. The director-general for ASIO, Mike Burgess, last night said, 'Our counterencryption laws were used within 10 days of them coming into effect'—in his words—'by ASIO to prevent a real risk of injury to Australians.' That is what our government's legislative agenda achieves on the ground. This is a very timely point to recall what the shadow Attorney-General's position on precisely these counterencryption laws were. On 3 December 2019 the shadow Attorney-General's position was very clear. He was being interviewed by Fran Kelly, who asked: … the amended version that Labor is putting forward only applies to terrorists and perhaps paedophiles and would only empower the national security agencies to intercept encrypted messages, not the state police forces. Is that correct? The response was, 'That's our proposal.' So the shadow Attorney-General's position, on 3 December 2019, was that the counterencryption bill should not extend its counterencryption provisions beyond terrorism—that is to say that they should not apply to murder, to espionage and to matters of this type. And their position at that point in time was also that the bill should not extend to state police forces. That was their position on 3 December. They were dragged kicking and screaming to help pass the bill on 8 December, and by 18 December the laws were used to protect Australians. Their position was to delay, obstruct and oppose the bill in the form that it was finally passed by this parliament. The Victorian assistant commissioner said that their position would significantly impact the fight against many types of crimes. It was interesting that they mentioned right-wing terrorism, because this goes straight to the heart of that issue. (Time expired) Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination 32 15:04 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson My question is to the Prime Minister. The community of Williamtown and surrounds in my electorate has been deeply affected by PFAS contamination. When will the Prime Minister release the government's response to the report into PFAS contamination, which was tabled in this parliament in December 2018? 15:04 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question on this very important matter. As you would be aware, the issues surrounding PFAS have been going back over many, many government administrations. They go back over this government's administration, over the previous government's administration and many more beyond that. This government decided to actually take action on this issue. As the member would be aware, we are currently engaged in mediation with the parties. Coronavirus 32 15:05 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister please update the House on how Australian scientists and researchers are contributing to the global effort to develop a vaccine for the coronavirus? How is the Morrison government backing these efforts? 15:05 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank the member for her question. I acknowledge the very significant contribution she has made to medical and scientific research and congratulate her for her efforts. The safety and security of all Australians is the Morrison government's No. 1 priority, and we understand that there is a very real concern in our community about the outbreak of coronavirus. Parents are talking with their children, there are discussions happening around the kitchen table and we are all very, very concerned about the ways to best deal with protecting those who are most vulnerable in our community from this very serious illness. This very serious illness has some significant implications for individuals, for our health services, for our border services and, of course, for trade and industry. And that's why it's so very important that we work as hard and fast as we can to develop a vaccine to prevent the spread of this very serious illness. People around the globe turned to Australian researchers with this because we are clearly world leading. Australia's premier research organisation, the CSIRO, is working to develop this vaccine as soon as it possibly can. We've done this before. The CSIRO developed the world's first effective flu treatment and a vaccine for the Hendra virus. We were at the forefront of the study into SARS. Many members would be aware that, last week, the University of Queensland announced that their researchers have developed a promising potential vaccine for coronavirus. This vaccine is now at the CSIRO's state-of-the-art production facility in Melbourne, and our researchers are currently testing it with a view to upscaling it to production if it's suitable. At the CSIRO's high-tech animal research laboratory in Geelong, researchers continue to grow the virus and work to better understand it. That facility is the most sophisticated high-containment laboratory in the world, which means we can safely research the most lethal of diseases. Because our government has taken a responsible and balanced approach to managing our budget, we are able to deliver a bigger investment in our science and research organisations. All Australians can be assured that their safety and security are the No. 1 priority of the coalition government. Defence Industry 32 15:08 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Is the minister's so-called announcement of 60 per cent Australian industry content on the Future Submarine contained in any contract between the Australian government and Naval Group? 15:09 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I recall standing here over a week ago clearly outlining that, in the contract, we are in the design phase and, at the end of the design phase, we would be in a position to agree what the AIC contribution was going to be. The good news—and this is a great opportunity to talk about it—is that the Minister for Defence has now met with her French counterpart and they have agreed that the AIC in the submarine contract will be no less than 60 per cent. That is good news. But our job on this side of the House is to make sure that we maximise, because that is the contractual objective in the contract. We will work hard to ensure that it's beyond 60 per cent. I repeat: once the design phase is finished, we will then progress to that. But this is incredibly good news, and I'm disappointed that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not see it for what it is. Ovarian Cancer 33 15:10 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is for the Minister for the Environment representing the Minister for Women. Would the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is supporting women diagnosed with ovarian cancer? 15:10 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I thank the member for Boothby for her question. Tomorrow is Teal Ribbon Day and this month is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. They acknowledge the thousands of women, their families and their friends impacted by ovarian cancer this year. I acknowledge the members of parliament who attended Ovarian Cancer Australia's Teal Ribbon Day breakfast this morning. Ovarian cancer is estimated to be the 10th most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australian women, with 1,532 cases projected this year, and it's the sixth most common cause of death from cancer in Australian women, with 1,068 deaths estimated this year. The five-year relative survival rate for ovarian cancer is 45.7 per cent. This compares with 68.9 per cent for all cancers combined, and with 90.8 per cent and 95.2 per cent for breast and prostate cancer respectively. We are committed to improving outcomes for women affected by ovarian cancer, and I want to acknowledge the commitment of the Minister for Health and, in particular, former Minister for Women Kelly O'Dwyer, who continues to serve as an ambassador for the Ovarian Cancer Research Foundation, fighting, as she did in this place, for better health outcomes for women. We've come a long way in the last 20 years, notwithstanding we have a lot further to go. One of our first ovarian cancer advocates was Sheila Lee. After receiving her shocking diagnosis in February 1999, she was appalled by the lack of awareness of the disease, the lack of its profile compared with other cancers and the lack of research. Sheila and her husband, Simon, started speaking out, raising awareness—determined to make ovarian cancer silent no more. She spoke of symptom awareness holding the key to hundreds of lives and research holding the key to thousands. In the just 20 months before we lost her after that tragic diagnosis, Sheila and her team set the Ovarian Cancer Australia organisation on the trajectory where we see it today. We have available now $20 million in funding for ovarian cancer research through the Medical Research Future Fund, and a further $15 million for clinical trial funding in reproductive cancers. Since 2013, more than $40 million has been provided for ovarian cancer research through the National Health and Medical Research Council. We're continuing subsidising proven treatments on the PBS, adding two new MBS items for genetic testing for hereditary mutations predisposing to breast or ovarian cancer. And in 2019, the government committed funding for the ovarian cancer case management pilot. We're particularly focussing on reaching out to rural Australian women as we continue as a nation to battle this horrific disease. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon on indulgence. 15:13 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I associate the opposition with the comments of the minister. This morning the Prime Minister and members from across the aisle gathered to mark the fact that four Australian women will today be diagnosed with ovarian cancer—and four tomorrow and four the day after—and that the survival is too low at 46 per cent. And that was particularly stark this morning when we were reminded that the two speakers at last year's breakfast, Jill Emberson and Kristen Larsen, were no longer here with us to speak at this year's breakfast. This morning we met with not only survivors of ovarian cancer but also women fighting it as we speak, who are sharing their courage with this parliament so as to remind us that we have much, much more to do. It's the eighth most common cancer, but a very big killer of women. This parliament and this country have a long way to go. We join with the government in the efforts undertaken. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. I would also record our remembrance of Jill Emberson and Kristen Larsen. As the shadow minister for health has just said, they were with us a year ago. They died not that long before Christmas. Let's hope that next year we see all of those who we saw this morning. DOCUMENTS 33 DOCUMENTS Presentation 33 15:14 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. Commonwealth Ombudsman 34 Presentation 34 15:15 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Commonwealth Ombudsman's quarterly reports under section 712(F)6 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for the periods 1 January to 31 March 2019, 1 April to 30 June 2019, 1 July to 30 September 2019, and 1 October to 31 December 2019. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 34 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Democracy 34 15:15 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Clark proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's disregard for the rule of law, sovereignty and a healthy democracy. I call upon all those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:15 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark The topic for today's matter of public importance is the government's disregard for the rule of law, sovereignty and a healthy democracy. I suggest there's no better case study to explore this important subject than Julian Assange. Seeing as this will be discussed during this MPI in some detail, to assist the House, I'll briefly summarise the matter. Let us not forget that Julian Assange is not a citizen of the United States; he is a citizen of Australia. He founded WikiLeaks and he sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for some seven years in an attempt to avoid extradition to the United States via Sweden. He's now jailed in Belmarsh prison in London, where he's been for almost one year, most of that time as punishment for breaching bail when he sought political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. He remains in Her Majesty's Prison Belmarsh while a court hearing is underway looking at a request from the United States for him to be extradited to the US, where he faces 17 espionage charges and one hacking charge. If Julian Assange is convicted of those 18 federal charges, he's at risk of being jailed in a US federal prison for 175 years—a life imprisonment which may well be called a death sentence when you consider the man's poor health. There are a range of views about Julian Assange, but please let us remember what the substantive matter is. The substantive matter is that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, acting as a journalist and a publishing house, released information in the public interest, including hard evidence of US war crimes. Let's not forget that the US extradition is narrow and is only to do with WikiLeaks' revelations during 2010 and 2011 regarding US misconduct in Iraq, in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay and also regarding the so-called embassy cables. Who can possibly forget the shocking footage—that grainy black-and-white footage—of a US attack helicopter gunning down Iraqi civilians in the street, including two Reuters journalists? Unbelievable footage! This isn't about all of the other allegations, insinuations, stories and furphies that swirl around WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. This is fundamentally about the freedom of the press and the freedom of a journalist to publish information in the public interest. That's what this is about. That's only what this is about. Let's put aside this nonsense debate about whether Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are a journalist and a publishing house. Of course they are. I was in London just last week at the Frontline Club and there, in the display cabinet, is Julian Assange's Walkley Award. You can add to that all of the other international awards he has received for his journalism. There is also the fact that, at the moment, in the international media, there is a letter from 1,300 international journalists who all agree that Julian Assange is a journalist and that he has a right, as a journalist, to report on the misconduct of any country. Imagine the precedent that will be set if US extraterritoriality is deemed to be global. Imagine the precedent that will set. Does that mean that any time an Australian journalist offends any other country that that country can successfully extradite that Australian journalist to that country? If the precedent is set about Julian Assange, does that mean that the next time an Australian journalist offends China and China demands that journalist to be sent to Beijing for special treatment, the Australian government will roll over? Does it mean that if an Australian journalist says something that offends Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia wants to get their hands on that journalist that the Australian government will roll over and agree to that extradition? Because that's what this is all about. That's the precedent that will be set. It is shameful that the Australian government is standing by and letting these events unfold. It is a shocking demonstration of our subservience to Washington and our indifference to London. It's not good enough. It's beyond time that the Australian government recognised a terrible injustice to an Australian rotting in a jail in London. It's way beyond time that the Australian government fought for its citizens and for the Prime Minister to pick up a phone to Boris Johnson, pick up the phone to Donald Trump and to say: 'Back off. Drop the extradition. Let that Australian journalist come back to Australia.' 15:21 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie This is a very strange MPI from the member for Clark. He's got up here today and he's spoken about Julian Assange and criticised the US military. As a left-wing independent MP in Tasmania, he's talking about the US military. None of that was in the topic for today's MPI. The topic was quite bizarre, quite frankly. If he wanted to talk about Julian Assange maybe he should have put that in the notes for what he wanted to talk about. There would have been plenty who wanted to speak on that. But the topic is really quite bizarre. The member for Clark talks about the disregard for the rule of law and the sovereignty of our nation, saying the government doesn't support the sovereignty of our nation and that we don't support a healthy democracy. There's nothing here about Julian Assange. Basically he went for five minutes, spoke about that and sat down, and that was the whole argument. We have a very strong democracy here in Australia and a strong constitutional monarchy. If you really want to look at what people think about Australia, look at what happens when you go to a citizenship ceremony? If you go to a citizenship ceremony and you talk to new Australian citizens who are busting at the seams to come to Australia, and you look at Australia through the eyes of a new citizen, they specifically love our country. They really want to be here. They're lining up to come in. You can see the tears in their eyes. On the weekend, I was out in North Lakes with some constituents of mine, Charlene and Brent Alley. I had lunch at their place at North Lakes. They originally moved here from South Africa. They were welcoming a new family, Yoshi and his family, which had just come to Australia and have permanent visas here. I spent time with those 20 people. They were just so grateful to be here in Australia—really grateful. I was talking to the member for Brisbane before as well. We were sitting here, and he was saying that he was out at the markets on the weekend and he had a constituent come up and talk to him about everything that was wrong with Australia, or everything that needed fixing, and described him as a miserable leftie. But, what he actually said to her was: 'What is it that you like about Australia? What is it that you love about Australia?' They couldn't answer—not one thing. They were baffled by the question: what is it you love about Australia? I love lots about our country, as a man that comes from Brisbane. I love our democracy. Our democracy is strong. I love our rule of law and that in Australia we've much safer, I believe, than in many other countries, generally speaking. People generally respect the law, and it's enforced well through state governments and through the police in different states. We have the freedom to worship in Australia, to be able to believe in our faith. Whether we have a faith or we don't, we have the freedom to worship and gather and express our views. I love the fact that in Australia we celebrate Christmas. Christmas is a special time of the year. Growing up in Bracken Ridge, Christmas was very important. An honourable member interjecting— Mr HOWARTH 247742 Well, not all countries do. I recently spent time overseas, and not all countries do celebrate Christmas—not in the way that we do here in Australia, and I love that. I love our environment. We have a beautiful, wonderful environment here in Australia. I love our freshwater ecosystems, native animals, coral reefs and diverse continent. I love the fact that you can go to the member for Clark's electorate down in Tasmania and get a completely different environment from up in the Cape York Peninsula or the Daintree, where I've travelled. Having travelled around Australia with my young family before coming into parliament in 2011, I really do appreciate that. I appreciate our egalitarian society in Australia, whether you're a member of parliament, like the Prime Minister, or whether you're unemployed, or perhaps even living on the street, as a homeless person. As the Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services, I've been meeting a lot of homeless people lately. Last Wednesday night I went out onto the streets of Brisbane with Micah to feed the homeless and chat to them. There were some 100 people lining up. We do have an egalitarian society in Australia, but, if you look at the member for Clark's MPI today, he thinks everything is wrong with our country; there's nothing positive here at all. Mr Wilkie C2T It's the government! Mr HOWARTH 247742 I would expect that from a Greens member—through you, Mr Chair. I would expect that from the member for Melbourne, because when you listen to the Greens all they talk about is what's wrong with this country. They have nothing positive to say. The Independent member for Clark is a nice fella personally. I've been to his electorate and I do like the man as a person, but he's very close to the Greens in his views. I believe that is everything that is wrong with this MPI today. We, of course, are very sovereign. Having come into this parliament in 2013, one of the first things we did was speak about Operation Sovereign Borders and the need to make sure that our borders were strong in relation to illegal arrivals by boat—people paying people smugglers to come to this country. We implemented a set of rules or procedures that Operation Sovereign Borders enacted. It looked at turning back boats where it was safe to do so, it looked at offshore processing and it looked at temporary protection visas. That policy saved many lives. It stopped deaths at sea, it closed 19 detention centres and it removed all children from detention. The member for Clark voted against it and was completely against it. Everything we try to do in this parliament in relation to Australia's sovereignty, the member for Clark is against. He puts out an MPI—for the Greens member over there—about the government's disregard for sovereignty and a healthy democracy. Yet he comes in here, as a member for Tasmania, and wants to talk about the US military. We've also cancelled visas. We've cancelled many visas of non-Australian citizens, permanent residents of Australia, who are sentenced to jail terms of 12 months or more—people who have been convicted of serious offences: sexual assaults against children, armed robbery and so forth. We have sent many, many people home. We've also wanted to ensure and put into legislation that that not be dependent on a 12-month jail sentence. Who voted against it? The members opposite who stood with the member for Clark on this MPI. They joined him when they stood in approval of this MPI. An honourable member interjecting— Mr HOWARTH 247742 But you all stood. The member for Clark also voted against that. The member for Clark wants to ensure that permanent residents that commit crimes aren't sent packing. Guess what? As the member for Petrie I say that the Australian government is here to serve the Australian people. The hypocrisy of the member for Clark is astounding. The basis of upstanding political behaviour in Australia is reliant on at least three ideals: following the Constitution with repeated self-regulation, ensuring that decisions are independent of external forces and ensuring that the people of Australia are fairly represented. Australians want a government that follows these ideals, and it baffles me that opposition MPs broach such a topic without seeing the seeping irony. It seems peculiar that I am here to defend the Australian government and our healthy democratic ideals when, in May last year, we won another democratic election. Australians didn't want more antics or broken promises; they wanted a government that delivered consistently and represented the people's interests. To those members that are about to speak: to argue that the Morrison government does not represent a healthy democracy is to simultaneously argue that the Australian people didn't actually know what they wanted or what they were doing in May last year. The opposition MPs' argument ends right where it begins. (Time expired) 15:31 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne There are a lot of great things about this country, but this government—and that last speech—is not one of them. Protecting the rule of law and individual freedoms is vital, but this government's silence in the case of Julian Assange is cowardly and disgraceful. The government's line is simply 'Julian Assange is being afforded the usual consular assistance', but that is simply farcical, given the gravity of the situation. Julian Assange is facing extradition from the UK to the US to face charges under the Espionage Act for revealing war crimes and corruption by the US military. This is not an everyday consular matter. The case has ramifications for individual freedoms, press freedom, the rule of law, the sovereignty of nations and democracy itself, for reasons that were very eloquently outlined by the member for Clark. But, overnight, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, published an indictment of the case against Julian Assange, and he had this to say—and I want to read it at some length, because it is crucial: The case of Julian Assange is nothing else than a modern show trial featuring politically motivated prosecutors, denial of justice, manipulated evidence, biased judges, unlawful surveillance, denial of defence rights, and abusive prison conditions. What sounds like a textbook example of dictatorial arbitrariness is in fact an actual precedent happening in the middle of Europe, the birthplace of human rights. … … … … this case reveals systemic dysfunctions that make our Western constitutional states look like "fair-weather democracies", where the protection of the law can be relied upon only as long as the machinations of the powerful are not fundamentally questioned … The Assange case must finally be recognised for what it is: a totalitarian attack on the rule of law and press freedom, without which a healthy democracy is not possible. If we do not soon want to wake up in a worldwide dictatorship, we had better rub the sleep from our eyes! Those are not my words. They are those of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture. As if the need for the government to take a stand wasn't already compelling, a few days ago it was revealed that meetings between Julian Assange and his lawyers in the Ecuadorian embassy had been secretly filmed by a Spanish surveillance company, most likely at the behest of the US. This is a clear breach of legal professional privilege and it casts serious doubt on the prospects of Julian Assange receiving a fair trial. And what has the government's response been to this revelation? Have they sought assurances from the UK or US that Julian Assange will be afforded due process? There has been absolutely nothing. This government that comes in here and beats its chest about individual freedoms and about protecting people in this country is doing absolutely nothing, despite the revelations, day after day after day of the fundamental rights of an Australian citizen being trashed—being trashed in a way that has fundamental consequences for whether reporters in this country will be able to report fairly and whether people in this country can be guaranteed that the government will back them if they ever find themselves falling foul of a government elsewhere. There is nothing exceptional, though, about an Australian government making public its concerns about the legal process a citizen is facing in a foreign country. This argument that it can't speak up is just wrong. Whether it was Hakeem Al-Araibi facing extradition or Peter Greste in an Egyptian jail or David Hicks in Guantanamo Bay, Australian governments have challenged the dubious legal process of a foreign country on behalf of one of its own in the past. It's what governments can do, and it's what this government should be doing for Julian Assange. Australia shares a monarch with the UK, and, supposedly, we have a special relationship with the US. Now is the time to make those relationships count. If this government cannot make public its concerns with the UK or the US when the rights of one of its citizens are being so egregiously violated, then what does it stand for? And what do those rights stand for? The crucial thing about this is that this case is not about whether or not you like Julian Assange. It's not about whether you agree that he was supporting one side of politics or another when he released the documents. It's about whether you think an Australian journalist who gets information that details criminal activity and then publishes it is entitled to the protection of this government and of the rule of law. What we find from this government, which beats its chest about the rule of law, is that it is prepared to throw someone overboard at the earliest possible opportunity, to do nothing more than to appease an overseas government. This government has sold out our sovereignty to the United States simply because the United States has asked it to, and every Australian citizen should be very, very worried. 15:36 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I also wish to speak on: 'the government's disregard for the rule of law, sovereignty and a healthy democracy', the Matter of Public Importance raised by the Independent member for Clark. The only thing is, as has been previously mentioned, Julian Assange wasn't actually mentioned in the MPI; so it's basically been made very difficult for government members to prepare to talk about this, because he was not mentioned in it at all. However, the MPI does mention the law. Can I first of all say: on this side, in the coalition, we've always put the Australian people and their safety first. The coalition will also look after the Australian people, and that is actually highlighted, too, by you, Mr Deputy Speaker O'Brien—and I acknowledge your service with the Queensland police—and also by the Minister for Home Affairs, the member for Dickson, who's also a former police officer, and also by the member for Cowper in New South Wales, also a former police officer. Mr Howarth 247742 And yourself. Mr WOOD E0F And I myself am a former police officer. Can I say it's actually interesting to follow the member for Melbourne representing the Greens. In my entire time here, since being elected in 2004—and I'm sure the member for Bonner will back us up here—I've never heard the Greens ever support one piece of ASIO legislation or one piece of national security legislation. They have never backed the coalition when it comes to law enforcement, and, when it comes to the opposition, I'm sad to say that the majority of times the Labor Party has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it. I'd just like to also take up the point of the character test. The character test, for those who don't know, is where the government determines if a person's visa should be revoked because of their character. It's pretty much based on criminal grounds. They've either committed an offence, as the member for Petrie, the assistant minister, said, where they've been imprisoned for a term of 12 months or more, or they've committed a sexual offence against a child, or, the next part, where they're involved with a criminal organisation or association such as an outlaw motorcycle gang. The great news is: the coalition, the Liberal-National government, has booted out over 4,000 people who've committed crimes listed under the character test. The biggest danger would have been to have had a Labor government and the member who would have been the immigration minister if Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong, had become Prime Minister. Here I'll go to an article which was in the Courier Mail on 6 September 2018. It reads: A CONVICTED murderer with a 40-year criminal history had the backing of the office of a Queensland federal Labor MP, which repeatedly tried to stop his deportation. The office of Shayne Neumann, Labor's would-be immigration minister— so he would have been immigration minister— knew about John Desmond McAteer's violent, drug-fuelled crimes, but wrote to the Immigration Department three times offering a reference to help stop him being kicked out of Australia. The official correspondence on Mr Neumann's letterhead and signed by— an electorate officer— … shows the representations included helping McAteer find "evidence of his good character". I go further into the quote: "John calls into the office … to lend me poetry books, provide me copies of his poetry or simply as a courtesy when out and about," … Can I make the point that, when it comes to protecting our borders and deciding who stays in our country, it shouldn't be based on poetry, whether you read it or whether you create it. That's completely wrong. Now we have legislation in the Senate which, again, was not supported by the Labor Party and definitely was not supported by the Greens: the character test. We've tried to change the character test so that the offence is no longer based on the time. It's no longer based on somebody doing 12 months in jail but based on the actual crime they commit: crimes against a person where it's a potential punishable offence of two years or more, sexual offences or—and this is really important for the independent members here—breaching an order made by a court or tribunal for a person protecting another person. What we're talking about here are family violence orders. If a person is on a visa and commits the crime family violence, they should not remain in the country. Sadly, this is being blocked by the Labor Party teaming up with the Greens. When it comes to the law, I make this point: the Australian people are always best in the safe hands of the National and Liberal parties, who form a strong government to protect Australian citizens. 15:41 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I'm very pleased to speak to this motion. I plan to speak on the aspect of a healthy democracy. Sometimes we see in the present echoes of the past. Nowhere is this clearer than when we think about the perilous state of our democracy. In 1853 in Beechworth, at the height of the Ovens Valley gold rush, a young gold-digger named William Guest was shot by police. Guest was an innocent man; his death the result of a flagrant misuse of police power by an inept assistant gold commissioner, Edwin Meier. At two subsequent inquests, local police and government officials suppressed key evidence to cover up their own mismanagement and corruption. In response, the gold-diggers of Beechworth called for an independent inquiry into the circumstances of William Guest's shooting and into the conduct of the local officials, specifying that the inquiry should be conducted by parties wholly unconnected with those responsible for the shooting, the gold commission and the police. When the government made it clear that it would hold a closed inquiry from which the press were to be barred and which would be run by the head of the department about which the diggers were complaining, the diggers realised that they would not receive a fair trial. The diggers refused to accept that their government, to which they paid gold licence fees but for which they could not vote, could respond to serious breaches of public trust by conducting sham inquiries into itself. As their leader, Dr John Owens, said: 'We pay our licence fee month after month trusting to the integrity of the government. Bred to respect the law, we expect to be secured the upright and efficient administration of the law.' The Beechworth diggers then decided to do something which had not yet been done on any other goldfield in Australia: they decided to petition the parliament for the right to vote. Today, when we look at the 1853 Beechworth petition, we can see embodied in it some timeless values. It's a call for a full and fair franchise for people of all backgrounds and races. This spoke to accountability. It's a call to replace the gold licence tax with a universal tax applied to all as a civic duty. This spoke to fairness. It's a call to dismantle the broken and corrupt system of gold commissioners. This spoke to integrity. These key tenants of the Beechworth petition, accountability, fairness and integrity, now are the fundamentals of our democracy. Their calls were heeded. Change was possible. All those years ago, Dr Owens asked the people of Australia: 'Do you know what representation means? Of course you do. It means that, if those who, by wealth or station or authority, are placed over you do wrong, you have the power of compelling them to do right.' This story, documented by local historian Jacqui Durrant, is one which has dark echoes 167 years after it unfolded, because we gather today in a time when people once again have lost faith in their government, when people are calling for reform and where attempts to silence those calls will not be accepted. Last week the community of Indi gathered once more on the site of the original 1853 Beechworth petition to launch another petition calling for another great reform in our democracy. This new petition called on the government to introduce a federal integrity commission to excise corruption from our democracy and restore integrity to our politics. We did this because our democracy is straining and because people are ceasing to believe in the ability of politics to improve their lives. At the last election the government committed to introduce a federal integrity commission. Not only must they finally honour this mandate; they must introduce an integrity commission worth its name—that is, a federal integrity commission which has broad jurisdiction to investigate the people it needs to, common rules so that everybody is held to the same standard of behaviour, appropriate powers so that it can actually do its job, fair hearings so that investigations are done openly when it's in the public interest to do so and accountability to the people so the commission answers to public not political interests. When the government releases its bill, I will assess it against these five Beechworth principles. If it meets them, I will give it my full support. If not, I will introduce amendments to ensure that it does. So the Beechworth principles stand not as an ultimatum but an invitation to walk with Australians towards an evermore perfect democracy. 15:46 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid I stand to speak on the MPI: the government's disregard for the rule of law, sovereignty and a healthy democracy. The member for Clark, who has left the chamber, raised the MPI, and those opposite are busy playing politics while we on this side are getting on with the job of governing. When John Howard left office, there were only four illegal maritime arrivals in detention. It's those opposite who relaxed our nation's borders and allowed more than 50,000 arrivals to reach our waters. When we took office there were more than 10,000 people in detention, including nearly 2,000 children. Those opposite talk about the rule of law and sovereignty, but it was the coalition government who took back control of our borders, strengthened our immigration program and closed 19 detention centres as a result. It is the Morrison government who have removed all children from detention. We've taken back control of our borders and seen illegal boat arrivals fall dramatically. We've disrupted the business of people smugglers from 800 boat arrivals under Labor to 34 interceptions under this government. While those opposite sought political points by supporting reckless medevac laws, on this side of the House we understand that a strong immigration program doesn't mean rejecting those in need; it means ensuring our assessment processes are strong enough to identify those who really need our help. Having restored integrity to our immigration system, we are in a position to increase Australia's generous humanitarian program. This has increased from 13,750 refugees in 2013-14 to 18,750 in 2018-19. Australia also provided a generous humanitarian response to the Syrian crisis through the additional intake of 12,000 refugees fleeing the conflict in Syria and Iraq. If we had not restored the integrity of our immigration system, if we had not strengthened our borders and if we had not disrupted the practices of people smugglers, our government would not have been in a position to support the additional intake of genuine refugees. A strong immigration program is in the interests of all Australians. As the representative of one of the most multicultural electorates in the country, I represent people in Reid who come from China, Korea, Italy, Lebanon, Greece and more. These communities are proud to contribute to our great nation as business owners and taxpayers. These communities recognise the hard work that goes into applying for visas, residency and citizenship and the trust that has been given to those to become strong members of the community. It may surprise some people in this place that it is our migrant communities who call for a strong and fair immigration system that strengthens our nation, supports their communities and gives help to those most in need. Strong borders protect our nation from the threat of terrorism. This government believes dual nationals who support terrorist activities forfeit their right to be an Australian. We're also cancelling the visas of criminals who put Australians at risk. In December 2014, the coalition government strengthened the character provisions in the Migration Act, introducing mandatory cancellation provisions. These provide that a noncitizens' visa may be cancelled if they are sentenced to 12 months or more imprisonment or have been convicted of a sexual crime against a child. To keep Australians safe, the government has introduced legislation to further strengthen the Migration Act by making it easier for the government to cancel visas of foreign nationals convicted of violent crimes and sex offences, irrespective of their sentences received. Despite Labor and Greens joining forces to block the legislation, the government is putting it back on the agenda. Labor's record shows that between 2008 and 2013 Labor cancelled just 643 visas of foreign criminals. Between 11 December 2014 and 31 December 2019, the coalition cancelled 5,023 visas under section 501 of the Migration Act. Those opposite are distracted by political games. We're focused on the safety of all Australians through stronger borders, a fair immigration system and keeping violent criminals out of this country. 15:51 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. I do not share the views of my crossbench colleagues. I greatly respect them and I greatly respect their honourable beliefs but I do not agree with them. We are talking about Julian Assange. He in fact comes very much from my homeland, and I would have natural prejudices for him. But we have a country that is a dictatorship called China. It has made no secret of ambitions that go well beyond its own borders. It's power is enormous. I share my crossbench colleagues' view that this country is no longer being run by this country; this country is being run by the corporates. I think all of us on the crossbenches would share that view, which is not held by either side of this parliament. The corporates are running this country. Most of the corporates happen to be Chinese, and if you think they're running those corporations in the interests of Australia then you would be very much misguided. Then again, when a supposed Australian company is paying its CEO $25 million a year and he seems to have influence of extraordinary power in this country, then I would say that democracy really is becoming close to a mockery. Let me just say that the important decisions made in this country are made not by the people in this parliament but by corporations. They decide whether a big building is going to be built or whether it's not going to be built. They will decide whether a mine is going to open or whether it's not going to open. They will decide whether they employ people on an industrial award or on some other arrangement. They will decide all of that and that is their power. You free marketeers have given them that power. You free marketeers have enabled them to buy the Australian economy. I mean, how much of the electricity industry do they own? How much of Australian water do they own? How many of the Australian airports do they own? How many of the Australian sea ports do they own? Then ask: how much of Australia do we own? I was just talking to a very good friend of my wife about the six million acres of all the station properties surrounding us at the time. I asked: 'How much is owned by Australians?' She said, 'About two million.' I will be giving the details of that in this parliament very shortly. That is a random sample. I spoke to someone who happens to be a distant relative of mine—a First Australian at the top of Western Australia. I said, 'How much of Western Australia is owned by foreigners?' and she said, 'Ask how much of Western Australia is owned by Australians. That would be the more relevant point!' She said, 'Outside of my people—we still have reservation areas that we're not allowed to do anything with; we can't break a twig on them or take a cup of water out of the river. We still own that area, but take the national parks out and most of the rest is owned by foreigners.' You people have sold your country. It's owned by somebody else. The people who own it have the say, not you. So, in a very profound sense—in a more profound sense than the Julian Assange argument or arguments over boat people—democracy does not rule this country. Once upon a time, we were able to make laws which pinned these people down so that they could not indulge in harmful behaviour to Australia. Whether it's in an environmental area or whether it's in an industrial award area, they could not act outside of the parameters of this place. When you signed the free trade agreement, you agreed that we could not change the goalposts; we could not change the rules. You gave your sovereignty to the corporations. I come from a mining area. There were four great mining companies in this country. There was Rio Tinto Australia, which they claimed was Australian—I would doubt that, but, anyway, they claimed that it was. MIM most certainly was Australian owned, BHP most certainly was Australian owned, and Western Mining was most certainly Australian owned. They are now all incontrovertibly foreign owned, and they account for nearly 80 per cent of our mineral production. So you gave the whole lot away— (Time expired) 15:56 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I have to say that I'm a little bemused at the motion by the member for Clark. I appreciate that his motion, although it doesn't refer to that person, is about one man. But, in doing so, the member for Clark ignores millions of Australians before today, millions of Australians today and millions who will come to this country in years to come. I'd like to tell you a story about two men: Joszef Kovach and Stephan Katerinka, or Joe and Steve as I got to know them later in their life. Joe and Steve grew up in Hungary. Born in the twenties, they went through the Second World War in Hungary when Germany invaded their state. They were imprisoned, they were brutalised, they saw the worst of what humanity could offer. But they were fortunate that they lived through that period of time and, together, they caught a boat to Australia in 1948. They were sent out to the Cowra migrant camp where they were put to work anywhere they could be used, in the shearing sheds and on the farms. But, through conversations with them, they told me that they were happy to be there. They were happy to be there because they were free. They were happy to be there because they had opportunity, and they made the most of that opportunity. Together, they worked. They went to Paddington. They opened a delicatessen together and worked there for many years. They could do so because there was rule of law and there was democracy, and they were given the opportunity to vote and make decisions, not like what they were subjected to during Nazi Germany. Joszef ended up working for many decades and retired as an accountant with Qantas. Stephan ended up starting a turkey farm and sold to one of the major processors in Australia. They could do that because of the rule of law. In their retirement, I used to go and visit them. They would talk about politics and they would argue about politics, but they could do that because we live in a democracy and we have the rule of law. Nothing has changed. Moreover, under this government there are opportunities. Unlike what the Greens would like to tell you, there are opportunities. The sky is not falling. What we have is opportunities. At every citizenship ceremony I go to in my electorate of Cowper I meet people—we have people from South Africa, India and China, people from all over the globe—who want to live in this great country because we have the rule of law and we have democracy. They don't have to worry about their house being burnt down in the middle of the night. They don't have to worry about being raped on the way to school because they choose to get an education. We have the best country in the world because we have the rule of law and democracy, and that will continue because we are being served by a great government. 16:01 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah The six principles underlying the Australian Constitution should be well known: democracy, the rule of law, the separation of powers, federalism, nationhood and rights. These principles protect what we, as Australians, hold most dear, and they ensure that the framework within which the Commonwealth government operates is robust, fair and—above all—lawful. I therefore find it galling that we, as the crossbench, are here today to highlight that our government is in fact in constant disregard of two of these principles. We all know that democracy isn't perfect. Perhaps Winston Churchill said it best, speaking in the British House of Commons after the defeat of the fascist Nazi regime in World War II: No-one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried … Our democracy is precious—a form of government where the people have the authority to choose their governing legislators and therefore influence legislation. Our democracy has been hard fought for and it is what ensures our views and values as Australians are properly represented. Similarly, the rule of law is a cornerstone of our system of governance. It promotes the ideal that every person—every person—is subject to the laws of our land, regardless of their power or position. It also infers that individuals cannot have their rights eroded and cannot be punished unless they have been found to be in breach of the law after a proper judicial process. According to the Australian Constitution Centre, a newly established education centre at the High Court of Australia: The rule of law gives us a predictable and ordered society. It promotes justice, fairness and individual freedom. The rule of law provides a shield against the arbitrary exercise of power. As my fellow crossbenchers have already highlighted, examples of how these principles have been disregarded are shamefully frequent. Examples in the recent past include: dubious political advertising, where truth and fairness—foundations of a healthy democracy—are set aside for lies and misinformation; constant restrictions on the freedom of the press, where asking legitimate questions of government results in police raids on homes and newsrooms and threats of arrest and imprisonment; the failure of this government to protect the rights of Australian citizens like Julian Assange; the dubious awarding of contracts to government supporters; the misappropriation of government funds in the recent sports rorts scandal, where much-needed funds for local sporting groups were redirected to projects that provided a political benefit for the government; the offshore processing of refugees, which has been criticised by the United Nations and various international legal entities—we have kept refugees in detention for seven years, in contravention of international laws, so don't speak about rights and all citizens being equal; the political stacking of government bodies and important pseudolegal bodies, such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust; and major mining approvals granted just days before the federal election. The list is endless. It is embarrassing and it is dangerous. With every scandal, with every example of blatant disregard for democracy and the rule of law, the public loses more and more trust in all of us. They lose faith in their democracy and they lose trust in their politicians. In a recent report entitled Democracy 2025,the Museum of Australian Democracy details recent findings. The research shows that members of parliament in general are distrusted by nearly half the population. Government ministers are distrusted by 48 per cent of respondents and trusted to some degree by only 23 per cent. The report comes to the following shocking conclusion: by 2025, if nothing is done and the current trend continues, fewer than 10 per cent of Australians will trust their politicians and political institutions, resulting in ineffective and illegitimate government and declining social and economic wellbeing. This is not just about being liked or trusted; it's an erosion of our social and economic wellbeing. I call on this government to introduce a national integrity commission with a broad jurisdiction, an ability for direct referral, strong investigative powers and the ability to hold public hearings. It is in all of our duties to restore faith in politicians. 16:06 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling I will begin by saying I'm not entirely convinced that there hasn't been some form of typographical error here. When I read the matter before the House today, I was incredulous that a democratically elected member sitting here in this place would, by inference, accuse the government of having a disregard for the rule of law, sovereignty and a healthy democracy. So I'll proceed on the generous assumption that the member for Clark is in charge of all his faculties, did not make a mistake and has made a baseless assertion which I'll now proceed to refute. Let me take each part in turn. Firstly, on the rule of law, this government, in just one example, has restored the Australian Building and Construction Commission. This is designed to tackle CFMMEU thuggery. We've banned secret and corrupting payments between businesses and unions and created a Registered Organisations Commission that will make unions more transparent. We've introduced legislation to give courts more power to deregister law-breaking unions and officials. And we've introduced legislation to ensure that money that is paid for workers' entitlements is actually used for workers' benefits and not to line the pockets of unions. Let's touch on sovereignty, another incredibly important and fundamental commitment of this government. Let's talk about boosting the defence industry as a commitment and practical step to enhancing our sovereignty. The previous Labor government, by contrast, ran down our Defence Force and failed to commission a single ship from an Australian shipyard for our Navy. We on the side of the House, by contrast, are building 57 new naval vessels. This will boost Australia's Defence Force as well as create thousands of new skilled jobs. We also enhanced our sovereignty by investing in skills. This government's $585 million package Delivering Skills for Today and Tomorrow will create up to 80,000 new apprenticeships in areas of skill shortages. It sees this government investing $3 billion into the vocational education and training sector in 2018-19. Let's continue talking about sovereignty. When John Howard left government in 2007, there were only four illegal arrivals in detention and none of those were children. Labor proceeded to unwind the Liberal-National government's strong policies. The results speak for themselves; they were disastrous. Over 50,000 people arrived in 800 boats, 1,200 people that we know of died at sea, 8,000 children were detained and 17 detention centres were opened at a cost of $17 billion. We've taken back control of our borders. That's how we support sovereignty in this nation. The Liberal-National government has ended Labor's border chaos and restored our border protection policies. We have stopped those deaths at sea, closed 19 detention centres and removed all children from detention. We are also contributing to our national sovereignty and to the rule of law by cancelling the visas of criminals. In fact, between December 2014 and December 2019, the coalition has cancelled over 5,000 visas and has strengthened character provisions. These provide that a citizen's visa must be cancelled if they are sentenced to 12 months or more imprisonment or have been convicted of a sexual crime against a child. Let me move on and talk about a healthy democracy. It is a sign of a healthy democracy—not without a little irony, however—that the Independent member for Clark has the freedom to come into this place and submit a matter of public importance and trigger debate in this chamber for a full hour. Perhaps the member for Clark doesn't like that element of democracy. Perhaps it's the case that a fair exchange of ideas, including those colleagues on this side putting the strong position of the government on law and order and on sovereignty, is against his best wishes, but we are here to do that. I stand here, as one of the many ex military or police that are serving on this side having defended democracy, now having the right to stand here and defend the government's strong record. 16:11 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo The rule of law is more than simply the government and citizens knowing and obeying the law. The rule of law involves checks and balances on the use of government power, the independence of the judiciary, the presumption of innocence, access to justice, and the right to a fair trial. All of these measures restrict the arbitrary exercise of power by government. Just as the rule of law is necessary for a healthy democracy, so is freedom of the press. In fact, I would say that, if we don't have freedom of the press, we don't have a democracy. The importance of quality investigative journalism cannot be underestimated for the contribution it has made to an environment of accountability and an opportunity for reform. Whether the government has an appetite for reform is another matter. When serious wrongdoing in the form of corruption or a lack of integrity or even an attitude of apathy is uncovered, this must be brought to the public's attention after avenues for holding those accountable have failed. But in recent months we have seen what happens when draconian secrecy laws mean there are no avenues to expose wrongdoing and the only option is to turn to the media to expose a culture of wrongdoing. The recent ruling with respect to the ABC warrant raid is arguably further evidence of the urgent need for protections for public interest journalism and whistleblowers more broadly. As Managing Director of the ABC, David Anderson, said this week: This is at odds with our expectation that we live in an open and transparent society. We are not saying journalists should be above the law, we're saying the public's right to know should be a factor that is taken into account—and legitimate journalism should not be criminalised. For a story that was published three years ago, it astonishing to me that the journalists involved are still yet to find out if they are to be charged—charged for carrying out investigative journalism that is in the interests of the public, for trying to inform and educate the Australian public on the actions of their own government. The trial of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange commenced this week in the United Kingdom, and it provides a chilling glimpse into the future and what it may hold for the journalists at the heart of our most recent AFP raids. As the member for Clark has previously mentioned, members of the public and parliament may be divided in their views on the appropriateness of the actions of Mr Assange, but we should all be united in our outrage for the manner in which he's been treated by the US, the UK and his own government, the Australian government. This Thursday the member for Clark and the member for Dawson, as co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of the Bring Julian Assange Home Group, will hold a briefing on their recent trip to the UK, where they visited Mr Assange in Belmarsh prison and saw the enormous pressure this prosecution and incarceration has placed on him. I strongly encourage all members to attend this briefing. Closer to home, and right here in Canberra, we have another example of how successive governments have viewed the rule of law, namely Bernard Collaery and Witness K and their prosecution. In his recent hearing, Mr Collaery made the following comments: It is with a heavy heart that I shall enter the dock of the courtroom where I have spent my entire career supporting the Rule of Law. Those principles hold that Ministers are as bound as any ordinary citizen to maintaining ethical and legal codes of behaviour. You might forgive me for thinking, after more than 40 years in the law, that I might understand injustice. Clearly I have more to learn. I can say no more because I am silenced by a law we gave our political leaders to fight terrorism. Those are the words of Mr Bernard Collaery. The secrecy surrounding the prosecution of Bernard Collaery and Witness K is completely unnecessary—and it's all in 'the national interest'. Julian Assange, Bernard Collaery, Witness K and Richard Boyle—he's facing 161 years for blowing the whistle on the ATO for their use of heavy-handed tactics and revenue targets that ended up being a Four Corners report—and that was after he raised his concerns with the ATO! These incredibly brave people have stood up and blown the whistle on the government's actions, and they are paying a very heavy price for doing so. I'm deeply concerned for their futures and for our democracy if this is allowed to continue. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 10000 Order! The discussion has concluded. BILLS 43 BILLS Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019 43

Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019

First Reading 43 Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020 43

Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020

Second Reading 43 16:17 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I rise today to support Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020 with the amendments moved by the member for Barton. Australia's national Paid Parental Leave scheme was introduced by Labor and started in January 2010. When the Paid Parental Leave scheme was initially introduced by Labor when we were in government, Australia was one of only two OECD countries without a national scheme—the other one being the United States. So it was very much needed. In fact, Australia's Paid Parental Leave scheme was one of the most overdue reforms of the last decade. It took a Labor government to introduce a scheme that had been operational, as I said, in every OECD country except for the US and Australia. We all know the financial stress that comes with welcoming a new child into a family, especially when both parents are working and depend on their wages and salaries for the household mortgage, food, goods et cetera. So we know how important it is and that it supports families especially when a newborn comes into the family. In fact, a good paid parental leave scheme is one of the most important things that we can do to help families. I've always been of the view that we should assist parents when there's a newborn in the family, or when they have a child, to assist them to have time off, to be able to still continue to pay their bills and to do the things that are so important at those early stages. That's why I spoke about this in my maiden speech. I spoke about the importance of helping families, because the world has changed from where we were 40, 50, 60 and 70 years ago, where you had one person working, bringing the income home, and another person staying at home and looking after children and the household. Today the financial stresses on families are far greater. In most cases both parents need to work; both parents have careers; both parents are doing all they can to support the family. That's why in my maiden speech, back in 2004, I said: For the sake of parents and their children, it is time that we challenged the dominance of work and the pursuit of prosperity without a purpose. There are too many families whose days consist of getting the children dressed, fed and off to school before going to work for days that are far too long, then picking the children up from day care or after school care, getting the children washed, fed and into bed with a story and then typically falling asleep, exhausted, with no time for themselves, their partners or their families. It is time to give families a balance between their work and time with each other. We need an industrial relations system that recognises the rights of employees to access family friendly work practices. I went on to say: It is essential, and I call on my parliamentary colleagues to set an example by supporting family friendly policies for their own staff. It is so important, as I said, to support families, especially when a newborn comes home. When the Paid Parental Leave scheme was introduced, Australia was one of only two OECD countries—we're a country that has always been progressive and at the forefront of developing new policies; here was an area where we were miles behind. I'm pleased that under Labor the Paid Parental Leave scheme was introduced, starting in January 2011. The purpose of the Paid Parental Leave scheme is to provide financial support to primary carers of newborn children and of newly adopted children. It allows those carers to take time off work to look after the kids, to care for the child after the child's birth, or adoption in many cases. This enhances the health and development of birth mothers and children. It's a very special time, when you have children. Most people in this place know what I'm talking about. The time when parents bond with their child is a special time; it's a time that you will never get back. Having been a parent myself—I have two boys who are now adults—I look back at those times and many times I think to myself, 'I should have spent more time with them; I should have done more things.' It is a very special time. This is a really important bill. It's a bill that will enhance these things for the Australian people who have newborns. It enables women to continue to stay in the workforce, for example, and it promotes equality between men and women. Gone are the days when the man was the breadwinner and the woman's role was to be at home. Today we have equality between men and women, and this gives women the opportunity to pursue their careers and to do all of the things that men took for granted for many, many years. The balance between work and family life is important, and we need to enhance it. This particular bill provides two payments, paid parental leave and dad and partner leave. Paid parental leave signals to employers and to the Australian community that a parent taking a period of time away from the paid workforce to care for a child is part of the usual course of life. And this is what we have to remember: this is part of the usual course of life. When we occasionally get sick, we have sick leave; when we have time off, we get holiday pay or paid leave. This is because we recognise these things as part of the course of life. Having a child is part of the course of life, and to think how, for many, many years, we lagged behind the rest of the word on this. Here in Australia—a country where we've always taken these things seriously—it took a Labor government to bring legislation in that assisted parents. It also helps to address the gender pay gap, particularly for those women on low and middle incomes who have less access to employer funded parental leave. Almost 150,000 parents a year benefit from Australia's paid parental leave scheme, which was introduced by Labor back in 2011, and nearly half of all new mums benefit from the national Paid Parental Leave scheme. As I said, the importance of this particular bill and the things it does for parents cannot be emphasised enough. Labor supports this bill with the amendments by the member for Barton. I'm very proud to belong to a party that introduced the bill for paid parental leave back in 2011. Back then we were lagging behind many countries. It is an absolute necessity and it helps to address many things—the gender pay gap, women's and men's careers. The gender pay gap remains a problem in Australia. When you look at the statistics, when you look at all the details and research that have come out and despite the Treasurer's recent contention in question time on 9 September 2019 that the gender pay gap has closed, it is not correct. All the reports still show that there is a huge pay gap here in Australia. Female workers in Australia still earn 14 per cent less than their male colleagues. So if the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were genuinely serious about fixing the gender pay gap, they would oppose cuts to penalty rates. That would be the first thing that they would do. The vast majority of the workers who have had their penalty rates cut through what's taken place in the last few years are women. It is women who are getting their penalty rates cut because they are the ones who work in those industries. The cuts to penalty rates are exaggerating the gender pay gap, not just making it harder for women to cover the bills and many other things but also putting pressure on them when they have children, for example. The importance of ensuring that we support families, mums and dads, is absolutely crucial to a government which at its core should have the ability to look after families and people. We hear political parties sprout that they are the party for families, that they're the ones that look after your average Australian and the average family or the forgotten Australians, but we are all part of a family. Having a child is part of life. Governments of any persuasion should be doing all that they can to put the support in place for people starting a family. It is important for the bonding of the child with the mother, ensuring that they can concentrate on being parents at that time instead of worrying about the pressures of work and paying bills. As I said, Labor supports this bill and the amendments that have been moved. I would say it doesn't go far enough. We can look at some models around the world like Germany, where paid parental leave really gives the parent the ability to have real time off to bond with their children and to ensure that everything is in place for those young children to grow up as good, solid adults. 16:28 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020 and to support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Barton. The opposition supports the bill, which builds on the national Paid Parental Leave scheme introduced by Labor, which commenced on 1 January 2011. On this side, we are very proud of this scheme. You will recall, Deputy Speaker O'Brien, that when the legislation was passed, Australia was one of only two OECD countries, along with the United States, that did not have a paid parental leave scheme—unbelievable, I know. The purpose of the paid parental leave scheme was and is to provide financial support to primary carers of newborn and newly adopted children. This allows those carers to take time off work to care for the child after the birth or adoption; to enhance the health and development of birth mothers, their children and the rest of their family coping with the addition of a new baby; to enable women to continue to participate in the workforce, which is vitally important; and to promote equality between men and women, and the balance between work and family life. It provides two payments: paid parental leave of 18 weeks at the minimum wage for the primary carer, and dad and partner leave of two weeks. When I had my beautiful twin girls 33 years ago, I was only 23 years old. I was a trainee nurse working shiftwork. Their dad was only 21. He was a chef's apprentice. We weren't actually planning to have children quite at that time, but along they came. I was earning $250 a week as a trainee nurse. My partner, as a chef's apprentice, was earning $180 a week. There was no paid parental leave. I was, of course, entitled to take the year off on unpaid leave, but we could not afford for me to do that, pay rent and support two tiny humans. So we did what a lot of people did; we moved in with my mum. It's not ideal for a young couple. My poor partner had to live with his mother-in-law. She was, of course, a godsend and a wonderful help, and I will always be so very deeply grateful for what she did for us. But at least I had a mum to help. I had five sisters and three brothers to help as well. I had a village. I can't imagine what it was like for families who didn't have that support. I can't imagine the financial strain and pain that such a joyous event can end up causing. We lived with my mum for 18 months. I went back to work when those beautiful babies were seven weeks old. It broke my heart, but I had to—partly because, if I didn't, I thought I would never finish my nursing training, and partly because I wanted to be independent and have my own family home. Imagine that: working full-time shiftwork as a nurse, studying to pass exams, struggling to keep breastfeeding, getting up in the night to two babies while my husband worked split shifts as a chef's apprentice until all hours of the morning; he struggling, himself, and wishing he didn't have to live with his mother-in-law. But we did it, with the help of the village, and we were able to buy our own home 18 months later. When my son was born four years later, from memory I had two weeks paid leave. It's hard to believe—just two weeks. When my fourth baby arrived, my beautiful baby girl, I had four weeks paid maternity leave. Again, we managed to scrape by, but I still could not manage to take a full year with no pay. That was way out of our financial remit. We all know financial strain puts enormous pressure on families at any time, let alone when a new baby arrives. The chronic tiredness, the change in routine, the difficulty retaining relationships—it all adds up. Add to this worry paying the bills, keeping the mortgage payments going, and knowing that, like most people, you're only one pay packet away from disaster. You have a perfect storm. When I was on maternity leave with my son, my husband, who, as I said, was a chef, contracted salmonella poisoning. We all did actually—the whole family; it was terrible. It meant that he could not work as a chef, for obvious reasons, until he had been cleared of the salmonella from his system. He needed weekly tests. Believe it or not, it took weeks and weeks for him to be clear. He ran out of sick leave and neither of us were being paid. We fell into terrible trouble. I picked up some casual shifts here and there as a nurse. My husband had to bring the baby to me in my lunch break so I could breastfeed him. But the casual work was not enough. We had to beg the bank to delay mortgage payments. I had to beg my employer to let me go back to work early. That wasn't easy, because someone had been employed to backfill me, and it wasn't fair to break her contract on my account. We really struggled until I managed to get back to work. For months and months, we had to play catch-up. We were one pay period away from economic disaster. Paid parental leave is a vital component of a family's survival. Paid parental leave signals to employers and the Australian community that parents taking time out of the paid workforce to care for a child is essential and a part of the normal course of life. It enables participation of women in the workforce. A high workforce participation rate is important in the context of an ageing population. It's crucial to our economy and retaining skilled staff. And, importantly, it helps to address the gender pay gap, particularly for those women on low and middle incomes, who often have less access to employer-funded parental leave. Almost 150,000 parents a year benefit from this leave introduced by Labor, and nearly half of all new mothers benefit from the scheme each year. The scheme was always intended to be supplemented by bargaining in the workplace, which would allow additional weeks at the workers' usual rate of pay. I'm pleased to say that for nurses in Victoria that now means 10 weeks at full pay—a far cry from when I was struggling with my twins. Any agreement-derived entitlement could be taken either simultaneously with the paid parental leave entitlement or added to the minimum 18-week scheme. In the last seven years we have fought coalition attempts to absorb bargained outcomes against the scheme entitlement—in other words, to reduce the 18-week payment by the amount received under an enterprise agreement. Scandalously, those on the other side called access to bargained entitlements and the legislated entitlements 'double dipping'—a hard fought for entitlement that came at the expense of bargaining for other things like extra annual leave, carer's leave, shift loadings or some other outcome. Nothing comes for free, and it seems that those on the other side simply didn't understand that. Those much-needed extra weeks were hard fought for, were bargained for and came at a cost. They were not just handed over as a freebie. Thankfully, that legislation was defeated in the Senate. It would have seriously disadvantaged lower- and middle-income workers like cleaners, carers, teachers, nurses and police. This bill will enable working mothers and families across the nation to split their paid parental leave entitlement into blocks of time over a two-year period, with periods of work in-between. Currently, the scheme only allows paid parental leave to be taken as a continuous 18-week block within the first 12 months after the birth or adoption of a child, and only when the primary carer has not returned to work since the birth or adoption of the child. So this bill will change paid parental leave rules by splitting the 18 weeks of public paid parental leave into a 12-week period and a six-week flexible paid parental leave period. The 12-week paid parental leave period entitlement will only be available as a continuous block but will be accessible by the primary carer at any time during the first 12 months, so not only immediately after the birth or adoption of a child. The six-week flexible paid parental leave period will be available at any time during the first two years and doesn't need to be taken as a block. These are good changes, and they will apply to children born or adopted from 1 July this year. So, in practice, this will mean families can split their entitlements over a two-year period, with periods of work in-between. As with the current rules, the primary carer can be changed during this time. It is likely that the most common use of increased flexibility will be parents returning to work part time and spreading their flexible paid period leave over several months. The bill may encourage greater take-up of paid parental leave by secondary carers, allowing mothers to transfer their entitlements to a partner at a time that suits the family, and that's to be welcomed. We know that this scheme isn't perfect. We know that most schemes around the country are far more generous than ours, and there are good reasons for that. There's lots of medical research to show that it's best for mum and baby to be fully breastfeeding for six months, for example, and many schemes allow for that and pay that at full wages, not just minimum wage. Mr Sukkar 242515 You guys campaigned against it! Ms KEARNEY LTU I knew exactly that that's what was going to be said—that this was Labor's scheme. But do you know what? We had to start somewhere. That was a different scheme that was making employers fully pay for it. Ms KEARNEY LTU You know it was a different scheme. Don't be disingenuous. It was completely different, because this is a government funded scheme, and that is what we wanted. That is why this is important—because it's accessible to everybody, not just someone who has an employer or is wealthy enough to pay. This scheme is for everyone, employed or not. I was there just after the global financial crisis when we were negotiating this scheme—with Sharon Burrow, Heather Ridout from the AiG, and Jenny Macklin pushing for this in the Labor Party. This was an important scheme, but it was a very difficult financial time for the country back then. As I said, it was right after the global financial crisis. But businesses, the government, trade unions and workers knew that it was important to get this up. They really worked incredibly hard to get those 18 weeks. We are proud of that; it was a good start. It was implemented, and we were no longer one of only two countries in the OECD that didn't provide access to paid parental leave. So we are proud of that. The changes in this bill are good changes, but they are not dramatically increasing the entitlements, they are not making the scheme better, and the gap between us and the rest of the world is widening once again. It's really time that we thought hard about improving this scheme. We support these changes. 16:41 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise to speak in support of this bill. I wish to acknowledge the member for Cooper for relaying her story, her family's story, which indicates so powerfully to this House the struggles that mothers, fathers and broader families experience in raising little babies through to adulthood and trying to combine their work and career. Thank you for sharing that story, Member for Cooper. So I rise in support of this bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020. Allowing families to take six of their 18 weeks paid parental leave flexibly and within two years of a child's birth or adoption is common sense. It reflects the diversity of our modern families, which increasingly feature single parents, same-sex couples and multigenerational care. Paid parental leave is a tangible structural support that helps new parents enjoy the full joys and complexities of family life. It moves Australian society towards gender equality by making possible both a meaningful career and a fulfilling family life. Yet there's still so much the government can do to support the hopes and aspirations of parents while giving our kids the benefit of meaningful quality time and care. With some imagination, and by following in the footsteps of countries which are fully committed to shared parenting, Australia can reap the benefits of increased productivity and happier families. Families in my electorate know that change is the only constant in raising children. As a former midwife I'm well acquainted with how a new arrival transforms the lives of parents in ways that they could never have anticipated. In Indi, our birth rate is two, significantly above the Australian average of 1.74. In 2017-18, 861 Indi residents accessed paid parental leave, with roughly half that number using the two-week dad-and-partner pay scheme. Paid parental leave supports not just parents but also the people who employ them; and their extended care networks, including grandparents and friends. But let's start with the parents. More flexibility makes life easier for parents in casual or part-time work. Currently, primary carers must take parental leave in one 18-week full-time block and forfeit the rest if they return to work during this time. And returning to work is anything over one hour, except in certain circumstances. Women make up 70 per cent of the part-time and casual labour market, and taking full-time leave to replace part-time or casual work creates its own challenges—and we have just heard about that. The healthcare and social assistance sector is the largest employer of women of child-bearing age in my electorate, employing 3,427 women, or around 23 per cent of that group. Part-time and casual employment is a feature of this work, and this bill corrects the restriction that might prevent these women taking their full parental leave entitlement. It also allows them to return to work when it suits them, and it supports them to remain in the workforce as mothers. More flexibility is good for the increasing number of women who run small businesses or who are self-employed. In Indi, our young mothers have their own law firms, or are entrepreneurs, cafe owners or farmers. Their businesses and their customers and employees would suffer if they stepped away from operations for a continuous 18 weeks. The government's amendment recognises that a graduated return to work helps keep these businesses in the black, while giving new parents the space and time for rest and recuperation and to support the health benefits of the child. It's also good for business. Flexible parental leave can support women returning to work earlier in a part-time capacity if they take the rest as paid parental leave. This means employers get their staff back sooner, which supports retention when parents return to work in a greater capacity. But there is still so much we can do to improve the experience of parenthood. The tired, gendered, stereotypical roles of breadwinner versus homemaker are persist in parenthood in heterosexual relationships, to the detriment of both men and women. This is in stark contrast to the huge strides we've seen in workforce participation and educational attainment. Younger women who have not experienced gender inequality tell me they are shocked to find that it lingers still in parenting. Government policy continues to foster this gendered division of care. We can see this in how leave is structured. As well-intentioned as this legislation is, the added flexibility only applies to primary caregivers. While primary carers aren't required to be the mother, the reality is that mothers take 95 per cent of primary carers leave, according to the Australian Institute of Family Studies. In explaining this amendment, the government says: Increasing the flexibility of paid parental leave may encourage greater uptake of parental leave pay by secondary carers, contributing to changing social norms around sharing care and encouraging men to take parental leave. But while this flexible leave can be transferred to the secondary caregiver, such as a father or non-biological parent, currently this leave is transferred to fathers in only two per cent of cases, according to an ANU roundtable held in Canberra last August. On paper I can see how increased flexibility makes transferring leave between parents more appealing, but I am sceptical that this will be enough to shift the dial to encourage fathers to take more leave. How do we encourage more fathers and partners to take a greater share in the upbringing of their children? We know that male parents want to take time off and be more active participants in caregiving. While the rate of fathers taking some leave has risen, from 31 per cent in 2004-06 to 49 per cent in 2013-15, this still means that only half of secondary carers, fathers in most cases, actually utilise two weeks of leave through dad and partner pay entitlements. With only two weeks of leave, in heterosexual two-parent families fathers are less inclined to learn how to manage the daily needs of the child and to see themselves as an equally competent carer, and this further burdens women with an imbalance in caring responsibilities. Supporting both parents to take leave encourages fathers to play a more active role in understanding how to care for and soothe their children, and this has positive impacts on children's long-term bonding and developmental outcomes. Part of the problem with increasing the rate of fathers taking paid parental leave is the continuation of the binary model of primary and secondary carers in the legislation. I consulted with the Women's Health Goulburn North East, a non-government regional women's health promotion agency, on the impact of this bill. They told me that this division: 'reinforces patriarchal gender norms that value women for their reproductive capacity and men for their capacity to earn. This traps families in dichotomous breadwinner-homemaker relationships that prevent them from participating equally in the joys and responsibilities of family life.' These current arrangements disadvantage men as carers, further embed gender inequality and limit women's career advancement. This serves no-one's interests. Women's Health Goulburn North East continued to tell me: 'the right to participate fully and equally in the joys of family life should be afforded to all parents regardless of gender or familial structure. Removing gendered language also removes the inherent roles and expectations assigned to men as fathers and women as mothers, meaning parents are free to define these roles for themselves based on the needs of their families.' Leaving it up to the private sector to lead gender equality initiatives has had mixed results. Many workplaces don't give secondary carers parental leave, which means that men must take unpaid or recreational leave, creating further disincentives. Even more don't even ask. At the other end of the spectrum is Telstra, which last year scrapped the distinction between primary and secondary carers, allowing either parent to take up to 16 weeks paid parental leave within 12 months of the birth or placement and to take it flexibly. The two-tiered model of parenting begins during pregnancy. In my former life as a midwife and later as a researcher, I investigated the experience of fathers in rural Victoria during the antenatal period. I found that, while we talk about fathering as if it were a partnership, a joint experience with the mother, this is not the experience of most people. For instance, when men encounter the healthcare system during a pregnancy, they overwhelmingly report feeling peripheral at least and marginalised or excluded at worst. This is despite data showing that men generally want to be more involved during the pregnancy process. This is a lost opportunity for population health. For example, we do very little to support the mental health of men during their partner's pregnancy and in the early parenting period, despite significant evidence that tells us this is a key period for the onset of anxiety and depression in men. And this is at our cost. Fathers who are healthy, physically and mentally, and engaged with their children are far more likely to have healthy kids and respectful relationships. The evidence of this is now very, very clear. The government's bill goes some way towards catching up with modern parenting. But there are three things that I can suggest we could do now. Firstly: remove the distinction between primary and secondary carers in the government's paid parental leave legislation. Leave it up to parents to find the balance that works for them. Secondly, and building on the first reform: legislate for shared parental leave. Take a leadership role in removing the unfair bias that persists in many workplaces that prevents or discourages men from taking extended leave. Make sure it's affordable and is accessible to all parents, regardless of their employment status. Thirdly, ensure that the mental health of men is part of the antenatal care picture. Do this by introducing Medicare-listed mental health check-ups for expectant fathers, like the UK did last year. In the longer term, we need a wholesale review of the delivery of pregnancy, infant and early parenting care, to ensure that we are engaging men as equal partners in the parenting experience and debunking gender stereotypes right from the beginning. In conclusion, I congratulate the government for leadership on this reform and I urge it to think about: what more can we do to advance equality in the home for the parents raising kids today and for the benefit of the generations of Australian children to come? 16:52 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Care is fundamental to our society. Care for each other and care for those who we are bringing up is the fundamental thing that binds us all together. None of us would be here without care. Care, though, is often devalued and, in fact, is taken for granted. It's just presumed that there will always be people caring for other people and looking after each other in their family, looking after those who need help. As a result, much of care goes unpaid. Care going unpaid isn't necessarily the problem, but the problem is that care goes unpaid, is taken for granted and is often undervalued. Nowhere is this more apparent than the work that is disproportionately done by women in-home. It's often not called work—but it is work. And we need to start treating it as work. Anyone who has spent a significant amount of time with young children will know that it is work. We should start treating it as work in the way that we legislate. We should start acknowledging the role that is often taken for granted—a role not always, but almost always, performed by women—in the care of young people in our society. Care is also undervalued in the paid workforce, and those areas of work that are often the lowest paid are often those that one would call the caring professions, and they are often very highly feminised—that is, there are, more often than not, more women working in those professions. So, outside of the paid workforce, we don't value care enough—even though it's the fundamental thing without which life wouldn't exist—and, inside the paid workforce, we underpay those who are responsible for caring. When you then add in work, on top of currently unpaid caring responsibilities, you start to compound the problem, especially for women. In this country people—predominantly women—who are balancing work and raising kids report very high levels of stress and dissatisfaction with the job that they are doing. That's unfair and it's in large part because of the pressure that society often puts on those women, but it's also because we, as legislators, don't provide a supportive framework for people to make those choices. The bind can continue—again, especially for women—for many who are not only trying to juggle work and look after young children but may be looking after their parents as well, sandwiched in the middle, having to care for those above them and care down, and work at the same time. For a small period of time we offer some kind of support in the form of paid parental leave, but it is nowhere near extensive enough. The measures in this bill take some positive steps, but they don't go towards the fundamental problem. We've got to start looking at paid parental leave as an industrial right, where you take paid parental leave so that not only the individual but the whole family does not suffer financially. That's not the position we are in at the moment, but it's one that we need to get to. What we also need to do is start giving those people—again, predominantly women—who are trying to balance looking after children with returning to work greater legal rights to have control over their own lives. Part of the stress and anxiety that is felt is due to a lack of control because you're balancing so many things. You're balancing looking after the kids, and perhaps looking after your parents as well, who might be needing help themselves; you're balancing work and you're balancing your home life, but you're doing it all in a situation where, at the moment, you don't have enforceable rights to control your own working arrangements. Yes, there are very good employers; there are some employers who understand this difficulty, and some of those employers go out of their way to include particular measures and rights for women to be able to have control over their working arrangements. But what we don't do is give women anywhere near enough enforceable rights to control their own working arrangements to take care of their caring responsibilities. This is something that I've pushed for for a while. We've introduced legislation to give parents and carers more control over their working lives and their working arrangements so that flexibility becomes a two-way street. At the moment, flexibility is very often just a one-way street in many workplaces. The employer can demand flexibility, but when workers themselves, especially those with caring responsibilities, want to say, 'I need to change my working arrangements in order to care for children, parents and others in my family who need it,' they very often find themselves reliant not on any legal rights but on the goodwill of the employer. That's something we need to change. We need to start giving those with caring responsibilities enforceable legal rights to demand better working arrangements. That would go some way to dealing with some of the problems that this bill is trying to address. One of the other things that we need to do is have a rethink about child care in this country, if we want to address some of the problems that this bill is trying to address. Child care has become extraordinarily unaffordable for many families, and the recent reforms from the government have not helped. Not only is there an affordability problem; there's an availability problem. You can find a space, but you might have to go on a very long waiting list, especially for zero to two-year-olds. We've gone some way—and it must be acknowledged that it's thanks to the reforms of the previous government—to increasing the standards, quality and skills of our educators in early childhood education and child care, and they are good reforms. But what we've now got is an affordability and availability problem, and it is a crisis in some areas. We have waiting lists that are very long. Sometimes you might even find yourself a spot in one childcare centre, for one particular day that might match your working arrangements; but then there is not the spot in the same childcare centre, so there are parents who are juggling one child between different childcare centres on different days of the week. As if you don't have enough stress already, you then find yourself dealing with increasing out-of-pocket costs under this government and then you potentially have to hop from one childcare centre to another. Part of the reason for that is that we don't think about child care in the way that we should. It is a universal service and a universal right. If we were forcing children to jump from one school to another because we didn't have a space for them on one particular day, there would be an outcry. But it seems that it's okay in child care. If we said parents were not able to go back to work because sending their child to school meant they were out-of-pocket, there'd be an outcry. But that's the situation we find ourselves in with child care at the moment. Under the way this government treats child care—it is a problem for the whole family, but it is predominantly women who get impacted by—you have to make a decision about whether you go back for an extra day of work knowing that basically it could all be eaten up by childcare fees. That diminishes the ability of women to make real choices about their lives and about how they want to structure their lives. By and large—and there are exceptions—these are not choices that men have to make. The burden falls on women, and it restricts the choices that women can make in their lives. In an excellent contribution earlier, the member for Indi said we've got to start looking at ways that we might force a greater sharing of parental leave between men and women—in heterosexual couples—which would be a very welcome set of developments. We've also got to have a look at what child care is doing to the choices that families are making—in particular, the choices that women are making. That's why one of the first things I said when I took up the leadership of the Greens is that part of my goal, part of the Greens' new deal, is to push to make child care free and universally available to parents across this country. That is one way of closing the gender gap in this country. We went to the last election with a plan that was a step towards free and universal child care that would have resulted in 80 per cent of families being able to get free and universal child care as well as expanding early childhood education to the kindergarten years. But we have to have a goal in our sights. If we are to address the problems that this bill presents, we not only need reform around parental leave and reform to give women more and enforceable rights at work—everyone should get them, but people who have caring responsibilities should have additional rights to demand more flexible working arrangements so that they have more control over their lives. But we need to get serious in this country about treating child care as a universal service. I repeat: if we turned away students from schools, or if parents weren't able to go back to work because they couldn't afford to send their child to a private school, there would be a national outcry. But somehow, for some reason, we seem to think it's okay in child care. I acknowledge the work of the previous government in lifting the standards and qualifications and skills of our educators in child care. That has made a huge difference. They are very important and welcome reforms. But now we need to go to the next step and say: what do we need to do to the system to ensure that it is free and universally available to everyone so that no-one has to make the decision about not going back to work because they know that if they go back to work that extra day it's all going to be eaten up in extra childcare fees. If the government doesn't think that's a problem, then they are not talking to parents—because that is a very real problem for women. There are a number of other reforms that could be made to paid parental leave. The member for Indi outlined some very good ideas. I'm also told, for example, if you choose to do above masters level then it's not counted in the activity test. I'm following that up because if that's right then it seems very odd indeed that post-graduate PhD level study is not counted in the activity test. Some constituents have told me that, yes, you get it for a masters but not if you go on to do a PhD. I'm following that up and seeking clarification because if that's right, that is wholly discriminatory. That is a disincentive for women to go on and do high-level post-graduate education. I hope there's been a miscommunication to my constituents about that but, if not, I will go and ask why that is the case. That would be a sensible reform. The activity test needs more fundamental reform than that, but that is certainly one thing that could be looked at. This bill goes some way towards addressing some problems but, if we want to get to the nub of the fundamental issue to ensure that we have gender equality in this country and that we properly value care inside and outside of the paid workforce, we are going to need change our industrial relations laws, we are going to need change to our parental leave laws and we are going to need an expansion and rethink of the childcare system so it becomes free and universal for everyone. That is part of the Green new deal we'll be fighting for because it will make a big difference to parents right across this country. 17:06 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise in support of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020. This bill will amend the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 to introduce measures to make paid parental leave more flexible. This is needed for modern workers as they balance challenging careers—often self-employed or running small businesses—and raising young children. Previously, workers have only been able to access parental leave in a single 12-month period and this bill be allow workers to take blocks of leave over 24 months. These new measures could increase workforce participation and provide a boon to the economy. It's a step in the right direction and shows that the government is conscious of the barriers women and families still face in the workplace. In Warringah, there are 38,000 families with children under the age of 13 that will benefit from fixing these issues. We have a high proportion of young working families and many dual-income families. The issues of closing the pay gap and increasing childcare subsidies are ones of primary concern when I speak to families around Warringah. Despite numerous previous efforts, we need to be frank about where we are at. Women still face a 14 per cent pay gap, retire with 40 per cent less super and still account for 68.7 per cent of all part-time employment. Working mums seeking to increase their hours of work still face extraordinarily high effective marginal tax rates. To rectify this we need to increase paid parental leave. The government should consider increasing paid parental leave, not just for flexibility of the leave. According to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, it's during the years when many women are balancing paid work with unpaid caring responsibilities at home that the gender pay gap begins and it widens considerably. By increasing the Paid Parental Leave scheme we can increase female workforce participation and decrease the pay gap. Australians are currently able to access up to 20 weeks parental leave. This is below the recommended amount as suggested by the World Health Organisation of 26 weeks and it is well below OECD average of 55 weeks. A 2013 global study found that increasing the duration of leave not only increased female workplace participation but it also increased female working hours. Both would be huge boons to the Australian economy and would go to the heart of two major issues—saving for super and moving women from pat-time to full-time work. Parental leave itself must be more equitable. One of the big problems is of course that 99.74 per cent of parental leave is taken by women. We need policies that support men who want to take time off and take care of their children. We should look to examples in other countries, like Iceland and Canada. In Iceland, the male parental leave participation rate is at 45 per cent. Since Iceland introduced its nine months of parental leave with three months dedicated to fathers, its parental leave participation has increased by 50 per cent. That's opposed to the two weeks of leave that Australian fathers are granted under our current policy. It's simply not enough. Other countries mandate bonus parental leave to both partners if, in the initial months following the birth of a child, both parents take their allotted leave. This has had demonstrable and positive benefits on measures of family cohesion and wellbeing, and in countries like Canada it has significantly increased male parental leave participation rates. Another way to overcome pay and superannuation gap differences would be to legislate increases in childcare subsidy, which commenced in July 2018. The subsidy has been effective in improving workforce participation. It is the main way in which the government assists families with childcare costs. Childcare subsidies work by overcoming the strong disincentives built into the system that penalise women who increase their participation in the workforce. The more that women work, the more they lose the benefit of several allowances, such as the family benefit and the Medicare levy. There are many in my community in Warringah who feel and experience this. It makes little sense, because they still need this extra support when juggling both work and raising a family. The OECD has reported that Australian parents pay 31 per cent of their combined income towards child care. This is not good enough. We have to do better. The benefits of increasing the subsidy would be disproportionate to the cost. Increased workforce participation has not been specifically modelled for this exact policy, but the Grattan Institute and KPMG have both approximated that similar policies would show an increase in annual GDP of $25 billion to $60 billion. I urge the Treasurer and the government to consider this. While this bill is a step in the right direction, I look forward to conversations to do more, and I hope this government will introduce more legislation to keep addressing this problem. Many families in Warringah, as well as around Australia, would benefit hugely from further support from this government along the lines outlined. Thank you. 17:12 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I strongly disagree with the amendment. I rise instead in support of the substantive motion and the bill in front of us, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020. This is a bill which makes changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme aimed at better supporting working mums and dads to access their payments more flexibly. How could we disagree with this? How could the Labor Party suggest that this bill needs to be amended? The time between a parent and their child is sacred, and this government will always fight to enhance that time. It is not just this government saying that. Research is now becoming more and more definitive that time parents spend with their children and children's improved developmental markers are highly correlated. As the nature of work changes, our legislation also needs to change. It is estimated that 4,000 parents will take their parental leave flexibly each year following the changes we are making. With around 300,000 births in Australia each year, nearly half of all new mothers and fathers access the Paid Parental Leave scheme. The scheme allows eligible working parents with 18 weeks of payment at a rate based on the national minimum wage which is currently just under $750 per week; it is more than $13,000 over the 18 weeks. Paid parental leave plays an important role in supporting the health and wellbeing of new mothers and their babies. The Liberal government understands this, and is fully committed in continuing to support mothers and fathers while also encouraging workforce participation. For this reason, the bill introduces greater flexibility to support working parents, especially self-employed parents and small-business owners, who are often unable to afford to leave their business for 18 consecutive weeks, especially when they are the major manager in the business. I would also like to endorse the comments of the member for Warringah on this bill. Many people in my electorate find that, as they begin to earn more money, they have their allowances reduced, meaning that they question the time that they should spend at work and question the benefit of it, which is of course the opposite of what we are attempting to achieve. This measure will help thousands of new parents who currently return to work before they have used all of their parental leave pay. We don't want new parents, mums and dads, to miss out on the valuable time all parents cherish with their children, especially newborn children. Under the current arrangements, parental leave pay can only be received as a continuous 18-week block. Within the first 12 months of the birth or adoption of a child, from 1 July 2020 families will be able to split their parental leave pay into blocks over a two-year period, with periods of work between, thus making it easier for those who work for small businesses or are simply unable to take such a long, consecutive period of time off work. Parents will be able to take their remaining entitlement of up to six weeks any time before their child turns two years old and they can return to work at any time during this period. Pending these changes, the government will also make complementary amendments to increase the flexibility of the existing unpaid parental leave entitlements in the Fair Work Act 2009—an act that, frankly, has done so much damage to the workforce participation of mothers and fathers; an act that is so inflexible that we are seeing real wage increases fall to record lows and worker participation reduced; an act that, so desperately, the Labor Party should be ashamed of. These changes will ensure parents who wish to access their parental leave pay flexibly will have access to a corresponding flexible unpaid parental leave entitlement. Many self-employed men and women and small-business owners will see 18 weeks as a significant amount of time to be away from work. These changes will mean mothers and fathers will be able to take 12 weeks of parental leave pay initially before returning to run their business or go to the workplace. They can then choose when to take the remaining six weeks of their entitlement, at a time which suits their personal needs along with their business needs. Some parents may choose to use their parental leave pay to support a part-time return to work. For example, after returning to work following an initial period on leave, parents could return to work in a part-time capacity for four days a week and receive a day of parental pay for the fifth day they are not working for up to 30 weeks a year. This flexibility will benefit all hardworking parents who are eligible for paid parental leave to transfer entitlements to eligible partners who take on the role of primary care where it ultimately benefits the family's circumstances. For example, if a mother wanted to take 17 weeks of her parental leave pay to recuperate after the birth of her child and transfer the remaining weeks to her partner, she may choose to take a week off when the child is transitioning into child care at 18 months old. The bill expands on the important safety net for working families who may not have access to employer schemes. It ensures parents are able to have the time they need and deserve with their child following a birth. The time between a mother and a father and their child is so precious, and the government is making these changes to ultimately protect that time. I commend the original bill to the House and urge the Labor Party to stop playing games with this important reform. 17:19 Mr GEE 261393 Calare The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020 introduces reforms aimed at better supporting working parents and their families to access paid parental leave more flexibly to support choice about balancing work and family. From 1 July 2020 families will be able to split their parental leave pay into blocks of leave over a two-year period, allowing for periods of work in-between. The changes will help thousands of new parents who currently need to return to work before they have used all of their paid parental leave. Instead of losing unused leave, these families will now have greater flexibility to take their leave at a time that suits the needs of their family. The increased flexibility will also make it easier for mothers who are eligible for Paid Parental Leave to transfer the entitlement to eligible partners who take on the role of primary carer where it suits the family's circumstances. We know that not all families are the same, and this bill makes important improvements to the Paid Parental Leave scheme that give families more flexibility to balance work and caring responsibilities in a way that best suits their needs. I commend this bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Barton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question before the House is that the amendment moved by the member for Barton be agreed to.

The House divided. [17:25]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

68 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Clare, JD Claydon, SC Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, G Kelly, MJ 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) 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 78 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 Goodenough, IR Haines, H Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC 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 O'Dowd, KD 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 van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading 54 17:30 Mr GEE 261393 Calare by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2020 54

Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2020

Second Reading 54 17:31 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter I begin my contribution by formally moving the second reading amendment which has been distributed in my name. 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 criticises the Government on its failed record in assisting drought affected farmers' I rise to speak to the Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2020. I can indicate, as does the second reading amendment, that Labor will be supporting the bill. I think this is the 14th bill since the introduction of the farm household allowance in 2014. That doesn't just mean the government has amended the legislation 14 times. There have been many more amendments than that, because of course each bill contains more than one amendment. This time around the government is seeking to improve the bill from the perspective of farmers by removing the provisions enabling the reconciliation of income over the period for farmers. Basically it is so that if their income was higher than anticipated in that fiscal year, so it created an overpayment, they wouldn't have to repay that money. Labor supports that proposition, although I do note there are many on this side of the House who often become a little bit bewildered by the flexibility of the farm household allowance in so many areas that isn't available to other welfare recipients. I would like to make that point on behalf of a number of my colleagues here who might not be in a position to speak to this bill today. With each of the 14 bills and the original bill, we've consistently supported both the establishment of and changes to the farm household allowance. It is not just for farmers in drought but rather for farmers in any sort of hardship. Since its introduction, it has grown to be seen—as you would expect—as a measure to help farmers in drought. I've been highly critical of the allowance since 2014. It has been the subject of much controversy in this place, including right back in about 2015, when the then minister, the member for New England, gave an incorrect answer in this place—one he still has not corrected, by the way—and then proceeded to cover his mislead by doctoring the Hansard. It was an event which triggered some horrible events in this town, including the sacking of the then secretary of the Department of Agriculture, a highly qualified, effective and respected public servant. So the farm household allowance has a chequered history. It's now known as the payment that is very hard to get—the payment that is very hard to qualify for, despite all the changes made in this place. It is a payment well known for its very lengthy application form and the difficulty people face in negotiating that form. Most of all, it's now known as the payment farmers are cut from after receiving the payment for four years. And they continue to be cut from that payment. It must be up to 2,000 farming families by now, I suspect—I don't have any updated figures—that have been cut from the payment, despite the fact that they are still facing hardship and despite the fact that many of them, despite welcome torrential rains, remain very much in drought. I lament the fact that the government hasn't agreed to change that and allow people who are still in drought to continue to receive the payment for as long as that is the case. These changes will be welcomed by some farmers, but they pale into insignificance when compared to what really needs to be done, and that is for the government to step in and stop cutting off drought-affected farming families, desperate families, from this payment. I want to share a couple of quotes with the House. The first is from Adam Marshall, who is the minister for agriculture in New South Wales. He's referring to Minister Littleproud and his performance on drought. He says: I've had a gutful of him mouthing off all of the time. He flies in on his big aeroplane out to regions like Inverell in my electorate, offers nothing, blames everyone, hops back on his plane and flies somewhere else. I share that quote with the House because I think it's so typical of the performance of this government on the drought front over the course of the last six years. I very vividly remember, in February 2014, the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott going on a two-day drought tour. Ironically, it rained cats and dogs while he was visiting outback Queensland. What's interesting about that is that, since then, we've had a number of drought tours by various prime ministers and various ministers. In addition to that, of course, we've had the National Drought Summit, the Joint Agency Drought Taskforce, the Special Envoy for Drought Assistance and Recovery, the Coordinator-General for Drought and the National Drought and Flood Agency, but what we haven't had and continue not to have is a national, coordinated, comprehensive drought plan, something we should've had now for at least the last few years. The government, by then, certainly had the time to put in place what the COAG committee SCoPI had envisaged when the Intergovernmental Agreement on National Drought Program Reform was signed in 2013. That plan, agreed by all the states, the Commonwealth, the National Farmers Federation and, I think, pretty much every farm organisation in the country, was to conclude that the old exceptional-circumstances measures weren't working and that we needed to start from scratch. SCoPI, a body that Tony Abbott and the member for New England abolished after the 2013 election, was charged with progressing the development of the new model. And, after all of this time, there is no model. We still have a grab bag of measures, the value of which has been massively overestimated by this government. We were highly critical of the government when it claimed it was spending $7 billion on drought assistance. Nothing could be further from the truth. And now those opposite say they are spending $8 billion. I challenge the minister at the table, when he sums up on this bill, to demonstrate to me—I won't even challenge him to demonstrate how they got to the $7 billion; I'm going to make it easy for him this evening and simply challenge him to show the House and farmers listening to this debate how he got from $7 billion to $8 billion. But I will just quickly say this: going back to the period when the government was claiming $7 billion, we know with great certainty that $5 billion of that is the Future Drought Fund. The Future Drought Fund does not have $5 billion in it. It has $3.9 billion in it, but that doesn't mean there is $3.9 billion available for drought affected farmers. What will be available, sometime in the future, is a $100 million annual dividend from that fund and, because the dividend is lower than the earnings on the fund, it will grow to $5 billion. But it is totally and comprehensively misleading to count $5 billion as a contribution to the assistance being provided to drought affected farmers. It's just deceitful to count that $5 billion. And even the $100 million each year won't begin to be drawn down until after 30 June this year—not one cent of that will go to farmers. That's not what it's designed to do. It's designed to be invested in new and innovative programs to build drought resilience. The government has made that quite clear. I have no problem with that as a principle. We do need to be investing in drought resilience, but the government should not be claiming that $5 billion is going to farmers when clearly it is not, when clearly not one cent of that—when it grows to $5 billion, which it will not do for a number of years—will go to farmers. Sure, sometime in the future, if the $100 million each year is spent effectively, farmers might benefit from the innovation which flows from the fund in the out years, but it is misleading to suggest that farmers are now benefitting from that $5 billion fund. RIC loans, Regional Investment Corporation loans: $1 billion. We are already at $6 billion. Everyone in this place knows that it is also deceitful to take the capital value of the loans, if let, if provided to farmers, remembering that they won't always be taken up by farmers. In fact, we know historically that the take-up rate has been very poor. But, even if they were all taken up by farmers, the cost to the government is not a billion dollars; the cost to the government is the administrative cost and whatever it is between the bond rate—that is, the government's borrowing rate—and what they lend the loans at. You could argue that, if the government is lending at one per cent or two per cent, which is higher than the bond rate, then the government is technically making money. So there is $6 billion straightaway that the government should not be claiming as drought assistance. This money is not going to farmers. There are a whole range of expenditure measures, like the Joint Agency Drought Taskforce: $5.6 million. Do members really think that any farmer, adversely affected by drought, is benefitting from that $5.6 million? The Country Women's Association of Australia: $5 million. We all love our Country Women's Association; they do wonderful work and have done so for many decades—maybe more than a century. But we saw just this week the CWA heavily criticising the government for its latest little rort, expecting them to be handing out $500 vouchers at country shows to farmers. What sort of process is that? It's a wrong process and one which was called out by the Country Women's Association. Bureau of Meteorology radars: $77.2 million. They're likely to be something that is going to help our farmers, but this is an investment by government which is necessary anyway. Surely the government's not trying to claim in this place that the only reason it's spending $77 million on BOM radars is the drought. That just doesn't make any sense. This would have been something in the capital program for a long, long time, I would expect. The National Water Infrastructure Development Fund—we know all the problems with that. The DCP, Drought Communities Program extension: $116 million. We know how farcical that has been. While councils which have been able to qualify for the million dollars have welcomed it, we all know it's hardly making a big difference in those communities. We all know that a million dollars into a council's coffers will bring one capital program forward, maybe, but is not likely to create much economic activity in those communities. This is massively inflated, and the minister continues to come to this dispatch box every day and claim that $8 billion figure. I don't know who he thinks he's talking to, or, more particularly, who he thinks he's misleading, because the farmers who rely most on the assistance know it's not true. They say to me all the time, 'Well, if he's spending $8 billion, where is it? Because I'm not seeing any of it.' I want to return to the Future Drought Fund, because the Future Drought Fund was announced by the Prime Minister in October of 2018 at the now infamous drought summit. Why do I call it 'infamous'? Because everything that came from the drought summit, or the substantial things that came from the drought summit, were announced before the drought summit began that morning. That was 'Scotty from marketing' in full flight—a drought summit just for the six o'clock news that night. He turned up that morning, did a doorstop on the way in and announced the outcome of the summit before it even began. That was in October 2018. Here we are still contemplating, hopefully, $100 million coming from what he calls a $5 billion fund sometime after July this year. But one can't have a great deal of confidence that we're going to see much action soon after that. I don't want to be critical of the advisory consultative committee doing the work for the government. It's headed by a friend of mine, Brent Finlay, the former chair of the NFF. I'm certainly sure he's consulting everywhere and doing a great job. But I just wonder whether he thinks, in his quieter times when he's alone, any of this money will ever be seen flowing to any worthwhile programs. What we've got now is we're inching towards a draft plan. Then, after a draft plan, we'll move to some funding programs, and then we will move to the budget processes, where the government, despite all the alleged rigour of the plan and the funding programs, will move to make some decisions about where the money is spent. Given the recent performance of the government, whether it be sports programs or infrastructure programs, it's hard to have any confidence that those programs will be robust, well targeted and designed to produce the greatest return for that $100 million investment. I hope I am proven wrong, but I have very little confidence, given the government's record in the past—its ad hoc approach to drought funding more generally and the likelihood that that will be repeated the next time around. On that same note, talking about funds to build resilience, the minister regularly likes to crow about the stewardship program. Some way back he made an announcement that it would spend $34 million on a stewardship program. This is, in effect, designed to do the same things that the drought fund is designed to do with its $100 million. But, alas, we haven't seen much action from that either. Now we have the National Farmers Federation being given $4 million to trial the scheme. Since the government announced that $4 million to the National Farmers Federation to help it along with its cashflow, I've not heard a thing. Maybe I've missed it. Maybe the trial is well in advance. I invite the minister, when he sums up the bill, to tell me that I'm wrong if I am wrong and, if I am wrong, to give me some detail about how that $4 million—it's a lot of money to a farming organisation—is being spent, because I suspect that not much is happening with that at all. This is getting interesting now because this, of course, takes us to the debate of the week, and that is the opposition's pledge to aspire to zero net emissions by 2050. That is something that's been pilloried by members in this House. Zero net emissions for the agriculture sector is absolutely about resilience. The NFF, in its 2030 Roadmap, talks about the $40 billion that might be available to the land sector if we can put in place an architecture which allows them to participate in the carbon economy. The government says that Labor's plans will hurt the farm sector. No—they will be of assistance, properly designed, to the ag sector, and of course to the forestry sector. We desperately need trees in the ground in this country, and the best way to get trees into the ground is to incentivise the private sector to plant those trees. And, since the devastating bushfires of this summer, that's something that is needed more now than ever before. Some of the things that need to be done are so simple, like the changes to the water rule, which was put in place in a way which effectively knocked out those seeking to plant softwood timber, because the carbon credit is only available to them effectively if they're planting in places where it doesn't rain sufficiently to grow the trees. That could be fixed tomorrow with one stroke of the legislative pen, but this government is unprepared to do it. In fact, Minister Littleproud, during the election campaign, when I committed the Labor Party to doing it, described it as 'reckless'. So, again, I invite the minister to respond to that when he gets to his feet. But the NFF is saying it. Meat and Livestock Australia is saying it. The grains industry is saying it. They're all saying, right across the ag sector, that there are amazing opportunities for the sector. In fact, the NFF says that participation in the carbon economy will lift productivity and profitability. That's what they're saying. They are saying they have an ambition to be well advanced to zero net emissions by 2030. Yet the government says that the Labor Party, by embracing an ambition of zero net emissions by 2050, is going to 'kill' the agriculture sector. Well, they should hang their heads in shame because it's not true. The sector knows it. We know it. And I suspect the majority of producers and growers know it too. But they will continue to weaponise climate change as an issue because they see economic advantage in doing so. That takes me to my second quote, which is from Niall Blair. I quoted earlier from Adam Marshall, the previous minister in New South Wales. Now I am quoting from Niall Blair, the person he replaced. He is now Professor Niall Blair at Charles Sturt University. This is his area of expertise. And he's very honest, because he told Fairfax papers, today, this: Farming is hard enough and becoming harder with more droughts, severe storms and unreliable weather patterns. Ultimately, this will have an impact— on the food security of our nation. He goes on: A net zero emissions future— in Australia— provides nothing but opportunities— nothing but opportunities, he says, for our farmers. And, with 30 years to get there, they are ready, willing and able. Those opposite might say: 'Niall Blair doesn't speak for farmers.' But I know he has got a deep background in the sector. I know he has been their minister. I know he knows a lot of them. So it's a pretty courageous contribution to come to this dispatch box or to stand in this place and to say that Niall Blair doesn't know what farmers are thinking. So, rather than making farmers feel less secure by barking in this place, every day, that a policy construction is going to 'kill' them, the minister at the table and his colleagues, those on the benches on the other side, should be going to their farm communities and saying: 'We want to work with the Labor Party on this. We think there are opportunities in this. You shouldn't be worried about this because this is going to be good for you.' And why wouldn't they be prepared to say that? The New South Wales Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, is saying it. Every state and territory leader is saying it. The National Farmers Federation is saying it. Meat and Livestock Australia is saying it. The grains industry was saying it just today in the Western Australian papers. The BCA and Santos, BP, BHP—they're all saying it. Those last three companies I named aren't saying it specifically as to the agriculture sector, although I am sure they'd believe it, but they are saying it's good for the economy. It's good for our natural environment, but it's good for our economy and jobs. So it shouldn't be so hard for those opposite to recognise that the majority of the community wants us to act on our natural environment. They want us to address the challenges of a changing climate, but they want us to do it in a way that doesn't do harm to our economy or to local jobs. We can give them that guarantee, but, no, those opposite don't want to do that. They see political opportunity. They have been weaponising this issue for political gain for up to two decades. The great tragedy is that if the legislative architecture put in place by the Gillard government was still in place, we wouldn't even know it, except for the fact that farmers would have been taking advantage of that carbon economy for the past 10 years. We wouldn't even know it was there. It was the case that for the six years we were in office greenhouse gas emissions were falling. In the six years since we lost government, greenhouse gas emissions have been rising until recently, when they flatlined—more from luck than from any work of this government. If we had kept Labor's legislative architecture, we would have been applauded when we went to global forums. We would have been seen as the leaders on this front. And to those who are not doing enough, those who are not meeting their Paris commitments—or worse, those who have withdrawn from Paris—we would have been able to say, with great credibility, 'You need to do more,' and acknowledging that only by acting as a collective globally can we make a real difference. We can't say that now. We can't go to those international forums and tell people they need to do more. How can we when we are not doing anything ourselves? In recent years, our carbon emissions have been growing not falling—although now they are, at best, flatlining. People at those international forums all know that our current Prime Minister is intent on using Kyoto credits to fudge his figures. They think that's an outrage, and so they should. Just like the country's coalminers, who will not be adversely affected by whatever Labor produces in the fullness of time, our farmers do not need to fear the aspiration of zero net emissions. Indeed, there is opportunity for them here. We've had six years of dithering, six years of inaction, six years of committee after committee, review after review, summit after summit, a drought summit, a bush summit, a drought coordinator, a drought envoy—we've had it all—and now we've got a drought minister. But we haven't seen any results—it has all been fluff—and the symbol of it all is an $8 billion figure that is simply untrue. The minister, when he summarises, will want to get up and defend that $8 billion. He needs to explain to the Australian people how it is credible to claim it—the money would be very, very welcome—but he won't be able to do so. I close my contribution by appealing to those who sit opposite to stop weaponising the issue of climate change, to come with the majority of the parliament in reaching a political settlement on these issues and, for the first time, make a genuine commitment to making a difference. For the first time, commit to meeting the commitments Malcolm Turnbull made on our behalf in Paris—not the Labor Party, but Malcolm Turnbull. Start being honest with the Australian people by first admitting you're not spending $8 billion on drought and then by admitting you have been completely incompetent in your response to the drought. Tell farmers that they will not be disadvantaged but in fact advantaged by zero net emissions by 2050. Most important of all, tell your constituency that the climate wars are over, that you're tired of weaponising this issue; rather, for the first time, you've come to the conclusion that it's time to do something meaningful—to work in a bipartisan manner so that we can produce some architecture that will be overwhelmingly beneficial to our natural environment and, just as importantly, overwhelmingly beneficial to all of the Australian community, including those who work in the agriculture sector, those who work in the forestry sector and those who work in the fisheries sector. It doesn't always seem obvious, but the fisheries sector is dramatically impacted by drought and it is dramatically impacted by the terrible bushfires we have had over this summer. It's time for those opposite to end the political games and to work in the interest of the Australian community. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Mr Butler HWK I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter has moved as amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 18:01 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls We've heard the member for Hunter try to appeal to his coalminers from the Hunter region, saying the Labor Party isn't going to take your job; the Labor Party isn't going to put up prices. I think his speech was more about making a plea to people to believe him than about making any legitimate point. This bill, the Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2020, is about this government, a government I'm very proud to be a part of, giving a hand-up to people that are in a really, really tough bind—people working on farms who find themselves in drought. I first became associated at a federal level with the farm household allowance when the milk crisis hit in May 2016. Murray Goulburn, as they were back then, realised they'd been paying their farmers a price they couldn't afford to continue to pay, so they said to their dairy farmers, 'We've been paying you over the odds for the last six to 12 months; we want all that money back.' Then we had others like Fonterra say, 'Yes, us too. We want our money back as well.' So they set a much lower price and then demanded hundreds of thousands of dollars. These farmers, who had obviously been meeting their commitments, needed to somehow or other find hundreds of thousands of dollars to repay that money. It put our dairy farmers in an incredibly tough position, and many farmers simply got out. They simply couldn't repay this money. That was my first taste of that, seeing the dire situation that so many of our farmers had been put in through no fault of their own but simply the mismanagement of the processors. And the processors were all playing dumb, saying, 'It's the fault of the CEO.' The CEO was telling them that they could afford a certain price that they couldn't. So we had a whole dairy industry that went into freefall. All of a sudden, prices were slashed, and farmers that had built in a much higher return on their produce were trying to work out how their business model for the farm was going to work with literally hundreds of thousands of dollars slashed from their income. The need for farm household allowance absolutely spiked as we went through those months of the milk crisis. There were a whole range of meetings that were held around the Goulburn Murray and through northern Victoria about how we needed to simplify the application process that was put in place—and it was quite a strenuous and arduous process to be able to get farm household allowance. It took on board your assets. So many farms are tied up in trusts, tied up in family businesses, and so many farmers have off-farm assets and they have very complicated business models. When you have such a complicated business model it's difficult to actually be able to receive a type of government assistance that, in many instances, very much rivals and looks like Newstart allowance. It's a very similar type of commitment that the Australian government want and demand on behalf of their taxpayers. These farmers have to supply an incredible amount of detail and really do have to open up their books to ensure that they're able to get the assistance that we are able to offer. It's also been refreshing that the government has listened to so many of these farmers' concerns. We've had issues about the protracted and prolonged application process. Many of the farmers are in quite a sustained and prolonged state of stress when they actually get to the stage when they need to apply for farmer household assistance and support. That puts them in a difficult situation when it comes to filling out so many forms. We have simplified this process dramatically. Prime Minister Morrison and Deputy Prime Minister McCormack have had a lead role, along with the various agricultural ministers, in simplifying this process. The bills that we passed late last year and the bills that we are now moving to get through today are more attuned to making this process simpler. We've made sure that people who have been on the farmer household allowance for four years out of ten were going to be able to exit off it with a lump sum payment. We put that through, and that had the broad support of the advocacy groups. I know people would like to be on it forever; however, that's not the intent. What we've been able to do is find some middle ground here. As I say, for those with four years out of ten we have been able to exit over 1,000 farmers off, and that has effectively given them the opportunity to have that once-off lump sum payment as they exit the program. We've also needed to have the asset value of the farms increased; we've been able to capture more farmers by taking the asset threshold up to $5.5 million. That's had a significant impact as farmers realise that they may have a significant asset in the shape of their farm. However, what we also realise is that sometimes that doesn't equate to their ability to get through a drought, to get through natural disasters and to work their way through, back to profitability. What they need is a little bit of help that puts some food on the table and maintains that dignity that farmer household allowance enables them to maintain. When we think about the tough road that many of our farmers are treading at the moment, it's somewhat worrying when you compare what could have been had the election on 18 May last year produced a different result. Many of the farmers in my electorate of Nicholls are facing ridiculously high water charges. The pressure that has been put on the irrigation sector by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was going to be made worse by an incoming Labor government when you looked at their policies in relation to water and what they planned to do with water if they were to assume government in May 2019. They made it very clear that they were going to go after 450 gigalitres of water from the Murray-Darling Basin, water that currently has a social and economic neutrality test around it, which means taking more water out of the agriculture sector simply cannot be done if you're going to cause social and economic detriment to the community surrounding those water projects. The shadow water minister, Mr Burke, said, 'No, we're going to squash that. We're going to go back and get rid of that definition. We are going to make sure if anyone wants to sell their water they can. If anybody wants to get involved in any water delivery program, they can do that.' This is going to take even more water out of the consumptive pool. The Labor Party were very bullish and very up front about this policy. They wanted to take more water out of agriculture. And the more water you take out of agriculture, the quicker that water spikes in price every time you go through a dry spell. So it was very clear in the lead-up to the election where the Labor Party sat when it came to water policy. We heard the previous member's brazen attitude towards the price of electricity. Electricity forms one of the key costs of many farming businesses. To think you can effectively throw in an energy policy that is not costed and doesn't have the impacts for Australian farmers and simply say, 'We don't care about the impacts of our zero emissions by 2050. We're heading down this path and whatever will be will be,' just puts more pressure on our farmers as they look towards their future, and the future of farming is tough at the moment. There are many young farmers out there who are looking at their farming practice, their farming business, and they're running the ruler over it. They're saying, 'Do I really want to commit the next 20 to 30 years of my life to agriculture?' Whilst there are some incredible opportunities, there are also some incredible challenges—namely drought, ridiculously high water prices and uncertainty around water policy—and all of these make a future in agriculture a little less certain. That's why, again, we have to be very careful when we are helping our farmers through these natural disasters in the form of bushfires, in the form of drought, in the form of an incredible turmoil such as the dairy industry did in 2016. One of the components of the legislation we're debating today is the enabling of more flexibility in what the farmer has to do to receive an on-farm assessment. We had a very strict 28-day time limit on that assessment and, while these assessments will still need to be completed, we have actually expanded the group of personnel that will be able to conduct an on-farm assessment and we have slightly relaxed the stringent 28-day time limit. I think that will help in a certain way. It has also made it a little bit easier for a farmer to calculate whether or not they are likely to continue to qualify for the farm household allowance. Your income will be based on your current income. The previous system did create the situation where as people earned a little too much, they found they had to pay back money because at that time their income went over the threshold. So if that can be also slightly relaxed, that will make it easier for our farmers to move on to farm household allowance, stay on it for the right amount of time, receive the right amount of support and then also remove themselves from the fund once their income goes over a certain amount. I think in general we have seen that the farm household support is at the right level for those farmers and families receiving it. It's not meant to be able to sustain a poor operating farmer; it's meant to be able to give those farmers going through a really tough situation on a temporary basis that little extra support they need so they can withstand these droughts, floods, bushfires and downturns in various sectors and still have a vibrant, economically viable business at the other end. This is why I believe the farm household allowance is achieving the ends that it was meant to achieve in the first place. It has helped more than 13,000 farmers and their partners throughout the entirety of the program. Over $400 million has been given out over the last six years and it really has improved the financial circumstances of so many of our people that have been going through a very tough time. I hope it continues to fulfil this role. Legislation like that which we are talking about today will continue to make this process simpler, more practical, and more easily and better able to fit the needs of our farmers. I certainly hope that it continues to create the results that have been created in the past. I want to thank the various ministers who had input into making sure this fund was amended to make these important changes. 18:16 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Mr Speaker, in rising to speak on the Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2020, I am very intrigued by the federal government claiming credit for the financial household package. In fact, it was the party I belong to, the KAP, that initiated the drought summit down here, the roundtable. It was chaired by Rowell Walton, the president of our party. Out of it Wayne Swan, the ALP Treasurer, to the shame of the government, gave us these financial assistance grants. If you were not getting welfare payments, the government gave you a top-up to enable you to have at least a welfare income for your family. All of the credit goes to the Rural Action Council of Far North Queensland: the president, Johnny Gambino; the secretary, Bernie O'Shea; and Makse Srhoj. I won't name all of them, but Johnny Mete and Scotty Dixon have to be named. Those people were determined to get a number of changes through, and that was one of those changes. They also secured from the LNP an agreement that, if they were elected, there would be a mandatory code of conduct to answer the power of Woolworths and Coles—a promise that was flagrantly breached and almost led to the sacking of one of the McGauran brothers as the minister because he just couldn't live with the shame of going to an election promising we would do something about Woolworths and Coles with a mandatory code of conduct, and all they were asking for was a sales dock. Is this a big thing to ask—that Woolworths and Coles gives a sales docket? There is a necessity for that if you are a mango farmer—and I was a tiny mango farmer. You send your mangoes in, if you've got an early season, and you get $25 a box. Next week, when all the other mango farmers come on, it will be $16 a box. The big supermarket chains returned the mangoes, saying: 'Oh well, there were some problems with the mangoes. If you don't like it, too bad'. Now the mangos have lost two weeks of their shelf life and you can't sell them. Of course, in the meantime the farmer has been bankrupted. He got $25 a box and now he can't get anything for a box that is over-ripe. Any of the fruit and vegetables would fall into that category. All they were asking for was a sales docket. At Mareeba, the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia stood in front of a meeting of 800 people called by the Rural Action Council and promised them they would get a mandatory code of conduct, which was just a sales docket. Woolworths and Coles said, 'We didn't actually buy them off you; we just took them on consignment. Now we've looked at them and we're returning them to you.' But, if there was a sales docket, they couldn't do that; they couldn't pull that trick. Is this an unreasonable thing to ask for? Peter McGauran just couldn't do it. So they replaced him with a germ from the Liberal Party, who had no difficulty whatsoever in doing it. I won't mention his name. You have been in power for 26 of the last 32 years, and how's agriculture faring? Our cattle numbers are down from 33 million to 22 million. Did the free markets help the cattle industry? Not bloody likely. We're down from 33 million head to 22 million head, one of the lowest figures ever in my lifetime. Did they help the wool industry? Well, alright: the ALP deregulated wool—they can take the full blame for that one—but did you put it back? No. You didn't put it back. So how's wool faring? It's the biggest industry this country has had since its inception as a country in the 1890s. Right through to 1980, it was bigger than coal. What did you do? The ALP deregulated; you blokes never reregulated. So let's see how the wool industry is faring under your great free-market system. We had 172 million sheep; now we have 66 million. Oh, jeez, they've done really well under your free market system! Let's move on to the sugar industry. I'm not using grain as an example because grain really depends on seasons. Its income is very seasonal, so I'll leave that out. The other one of the big four is the sugar cane industry. Every town in Queensland north of Nambour, including Nambour, is a sugar cane town or a sugar cane city, such as Townsville and Cairns. Not Rockhampton, not Gladstone and not Bowen, but, outside of those three, the other 30 are all sugar towns. They've been created by the sugar industry; their industry is sugar. This is one of the biggest industries in Australia. How are they faring? They're down 15 per cent. The reality is that they're closing a mill every two or three years. Now there are only about 21 or 22 mills left in Australia, so they're on doomsday road. How's the dairy industry going—the other one of the big five? It's down 50 per cent. Here's your scorecard on wool: from 172 million sheep down to 66 million sheep. Here's your scorecard on cattle: from 33 million down to 22 million. Here's your scorecard on dairy: down 50 per cent. Here's your scorecard on sugar: down 15 per cent, and a sugar mill closes every three years. There are only 21 or 22 sugar mills left in Australia. There's your scorecard. Why have your policies been so absolutely disastrous? It's because of the destruction of my party, the Country Party. Doug Anthony was a very young man and I wasn't in the parliament at the time. He got me aside. He's six foot six and he's of Sicilian descent, so you listen to him. You wouldn't do much else! He looked at me with his blue eyes and he said, 'Don't worry about subsidies or tariffs. Our party's never worried about subsidies or tariffs. This party dies in the ditches over the value of the dollar.' All we're asking, if you're fair dinkum about free markets, is: why don't you let the dollar free-float? Why don't you let that happen? 'Oh, no, that's different. We might lose some votes there.' So we have free markets while we drive our agriculture to extinction, but, when it comes to buying votes in the cities, 'Oh no, we're not free marketing then. Oh, no way.' Those of you who are much older than most here will remember Billy McMahon announcing a revaluation of the dollar. Doug Anthony, three months out from an election, took great delight in announcing a devaluation the next day. If you knew Doug Anthony, you knew what the outcome would be. Nine days later, we had a devaluation and a towering humiliation for the Prime Minister of Australia. He deserved it and he had it coming, and didn't I enjoy watching him cop it! 'Jack' McEwen talked about protection. I had dinner with the great man. Before I was a member of parliament, he had me to dinner. He said, 'There is no such thing as protection. There is only nursery protection to enable an industry to get going.' I think he was stretching things a little bit there—as much as I love the great man, and I sit under a picture of him in my office. Secondly, he said our rural industries must ride the roller-coaster of the world market prices, which are very, very cyclical. When prices go up, tax takes the top off the up curve. When the price goes down, the banks elongate the bottom curve. What we do with protection is try to even that out. The wool scheme was a classic case in point: when the price went through the roof we dumped wool on the market, and when the price went down we bought—a classic example of McEwenism. We moved onto the free market. I never make assertions without backing them up. Keating, when he came in, did the right thing; he allowed the dollar to free float. If you're fair dinkum free market then you allow the dollar to float. The essence of free-market economics is probably the dollar. He allowed it to free float. He was a good guy—fancy me saying Keating was a good guy! But then he wet his pants, to put it crudely, and raced off and propped it back up over 96c. He did the right thing but then he went to water, became a dingo, dogged it and propped it back up at 96c. Then Costello came in and allowed it to free float. Good on you, Pete! Then he got terrified when it went down to 49c. I make the point that when it was allowed to free float I knew one bloke who went to 49c. I dare say there's no doubt that that's where it should have been, at 49c. He propped it up over 95c because he wet his pants and dogged it as well. Both of them dogged it. They said they were free market but, when they really had to wear the tough side of it, like Doug Anthony had to, they were dogs. If you're a farmer in Australia, you enjoy six per cent of your income from the government—these are the OECD figures, not my figures. I always average it over the last three years, so these figures are averaged over three years. If you're an Australian farmer, you get under six per cent of your income from the government. If you're a farmer on earth, you get 41 per cent. Every farmer on earth gets 41 per cent of his income from the government, except if you live in Australia. The only other idiot nation is New Zealand—well, we understand about the Kiwis! Forty-one per cent versus six per cent. That's like running a 100-metre race and giving your opponent a 35-metre head start. How are you going to win a 100-metre race? I could beat Linford Christie over the 100 metres—I must admit, I was pretty fast in my day—by gaining that sort of start. We get preached to about free markets. I did go to university and I did do economics—I did until I left, anyway! I was taught that when two people have 90 per cent of the market it is called an oligopoly, or some might even go so far as to say duopoly. When Coles and Woolworths had 50.1 per cent of the market, their mark-up that I recorded was 126 per cent. When they got over 80 per cent of the market—arguably over 90 per cent of the market—their mark-up went to 276 per cent. Nick Xenophon did the same, and he used a much bigger basket of goods than I did. For him, the mark-up was 326 per cent. The difference between what the poor old farmer gets and what the poor old consumer has to pay has gone from 126 per cent to somewhere between 276 and 326 per cent. Was it good for the consumers? No! It was no good for the farmers and it was no good for the consumers, yet you people persist. There is not a single person that I know on either side of the parliament who is game to get up and breathe a word against the free market ideology. We have a saying in the bush, 'When your neighbour starts preaching religion, reach for your branding iron,' and I've found it to be pretty true, even though I'm a churchgoer myself. So when I hear politicians start talking ideology—as one of my old cow-cocky mates put it, he said, 'Mate, when I hear politicians start spruiking about ideology and their beliefs, I start reaching not for my branding iron, mate, but for my shooting iron,' and I think he had it right. We're talking about how the government is dealing with the drought, but it's not really the drought; we all know that every farmer is going broke. I've given you the figures. How you can stand up in front of farmers and seriously say to them, 'I'm looking after you,' I do not know. I couldn't do it. I reached the stage where I couldn't do it and I got out. Mr Deputy Speaker McVeigh, you're from Queensland; you would be aware of my background. In surveys that were done in Queensland before the fall of the Bjelke-Petersen government, if you said 'National Party', what was the first word to come into your head? It was 'Bjelke-Petersen'. If you said 'National Party' again, what's the second word? The second word was 'Katter'. I had an identification rating the same as Prime Minister Bob Hawke. I was the National Party in Queensland, along with Bjelke-Petersen— (Time expired) 18:31 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I rise to speak on the Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No.1) 2020. This is the latest set in a group of modifications that the government has made in recent times to farm household assistance. While I fully accept that some parts of Australia have had good rain—in fact, more than ample in some places—there are a lot that are still pretty dry. We had a recent rainfall event not far from me. About 10 kilometres up the road there was 50 or 60 millimetres of rain, and we managed nine on my property, so it's still pretty dry around there. Through South Australia we had some moderate rains, but they were a while ago now, and through much of eastern Australia, and even Western Australia now, the drought has still got a firm grip. We hope it's loosening, but until that time the government needs to remain strong, support communities and support farmers to help them stay on their properties so they're there when the rains do return. What happens here is we've got this farm household allowance payment. As people access it, they come to people like me and other members of parliament, and to the rural councillors, and say, 'It's really difficult to fill out this paperwork; it's really difficult to tick all the boxes.' So we've gone along a path of simplification. These amendments are the next step in some of this simplification. We're trying to remove some of the pitfalls and traps for people who aren't necessarily used to dealing with copious paperwork. Even where they are, it is difficult enough. Even farm business advisers tell me this is a difficult path to access this support measure. The first set of amendments remove the provisions that have given rise to income reconciliation. Rather than the person having to report what their income has been over the last fortnight, they make an estimate of what their income will be over the next 12 months. If they underestimate that amount and they receive too much income then they have to send payments back to Centrelink. What we're doing now is just basing those payments on current income. It simplifies it greatly. They don't have to worry about what's going to happen next year or indeed what happened two years ago. Now they merely have to focus on the amount of money they are earning at the moment. They will report that, and that will be the simple reporting process. The other thing we are doing is providing for a single rate of the farm household allowance. For those that don't readily understand what happens, it's a bit like with the pension; there's a taper in there. If your income goes up a bit, you lose some of the farm household allowance. If your income goes up a bit more, you lose a bit more, and eventually you reach a threshold where it disappears altogether. And obviously the opposite is also true. This means that as a person's income that they have been reporting every fortnight goes up or down—depending maybe on what off-farm income they have earned or sales from the farm—their taper rate has been adjusting as well. It's been a pitfall for people. They are really concerned that they are going to get a bill at the end of the year for having accepted too much money in the first place. So we are removing that taper, we are flattening it out. There will be one payment for all people. If you qualify you qualify, and you'll get paid. If your income is too high, you will not get paid. It's quite simple. That should provide some real relief to people. We need to put our head in the space of people who are facing drought. I'd been through a few tough ones before I got to this place. I can remember sending my wife off farm in the mid-eighties to go to Whyalla, which is 170 kilometres away. She was pregnant. I had the slightly under two-year-old in my care as I wandered around the farm making sure the jobs were done. It was a tough time. We've been challenged through our farming life; it was not the only time, but that is a graphic example. And, in amongst all that, it's not easy to actually go and ask someone for some help. And then, when you are asking for their help, you've got to bare your soul to get the payment. So the government is recognising that. We can't go recklessly throwing taxpayers' money around. We have a responsibility to the taxpayer to ensure that the money is going to the right people. In this case, by this simplification process, we are removing some of those obstacles and making it easier for people, but we are certainly not removing the rigour altogether. One of the other amendments is to remove the 28-day time limit for a farm financial assessment—the assessment which clarifies whether you are eligible for the payment in the first place and have a viable ongoing concern. One of those very interesting things about drought support of any kind is that somebody has to make an assessment—whether you are just prolonging the agony for somebody trying to hold onto an almost extinct farming enterprise or whether they've got a real future if you get them through a tough patch. So it's important that we don't give money to people who have an underlying unviability; we need to actually support those who have an opportunity to press on and be viable farming families in the future. So instead of having a really tight time frame of 28 days, which is very difficult for people to meet—they are not always able to get the right person to make the assessment in that time—we are providing individual flexibility to meet those arrangements and of course find the person to make the relevant assessment. Those are the points I wanted to make in connection with this legislation. It is worth also going back over some of the changes we have made in recent times. It was back in 2019 that we made the decision to lift to $5 million the maximum net worth of properties eligible for farm household assistance. Some still argue that that's not enough. I think it is substantial. You would have to be a very big farming property indeed if you had $5 million of equity left and a banking institution would not advance you enough money to put food on your table. If you have a $100 million farm and you are only worth $5 million, that's the least of your problems; by the time you've got to that point, you need to be making those tough decisions about your future anyhow. I think that was a very good change and it enabled people with moderately sized farms and moderately sized debts to get some assistance. One of the other changes made in the second instalment was a change in eligibility to access this assistance from four years in each specified 10-year period instead of four years in the lifetime of the farmer. It means that, if another brace of droughts comes around in the next decade, these people are not automatically excluded from any kind of assistance that might have been around at that time. And these droughts are periodic, and cyclical. It seems not so long ago that we had the Millennium Drought but of course there was a decade between the Millennium Drought and this current drought. So it was quite a while, but for those who are in the game it seems to come often enough. And while different assistance was offered back in the Millennium Drought, it could well be that the same arrangements are in place the next time this level of drought comes around. The other one was for the simplified assets test, for couples to be able to report their assets as one entity rather than dual entities. Once again, it is about clearing up paperwork and trying to make life easier for those who need the support at this time. But it does give me an opportunity to talk about some of the other very positive things that are happening around supporting farming communities in drought. There are 20 councils, I think, in the electorate of Grey that now have the Drought Communities Program operating, so those million-dollar payments are coming through those councils. One of the most important forms of assistance that has ever been offered to Australian farmers and one that I made use of when I was farming was farm management deposits. I think they are the single most helpful thing that governments can do to help farmers. Recently, about two years ago, we lifted those cap limits, so each person could have up to $800,000 in farm management deposits. We made changes so it enabled banks to use the farm management deposits to offset borrowings. A farmer might, let's say, have an overdraft with a bank that might be $800,000. They might be paying an interest rate of somewhere around five per cent. They might only be earning two per cent on their farm management deposit and that difference is quite significant. So if the farm management deposit was, say, $500,000, effectively the overdraft they would pay the interest on would only be $300,000. Banks were a little reluctant to take this up in the first instance, but I understand now a number of them have and I congratulate them for that. I think we should all be working together to make sure that we do have productive enterprises out there to capitalise on rain when it arrives. It makes sense to me that we provide encouragement to governments for farmers to actually make preparation for the inevitable droughts and that's what farm management deposits do. I'm given to reflect that even now, after the droughts we have had, there is over $5 billion held in farm management deposits around Australia. While I can't categorically rule it out, I would suggest that if anyone has significant amounts in their farm management deposits, it probably means they're not drawing on farm household assistance and they're probably not drawing on farm loans. It is like superannuation. You can see the benefit of actually providing the incentive for farmers to put aside this financial haystack for the tough times ahead because that enables them to be completely in control of their future, make their own decisions and not have to rely on the taxpayer to come along and bail them out. All in all, I thank the government for these latest changes. They are not earth-shaking but they are a significant improvement and a significant relief to those people who need to fill out that paperwork—tick the boxes, cross the other boxes, make sure they say the right words in the right place—and it takes a bit of pressure off people who are under a lot of pressure already. 18:43 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I rise to add my support to this Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2020, one of a series of bills we have seen introduced to the House expanding government assistance to our farmers who are undoubtedly doing it tough and to also add my support to the amendment of the shadow minister. Across my electorate of Lyons, particularly the east coast and Southern Midlands, farmers are struggling to feed livestock let alone make a living because of the lack of rain. Earlier this month, farmers in the Baghdad Valley publicly called for a new irrigation scheme which has been long planned, long promised and long delayed by the Tasmanian state Liberal government. John Medhurst, a farmer, has six tractors and a harvester sitting idle because it so dry. Normally, he would be flat chat this time of year. The drought across the Southern Midlands has been the worst he has seen since 1966. I might add that the Southern Midlands has not been drought-declared by the government, unlike Glamorgan-Spring Bay and Break O'Day on the east coast. I don't know what is needed for a drought declaration from the government to free up $1 million in assistance—perhaps the imminence of an election! The fact is the Southern Midlands is very dry and it needs that money. John says that all the water holes on his property are dry. Nearby sheep farmer Edwin Batt, who used to swim and fish in the creek on his family property, says that the lake is long gone and the creek is bone-dry. He wants the Tasmanian government and Tasmanian Irrigation to get serious about a Southern Midlands irrigation scheme which will provide water security for the region's farmers. That's what this is all about: providing water security to the region's farmers, which provides an income for farmers. TI has made it clear the scheme is not on its list of high priorities, and it is focusing on delivering schemes elsewhere in the state that are easier and quicker to deliver. But we won't give up. The fact is water security is top of mind for farmers across my electorate. With water security, farmers will have less need to rely on measures such as farm household assistance. But water security in Tasmania is hampered by a lack of a statewide water strategy and the existence of a grab bag of entities and authorities that are each accountable for their own narrow areas of interest but are not accountable for delivering water in any holistic way. Essentially, we have Tasmanian Irrigation, or TI, which enters into partnerships with farmers and the federal and state governments to deliver water for crops and grazing. We have TasWater, an entity owned by the state's councils but runs independently from them, to manage and build infrastructure and deliver drinking water supply. We have the Hydro, a state government GBE, which manages water resources for its electricity generation. They each stick to their own knitting, with none taking a holistic review of water resources for the state. I've made it clear that it's in farmers' best interests and the interests of Tasmanians as a whole for a statewide water strategy to be developed that examines how much water we have and where it is; how much water is falling from the sky and where; how much of it can be harvested and how; and how feasible it is to move it from where it is not needed to where it is needed. It staggers me that this work has not been done already. I'm sure there are valuable bits of information squirrelled away in various reports. TI will have some information, Hydro will have some and TasWater will have some, but, as far as I've been able to determine, no-one has taken a look at our state as a whole. No-one has taken a look at Tasmania's water resources as a whole—about how we could manage those resources and what we need to do to get best use of them while, of course, maintaining environmental flow. This may all seem a bit off the beaten track when it comes to the specifics of this debate, but I'll say this: if we get water security right, then we provide economic security for farmers, and that is very much at the heart of this bill. As to the specifics of the bill before us, because of the capital tied up in farms and equipment and because of the importance of primary production to our economy and because we need food and fibre to live, farmers simply cannot walk off the land and seek another job when their income dries up along with the rain. It's for these reasons it has been entirely appropriate that government assists farmers to stay on the land during the lean times in the expectation that, when conditions improve, we are all better off for them having toughed it out. We are talking relatively modest assistance, with payments akin to what people are provided on Newstart. The assistance helps, but every farmer would prefer rain to earn their own income again and not have to receive it. This bill aims to provide relief to farmers by essentially calling off the collection dogs in the event of 'overpayment of assistance'. Farmers rightly have a special place in our collective national heart. They encapsulate so much of what we like to think of as our national character: resilience, good humour, a no-nonsense work ethic and zero tolerance for airs, graces and bull. But farmers are not the only people in Australia who are struggling. It is important that, while assisting farmers, we do not forget other Australians who also need assistance. If only the government had shown the same empathy for the thousands of Australians formerly receiving Centrelink payments: the victims of the robodebt scandal, who have been chased down with demands for repayment of so-called overpayments. They were overpayments that, in many cases, did not exist, because they had been calculated using a dodgy formula—an illegal, unethical and disgraceful process that this government continues to refuse to apologise for. If only the government had shown those many Australians the same sympathy it shows farmers. It seems, though, that for this government some Australians are more worthy of its attention than others. More and more Australians, whether they are pensioners, farmers, jobless, students, casually employed or even employed full time in a low-wage job, are struggling with the basic cost of living. Interest rates may be low, but mortgage payments are high. Those who can't afford a deposit have to rent, but rents are skyrocketing. In a regional town in my electorate, just last week I saw a three-bedroom weatherboard house for rent for $500 a week—in a regional town. Public housing lists are a year long for high-priority people. Electricity prices are up, despite promises from the government to get them down. Wages are flat, underemployment is rife and wage theft is rampant. Private health insurance is increasingly out of reach, while public health queues are at record highs. We all know that poverty is rising in Australia. The latest Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey found that there was an increase in the number of people living below the poverty line. ACOSS's 2020 report Poverty in Australia 2020 found that there were 3.24 million people living below the poverty line, including 423,800 young people. This means that more than one in eight and more than one in six children in our country are living in poverty. The poverty line in Australia is $457 a week for a single adult living alone, or $960 for a couple with two children. Australia has the 16th highest poverty rate out of the 34 wealthiest countries in the OECD—higher than the UK, Germany and New Zealand. Most people living below the poverty line are renting. Almost half of all renters who are 65 and over are in poverty. If you're in poverty, you earn less than $457 a week, and yet Newstart, of course, is around $279 a week. The median rental price in Hobart is $450 a week. Once you've paid the rent, there's nothing left. Don't get sick and visit your GP in Tasmania. We've got the lowest bulk-billing rates in Australia. In my electorate, most of it regional, which includes, of course, farmers, a visit to your GP is likely to result in an almost $40 out-of-pocket cost. That's up 30 per cent since 2013. If you see a specialist, it's going to cost you almost $70, an increase of $22 since 2012-13. While the federal government has turned its back on struggling Tasmanians, offering limited support by way of critical emergency accommodation, it's even withdrawn support for crucial food relief providers like Loaves and Fishes. This organisation provides 70 per cent of emergency food in Tasmania, preparing up to 5,000 meals per week, servicing 220 community food programs and 38 school breakfast clubs with produce and healthy, nutritious meals. And I say all this because farmers deserve our sympathy, deserve our support and deserve our assistance, but there are so many thousands of Tasmanians and Australians who do too. It's not just farmers who are struggling. The Morrison government's withdrawal of support for Loaves and Fishes places it at dire risk of closing. It had some interim funding support, but that expires next month, and there has been no promise that it will be renewed. Those opposite will say that the best form of welfare is a job—an effective catchphrase which simply means nothing to the people in my electorate who can't afford to feed or house themselves, or indeed the 50,000 Tasmanians who need more work. Data from the ABS shows that more Tasmanians than ever are finding it harder to get enough work to make ends meet, with 70 per cent of new jobs created since 2014 being part time. Underemployment is the worst it has ever been in my state. 'The best form of welfare is to get a job. Give it a go and you get a go.' That's the catchphrase; that's the slogan. I'm sure it offers comfort to the tens of thousands of Tasmanians who can't get a job because there simply aren't enough vacancies. Statistics show that there are 27 Tasmanians competing for every single job available. Maths tells you that it doesn't work. It's a real crisis, but instead of policy and action, this government is content to use slogans to address the entrenchment and growth of poverty that it not only oversees but also causes. Just before I finish up I will come to the issue of Labor's policy on net zero emissions, which of course will provide significant opportunities in the agricultural sector. The subject of this bill is farm income and farmers' income security, and there are great opportunities here with Labor's net zero emissions policy—moved of course and administered by the shadow minister at the table, Mark Butler. And it's not just Labor saying this. Professor of Food Sustainability at Charles Sturt University, the Hon. Niall Blair, who is a former New South Wales Nationals agriculture minister and primary productions minister, says this is a good policy, and he says that the opportunities are great for the agricultural sector. He says: … investing in research and helping farmers change some agricultural practices will not only reduce CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions but sequestering carbon can reverse some of the damage. Additionally it makes farmers more resilient to climate change. He goes on to say: We could unlock billions of dollars from government and industry funds, paid directly to farmers to help improve their natural capital, their soil, vegetation and farming practices— not to mention innovation and research— which, in turn, will reverse the effects of climate change. This will also ensure our commodities are acceptable to eco-wise consumers in a competitive market where already 70 countries have committed to the net zero target. Labor's not alone on this. It's those opposite who are standing alone. They're standing in the past. They're standing in history on this issue. Labor is on one side with the New South Wales government and other state governments and more than 70 countries, and former agriculture ministers in coalition governments, who say this is a good policy, it's a good plan, and the opportunities are great for the agricultural sector. The opportunities are great for farmers to be able to diversify their income streams so that, when drought and other disasters come along, they've got a diversification-of-income ability. That's what the net zero carbon emissions policy unlocks. It unlocks opportunity for the regions and the agricultural sector. And that opportunity should be recognised by those opposite, particularly those who represent agricultural and regional seats, because there is a real opportunity here to unlock billions of dollars in investment and opportunity. We do support the bill, because the shadow minister has moved the second reading amendment. We all support our farmers, particularly those who are still doing it tough. Of course the shadow minister has made reference to those farmers who are still at risk of being cut off from assistance, and he has called on the government to reverse that, and I stand with him on that. But I commend the bill to the House. 18:58 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I'd like to commend the member for Lyons for bringing a whole range of issues into that debate, and I'm trying to work out how I can get my support for a proper legal process surrounding Julian Assange into this debate on the farm household support bill! I'll have to consider that for a while! But I'll get to it. An honourable member interjecting— Mr JOYCE E5D They actually do. The farm household allowance is incredibly important. I was the minister—and there is nothing more ex than an ex! But I was the minister. On the history of this: there was this belief, a consensus, from the Labor Party, but agreed to by the coalition, that droughts were kind of not going to be supported anymore, and that farm household allowance was the final stop and that was it. It was basically a temporary unemployment benefit. Even when I became the minister, that was definitely in the zeitgeist of the department and everywhere else: 'Don't go back into drought policy because we're not going to have a drought policy again.' Luckily, that has changed, and I would suggest it has changed on both sides of the House, which is good. As to the numbers that were getting farm household allowance at the start when I became the minister, there were 367 in Australia—367. Now we have about 13,000 people getting it, and that has happened because we've streamlined it and we've changed the threshold levels, because there were more than 367 people in Australia who needed it, and we had to make sure that we had a proper process that provided dignity for people in their lives. You have got to remember—I know you do, Mr Deputy Speaker McVeigh, because you are closely associated, being a former agriculture minister in Queensland—that farmers weren't allowed to get the dole, weren't allowed to get social security, so for them it was destitution when things went bad. They literally had no money—nothing—and they couldn't afford to go to the chemist. They couldn't afford groceries, couldn't afford to put fuel in their car. They lived in absolute destitution, and I found that a complete affront. You always find the poorest in regional areas, especially in the towns that people have forgotten about. Of course, as they went downhill, all the people, like the itinerate labourers who lived in the small villages, suffered as well. But now the government has changed the process for farm household allowance. I know there are still problems out there. We need to streamline it but we've made huge changes from where it was. I want to commend a few people. I commend the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, who's part of the McCormack-Morrison government, for making sure he put at the top of his agenda drought, because farm household allowance by itself in its former iteration was not enough, more had to be done and this issue had to be taken seriously. The member for Lyons brought up other issues of assistance to people in regional areas. Because he brought them up, I would like to agree with him on some of them. He talked about water assets and the proper studies about where water is and where it should go in Tasmania. I would suggest that we take the next step. I've always believed that Australia needs a vision for the movement of water from the wet north, where even now in Townsville they're saying there are areas they won't insure unless they get proper flood mitigation, to the areas where there is no water. This drought in many instances has probably come to a conclusion, with big floods going through Charleville at the moment and through St George. But don't think there is not another drought coming. What we shouldn't be doing now is taking our eyes off the ball. We should be devising a vision of a water scheme for our nation that moves water from the northern rivers between Townsville and Cairns to a dam on the Burdekin, move it into the Flinders, from the Flinders into the Thompson, from the Thompson into the Warrego, from the Warrego into the Darling, from the Darling into the Murray and from the Murray into the Lower Lakes. But it would only get to the Lower Lakes on rare occasions from North Queensland as required. The vast majority of the time, the water collected would be utilised for the economic benefit of the western districts of Queensland, the most approximate area to that. That is something this nation should look at doing as this would also help people on the land. Twenty-five per cent of bonds that are now issued globally are issued at negative interest rates. If you give them $100, they will give you back $95—negative interest rates—so there is money out there looking for a home. If we created an infrastructure bond scheme, the role of government would be to underwrite the coupon rate—that is, the interest rate return, not the face value of the bond—which would be very low because money is looking for a home then we would be able to attract the funds to start this process. The guarantee would be paid by people so they could get access to water down the track as the program was built, and that would pay for the interest on the bonds. Then as you were able to deliver the water, they would pay for the licence and then pay for the actual water itself and this would allow us to pay for this scheme, very similar to the Snowy Mountains Corporation and how it built the Snowy Mountains scheme. I now go back to the Farm Household allowance. These amendments will further streamline this process and give another significant step towards giving people dignity in their lives by keeping groceries on their table, by giving them access to money. We have simplified the assets test. It's now $5.5 million and it's a total of all assets, so I have read. This is important because I go back to so many people who ring up my office and say to them: 'Please, do not self-assess.' People come and tell me they can't get access to farm household allowance. It worries me because I'm saying, 'From what you told me, I think you certainly can.' They say, 'No, I can't.' When I make the inquiries, I find out they have never actually gone for a proper assessment. They have made their own decision. In so doing, they cut themselves off from access to funds that will not float your boat as far as keeping the farm flush with fuel or paying the lease payments—and they can't; you won't have enough money for that—but they will allow you to have some dignity and make sure that your partner or your wife is not freaking out because there is no prospect of any money coming in and they don't know how on earth they're going to pay the grocery bill or go to the chemist or have any sense of dignity around other people when they can't afford fuel for the car. That's what the farm household allowance is there to do. It's not to finance the farm; it's to keep dignity in the house, especially in a house with kids, in a remote area, which most farms are—vastly more remote, obviously, than people in town. We also have to look at the other actions we have taken to help people on the land, and I want to give two examples. The Regional Investment Corporation, which was set up by the coalition, with the assistance of Malcolm Turnbull and, to be honest, me, is now being widely utilised for the assistance of people in droughts and bushfires and floods, to give them access to concessional loans. This was something that was disregarded at the start; they said it would have no use. I have to say the Labor Party said that, if they got into government, they'd immediately remove it. I implore them to make a statement that they are not going to do that and that this organisation will continue its role, because it is so vitally important now to so many people on the land. I suppose that's a challenge to the member for Grayndler and the member for Hunter to make the statement that this organisation would be secure if there was a change in government. People need to know that. The other example, of course, was that we brought forward the Inland Rail to try and broaden the economic base in regional areas, fighting for and achieving close to $10 billion worth of investment so that we could develop the Parkeses, the Narrabris, the Toowoombas—all the towns, basically, between Melbourne and Brisbane on an inland route. Your own seat of Groom, Mr Deputy Speaker McVeigh, will obviously be a huge beneficiary of that capital investment. It's something that so many people have spoken about in the past. They just never did it. It was the great dream—doorstops with people carrying spikes and carrying rails, but never actually building the railway line. It was something that, at the start of this term of the coalition government, we actually fought for and we achieved, and it's great to see it starting to roll out now. The member for Lyons also brought up net zero emissions. This is not going to be a help to regional Australia; this is going to be an incredible encumbrance—because we've dealt with this. To be quite frank, we've had the experience of having our private assets inflicted on by both sides of government. Vegetation management laws, which were the first iteration to help Australia comply with its international agreements, came off people on the land, because, basically, in collusion with state governments, the federal government met their international agreements by bringing in tree-clearing laws. They said it was for a whole range of reasons, but that it would allow them to meet that carbon equation. But for us on the land—and I'm on the land and we had to deal with it—it meant that we were divested of an asset, an asset that was formally privately owned by me and my family, and it became invested in the state without payment. 'Divesting an individual of a private asset to be vested in the state without payment for the communal ownership' are the words: communism. And we hate it in country areas. We couldn't believe that there was this collusion. Seeing the Treasurer of Australia at that point in time, Mr Peter Costello, go on the 7.30 Report and say it was his coordination that had brought this about really offended us. It deeply offended us, because we thought that our side of the political fence believed in the primacy of private ownership and private property, not having the government take it. The government can acquire it if it wishes, but that's the word, 'acquire'—pay for it on fair and just terms, not just take it for nothing. So we've had to deal with this climate issue, this carbon equation, in the past. So we're well alive to what's coming towards us again. Then we had the next issue, when, in dealing with the Democrats to get the GST through, we had the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act foisted on us, yet another environmental caveat, another environmental impost, on our capacity to manage our land by reason of an agreement made in this building, by hook or by crook, probably in this chamber. And we've been inflicted with that ever since. Now we see the next statement—that we're going to go to zero carbon emissions by 2050. That means that some people will increase their carbon emissions, but it has to be paid for by someone for this equation to equal zero. We know where that will be; it will be rural Australia. It will be people on the land. They will pay for it. They're the ones who won't be allowed to manage the vegetation. They'll be the ones who have to have trees grow on their place to make this equation work. One of the gentlemen from some environment unit at ANU—part of the Crawford School of Public Policy—was saying we have to let shrubs grow back on marginal land! Just the terminology 'shrubs' means he probably doesn't know what he's talking about, and he probably doesn't know what that actual effect is. It sounds like something from Monty Python—a 'shrubbery'! Mr Wallace 265967 A shrubbery! Mr JOYCE E5D A shrubbery! It worries us, because we see this coming down. I was having my discussion with the member for Hunter at that so-called press conference the other day, which he decided to crash. He said that we can fix the methane emissions from cattle by some magical process. I tell you what the IPCC have said in their latest meeting in Korea—that they're going to do it by a global reduction in the cattle herd. That's us again. It'll be inflicted on us. I know how they'll do it. They'll have a licence agreement of how many cattle you can run on your place. They won't be taking the load off you; they'll just have a licence agreement, and you'll have to comply with that licence and over time that licence be will be reduced. That will be yet another infliction on regional people on our capacity to carry on our life to get ahead, for money for our communities, for money for people in the weatherboard and iron house, because we've seen this movie before. We know where it ends up. That is why it's so important that we put down a marker, quite clearly, and say: 'Not on. Just not on. We're not doing this, because it's not merely our concern for what might happen in the future, it's our very clear memory of what has happened in the past.' The farm household allowance is a good idea. Net zero emissions is another infliction on our rights, our property rights and income rights, in regional Australia, which we will fight tooth and claw against. The Regional Investment Corporation is something that everyone poo-pooed and thought was ridiculous, and now we've created it. We need the Labor Party to come out, even now, and say they support it and that they won't get rid of it after the next election. Inland Rail is a massive investment that's going to be hugely important. And for water security—and I'll close on this—as a nation let's start on a nation-building project: the movement of water from the wet areas of the tropics to the parched areas of the south. 19:13 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore This government is a desperate government. The government doesn't stand up for farmers, even though they like to say they do. Right here in this House in question time today, the minister for agriculture said they were helping farmers with the drought and bushfires, but I know what my farmers are telling me and that's just not the case. Time and time again the Morrison government has turned its back on local farmers. Farmers have endured six years of ad hoc responses to the drought from this government. Promises have been made, platitudes have been said, but confusion and chaos have reigned. The farm household allowance is just another case on an ever-growing list, another ad hoc policy by a government with no comprehensive drought policy and no plan to help farmers. To be eligible for the farm household allowance you need to meet various criteria—fair enough. But what many farmers have been saying is the paperwork is too much and it takes too long to process the claims, and many simply don't fit the criteria. This is an all-too-familiar story with the government: farmers being made to jump through the hoops only to find they can't get help. I've written countless times to the minister asking for my council areas, Shoalhaven, the Eurobodalla and Kiama, to be eligible for drought assistance. You would think that would be a simple thing. The New South Wales government has declared those areas in drought. Farmers certainly have been saying they are in drought; they have been suffering from it. But the Morrison government keeps denying this reality, on so many occasions, despite the evidence, despite the calls. In the middle of the recent bushfire crisis, when the majority of my electorate was on fire, the drought minister announced the new Drought Communities Program extension eligibility criteria. I have been asking the minister for months to review this program, to admit that we are in fact in drought. We have seen several versions of the eligible list of councils, but never with my council areas. Instead, on 28 January this year, while bushfires raged in my electorate, the minister again told local farmers they were not in drought. He had not been listening. He had raised hopes of farmers once again, only to dash them. He told them they could still not access help under the Drought Communities Program—because, according to the minister, they are not in drought. But over the summer we've seen that drought in action, with the driest of conditions and the worst, raging bushfires imaginable. On Friday just gone, I met with bee farmers Vince and Maria at Pointer Mountain, Yatte Yattah, on the New South Wales South Coast just outside Milton. Going up Pointer Mountain, I was gobsmacked at the destruction I saw. It is perhaps not in the news, but it should never be forgotten—the destruction, the barren, blackened land, and the brave, brave stories of so many in a bid to save homes, animals, farmland, businesses and memories. Vince and Maria told me their harrowing story to save their place. Vince and Maria fought the fires. I saw how close the fire was, the different directions it was coming from. Look across this chamber and imagine a 70-metre wall of flames. That's right—where you are, the flames. Vince and Maria had moved some of their beehives to where they thought was safe, but it wasn't so. Although their shed was saved, many beehives were sadly lost. But the devastation across so much of south-east New South Wales poses a new threat to Vince and Maria and fellow beekeepers. No bush equals no food for bees. No food means bees starve, and when bees starve there's no honey. So, when Vince went to the local recovery centre to find out about grant assistance, he was told he could get help with water, fuel and pollen supplement—that is all. Vince eventually got the giant bulk sugar, but that still has to be turned into syrup—a long, complicated process. So the question comes: how do beekeepers survive? They've lost the bush that feeds the bees. The grant and loan criteria are so complicated and don't take into account the years and decade-plus that it will take to recover. What does the minister say to Vince and Maria? What does the minister say to fellow beekeepers? Today the minister spruiked what a good job his government was doing. So I say to the minister: Meet with Vince and Maria. Stop the grandstanding and start listening. Fix the bushfire assistance for farmers and our small business owners. Local farmer Rob, a fifth generation farmer, has been dealing with the drought for years. Rob has fought hard, absolutely tooth and nail, to get some action to address the drought, to address the crisis in our dairy industry. Rob's farm was hit by the fires four times. It was devastating, heartbreaking for a farmer with such a history on his land. Afterwards, he described his property as a lunar landscape—not a desert anymore, a lunar landscape. Since then, he has led the call for Australia to step up and lead on climate change: Farmers for Climate Action—a concept this government doesn't seem to think exists. For farmer Rob, there is no question: climate change is driving this. Those opposite want to convince us all that farmers don't want action on climate change, but it's farmers who are leading the way. They are absolutely on the front lines and they have been crying out for help from this government. The inconsistencies in the government's drought programs are causing more heartbreak and more distress for farmers. Farmer Daniel tried to access a drought loan through the Regional Investment Corporation. He was rejected because his property was only partially listed on the desertification maps. How one farm can be partially in drought and partially not is a mystery to me, but this is what the government is putting people through—different maps, different rules, sifting through website after website, program after program, promise after promise. I visited South Coast Dairy in Berry only last week—a great, locally owned and operated cooperative. I talked to them about the impact of the fires. With the roads closed, their milk couldn't get out. As you can imagine, milk doesn't last forever, so they lost an enormous amount of stock and are trying to navigate the available assistance—a very complicated process. Essentially, if you don't suffer direct fire damage, there is very little for you. It's an industry already struggling with the drought, unfair milk prices and now the financial impact of the fires. But there is no help for them. It's really all too common a thread: the money is just not getting through. Whether it's money for the drought or money for the bushfires, it isn't going where it's needed. The farmers in my electorate just get on with it. Farmers are a strong bunch and they don't like to complain. They don't go looking for handouts or ask for people to solve their problems. A week ago, I attended the Kangaroo Valley Show. This was a very important show. The bushfires just weeks before had come close to Kangaroo Valley, to the west. Many people lost their homes and livelihoods, but, in true Kangaroo Valley spirit, the show must go on. I have to say that, after spending two full days talking with people at the show, I was amazed at the stories I heard. One resident, who devastatingly lost her home, had her jam in the shed and the shed was saved, so she proudly entered the jam in the show. I'd say that's pretty special jam! Agricultural shows are wonderful community events. They bring us together, in good times and in bad. In the poultry pavilion, I met a couple who had also suffered damage during the fires but were able to exhibit their rooster. They had not accessed bushfire assistance; they were just getting on with it. So I was pleased to be able to provide some help. But this is a common story I am hearing from people over and over again. They can't access help. They don't know what is out there or it is all too hard to go through the mountains of paperwork. Take Gerry from Conjola, for example. His waratah farm has been left absolutely desolate. They were hit by the fires twice. They stayed the first time and they stopped the flames at their door, but it was all too much and they decided to go when it came again. I spoke with Gerry last week and he told me about how, after weeks, he finally felt like he could reach out for help. He felt up to it, so he went to the recovery centre in Ulladulla. He spent 2½ hours filling out paperwork. By his estimate, he got 10 per cent of the way through. He couldn't take it anymore and he walked away. It was retraumatising. It will be two to three years before Gerry gets his flowers back to the point where he can sell them. He looks out every day at his blackened waratah shrubs. They are starting to sprout small bits of green—a little bit of hope, which is something very welcome on the South Coast. But people like Gerry need more help. I come from a farming family. I know about the struggles that dairy farmers face, and I am heartbroken by the stories I am hearing. I don't want to see farmers leave the land because they can't get the help they need to survive because the government have their heads in the sand like a flock of ostriches, all simultaneously sticking their heads down—nothing to see here! This is the 14th time the government has amended this bill. Labor has been raising concerns about the farm household allowance since 2014—six years ago—and here we are still talking about it. The government just does not have a plan to help farmers. It doesn't have a plan to help the dairy industry. I have said, time and time again, I will work with the government on these issues. I have put out my hand and asked them to come to the table to talk with local farmers in my electorate and hear what they have to say. I will keep saying this. I will keep fighting for farmers. It's in my blood, it's in my heart, and I won't stop until the government takes action. Farmers in my electorate feel absolutely let down by this government. After all the promises those opposite made before the last election, they think that farmers didn't notice when they abandoned them. Well, they did. I know I did, too. We simply need a bipartisan approach to develop a national comprehensive drought policy through a drought cabinet. My local farmers need a drought declaration by the Morrison government. They need a fair price for their milk. They need help to rebuild after the fires. They need quick access to assistance programs. They need the processes to be simple and clear. They need a government that listens. I say to every farmer on the New South Wales South Coast: I stand with you and I will fight beside you. I will fight for you every day. 19:25 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to speak in favour of this latest amendment to the Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2020. It is a great program. Since it got upgraded to a reasonable figure in 2014 there have been many amendments, but this is the last and most significant agenda for many people who've had trouble with it—finding out that they got onto the farm household allowance, having all their assessments done, receiving their payment and then, at the end of the year, getting told that they owe money back to the government. This particular set of amendments addresses the reconciliation process. It is hard to predict your total income up-front, so it will now bring the farm household allowance in line with the treatment of business income, like you do for all other social security payments. An estimate will be used to calculate the amount, and that amount will continue, but you can prospectively update it so that no retrospective debts will be accrued. Because time is running out as the adjournment debate beckons I will shorten my speech. As I mentioned, we have had many amendments since 2014. Most significantly, the asset test has been raised to $5.5 million. That means that most medium, small and even large farms will come in and be eligible if they are really in financial hardship. The other thing is that we've increased the amount that can be offset for off-farm income to $100,000. That's per couple. We have also allowed funds for independent financial assessment, activities that supplement their planning for their business and training to improve income and their long-term financial situation, as well as the income support. One of the other significant amendments that we've made since 2014 was to allow support for four years out of 10, rather than just four years. We can't keep people on income support permanently, but that is a much more reasonable outcome. Then there is also a payment for those who do finish their four years of support by the middle of this year. They get a supplementary payment to let them wind down into being responsible for themselves. There were many logistical problems in getting assessed. They now have a farm household case officer and have access to up to 17 one-on-one meetings with their case officer to facilitate things. They also get a healthcare card, rent assistance and pharmaceutical, telephone and remote area allowances. The activities supplement to allow them to undertake these other activities to improve their financial situation is now $10,000. All these amendments mean that we have a functioning, much easier to use system. One can apply online. Instead of partner 1 and partner 2 both doing an assessment, they can unify it in one single assessment. We're trying to make it equitable. It will be audited like all social support payments but it is much more tangible, achievable and easier to manage. It gives people the dignity to put food on the table and support for them when they are in financial difficulty, like we have done with youth allowance and Newstart payments. There are a lot of farmers who have a great farm, but during the recent drought, floods and fires there is no way that they can make a profit. They deserve support from the nation like many other people who have to turn to in a temporary fashion. I commend this bill to the House. ADJOURNMENT 71 ADJOURNMENT Recycling 72 19:29 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Next week there will be the National Plastics Summit here in Parliament House. It was announced by the government on 30 December and, perhaps not surprisingly, didn't catch a lot of attention at that time of the year. Any structured conversation on the question of plastic waste is welcome, but there's a strong argument to be made that we're well past the point of needing more talk. There's a waste crisis in Australia. For a long time we've relied on the ability to export waste in the form of recyclable paper and cardboard, mixed plastic, tyres and so on. Now that is coming to an end. It should provoke us to consider the wider shortcomings of our waste system. The fact is that, in some areas, our recovery and recycling performance has been quite poor. Plastic is one of them. Australians should understand the basic details of our waste situation. On average, there is a bit more than 2½ tonnes of waste produced for every one of us every year. That includes 100 kilograms of plastic. We recycle or reprocess barely 10 per cent of that, and 80 per cent goes into landfill, where it of course persists forever, because plastic is not biodegradable. According to 2017-18 Australian plastics recycling survey, we only managed to recycle 9.4 per cent of the 3.4 million tonnes of plastic consumed in Australia. That's worse than in any other year since 2014-15. The report the government commissioned over the summer on the recycling market situation found that our plastic reprocessing capability is lower now than it was in 2005. As I have said, of the three million tonnes of plastic that we don't recycle, the best we can hope for is that it goes into landfill. Unfortunately, we know that some of it goes into waterways and ultimately into the sea. You can go to any beach in Australia and run your fingers through the sand and you'll find microplastic. Those flecks of blue and orange are not from nature; they're shattered fragments of our waste, and they'll persist in the environment forever. They're accumulating in fish and birds, they're killing marine animals and they include chemicals like fire retardants and colourants that were never intended to be consumed by humans, some of which are carcinogenic. Globally it's estimated that each year eight million tonnes of plastic go into the ocean. Between now and 2025, on current trends, the global production of plastic will double. We simply consume too much plastic in Australia. We waste too much; we recycle and reprocess virtually none. In the past, we've notionally reached 10 or 11 per cent of plastic recycling, but that's only by sending mixed plastic overseas. In truth, one of the reasons the export bans have been imposed on us is, in countries like China and Malaysia and Vietnam, there were some importers that were not reprocessing plastic but dumping or burning it, and we turned a blind eye to that. Since its re-election, the Morrison government has seized on the waste crisis, and the Prime Minister has said that reforming our waste system is an environmental priority of this government. But what has occurred so far in the face of an urgent and sizeable task? It's not that much—no direct funding; no national strategy to deal with an infrastructural shortfall that has been estimated at between 300 and 400 per cent; no procurement commitments; no national leadership on single-use plastics or in the form of a national container deposit scheme; and no reform when it comes to the product stewardship framework. Yesterday the Andrews government in Victoria committed to a container deposit scheme, which means every state and territory in Australia is making that reform, and yet there's no national leadership to ensure we have a consistent and harmonised scheme. There is plenty of evidence, there have been several inquiries and reviews, and there are numerous stakeholder companies and recycling representative groups that have been telling government about the nature of our waste crisis for years. Our national waste framework needs to be stronger, with more effective regulation of producers and a harmonised approach between different state and territory jurisdictions. We need to move towards eliminating single-use plastics and ensure that all plastic products can be recycled. We need considerable investment in reprocessing infrastructure, and that should be done through a nationally strategic lens rather than on an ad hoc basis. We need an end market for the products of recycling, which requires faster progress towards recycled content targets and the positive support of public sector procurement. We don't really need a plastics summit to tell us those things; what we do need is for the government to stop talking rubbish and get on with general reform. Wide Bay Electorate 72 19:35 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay When I ask people why they choose to live in Wide Bay or start a business there, the answer rarely varies: it's just a fantastic place to live with incredible natural beauty, friendly people and none of the stresses of city life. But, behind its hinterland charms and stunning beaches, Wide Bay punches well above its weight when it comes to innovation. Wide Bay has long been a powerhouse of manufacturing and engineering pioneers, most notably my good friend Peter Olds and his team at Olds Engineering in Maryborough, who have created a world-first grain elevator that is so unprecedented that engineers have flown from across the world to Maryborough to see this remarkable technology. In Noosa, Helitak is at the forefront of innovation when it comes to bushfire fighting. Helitak makes a difference in combating blazes that threaten people and properties by supplying aerial tanks that bomb fires with water and retardant. We have seen the massive difference that aerial firefighting has made in Wide Bay and throughout Australia during this terrible bushfire season. It's great to see a local company producing a world-class product that is helping keep our communities safe. Our region is also making great strides in the medical field, where the highly respected Dr Michael Monsour at Analytica has developed a unique device to improve women's pelvic floor health. This could change the lives of thousands of women, ensuring they don't need to undergo surgery. We're seeing advances in health and fitness technology, with GravityFit in Peregian Beach producing smart functional training garments for athletes and astronauts. These garments stabilise and strengthen the spine and joints, reducing the risk of injury and improving performance. They also help to maintain the musculoskeletal health of astronauts, putting this technology developed in Wide Bay onto the world map. Innovation is also being fostered at DTM Timber in Maryborough, where the coalition government is helping them develop revolutionary new processes to turn waste timber into new engineered product for the building industry. That's been a significant win for DTM Timber, for jobs in Wide Bay and this valuable hardwood timber industry. It's also a win for the environment. The Morrison government is working hand in hand with business to help them build success that will flow through the local economy, evidenced by the Rheinmetall NIOA Munitions plant in Maryborough, where we have committed $28.5 million towards the construction of this $60 million projectile forging facility that will create more than a hundred full-time jobs and open the area up to new markets. This new investment between the Morrison government and RNM will put Maryborough on the defence industry map and will potentially add more than $100 million in economic output, including $36 million within the Wide Bay region alone. The plant will feature specialist machines to create large-calibre military projectiles. This project will not only introduce a new industry into Australia but also give our region access to global supply chains. In Gympie, the Australian government is investing $5 million to expand the production line at Nolan Meats. This project will create more than 200 jobs, which will boost Gympie's economy. Wide Bay, my home, is a magnificent place. We must continue to invest with business to bring the unemployment rate down. Since the 1860s the Wide Bay economy has been underpinned by industries including manufacturing, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, and in more recent times it's been bolstered by tourism and health. These sectors drive economic growth; however, a shifting economy and lifestyles mean our region must be entrepreneurial and forward thinking, not just to capitalise on emerging opportunities but to create those opportunities into the future. I am working hard with the Liberal-National government to secure our fair share in the region. With the support of local government and business, we will work together to create economic opportunities and build the community that we all want to live in in the years to come. Tasmania: Infrastructure 73 19:40 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark My home state of Tasmania is the best place in the world to live, but it's governance is appalling. If you hand a Tasmanian state government a great wad of federal cash for a project, you can be pretty sure they'll stuff it up! It doesn't matter if they are Liberal or Labor, because, when it comes to project management, Tasmanian state governments have displayed breathtaking incompetence in delivering vital infrastructure projects. Take the redevelopment of the Royal Hobart Hospital—the biggest infrastructure project in the state's recent history. In 2010 I negotiated $340 million for the rebuild, and the new K-Block was due to open in May 2015. Here we are five years later, and we're still waiting. Yes, the Labor state government messed up the first half of the project terribly, but, regrettably, the more recent Liberal state government has continued down the same sorry road, with the latest farce being lead contamination in the water supply, like what happened at the new Perth Children's Hospital, which resulted in a three-year delay. No wonder frustrated medicos have thrown up their hands and pretty much given up on K-Block being opened for the influenza season this winter. Of course, other states have built hospitals in much less time, and China just built a hospital in 10 days, not that I'm advocating that sort of haste! How about Macquarie Point on Hobart's waterfront? It's been described as the most exciting urban renewal project in the country, and I secured $50 million from the federal government to kickstart this redevelopment eight years ago. That was about three times the amount the consultant said was needed for remediation. But, since then, all the government has been able to do, apart from build some garden beds, a bike path, a couple of sheds and some power points to charge cars, is pay bureaucrats millions of dollars in salary and do three onsite office refurbishments. Good grief, this whole sorry saga has been one long farce, as the much-needed federal handout was followed by years of government ineptitude. In any other state, the project would have been sorted years ago. Then there's the much-lauded $1.6 billion Hobart City Deal, which was supposed to transform the city and deliver a new Bridgewater Bridge, ferries on the River Derwent, international flights out of Hobart, action finally on light rail and a fix for the traffic congestion. But, after 12 months, the only movement on the $576 million Bridgewater Bridge has been local mayors coming together to question its value for money and Infrastructure Australia raising concerns about the risk of a cost blowout. In fact, one year on the only progress in the city deal has been the $30 million social housing package I brokered and insisted go to the non-government sector because I knew the state government would almost certainly stuff it up. Well, one of the more than 130 dwellings to be delivered in that package has already been opened, putting the state government to shame, not unlike the University of Tasmania, which is rolling out federally funded accommodation blocks and a world-class performing arts centre on time and on budget. This background helps explain why I'm so concerned to hear now that the Marinus Link to make Tasmania the battery of the nation with a second Bass Strait cable is also stuck in the slow lane due to more state government incompetence. The federal government is keen on the project to shore up power to Victoria as Latrobe Valley coal-fired power station winds down and last year announced $56 million for the next stage of the project after a feasibility study showed it to be commercially viable. But, despite all of this, I've been told that the deal would have been signed by Christmas but that still nothing has progressed because the Tasmanian government hasn't done the paperwork. Yes, that's right: another once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create jobs and revenue for the state going begging because the clowns who populate the state government are incapable of seeing the potential to unlock up to $5 billion in renewable investments that fast track Australia's transition away from coal. For goodness sake, something's really got to change. Tasmania is the jewel in the country's crown, with enormous untapped potential, but none of this is possible while our dunderhead state politicians continue to bumble along like an episode of Utopia. Frankly, they're holding Tasmania back, and it's time they shaped up or shipped out, so long as, of course, the ferries they're still talking about are actually ordered, delivered and seaworthy. Nuclear Energy 74 19:45 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax It feels quite odd to be rising in this chamber tonight to give credit to the Australian Workers Union and the CFMEU. I am happy to do so— Opposition members interjecting— Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 and I thank those opposite for saying, 'Hear, hear!' You have to give credit where it's due, and in this case it's because the Labor Party is rudderless at the moment; they don't have leadership when it comes to energy policy and climate change. That is why the AWU and the CFMEU have been brave enough to raise their voice. They know that the rank and file of the labour movement are not being heard by those opposite in this chamber—an elite mob who join hands with those pixies at the bottom of the garden, the Greens, who love to dance and run for the high moral ground without substance. And so the AWU and the CFMEU Victoria Branch have taken a stance that I agree with. They have said that, if we are indeed to try to lower emissions in this country, we need to at least assess and consider the possibility of nuclear technology—in particular, small modular reactors. They're dead right. The reason the labour movement is having to voice this opinion is that the Labor leadership are void of that leadership. They are very happy to come out and talk about a 2050 net zero emissions target and grab that headline, but they do so without any plan whatsoever. They are shrill in their opposition to even considering the possibility of nuclear technology despite the fact that it is a technology that generates over 11 per cent of the electricity across the globe today. They are more than happy to try to take the high moral ground and talk about climate change as an existential threat to life as we know it. Yet they refuse to even consider the possibility of the cleanest form of industrial energy the world has ever seen; they are not even prepared to consider it. No-one on the side of the House, including me, is suggesting that nuclear technology—even small nuclear reactors—is an absolute certainty for this country. What we are suggesting is that this new and emerging technology should at least be assessed, should at least be considered as part of our future energy mix. Yet the Labor Party leadership, who proclaim that they are the champions of reducing emissions, blankly refuse to even consider it. It is rank hypocrisy of the highest order. How can they look their constituents in the eye and say they care about reducing emissions and climate change and, in the very same breath, refuse to even consider new and emerging nuclear technologies? It's an absolute joke and they need to be called out for it. So the AWU and the CFMEU are now the shining lights. There is at least a possibility that we might have the sensible debate that the people of this country deserve. We can come up with a 2050 target, as Labor has with its zero plan. We've all read that book, we know how it ends, and here we have it again—The Return 2.0—with zero substance. But what we have when it comes to the nuclear debate is evidence of rank hypocrisy. Unless they change their tune and at least listen to their own rank and file, Australians will be the losers—and that is something we all have to fight against. Newstart Allowance 75 19:50 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley In 1964, Donald Horne wrote: Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck … most of its leaders so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise. As we stand in this place tonight, over three million Australians are living in poverty; 774,000 of them are children. That's not a small or discrete portion of society that should be ignored, that is one in eight Australians. Families are feeling the effect of the rising cost of living right across the country, including in my electorate of Lilley. Local businesses are closing at an alarming rate in Nundah and Sandgate villages. Wages are stagnant. Too many people are struggling to find stable and secure work. Families are fighting to stretch their pay cheques to the end of the week while looking for the extra money needed to pay for child care, dentist appointments and school excursions. People who are possibly the most at risk of slipping below the poverty line are those who rely on social services like Newstart to survive. Newstart was designed to give a hand up to Australians who are doing it tough and who are struggling to find a job. It's an emergency life jacket to help keep Australians afloat in hard times. Unfortunately, according to the Morrison government, keeping afloat appears to mean having your nose above the waterline while the rest of your body is submerged and sinking. A person on Newstart with no children has to survive on just under $40 a day. A single person with children or a person over the age of 60 looking for work has to make ends meet on just over $43 a day. The Morrison government has told Australians that $40 a day is sufficient to get by on, all the while demonising recipients as dole bludgers. Instead of treating vulnerable Australians with compassion and with empathy, this government has introduced demeaning and contemptuous legislation that further stigmatises and isolates people who are down on their luck. In the last year we have seen legislation that implements mandatory drug tests for welfare recipients and a cashless debit card system to control how welfare allowances are spent. The government's Minister for Families and Social Services said she won't raise the rate of Newstart because that money would go 'straight into the pockets of drug dealers'. Shame on you! People who live on Newstart in the real world are far from the caricatures they're being slandered as by their own federal government. They are Australians in their 50s and their 60s who have been retrenched and who are struggling to return to the workforce because of age discrimination. They are single parents who have raised children and who are looking for a job now that their kids are going to school. They are carers who have been looking after a family member and who, due to a change of circumstances, need to find a different type of work. They are young people who can't find or can't enter the job market because of catastrophic youth unemployment—it's nearly 25 per cent in different parts of Queensland. They are people like Mrs D, one of my constituents in Lilley, who reached out to me to share her experience living on Newstart. Mrs D is in her 40s. She was married and left the workforce to become a stay-at-home mum. She told me that she thought her life was set on a straight path. She never thought that she would end up on Newstart. She never thought she would be someone who would need that assistance. But that's when life happened. Mrs D found herself getting divorced, navigating the complicated Family Court system and looking for a part-time job to support her kids. She struggled to find the time to go to job interviews while balancing her schedules, her kids' schedules and fighting for custody in the court. She wasn't receiving child support from her ex-husband, so she had to start receiving Newstart. And like most Australians on Newstart, every single week she barely scraped by. Happily for Mrs D, she now works at one of our local schools. She is thankful that life on Newstart is behind her, but is wary that things could take another unexpected turn—something completely out of her control—and she may end up needing the Newstart allowance again. This is something I heard time and time again as a workers compensation lawyer, where bad things happen to good people who are just trying to go about their work. They shouldn't be punished for that. The government should stop punishing them for that. That's why Mrs D contacted my office, so I would share her story and so that I could advocate on her behalf and on behalf of others just like her, on behalf of all Newstart recipients in Lilley who want us to raise the rate. Newstart should be a hand up, not a punishment that forces Australians into poverty. The Morrison government like to brag about their economic management and their prowess, but these Australians know, in their day-to-day life, that this government's policies are not working for them. I came to parliament to make policies that help people like Mrs D. I refuse to close my eyes to what is happening in my community. The Morrison government need to get out of their bubble and stop assuming that if you work hard then you'll get a go. This is not what is happening. It's time they acknowledge that Newstart is a hand up, not a handout. It is time to raise the rate. Flynn Electorate: Water 76 19:55 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn After a long dry spell on the east coast of Australia, rain has suddenly started to fall on my electorate of Flynn, and dam levels are on the rise, fortunately. Dams and weirs are so important to rural and regional Australia, and I'm blessed that we have some of those dams in my electorate. I'd like to have more. The grasses are returning—they've changed colour, from brown to green—and the cattle are now able to chew on that good grass, and the good news is that cattle prices are on their way up. Farmers have got a long way to go yet, because they had to get rid of some of their breeder cattle during these rough drought periods. That's not going to be done overnight, but at least this is a start. Dam levels across Flynn are not too bad. Some have fared very well, some not so well, but they are all improved. For instance, the Callide dam at Biloela was zero on 7 February last year; the capacity now is 31.97 per cent—not full but a lot better than it was. The Fairbairn dam at Emerald, which feeds all that irrigation and the mines and towns in the Central Highlands, got down to seven per cent; it is now 16.8 per cent—still a long way from being full, but it's a lot better than the seven per cent. That dam, by the way, holds 1.3 million megalitres. The Awoonga dam at Gladstone, which feeds industry and the town itself, is 98 per cent full. That's enough capacity to keep us going for quite a few years at that rate. The Paradise dam, as you are well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker O'Brien, is a minefield. The Queensland government have let go over 105,000 megs; they've reduced the level of the wall, down to five metres, and who knows what's going to happen in the future. It's causing a great deal of stress to the farmers above the dam and in your area below the dam. There's word that even macadamia trees will have to be pulled out because of what's happened to the wall of the Paradise dam. That dam was only built in 2005. It hasn't had a long life at all. The construction of that dam has proven to be faulty, and it endangers the township of Bundaberg, which sits below the dam wall. We are trying to have the experts come in. We want to see it go back to its original level and have the original amount water available to those farmers, upstream and downstream. Weirs in my electorate: the Bedford weir and the Tartrus weir on the Nogoa-Mackenzie system are 100 per cent full. Several weirs along the Dawson River are 100 per cent full. The Boondooma dam, near Proston, is 34.4 per cent full. The Kroombit dam at Biloela has missed the rainfall, as have some other unfortunate areas, and it's only 3.5 per cent full. The Rookwood weir is still not built, and that causes more issues. The federal government has promised the state government to go fifty-fifty in building this new weir, and $176 million has been allocated out of federal funding, but we still need a start. There is a start on some of the roads in and on top of Rookwood weir, but it will be great to see that dam really take its foothold downstream of the Dawson, Mackenzie and Fitzroy rivers. The John Peterson Bridge near Mundubbera: there was $20 million in the last election promise. That's available now to flood-proof the Mundubbera-Durong Road, and that really needs to be started, because the wet season looks like it has returned. Let's hope everything goes well in the future and that we see a lot more water around Flynn. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 76 NOTICES

Tuesday, 25 February 2020

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Wicks) took the chair at 16:00.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 78 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Ballarat Electorate: Aged Care 78 16:00 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Travelling around my electorate of Ballarat, I can see the incredible work that our older generations carry out throughout our communities. After a lifetime of work, it is often the older generations who run RSLs, sporting clubs, fire brigades and so many other community organisations across my community. After retiring from working life, they keep giving back to our community day after day. But, once they get that little bit frailer and they find themselves in need of care, too often they're taken for granted. There is so much we need to talk about in this place, and today I want to specifically focus on what's happening in aged care. The government is in the process of privatising the gateway to home care: the community aged-care packages. Aged-care assessment teams provide a really important gateway for older Australians into the home care they need. In my home state of Victoria, assessments are largely undertaken by not-for-profit agencies or health worker agencies, social workers, nurses and occupational therapists who have been doing this job for a very long period of time. I've had experience of the great work they do with my own parents; my mother has since passed away. The work that they did enabled my parents to stay in their home and have quite a good quality of life for a long period of time. While old age isn't synonymous with aged care, it will be a reality for many. For those who want to receive the care they need at home, a home care package is a necessity. We know that there are more than 100,000 Australians stuck on waiting lists for home care. In just two years, nearly 30,000 older Australians died waiting for their home care package. In my own community of Ballarat, I hear of far too many who are stuck waiting for the help they need. I know of one couple consisting of an older man dealing with dementia like symptoms. He was left waiting for urgent care on a seemingly endless waiting list. So long was the wait for services that his condition worsened and he had to enter residential care. He wanted to be cared for at home and he could've been cared for at home, but unfortunately he was unable to continue to wait because his condition had deteriorated. His wife, who has worked as his dedicated and loving carer for so many years, is now herself stuck on the waiting list for home care. Other older residents in Ballarat might just need help with their gardening and cleaning, but at the moment there are no services available in Ballarat. The only advice that has been given to some is to keep endlessly calling the helpline, hoping that one day the funding will be provided to them. Frankly, it isn't good enough. When we in this place reach our older years, we would all hope that the care we need is accessible and that, where possible, we can access it in our own homes. All sides of this place need to come together to ensure that we provide that to all Australians. (Time expired) North Sydney Electorate: Australia Day Awards 78 16:04 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney I rise today to congratulate those in my electorate who were honoured on Australia Day this year by their appointment to the Order of Australia. These awards and honours highlight that, as Australians, we are all part of something greater than ourselves. I'd particularly like to recognise Professor Bruce Robinson—one of five Australians to be awarded the highest honour, the Companion of the Order of Australia—for his eminent service to medical research and national health care. Professor Robinson's distinguished career includes his time as the dean of the University of Sydney medical school, the head of the cancer genetics unit at the Kolling Institute of Medical Research and his current contribution as chair of the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Medicare Benefits Schedule Review Taskforce. I thank him for his service to our community, which he continues today as a practising endocrinologist and as a director of various medical research organisations. Time doesn't permit me to outline the extensive contribution of all the recipients from North Sydney, although I would like to mention two others in more detail. The first is Sister Monica Cavanagh, the congregational leader of the Sisters of St Joseph, who received an OAM. I know she would see this award as recognition for the work of all the sisters, who today carry forward the work and ethos of their founder, St Mary MacKillop. They represent the very best of the selflessness and dedication of all who are called to the service of their faith and church. Their leadership in areas like education, supporting the vulnerable and helping Indigenous communities and through their overseas missions is just inspiring. It has been a great pleasure for me to get to know Sister Monica and all those who have followed the path of St Mary of the Cross in North Sydney. I also want to mention Paul Hackett, a resident of Artarmon, as his lifework represents the very best of community service. His OAM was awarded for his volunteer work with so many organisations, including the St Vincent de Paul Society, the Leukaemia Foundation, the Australian Red Cross Blood Service, Youth Off The Streets, Lane Cove community aid, Apex Australia, the Lane Cove Lions Club, the Wayside Chapel and the Leichhardt Rowing Club. He has done all these things without the expectation of any recognition because service to others is just something he believes is the right thing to do. It is people like Paul Hackett who make our community so strong. I was pleased to acknowledge his work a few years ago at my own North Sydney community awards, although I suspect the OAM will have a slightly more prominent place on his mantelpiece. They are joined in my electorate by John Bevins, Pierre Chapuis, Christine Franks, Catherine Inglis, Robyn Sexton, Julie Steiner, Phillip Cocks, Alan Locke, Peter Maniscalco, Deborah Niland, Kerry Robinson, Samiul Sorrenti, Edwin Wilson, Michael Wilson, James Yu and Brigadier Peter Connor. I'm honoured to be able to congratulate these recipients, who were recognised for such a diverse range of contributions, including to the multicultural community, mental health and suicide prevention. They are a fine group of citizens. Hazara Shamama Association, International Mother Language Day 79 16:07 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Firstly, I want to give a shout-out to the Hazara Shamama Association, a fantastic local community organisation in my electorate that has been helping Hazara people settle into life in Australia since 2009. They help with citizenship preparation, welfare and all sorts of other community support. I met with them on the weekend and was absolutely blown away by the beautiful ceremony they had to recognise people who had contributed to the bushfire response. Many of these people are still asylum seekers who, under this government, have been waiting for years, with their lives stuck in limbo, for their cases to be processed. To be frank, many of these people have less than nothing themselves, yet they came together wanting to show their commitment to Australia—their adopted country, as they see it. They donated $10,000 to Wildlife Victoria, and we received the cheque. But utterly beautiful was the fact that 50 of the local Hazara community put up their hands because they wanted to do something in response. They put out a call through the community group to ask: who would like to go to New South Wales? They drove five hours to New South Wales to help farmers rebuild fences. The photos are just beautiful. These are farmers who have lost everything and who, as they said, have no hope. But the Hazara people, who have been through so much—they have been persecuted and have seen their families murdered in front of them—said, 'We know what it's like to have lost everything. We know what it's like to have no hope left.' Hence, they made the journey, often by boat, to a safer country where they thought they could live. So they went up there, and they sat and spent days with these farmers, trying to give them a little hope. They rebuilt the fences and had a great time camping out, which was really lovely to see. I congratulate everyone involved. Of course, they're just one of many local groups who contributed to the bushfire response. The other thing I want to do is give a shout-out to the Bangladeshi community. Bangladesh gave a gift to the world 20 years ago, which was International Mother Language Day. On 21 February we celebrated the 20th International Mother Language Day. It's a UN recognised day devoted to celebrating culturally and linguistically diverse communities and promoting multilingualism. My electorate, which covers most of the City of Greater Dandenong, is the most multicultural place in the whole of Australia. Every day, when people close their front doors at night, more than 200 languages are spoken. Of course, Aboriginal Australia had more than 300 native languages, and right on our doorstep our closest neighbour, Papua New Guinea, is the most linguistically diverse place in the world, with over 800 languages still spoken today. Of course, we also shout out to the language martyrs from Bangladesh. International Mother Language Day was first put in place to commemorate the students who lost their lives back in 1971, when modern Bangladesh was formed. It was separated from East Pakistan, and that was generated by a fight for the right to speak Bangla language. That was part of their identity. Now it's the sixth most common language spoken in the world. So I congratulate the language school on their International Mother Language Day celebration. Herbert Electorate: Ultimate Rural Training Centre 79 16:10 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert It's a well known fact that Townsville is suffering significantly from a crime epidemic, and there are very few solutions that have been offered by the state Labor government. The three local MPs sit idly by and do nothing about it, even though it's their job to fix this problem. Despite the federal government having no jurisdiction on crime, I cannot with clear conscience sit by and do nothing. That's why I was happy to attend a meeting with Geoff and Vicki Toomby at the invitation of the Townsville action against crime committee. Geoff and Vicki run the Ultimate Rural Training Centre, just outside of Townsville, based on the Wonderland Station. Their rural training programs focus on practical experience on the farm. Learning the key skills needed for the industry, successful participants finish with a cert III in rural operations. Geoff and Vicki have hosted dozens of school-age students, many from troubled backgrounds, whose lives have been transformed by the program. In fact, they say they have an 83 per cent positive strike rate, in terms of finding work for participants and getting them re-engaged in their communities. This includes children who have long histories of crime, drugs, and violence. Unfortunately, the future of the program has come under question, with the state Labor government pulling Geoff and Vicki's funding for delivering their program. The kinds of young people who go through the program are from disadvantaged backgrounds and don't have the means to pay for it out of their own pockets. As the plight of the program has come to light in the media and throughout the Townsville community, there has been a ground swell of support for Vicki and Geoff, in particular for the way their programs could potentially work as a solution for disengaged youth, who are responsible for the bulk of the crimes committed in the Townsville area. They are desperate to help in any way they can, as they too are members of our community. Part of the plan would be to get veterans involved as mentors to work with young offenders. I think this is an excellent idea, as we know that there are many veterans in the community looking for positive engagement. There were three veterans present at the meeting, putting their hands up to be a part of it. Many veterans have lived experience of what it's like to do it tough, and have plenty to offer in this space. I urge the state Labor government to reconsider the funding for this program, and realise the positive impact it has had on so many young lives. In the meantime, I'll be working closely with the Attorney-General and the Minister for Indigenous Australians to see if there's anything that we can do in the federal space. Australian Bushfires 80 16:13 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I take the opportunity to thank the many individuals, charities, businesses and religious and cultural groups in my community who contributed to the bushfire appeal. I acknowledge the efforts of Fairfield City Council and its mayor, Frank Carbone, in raising $80,000 in partnership with the local clubs to support the communities affected by the devastating fires. Accordingly, I thank the Cabra-Vale Diggers, Mounties, Smithfield RSL and St Johns Park Bowling Club for their generosity to this cause. Likewise, I congratulate Liverpool City Council and its mayor, Wendy Waller, who donated $20,000 to the local fire service, assisting with the provision of essential services needed to combat these extreme fires. James Chan and the Australian Chinese Buddhist Society at the Mingyue Temple managed to raise $81,000 for the bushfire appeal. This was in addition to the generous donation of $250,000 by the combined Chinese associations of Western Sydney. I thank the Director of the Bonnyrigg Sports Club, John Pavasovic, for his efforts in raising $40,000 for bushfire affected communities. The Vietnamese Community of New South Wales Chapter and president Paul Huy Nguyen also organised a community fundraiser, which raised $32,000 for the bushfire appeal. This was in addition to the efforts of the Vietnamese community leader, Dr Vinh Binh Lu, who raised more than $70,000 for the RFS and the families of the two local heroes who died fighting these dreadful fires. I also acknowledge the contribution of the Lao and Thai communities, which came together to raise $60,000 for the Rural Fire Service. Cambodian Vision and the Cambodian Cultural Association, particularly Ming Ly, Senn Yang and Thida Yang, raised $44,000 for the Salvation Army's bushfire appeal. I also thank Australian Health and Humanitarian Aid, under their chairman, Dr William Trinh, which raised $65,000 in partnership with the Rotary Club of Liverpool West to help with the bushfire relief. I recognise also the great efforts of the Barzani Charity Foundation, which donated 10 pallets of bottled water for bushfire affected communities. Furthermore, I thank Australian Islamic House and Human Appeal Australia for visiting bushfire affected areas and offering assistance. They provided much needed supplies from their generous food donations. Whilst this was one of our worst environmental disasters, it nevertheless displayed some of the best qualities in people and in the community. These generous community efforts are clearly the embodiment of the great Australian spirit. Domestic and Family Violence 80 16:16 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise to join with my parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the chamber, and in the other place, to add to the record my absolute sadness, disbelief and anger at the recent and shocking death of Hannah Clarke and her three beautiful children. I was moved to tears yesterday by the words spoken by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition as they recounted the years of abuse that Hannah had suffered, and how she feared for her children's safety. The Instagram post read out by the Prime Minister yesterday was particularly powerful. Hannah wrote: I am a Strong Woman. I don't sit around feeling sorry for myself, nor will I ever let anyone mistreat me again … I am a survivor not a victim. I am in control of my life and there is nothing I can't achieve. My girls will grow up being strong women who understand their worth. Hannah expressed a hope, which I know that every mother in the world hopes for their daughter. This hope was crushed when Hannah and her children were murdered We all have a collective responsibility to ensure this never happens again. It has never been acceptable, it's not acceptable now and will never be acceptable in the future. At times like this, after these devastating events. It is important to remember and reflect on those in our community who are making a difference to the lives of women and their children. Sacred Heart Mission in St Kilda, just outside my electorate of Higgins, provides women and children experiencing homelessness and disadvantage in Victoria with crisis accommodation and other support. Sacred Heart Mission's Homefront Program is a state-wide accommodation service for women who are in a crisis situation, including family violence. I am proud of the fact that last year the Minister for Women and former member for Higgins, the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer, announced a record investment of $340 million in services for domestic violence so that we can protect and support women and children. Most importantly, $75 million was provided for emergency accommodation. Too often we hear of women who are too scared to leave, or, with as much difficulty, don't have anywhere to go. It's so important that we try to prevent statistics such as those which have occurred recently. We must all work together to protect women and children from violence in their own homes, because everyone—every single one of us—deserves to be safe. Darwin 81 16:19 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon It's been over 300 days now since the Prime Minister last came to Darwin. That was during the election campaign. Noting that the Prime Minister loves visiting tropical destinations like Fiji and Hawaii, I urge the Prime Minister to visit Darwin. We are part of Australia too, Prime Minister. We are not just part of Australia; we are the northern capital of Australia. We are a vital, crucial part of our nation. As the northern capital, we are on the doorstep of the largest transformation in human history. It's happening in the Indo-Pacific—in particular in Asia to our north. They are advancing at a great rate of knots, and we are perfectly placed in Darwin to be part of that growth. So it would be good if the Prime Minister could come up and show us that he is acknowledging Darwin's importance and that Darwin wants to advance too, in the interests of the nation and of Territorians like those in Darwin and Palmerston that I represent. The Prime Minister is a marketing man, so I've got a good one for him. It's the wet season at the moment, but we've just had a bit of a think about that. We're now marketing it as the 'tropical summer'. The tropical summer is a beautiful time of year in Darwin, I think. Some other people much prefer the dry, which we call 'summer'. In summer we get a lot of politicians visiting. I'm just encouraging the Prime Minister to come up, because it is the most fantastic place in the world. The weather is perfect every day. We do have some reasonable gripes with the current government, but we've got so much that we are excited about that we want to talk to the Prime Minister about and get support from his government for. It's in agriculture. It's in aquaculture. It's in renewables. We're going to have the world's largest solar farm. I'm sure the Prime Minister will get excited about that. The carbon farming opportunities are also amazing. And of course there are our First Australians, with their ancient culture and art, which is truly incredible. I encourage the Prime Minister to finally visit Darwin. Menzies Electorate: Australian Bushfires 81 16:22 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I acknowledge all the brave firefighters who assisted during the devastating bushfires over summer. I acknowledge the work done by local brigades in my electorate of Menzies in assisting in the enormous efforts in New South Wales and Victoria. Members of Eltham, Kangaroo Ground, Research, Warrandyte, South Warrandyte, North Warrandyte and Wonga Park brigades joined with firefighting colleagues from around the country to assist the Rural Fire Service in New South Wales and the Country Fire Authority in Victoria. The brigades sent members all over New South Wales and to East Gippsland and the Victorian alpine fires as well as several fires closer to home, in Plenty Gorge and Sunbury. The brigades' vehicles were busy. The Eltham CFA sent its tanker to Gippsland, while the South Warrandyte tanker was out on the firegrounds constantly from early November and spent time in Grafton and Singleton. The truck was on its way back when fires at Batemans Bay caused it to be deployed to the New South Wales South Coast. North Warrandyte members were deployed all over East Gippsland, from Buchan to Mallacoota, with crews working five-day rotations, with one day's travel to and from the fire and three days working on the fireground. Some of the firefighters were at Mallacoota on New Year's Eve. They were very busy and helped save a lot of houses in the area. Over time, members of the Eltham CFA were deployed in Mallacoota, the Cann River area, Omeo, Cobungra, Bonang and Singleton. The Wonga Park crew were deployed in the Buchan area too. They worked on road clearing on the road to McKillops Bridge, in addition to patrolling the fire line around Buchan and assisting local brigades and residents to eliminate hotspots and secure properties. The volunteers from South Warrandyte were also busy, with three rotations of crew deployed on tankers, with some members working on the forward control vehicle either as a driver or assistant strike team leader. Members from the South Warrandyte brigade were posted to East Gippsland and also worked in Buchan, Bruthen and Mallacoota. I recently read intheWarrandyte Diary, which is a wonderful paper in my electorate, about Wonga Park lieutenants Luke Summerscales and Rhys Keown, firefighter Michael Weighell and Upwey firefighter Jessica Jacobs, who saved the life of a New South Wales firefighter who suffered a heart attack while fighting fires near Grafton in New South Wales. They went to the rescue of this firefighter, they found that he wasn't breathing and they immediately checked a pulse and realised they needed CPR. They sent out a mayday message and, over a period of some 45 minutes, performed CPR, with Luke doing the breaths and Jess doing the compressions, losing John the firefighter three times in the process. There were a lot of things going against them, in the midst of a fire and on a 45-degree slope, but ultimately, through their efforts, this man's life was saved. It's one of the many stories of heroes in the recent bushfires. We commend all the firefighters throughout Australia, and particularly those in Menzies, who risked their lives for the safety of others. Indian Pacific 82 16:25 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth Tomorrow marks 50 years to the day since the Indian Pacific first rolled into East Perth railway station, travelling from Sydney to Perth. Each year, 55,000 people take this trip. It travels the equivalent of 11 times around the Earth every year. The Indian Pacific takes you from Sydney to Perth on one standard gauge of railway. It is truly an amazing thing that took our nation a little bit too long to achieve. Each year, they use 30,000 litres of milk, 37,000 serves of lamb and 22,000 bottles of wine. Back in 1912, a traveller going from Sydney to Perth had to go across six different trains. Indeed, even the Prime Minister has been on this train trip himself. He said he travelled with Elvis, otherwise known as Tim Fischer. But not everyone can access this service. I want to address directly the owners of the service, Quadrant Private Equity, and say to them that they need to do more to make this an accessible service. Last week, Ruth from Coolbinia contacted my office. Ruth is planning the trip of her lifetime. Ruth has a disability and travels with a companion to assist her with her daily tasks. When Ruth contacted Virgin Australia, they said: 'Yes, we have a disability access facilitation plan. We'll give you a 50 per cent discount for the ticket price for your companion.' Then she called Great Southern Rail, who run the Indian Pacific, and was told: 'No, it's full price, no assistance, no extra service for you, Ruth. No support, no special cabin, no discount.' Transperth offer free travel for support persons. Virgin, as I mentioned, provide half-price ticketing for carers. Qantas I commend as well; they say that if you're travelling with a carer, both the person travelling and their carer get a discount for their travel. Optus Stadium, on the banks of the Swan River in Perth, was specifically built with 450 wheelchair positions, ACROD parking, and companion and carer ticketing available. But when it comes to Great Southern Rail and their owners, Quadrant Private Equity, there's nothing. It's disgraceful. This is an iconic train that is something all Australians should be proud of. So on their 50th anniversary I am calling on them to deliver a carer discount immediately so that Ruth and so many like her can access this great and unique perspective of Australia and travel without the burden of cost just because they happen to need a carer to travel across this country. If we can standardise the gauge on our railway system, surely we can provide accessible access for all Australians. Page Electorate: Australia Day Awards 82 16:28 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I'd like to acknowledge and congratulate members of my electorate who received OAMs and Australia Day Awards in the Coffs Harbour City Council area. Annette and Jean-Pierre Reifler of Glenreagh both received OAMs for service to our community's health services. Julie and Neville Womersley from Woolgoolga were both awarded OAMs for their service to Woolgoolga bowling club. The Coffs Harbour Citizen of the Year Award was awarded to Jean Vickery. Jean is the current president of the Woolgoolga Lions Club and has used her commitment in that role to raise funds for drought and fire relief appeals, CanDo Cancer Trust, Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service, the renal unit at the Base Hospital and the Disabled Surfers Association. Jean has been a longstanding and active member of the Woolgoolga Red Cross. Congratulations, Jean. Olissa Onley of Sapphire Beach was named Sportsperson of the Year. In 2019 alone she achieved exceptional results at a national level in five different sports: surf lifesaving, triathlon, football, cross-country and athletics. Congratulations to Olissa. I'd like to congratulate those in the Clarence Valley who received OAMs and Australia Day awards at the recent ceremony. It was a wonderful event to be at. Trevor Plymin, from James Creek, was awarded an OAM for his service to veterans and their families. Bob Carnaby, of South Grafton, was given a Clarence Valley Citizen of the Year Award for his ongoing generosity and constant giving to numerous services. Pat Connelly, from Grafton, also received a Clarence Valley Citizen of the Year Award. Pat has been helping the community for over 50 years, volunteering and being part of charity groups and sporting clubs. Pat was also awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia, an OAM, in 2019. Young Citizen of the Year was presented to Eden Annesley in recognition of her significant contribution as concertmaster of the Clarence Valley Orchestra and Chorus. What a wonderful event that always is. And the Clarence Valley Community Achievement Award was presented to the Yamba Lions Club, who do amazing things in our community. From running fundraisers to serving meals at Yamba seasonal events, they're always available to help. Norma Jenkins was recognised as the Clarence Valley Local Hero for her visits to and ongoing support of the Mareeba Aged Care facility. She visits the facility every week on her motorised scooter, distributing chocolates, fruit, lollies and magazines to everyone and conversing with as many residents as she can. Congratulations and thank you to you all. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 83 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Closing the Gap 83 16:31 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid I rise to reflect on the Prime Minister's Closing the gap statement, delivered in the House of Representatives. While we have cause to reflect on the achievement of some progress towards reducing inequality between Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander people and the general population, I commend the Prime Minister for his honest reflection on the significant work yet to be done. The House noted that we are on track to meet two of the seven targets set in 2007. The target to have 95 per cent of Indigenous four-year-olds enrolled in early childhood education by 2025 is on track. In 2018, 86.4 per cent of Indigenous four-year-olds were enrolled in early childhood education, compared with only 91.3 per cent of non-Indigenous children. Exposing young children to early childhood education is vitally important to their development, especially for their emotional and social development, and assists with the transition to school. This is a wonderful achievement. It will mean that this generation of Indigenous children will have the same opportunity to experience social and educational benefits as their non-Indigenous peers, and will prepare them for education in years to come. Likewise, the target to halve the gap for Indigenous Australians aged between 20 and 24 in year 12 attainment or equivalent by 2020 is on track. Nationally, the gap has narrowed from 40 percentage points in 2008 to 25 percentage points in 2018-19. I've spoken previously about the role of education as a core tool for empowerment. I've spoken about how education is the pillar of our society. This is particularly significant for Indigenous Australians. We will continue to invest in young Indigenous people, knowing they are agents of change and leaders for the future. Investing in young Indigenous Australians is an investment in the future of this country. Two hundred million dollars has been provided to support mentoring programs under the Indigenous Youth Education Package so that Indigenous students can access the support and mentoring they need through their secondary studies. Through the Indigenous Student Success Program, an additional 20,000 residential, scholarship, academic and mentoring places for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students will help them thrive at university. However, our targets to close the gap on life expectancy, child mortality, literacy, school attendance and employment are not on track. While there have been improvements in some of the areas, it has not been enough to make significant strides. For this reason, a new approach is required. In order to close the gap, our government needs to draw on insights, knowledge and lived experiences of Indigenous Australians. As the Prime Minister has stated, the previous top-down government-led approach has failed to deliver what is truly needed for our Indigenous communities to thrive. This is why, for the first time in the Closing the Gap process, Indigenous expertise is at the centre of decision-making. We are taking a historic step forward by empowering our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be the key agents of change in their communities. To support this process of empowerment, we need to also acknowledge the disempowerment of Indigenous people, which has resulted from the violent conflict of colonial past. This is why the Australian government has worked in a bipartisan manner to encourage conversations across the nation so we can speak the truth of our shared past, present and future. In order for the Indigenous spirit to heal and thrive, we must be committed to truth-telling, and we must acknowledge the ongoing intergenerational trauma that began with the process of colonialism. The Prime Minister has made this a priority. The partnership agreement on Closing the Gap has provided a new framework that fosters collaboration with our Indigenous communities in order to make meaningful action to close the gap. For this partnership to succeed we are committing to a new process that is truthful and community led. This landmark agreement between all levels of government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peak organisations promotes the empowerment that is required. It drives local decision-making. It gives our First Nations people a voice in the decisions that affect their lives. This new Joint Council on Closing the Gap is developing realistic targets and metrics that all governments and the Coalition of Peaks can work towards. Indigenous Australians at a local, regional and national level are supplying knowledge and leadership, co-designing systems and contributing to policy and operational frameworks in collaboration with the government to bring about change. This new approach empowers Indigenous people and shifts the focus of the Closing the Gap process to where it needs to be. It is our hope that this new era of collaboration can mark profound partnership and positive change for our First Nations people. 16:37 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley This is not the first Closing the Gap speech that I've heard where the observation has been made that more needs to be done to actually allow Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population to have a greater say in the programs or the initiatives that governments undertake that affect them. I've heard this a number of times now. A number of us heard how it's important that communities have a greater sense of control and ownership and that communities drive the direction of the funding that is allocated to ensure their needs and aspirations are met. I begin my contribution reflecting on that and by asking the question: why? The question is directed specifically to this: in an environment where these questions are being posed, people are being asked why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are not given greater say and control in terms of the funding that's, in particular, driven by the Closing the Gap initiatives. For the first time in this nation we have, proudly, an Aboriginal Minister for Indigenous Affairs. And for the first time we have, at the same time, an Aboriginal shadow minister for Indigenous affairs as well. Yet neither of them has been accorded the opportunity to deliver a formal Closing the Gap address. The Prime Minister delivered it and the Leader of the Opposition delivered it; we did not have Aboriginal people standing at the dispatch box delivering those speeches. It would be a powerful reflection, I would submit, that Aboriginal people get to report on whether or not the things that have been said would be done, would be achieved and would be set aside to help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are being achieved. For those people who say, 'Well, it's important for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to deliver those speeches,' I would say this: if that's the case, why is the most pre-eminent economic document of the country, the budget, delivered not by the Prime Minister but by one of the Prime Minister's ministers? If this document is supposed to be a powerful representation of parliamentary and administrative will to ensure that we work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to see an improvement across a range of measures then I think this should be done. I certainly think an Indigenous Minister for Indigenous Affairs and that person's counterpart should be accorded that respect. They should be able to speak up for their communities in this most fundamental of ways. Clearly, we are not achieving. In many respects, yes, we have made some progress, but we need to do more. I must say, too, that, as I was listening to the Prime Minister's address, I could not shake the feeling that we were being prepared for something which would be akin to maybe, possibly watering down the targets and not setting the ambitions. And I also have to say that it was very telling that, when the Leader of the Opposition, Labor leader Anthony Albanese, said that these are not someone else's targets but our targets that we are failing, the opposition itself spoke unanimously as one to say, 'Yes.' It was not because this was a partisan point that was being made—I would actually stress that nothing could be further from the truth. But there's certainly a very strong feeling amongst many of us in the opposition and, I suspect, amongst many in the government as well that we can and should do better and that there should be no dilution of the targets whatsoever. We should press for better because the reality is that, when we look at the way that things have happened, we are done with turning our back. As a nation, we have turned our back on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders for too long. Even simply on the history of this nation we have done this. I read two powerful books in the course of the last 12 months. One was written by Stan Grant quite a few years ago. He reflected on the fact that he felt he had not been made aware of his history growing up and, when he had been made aware of it, had been quite moved by it. He also felt as an individual that he should be able to express quite clearly his dissatisfaction with the way that he and the people that he loves have been treated and the way that they have been in times past, and we as a nation should be able to face up to this without any sense of guilt. The other was Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu, which a number of people have said has moved them. But in particular that book highlighted the fact that so many of us as a people are completely and utterly unaware of the way in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people lived their lives in very complex systems prior to colonisation. To recognise this is not some failing of the nation. It is not an admission of guilt. It is not assigning blame. It is just doing the right thing respectfully by people and ensuring that, in many respects, what had been undertaken before by refusing to acknowledge what had happened prior to the arrival of the British in this nation was, in a way, a mechanism to deny legitimacy to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This is important in the context of what we are going through now in that Closing the Gap is not some sort of mechanistic, bureaucratic or consultant-led initiative where we tick a few boxes. This is about understanding that what has happened in the past has contributed in many respects to the disadvantage we see today and that in acknowledging this, as I said earlier, people should not feel blame—for example, when we are discussing the verses of the national anthem or the day on which Australia Day falls. There are some people who will attempt to claim that in some way, shape or form people today are being made to feel that they are responsible, that they should wear guilt and that they are to blame. No. This is about respect. This is about fundamentally acknowledging the pain of peoples before us, that if the roles were reversed and we had experienced this we would do it. If you don't think it's important that that be done, why do you go to Anzac Day ceremonies? For the same reason that we respect the sacrifice and the pain that was inflicted on one generation of Australians through that conflict we should acknowledge what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people went through and we should also acknowledge through the Closing the Gap process what we are failing to achieve. There should be two things that happen. We should not just simply have the idea—I must say this is something that we have wrestled with for many years—that the only way we'll fix things is through practical reconciliation. As a people we are moved by symbols. We are absolutely moved by symbols. It's why we have the Australian flag in the corner. It's why we have the coat of arms up there on the wall. It's why we do the prayer and the acknowledgement of country every day. Symbols matter to people. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the issue of recognition in our Constitution is an important thing. It should not be reduced to: 'We don't need to do this; we need to achieve practical reconciliation first.' We should do both things. We in this nation should be able to do that and we should be able to find a way—recognising the Uluru statement and the statement from the heart—to incorporate an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice in this place in the way that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are calling for. Someone in my office has done a lot of work to go through the Closing the Gap speech and pick out key stats, and I thank him for his work. But I felt that in terms of closing the gap and where this sits in our reconciling with the people who were in this land first we need to do better and we cannot see a watering down of the targets. We cannot walk away from our failure in meeting those targets or in acknowledging the pain of peoples who were here before us, and that ambition in this space is something we should walk towards, not away from. 16:47 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff Firstly and importantly, I give my thanks and pay respects to the Ngunawal elders past, present and emerging for our future. I also give thanks and pay respect to the Yugara people, who are the traditional owners of the land in my electorate of Moncrieff on the Gold Coast. I honour all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people here in this parliament and right across our great country. I'd also like to acknowledge our service men and women and our veterans and particularly acknowledge our Indigenous service men and women and our Indigenous veterans. This was the first Closing the Gap speech I have heard in the chamber since being elected, and I saw with my own two eyes our Indigenous minister take the floor and deliver a speech straight after the Prime Minister. I'm sure Minister Wyatt helped to craft the statement. I share the frustration and, indeed, disappointment with what is a national truth and a national shame that today Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children do not have the same opportunities as all other Australian children. The 2020 Closing the Gap report shows that the best intentions and the decisions made in good faith are not enough. Whilst there's been some progress, Australia is on track to meet only two of the seven targets that were set. These two targets are early childhood education and year 12 attainment. Sadly, the four COAG targets—child mortality, school attendance, literacy and numeracy, and employment—that expired in 2018 have not been met. The target to close the gap in life expectancy within a generation to 2031 is also unfortunately not on track. It's clear that previous strategies around closing the gap have been hampered largely by a lack of collaboration between government and Indigenous Australians. We thought that we understood their problems better than they did. We don't. They live their problems. They are the experts. A new era of partnership to close the gap has begun. Central to this partnership is a new process that is truthful, strength based and community led. It puts Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people front and centre, where they deserve to be. I commend the Prime Minister and Minister Wyatt, our minister for Indigenous affairs, on their efforts to tackle this issue with a grassroots approach. We must make an impact on one particularly important area—education. It's the key. As the Prime Minister said—and I wholeheartedly agree: Get the education right and the skills, jobs, security, health, prosperity and longevity all follow. I'm pleased that we've seen encouraging signs in this area. I want to commend one institution in my electorate, if I may—and I'm sure there are others: Griffith University is working to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Its Gumurrii unit has helped more than 400 students achieve degrees in the last few years and supports 160 regional and remote students to succeed. Jacob Page, a student at Griffith University, has just completed his Bachelor of Exercise Science and his ambition is to go on to study medicine. He is the first in his family to attend university and he said that completing the course gave him a large amount of self-satisfaction. Jacob praised the Gumurrii unit for their support when he said: Gaining new knowledge and completing courses gives you a large amount of self-satisfaction. You will be a direct influence in improving the education statistics of our people. The amount of support you get from the Gumurrii unit will definitely make things a lot easier when starting. Don't let fear of failing stop you from trying. Everyone at Gumurrii is really nice and encouraging. They really want you to achieve. We know that we must do whatever we can to get more kids into school, to finish school and to go on to further study. It all helps to set them on the path to better life outcomes. Education leads to a job and a job represents a future full of choice. As a member of parliament I represent my community, and that includes Indigenous Gold Coasters. It's why I joined the backbench committee for Indigenous affairs—so I can learn more about the issues that face the Aboriginal community and the challenges we have as a government in this next chapter of closing the gap. The Gold Coast has a rich Indigenous history. Aboriginal tribes inhabited the region for over 23,000 years before European settlement and so numerous sacred sites remain. It's important that we understand the history, traditions and culture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Bora Memorial Rock can be found in the Jebbribillum Bora Park ring site beside the Gold Coast Highway, in my own suburb of Miami. Thousands of people pass it every day without realising its significance. The rock is dedicated to the Indigenous men and women from the Gold Coast region who served in Australian war conflicts from 1914 to 1991. The memorial was made in 1991 with a rock from Tamborine Mountain and has totemic symbols of an eagle—the protector—a snake, a dolphin and circles representing water coming together. It was once the site where young Aboriginals were initiated into their tribe with special ceremonies. I recently enjoyed listening to the youth choir sing the national anthem in their traditional language at a memorial service for Indigenous diggers. The Jellurgal Aboriginal Cultural Centre is located at the bottom of Burleigh headland and borders my electorate. Here, Aboriginal artists create traditional artwork. You can go along and browse the paintings for sale and see Aboriginal artefacts such as dilly bags, shields and other tools and instruments that were once part of everyday life. Burleigh Heads National Park is an important and sacred Indigenous place that, to this day, offers an amazing insight into the world of the Kombumerri people, including many Dreamtime stories about how Burleigh Hill and Tallebudgera—or 'good fish'—Creek came to be. I know I have many constituents who regularly enjoy this beautiful place, including my own family. Now, you may have been one of the millions of people who were mesmerised by the incredible Indigenous performance in the 2018 Commonwealth Games opening ceremony. Luther Cora, a constituent from Nerang, was the director of the Gathering performance. He's known on the Gold Coast for his storytelling and for his commitment to share the culture of the Yugambeh people. Borobi Jingeri, the big, blue koala mascot of the Commonwealth Games, also calls the Gold Coast home. His legacy lives on beyond the games as the champion of the local Yugambeh language. Borobi's full-time job now is to share his extensive knowledge of Indigenous language and culture with primary schools around South-East Queensland. Sadly, in recent years, Indigenous youth suicide has taken too many young lives. Indigenous youth are almost four times more likely than their non-Indigenous peers to take their own lives. Tackling suicide, all suicides, is a national priority. To tackle this national priority we are using targeted strategies. We've unveiled Australia's largest-ever youth mental health and suicide prevention package. There are trials being funded which are specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. In the last budget we committed $4.5 million for Indigenous leaders to create their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander suicide prevention plan. To finish on the Closing the gap report, I want to commit to do four things: talk about our history, focus on solutions, recognise traditional owners and highlight the importance of closing the gap through a grassroots approach that listens to Indigenous Australians. 16:55 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Once again, we look at the Closing the Gap targets with some sense of dismay. Once again, Australia notes that we are not on track to meet those important targets. Five of the seven targets are not on track: the target to halve the gap in child mortality rates, which was on track two years ago but is now off track; the target to halve the gap for Indigenous children in reading, writing and numeracy; the target to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous school attendance; the target to halve the gap in employment outcomes; and the target to close the gap in life expectancy. These are not on track. Only two of the targets are on track: the target for 95 per cent of Indigenous four-year-olds to be enrolled in early childhood education and the target to halve the gap for Indigenous Australians aged 20 to 24 in year 12 attainment or equivalent. And so it is a disappointing track record. For the work that has been done, we note that much remains undone. The Prime Minister, appropriately this year, said that it was important to listen more to Indigenous people. He said: … it was the belief that we knew better than our Indigenous peoples. We don't. … … … I'm very hopeful that a new approach that's more locally led and more collaborative will take us much further down than the top-down, one-size-fits-all, government-led approach ever could. But, as Bernard Keane in Crikey has noted, this has been startlingly similar to the words former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said in 2016: And so we need to listen to and draw on the wisdom, the ingenuity, the insights of Indigenous people across the nation from the cities to remote communities. … … … But we have to redouble our efforts to ensure effective engagement between the Government, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to build trust and develop further that respectful relationship. … … … … to allow decisions to be made closer to the people and the communities which those policies impact. I mention this commonality, not to say that I disagree with the notion that the Closing the Gap project must be more closely engaged with Indigenous Australians but merely to say that those words are not enough. Simply to make that observation doesn't make it happen. These are targets which were developed in partnership with Indigenous people, but a government that says no to Indigenous Australians' request for a voice to parliament will always struggle to engage in this kind of respectful, collaborative and locally led project. When you reject the Uluru Statement from the Heart it is difficult to embrace a locally driven Indigenous collaborative approach to the Closing the Gap targets. I urge the government to rethink its rejection of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and to consider whether progress may be made on a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous voice to parliament. There is also the matter of a justice target. Labor has called for a justice target to be added to the existing Closing the Gap targets. This is critical, given what has occurred in the realm of Indigenous incarceration. I have argued that Australia has entered a second convict age. Overall, the share of the population incarcerated is the highest it has been at any time since federation. It's up 130 per cent since 1985, with 0.22 per cent of Australian adults behind bars. But the picture is much worse among Indigenous Australians: 2.5 per cent of Indigenous adults are incarcerated. In Western Australia that figure is four per cent. Almost one in four Indigenous men born in the 1970s will go to jail during their lifetime. A higher share of Indigenous Australians are incarcerated than African-Americans, making Indigenous Australians—in the words of Noel Pearson—the most incarcerated people on earth. We must add a justice target to the Closing the Gap strategy to help to spur an evidence based criminal justice reform project of the kind that has seen US incarceration levels fall by 10 per cent over the course of the past decade. A project of this kind could be enormously important as part of the Closing the Gap strategy. Let me close by acknowledging a number of important projects in the realm of Indigenous equality. For several years now, I have been a supporter of the Indigenous Marathon Project. I have run all the world's marathon majors in an Indigenous Marathon Project singlet, and it was a pleasure to join Rob de Castella and the team on 13 February in Reconciliation Place for the annual reconciliation run and walk. We were welcomed by Tyrone Bell and acknowledged the strength and resilience of Indigenous Australians as celebrated through Rob's Indigenous Marathon Project. I have enjoyed in that project learning from people like Nat Heath and Damien Crispin, an Indigenous Marathon Project graduate who lives in Broome and took me for a run last year when I was in Broome. I acknowledge the work of the Indigenous Literacy Foundation. Their important work with e-readers is boosting Indigenous literacy and helping to close that gap. I want to recognise former Shoalhaven High School teacher John Dyball for his work with Indigenous boarding scholarships. John was, appropriately, awarded an Order of Australia this year recognising the value of his work partnering with schools to expand the educational opportunities for Indigenous Australians. Finally, let me pay tribute to Western Australian Treasurer Ben Wyatt, a great Indigenous leader, who announced today that he is stepping down from politics at the next election. Ben has left the Western Australian state budget stronger. He has invested in health, education and public transport. He's a great political leader, a great Labor Party member and a great Indigenous leader. He leaves politics with his head held high. 17:02 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I begin by paying my respects to the Ngunawal and Ngambri peoples, the traditional owners of this land that we're meeting on. I pay my respect to the elders past, present and emerging. When Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered the national apology to the stolen generations in February 2008, he made it clear that saying sorry was not enough. And it is still not enough. If we are to heal the hurt and wrong that has been done to Aboriginal people in this country, we must enable real improvements in people's lives, and that's what closing the gap was set up to do, to provide tangible measureable outcomes, to hold governments to account for the things they should do but for so long have failed to do, with devastating consequences. Unfortunately, this year's closing the gap statement is another failure. It does bear repeating some of the targets and how we are off track in that statement. Five of the seven targets are not on track, including life expectancy and child mortality rates. The disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in this country remains stark. On average, Indigenous Australians live around eight years less than other Australians. Indigenous cancer mortality rates are getting worse. The numbers in this year's report are the same as last year. The Indigenous child mortality rates are still more than twice that of non-Indigenous children. That's a confronting reality. The child mortality rate is a direct result of poorer living conditions, issues with housing and overcrowding, limited prenatal care and a history of dispossession and colonisation, a disparity that is more pronounced in remote areas. It's unacceptable. We are failing our First Nations children by allowing this gap to continue. In education, one in four Indigenous children are performing below minimum standards for reading, and one in five are below the minimum standards for numeracy. While enrolment for early childhood education is on track, there is concern about the variation between jurisdictions, in particular again in Queensland, Northern Territory and New South Wales in those remote areas. This has not been helped by the government having cut funding from schools that need the most help, including many remote schools with high Indigenous enrolments. It is clear that for too long First Nations people have been shut out of the conversation about their lives. Despite being in the best positions to understand their communities and their lives, their voices have not been heard. So I want to commend the work of the Coalition of Peaks, the group of Aboriginal organisations who have come together to reshape closing the gap. Labor supports their priorities, and they're really important priorities. They include having a formal partnership between the government and First Nations people on closing the gap, growing First Nations community controlled services, and improving mainstream service delivery to First Nations people. We do need to ask Aboriginal people what they want. We do need to listen to their expertise and their knowledge of what is best in their lives and their communities. We must also be clear that a formal partnership does not absolve government of its responsibility. Closing the gap takes money and resources, and government must not step away from this. I am very concerned that, in suggesting a new approach to closing the gap, the Prime Minister suggested the targets we have may not have been realistic or achievable in the first place. Lowering our standards or suggesting that it's okay that more Aboriginal children die because maybe it's not realistic to expect that to improve is a cop-out. As the Leader of the Opposition said in his statement to the House: The problem was not that the targets were too ambitious … the failure to meet the targets is our failure… We must continue to take responsibility for the failings of a system that does not benefit those we are trying to assist. If we want to see improved outcomes in the health and education of Indigenous Australians, we need to invest in these portfolios and in the services they provide. We need to make sure that people in remote communities have access to clean water for dialysis. We need to make sure they have clean houses to live in, that their schools are up to scratch and that they have a local health service. That is the responsibility of governments. Instead, we've watched as the consecutive Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments have made cuts to health and education. We can and we must do better. Another area that we must continue to work on is how we account for what we're doing. In order to hold governments to account, we must continue to collect consistent data. Collecting the data on inequality, disadvantage and the disparity between Indigenous and non-indigenous people is fundamental to improving living standards. So while we may look at reviving the Closing the Gap targets, we can't lose the data and the progress we've made, because if we do we lose that ability to hold governments to account for their progress. We need this accurate data, as depressing as those outcomes might be. So I call on this government to make sure that that effort continues and that we don't walk away from the knowledge of what's happening to Aboriginal people in this country. Finally, we must of course act on the Uluru statement and have a voice to parliament that's recognised in our Constitution. We all know that changing the Australian Constitution is not easy, and it's been done very few times, but we're at a turning point in our history. It's a turning point that will require all of us to work on it. It requires passion and it requires dedication. It requires the people in here to sign up. So I ask the people in here who are not on board yet, who think this somehow makes our country a worse place to be, to rethink and to listen to the voices of the Aboriginal people. It is time for them to be recognised in our constitution. It is time for them to have a meaningful voice in this place. It's time for our country to go through the process of truth-telling and treaty-making so that we emerge as a stronger, fairer country on the other side of that process. 17:08 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand We've now had 12 Closing the gap reports and 12 declarations of failure—failure to close the gap. We saw in the most recent report that five out of seven targets are not on track. This is a failure to make good centuries of injustice in our nation. You can fill a small library with the subsequent speeches made in this place about these reports—so many speeches, so much regret, and so little progress. We cheapen language when we do this. Each year we show Australians the enormous difference, the enormous distance, between our words and our achievements. I can only imagine how numbingly predictable and how hollow this process must seem to First Australians. It would be of little value for me to add yet another expression of regret here today. Nonetheless I stand here in despair that Indigenous children experience vastly higher mortality rates. I despair that life expectancy of Indigenous Australians is sharper and miserably less than the rest of Australia. This is the legacy of systemic murder and dispossession. It's the legacy of racial contempt and indifference. It's the legacy that, after centuries of injustice, led to the Uluru Statement from the Heart from Indigenous Australians. Almost three years ago the Referendum Council delivered a historic document to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and were optimistic that its recommendations could be fulfilled. The report was the result of unprecedented consultation with First Australians. The council's co-chair Mark Liebler said: The Uluru statement was the culmination of an inclusive, principled, and focused consultation process, the like of which Australia has never seen … Twelve hundred delegates took part in the Indigenous-specific dialogues, from a total population of about 600,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples nationally. We believe this to be the most proportionally significant consultation process ever undertaken with Indigenous Australians. The product of that consultation process, the Uluru Statement from the Heart, made three consensus requests from Australia: voice, truth-telling, and makarrata, coming together after struggle. The first step, meaningful constitutional recognition of the place of Indigenous Australians in our nation in the form of a voice to parliament, was an elegant and earnest desire that an advisory body to parliament be constitutionally enshrined. First Australians were clear: they didn't want fancy, ineffectual words added in a preamble to our Constitution. What they wanted, in the words of the council, was a form of 'living recognition'. The voice to parliament was not a new idea. Indigenous activist William Cooper, a local of Melbourne's west in my electorate, petitioned the government in 1935 for direct representation to federal parliament. Born in 1860, Cooper was a self-taught activist of unusual skill whose principles and rhetoric were shaped by the Bible. In 1917 he lost his enlisted son on the Western Front. But, when Cooper petitioned the government and later the King for representation of Indigenous Australians' interests, none of this mattered. The thousands of Indigenous signatories to Cooper's petition to King George declared: … it was not only a moral duty, but also a strict injunction included in the commission issued to those who came to people Australia that the original occupants and we, their heirs and successors, should be adequately cared for; and whereas the terms of the commission have not been adhered to, in that (a) our lands have been expropriated by your Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth, (b) legal status is denied to us by your Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth— 'In response we request the power to propose a member of parliament of our own blood to represent us in the federal parliament.' We can clearly hear in this petition the echoes of the Uluru Statement from the Heart's simple request for a voice to parliament. William Cooper's petition was ignored in the 20th century just as the Uluru Statement from the Heart has been ignored in the 20th century. It's been 10 years since the process of constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians was initiated under the Gillard government. It's been almost three years since the Referendum Council gave former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull their request. In response we've heard unfounded fears about what the voice to parliament will mean. I can address those fears simply. The voice to parliament would not be a third chamber. It would not undermine parliamentary sovereignty. It could not pass bills, nor veto them, but it was a consensus desire and one that the Referendum Council was confident that the Australian people would ratify by referendum. But it annoyed former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. He thought that it had no chance at referendum, that it would be seen as an intrusive third chamber of parliament. In other words, he didn't trust the Australian people to see it for what it was: a modest request that First Australians have a greater say in policies that affect their lives, their communities, their future. We've recently heard Prime Minister Morrison talking about the voice to parliament as though it is a position of the Labor Party, that it needs to be changed in order to achieve bipartisan consensus. This is a mischaracterisation. Labor did not develop the voice to parliament. We are merely reflecting the consensus request of Indigenous Australians and the Referendum Council. The gap that must be bridged here is not between the coalition and the Labor Party; it is between the coalition and Indigenous Australians. It's been a frustrating three years of inaction in response to the Uluru Statement from the Heart and it's led me to think about what I can do as a parliamentarian to progress these requests in the absence of government support. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was clear that its three requests were sequential—that is, you could not do truth-telling without voice and you couldn't do makarrata without truth-telling. That being said, while we wait for the voice to parliament, I want to engage in some personal truth-telling in this about my own family's accountability for what was done to Indigenous Australians. It's no substitute for the truth telling we need to hear from Indigenous Australia about what was done to them, but it's a small gesture of accounting from a personal perspective. John Watts, my great-great-great-grandfather, was a pastoralist in 1840s Queensland and an MP. He was present during the initial dispossession of Indigenous Australians from areas stretching from the Darling Downs to Brisbane. His self-written memoirs, written for the audience of his descendants to tell the story of his colonial life, passed down through the generations to my family and in my parliamentary office today, express an unthinking and ruthless sense of superiority over the colonised. He wrote, 'I am one of those who think this fine country was never intended to only be occupied by a nomad race who made no use of it except for going from place to place and living only on the wild animals and the small roots of the earth and never in any way cultivating a single inch of the ground.' This statement of ignorance is laid bare by the prize-winning book Dark Emu, in which Bruce Pascoe carefully disproves the ignorant assumptions my ancestor had about the 'natives' and their agricultural primitivism. In other ways, John Watts was a liberal of his time. For example, he was well known locally for how he treated workers on his land. But on the question of Indigenous Australians he was so blind that he could not even see his own ignorance. His statements on Indigenous Australians reflect the view of inherent Indigenous inferiority that enabled what was done to Indigenous Australians by colonisation. My ancestor's memoirs describe killings and massacres of Indigenous Australians in South-East Queensland during this time in a matter-of-fact way. In recounting his memoirs he didn't seem to have any sense of shame or relish about what had occurred, but my father and I have since learned that what he left out of those memoirs may reveal a greater truth. Unmentioned in his memoirs, John Watts was also a champion of the Queensland native police, which was effectively a militia group comprising Indigenous men governed by white men and ordered to protect white settlers at any cost, which, in practise, meant slaughter. In justifying the actions of the Queensland native police in the wake of an inquiry into their actions, my ancestor told the Queensland parliament: … the natives must be regarded in the same light as inhabitants of a country under martial law—and that the natives must be taught to feel the mastery of the whites. He believed that from the natives knowing no law, nor entertaining any fears but those of the carbine— that is, a gun— there were no other means of ruling them … They were ruled by the gun. The Hansard provides further that my ancestor: … alluded to the atrocities committed by the aborigines upon the whites forming the establishment of Mr. Marks, at Colleroy, on the McIntyre, previous to the establishment of the native police force, as being of so diabolical a character as to make the blood run cold, and to prove that leaving the settlers to defend themselves, tended much more to the destruction of the blacks, than the maintenance of a native force. Before this was established, the settlers had to arm themselves to the teeth, and such men, seeing their children killed before them, could not be expected to refrain from using them indiscriminately. This was the truth that my ancestor didn't seem to want to recount for his descendants. It's a truth that is the beginning of a brutal legacy that we're now talking about in this place. It's the truth that underpins the need for the Closing the Gap statement and the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and it's a truth that's hard to hear here today. But it's a truth that all of us will benefit from confronting. Early this month, Bruce Pascoe told assembled parliamentarians in this building that learning about our nation's history, about Indigenous Australians' connection with country and about their understanding of the land, upon which we all live, ought not to be seen as an imposition but as an opportunity—an opportunity to reconsider our history, to renew our bonds and to feel a collective excitement for this act of inclusion and accounting; an opportunity to reconsider ourselves honestly and collectively. This begins with listening to the Uluru Statement from the Heart and acting on voice, truth and makarrata. 17:18 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I begin by acknowledging that we are on the land of the Ngunawal and Ngambri people and I pay respects to their elders past, present and emerging. I also acknowledge the Dharug, Gundungurra and Darkinjung, the traditional owners in the electorate of Macquarie, which I represent. Based on the census data, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people make up three per cent of the population of Macquarie. That's higher than the average for New South Wales or the national average. These are people for whom our failure to close the gap means their life expectancy is, if they are male, 8.6 years lower and, if they're women, 7.8 years lower than the non-Indigenous population and their children are twice as likely to die. We have failed to close the gap on five of the seven targets on health, child mortality, life expectancy, education and employment outcomes. It's such a failure that I can see why the government has thrown in the towel and said that because they've not been achieved they're the wrong targets. I think that's a cop-out. However, that's where we are. And, while we haven't been consulted on the new targets, I trust that there will be genuine engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities about making those meaningful targets and that there will then be a commitment for the necessary funding and support to achieve them. We should celebrate the two targets that are on track—the same ones as last year—which are the increasing number of children doing preschool and the increasing number of Aboriginal students completing year 12. Education is transformative. It changes lives. It changes futures. It is good that those were on track in these last two reports. I want to focus on the health aspects as they affect my local communities. Access to health services in my electorate for Indigenous people remains a real concern. For example, some years ago the then Nepean Blue Mountains Medicare Local coordinated an Aboriginal sharing and learning circle within our community to work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to get insights into local health needs and to establish the health priorities, alongside the Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District and the Hawkesbury District Health Service. A report was produced in 2015, spanning 2010 to 2014, which is still the most current one. This report found that— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:21 to 17:33 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 This report found there was a lack of Aboriginal health services in the Hawkesbury area and that one of the most important barriers to health services for Aboriginal people in the region was the lack of transport options. Many people simply don't have a car, and the public transport links are not good. So people found it difficult to attend health services. Now, years on, while we certainly have some good work being done in the sector, unfortunately the health services for Aboriginal people in the Hawkesbury are still predominantly delivered from Penrith, or are in Penrith. Penrith is about 20 kilometres from Richmond and Windsor. The public transport between the two regions—the Hawkesbury and Penrith—is minimal: a bus, at times, or a train changing at Blacktown. So the real question is: why hasn't there been any significant change to the transport issues in the region? Why do we still expect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to travel out of the area for the majority of their health services? That is not going to improve their access and it's not going to close the gap. Of course, our local community services, based in the Hawkesbury, who understand the needs of this really geographically challenging community—organisations like Merana and Mad Mob—work hard to bridge the gaps that exist, and they have my full support in fighting for services that meet the needs of our Indigenous community members. Since coming to this place, I've also been very disappointed to see a trusted Blue Mountains service, Healthy for Life, disappear with a change in the management of health services. Healthy For Life was a community developed program, developed locally with the Blue Mountains Aboriginal community and local GPs. It was a federal government program aimed at helping Indigenous people see an improvement in their health. The Aboriginal Healthy For Life Program aimed to look after people with chronic and complex illnesses and to improve the health of mums, babies and children overall—it also had a focus on men's and boys—to achieve and improvement in long-term health outcomes, to bring them more in line with health outcomes for non-Indigenous Australians. The big thing that the program did was allow people to meet in the family home, if that was the best place to have the service delivered, or some other preferred location, not necessarily the traditional doctor's surgery. It provided a link and support to health professionals, doctors and specialists. There were regular health checks, and transport was organised for health appointments. These are the sorts of things that help to close the gap. The replacement program has been a really long time coming. I think we need to stress that both the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury Aboriginal communities deserve to have services based in their community, not delivered from somewhere miles away. There are other organisations in my electorate that are working really hard to close the gap. I'd like to congratulate the nine students who recently completed a customised Diploma Of Mental Health, Alcohol and Other Drugs tailored by TAFE Digital for The Poche Centre for Indigenous Health at Sydney university to provide training for Indigenous students, people who are really keen to work in this area. It means that there are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health professionals in the Nepean and Blue Mountains region who will deliver these mental health, drug and alcohol counselling services. It's a really good step forward. This program was funded by Wentworth Healthcare, who operate the Nepean Blue Mountains Primary Health Network. I know that organisation is working hard with the funding it has to address some of these really difficult and serious health issues. I also want to commend the Blue Mountains GP Network. It has a long-term commitment to providing appropriate health services to the region for Aboriginal people. It is a group of very dedicated local doctors. In talking about closing the gap I'd like to recognise two local Aboriginal achievers who spent some time in this place recently. They are two businesses from Macquarie who took part in the Supply Nation Indigenous Business Trade Fair. Anny Druett is a business owner from the Blue Mountains. She's an Indigenous speaker and trainer who has mentored Aboriginal staff for more than 25 years. She is a formidable woman. Her cross-cultural training is in demand by government and not-for-profit organisations seeking to improve their relationships with Aboriginal people. It was just wonderful to see her here showcasing what she does. Then there is executive chef Matthew Atkins, who technically doesn't live in my electorate but is very much a feature of the Hawkesbury business scene. He operates Plate Events and Catering in the Hawkesbury district and much further afield. Right now, the business is preparing to host an Indigenous fusion event in Richmond which will take donors on a unique culinary journey through the Dharug seasonal calendar, with a wide range of native Australian ingredients showcased alongside music, art and an exhibition of Aboriginal artefacts. I'm looking forward to that one. I think that the more we celebrate the achievements the more there is a greater understanding and a closing of that gap, the understanding gap. The opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, said that the Closing the Gap statement to parliament commemorates the historic anniversary of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's apology to the stolen generation. Like him, I hope that the statement that we have recently heard results in real change, because while there have been improvements the gap does remain, and it remains in my region. Dark Emu author Bruce Pascoe looked at how Australia was a settled land long before we got here. He demonstrated by taking apart the accounts of settlers that there was agriculture, engineering and ownership and stewardship of this land by the First Peoples. As we strive to close the gap that has emerged since Europeans arrived we need to listen to the voices of our First Peoples if we are to affect real change. We need constitutional recognition of their existence, their settlement of this land. Let's make sure that as a result of this Closing the Gap statement and the changes that are promised we don't just pay lip service on these really important matters. 17:40 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle It's with really mixed feelings that I stand in this House, yet again—this is possibly the seventh time I've stood in this parliament to do this—to make a response to the Closing the gap report, and each and every time we have failed. We have utterly failed in terms of bridging any kind of gap for the seven measures that were laid down clearly following that historic apology in this parliament, when we were asked to make a commitment towards the monitoring and assessment of Indigenous disadvantage. That process really mapped out a number of the key indicators. They were around life expectancy; child mortality; school attendance; reading and numeracy; employment; early childhood; and the attainment of year 12 or equivalent. These were all very practical measures that the parliament agreed to in terms of monitoring and measuring, and it is utterly tragic that after 12 years we are not on track for at least five of those seven targets, including life expectancy, child mortality and employment. That is an utter indictment on all of us, that 12 years later we're on track for just two of those targets. I think the Leader of the Opposition was correct when he stood in this chamber, saying that the problem is not that those targets were too ambitious—we should not fall into that trap, that these goals were too big for this nation to set ourselves—but rather that we simply failed to meet those targets. That failure is ours, not that of Indigenous or First Nations people in Australia. The other observation I would like to make now is that many Indigenous First Nations people have commented that they struggle with some of the close the gap language because it's a deficit language. It fails to acknowledge or work on those things which have been embraced positively and the great achievements within the First Nations community. That is very true, but there are also some growing and terribly worrying signs that this gap is indeed increasing and widening under the watch of this government. One only need look at the shocking incarceration rates in Australia, the terrible suicide rates for First Nations people and, indeed, the absolutely abominable rates of children being removed from families and placed in out-of-home care. These are three issues that worry me deeply about how we could even contemplate a closing of the gap when we see before us the disadvantage which has resulted from more than two centuries of dispossession, discrimination and racism. Indeed, at times it was a very violent oppression on those frontiers. This is the very sad history of that 200 years of colonial engagement, and now we are seeing the disadvantage in those communities, in many of our communities, growing. When First Nations people gathered to talk about what their hopes and aspirations might be over a long period of time—we have come to know this as the Uluru statement—people reported back to this parliament a number of, in my view, very modest asks. One was to seek to have a voice in this parliament—that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people would be consulted on the issues and policies that were directly impacting and affecting them and that they would have some mechanism to have a voice to parliament on those issues. Tragically, this was dismissed in circumstances that I think were grossly unfair. There were wildly inaccurate allegations at the time that this request for a voice to parliament was somehow the creation of a third chamber. We know this to be untrue. I think even those people who first thought that have subsequently acknowledged that that was not the case; I thank the member for New England for correcting the record and saying that he had got that wrong. Nonetheless, there was a lot of damage done. Within days, there was a complete rejection of the elements of the Uluru statement. These were issues that hurt deeply for a number of First Nations people. The other element in the Uluru statement concerned truth; I touched on this a little bit earlier. We as a nation have to confront what has been a very uncomfortable truth around the ongoing impact of colonisation in this country. As uncomfortable as that truth might be from time to time, it seems to me that it is impossible for a mature nation to be a confident nation, with a genuine partnership with its First Nations people, if we cannot be honest about the history that brings us to the place we're at now. Truth-telling is a very important and, indeed, powerful acknowledgement of the reality of our shared histories in Australia. The other component of the Uluru statement, of course, was the makarrata—the treaty or agreement making. It's been the subject of great debate in Australia for decades and decades. It seems to me that, until we can mature as a nation to the understanding that we would have confidence in allowing self-determination of our First Nations people, we still have a lot of growing up to do if we can't find ways to adequately accommodate in a mature manner with First Nations people an agreement of some sort about the way that we continue to coexist in this nation. So, rather than standing in this Chamber year after year discussing the ongoing failure—and this is our failure—to reach these targets, perhaps it is time that this government rethinks its relationships with First Nations people, rethinks its initial dismissal of the Uluru statement and the modest requests that were asked in that statement, and really begins to think: 'Well, you know what? After all these years, what we're doing has failed First Nations people. It's not working. It is time.' Instead of talking about a reset on closing the gap, I think it's time for a reset on the original relationships between First Nations people and the remainder of the Australian nationhood. Self-determination shouldn't ever be just a theoretical concept; it needs to be set in practice. We should have that trusting relationship: both in ourselves as mature citizens, but also in our First Nations people and that they certainly do have the answers. And this is the complaint about deficit language: First Nations people have said, time and time again, 'You need us to be able to take control of our own lives and destinies.' 17:50 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith Of course, as happens every day in this place, I want to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we are meeting, and pay my respects to their elders past and present. Here in the Canberra region, the traditional owners are the Ngunnawal people and the Ngambri people. I also want to acknowledge my colleagues and fellow parliamentarians who are Aboriginal people: the Hon. Linda Burney, Senators McCarthy, Dodson and Lambie, and the Hon. Ken Wyatt. When the Closing the gap report was presented to parliament, the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Anthony Albanese, made a speech in which he made some, I think, very poignant and telling remarks. He said that closing the gap: … adds up to nothing but sentiment and speeches, if this occasion becomes merely a ceremonial renewal of good intentions and a promise to do better next time. He reflected on the Closing the Gap targets and said: It is an indictment that, of all these targets, we’re on track for only two. The problem was not that the targets were too ambitious … the failure to meet these targets is our failure. Of course, in saying 'our' failure, he wasn't referring to one or a few members of this parliament; he was referring to all of the members of this parliament collectively. It's important that responsibility for the failure to meet the Closing the Gap targets be laid at the feet of the parliament. And it's appropriate that responsibility and accountability—two of the words that the Prime Minister used in his speech during the debate to take note of the Closing the gap report—be laid at our feet as members of parliament. And it's also right that criticism be laid at our feet. I'm very grateful that Anthony once again recommitted Labor to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and to a constitutionally enshrined First Nations Voice to parliament, which is one of the components of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It is important, when we talk about why five out of the seven targets are not on track, that we think about the centrality of power in influencing the failures that have been laid at our feet. The failure to be on track for five out of seven Closing the Gap targets tells us that change is needed when it comes to power structures. Self-determination and autonomy require power. As Professor Megan Davis has said, 'A partnership where people can genuinely make informed choices and form their own pathways is not possible without structural reform.' This means that we can't continue to take an approach to addressing the targets in the Closing the gap report without also addressing the fundamental power relations that exist. To give one example, in response to this year's Closing the gap report, Dr Chelsea Bond and David Singh have responded to that report by writing about the importance of transforming relationships of power. I want to quote from their article, which is called 'More than a refresh required for closing the gap of Indigenous health inequality'. They specifically talk about health inequality in Indigenous communities, as well as Indigenous health more broadly. I want to quote extensively so please indulge me. They said: What is required is a broadening of our intellectual investment in Indigenous health: one that invites social scientific perspectives about the social world that Indigenous people occupy and its role in the production of illness and inequalities. In this way, we would come to understand that race needs to be better conceptualised before we understand the ways it matters to health outcomes. Through this we might also come to realise the limitations of drawing too heavily upon a medical response to what is effectively a political problem, enabling us to extend our strategies beyond affordable prescriptions for remedying individual illnesses to include remedying the power imbalances that cause the health inequalities we are so intent on describing. We might then be prepared for the radical reconfiguring of relationships of power between Indigenous and non‐Indigenous people that are necessary for achieving better health outcomes, whereby Indigenous peoples could be considered the solution to better health rather than the cause of ill health, where Indigenous research institutions administer Indigenous health research investments rather than be advisors to them, and where Indigenous peoples are the architects of health advancement rather than accessories to failed health policy frameworks. They went on to say: That any of these suggestions might appear as radical propositions is perhaps a more telling and tragic indictment of what little progress has been made in over a decade of the Closing the Gap approach, more tragic than the statistical tale that is told each February on the floors of the Australian Parliament. I also want to note that in the discussions of the role of power there are few more obvious manifestations as violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. Recently, the Hon. Linda Burney MP was quoted in the press about violence in Australia particularly against Indigenous women. She said: People need to recognise that for Aboriginal families, these are not statistics, they are real people. She went on to say: It's not just people murdered or people missing, but it's the injury as well that goes unnoticed … The thing that I am very incensed about, it's not just the murders, but the actual hospitalisations, permanent disabilities, and the maiming that takes place. In this ABC report, the ABC said: Nationally, Indigenous women make up 16 per cent of all female murder victims, despite comprising less than 3 per cent of the population. It went on to say: The ABC obtained exclusive data revealing, in some states, Aboriginal women also made up 10 per cent of unsolved missing persons cases. These women were often presumed dead. Celeste Little wrote about this phenomenon recently in an article called 'Aboriginal women continue to disappear silently as we've done for decades'. She said: A few years back, I spent a lot of time trawling through the lists created by feminist groups such as Destroy the Joint and Real for Women of victims of violence against women, and identifying the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women amongst these lists. I've spoken about this before but it was incredibly tough work, not just because the statistics were heartbreaking but also because so many of the cases would have one police report and no media follow up. These women often went further unmentioned and unnamed – their cases were never taken up by the media, the trials of their killers were not covered, they remained invisible to the rest of the country. It's very clear that when it comes to violence we need a stronger approach to making sure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women have the structural power, in a collective sense, that they need to make sure that the violence is brought to an end. Violence has been a theme of this week, of course, given the circumstances in my own electorate recently and elsewhere across the nation. It is important that when we talk about violence we also think about those women who go missing and are never found, whose families live for decades not knowing what happened. I met recently with Senator Kim Pate, who's a senator in Canada, alongside the founder of Sisters Inside, Deb Kilroy, to discuss this issue of missing and murdered Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in Australia. Senator Pate is leading a campaign on a very similar issue in Canada. This is an issue that requires further consideration and further attention. It requires those things so that we don't have cases like this one. And I'll return to the ABC report that I mentioned that cites: Widjabul woman Rhoda Roberts has worked as a journalist, broadcaster, director and festival programmer in the arts and says two women in her family have just "disappeared". Her twin sister was 39 years old when she disappeared. They subsequently found her body, and her killer was never found. Back in 2002 Ms Roberts' cousin, Lucy McDonald, vanished from her Lismore home. She's never been found. These cases are horrifying and deeply distressing, and we need to focus on them. That also means not cutting funding to the National Family Violence Prevention Legal Services Forum. It means not cutting funding to WESNET. Thirty-one per cent of their safe phones go to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. These programs make a serious difference to the lives of women, but we must absolutely address structural reform to ensure that people have power. 18:00 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I join many of my colleagues on both sides of the House in standing here today to talk about the Closing the gap report. I don't think that it is an overstatement to say the results reported this year are a terrible indictment of our collective failure—and I say collective failure, reiterating the statements that the member for Griffith has just made that we as a parliament need to be accountable for the failures. It's a terrible indictment on our collective failure and a terrible stain on our nation when we have only two of the seven targets in the Closing the gap report on track to be met, those two being early childhood education and year 12 attainment. Let us not forget that much of the reason why those two markers are on target to be achieved by 2025 in the case of childhood education and 2020 for year 12 attainment is due to the non-profit and non-government sector—organisations like Clontarf in Western Australia and organisations like the Girls Academy in Western Australia, which work with First Nations girls and First Nations boys to keep them in education. The other five targets around child mortality, literacy and numeracy, school attendance, employment and, importantly, life expectancy are still not on track. It's not the first time that any of us have stood here and lamented the fact that we are failing in closing not just the gap but the incredible chasm that exists in inequality between our First Nations people and other Australians. I've often said that we can't move forward without reconciling our past. I know that this is something that is broadly accepted but that we've yet to see positive action towards achieving. It's been 12 years since the national apology. The national apology was an important turning point in our history in offering not just an apology but also a start to healing the hundreds of years of hurt that have been caused between us and our First Nations people. It was just a start, but here we are, 12 years later, and my concern and my fear is that we squander our time here in this place, that each and every one of us fails to continue to push and to advocate for the change that is necessary to really close that chasm. We just can't afford to squander our time here. We are in a time in Australia's history—an unprecedented time in Australia's history—where we have a significant number of people in our parliament who are of First Nations. We have Senator Lambie, Senator McCarthy and Senator Dodson, and we have an Indigenous Minister for Indigenous Affairs in the Hon. Ken Wyatt as well as a shadow Indigenous minister for indigenous affairs in the Hon. Linda Burney. And I think that now is a time for us to listen, to really listen to them and to follow their lead. I'd like at this point to reiterate a suggestion that the member for Chifley made. He suggested that the Indigenous minister and the Indigenous shadow should be able to deliver the address to parliament on Closing the Gap, in the same way that we have the Treasurer, for example, delivering the economic statements every year. I would back the member for Chifley's call to give our Indigenous minister and our Indigenous shadow minister the power to deliver that address. I am incredibly proud to live in a democratic nation like Australia, and I have a very deeply held optimism and belief in our political institutions—in the intent of their design and in the undeniable good that they have done when they work for everyone. But I am also well aware that those institutions have sometimes also set policies that don't always benefit all Australians, and this is no more evident than in the persistent state of inequality and inequity that besets our First Nations people. I appreciate that we have political institutions and structures that compel us—not just each and every one of us in this House but each and every Australian—to pursue the cause of closing this chasm of inequality between our First Nations people, our brothers and sisters of First Nations, and other Australians. But we must use these institutions to listen, to empower and to give our First Nations people a voice and a platform to determine their futures and support them in doing so. In the Prime Minister's address on the Closing the gap report, he spoke of a top-down approach, and many members on the other side have also spoken about the top-down approach. But, please, I implore you, let us not allow this focus on a top-down approach to be an excuse for dragging our feet on progress towards equality. Let us not squander our time here and let us not squander this moment in history, when we have an Indigenous minister and an Indigenous shadow minister who can be a guiding light and show us the way. Let us not insist on leading when we should be following. We really should be following. And let us truly commit to a process that empowers First Nations people by establishing a voice to parliament. I do not accept the argument that a voice to parliament will be a third chamber—quite the contrary. A voice to parliament will not just be a symbolic act. The member for Chifley quite rightly stated that we are humans and symbols mean things to us. Symbolic acts mean something. They are not just semantics; they actually do have deep meaning and speak and send messages in ways that perhaps it is difficult to fathom at times. It wouldn't just be a symbolic act; it would be a real act of giving a voice to First Nations people. I know that standing up and talking about this isn't going to make the change that I want to see. I know that when I talk about the inequality for our First Nations people. I know that when we talk about issues like domestic violence. I know that there are so many measures of inequality that we could also be talking about—things like eye health and ear health for Aboriginal children, particularly those in remote areas; things like comorbidity and health outcomes; things like incarceration rates. We talk a lot about the gender pay gap, but we have no data on the fact that the gender pay gap is even wider for Indigenous women. We don't often talk about that kind of intersectionality of gender and race when we talk about issues for women. In closing, I stand here as somebody who is not Indigenous and as somebody who is acutely aware that sometimes we take away the voices of those who we should be listening to. I listened to the Prime Minister's speech, and I have no doubt that it was heartfelt and sincere—I have absolutely no doubt of that. But I do fear that there was an undertone there about the setting of these targets. I do hope that we don't walk away from our accountability to achieve the targets that we set over a decade ago, because lives count on it, our First Nations people count on it and also our future, moving forward as Australians and as part of one great nation, counts on it. 18:10 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler 2008 was a very proud time for our nation, and I consider myself very privileged to have been a member of this parliament at that stage, where we came together collectively to apologise for past wrongs committed by successive governments against our fellow Australians—Indigenous Australians. Prime Minister Rudd's speech at the time truly reflected the spirit of our nation. It was an historic moment. The truth is, though, that past laws and policies have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on our fellow Australians, entrenching systematic disadvantage for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. I think we were buoyed with optimism by the hope of what occurred in 2008. It was a defining moment, as we made the commitment as a nation to close the gap—to improve the gap in the quality of life between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. But the simple fact is that it is yet to be achieved. Twelve years later there is still much work to be done. While there has been some improvement in two areas—in early childhood enrolments and year 12 attainment targets—the overall result is by and large still well short of the mark. The goal for 95 per cent of all Indigenous four-year-olds to be enrolled in early childhood education by 2025 is close to being reached, with 86.4 per cent enrolments in 2018, compared with 91.3 per cent of non-Indigenous Australians. Clearly, that is a tick. And over the decade the proportion of Indigenous Australians aged between 20 and 24 obtaining year 12 or the equivalent has increased by 21 per cent, with the target being to halve the gap of year 12 attainment rates by 2020. That's clearly on track. While these should be recognised and commended, the poor results in health, employment and other areas, such as education, are a significant concern and certainly overshadow these gains. Take the target to halve the gap in child mortality rates for Indigenous children under the age of five by 2018, for instance. It has not been met, with 141 per 100,000, compared with 67 per 100,000 for non-Indigenous children. It's simply an indictment on us that we haven't been able to make a significant dent in that statistic by changing the mortality rate. The target to close the life expectancy gap within a generation is just not on track, with Indigenous males having 8.6 years less life expectancy than non-Indigenous males. And, likewise, Indigenous women have 7.8 years less life expectancy than non-Indigenous females. We can't take any joy in that at all. The target for non-Indigenous employment was also not met; Indigenous employment rates are around 49 per cent, compared to 75 per cent for the non-Indigenous Australians. The target to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous school attendance by 2018 has not been achieved. The gap actually starts in the first year of schooling and widens as it progresses into high school. We need to do something about that. There has always been some improvement in literacy, but the target to halve the gap for Indigenous children in reading, writing and numeracy by 2018 is simply not on track at all. Clearly, an investment in education is not just an investment in our nation; quite frankly, an investment in education is an investment in prosperity for all of us. It is an investment in the country. You can't just make that investment and say we are seeking to improve the productivity of the nation by investing in and looking at the results of non-Indigenous Australians. It has to be an investment in all Australians, and the results must be attainable. That's why I remain appalled by this government's approach to education funding. They have cut billions of dollars from our schools, particularly public schools, including those that service remote communities that have a high Indigenous enrolment. The member for Sydney points out very clearly that the Morrison government went further by cutting $500 million from programs aimed specifically at reversing Indigenous disadvantage in education. That is something that should concern all of us. If this government is serious about addressing Indigenous inequality, they must also have a close look at their policies and their decision-making when it comes to funding appropriate needs-based services. The disparity in living conditions for non-Indigenous Australians and Indigenous Australians is so high as to make clear that the current approach is simply not working. In order to address the challenges facing Indigenous communities, we must absolutely acknowledge the involvement of self-determination. They deserve the right to be able to make decisions on matters that affect them and their communities. In highlighting the power of self-determination for Indigenous communities, I want to draw on the legacy of a friend, the late Aunty Mae Robinson, a remarkable woman. It was a privilege for me to know her and to work with her. Aunty Mae broke many barriers. She was the first Aboriginal to graduate from a school of education in the 1980s. She went on to have a lasting impact in my community. She taught at local primary schools. She was involved in the development of the first Aboriginal studies syllabus, through the University of Western Sydney, and she worked tirelessly to inspire Aboriginal youth and to provide them with the opportunities to succeed through access to education. In concluding, I would like to share some commentary provided by the Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council, an organisation in my community which does a great job servicing Indigenous people living in Liverpool, Fairfield, Cumberland and the Sutherland local government areas. Melissa Williams is the CEO of the Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council. She successfully puts the matter in perspective when she says: 'Closing the gap related problems are often provided by non-Aboriginal organisations. Well meaning though these services may be, their goal is to provide a suite of services to a broad based target group.' Speaking of her organisation, she says: 'Our remit is for a much smaller, focused result: services provided to Aboriginal people, controlled by Aboriginal people'. Accordingly, it is with this new approach moving forward that I offer bipartisan support to work for a real and actual positive change in our Indigenous communities. If we are to be a proud nation, we must be prepared to work with the peak Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations to reverse the entrenched disadvantage. The current situation of First Nations people is just intolerable. We can and we must make a change. We must make a difference. We must work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations to actually deliver the services they need to help advance the future prosperity of their communities. 18:20 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle The annual Closing the Gap statement is a penetrating window into the character and wellbeing of our country. All else aside, we cannot be at peace with ourselves when the circumstances of so many First Australians situate them in a parallel world—a world where everything is squeezed and tilted away from basic standards of social inclusion, health care, educational attainment, economic opportunity, cultural respect and freedom from discrimination. We can't be at peace with ourselves, because, one way or the other, that is the case for too many Indigenous Australians. As others have noted, within the seven key areas of marked disadvantage only two of the Closing the Gap targets are currently on track. That means we are not making progress to address the fact that child and infant mortality for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids is twice as high as the rate in the broader population, the fact that life expectancy is so different for Indigenous people or the fact that employment participation remains widely divergent. It's interesting to note that the Closing the Gap summary refers to the unchanging gulf when it comes to employment participation as being stable. 'Stagnant' would be a better word. If your mantra is that the best kind of support that government policy can deliver for people is a job, then you'd have to judge yourself pretty harshly on those numbers. In 2018 the Indigenous child mortality rate was 141 per 100,000. For non-Indigenous kids it's only 67 per 100,000. It is a terrible gap. We can't accept it. The rate of Indigenous child mortality was falling until 2012 but it has risen again since that time. The target to close the life expectancy gap by 2031 is not on track. Indigenous Australians live on average eight years fewer than non-Indigenous Australians. One thing we need to be clear about is that the response to the lack of progress under the Closing the Gap framework cannot be to adjust the framework in order to let ourselves off the hook of achieving real change. That would be a cop-out and an abdication. I want to specifically mention the issue of suicide. Before I do, I acknowledge the essential work of Lifeline. I make the point that anyone feeling at risk or having dark thoughts should speak to someone by calling 131114. It's been very welcome to see the Prime Minister announce the creation of a permanent national commissioner to investigate suicides among Defence Force personnel and veterans. As we rightly apply ourselves to the awful and unacceptable rates of suicide among those who serve or have served in our defence forces, so we must acknowledge and be appalled by and galvanise ourselves in response to the scourge of suicide in Indigenous communities, particularly among Indigenous kids. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are 2.8 per cent of the Australian population. Do we reflect enough on the fact that 25 per cent of all children who died by suicide over the last five years were Indigenous kids? The Kimberley in Western Australia has the nation's highest rate of youth suicide. I was with my predecessor, Melissa Parke, when, as the Parliamentary Secretary for Mental Health in 2013, she announced in Fremantle the first national strategy for Indigenous suicide prevention—an initiative that was largely discontinued under the Abbott government. Rob McPhee, the deputy CEO of the Kimberly Aboriginal Medical Services and co-chair of the Commonwealth funded Kimberley Aboriginal Suicide Prevention Working Group, has written about the kind of effort that is needed: Any sustainable response must go to the deeper, underlying historical causes of hopelessness and despair, which contributes to suicide. This isn’t just a problem among children; the suicide rate peaks in those aged between 25 and 34. These deeper causes include intergenerational trauma. Poverty, racism, social exclusion, substandard housing, and economic marginalisation of our communities are the legacies of colonisation. There's a clear element in what Mr McPhee says that goes to the unresolved question and the unrequited promise of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. That came from a process that was based on listening to Indigenous Australians. Yet what was clearly communicated through that painstaking work: the decision for proper recognition, the need for truth-telling and agreement-making processes in the form of a makarrata commission and a First Nations voice to parliament—these simple, sensible, vital steps forward have so far been ignored. It's true that by speaking in this place alone we will not bring change. That's one of the reasons it's so vital that we work harder to listen to what Indigenous people are saying. 18:25 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor As I rise today, I want to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which this parliament meets, the Ngunawal and the Ngambri people, and pay my respects to their elders past, present, and emerging. This land, our nation, was, is and always be Aboriginal land. I rise as a representative of and as someone who has always lived on the land of the Kulin nation. To the west of the Werribee River, Wathaurong people stretched as far as the Otways and down to the Bellarine, home to the Marpeang balug clan. East of the river is home to the Kurung jang balug clan of the Woiwurrung language, who stretch out to Kororoit Creek and as far north as Melton. East of our river, the Yalukit willam clan stretched as far as St Kilda, speaking the Boonwurrung language. They inhabited the land between Kurung jang balug to Port Phillip Bay. My home is by the Werribee River, and that river was the meeting place of the clans of the Iramoo plains. In making my remarks today, I pay my respects to Indigenous people of these lands and to the First Australians from country across Australia who live and work in Wyndham. Twenty-seven years ago, Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating stood in a park just kilometres from where European settlement began and urged us to recognise our dark past. The Redfern speech spoke to me. It was a call to action that set the path to reconciliation, and 12 years ago this parliament finally responded to the calls for an apology and said sorry. The declaration of sorry was proudly hung in the school where I worked, and it still catches my eye and my heart when I see it in school foyers now. Twelve years after Prime Minister Rudd's monumental apology, that day of healing, that day the truth was told, a day when the Parliament of Australia finally admitted that past actions were wrong, we mark again today the need to close the gap and check our progress. But after 12 years of the Closing the Gap process, the truths we read and the lack of progress we see in this year's report can only be summed up as inadequate and unworthy. The facts are these. The child mortality rate has not been halved; in fact, the gap has widened since 2008. There's been no improvement in the past five years on school attendance rates. Halving the gap in reading, writing and numeracy has not been met, despite slight improvements. The Indigenous employment rate has only increased by less than one per cent. There's been no progress made on the goal to close the life expectancy gap. Alarmingly, incarceration rates of First Australian men, women and children continue to rise. For too long, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have had their way of life determined by those sitting in this House. While more recently they have been in the room, it is questionable whether they have actually been heard. Let's be straight: to take real action to close the gap, we must begin with listening to First Nations peoples. The only way our legislators can listen to First Nations peoples is if they have a voice—a voice to the parliament that is constitutionally enshrined. It's time we took the Uluru Statement from the Heart into the hearts of us who are here, to make laws and to close this gap. Paul Keating, in Redfern, said it best. If we can be leaders around the nation, if we can do great things for our world, how can we be so behind when it comes to our First Nations Australians? The lack of progress is disappointing. In this House I felt deep shame when I heard our Prime Minister suggest that we should cave in and give up—give up on fairness and equality. No, Prime Minister, we can't throw up our hands and say it's too hard. We need to reach higher, strive harder, work smarter, to meet our collective best and our targets. We are an ambitious people—we always have been—and we should not baulk at closing the gap. We should continue the journey to reconciliation. We should enshrine the voice and hear and speak the truth. Until we do, our potential as a nation and our job in this parliament is incomplete. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. In accordance with standing order 192B, the debate is adjourned and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 99 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Climate Change, Domestic and Family Violence, Multiculturalism 99 18:30 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I've spoken numerous times in this place—and all of us have—about climate change as a policy issue. It's important to us. It's important to me. It's important to people in my electorate. When you break it down to the personal, I have two young children and I want to leave them a better world, and I'm sure that sentiment is shared across the aisle here, amongst all of us who want a better world and a better Australia. We must bequeath future generations a cleaner energy future. Last week our Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, articulated federal Labor's commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. That's not going to be an easy task, and some of the hysteria around it in the media and by the government does an injustice to that core belief, that core promise that we all have to future generations. Achieving net zero emissions by 2050 will actually, despite all the hysteria, despite all the scaremongering, be a boon for the national economy, for this nation and, of course, for the environment that we all share. Unfortunately the focus of the government and much of the media has been—probably to no-one's surprise—on the same whipping-up of hysteria, the same old hackneyed scare tactics around the cost of policy, and wild and unsubstantiated claims about job losses, industries collapsing and basically the sky falling in on us. But there has been nothing about the cost of inaction—what it would cost not to act. There has been nothing about the cost of ignoring the science that is before us. The fact is that the cost of not reaching net zero emissions and a carbon-neutral economy—the cost to our nation and to the planet—is enormous. If we don't meet our Paris obligations, there are estimates that it could cost Australia alone $2.7 trillion—just Australia. If we don't work with other nations to keep global warming below two degrees and closer to 1.5 degrees, there is analysis that tells us that this will slash global economic output by between 15 and 25 per cent. That is a bigger hit than the Great Depression. There is economic analysis around the amount of stranded assets—$12 trillion by 2035—that would be a cost of inaction. To put it in perspective: what kicked off the global financial crisis and the bailouts was about $250 billion worth of stranded assets. There hasn't been any discussion from the government about what it would actually mean for new investments, new jobs and new industries if we were to take action towards net zero emissions. We are talking about some $26 trillion of input and investment into economies around the world. For Australia alone, that means around $435 billion. It means estimates of a million jobs or more in those new industries. Despite all the hysteria, despite all the scaremongering, we are talking about job growth in renewable energy sectors. We are talking about a healthier planet. We can reach net zero emissions. We can invest in renewables. We can lead a just transition for workers. And with all of this we can actually have the moral standing with this policy base to push the other big emitters globally to reduce their global emissions. We can and we should, and all we need to act is leadership and courage, something missing from this government. It's a gaping hole, actually. Closer to home, we've all been affected here in this place and around the country by the murders of Hannah Clarke and her three children, Laianah, Aaliyah and Trey. I would like to pay my respects to her family and friends. Hannah was the eighth woman in Australia killed by a partner in seven weeks. She was a former trampoline champion, a daughter, a business owner, a gymnastics coach and a loving mother, but she was also a woman killed by domestic violence. This is a story that's, unfortunately, all too familiar. While we're all sickened by these murders, family violence and violence against women—and we've talked about this—is a scourge on our society. How many more times will we find ourselves here, as a nation, in mourning again for women and children who've been murdered by a family member or murdered while simply walking home? In December 2019 there was a brutal rape of a woman running along Merri Creek in my electorate. In January 2019 an international student, Aiia Maasarwe, a young woman, was murdered in the northern suburbs of Melbourne while going home. In May 2019 Courtney Herron, a young woman from my electorate, was murdered in Royal Park. In June 2018 Eurydice Dixon, a young woman, was murdered in Princes Park while walking home. Jill Meagher was murdered in Brunswick in my electorate back in 2012. And of course Vicki Cleary was murdered by her ex-partner in 1987. It led Phil Cleary, a former member for Wills, to lead a passionate cause for justice on her behalf. He continues that fight today with respect to changing the laws and making sure that governments do what they need to do to help fight this scourge. On average, one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner, so what to do about this scourge that we've been talking about? For our part, we will stand together with the government—this has got to be bipartisan; it's got to be beyond politics—to do whatever it takes to end this violence. In May last year our leader, Anthony Albanese, called for a national summit on domestic violence. We think the nation's leaders need to come together on this. No one policy will solve it. It needs a cultural attitude shift for the whole society and it starts with us, as men, teaching our sons, our brothers, our fathers and our male cousins respect for women. Start with that. That's important. We are all responsible for changing those cultural attitudes from the very beginning. Lastly, I want to acknowledge the fact that there is the Labor Multicultural Engagement Taskforce, which I am chairing; the work of all the people who have submitted to this; and Labor's commitment to multiculturalism. Obviously, since the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 we as a party have championed multicultural policy as a fundamental cornerstone of modern Australia and our social cohesion. It is about catapulting Australia forward economically, culturally and socially. It's fundamentally about nation building. The story of migrants—our story—is one of aspiration for a better life for their children and their community. It is a story that is part of our national aspiration and forms the foundation of our national unity. That's why we've launched the multicultural engagement task force to engage Australians, to help inform with as many voices as possible federal Labor's policies and the role of multiculturalism in social cohesion and Australian identity. My parents came to this country from Egypt some 50 years ago. Like many who have come before and after them, they came escaping a region of conflict and danger, leaving it behind to look for opportunity, prosperity and security. Through their hard work and sacrifice, like millions of Australians and millions of migrants, they've helped build this country. It is not just the buildings, the infrastructure, but the values inherent in what it means to be Australian, the essence of what it means to be Australian. It's not a unique story. Millions of Australians, whatever their ethnic background or their socioeconomic status, have come here and have been given opportunities through policies that were based on fairness. They had a fair go. For my migrant family, it was affordable housing, Medicare and access to education which were all life changing. Equality of opportunity is something that I, as a Labor member of this place, am committed to because of what it meant to so many millions of Australians in families such as mine. It gave them an opportunity to make a positive contribution to this country, to give something back to Australia. The task force that I lead will continue to build on that great Labor tradition of nation-building policies that allowed people like me, and so many others, to succeed. We will listen to people's input and their submissions and we will lead. We want people to talk to us about their experiences, because migration to Australia is a constantly evolving journey. Live Animal Exports 101 18:40 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor It's with a great deal of disappointment that I use the opportunity of this grievance debate to once again talk about the plight of the live export trade; in particular, the live sheep trade. Over 65 per cent of the sheep that are exported out of Australia come from my electorate of O'Connor in Western Australia, and Western Australia provides the bulk of the balance of those sheep. A couple of things have happened in the last week or so that have put this industry and the trials and tribulations it's been through back on the agenda. The first thing was the release of the Mecardo report. The report was commissioned by Meat & Livestock Australia, and it outlines the cost and impact of the disruption to the trade since May 2018, when disturbing footage emerged of sheep in great distress at a port in Qatar—and I'll get back to the veracity of that footage in a moment. The Mecardo report identified that $148 million was the cost of disruption to the trade. As I said, most of that trade, 65 per cent of it, emanates from my electorate. We can break that down into the disruption of the trade between June and October 2018, when the estimated cost was $83.6 million nationally. I've also estimated—and I think this is quite a robust figure—that around 45 per cent of that value is returned to the farm gate, to the farmer, so the actual loss to the farmers in my electorate and other electorates was around $37.6 million. As part of that number, the Centre for International Economics, a well-known economics consultancy, estimated that there was a 30 to 50 per cent reduction in sale prices. That was across the board, not just for live sheep. When the live exporters aren't in the saleyards buying sheep for the live trade, it leads to a 30 to 50 per cent reduction in saleyard prices. That was an additional $9.3 million to $15.4 million that was lost during the 2018 season. During 2019 we had a moratorium that was imposed by the industry, a voluntary moratorium, which was extended by 21 days. It's estimated that the cost of that was around $29.6 million to our farmers and around $65 million to the industry overall. This cost is borne not just by farmers of course. There are a lot of people in the supply chain who rely on the live export trade. Road transport operators are impacted very heavily. Andy Jacob, who was the president of the Livestock and Rural Transport Association of WA, was quite vocal in defending the industry. Unfortunately, he had to leave Western Australia, take his business elsewhere, because he could no longer remain viable without 12 months work for his trucks. We've got pellet manufacturers—three across Western Australia—some of whom had to lay off workers during the suspension of the trade. We've got livestock agents, sheep buyers who buy on behalf of the exporters, and, of course, the actual exporters themselves. There were some major changes made to the way the industry operates after May 2018. Probably the most important was the reduction in stocking densities. This has led to a great improvement in mortalities on the boats, and that's a very, very pleasing outcome, although it has led to an increase in cost, effectively, and a reduced return to farm gate. But I think most farmers accept that we're better having an industry that's running with very low mortalities and getting a few dollars less per head than having an industry where we run the risk of having a high-mortality event and losing the industry altogether. The impact of the lower stocking densities has seen a 54 per cent reduction in mortalities over the 2013 to 2017 period, which is a terrific result, but the changes in the industry have led to a great deal of uncertainty. There are a lot of people wondering whether they're going to continue running sheep and livestock, because of the uncertainty and negativity around the industry. Along this journey, we've had some significant issues and events crop up that have created that uncertainty and that negativity about the industry. I will go back to July 2018, when Emanuel Exports had a cargo of 65,000 sheep that were ready to load. They were asked by the Department of Agriculture to delay the loading by 24 hours—they just needed some additional paperwork, et cetera—and then at midnight they received an email saying that their licence had been suspended. So those 65,000 sheep were suspended in Australia, stuck in Australia, for three months. They needed to be fed. They needed to be looked after at great expense. And, of course, that expense often gets passed back to the farmer, at the end of the day. On 23 May 2019 the Ocean Drover was due to leave port, and Animals Australia made a 700-page submission to the Department of Agriculture objecting to the voyage and RETWA, the exporter, was given 24 hours to respond to a 700-page document. I think that was absolutely outrageous. Those sheep were in the feedlot, ready to be loaded, and this was just a tactic. I believe that the department was colluding with Animals Australia to make life as difficult as possible for the exporters. I want to draw your attention to the comments of the Animals Australia legal counsel Shartha Hamade. She said that it was 'just madness for this shipment to go ahead'. She made the comment: Having them at the feedlot for three months with food and water … is much better than being cooked alive on a vessel in the open ocean. Firstly, the way the world operates—in the real world, out of the Animals Australia world—is that if they're in a feedlot for three months they've got to be fed, watered and looked after. That costs money, and someone's got to pay for that. This was a deliberate attempt to try and cause as much disruption and cost to the industry as possible. But, as I've said previously, that cost just gets handed back down to the grower. But the Ocean Drover did department Fremantle on 26 May. It had 56,915 sheep and 135 cattle. The sheep mortalities were 65 sheep—or 0.115 per cent, which is I think almost a record low. So despite the claims of Animals Australia that these sheep were going to be cooked alive, this shipment, which left on 26 May and arrived in the Middle East in the middle of June, was an incredibly successful voyage. Animals Australia have just released the Pegasus Economics report, which they've obviously commissioned. It makes a whole lot of claims, including conceding that there is a discount in the market when the live export trade isn't operating. But a really important concession that they do make is about market substitution with animals from a country without the same welfare requirements: With reduced supply from Australia, importing countries have switched to alternative suppliers including those located in North Africa, and in Eastern Europe. Deputy Speaker Gillespie, you would be aware, as many people in this place are, that Australia is the only country—of the 100 nations that participated in the live export trade—that has an export supply chain assurance scheme. We set the standard, and our standard is very high. What Animals Australia are conceding in their own report is that, when Australia is out of the market, importers just go to any of those other 100 countries that export animals, often with terrible results. I was in Qatar in October last year and I heard of a very poor result for some sheep from Romania—they didn't have the protections that Australian animals have. So, as I said, I rise tonight to put the plight of our live exporters on the record here in the House. Environment 102 18:50 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I want to take this opportunity to speak up for the oceans and for all the life that depends on the health of our marine environment. That means all the plants and animals in the sea from whales to gobies to giant kelp to phytoplankton, and of course it includes all of us Australians and all our fellow women and men the world over. We depend on the health of our oceans, and our oceans are in trouble. They are being damaged and we're the ones doing the damage. We are doing it directly through harmful fishing and marine pollution, and we are doing indirectly in the form of dangerous climate change. We have to stop or much of our marine life will be put at risk and, as a result, the way we live will be at risk. To be honest, it's way past time to stop the damage that has been done, and we can do that. I've never thought it does much good to focus on serious problems in a way that makes solutions seem impossible, because that tends to leave people feeling hopeless, as if everything is already ruined, nothing can be done and engagement, activism and even democracy begin to feel pointless. But it's not true. Yes, we need to act. We need to change, and we can. We've proved that in the past and even in the recent past. My home of Fremantle used to be a whaling town. Australia stopped whaling in 1978 and we continue to carry the fight against whaling. Fremantle is still very much a fishing town. It's also the Australian home port of the Sea Shepherd,which draws on a volunteer effort and donations to fight illegal whaling, illegal fishing and marine pollution. It was fantastic that in the last parliamentary fortnight Seafood Industry Australia was here to promote their pledge, which has as its first promise 'to actively care for Australia's oceans and environment and work with others to do the same'. I congratulate Jane and all those at SIA and all their members for taking that initiative. I want to note that Austral, based in Western Australia, is the first commercial fishing company in the world to be certified carbon-neutral and that's just one aspect of their leading commitment to sustainability through action and global cooperation. I also note that last year when the Western Australia Octopus Fishery and the Western Australia Sea Cucumber Fishery each received certification from the Marine Stewardship Council, it brought to 10 the number of fisheries with MSC accreditation in Western Australia. That process began in 2000 when the West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery was the first in the world to be certified. It has since become the first fishery to be recertified as sustainable four times. That's something to be proud of. I take this opportunity tonight to give a shout-out to all those in the rock lobster industry, because they are feeling the brunt of the coronavirus impact at the moment. At the national level, we have belatedly adopted a network of marine parks, a process started under the Howard government and largely completed by Labor. Unfortunately, that network, and the science at its foundation, has been undermined late in the piece by the current government. Large and important areas had their level of protection downgraded or removed. I wish I didn't have to say that; I wish it wasn't true, but it is. That means there is more work to be done. Of course, we know that Australia has played a special role in the protection of Antarctica. In recent years we've helped create marine protected area in the Ross Sea and we're trying to repeat that achievement in the east Antarctic. At present, only five per cent of the Southern Ocean is protected. It is home to 10,000 unique and diverse species and it remains largely untouched by human activity. So, while it's important to be clear-eyed about the harm we've done and the harm we are doing to our oceans, we should remember that we're quite capable of taking a different path. The truth remains that our oceans are under enormous pressure and our current trajectory is for that to keep getting worse. There is a global biodiversity crisis that's being caused by overfishing and bad fishery practices. It's been caused by marine pollution, not least in the form of plastic waste. And, above all, it's been caused by climate change. It's understandable that we'll tend to perceive the impacts of climate change more easily on land, especially when we've just experienced a set of unprecedented bushfires on top of a punishing and ongoing drought. We've just experienced our first national climate disaster, but we're going to see that more clearly in the terrestrial setting than we will see it in a marine environment. The reality is that our oceans have absorbed 93 per cent of the additional energy produced by the rise in greenhouse gases. The five years to 2019 were the five hottest on record for our oceans. Warming can now be observed at a depth of 1,000 metres. As the International Union for Conservation of Nature has noted, this causes changes in water temperature, ocean acidification and deoxygenation, leading to changes in oceanic circulation and chemistry, rising sea levels and increased storm intensity, as well as changes in the diversity and abundance of marine species. Only in the last week we've been put on notice that the Great Barrier Reef is about to experience the third major bleaching event in the last five years, and there is no record of such events occurring prior to the last five years. It's not as well known that in 2011 there was a marine heatwave off Western Australia which had a devastating impact on kelp forests. Once kelp forests get wiped out like that, they don't recover—just as some of the forests that have experienced fires this summer will not return as forests. Warming has caused giant kelp to disappear altogether from parts of the Tasmanian coast. And Australia is home to six of the seven marine turtles species on the planet, and all are classified as vulnerable or endangered under the EPBC Act. In the face of these serious threats, what needs to be done? In short: boost the science, increase environmental protection, stop ocean pollution, put an end to harmful fisheries and take action on climate change. We need to ensure that our scientific research capacity is properly resourced and appropriately focused on the marine environment. We can't have cuts to the CSIRO and the department of the environment and expect anything other than substantive outcomes and more harm. If we continue to have the situation where recovery plans under the EPBC Act are not put in place and the plans are not better resourced then we'll keep seeing species disappear and ecosystems collapse. We need to ensure that our environmental protection framework and the work of related agencies are dedicated to their core purpose, and that is maintaining and even seeking to improve environmental values. We cannot have a situation in which those parts of government and the Public Service which are charged with environmental protection are made to feel it's their job to bend or condition the interests of the environment in order to accommodate other interests. That is not their job. Greater protection needs to be achieved through the current review of the EPBC Act. We need more resources for conservation and further improvement to the national marine parks network. When it comes to ocean plastic, we should lead by example. If we can't eliminate harmful single-use plastic and do better than recycling 10 per cent of our plastic waste, which is the current level, how can we expect countries in South Asia and the Pacific to do any more? I note that recently British researchers who collect arthropods, which are small shrimp, from six of the world's deepest ocean trenches, found that 80 per cent of them had microplastic in their digestive tracts. When it comes to climate change, we need to overcome the policy and political paralysis of the last 10 years—we need that desperately. We need to resume what was, briefly, a position of achievement and even leadership in this country. Only by reaching net zero emissions by 2050 as part of our contribution to a coordinated global effort can we be confident of avoiding catastrophic warming on land and in the sea. Taking that path will not only allow us to avoid environmental disaster, with savage impacts on biodiversity and human health, it will lead us to what is the least-cost destination. It will lead us to a future with more jobs, higher wages and lower energy prices. The false choice between climate action and economic performance has been thoroughly exploded. Those who cling to it do so only out of laziness or political self-interest. That's why, if we look down the path of net zero emissions by 2050 we can already see the tail-lights receding on the electric bicycles of our largest resources company, our largest oil and gas company, our largest bank, our largest telecommunications company, all the states and 73 other countries. They're all on the way to the only destination that makes economic and environmental sense, while our government twiddles its thumbs and fights itself. In conclusion, of the ocean it can truly be said that everything is connected. As one of the greatest writers on the environment, Rachel Carson, put it: … the life of all parts of the sea is linked. What happens to a diatom in the upper, sunlit strata of the sea may well determine what happens to a cod lying on a ledge of some rocky canyon a hundred fathoms below, or to a bed of multicolored, gorgeously plumed seaworms carpeting an underlying shoal, or to a prawn creeping over the soft oozes of the sea floor in the blackness of mile-deep water. It's up to all of us in this place to make sure that continues to be true as a picture of biodiversity and beauty in our oceans. Bonner Electorate: Infrastructure 104 19:00 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I would like to take this opportunity to share with the Chamber how the Morrison government's decision to fast track vital infrastructure funding is benefitting my electorate of Bonner. With our government's plan on track to create a strong and resilient economy, building the major infrastructure our country needs to grow and prosper is a vital part of that plan. Without this infrastructure, Australia would come to a stop. We need the roads to connect metropolitan and rural hubs, we need rail and trucks to move the freight and supplies that we rely upon every day and we need public transport to ensure we provide everyone with the means to get to where they need to go. This is why I was so pleased when our government announced plans to fast track $3.8 billion in funding earmarked for infrastructure to accelerate the projects we need to get up and running now to boost our economy. Building infrastructure helps the economy in several ways. Firstly, it creates local jobs and economic activity throughout the construction phase. Secondly, it boosts productivity for local businesses by improving connections between locations. Thirdly, it saves people and businesses time by helping them get to and from work safer and sooner. Currently, one of the most important infrastructure projects in my electorate of Bonner is the upgrade of the M1 Pacific Motorway. This upgrade impacts thousands of constituents in my electorate, including the hundreds of businesses that rely on the connection to the Port of Brisbane, the industrial and business districts, and the gateway and the M1 Pacific motorways. When the government announced funding to improve the M1-M3-gateway merge, it was a tremendous relief for so many people in my electorate who get stuck in the bottleneck on a daily basis. Local businesses would lose hours in productivity every week with drivers stuck in traffic, and commuters were frustrated as they had to leave home earlier in the mornings and get home later at night. And, quite often, our public transport drivers would have to plot their daily routes via rat-running back roads to stay on schedule, which also added to the peak hour congestion. I'm very pleased to share with the Chamber, thanks to this fast tracked infrastructure funding, major construction work on this bottleneck is nearing completion and planning is under way on the next stage of the project. I have watched this project hit milestone after milestone and have happily updated constituents in my electorate who are keen to see the progress. Over the past two months, work on the new Underwood Road Bridge was completed and open to traffic, with the removal of the existing bridge completed in November. Throughout January we saw asphalt and line marking completed and permanent guardrails installed. Over the coming months, the new electronic lane use of signage, equipment and lighting will be installed, and, weather permitting, the project will be completed early 2020. Thanks to the funding from the forward estimates being fast tracked, we'll see upgrade works continue. The next stage will ensure that this initial upgrade does more than just move the bottleneck down the road, with work planned to upgrade the M1 between Eight Mile Plains and Daisy Hill then Daisy Hill to the Logan Motorway. I would like to thank my Morrison government colleagues for providing our constituents with the new and improved M1-gateway merge, particularly the member for Forde. The M1 is one of South-East Queensland's busiest roads, and, once completed, these works will ease congestion for thousands of commuters on a daily basis. Another major infrastructure project the Morrison government is helping to fast-track is the direct connection of the Inland Rail to the port of Brisbane. The Inland Rail project currently under construction will connect Melbourne to Brisbane. However, it currently terminates at Acacia Ridge, in Brisbane's southern suburbs. This means at the moment that freight earmarked for the port of Brisbane has to be trucked in on existing roads, unless this Inland Rail link is constructed. Located in the northern part of my electorate of Bonner, the port of Brisbane currently sees 98 per cent of freight trucked in by road. In 2018 that was more than four million trucks, and it is forecast to increase to more than 13 million trucks by 2050. Thanks to the new infrastructure funding by the Morrison government, $20 million has been earmarked to ramp up plans for a direct connection between the Inland Rail at Acacia Ridge and the port of Brisbane. By building this dedicated connection, we will have the opportunity to take up to 2.4 million trucks off our roads by 2035. This would make a tremendous difference to the people in my electorate of Bonner. Reducing major freight transport will take pressure off our roads and motorways, improve air quality and provide a cleaner means of transporting freight out of Brisbane and across the east coast of Australia. This is a fantastic forward-thinking and forward-planning project to ensure Australia has the infrastructure it needs for future growth in the region. I am so pleased to be part of a Morrison government that has made infrastructure commitments worth $100 billion over the next decade, with a number of crucial projects fast-tracked to boost our economy and to deliver projects that we need now and into the future. National Disability Insurance Scheme, Infrastructure 105 19:06 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise in this grievance debate to represent the interests of my constituents who are participants and carers under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It is these people who are worse off because of the government's plundering of the NDIS budget for the purposes of a marketing line to bring the budget back into black. What this perverse marketing ploy fails to realise, however, is that taking $4.6 billion from the NDIS has left thousands of Australians without access to products and services they need. Last week I held a forum in my electorate with NDIS participants and their carers and loved ones, with the member for Maribyrnong, the shadow minister for the NDIS and government services; the member for Dobell, the shadow assistant minister for carers and mental health; and the member for Macarthur. Unfortunately for some, the term 'participants' is a misnomer. The systematic under-resourcing of the NDIS has left them frustrated and devastated, looking for a way to support themselves and their loved ones. It was tragic to see so many people affected by the disaster that this government has created by running the NDIS into the ground. Waiting on the phone, endless review cycles to prove the same information time and time again, and funding packages that are inconsistent and unfair from one person to the next are just some of the key themes that the participants have told me about over the past four years. One of my constituents is a quadruple amputee. He needs prostheses to give him the ability to hold his son's hand to walk to school and work in a job that's fulfilling. He needs digitalised fingers and home modifications, the applications for which have been the subject of continual delays while waiting for decisions by the NDIA over several years. And, to add insult, he must prove every single year that he still has a disability. It's ludicrous. Sadly, this is not the only situation I have seen. One of my constituents who came to the forum has a 13-year-old son who must get around in a wheelchair due to his disability. He needs car modifications to transfer his son between home, school and family events. His son also requires either adjustments to the existing wheelchair or a new one so that he can be more independent at home. He had to move him around using a manual wheelchair that was far too small for his son. It has taken the NDIS two years make a decision. But my constituent's son has a life-limiting illness, so therefore these delays could cost this family one-fifth of the time he has left—time that could have been spent outdoors at family events, seeing the country and making memories with his family. Bureaucracy should not deprive participants or their families of the best chance in life. This is how the current shortfall in the administration of the NDIS is affecting participants and their carers, and it's not how it should be. Review periods are blowing out, placing people in an indefinite cycle of decision-making at the whim of the NDIA. In fact, even when trying to call the NDIS hotline to talk about these issues, participants are facing grossly inadequate service standards. The NDIS was created so that individuals and their carers could take control of their support and make meaningful decisions, but that does not seem to be happening. Everybody is being pushed into a bureaucratic matrix and given a certain level of support, regardless of what they actually need or even at times what they are looking for, particularly when they have complex multifaceted disabilities. One of my constituents contacted me recently about his 20-year-old twins, Seth and Stan. They have the same underlying medical diagnosis, yet one twin, Stan, has received more funding than the other twin, Seth. One would think, on the surface, they should at least receive the same funding. What's worse, all the evidence submitted by the family shows that, actually, it's Seth who requires more support than his brother. This is absolute madness. In one of the rare attempts to personalise the care, the person who requires more funding receives less. The purpose of the NDIS is to provide the hundreds of thousands of Australians with a significant and permanent disability the opportunity to live a full and fulfilling life. Like so many other important Labor reforms, it's about ensuring all Australians, regardless of background, social status, disadvantage or their post code, are able to be the best person they can. Labor governments build the great reforms of this nation for the benefit of everyone. Examples of this abound: Medicare, access to tertiary education, the NBN and the NDIS. Coalition governments neglect and destroy them, in favour of playing favourites and picking winners. Another case in my electorate is infrastructure. Since the industrial revolution, cities and economic hubs have developed around transport hubs—in the 1800s it was rivers and ports, in the 19th century it was the railways and in the 21st century it will be airports, an aerotropolis with industries like aeronautics, advanced manufacturing, logistics supporting gate-to-plate agriculture and e-commerce fulfilment. World-class road, rail and telecommunications to support Liverpool and Campbelltown will provide for a far more efficient workforce and a better quality of life for all residents of Werriwa. That's why it's critically important to the success of Western Sydney Airport and the aerotropolis that world-class transport links are built and built now. The South West Rail Line Extension from Leppington through to Western Sydney Airport provides the quickest and most cost-effective solution. The land corridor is already preserved and would easily and quickly connect the airport to Liverpool, Campbelltown and the rest of Sydney via the existing rail network. It would also provide a direct link with Western Sydney Airport and Kingsford Smith airport. A north-south rail link from Western Sydney Airport to Macarthur would not just benefit the airport but provide much-needed public transport for the entire south-west growth corridor, as would a rapid-transit link along Fifteenth Avenue from the Liverpool CBD to Western Sydney Airport. The south-west of Sydney is one of the key growth areas of Australia and is on the cusp of realising its economic and cultural potential. Despite being a key growth area and home to the Western Sydney Airport, do you know how much money Werriwa received from the Urban Congestion Fund? Nothing. To the north of the electorate, the marginal seat of Lindsay received millions of dollars from this government. Is the road rort the next rort we're going to uncover? Vital infrastructure must be funded and built so that the south-west's major populations centres such as Liverpool and Campbelltown are linked to the airport and aerotropolis from day one. Part of that infrastructure is the development of the M12 motorway. I note the NSW government's assertion that the M12 will be toll free, but for westbound commuters the only planned entrance for the M12 is through the existing M7, which is a tolled motorway. This is in fact tolling by stealth. It's another betrayal by the NSW state government which now has a long list of saying one thing before an election and another after. Second is the RMS's questionable traffic modelling. Modelling assumes that by 2036 the M7 will have three lanes between Camden Valley Way and Old Wallgrove Road, and four lanes between Old Wallgrove Road and the M4 interchange. This is despite no commitment to construct these additional lanes and no modelling, meaning this project is based on false and flawed assumptions to ensure there is no gridlock at the M7/M12 interchange. Last, and of most concern, is the proposed location of the southbound off-ramp onto the M7. The proposed location would take the road above and across the ridge line at Cecil Hills, exposing an entire suburb to light and noise pollution. This will have a devastating effect on the amenity of residents, not to mention being a huge blow to their property prices. I have launched a petition and the local community has already reacted strongly to support that petition, despite it only being available for a couple of days. There were four community consultation sessions held, but they were well away from the suburb which is most affected—the most densely populated area affected by this project. Furthermore, all the glossy brochures and promotional videos obscure from view the part of the project that encroaches on the suburb of Cecil Hills. As with most things that come from state and federal Liberal governments, this short-sighted proposal only concerns itself with the next electoral cycle. The Western Sydney Airport is a once-in-a-century project that has the potential to transform the region through employment, education and economic opportunity. The project must not be hamstrung by short-term electoral prospects and penny pinching to the detriment of current and future generations. If the government wishes the Western Sydney Airport to be a success, it needs to stop playing politics with it. There is no point in committing millions of taxpayer dollars without the infrastructure that goes with it. I call on the government to fund the required infrastructure properly and promptly. Forde Electorate: Environment 106 19:16 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's always a pleasure to speak in this debate. Tonight I want to focus on some positive news. We are blessed to live in such a wonderful country abundant in natural beauty and rich history—so much so that it's instilled in our national anthem. Our lands really do abound in nature's gifts of beauty rich and rare. Sadly, over the past few months we've seen the forces that have shaped this beautiful land—drought, fire and flooding rains. Across my electorate of Forde, we've been fortunate to have missed out on the things that others have suffered deeply over the last few months. In my electorate of Forde we're truly blessed with a diverse range of landscapes and rich natural beauty, from the Gold Coast hinterland with its sweeping views out to Moreton Bay to the Logan and Albert rivers that begin their long and winding journey in the foothills of the Great Dividing Range, and the Pimpama and Coomera rivers that bring life, energy and pleasure to the towns and cities on their way to Moreton Bay. Our environment is one of our greatest assets, if not our greatest asset, and is unfortunately greatly underappreciated more often than not. However, the people of Forde can rest assured that I will continue to focus on delivering environmental outcomes for our community and be one of the great champions in this House for the local environment. Whether it is the critically endangered Ormeau bottle tree, the health of our rivers or the importance of protecting our ecosystems, it is not lost on me. In part, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank a couple of people in this respect: firstly my mother, who has spent many, many years in the Gold Coast hinterland, particularly up on Mount Tamborine, with rainforest regeneration and rebuilding; but equally people like Glenn Leiper, who wrote Mangroves to Mountains, a seminal work on the endangered flora and fauna in South-East Queensland. They have contributed so much in this space over many years and decades, and should be recognised. It is so important that we protect our environment, as there are some truly unique treasures out there, many of which most of our community wouldn't know about—treasures such as the critically endangered Ormeau bottle tree, named under the area in which it is endemic. The species only occurs naturally in the upper Ormeau Valley, along the riparian zone of the Pimpama River. Unfortunately there are only roughly 121 mature examples left of the species in the wild. The tree is truly magnificent, and I've spoken about this to many colleagues previously. Because of this, I really do believe it's my duty as the local federal member to ensure that the Ormeau bottle tree is protected, and also to work with the local community not only to protect it but to grow the number of trees that are available, similar to what happened many years ago with the Wollemi pine. There are a number of groups and people who want to see the tree not only survive but thrive. I'd like to take the opportunity to recognise them today. Thanks to the Ormeau community, especially Friends of Ormeau Bottle Tree, for their work in getting the species listed as critically endangered way back in 2013, which has seen the species get greater recognition for protection. Thanks to Sue Durance from the Northeast Albert Landcare. Sue has been a member of the Landcare group for over 25 years, has a wealth of knowledge about the local environment and works with other groups in the area on conservation and rehabilitation projects. Thanks to Conservation Volunteers Australia, who are working on rehabilitating the Yugambeh site on the Albert River, clearing weeds and replanting native vegetation. Thanks to Rivermount College, who are busy restoring their river walk, for the work they're doing there on weed control and revegetation along the Albert River, including the Ormeau bottle tree. All these wonderful groups are working hard to ensure that the Ormeau bottle tree has a chance to survive the greatest threats to the species, which are weeds and fire. The juvenile plants struggle to grow when they're competing with weeds such as lantana for food and water, not to mention the fact that the weeds also pose a bushfire risk and can devastate whole populations of the species. That's why we have funded a number of projects, including $100,000, for the Ormeau Bottle Tree Project, which found 121 mature trees and over 450 juvenile trees in the area, a significant increase over previous years. I know from speaking with Sue Durance last week that one of the major mature Ormeau bottle trees in the Pimpama River valley has recently fruited for the first time in 25 years. This goes to show the positive impact that local action and advocacy can have on our local environment. There are more ways than one to have a positive impact on the environment. The students at Upper Coomera State College have already diverted over 200,000 plastic bottles from landfill thanks to four new water bottle refill stations. These stations were funded by a $13,000 grant from the Morrison government's Local Schools Community Fund. This project is great for the environment and builds on the government's waste reduction targets set out in the National Waste Policy Action Plan 2019. Through this project, the school is able to contribute to less plastic waste going to landfill and polluting our waterways. At Beenleigh State High School, the students are conducting a waste management STEM project that secured $18,500 in funding from the government. It was a joy to visit the students there with the Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management, the honourable Trevor Evans, because they worked so hard to get this project underway. They've researched, surveyed, and collated data to present at an upcoming STEAM into STEM Enabled Schools event, where they will be recommending improved waste management strategies at local high schools. I commend them for having the passion and determination for reducing waste, as we all know that reducing our waste is one of the best ways we can help the environment. Marsden State High School's community garden also got a boost with the addition of composting bays, thanks to a $6,949 grant from the Communities Environment Program, so that they can turn trash—or, in this case, food scraps—into treasure: compost. The garden will be situated in a dedicated waste compound and recycling centre, which is a project within the school to reduce not only their carbon footprint but also the waste going to landfill. Already 85 per cent of the school's waste has been saved from landfill, and the addition of composting bays will increase this figure even further while producing high-quality fertiliser for the gardens. I'd also like to give a shout-out to the team at Golden Gate Property Group for the work they're doing on their new Carver's Reach development at Park Ridge, where they're seeking to regrow and plant out the endangered Bailey's cypress pine, which is endemic to the Park Ridge area. It is one of a number of plants across Logan that are recognised as threatened or endangered. Logan City Council, in this space, has done a tremendous amount of work to produce a document that outlines many of these terrific plants, including the Bahrs Scrub devil's needles; the birdwing butterfly vine, which is the only vine that the birdwing butterfly will breed on and is classified as rare; and the Bahrs Scrub croton, which is another small tree from around the Bahrs Scrub area. These and many other plants across Logan are recognised as threatened and endangered, and Logan City Council is doing a tremendous job of trying to ensure they're protected for future generations. It never ceases to amaze me that everywhere I go in my community people are constantly talking about the environment. Australians have a natural connection to the place in which we live and want to see not only that our environment becomes a better place for current generations but that we leave something better for future generations. We talk regularly about the importance of continuing to improve our environment. I want to thank all of those in my community who are so committed to being part of the numerous community organisations that do such a wonderful job to improve the quality of our environment and increase its ability to regenerate and grow, leaving an inheritance for the long term. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:27