2020-08-25 46 1 4 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 25 August 2020

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

 

BILLS 1 BILLS National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2020 1

National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2020

Returned from Senate 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Public Works Committee 1 Report 1 12:01 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report 4/2020 Referrals made in April and June 2020. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ZAPPIA HWB by leave—Report No. 4 considers two proposals referred to the committee in April and June 2020. The total value of the proposed works for the two projects was $320.75 million, with the projects being undertaken across Australia. The first is the proposed fit-out and security hardening of new leased Australian Federal Police premises at West Perth. The new office accommodation will be purpose built, allowing for full compliance with ASIO and AFP security policies. The estimated cost of this project is $27.1 million, excluding GST. The second project is the Department of Defence's Air 555 phase 1 airborne intelligence surveillance reconnaissance electronic warfare capability facilities works. The project will provide purpose-built facilities and infrastructure to support the incoming MC-55A Peregrine capability. The facilities include maintenance, computer infrastructure, intelligence and operational planning areas. They will be located across three operating bases within Australia and one on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The estimated cost of this project is $293.65 million, excluding GST. As part of its statutory role under the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the committee scrutinised each project, considering the purpose of the work and its suitability, the need for the work, whether the money expended is cost-effective, whether any revenue is generated and the present and prospective value of the work. In current circumstances, the committee was unable to travel to these locations and inspect the proposed works in person so undertook a detailed scrutiny via presentations from the proponent entities. In each case the committee recommended that it is expedient that the works are carried out. I commend the report to the House. Law Enforcement Committee 1 Report 1 12:04 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the following reports: Examination of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission's annual report 2018-19 and Examination of the Australian Federal Police annual report 2018-19. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 by leave—I'm pleased to present the committee's report on the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission annual report of 2018-19. The committee acknowledges the work undertaken by the ACIC throughout the year to make Australia safer through improving our national capacity to discover, understand and respond to current and emerging criminal threats. During 2018-19, the ACIC differed from its past approach from having multiple priorities and instead focused its efforts on one priority: disrupting high-priority serious organised crime threats. While the ACIC noted that this has meant a decline in quantitative results and overall numbers, the committee acknowledges the impacts that this new approach has had which includes the discovery of 95 previously unknown targets; the addition of 12 targets to the Australian Priority Organisation Targets; a release of key reports on gangs, cybercrime and other key crime threats; assistance that led to the seizure of $2.3 billion worth of drugs; and sharing 8,440 information intelligence reports with stakeholders. The committee also acknowledges in its 2018-19 annual report the ACIC is focused on providing greater detail on the effectiveness of each of its activities. The ACIC noted in its annual report that there are areas for improvement in stakeholder consultation and collaboration. The committee looks forward to reviewing the impact of its improvement efforts in the next annual report. The committee thanks the ACIC for its cooperation during the committee's examination of its report. Moving to the Australian Federal Police report: I present the report of the Law Enforcement Committee's examination of 2018-19 annual report of the Australian Federal Police. The committee thanks the AFP for the information and annual report and acknowledges the significant efforts of the AFP during 2018-19 in combating transnational crime, drug smuggling, child exploitation and money laundering, and in carrying out its protective services and aviation security. The AFP's roles in operations such as the Thailand cave rescue and the largest ever seizure of ice, in collaboration with the ABF, are all to be commended. The AFP's overall performance for 2018-19 was positive, and the AFP continues to make significant contributions to the community. The committee acknowledges the difficulty the AFP faces in measuring and assessing its performance on an annual basis. The AFP's return on investment is impressive, considering that many of the benefits of its work are difficult to capture and quantify. The committee encourages the AFP to continue to seek new ways to measure community confidence and the organisation's broad targets successfully prevented, disrupted and to respond to organised crime. I would like to add, on the AFP's work, that the AFP and all our police forces throughout Australia enjoy a great deal of respect from the Australian community, and that is incredibly important to the role that they are undertaking. What we are seeing in many other countries with the defund police movement, fortunately, has not come to Australia because of the great work of many generations of police officers, especially in our AFP and throughout our Commonwealth police forces. But this respect in the Australian public is something that cannot be taken for granted. I would encourage all politicians, both federal and state, to consider when they introduce legislation that requires a police officer to carry out something, how the police will do that and what effect that will have on the trust, confidence and respect of the police in the eyes of Australians. There may be many short-term goals achieved by getting our law enforcement officers to enforce some of these laws. But if, in doing so, they are forced to engage in activity that diminishes that respect and trust the Australian public have in our law enforcement agencies, the overall result will be a detriment to our society. I thank the House. Road Safety Joint Select Committee 2 Report 2 12:09 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety, I present the committee's interim report entitled Improving road safety in Australia. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr CONAGHAN 279991 by leave—As the chair of the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety, I'm pleased to be able to table the interim report. Firstly, can I thank my colleagues on the other side of this floor for their bipartisan contributions not only during the public hearings but in the last six months. This interim report sets out the issues raised in evidence taken from 22 witnesses and in excess of 50 written submissions. Unfortunately, due to COVID-19, the committee was unable to take all evidence from submitting parties prior to the date set for this interim report. Since the completion of the interim report, we had a further two days of hearings—on 17 and 20 August—receiving evidence from a further 20 organisations, with the addition of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications. The role of the Office of Road Safety and that of the joint select committee cannot be understated. The committee's role in providing parliamentary oversight and input into road safety is paramount. It will help to shape the role of the Office of Road Safety as one that is necessarily permanent—linking in the work that the committee needs to do in making recommendations for the next National Road Safety Strategy and the oversight of the success of that strategy. Accordingly, I commend the interim report and its findings to the House. BILLS 2 BILLS Product Stewardship (Oil) Amendment Bill 2020, Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 2020 2

Product Stewardship (Oil) Amendment Bill 2020

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 2020

Second Reading 2 12:11 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'm glad to speak in continuation in support of the Product Stewardship (Oil) Amendment Bill 2020, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 2020 and the amendment that's been moved in my name. These bills deal with the Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme. There are two pieces of legislation that give effect to that scheme. It's a scheme designed to see non-combustible oils recycled. If that didn't occur, those oils would be at risk of contaminating the environment. They present a risk to the environment and to human health to some degree, so it's right that we have product stewardship arrangements in place that encourage producers to take responsibility for those oils. Since it was introduced in 2011 by the former Labor government, it's been a very effective scheme. Prior to that time, there was effectively no recycling of non-combustible oils. It's now the case that some 320 megalitres of oil get recycled and properly disposed of each year. That's about half of the total volume of such oil, so it's a very good community, environment and public health outcome. The reason we are dealing with these bills is that a deficiency has emerged in the scheme and in the legislation that gives effect to the scheme. That became apparent last year when Caltex, soon to be Ampol, decided to see if it could receive a benefit payment under the scheme that it hadn't previously received. In fact, no similar entity had previously sought the kind of benefit that Caltex was interested in pursuing. The scheme works as a levy and benefit payment combination. There's a levy that is applied to all of the relevant oils, and then, when you, as a producer, achieve the proper recycling of the relevant oils, you can claim the benefit payment. So the scheme washes its own face, as some say. In this case, Caltex believed that a definitional looseness within the legislation might allow them to claim the benefit payment for diesel. They use this diesel to clean pipes and tanks of crude oil. They then put the diesel through a cleansing process and are able to make it reach the Australian standards that allow it to be sold as fuel. It doesn't have the levy applied to it, ordinarily, so it's clearly outside the scope of this scheme. But they came to the view that the law wasn't drafted sufficiently tightly to exclude them from the benefit payment, and they sought that benefit payment. They were initially rebuffed by the Australian tax office, as we might expect. They then pursued it in the courts. The Federal Court found that there was this loophole, and so they received $8 million—$8 million of Commonwealth money; $8 million of taxpayers' money—that is, on any analysis, outside of the intention and purpose of that scheme. Whether there was any opportunity for the Commonwealth to recoup that money is not entirely clear. The government has advice that suggests it couldn't do that, even by the amendments that we are considering in this legislation. I think that's a great shame. I know that my colleague and friend the member for Mackellar will be making a contribution in the debate. He has an interest, in his role as the Chair of the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue—and just a general interest, I'm sure. The fact that $8 million of revenue has been lost from the Commonwealth in this instance should be a matter of interest and concern to everyone. I assume that he will speak about that. I want to briefly raise the issue of the approach that Caltex Ampol have taken. I'm not sure why they pursued this benefit payment. Nothing in the briefings or the material that has been shared by the government in relation to these bills makes it clear why they did that. That company would know that it's not the purpose for which the scheme was established. They'd never previously sought a benefit payment. Other companies have not sought that payment. Caltex apparently support the change we are making here to ensure that this doesn't happen again, but they made no submission to the Senate inquiry into these bills. So, unless something very strange is going on, it's pretty clear that the Caltex Ampol business model doesn't depend on this benefit payment, and they mustn't believe it's a payment they deserve going forward. Why did they seek it in the first place? We don't know. It seems the answer is that they thought that they could, that some clever person—or clever-clever person—figured out that this was a loophole that they might be able to exploit. We know the Federal Court found that they're legally entitled to the payment. They are legally entitled to it, but does that make it right? I'm not sure that it does. I think most people in Australia understand the distinction between the letter and the spirit of the law. Most of us understand that there might be something you can get away with for your own benefit but you wouldn't do that if it was to the detriment of the community as a whole. In this case, it seems that Caltex Ampol have come to the view that they can help themselves to $8 million of taxpayers' money through a legal manoeuvre that is clearly outside the sensible public purpose of the law in question. That's what we have to fix with these bills. I've not heard anything that explains why Caltex thought this was a justified course of action. I've not heard anything that explains how using a loophole to get $8 million of taxpayers' money is consistent with the spirit of the law in question, which is designed to achieve the effective recycling of what would otherwise be toxic, environmentally harmful oil. I'm not sure how Caltex's course of action is in keeping with corporate social responsibility or with the Australian sense of fairness. On its website, Caltex lists five key corporate values, and the fifth one is: Never stop caring Act with integrity, constantly challenge each other to be better and always be safe. I'm not sure how much integrity there is to be found in exploiting a loophole to enrich yourself at the expense of the Commonwealth. The company also describes itself as 'proudly Australian'. It says: We're a business that's proudly Australian and our commitment has never been more focused on playing a leading part in our country's future. I'm not sure how comfortably the conduct we're addressing with the passage of this legislation sits with that sentiment. Eight million dollars is a lot of money. It might not seem like a lot of money when you're a $10 billion corporation. I can tell you that, in the world of public and community services and related funding, it's a lot of money. On that basis, I do believe that Caltex Ampol should reflect on their conduct. If there's something I'm missing, something the government is missing, that explains why exploiting a loophole to help yourself to $8 million that you've never before received—and none of the other companies in the fuel-refining and retail business have ever sought or received—is a form of honourable conduct, then I guess that's for Caltex Ampol to explain. They haven't so far, and it doesn't look like that. I'd make the general point that we—all of us, especially in this place—need to be very careful that we don't go along with a kind of moral whitewashing when it comes to corporate conduct that seems highly technical and occurs through clever accounting ploys and legal manoeuvres but is, in effect, not any different from an individual realising that they can get something they don't need, that they don't really merit, at the expense of the community's best interests and with the loss of its commonwealth. In another area of Australian life, if a person found a loophole in a legal definition so they could claim single-parent payments when they weren't a single parent or a disability payment when they didn't have a disability, we wouldn't be sanguine about that. We wouldn't say, 'That's clever; good on you for figuring that out and going down that path.' I'm pretty sure I know how that would be treated in the mainstream media. So I do hope Caltex Ampol gives this matter some further consideration and provides an explanation, if there is one. If there's a good reason why they sought and received the payment, they should say so. If there isn't a good reason, and the only reason is that they thought there was a tricky legal loophole they could exploit to the tune of $8 million, I really hope that the company leadership would consider doing something different now, doing what I would regard as the right thing now. Eight million dollars is a lot of money, when it comes to funding our healthcare needs, our aged-care needs, our recovery from bushfires, our efforts to do more to address homelessness and domestic violence, especially in the circumstances we currently face. If Caltex Ampol isn't convinced about the rightness of seeking and receiving that benefit payment—I'm not talking about the legality; I'm talking about the rightness of it—I'm sure there are courses of conduct open to them that would put that right. There are a lot of organisations in Australia that could benefit from a show of corporate responsibility, that would be quite different from what Caltex seems to have done to date. In my view, and I'm confident it would be the public's view, any company that took such a course would be thanked for that. It would be to their credit. In conclusion, Labor supports these amendments bills. They're necessary to ensure that the product stewardship scheme, in relation to the recycling and proper disposal of oils, works as it was intended to work and to prevent the recurrence of a significant loss of taxpayers' money that, on the facts, as we understand them, probably shouldn't have occurred in the first place. The SPEAKER 10000 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Fremantle has moved as an amendment that all words after that be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Clare HWL Yes, the amendment is seconded. The SPEAKER 10000 If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 12:23 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I'd like to thank my friend the member for Fremantle for pointing out how successful this scheme has been and what great community good it has done. The excise levies amendment is an important step in cutting red tape and standardising sheep and lamb legislation. The livestock industry contributes upwards of $4.5 billion to the economy each year and employs nearly half a million people. Australia is the largest exporter of sheepmeat in the world and the second-largest exporter of lamb and mutton in the world, with over 31,000 agricultural businesses involved in the red meat and livestock industry. The amendment is an important step in creating a consistent regulatory framework and making life easier for farmers who have been doing it tough. With recent droughts, fires and, more recently, COVID-19, as the party of responsible economic management, small business and a fair go, this legislation is part of a broader vision to create a more competitive industry. Reducing the regulatory burden on farmers is a critical step for an industry that so many Australians and rural communities rely on. As food security continues to be an important issue for our region, the agricultural sector is of particular strategic importance. By supporting our farmers, we are backing a powerhouse industry that has defined our nation for generations. As part of this government's commitment to cutting red tape and implementing smarter regulation, we are working to support businesses by streamlining regulatory compliance. It is a sad legacy that the bureaucracy of this country has a history of disadvantaging small businesses. This bill works to resolve this issue by unifying definitions across multiple pieces of legislation. Many Australian industries are globally competitive but are hampered by chronically poor and inconsistent regulation. When so many Australians are relying on us to get this right, especially as we emerge from COVID-19, complacency is no longer an option when it comes to our regulatory framework. This amendment reflects our belief in smarter regulation, not just more regulation, which cuts compliance costs and makes doing business in Australia easier. All too frequently, bureaucrats with no industry or business experience are making regulatory requirements that are completely out of step with industry and end up costing jobs and taxpayers money. Rebuilding our economy in the wake of COVID-19 will not be done from the ivory tower of Capital Hill in Canberra but from hardworking Australians starting businesses, innovating and getting ahead. The agricultural industry has a deep legacy in the history of our country and remains crucial for our national economy. Whilst a lot of attention is given to the tech space, one of the areas Australia can excel at is the agritech sphere, which will be of growing importance, given increasing biosecurity risks across the world. As food security remains a growing concern across the world, Australian farmers not only provide us with an important guarantee for the future of our food security but also enable us to help those in need. That is why amendments like this are so important. They help Australian farmers spend time doing what they do best. The nature of this legislation is in updating the definition of 'lamb' to keep it in line with other definitional changes that have subsequently taken place in other bills. When there are two definitions for what constitutes a lamb then we can begin to understand the Gordian knot that is Australian bureaucracy. The new definition will be standardised across multiple pieces of— The SPEAKER 10000 I am just struggling with the member for Mackellar on the relevance of the two bills that are before the House. Mr FALINSKI G86 Well, my understanding is that this does go to definitions across multiple pieces of legislation. The SPEAKER 10000 In the second bill? Is that what you're referring to? The excise tariff? Mr FALINSKI G86 I'm speaking to the original bill, not the amendment. The SPEAKER 10000 There are two bills that we are debating cognate. One is the oil? Mr FALINSKI G86 Yes, and the second bill. The SPEAKER 10000 The second bill is the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill? Mr FALINSKI G86 That's correct. The SPEAKER 10000 Which is dealing with? Mr FALINSKI G86 With definitional issues. The SPEAKER 10000 Around excise? Mr FALINSKI G86 Yes. The SPEAKER 10000 Okay. I'm just struggling to follow the subject matter that you're— Mr FALINSKI G86 Oh, okay. Well, as I said, Mr Speaker, the bill goes to some of the conflicts of definitions across multiple pieces of legislation. In unifying it, it should have the purpose of making it easier for industry to manage itself across different levies and charges. The SPEAKER 10000 Okay. With respect to the amendments listed in schedule 1, do you mean? Mr FALINSKI G86 That is correct, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 10000 Okay. I'll allow— Mr FALINSKI G86 I probably can't quote the actual schedule but, yes, it's contained in the bill. The SPEAKER 10000 Okay. Mr FALINSKI G86 Okay. The way levies are calculated is linked to the classification of the animal as a lamb, with different levies being paid, depending on the maturity of the sheep. When there are multiple definitions for what a lamb is with, and with the levies linked to this definition, it is not surprising that confusion can often lead to incorrect levies being paid. Given the margins that many of these businesses operate on, spending on additional levies that do not need to be paid is not only a gross waste of time but is hindering these employers from hiring more staff. Our agricultural export industry remains strong, not because of our regulatory environment but frequently in spite of it. That is why the Australian government, at the request of agricultural industry bodies, is changing the definition, after extensive consultation. These definitional changes were also reflected in the industry's AUS-MEAT trade description language and were mirrored in amendments to legislation at the state and territory level, where relevant. The fact of the matter remains that all too often the vision of a big government which is highly involved continues to pervade much of our Public Service. Government is not the solution to the challenges that this nation faces but more frequently the root of the problem itself. The nations that excel in the 21st century will not be those that have a large public service that tries to tell entrepreneurs how to run their businesses but those that give maximum freedom for innovation. Regulation should always be for minimum standards and levels of protection. We cannot allow ourselves to fall into the trap of thinking government has the capacity to solve our problems. History has shown us that it quite simply cannot. This bill will ensure the intent and wishes of the sheep- and meat-processing industries are reflected in the definitions which are relied upon for the payment of levies. Current estimates presently indicate that this change will not result in a significant revenue impact on the government's budget. The other advantage of simplifying regulations is the ease with which government departments such as the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment are able to process and reconcile payments. Given that this department is frequently tasked with resolving issues when incorrect payments occur, streamlining this process should result in taxpayer money being used more effectively, as they can focus on implementing new initiatives rather than dealing with the fallout of poor policy. The funds raised through these levies are subsequently invested back into the agricultural industry, giving added reason why these funds should be spent on the research and innovation they are earmarked for, rather than funding compliance measures. The revenue is also used for marketing, animal health programs— The SPEAKER 10000 Member for Mackellar, I'm not trying to be difficult, but, having listened to you again, I note that these two bills don't—unless you can convince me otherwise—deal with levies. Again, I'm not trying to be difficult, and there is some tolerance in the debate. The first bill deals with oil— Mr FALINSKI G86 Mr Speaker, if it assists you, I literally have one last paragraph to go, at which point I can sit down and the House can continue. The SPEAKER 10000 Yes, you have a deal. Mr FALINSKI G86 Okay. Thank you. Mr Clare interjecting— Mr FALINSKI G86 I thank the member for Blaxland for his encouragement! As a government, we are placing a priority on doing what we can today to help farmers in this challenging economic climate. Whilst we anticipate that the macroregulatory reforms will create a stronger agricultural industry which is more competitive in the international market, it is clear that there is a need to act now, where we can, to help ease the regulatory burden for farmers as a priority industry. We will continue to deliver on our commitment to cutting red tape to support our businesses. For these reasons, I commend this bill to the House. 12:32 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I would like to thank honourable members who have contributed to the debate on the Product Stewardship (Oil) Amendment Bill 2020 and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 2020, and I commend the bills to the House. The Product Stewardship (Oil) Act is a proud environmental legacy of the coalition. It was Australia's first federal product stewardship law, created by the Howard government, and it's served as a successful model for our product stewardship initiatives around Australia since its inception 20 years ago. The scheme achieves significant environmental protection and significant economic outcomes, including productive manufacturing jobs and the creation of valuable new products by way of recovering and recycling the old used waste oil. In fact, the Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme typifies the circular economy in action. Under the scheme, Australia's oil recyclers collect and recycle used waste oil from almost 50,000 businesses and workplaces—places like mechanics, car dealerships, factories, service stations and heavy industry. It's a highly successful program that these days collects and recycles approximately 300 million litres of waste oil every year, and it turns that dirty used oil back into new, high-grade oil based products that can be used a second time in our cars and in other industrial processes. The scheme has grown to the point where it now supports 11 oil-recycling facilities all around Australia, directly employing about 600 Australians and indirectly supporting thousands more. When we consider how, when we get our car serviced, the oil change produces about four or five litres of dirty used oil and that just one of those litres could contaminate up to a million litres of river water or groundwater, it really reinforces the critical role that this scheme has been playing in protecting our environment and our precious waterways. Earlier this year some of Australia's oil recycling facilities began to shut down as the pandemic took hold due to the closure of overseas ports where we export a significant proportion of our recycled oil as well as to various issues around storage and the challenges faced by the collectors and their trucking and logistics chain. Our government stepped in quickly to provide approximately $7 million to support this critical sector and our local oil-recycling jobs through our COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Fund. So I'm pleased to see that, so far, we've avoided mass shutdowns of these facilities during the pandemic. I am especially pleased, of course, to see that the dirty oil is still being frequently collected all around Australia and to know that it isn't building up out the back of mechanics and factories, where there could ultimately be a risk of it getting dumped into waterways or the environment. I've been to visit a number of the oil-recycling facilities around Australia, including the biggest in the country, which is at Gladstone, and the one at Narangba just north of Brisbane. The facilities support an interesting and wide variety of jobs, including technical and high-end manufacturing jobs. All of the employers that I've met during those visits are doing fantastic work. They are very passionate about what they are doing and achieving every day when they go to work, as they should be. Our government has also brought forward our next scheduled review of the oil product stewardship scheme. Hopefully we can compete that review by the end of the year. That way we can ensure that the entire oil-recycling industry here in Australia is on a sustainable long-term footing and can continue to grow and succeed for the next 20 years of its journey. As I mentioned, that's important not only for the sake of the industry and the jobs it supports; it's equally important for the environmental protection that the scheme achieves. I'd like to thank those opposite, including the shadow assistant minister, for their broadly constructive approach towards these bills and for recognising that legislative reform is required at this time to close a loophole and to ensure that the scheme continues to operate in the way its drafters intended. As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, these bills are intended to address the implications of the recent decision of the Federal Court in Caltex Petroleum v Commissioner of Taxation by amending the definition of oils in the Product Stewardship (Oil) Act to ensure the scheme applies to lubricant oils, fluid oils and other manufactured oils and greases and excludes diesel and other fuels. Similarly, to ensure legislative consistency, we are amending the Excise Tariff Act to narrow the scope of petroleum based oils and synthetic equivalents for which excise duties are imposed for the purpose of the Product Stewardship (Oil) Scheme to exclude diesel and other fuels. These amendments are necessary to ensure consistency with changes to the definition of oils made in the Product Stewardship (Oil) Amendment Bill 2020 and to ensure no excise duty can be imposed on diesel under the scheme. The amendments to the Product Stewardship (Oil) Act will apply to claims for recycled oil sold or consumed from the day of introduction of the Product Stewardship (Oil) Amendment Bill into the House of Representatives, and the amendments to the Excise Tariff Act will similarly apply in relation to goods entered for home consumption from the day the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill is introduced. I'd like to again thank those members who have contributed to the debate on these bills, and I commend the bills to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fremantle has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. Debate adjourned. Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 2020 7

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 2020

Second Reading 7 Third Reading 8 12:40 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020 8

Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020

Second Reading 8 12:41 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam In this debate, I'll be formally moving an amendment which has been circulated 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 calls on the Government to commit to ensuring that all Australians have a decent retirement, including by committing to: (1) no cuts to the legislated superannuation guarantee for Australian workers; and (2) adequate funding for the aged pension". The shorter form of that amendment invites all members of this place to affirm their support for the election commitment given by the Prime Minister. If members opposite are not inclined to support this amendment, which invites all members of this House to affirm their support for the election commitment given by the Prime Minister, then they should stand and say why not. Are they willing to affirm their commitment to the legislated 12 per cent superannuation guarantee levy? This bill extends the range of circumstances under which former and current members who are public servants can contribute to the Public Service superannuation accumulation plan. It allows Australian workers to build their retirement nest eggs and participate more fully in our world-class superannuation system. In a sea of crazy propositions that go in the name of superannuation, this bill stands out as an atoll of sensible measures that have been put forward by the government and government members. We will support it. It's a sensible measure. It will improve the integrity and efficiency of our superannuation system, and it should enjoy the support of all members of this House—as, indeed, should my second reading amendment. There's been an incredibly important role played by superannuation through this crisis. It has provided access on an emergency basis to much-needed funds—something that Labor fully supports. But, all too often, it appears that this has not always been the case. The early-release scheme has been incredibly poorly administered. It has been subject to fraud and abuse—something that should be subject to the full glare of an independent audit and a commissioned inquiry; I will come to that in a moment. Our world-class superannuation system may not be celebrated by all members opposite, but it's recognised around the world as one of the best in class. The Mercer Global Pension Index, an annual assessment of the private pension systems around the world, has consistently ranked Australia's superannuation system in the top two or three. Last year, it was ranked No. 3 out of nearly 40 countries—a significant achievement. We have the fourth largest pool of superannuation retirement savings of anywhere in the world. Australian workers' own retirement savings are equal to 140 per cent of GDP. As a proportion of GDP, this is greater than the United States, whose pension funds amount to 135 per cent of GDP; the United Kingdom, whose pension funds amount to 104.5 per cent of GDP; and Canada, whose pension funds amount to 85 per cent of GDP. It's an incredible achievement. We're the 16th-largest economy in the world, with a workforce of just 13 million people and yet we've created a pool of funds available for local investment and a stream of foreign earnings on overseas investments. It'd be hard to overestimate the way it's transformed the Australian economy. For nearly 200 years we were a nation that borrowed money from the savings of the rest of the world. The capacity of our businesses to get a loan for investing in new plants and equipment and the capacity of the government to build infrastructure was dependent on the savings habits of other people in other countries. In a few short decades, we have changed all of this. Superannuation has made a significant contribution to converting Australia from a nation that lends to a nation that borrows. These are all benefits of the system. I want to go back a moment to talk about why we embarked on this path in the first place. Before we commenced building a world-class system of private pension savings—superannuation, as we call it in this country—less than 30 per cent of Australians enjoyed the benefit of superannuation and less than 20 per cent of women enjoyed the benefits of a superannuation savings account. When we embarked on this journey of ensuring that all Australians could enjoy the dignity of private pension savings, the ratio of retirees to workers was one to six. That is to say that for every retiree who was dependent on a government pension there were six people in the workforce paying income taxes. When the vast majority of workers retired—that 70 per cent of the workforce—they enjoyed nothing but the government pension. Their retirement was short, because life expectancy was shorter. They had a reliance on the paucity of the government pension and their circumstances were humble indeed. After the introduction of universal superannuation, things changed dramatically. Indeed, the landscape around us has changed as well. We now have universal provision of superannuation throughout the entire workforce. We have built a nest egg for people to rely on when they retire, but the world hasn't stayed still. You might recall that ratio that I mentioned of workers to retirees—that was, one retiree to six workers. You might be curious to know what that ratio is today. Well, I can tell you what it was 10 years ago. Ten years ago for every retiree there were five workers—that is, five people paying income tax amongst other things to support the pension payments of one retiree. Over the last decade alone, that ratio has dropped from one retiree to five workers down to one retiree to four workers—that is, for every one retiree we have four people paying income tax. That number is not staying still; it is dropping rapidly. We are on track over the next 15 years to go from one retiree to four workers down to one retiree to three workers. Over the course of the last 25 years, we have gone from one retiree to five workers down to one retiree to four workers, and, over the next 10 to 15 years, we'll go from one retiree to four workers down to one retiree to three workers. If the experience of the last six months is any indication, that journey from one to four down to one to three will accelerate rapidly. One of the reasons we have managed to push that curve out a little bit is because of immigration. The average age of people who come to this country through the immigration scheme is generally mid-20s to mid-30s. That's enabled us to push that curve out—not stop it, but push it out. So, when we embarked on the journey of superannuation, we did it for a reason. We did it in the knowledge that we had an unsustainability in our ageing population. Our ageing population is a great benefit; it's a great tribute to this country. It means we are living longer and healthier lives. A better diet, better health care and a better lifestyle mean we are living longer, but it also creates challenges for the budget. The answer from the mob on the other side is to make people work until they're 70 or 80. We know that's their plan because it was baked into their budgets not too long ago. Make somebody work till they're 70 or 80—that's their plan. There are many on the government side who are sowing the circumstances to ensure that is where we go into the future. The campaign that is being run by those on the other side to cancel universal superannuation flies in the face of our demographics—one retiree to six workers when we started, one to four now, and on the way to one to three. Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B The member for Goldstein is on the speaking list. He will have something to say, sure. Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B What the member for Goldstein needs to understand is that the people who say they want people to be self-reliant used to sit on that side of the House, but they don't anymore. They don't want people to be self-reliant. Their answer to the ageing population is to say: 'Put it on the tab. Let the grandkids pick up the bill, because we don't care!' Remember when they used to talk about debt and deficit? That was before they added to the government debt. It's heading towards a trillion bucks—you won't see them campaigning on that! Their answer to our ageing population is to say: 'Put it on the tab. Work till you're 70; work till you're 80. Put it on the tab. Let the grandkids pick up the bill.' That is quite literally what they are saying in response to our budgetary challenge. We say this is utter nonsense. Those opposite imagine a world without superannuation, without the dignity and the benefits of superannuation in this country. Can you imagine what the last 12 months would have looked like if we hadn't had our superannuation system? Not one cent of the $32 billion that has been drawn down on would have existed—not one dollar—if you had listened to the member for Goldstein, because he has voted against every single dollar! I invite the member for Goldstein to tell us, when he makes his erudite contribution, how many superannuation increases he has voted for. Not one. Not one dollar. The coalition have opposed every single cent that has gone into universal superannuation through the SGL. They have the temerity to say, 'We wish this away.' Where would we have been over the last 12 months if it had not been there? It might surprise many people in this place to know that our superannuation system has not yet fully matured. The reason it has not yet fully matured is that, when the people who are now approaching retirement started their time in the workplace, they did not have universal superannuation, or they didn't have it to anywhere near the levels that it is today. That fact is undeniable. Despite that, our superannuation system is already contributing more to retirement income than the government contributes. Do you know how much the government contributes to pension payments each year? Around about $43 billion. That is a significant amount. We don't begrudge a cent of it. We opposed this mob when they tried to cut it. It's in their plans to do so again. Superannuation lump sum payments are in excess of $40 billion a year, and allocated pensions are in excess of $40 billion a year. So, over the last 12 months, more than $80 billion was paid into national income through the superannuation system. Yet these nongs over here want to do away with it! There is a $110 billion contribution to our national income over one year alone, and every single cent of it is opposed by the member for Goldstein and his outfit. Every single cent of it! Where would our economy be if we did not have the contribution of superannuation over that 12-month period? Yet they want to smash the system. They're like blue suited Talibans—it doesn't conform with their religion, so they want to blow the whole thing up. We will fight them every step of the way. Our superannuation system has not only provided benefits to individuals through its contributions, lump sums and retirements pensions; it has been absolutely critical to stabilising our capital markets during the heady days, particularly those first two months, when we saw the stock market swing and drop by amounts of up to 30 per cent. We have seen enormous turmoil within our capital markets. Had it not been for the long-term, steady, patient capital of our superannuation system, those fluctuations would have been even greater. It's been a critical part of recapitalising those large listed companies that have gone to the stock market in search of additional cash, and the unlisted companies. There are significant plans to reinvest in our economy to ensure we are creating investment and jobs and growth as we come out of this recession. And this mob wants to do away with superannuation. They like to pretend they understand capital. They're clueless when it comes to capital, because here we have a $3 trillion pool of domestic savings, dedicated to improving the lot of retirees, but patiently investing in wealth and jobs and capacity and industry here in this country. We often see members of the National Party come in here and decry the fact that we've got foreigners, people from overseas, coming in and buying up our agricultural companies and buying up our agricultural land. It's actually Australian workers, through their superannuation funds, who are the foil to that. I'd expect we'd enjoy support from members of the National Party if ever that mob over there get their way and manage to convince the Prime Minister to renege on his election promise. Australian workers and Australian households investing in Australian agriculture, Australian farmland, Australian industries and Australian infrastructure are ensuring that Australians retain the wealth and benefits of those investments through their superannuation funds, which adds to our national wealth and our national productivity and to the retirement benefits of individual fund members. When described like that, who could be against it? Only a mad ideologue, somebody who is committed to destroying something either because they don't understand it or because it wasn't their idea in the first place. That's that mob over there. Labor have built this system for all Australians, and we're committed to defending it. We invite every member of the coalition to come in here in a moment and vote in favour of the policy that they took to the last election. If they don't have the courage to vote in favour of the policy they took to the last election, they should stand up and say why. They should stand up and say why they looked the voters of their electorate in the eye and said, 'I support your superannuation,' but now they're going to renege on that promise. Well, we can tell you this, each and every government member: we will hang it around your neck if you renege on the promise that you gave to electors in the last election. We will hang it around your neck at the next election. We will hang it around your neck. I see the member for Goldstein beckoning with his hands—that is, if the Assistant Treasurer doesn't get to him first, because, whatever differences I might have with the member for Goldstein, the Assistant Treasurer is out there saying a lot worse things about him than anything that I could ever imagine. He might get to you first, sunshine; don't you worry about that. The member for Goldstein shows a lot of courage. But maybe the Assistant Treasurer will get to him first, unless of course the Prime Minister does the right thing and puts the Assistant Treasurer towards the back bench, and maybe the member for Goldstein, the Assistant-Treasurer-in-waiting, can fulfil his ambitions by becoming the Assistant Treasurer—if his factional enemies in Victoria don't get the best of him between now and then. Let's be clear about this. Let's be very clear about this. A cut to superannuation is a pay cut. Those opposite promised they were going to guarantee it; now they're backing away from it. We will ensure that they stick to their promise or bear the electoral price of that, because we made a solemn promise to the people of Australia that we would ensure that we protected their retirement savings and we protected their pay, and we'll do exactly that. Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B If those opposite want to— Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B I'm glad the member for Goldstein has raised this. This is a bloke who campaigned at the last election on something called a retiree tax. Nothing amounts to a retiree tax like taking an axe to the superannuation system, the retirement system for all Australians. This bloke wants to take an axe to a $1 trillion system, something that is providing dignity in retirement savings not for the pinstriped suits he stands up in here and defends but for ordinary Australians. I met with a delegation of workers from my electorate in Canberra a few months ago and I was struck by the story of Gay. She could have been my mum. She lives in Bowral, in my electorate, and she's been a shop assistant her entire life, working for a large supermarket chain. Gay is lucky enough to own her own home, and when she retired from full-time work she used some of her $100,000 of superannuation to buy a new car—a modest car, a Kia—to replace her old run-down Subaru, which was on its last legs, and, in her words, 'This one's going to see me out. The other one was costing me heaps and heaps of money every year on repairs, but I know, with this one, it'll will see me out. It'll ensure that I can get around and see my family and ensure that I can visit friends, and get to the one shift I do each week to help me top up my pension on top of my superannuation.' One of the moving stories I've heard. Again, she could have been my mum. It was the first new car she'd ever owned. Because of Gay's super, her quality of life is much better. Now, $100,000 in superannuation mightn't sound like a lot to people in this place. The member for Goldstein pulls in 15 per cent superannuation, like all members in this place; the person who cleans his office, 9½ per cent. After he makes a contribution in this debate he'll go back and stick his feet on his desk, feeling pretty confident that he's made a great contribution to democracy. Meanwhile, the person who cleans his office will politely knock on the door and say, 'Mr Wilson, can I empty your bins? Can I pick up those glasses? Thank you so much,' and clean his office. She or he is on 9½ per cent. The member for Goldstein has got to explain why he wants to cut the superannuation for the person who cleans his office because that person's not worth 12 per cent but he's worth 15. Good luck with that, because we made a promise to all Australians that we'd increase their superannuation, and we're going to stick it. We take the view that it doesn't matter whether you're a corporate boss, a member of parliament, a cleaner or a shop assistant; you're entitled to a dignified retirement. It's not something that's the privilege of the rich and the wealthy. The rich and the wealthy have their superannuation savings, hundreds of thousands of dollars squirrelled away, and everyone else, penury and mendicant on the pension. We have a very different view. We think the pension should be adequate, but people should be able to save for their retirement and ensure that they can look after themselves, their families, their kids, maybe have a holiday and buy some presents for the grandkids or maybe like Gay, buy that new car—one that'll see you through after retirement. That's the vision that we have for Australians, something that provides a dignified retirement system together with all of those other benefits, economy, in terms of jobs and in terms of domestic investment if superannuation is added to this country. I've got to say, at a time when business investment has absolutely fallen off a cliff, it didn't start with the COVID recession; it started under this mob. They had no plan for business investment, nothing to incentivise business to invest in this country. They talk about it a lot—jeez, they do. You could have built three new capital cities in this country if they were powered by Hansardwith the amount that these guys talk about business investment. However, they were unable to shift the dial on it. The patient capital of superannuation, investing in infrastructure, investing in capital formation and investing in listed equities are big parts of the solution to capital investment falling off a cliff in this country. And this mob who pretend to know something about capital want to pull all of that apart. Well, we'll fight them on it every step of the way. In this place and in the community, we will not make it easy. We will not make it easier for the Prime Minister to break his promise to the Australian people to guarantee their superannuation. A superannuation cut is a pay cut, and we'll be fighting for the people of Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 Is the amendment seconded? The amendment is seconded. 13:08 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Deputy Speaker Gillespie, can I start by saying thank you for pronouncing the electorate of Goldstein correctly. This is not a point of pedantry; it's extremely important because it is named after one of Australia's greatest suffragettes, Vida Goldstein, and every time we mispronounce it the member for Whitlam and others disrespect Vida Goldstein and her legacy. I think it's very important to get it right and I think it's a pretty basic expectation that I refer to other members' electorates correctly as well. In saying that, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill and this motion, because it's an important piece of legislation around something relatively minor but it's a pathway for making sure Commonwealth public servants are able to be in the best position to contribute to their own superannuation system. Despite the deceptive arguments put forward by the member for Whitlam, the coalition government has no issue with superannuation. More to the point, I don't think he quite realises that the superannuation system existed before 1992. In fact, people used to have superannuation as private citizens. It was actually quite common. People had it. There were even public sector services as well. Private businesses had it. They had their own funds. But in their mad ideological world view—self-referential, where they see themselves as the only basis for the success of the country—the Australian Labor Party have a collective memory lapse on this basic point of history. For them, this debate about superannuation isn't actually about Australians. It's actually about themselves, the Labor Party, because the Labor Party only see the success of Australia through the political success of themselves, so they constantly refer back to their own legacy to try and justify and rationalise their existence. They do not see the success of our great country through the material aspirations and achievements of individual citizens and families. It's one of the great dividing lines across this chamber. The Liberal Party, the coalition, want to build up strong Australians and strong Australian families, because we don't want people who are dependent; we want people who are independent. The Labor Party are mad ideologues. They simply cannot confront a brutal reality—that the most important thing for retirement security for an Australian is not a large super balance; it is to own your own home. The hard evidence shows this. If you own your own home, then you can get additional assistance if you need it if there is a gap. If you do not own your own home and you rent in retirement, then you face ever-escalating costs and you still then have to draw it down from the taxpayer. But, no; they think there is some sort of logic that means a 20-year-old, rather than saving to buy their first home, should prioritise sacrificing their savings into a superannuation fund that, funnily enough, is controlled by the Labor Party's political mates. This debate is not about retirement security for them. This debate is about power for them. This is not a new debate. It has gone on for many years. Go back and look at two different speeches, by Ben Chifley and Sir Robert Menzies, in 1949. You can go and read them on the Museum of Australian Democracy website. At the time, Ben Chifley talked about how we have to use Commonwealth-state housing agreements to promote a nation of renters, to make people dependent on others and, more critically, dependent on government. What did Sir Robert Menzies do in the election, which he won? He talked about how we had to use Commonwealth-state housing agreements to create a nation of homeowners, of people who have an interest in the state, in the status quo, in the foundations of this country, because it would build independence for individuals and families as the foundation for a great nation. This debate, for the Labor Party, is about making dependency, and dependency where they can harvest the fees of the superannuation of young Australians' savings to be redirected back to themselves. Today the Labor Party are not the party of organised workers. They once were. They once believed that workers should save and own their own home. That was once something they believed in. But today they are not a party of organised workers; they are a party of organised capital. You heard that explicitly in the member for Whitlam's speech, where he talked about how he wanted to use people's money to decide how the economy should be run. It's trading the invisible hand for the shadowed fist of the Labor Party and their mates over the capital of this country and the future direction of this country. In pursuit of making this argument, he put forward a silly amendment. The member for Whitlam, like every other member on the other side of this chamber—although I exclude some of the Independents; they had the good sense to oppose it—supported Labor's giant retiree tax, which would have whacked Australian retirees, those people who've sacrificed and saved, in spite of what they were compelled to do by the law. They would have lost a third of their income overnight—not 0.5 per cent; a third. It would have pushed people below the poverty line. Before the last election they mocked and derided me and my colleagues, who gave a platform, and made mischievous slurs and deceptions to the Australian people to distract from the reality. They said it only affected the wealthy. We gave case after case of people with a disability and those who were living very close to the poverty line, people on $20,000 or $30,000 a year. It was only after the election and the shellacking they deserved, because they wouldn't listen to the Australian people, that the Leader of the Opposition finally acknowledged they'd got it wrong. In this debate, we have a lot of deceptions continuing today. The latest was only the other day from Industry Super Australia, who outlined that I am, apparently, 'a hypocrite', because we in this chamber get 15.4 per cent of superannuation on our salary. I have said it in this chamber and I will say it again and again: I only expect the legal mandated component, and the rest should be cashed in as salary. That is an utterly consistent position. I have no reservations about that, whatsoever, because superannuation is only deferred wages. As I've argued that it is better to help young Australians buy their homes now, I also argue that it is better for people to have access or the choice of access to that capital now. And, if they want to contribute more to superannuation because they see there is some tax benefit to it, that is their freedom to choose. By the way, while we talk about hypocrisy, I am curious, Deputy Speaker Gillespie, although I don't expect you to know the answer: what is the superannuation contribution of those employees at Industry Super Australia? Do you think it's the 12 per cent they want or do you think it's the legal component that's required? What we know is that the constant obsession with trying to increase the amount of capital, in the hands of funds who want to fester it for fees and harvest it because they know that young Australians don't pay attention to their superannuation until much later in life, comes at the expense of two things. Firstly, it's wages. In fact, the member for Whitlam doesn't even try and pretend it doesn't come at the expense of wages anymore. We welcome that sort of new honesty. They used to contest this point! The problem they had was that the Grattan Institute—not a body I normally quote, I have to declare—has made it nakedly clear, looking at long-term research about the impact. Of course, the Treasury has always held this view. The Australian Council of Social Services—this is really starting to be an unlikely group of people who get together on the same page—acknowledges that it has an impact on wage growth and that lower-income Australians need that money now. Then, of course, we have Industry Super Australia's own research, which they tried to hide but which through the economics committee we managed to get out. It clearly showed that, yes, increasing the compulsory super guarantee will have an impact on wages now. But there was no-one clearer than the Reserve Bank Governor, before the House economics committee, in response to questions I asked only a couple of weeks ago. He made it crystal clear that increasing the compulsory super guarantee would have a direct impact on wage growth, an explicit correlation with wage growth. Under further questioning, he pointed out that there is also a correlation with the number of Australians who'd be employed. Let's just think about that now. In the middle or start of a COVID recession—and we know we're there, because of the virus—the Australian Labor Party would rather prioritise money that can go into the funds managed by their friends, to fester for fees, than create the jobs that unemployed Australians, particularly young Australians need, right now. They are not the Labor Party anymore. They're the industry fund party. They're the organised capital party. They would rather put their own interests ahead of those of workers. That's why I find their position so untenable, so difficult to digest, because they're literally seeking to advance their own interests at the expense of workers. Admittedly, we know they've always done that through the industrial relations system, but never has it been more nakedly clear and, more to the point, costly, not just to those who are workers today but the people who are unemployed, who, I would hope, we all desperately need to get back into the workforce to rebuild the strength of this country. If people don't have a job then they're not going to be making contributions to the superannuation system. But that is the mad ideology that sits at the heart of the Labor Party's approach to superannuation: it's how they empower themselves, not Australians and their families. It's how they make sure that young Australians can't own their own home, so they can promote dependence, rather than what we on this side want, which is Australians having jobs so they can save for their retirement and also buy their own home so they can be strong and independent themselves and not always turn to Canberra when they need support. That's how you build the strength of a great country. It isn't from Canberra bureaucrats or even from decisions that we make in this place. The wisdom of the nation sits around the kitchen tables of family homes. I would rather see 26 million Australians empowered over 600,000 bureaucrats in Canberra, because that is the true foundations of a strong nation. While sometimes we get into a debate on these issues, and the member for Whitlam likes to wax lyrical and carry on like, well, I won't say, this debate goes to the core of the type of country we want to be. I think that as a country—and I hope every member on this side of the chamber believes as strongly as I do—we want a nation of empowered individuals and families and communities as a foundation of a great country, not a strong Canberra. But that is what our political opponents want. That is why they sit on that side of the chamber. When in doubt, whether it is through the government or through the funds that their mates control, they see themselves, not Australians, as the solution to the problem; to give themselves, not Australians, more control; to empower themselves, and not Australians. 13:23 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I'm speaking in support of the amendment moved by the member for Whitlam to the Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill. Members of the government should come into this chamber and explain to the Australian people who elected them why they don't support increasing compulsory superannuation contributions, as was promised by the Prime Minister and this government. They should explain to the Australian people why the Australian people don't deserve that increase in their compulsory superannuation contributions, particularly when the hypocrites on the other side are very happy to pocket 15 per cent in their superannuation contributions under the scheme that we're privileged to enjoy in this place. Compulsory superannuation is about providing Australians with dignity in retirement. It's about the government really saying to Australian workers, 'Thank you for your contribution, for all your hard work over your working life in building the economic wealth of this country. We will provide you with support through a savings tax concession for you to be able to save and to be able to have dignity in retirement, to buy your own home,' as the member for Goldstein pointed out. The problem with his argument is that it is premised on the notion that if the money doesn't go into compulsory superannuation contributions it will go into wage increases for workers. We know that is not the case. We know that the last time the conservatives in this country stopped an increase in the compulsory rate of superannuation, which was under the Howard government, the money didn't go into the pockets of workers. It didn't go into wages. It went into the pockets of employers, and profits went up. It didn't go to the workers, who deserved the money that was deferred from superannuation contributions. That is the problem with the member for Goldstein's argument and with the rabble of backbenchers on that side who are now claiming that the government should abandon their promised, their committed to, their guaranteed increase in superannuation for Australian workers. People who have worked hard for our nation and have worked all of their lives deserve a commitment from the government to support them in retirement. The Australian superannuation scheme has been remarkably successful in achieving the dignity that Australian workers deserve in retirement. The evidence of that is in the fact that although Australia is the 16th-largest economy in the world we have the fourth-largest pool of investment savings of any nation in the world—the fourth-largest pool of retirement savings for our workers. That in itself is evidence that our superannuation system has been remarkably successful. But you don't need to worry about the statistics. All you need to do is ask the average Australian worker who has benefited from superannuation contributions throughout their life, when they get to retirement. Someone, perhaps, who is retiring now may have had the benefit of voluntary contributions through an enterprise bargaining agreement, before they became compulsory, and then benefited from the government's compulsory scheme, retiring with a decent nest egg so that they can pay off their home and own it, as the member for Goldstein has suggested, so they do have some money for a holiday each year, to spend on their kids and their grandkids, as they so wish. That is the promise. That is the commitment of superannuation that was delivered by Labor when we implemented this scheme under the Keating government. It's a scheme that has been remarkably successful and one that Labor is very proud of because of its success and because it achieves those goals of providing dignity for people in retirement. We will defend it to the hilt, because it works. It works better than any other scheme in the world and that's evidenced by the fact that we have the fourth-largest pool of retirement savings of any country in the world. We all know that those opposite have never supported the notion of compulsory superannuation. They vote against it at every opportunity. When it was first introduced by the Hawke government, they voted against it. When there have been legislated compulsory increases in the rate, they weaselled their way out of the commitment to the Australian people that they made during election campaigns, and then, later on, they removed those compulsory increases that are legislated and built into the system. We know that they have always opposed superannuation and they don't provide the support that Australian workers deserve. Now they're at it again. There's a campaign by backbenchers to again stop the government from increasing compulsory superannuation contributions in Australia. But this isn't an ordinary attack. This is a double-barrelled attack, because they have recently introduced the early release super scheme, where they're encouraging Australians to raid their superannuation and their retirement savings. We've all seen the likes of the member for Goldstein get up and encourage people to raid their super accounts. It was a hastily put together scheme that didn't work. We know that because it was shut down by the Australian Federal Police while they investigated fraud into what was going on with people accessing their superannuation early. We know from studies of the bank transactions of people who have accessed their superannuation that 40 per cent didn't need to access their super. They had no reduction in their actual incomes, yet they raided their super accounts. What's worse, 10 per cent of those who did spent a lot of the money on gambling and on alcohol and tobacco. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 14 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Beirut: Explosion 14 13:30 Mr BURKE DYW Watson On 4 August, the world stopped as we watched again and again the footage of Beirut. While only one Australian citizen was reported as lost—young Australian Isaac Oehlers, aged two—the truth is that many, many members of the Australian family were lost in that moment. My electorate has a very large number of people who have lost friends, siblings, cousins or other loved ones. As those who have followed Lebanon know, Lebanon was already in a vulnerable state before the detonation occurred. Our hearts go out to all Australians who have suffered and are grieving during this time. We thank the government for the action that it's taken so far in support, and we want to say that any further action the government wishes to take to help the people of Lebanon at this time will have immediate bipartisan support. There are so many people there that are part of the Australian family. As Australians, in their hour of need, we want to make sure we're with them too. Wide Bay Electorate: Murgon 15 13:31 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay On Saturday, it was my great joy to join the members of the Murgon sub-branch of the RSL—particularly the president, John Drew; the district president, Trevor Williamson; Mayor Brett Otto; Councillor Kathy Duff; and the acting officer in charge of the Murgon Police Station, Al Gerrard—to turn the sod of the new veterans drop-in centre. The construction of the centre is being funded from a $450,000 election commitment which will accommodate welfare and advocacy services for veterans and their families. The project will benefit veterans throughout Murgon and the wider district. The new building will provide a meeting space and a kitchen and barbecue area, plus memorabilia and educational historical displays so people can learn about the service and sacrifice of all Australian Defence Force personnel. The new RSL drop-in centre will create 40 jobs through its construction. The centre complements another significant investment from the Morrison government in making Murgon the great place that it is, and that's our $1.56 million grant to construct a new cultural centre, with an art gallery, fossil museum, art workshop, gift shop and prehistoric garden. I commend the Murgon Creative Country Association and Richard O'Neill, Leo and Glenda Geraghty, and Kathy Duff for their work on this unique Murgon attraction. It will showcase local art, history and culture. Beirut: Explosion 15 13:33 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I rise to express my sadness and shock at the horrific explosion in Beirut earlier this month and to express my commiserations and solidarity with the people of Lebanon and the Lebanese Australian community. 2020 has been a horrific year, and nowhere more so than for the people of Beirut. Six thousand people have been injured and more than 160 people killed, including, tragically, one Australian, two-year-old Isaac Oehlers. Like many members' electorates, my electorate is home to a thriving Lebanese Australian diaspora who have contributed so much to our community, so the pain and trauma in Beirut was felt acutely in our own community, on the other side of the world. I want to quickly highlight some of the incredible solidarity that's been shown in Australia towards those who have suffered. Tom Sarafian, head chef at Bar Saracen, with the assistance of his partner, Jinane Bou-Assi—a former Labor staffer in this building, well known to many in this place—set out to raise $10,000 for the Lebanese Red Cross by making and selling their famous hummus. In the event, they more than doubled it, raising $20,000 by selling 300 kilograms of hummus. I know from my Instagram that a reasonable amount ended up in Williamstown in my electorate, where we are proud to be home to one of the Melbourne Lebanese diaspora's favourite sons, our former Premier Steve Bracks—and I've heard that Terry Bracks in particular was an enthusiastic supporter. So I want to express my thanks to everyone who was a part of it. There are too many to mention here today, but I thank all who helped provide a desperately needed helping hand from Melbourne to Beirut, with love. Ringrose, Mr Roy 15 13:34 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Today I rise to honour the Berowra electorate's latest centenarian, Roy Ringrose of Thornleigh. Roy was born on 15 August 1920 at Temora. He joined the Second AIF in March 1942, serving at Cowra, Wagga Wagga, Bathurst and Darwin. He then went to work at the Registrar General's department until 1980. Roy obtained a Master of Laws studying at night after working for many decades at the land titles office. At the age of 73 he commenced working at the law firm Malleson Stephen Jaques, retiring when he was 81. I had the opportunity of working with Roy at Mallesons. The former chairman Frank Zipfinger describes Roy as 'a terrific practitioner, the best in his field and a wonderful gentleman universally loved at the firm'. Roy's 100th birthday celebration was held online and attended by family, friends and former colleagues. Mallesons partners made him a cake, shaped as a certificate of title with a covenant charge in favour of his wife, Roma. Roy and Roma also celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary earlier this year. Roy and Roma were married during World War II on Roma's 21st birthday. They have six children, 20 grandchildren and 41 great-grandchildren. Their youngest daughter Lynelle says her dad still has his cheeky since of humour and loves sharing stories, particularly about his practice, World War II and of course his family. Roy credits his long life to a careful choice of ancestors, his Christian faith and being married to a good woman. Congratulations, Roy Ringrose, on turning 100. Thank you very much. Beirut: Explosion 16 13:36 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I rise today to express my heartfelt condolences to the people of Lebanon following the devastating explosion that occurred in Beirut on 4 August. I wish to extend my deepest sympathies to the people of Beirut and to all those who've been affected by this horrific event. Macarthur is proudly home to many Australians of Lebanese background and descent, and this tragedy has sent shock waves through our community. The Lebanese community in Australia is a close-knit community. There are many Australians who have had loved ones adversely affected. I wish to express my solidarity with this vibrant and proud Lebanese diaspora. My thoughts are with you all during this very difficult time. Lebanese Australians have contributed greatly to our society over the years, from the fields of medicine to rugby and everything in between. The achievements of Lebanese Australians are a testament to our multicultural society. Many famous Australians are of Lebanese origin—names such as Dame Marie Bashir, Sir Nicholas Shehadie and Michael Cheika. My thoughts are also with the family and loved ones of Isaac Oehlers, who tragically lost his life in the blast. I also want to express my solidarity with Australia's diplomatic staff in Beirut and thank them for the important work that they are continuing to do in offering consular assistance to Australians in need in the wake of this devastating explosion. I urge anyone listening to this speech today who is in need of consular assistance to contact DFAT on 62613305. My thoughts are with you all at this very difficult time. (Time expired) Grey Electorate: Schools-led Cattle and Goat Competition 16 13:38 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Last week I had the honour of judging the grand parade of the schools-led cattle and goat competition held at Kadina. It was the first ever, and the reason it was the first ever is that normally these children would exhibit at the Adelaide show. Of course the Royal Adelaide Show has been called off, along with the Kadina show, which last year in fact staged the first-ever led goat competition. Particularly to Port Broughton Area School, Central Yorke School, Clare High School, Kadina High School and Balaklava High School: well done. Well done to the Kadina Show Society; the president, Maxine Tully; and in particular Natasha Westbrook, who worked so hard to bring this together. She thought that the kids, having gone to all this effort of beautifully preparing the animals and building that bond between human and animal to exhibit them, should have the opportunity to do just that. We hit some pretty cold and inclement weather. I think there's a photo kicking around of me hunkering down under a brolly on the edge of the arena. But these kids just soldiered on. It didn't matter how wet it was. It didn't matter how cold it was. They presented the cattle and the goats in the finest of styles. I congratulate everybody associated with this event. It's really important—and this is what country shows do anyhow—that we build the interest in our kids in agriculture and the things that that does for Australia. Beirut: Explosion 16 13:39 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Anyone with Lebanese blood in their veins lives with the heartache of what's happened to Lebanon over the last few decades—the civil war, the bombings, the violence, the assassinations, the interference of foreign powers, the influx of refugees, the corruption, the virus and now this. Anyone with Lebanese blood in their veins won't forget the awful images of that blast or the time they spent afterwards on the phone and online desperately trying to find out if family and friends were alive or dead. But Lebanese Australians are made of tough stuff. They are resilient and generous, and you can see that now in my community, a home for so many Lebanese Australians. Everyone's chipping in, donating and raising money. The Maronite eparchy, the Lebanese Muslim Association, the Melkites and the Lebanese Orthodox community are all working together to raise funds. Human Appeal and Steps of Hope are on the ground in Beirut, helping out as we speak. The federal government is helping as well, and I know that the help is gratefully received. Australian soldiers were in Lebanon in 1941, almost 80 years ago. They helped liberate it. Four hundred and sixteen Australians died in that campaign, and the first of them was a boy from Ballina called Nicholas Koorey, a proud Australian with Lebanese blood in his veins. He's buried in that same city that now needs to be rebuilt, Beirut. Just like those soldiers, Lebanese Australians are doing everything they can to help. SecondBite 17 13:41 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth Let me first associate myself with the comments of the member for Blaxland and extend my condolences to the Australian Lebanese community for the horrific blast in Beirut and all the tragedy and suffering that has ensued. In these tough economic times, many Australians need more help than usual. At times such as these, not-for-profit organisations like SecondBite are more important than ever. SecondBite exist to provide access to fresh, nutritious food for people in need right across Australia. They rescue surplus food from across the retail network and redistribute it, free of charge, to more than 1,300 local charities all around the country, providing food relief to people in need. In my electorate of Wentworth, they're working closely with food charity provider Our Big Kitchen, which turns the surplus food collected by SecondBite into ready-made meals. When I went to visit a few weeks back, Our Big Kitchen told me they had increased meal production by 60 per cent during the COVID-19 pandemic. The additional volume of meals comes as a result of SecondBite's ability to source more food, with the federal government providing increased funding over the past year. Funding provided to SecondBite includes $1 million from the Department of Social Services, for those impacted by the bushfires, as well as $3.2 million to feed some of those impacted by COVID-19. One of my constituents, Julian Martin, was recently appointed the chair of SecondBite, the first Sydney based chair of this organisation. He helped coin their motto, 'Ending waste. Ending hunger.' I wish Julian all the best in his new role. Australian Bushfires 17 13:42 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah This time last year, our horrendous bushfire season started, and it did not relent for months. The fear and shock of the unprecedented ferocity and destruction have been seared into our memories. The Emergency Leaders for Climate Action, made up of 33 retired fire chiefs, with a collective experience of over 600 years of firefighting, emergency management and service to community, took the lead and held a National Bushfire and Climate Summit on what needs to be learnt. The summit concluded with the release of the Australian Bushfire and Climate Plan, which has 165 recommendations to ensure we do not leave communities unprotected again. The recommendations include establishing a domestic aerial firefighting fleet; early detection, warning and intervention systems; and community resilience hubs. Nevertheless, having spoken with former New South Wales fire commissioner Greg Mullins only last week, I know all our strategies and plans to build more resilient communities will be for nothing if we let climate change continue unchecked. Whilst we are in the grips of dealing with the current crisis, the government has a duty to prepare for the greater crisis ahead. Last year the emergency leaders' warnings to this government were not heeded. I urge the government to learn from the mistakes of the past and listen now. The Gap Neighbourhood Watch: Bag Tag Initiative 17 13:44 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan As a community, we all have a role to play in ensuring our kids are safe and well supported. I commend The Gap Neighbourhood Watch on taking practical action to do just that by providing primary and secondary schoolchildren in the Ryan electorate with free bag tags. As well as looking good, the bag tags contain an easy and friendly guide that includes phone numbers that link to appropriate children's welfare, wellbeing and safety services. No matter what kids are dealing with—if they are feeling bullied at school, if they are feeling down or if they want somebody to talk to about what's happening at home—there is a number there that ensures they can get the support they need, and, because it's attached to their schoolbag, it is never far from reach. The Gap Neighbourhood Watch has already successfully supplied almost 1,500 bag tags to Payne Road State School, St Peter Chanel and The Gap State High School. The numbers and information contained in the tags are tailored to each school and age group. Parents are also reporting that it's prompting a conversation at home about mental health and seeking support. The Gap Neighbourhood Watch have partnered with our local Rotary Club of Ashgrove/The Gap to ensure all 2,518 students in The Gap get a bag tag. In July, I was delighted to sit down with volunteers from the Neighbourhood Watch to help assemble the tags and get them out to local students. I want to congratulate Jo Ingram and her dedicated volunteers at the Neighbourhood Watch for their selfless efforts to ensure local kids have the support they need so that, no matter what issue they are going through, they aren't dealing with it alone. Beirut: Explosion 17 13:45 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I stand today to provide my deepest condolences to the people of Beirut and Lebanon after the tragedy that unfolded on 4 August. Werriwa, like many other Australian communities, has strong links to Lebanon. Over 10,000 residents in Werriwa claim Lebanese ancestry, with over 3,500 having been born there. Many still have family, friends and other strong connections to the country. I can only imagine how each of them felt when they saw the devastating news on the morning of 4 August. On the eve of the 75th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those dreadful images, reminiscent of the nuclear blasts, stunned the global community. As in any unfolding emergency disaster, it would have taken several agonising hours for news to come through about the fate of loved ones. I know from calls to my office that it took days before some were able to talk to those loved ones overseas. Devastatingly, the current death toll is over 300, with a further 6,000 injured and more than 300,000 people declared homeless. To put that staggering figure in perspective, that is the population of Wollongong—now displaced and without a home. I extend my personal condolences to each of the families affected by the disaster, especially the parents of Isaac Oehlers, the young Australian who perished in the blast. I also call on the government to continue to provide humanitarian support to assist with the rebuilding and what now needs to happen in Lebanon. Sturt Electorate: Environment 18 13:47 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt Two weeks ago, I was lucky enough to have the Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management, who is also the member for Brisbane, visit my electorate of Sturt. At the moment, happily, travel between South Australia and Queensland is not restricted, so he was able to come to my electorate and visit some of the really important community environment projects which we have funded in my electorate of Sturt, as in all the electorates across the nation. We went to four very important projects. We started at the Black Hill Conservation Park, where we have provided funding for revegetation of ground coverings on what was old farmland and is part of the Hills Face in metropolitan Adelaide. We then went to Loreto College in Marryatville, where we're funding an excellent project with the year 11 biology class to create a seed bank of native seeds. They collect the seeds from along First Creek, which the school campus abuts, in the south of my electorate. We then went to Thorndon Park, which was the original reservoir for early European settlement in Adelaide. It's no longer a reservoir, but it is an important environmental asset in my electorate, and we've been funding a project there which is supporting a bird sanctuary. And then, finally, we went to Kensington Gardens Reserve, where we are creating a wetland to help filter stormwater that comes out of the suburban streets of Adelaide, to create great environmental outcomes in my electorate of Sturt. Beirut: Explosion 18 13:48 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Lebanon is a beautiful country which has experienced far too much tragedy over the years. Yet more tragedy befell Lebanon on 4 August. I'm sure all Australians, including every single member of the House, were shocked and disheartened to see the terrible footage out of Beirut on 4 August. Beirut is a city I know. I know the port. I know the area around the port. I know how built up and developed it is. I know how many thousands of people live around that area, and I know what impact this had. We know that Australia has a strong, vibrant and proud Lebanese diaspora. I know that many Australians of Lebanese heritage spend time in Lebanon each year, visiting their family, and many have a residence also in Lebanon. Our condolences go to every single Lebanese Australian and to the nation of Lebanon, particularly for two-year-old Isaac Oehlers, the cute, adorable little boy who lost his life in the blast, one of the 154 people who were killed in this blast. It has been compared to a nuclear explosion in the middle of one of the world's most significant cities. I want to pay my respects to all who lost their lives and to send my condolences to all. To all my constituents of Lebanese heritage, whether they live in Guildford, Granville, Yennora or anywhere else in my electorate, our thoughts are with you. I want to pay tribute to the Australian embassy, to the ambassador, Rebekah Grindlay, to all the staff, who've worked so hard, and their families, like the ambassador's husband, Darren Lim. All have contributed to supporting Australians in Lebanon, and we thank them for their service. Forde Electorate: Ormeau Lions Club 18 13:50 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde We all have great community organisations in our electorates, and one of the great ones in my electorate of Forde is the Lions Club of Ormeau. They operate the only Driver Reviver site on the Gold Coast. Ormeau in the northern gateway to the Gold Coast and welcomes thousands of visitors each year. Whether it be holiday-makers, grey nomads or families coming down from Brisbane for a weekend on the coast, the Ormeau Lions are there to greet them with a warm cuppa, lots of smiles and conversation. Driver Reviver sites like the ones at Ormeau are particularly important tools in promoting road safety, because they encourage drivers to rest and take a much-needed break. Lions members Mary and Barry McGrath, who live just down the road at Ormeau, not far from the site, were there at the very beginning, 27 years ago, when the Ormeau Lions Club built the Driver Reviver site with their own bare hands and have, since, tirelessly volunteered their time to run the Driver Reviver site there at Ormeau. I was pleased to bring along the Assistant Minister for Road Safety, the member for Wright, to visit the site, recently, to announce $20,000 in funding for high-impact mobile signage. This signage is designed to promote road safety messages and encourage drivers to stop and take that much needed break. The value is, they'll be able to put it on the freeway. Thank you to all the volunteers, to Mary and Barry and the whole team, for the work that they do. Beirut: Explosion 19 13:52 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I rise today to offer my sincere condolences to the people of Lebanon and the Lebanese community here in Australia for the grief and loss they continue to experience following the tragedy, in Beirut, on 4 August. This is an unimaginable tragedy, an ongoing one that affects everyone in the Lebanese community here and right around the world. For a community that has such strong family connections, many count loved ones among the more than 200 dead, the 6,000 injured and the 300,000 people who are now homeless. We have a strong vibrant community of Lebanese background in my community. Australians all hold Lebanon in their hearts, and today those hearts are broken. I say to them: I am so sorry that, after all you've endured, you've had to endure this unimaginable event. Your response, your offers of help to Lebanon, has been extraordinary. It's a community, I've come to know, that comes together, a community of strong family, cultural and faith connections that is so generous to each other in the best of times and that comes together, like no other, to support each other in the worst of times. That's what we've seen: individuals, organisations, emergency drop-off locations for donations, warehouses that were filled so they had to pause the donations, pallets of goods leaving for Lebanon, money being raised. Much of the support has been organic, through social media, but backed up through these incredibly strong existing networks and local organisations. It really is quite amazing, and we see the community at its best. I would usually recognise people by name, but every person I've asked— (Time expired) Halifax, Grace 19 13:53 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise in this place to congratulate a very special young woman in my electorate of Higgins: Grace Halifax. She is an eight-year-old student who is passionate about coding and wants other students to learn too. Grace and I met via Zoom and, with the help of her mum, Liz, who is a data engineer, she showed me a very impressive presentation of a coding class she wanted to run for other students, in the electorate of Higgins, during lockdown. Grace asked for my help, and together we launched the 'ABC of Coding' in lockdown Zoom Club. Amazingly, over 250 students across Higgins are now taking part in a six-week course, learning how to code, using the program Scratch. They will also move on to micro.bit and machine learning. Grace runs the class efficiently and competently. She's clearly passionate about teaching her peers the importance of coding and the place that it has in our future. The kids of Higgins love it. Maths is the ABC of coding. Space exploration, health and medical research, international trade, telecommunications and technology development will all need a workforce who know how to code. Investment in STEM will prepare our workforce and give them the skills needed to help our economy grow. Having a workforce proficient in STEM is key. I congratulate Grace on the success of the ABC coding club. I'm sure we haven't heard the last of her. Beirut: Explosion 19 13:55 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I haven't been to Beirut, but the images of that beautiful city shattered earlier this month deeply affected and shook me, because Lebanon and Australia enjoy such a close and important relationship, and that is thanks to the extraordinary contribution to this nation by so many Lebanese Australians. Recent years have brought so much tragedy to Lebanon, but we've seen resilience and generosity from its people in the face of this, including reaching out to those in even more need in that region. I'm very proud to represent in the seat of Scullin so many Lebanese Australians and to enjoy their friendship. I know this is something that is reflected across the northern suburbs of Melbourne and in Sydney and elsewhere. I think in particular of my parliamentary colleague Nazih Elasmar at this time. I'm proud of the extraordinary contribution these people have made to our country. So I join my Labor colleagues at this very difficult time in extending my condolences as the member for Scullin and as Labor's shadow minister for multicultural affairs to the people of Lebanon and Lebanese Australians and to say this: right now we share your grief, we share your sorrow and we stand with you. Fisher Electorate 19 13:56 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Last week, I was finally able to get out of my office and into my community on my second annual Tour de Fisher. I cycled more than 160 kilometres around Fisher and held 16 COVID-safe listening posts in four days. I spoke to more than 60 local residents and met with the Glasshouse Country Chamber of Commerce to promote local business through my Support Sunshine Coast campaign, and I talked cycling safety with Professor Paul Salmon at the University of the Sunshine Coast. I learnt that at this tough time my community agrees on many things. On others, we have diverse views. However, what was clear in every conversation is that Sunshine Coast locals are resilient, they are determined to get through the crisis and they are quietly optimistic that we can build a better Sunshine Coast on the other side of this pandemic. I saw how much people want to support Sunshine Coast businesses, get behind their community and help each other however they can. We should all be very proud of our communities in these difficult days. Thank you very much to everyone who came to speak to me on my tour or gave me a wave on the road. I'll be doing more listening posts in the coming months and will be back on the bike for Tour de Fisher every year that I remain a member of this House. Beirut: Explosion 20 13:58 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I acknowledge all those on this side of the parliament who wanted to advise of their condolences for the tragedy that occurred in Lebanon on 4 August this year. Like many here, I also have a large Lebanese diaspora in my electorate. I know the feeling that's run deep there. I know how difficult it's been for people making phone calls to Beirut, trying to determine the welfare of family, friends and loved ones. I thank the government for their humanitarian efforts. I think more can be done, because one of the things that certainly sit with me is the fact that Lebanon is a small country of only four million people, yet it hosts the largest refugee population per capita in the world. Lebanon currently is hosting in excess of one million people, rising out of the civil war of Syria. So, if that country can be as generous as that to refugees, I think we as part of the international community can show our generosity in looking after the humanitarian interests of those from Lebanon. We see what Lebanese Australians have been able to contribute in this great nation of ours. The SPEAKER 10000 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE COVID-19: Aged Care 20 14:00 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Commonwealth aged-care regulator was informed of a COVID-19 outbreak at St Basil's home on 10 July but never told the Department of Health? 14:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The Minister for Health may wish to add to this answer. A survey, I am advised, was conducted by that commission, which, as you know, is an independent agency. In the course of undertaking that survey, that also confirmed that they were aware of the processes they needed to follow to advise regarding any COVID cases in their facilities. Those requirements had been reinforced on several occasions to all operators about the appropriate process for notifying the Commonwealth of COVID cases in their facilities. The commission did not pass that on to the Commonwealth Department of Health. That is not the process for which COVID cases are advised to the Commonwealth. We were advised by the public health unit in Victoria, and then took immediate action. 14:02 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I'm very happy to add to the Prime Minister's answer. As he said, on 10 July, as part of a survey of facilities right across Victoria, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission staff were advised that there had been a first case in St Basil's. They were also advised, as part of that, that the public health unit was responsible. The public health unit in Victoria, as per the agreement between the Commonwealth and the state, has principal responsibility for advising, and, in addition to that, the facility has responsibility for advising. The subsequent time at which that was advised to the Commonwealth was 14 July. More generally, I think it is important to set out some of the actions taken by the Commonwealth in relation to this. Firstly, with regard to testing, as a consequence of that advice on 14 July, Sonic Healthcare conducted on-site testing on 15, 19, 23, 24 and 28 July, as did Aspen Medical workforce, as clinical first responder, on 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 30 July. A surge workforce was activated on 19 July to assist with the service. It was supplied from a number of sources, including Northern Health. Personal protective equipment was supplied from the National Medical Stockpile on 15, 16, 23, 24, 25 and 30 July. COVID-19: Economy 20 14:03 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House the importance of the Morrison government's plans to grow our economy while protecting Australia from the health effects of coronavirus? 14:03 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook As the member knows, despite the impact of COVID-19 on Australia—which has been significant—Australia has fared better than most of the developed countries in the world not just on a health basis but also on an economic basis. That has been because of the efforts of Australians and the efforts of so many around this country to achieve those outcomes. But it has been principally based around getting the balance right between the health and the economic issues, to ensure that we have always been seeking to save lives and to save livelihoods and get an appropriate assessment of mitigating the risk on both of those, in balance, to ensure we minimise the impact on Australia. The suppression strategy that has been this country's strategy, endorsed by national cabinet and by our own cabinet, from the outset of this outbreak, gets that balance between the two—understanding that we need to live with the virus and that we need to contain community transmission and ensure that we continue to live in an open society with our economy as open as possible. Australians understood the necessity of the measures that were taken throughout March and April because they understood that, at the early stages of this outbreak, we needed to get in place the protections and the supports that were needed to protect against community transmission of the virus in the future. They were also supported with the single largest income support package delivered by a federal government in Australia's history. That was understood. The suppression strategy was based on getting international borders and quarantine arrangements in place to ensure that we were boosting health system preparedness with PPE, respirators, testing kits and all the other things that were necessary to ensure that, should an outbreak of the scale we were seeing at that time, particularly in Europe, hit Australia, our system would be able to deal with it. Those protections were put in place across our health system with the strong support and cooperation of the states and territories. Testing and tracing regimes were put in place, and Australia was leading the world on testing capabilities during those phases. We still retain a very high level of testing. Our industrial tracing, particularly in New South Wales, has been an absolute saviour. COVID-safe behaviour right across the community, with social distancing in workplaces and containing hotspots, is the suppression strategy. But where those things have failed, as they have in Victoria, we have seen significant community outbreak and the most extensive restrictions that any Australian has ever had to live with in this country, including during wartime, and that is of great regret. Our goal should be to reopen Australia again right across the country to live with this virus. COVID-19: Aged Care 21 14:07 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is it correct the Prime Minister waited until the first death of an aged-care resident in Victoria to make masks mandatory for Victorian aged-care workers? 14:07 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The Commonwealth has always followed the medical advice regarding the wearing of masks, whether in aged-care facilities or any other places. COVID-19: Regional Australia 21 14:07 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please inform the House how the McCormack-Morrison government is supporting regional Australia through the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of the restrictions placed on regional communities, particularly in Victoria and Queensland? 14:07 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I do thank the member for Flynn for his question. I know the issue of domestic borders is very important to him and to many others in this place who are seeing their regional communities grapple with these restrictions. Indeed, for our aviation sector and for all of those employed in that sector, state border closures are very much holding back recovery. I note the announcement by Qantas just before question time about further job losses. I empathise with those people who are now finding themselves out of work. We have put in place support measures for those people, and we will continue to support the sector—very much so. When there are issues in Melbourne, local communities around Mildura or Bairnsdale shouldn't have to cop the consequences. Swan Hill is not Swanston Street. When there is a spike in Brisbane, is it fair for businesses in Blackwater or Biloela to face restrictions to their trade? I would argue that it is not. Imposing stage 4 lockdown in a hotspot such as Melbourne is imperative to the containment of the virus. No-one disputes that; we all know that. However, imposing stage 3 restrictions on a blanket basis is, I would argue, unjustifiable. I think we can all agree that you do not fix a health issue in Melbourne by creating an economic downturn in Mildura. Due to stage 4 restrictions in Melbourne, where daily COVID-19 cases reached as high as 730—and that is very, very sad, and we acknowledge that—all of regional Victoria was placed on stage 3 restrictions. These non-targeted restrictions are crippling country communities and regional small businesses, particularly in hospitality and tourism. Many rural communities have not had a COVID case in months—many not at all—yet every business in regional Victoria is hurting because of the cluster based outbreaks of the virus. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't stack up. One city, one state, but affecting all of the nation, particularly hurting regional Victoria and regional Australia in general. Just last week we had the ridiculous situation where Chris Taylor, a farmer from Warracknabeal in Victoria, wanted to take a load of hay to his 1,500 sheep in Euston, just 240 kilometres away across the border in New South Wales. The flock needs crutching and needs attention right now. However, Chris says he was told he would have to truck the 43 tonnes of hay to Melbourne, 340 kilometres away, then fly to Sydney, 880 kilometres, then isolate in Sydney for a fortnight and then truck the hay to his sheep in Euston, 930 kilometres away. That is just ridiculous, and I call on the states to act practically, to act pragmatically, to act with some common sense. This is the type of action that colleagues have been advocating for many weeks, especially the member for Maranoa, the member for Flynn— Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Kingsford-Smith is warned. Mr McCORMACK 219646 and particularly the member for Mallee. I know we have long urged the states to provide the common-sense action our communities in regional Australia are relying on and need right now. COVID-19: Aged Care 22 14:11 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. I ask: is it true that the government undertook no audit of aged-care providers to ensure they had adequate stocks of PPE, despite more than 1,300 requests for access to the National Medical Stockpile by May? 14:11 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders No. That's not the advice that I have. The advice is that we've had multiple engagements with aged-care providers—all aged-care providers—around the country in COVID preparation. There have been six stages to this national plan in relation to the aged-care facilities. The first stage began in January with the appropriate advice to all facilities, at a time before even the first border was closed. We closed the borders to China for a reason: to protect those in aged-care facilities. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission has been in contact and surveyed all aged-care facilities in Australia, not just once but on more than one occasion—on multiple occasions. That's a very important element. In terms of masks and PPE, we have provided facilities across Australia with over 12 million masks and PPE. The advice that I have is where there are requests they are acted upon quickly and expeditiously. The second of the stages was in February, when the Australian pandemic response plan was released. That includes a very strong focus on aged care. Then, on 13 March, stage 3, the CDNA plan for all of Australia, the aged-care national response plan, was released. It went through in extensive detail the PPE. Throughout that time there have been multiple engagements with the national medical survey— An opposition member interjecting— Mr HUNT 00AMV No. All facilities in Australia have been contacted through the course of the pandemic by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission in order to ensure their preparedness. The fourth phase was the provision of workforce support, and the fifth and sixth phases were the updating of the national plan on the basis of international experience and domestic experience. All of those have occurred, including 12 million masks right across the country to aged-care facilities, of which almost 10 million have gone specifically to Victoria. That's included the mandating of masks in Victoria and has included the offer and the ability to provide services where they are required around the country. COVID-19: Economy 22 14:14 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. Warnings from Australia's top climate scientists today reinforce the danger of a gas-led COVID recovery, because the leaking of methane from gas production and pipelines has destroyed the gas cartel's claim that gas is cleaner than coal. There's now widespread opposition to your gas plan, including from former Premier of New South Wales Bob Carr, who says, 'If gas leaks at more than a rate of three per cent, it’s worse than coal.' Prime Minister, do you agree with Bob Carr, and isn't your plan for a so-called gas-led COVID recovery now in tatters? 14:14 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I know who does like our gas plan—the member for Hunter. He likes our gas plan. Maybe he's got a few friends who like our gas plan over there. I suspect there are a few others on the opposition benches who have a different view on what they feel about gas. The policy on gas is a bit confusing. What we know is this: gas is the important transition fuel for the changes in our energy needs for this country for the future. It does two things. The gas that we need for Australian jobs and for Australian industry is also the same gas which firms the renewable technologies that we're putting in our energy sector at record levels that enable the transition. That is why we want to see more of it. We want to get more out of the ground so that we can fuel the jobs that this country needs as we come out of the COVID-19 recession. Opposition members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L Now, I can hear many interjections from the Labor side. I don't know if they're interjecting against each other on gas or against me, such is their confusion when it comes to gas. I suppose they can go down to the OTIS restaurant and get together. Another will go to another restaurant at another place to try and decide what their position on gas is. This government knows that gas is necessary to fuel the recovery that this country will need coming out of the COVID-19 recession. We all support it. We're all behind it. I believe the Australian people will also support it. COVID-19: Victoria 23 14:16 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House the rapid and extensive support the Morrison government is providing to Victorian families and businesses after the COVID-19 pandemic broke out again in the great state of Victoria? 14:16 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Goldstein for his question and congratulate him on his new book—which I understand is available at all good book stores across the country—and also for his strong support for his electorate. More than 6½ million Victorians are doing it very tough. There are Victorians right now who are subject to curfews. There are Victorians who have seen businesses close. There are Victorians who have seen schools close. People can't go to work in Victoria. In Victoria, parents and grandparents are finding it very tough, and kids are not seeing their friends. This is the heavy price being paid by Victorians for the second wave of COVID-19. And there's a huge economic cost as well. It's Treasury's forecast that up to 400,000 Victorians will either lose their jobs or see their hours reduced to zero. That's the equivalent of four MCGs full of people on grand final day. That is 400,000 Victorians who are effectively unemployed as a result of this second wave. The Morrison government is standing with Victorians every step of the way. Already, more than $12 billion has made its way to Victorians through JobKeeper. Around $6 billion has made its way to Victorian businesses with the cash flow boost. And more than $2 billion has gone to Victorian pensioners and others on income support with the two $750 payments. And 575,000 Victorians are currently receiving the $550 coronavirus supplement. Victorians look at New South Wales and ask, 'Why not us?' They look at New South Wales with a lower number of cases and a lower number of deaths and they look at the fact that in New South Wales there have been 315,000 jobs created in recent months. I understand why Victorians are now very concerned by the Victorian government announcing yesterday that it wants to extend the emergency powers for another 12 months. I share those concerns. The Victorian government has to explain its decision. The Victorian government and the Australian government, under Scott Morrison, will work together to support Victorians. At the end of the day, we will do everything to support Victorians to get to the other side of this crisis, but the Victorian government has a lot of questions to answer. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 Members on my left! The member for Barton! Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 Members on my right! Members on both sides! The member for Gorton! We've got some new faces here today. I'd just ask them to reflect on the remarks I made yesterday. I'm not going to be tolerant of interjections during this sitting, for a whole range of reasons, and I've made that very clear. We've all travelled distances to be here, and I appreciate that there is a bit of a roster with people coming in and out, but you'll certainly be out the door if you keep interjecting. I'm now going to call the member for Fraser. COVID-19: Aged Care 23 14:20 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. At the Kalyna aged care facility, six minutes down the road from where I am now, a 95-year-old woman had ants crawling from her open wounds. Staff shortages during a COVID outbreak at the home meant she did not receive the care she needed. She later died. Why didn't the Prime Minister have a plan to stop tragedies like this? 14:21 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The Kalyna Care centre that the member refers to was one of those four centres that I referred to in my remarks yesterday where those outcomes were simply not acceptable. They are four centres out of over 2,700 aged care centres in Australia, and four of those centres have had these absolutely outrageous and unacceptable outcomes. And I have offered my apologies on those already. But I would simply note this: whether in that facility or the other three, where there have been the most significant of these outcomes—in 97 per cent of cases, in all other aged-care facilities in Australia, we have seen no COVID in any of those centres. And I would add that, in Australia, eight per cent of our facilities have had COVID infections involving both residents and staff. In the United Kingdom that figure is 56 per cent—seven times worse. What has happened at Kalyna, St Basil's, Epping Gardens and others is totally unacceptable. But in a global pandemic, and where community transmission reached what it did in Victoria, the fact that in Australia it has been contained despite these terrible tragedies and that it has occurred in other countries like Australia—in the United Kingdom it has occurred at seven times the level we have seen here in Australia—demonstrates that the plan we have put in place has had an impact and it has had a positive impact. The events the member refers to are shocking, they are disturbing, they are upsetting—they were to me at the time when it was relayed to me, as we were working night and day at that time to restore stability into that facility and the three others that were most critically affected. But I'm pleased to at least say that those four cases did not become 100. Those four cases did not become 1,000—because that is what was seen in the United Kingdom. So we will continue to implement the plan. And while there can never be any absolute guarantees, particularly in a once-in-100 years pandemic, we will do everything we can to ensure that what occurred at Kalyna doesn't happen in other facilities. COVID-19: Mental Health 24 14:23 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is supporting the mental health and wellbeing of Australians during the coronavirus pandemic? 14:24 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I thank the member for Robertson and all members of this House who are deeply aware of the mental health impact, on top of the health and economic impacts, of this pandemic on Australians—whether it is in New South Wales or South Australia or Queensland, or in any state or territory, but most particularly in Victoria. We have a state with curfews; we have families—in many cases, single parents with small children, in small flats—being locked down for, effectively, 23 hours a day; we have businesses that have been closed, forcibly; we have the mandatory wearing of masks; we have a five-kilometre movement limit. These are restrictions on people's liberties and lifestyles that are beyond the comprehension of any of us, beyond what any of us could have imagined in a free democratic society like Australia. Given all of those elements, as part of our pandemic mental health plan we've taken three significant steps nationally and three significant steps for Victoria. Recognising that we instituted telehealth as a fundamental reform, a 10-year-plan delivered in 10 days, as part of that there are now over 26½ million services, a vast number of which have been for mental health—and, in particular, for specific mental health items—and we've seen 35 per cent of all mental health items since 16 March and since the expansion on 30 March delivered over telehealth. That's part of a $1.1 billion package. We've delivered support services. In particular, we announced $74 million with a focus on Beyond Blue, Lifeline, Kids Helpline, headspace and the Digital Health Agency. The pandemic response plan included $48 million and a further $20 million for research, with a particular focus of $19 million for older Australians, building on the $87 million we had for those older Australians with mental health challenges who are in residential care. In Victoria, where those restrictions beyond what any of us could ever have imagined in this country, on our watch, in our time, are in place right now—and yesterday's news has been confronting for so many Victorians, in terms of the 12-month extension—we've doubled funding for the Better Access plan. In youth support, there's $12 million for service surge capacity to Victorians, including $5 million for headspace, with a particular focus on years 11 and 12; and 15 mental health clinics—nine in metropolitan areas and six in rural areas. These are actions on top of what we're doing in Health to help save lives and protect lives and that I hope command the support of every member of this House. COVID-19: Aged Care 24 14:27 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin My question is to the Prime Minister. Epping Gardens in my electorate is the site of Australia's worst aged-care coronavirus outbreak. More than 20 residents have died. At the height of the outbreak, just six rostered staff were available to care for 115 residents, many of them already ill with COVID. Why didn't the Prime Minister have a plan to stop tragedies like this? 14:27 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Epping Gardens was one of the other facilities of the four that I have already mentioned in my earlier answers to this House. And, as was the case with Epping Gardens and other places, once advised of the situation, the officials and health officers and others moved very quickly to restore the workforce and to provide whatever supports were necessary right across that facility, conducting the testing, and conducting the transfers to private and other hospitals—facilitated by the private health agreement put in place by the Minister for Health with private hospitals right across the country—to ensure that, in those cases, for the people who were affected by this terrible event at Epping Gardens and the other facilities that I've nominated, we were able to stabilise the facility as soon as could be practically achieved. The events that have occurred in these four centres in particular, that have occurred in Victoria, are terrible outcomes, as I've already mentioned, and we deeply regret the terrible events that have occurred to those individuals. What it reminds us is that, in the vast majority of cases, the plans that have been put in place have been effective. But, in specific cases, that is the day when the viruses got the better of those centres and the arrangements around those, and the reason for that is that the level of community transmission that has occurred in Victoria cannot be underestimated. The reason we haven't seen that level of distress in those facilities in seven other states and territories is that we have not seen that community outbreak in those states and territories. As I just mentioned in my answer to the last question, we have seen these outbreaks in other countries—in the United Kingdom, we have seven times the impact in aged-care facilities as compared to Australia. In those four cases, it is our deep regret, as I'm sure it is of everyone who has been involved and working to try to support those facilities, but the plan we put in place enabled us to stabilise that facility as quickly as possible, and that facility was ultimately stabilised and residents were fully transferred out of those centres. The government will continue to apply this plan. As we said, the number of critical facilities has been reduced from 13 to three as a result of putting those plans in action in those circumstances. And we will continue to do that. But, for those who were impacted, particularly the families of residents, the communication support that was put in place by Services Australia to ensure that we were reaching all of those families and providing outward calls was part of the plan, and that was put in place to deal with the most extreme of circumstances. I want to thank all of the staff who turned up to work, who were able to source and get into that facility, and the Defence Force personnel who went into the facility to make that situation as stable as we possibly could under the circumstances. COVID-19: Education 25 14:30 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Education. Would the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government is supporting students during this difficult time, including through the provision of mental health support? 14:31 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I thank the member for Boothby for her question. I know I speak for all members in this House when I say to all students: we understand the difficulties that you've been facing this year, in particular the challenges that year 12 students are facing. This year has looked like no other for you—the idea of going to formals, looking forward to schoolies, having the uncertainty as to when your exams might be, and, earlier in the year, not knowing whether there might be mass repeating, not understanding whether there might be a year 13 that you would have to undertake. These have been incredibly trying times for you. In Victoria in particular, where students haven't had face-to-face contact with teachers and haven't been able to go to school, it's been extraordinarily difficult. Things have been happening where they've had to ask questions, where they've have had to seek help. I know that parents right across the board have been working with their students to make sure that they understand what is happening. I had a call from a student yesterday when the state of emergency was extended for 12 months, saying, 'What does this mean for me? Does this mean that I might not be able to get back to school for another year?', and I was having to allay those types of fears. What the government has done is put in a range of measures to help and support students. The health minister, with Beyond Blue, has worked with the department of education to put in place Be You, the National Education Initiative, which provides teachers and students with help and support. This includes information to help early learning communities look after children's and their own mental health. There's been a 70 per cent uptake by schools of this resource. I say to all those other schools: please, look at this very important resource. The Australian government has a student wellbeing hub, found at studentwellbeinghub.edu.au, which has a range of measures to help students deal with COVID-19. There is also hope for students. As the Treasurer said yesterday, 150,000 jobs have been created recently for young people, so there will be employment opportunities. We are also providing extra places in vocational education, which will be really important as well, and in higher education. So employment opportunities, vocational education opportunities and higher education opportunities will be there for you when you finish this year. (Time expired) COVID-19: Aged Care 26 14:34 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand My question is for the Prime Minister. More than 50 COVID-19 cases have been linked to the Doutta Galla aged-care centre in Yarraville in my electorate. Sandra, whose father Wilhelm was a resident who died in the outbreak, responded to the Prime Minister's claim of a plan by asking, 'What was this plan? If there was a plan, it was not implemented properly, or maybe it was the wrong plan.' Why wasn't there a plan to keep Sandra's father and others like him safe from COVID-19? 14:34 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Again, we acknowledge the very significant and severe impacts at, in this case, Doutta Galla Yarraville Village. The village notified the Department of Health of one staff member having contracted COVID on 31 July of this year. The Department of Health organised tailored support as soon as this notification occurred. The Department of Health also immediately organised the testing of all residents and staff at the Doutta Galla Yarraville Village, and this was conducted on 1 August. The clinical first responder nurse attended on 4 August 2020. The Australian government provided surge staff from 6 August and continues to do so. This is in addition to the assistance of the Victorian DHHS through the Western Health service, who have been critical supports for those health services into these aged-care facilities as part of our partnership arrangement with the Victorian government. The service has also been provided with specialist infection control support through the deployment of hazmat teams. The Australian government has also ensured that families remain engaged and has arranged for the Older Persons Advocacy Network to provide support to families and residents throughout the outbreak. However, approved providers of residential aged-care facilities, like Doutta Galla aged care, have a responsibility to residents and their families to ensure that quality care continues to be provided. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission is working to actively ensure that providers' obligations are met and that all impacted aged-care services in Victoria, including at Doutta Galla Yarraville Village, are receiving assistance from the government, including a case manager, PPE, testing support and workforce support. Even though I'm sure those facts would be welcome, I know they will not console those who have lost loved ones and been impacted by these terrible events, and that's why the government have offered our condolences and our apologies where these instances have occurred. But I stress again that this is a terrible pandemic. This has been a terrible outbreak of the virus in Victoria. We cannot ignore that fact in this place. We cannot pretend that these events would have occurred without the community outbreak that occurred in Melbourne and in Victoria. That is why, as the Minister of Health was saying earlier, the way to avoid all of this ultimately is to ensure that we make the outbreak containment measures, the protection around quarantine and the testing and tracing, all of which have been brought into question here. That has led to the community outbreak in Victoria, and that ultimately ends with terrible circumstances like those you've described. COVID-19 26 14:37 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on the state of the global coronavirus pandemic and how Australia's COVID strategy compares internationally? 14:37 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Moncrieff, who is focused very strongly on maintaining health care and the activities within her electorate and supporting her electorate residents during the course of the pandemic. Globally now, this pandemic has reached over 23½ million people. Sadly, over 811,000 lives have been lost. In Australia now, 25,053 cases have been formally diagnosed and 525 lives have been lost. Today there were 151 new cases, one in hotel quarantine. There were six states and territories with zero; one state, New South Wales, with two cases in the community; and one state with 148. That's Victoria. That reflects the trend that we have seen since 1 June. On 1 June, there were 7,370 cases in Victoria. That has grown to over 25,000 cases now, or an increase of 17,683 cases. I say that because 16,811, or 95 per cent of the increase in Australian cases since 1 June, have come from one state, overwhelmingly from one city, and overwhelmingly from one part of one city. Ninety-nine per cent of lives lost since 1 June have been lost in Victoria. So this is very much, sadly and tragically, the issue of one city in one state above all else. Mr Husic interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Chifley! Mr HUNT 00AMV In particular, what we have seen in Victoria— Mr Husic 91219 He should withdraw, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Chifley will cease interjecting or he won't be here. The minister has the call. Mr HUNT 00AMV We have seen a 1,000 per cent growth in cases in one state. No other state has had more than 25 per cent growth over the course of the last three months. But what we have done as a country—when we look around the world at those figures—is we have seen a containment strategy based on borders, with 94,000 people that have been through the hotel quarantine program and 2,269 positive cases that have been detected and prevented, through that hotel quarantine program, from escaping into the community. In seven out of eight states and territories, it has worked remarkably well. We know the tragic consequences in one. We have done 5.8 million tests. It is one of the world's leading testing programs, according to the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. With tracing, seven out of eight states and territories have had an extraordinary response, and the difference between Victoria and New South Wales has been the public health units' tracing program. It has prevented an outbreak on a catastrophic scale. Distancing has also been used to protect. All these things have come together to protect Australia. Where two of those elements have not been in place, sadly we have seen tragedies in Victoria. COVID-19: Aged Care 27 14:41 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is to the Prime Minister. Is it correct, as the aged-care royal commission heard, that Australia has 'one of the highest rates in the world of residential aged-care deaths as a proportion of deaths from COVID-19'? 14:41 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'll ask the Minister for Health to add to this answer. What we know is that, because Australia has been so successful in ensuring that fatalities resulting from COVID-19 more broadly across the population, then clearly those in residential aged-care facilities, who are the most vulnerable, are going to have a higher proportion. The only figure I need to point you to to demonstrate that is that in New Zealand that rate is even higher, at over 70 per cent. And I don't think anyone in this House would be suggesting that in New Zealand, as opposed to Australia, they have had a worse experience or they have had a less-prepared arrangement than we have here in Australia. So, if the member opposite wants to make that allegation, we've made this point very clear to the royal commission. The evidence provided by the secretary of Health was very clear that that was a use of statistics which was highly misleading, and for the member to repeat it here in this place I don't think reflects well on her understanding of these issues. But I'll ask the Minister for Health to add to that. 14:42 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I'm very happy to add to the answer from the Prime Minister. The international data comparison has built on what was provided to the royal commission. The percentage of lives lost amongst those in residential aged care in Australia—one life lost would have been a tragedy in any country—is, sadly, 0.18 per cent. In Canada it is 1.5 per cent, or over six times or 600 per cent of the Australia figure. In France it is 2.4 per cent, or over 1,300 per cent of the Australian figure. In Spain it is 2.5 per cent, or just over 1,300 per cent of the Australian figure. In Ireland it is 3.2 per cent, or 1,600 per cent of the Australian figure. In Italy it is 3.2 per cent, or 1,600 per cent of the Australian figure. In Austria it is 4.9 per cent of all aged-care residents who have passed away, or approximately 2,800 per cent of the Australian figure. In the United Kingdom it is 16,598 residents that have passed away, which is approximately 5.3 per cent of all residents in aged-care facilities, approximately 3,000 per cent of the Australian figure. COVID-19: National Coordination Mechanism 27 14:44 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom My question is for the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister outline to the House how the National Coordination Mechanism has been helping to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic by working with states and territories to resolve logistical issues and keep Australians healthy and safe? 14:44 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the member for Groom very much for his question. As all Australians recall, when the federal government responded in March not only did we provide significant support to families and small businesses to help them through this terrible time but we also did a significant amount of work to help our supermarkets remain stocked and to make sure that produce and products, whether they were produced domestically or imported, were able to travel around the country. We stood up, on 5 March, the National Coordination Mechanism, which was a task force brought together within the Department of Home Affairs. I want to commend the work, in particular, of a deputy secretary of my department, Paul Grigson, and all those who work with him, who have really gone above and beyond to work with their state counterparts, to work on these issues where there needed to be coordination between the states, territories and the Commonwealth to make sure that we could deal with issues as they arose on a daily basis. In many of those meetings, where I was able to chair with the CEOs of the supermarkets, we were able to deal with issues, particularly where particular product lines were out of stock and there was panic within some parts of the Australian community. We were able to resolve those issues as quickly as possible. Obviously, that work continued and there were referrals made by the national cabinet to the NCM to make sure that they could work through those issues. It is true that most of those issues were resolved. We were able to work with the states and territories. My assumption was that we were able to move beyond the necessity for the NCM to continue its work. But it's been obvious that, with the events in Victoria, we've had to make sure that the NCM works very closely to address the issues that have arisen in Victoria. Obviously, we don't have those concerns in New South Wales or WA or the Northern Territory or Queensland et cetera, but we have had significant problems to address and assistance that has been required by Victoria to help coordinate again the movement of freight, in particular between Victoria and New South Wales, across that border, in a COVID-safe way. I want to make sure that we send a very clear message to all Australians, which is that we will continue to do whatever we can, particularly from the Home Affairs portfolio, to keep Australians safe. Obviously, the Home Affairs portfolio and the department play a very key part in facilitating trade into and out of Australia and in supporting the states and territories through the pandemic, particularly at the moment with what has happened in Victoria, with the problems around hotel quarantining and the failings or otherwise in Victoria. We have been able to step up with the NCM. I commend all of the officers who have been involved in helping to bring the taskforce together to resolve issues as they arise. COVID-19: Aged Care 28 14:47 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Why has the Prime Minister, yesterday and again today, continued to spin that 97 per cent of aged-care facilities don't have an outbreak of COVID-19, when this has resulted in more than 300 aged care residents losing their lives, 10 aged-care homes in Victoria experiencing more than 100 cases and more than 1,100 aged-care residents battling COVID-19 as we meet here in this parliament today? 14:48 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook All of the facts that the Leader of the Opposition has just referred to, particularly in relation to the terrible fact of the 335 deaths in residential aged care—the seven home-care recipients—the government has acknowledged all of these. But it is also true that in 97 per cent of cases of the more than 2,700 aged-care facilities in this country there have been no COVID infections. It is also true that when you combine those facilities in Australia that have had staff infections as well as resident infections, that is eight per cent in Australia and in the UK it is 56 per cent, which is seven times worse. I'm happy for facts to be brought before this place, but it would seem that the Leader of the Opposition is not happy for this fact to also be understood. The fact is that, while COVID has taken a terrible toll on the lives of 335 Australians in residential aged care and seven home-care recipients, the plan that we put in place, the arrangements that we have been able to deliver on the ground and the work that we have been able to do in partnership with state and territory governments have saved lives and saved livelihoods. The figures that were just cited by the Minister for Health comparing Australia's outcome to those overseas are important encouragement and hope for Australians. They demonstrate that here in this country, despite the terrible toll for those who have suffered, were it not for the way Australia has dealt with this together, we would have been seeing far-worse situations. It is true that in Victoria we're seeing the worst of it. The protective measures that were put in place and built up as part of that national strategy employed by all states and territories have failed in Victoria. That is true. The testing, tracing and quarantine arrangements have proven to be unacceptable and have led to what we have seen with community outbreak in Victoria. And that has resulted in the heaviest restrictions we have ever seen. We want to see those restrictions come off and we're doing everything we can to help Victoria right the situation and stabilise the situation so it can be opened up again. But these restrictions that we are seeing across our country must be the last resort, not the first resort. The testing, the tracing, the quarantine, the COVID-safe measures, the outbreak containment—that is what enables Australia to live alongside this virus without destroying livelihoods, as we are seeing in New South Wales right now. That state has faced equal risks—and, I would argue, even more risks than we have seen in all other states and territories—but their system has withstood. That means they can keep businesses open— (Time expired) COVID-19: Agriculture 28 14:51 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison-McCormack government is backing Australia's agricultural workforce to help support our regional communities, especially in Victoria, through the COVID-19 pandemic? 14:52 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the member for Mallee not just for her question but for her passionate representation of her electorate and regional Victoria, with the hard borders that have been imposed on regional Victorians. She has been ably supported by Senator McKenzie, the member for Nicholls, the member for Gippsland and Senator Davey in bringing to national attention the impact this is having on agricultural production systems and supply chains but also human health. There have been tragic stories that the member for Mallee has passionately brought forward, which have then seen leadership from the states, working with the federal government, to rectify them in a passionate way. I thank the member and her colleagues for their representation. It is important to understand that our agricultural production systems are integrated, particularly on the east coast, and workforce plays an integral part in that. That's why we continue to work with the states to understand that city-centric solutions don't necessarily cut it in regional and rural Australia and making sure we can retrofit some of the restrictions that have been put in place, to understand the nuances that are needed to keep our supply chains moving and to make sure food and fibre remain on shelves every time we go to the shops. That's why we'll continue to work with the states on practical solutions to achieving that. I would have to say that the chief medical officer in Queensland has in fact shown some leadership on that. I challenge all the chief medical officers to go out and listen and understand regional communities, understand the needs of local agricultural production systems and listen to local leaders. The chief medical officer in Queensland listened to the local mayor in Goondiwindi, Lawrence Springborg, and opened up the borders between Queensland and New South Wales to allow farmers who have properties on both sides of the border to go across and attend to their crops and also, importantly, for animal welfare. Regional and rural Australia have evolved past lines on a map that were put in place over 100 years ago. Modern-day regional Australia is fully integrated and it needs to be supported with practical, commonsense solutions. I congratulate the Queensland chief medical officer for that understanding. I understand that the South Australian government will be making some announcements today in terms of loosening their restrictions in a practical, commonsense way that keeps us safe. That's what this is about—keeping us safe but using practical solutions that keep the country moving. That's an important step in understanding what we do. And this is going to hit a real peak, particularly as we get towards the end of the year. As we get into warmer months— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Bruce and the member for Solomon. Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 the demand on seasonal workers will be even greater. The government worked in March to extend the term of those from the Pacific and seasonal visa holders to be able to go for another 12 months if they work in agriculture, a critical industry. And we've put in place a pilot in the Northern Territory—177 mango pickers came in and we've been able to assist that industry in a practical way. Mr Gosling interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Solomon will leave under 94(a). The member for Solomon then left the chamber. Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 This is about practical solutions, making sure those jobs are market tested where Australians get first crack at them. Where they can't and we need support we'll give practical solutions to support Australian farmers to put their food and fibre on your shopping shelves. Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians 29 14:55 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his decision to remove aged-care minister Richard Colbeck from decisions to activate new aged-care emergency measures. Isn't this a declaration of no confidence in the capacity of Minister Colbeck to do his day job? If that's the case, why is this minister still there? 14:55 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The member's question only indicates his lack of understanding about how advice from the AHPPC is dealt with by the Minister for Health. The report today, I note—and I will ask the Minister for Health to add further to the answer—does not reflect how those processes are normally handled. They have been handled in the way they always are. I speak to the minister for aged care every single day. He is part of the hook-up that we have with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the health minister and myself, in particular reviewing aged-care issues on a daily basis, which we have been doing for some time. The minister for aged care is regularly providing briefings to the Expenditure Review Committee of cabinet, as more than a billion dollars has been added to our COVID support in aged care, and, in addition to that, providing briefings to the National Security Committee of cabinet where those matters have been relevant to his portfolio. Over these many months the minister for aged care has been responsible for the outcomes that I referred to earlier, which have seen Australia be in a position where 97 per cent of facilities in this country, despite the significant community outbreak in Victoria, which the Leader of the Opposition has a blind spot on—the Leader of the Opposition believes that in Victoria there's nothing going on when it comes to community transmission, that there has been no failure of quarantine, that there has been no failure of tracing. The Leader of the Opposition seems to think that everything is okay in Victoria, and that there have only been challenges in aged care. The Leader of the Opposition has a blind spot on Victoria. What we are doing is addressing the challenges that have resulted from the outbreak in community transmission in Victoria— Mr Bowen interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for McMahon is now warned! Mr MORRISON E3L and the minister for aged care has been acquitting his responsibilities in those areas. The Minister for Health may wish to add further. 14:57 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I'm pleased to add to the Prime Minister's answer. The very simple response is that what was done was a matter of course. The AHPPC, which was reporting through the Chief Medical Officer to the secretary of Health, who reports to the Minister for Health, used an ordinary procedure—that is, the ordinary case event. More broadly, though, what we have seen is four key pillars established as part of this response: one, a public hospitals agreement; two, a private hospitals agreement; three, a surge workforce approach; and, four, a testing approach for every facility in Australia that needs it. All of those four pillars were critically developed in conjunction with, in many cases, the leadership of the minister for aged care. (Time expired) COVID-19: Workplace Relations 30 14:58 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations: Will the Attorney please update the House on how the Morrison government's temporary industrial relations flexibility will support businesses to get through the COVID-19 pandemic and grow jobs on the other side? 14:59 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the member for his question and his interest in this area. In April this year our government made it possible for employers to give what were called JobKeeper enabling directions. The purpose of those directions was, simply put, to save jobs. They could be directions on hours, on duties or on locations of work, and they were all based on need. Linking the flexibilities to need provided the reason but also the great safeguard for those flexibilities. For instance, an employee's hours would only be able to be reduced if the employee cannot be usefully employed, for the employee's normal days or hours, because of changes linked to COVID-19. In the six-month period that JobKeeper No. 1 was active, and is active, somewhere up to 3½ million employees would have, potentially, fallen under the subject of that new IR flexibility. Common sense tells us that those flexibilities would have saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, because the worst possible thing that you can do to a struggling business is force it to pay for staff to do work that doesn't exist—because of COVID-19. If you look at what has happened, restaurants and cafes, who would have had their turnover totally collapse and might have lost 70 per cent of their turnover, simply couldn't employ everyone for their standard hours, because the work just wasn't there. To measure how well that system worked, one piece of evidence is the fact that disputes could be sent to the Fair Work Commission. You've had, potentially, up to 3½ million employees covered by this system. There were only 667 disputes lodged with the Fair Work Commission, an absolutely tiny number of the millions of employees who would have been covered by this system. The obvious problem we now face is, with JobKeeper No. 2 coming online, what do you do with a business that might have been down in its turnover by 70 per cent, and might be recovering and trading out of trouble, but still has a downturn that's not quite up to 30 per cent? It might have been 70 per cent down on its turnover and now it's 20 per cent down on its turnover. Having them need to also be able to direct their employees down to the number of hours of work that are actually available, to allow it to trade out of the problem, is critical. What we're doing is saying that for another six months flexibilities will be available in a more modest form. If you're on JobKeeper, if you're now doing better but you're not quite out of the woods—so you've got 10 to 30 per cent down in your turnover—you can direct someone down in their hours of work to meet the work that is actually available, but subject to safeguards. You can't direct someone down beneath 60 per cent, and, importantly, the same fundamental safeguard exists. The test is: the employee cannot be usefully employed for the employee's normal days or hours because of changes linked to COVID-19. What is that going to mean? That is going to mean flexibilities continue and jobs will be saved. (Time expired) Superannuation 31 15:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to Australia's ageing population. Why is the government not only neglecting older Australians of today in aged care but also neglecting older Australians of tomorrow, through the reduction of more than 600,000 superannuation accounts to zero, and pensioners of today and tomorrow by freezing the pension for the first time in 23 years? 15:02 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Those opposite never seem to understand that people's superannuation investments belong to them, not to industry fund managers. They bristle and they resist every single time there may be any suggestion that those own savings—their own savings—they may wish to use themselves, including during a pandemic— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The Prime Minister will just pause for a second. I shouldn't have to remind members every 15 minutes of what I've said about interjections. I'm not upset about it; I will just remove members. We are in different circumstances, and if they can't understand the import of that and why I'm taking this action they'll have to figure it out back in their offices. That applies to both sides. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L One of the many measures that our government put in place to support people through this pandemic was to ensure they could get access to their own savings, their own money, in their own superannuation accounts, to ensure that they could make their way through with their own resources, on top of the other resources that were being made available to the largest income supports that a government has ever put in place in this country. But those opposite think it's their money. They think it's union fund managers' money, to determine how it's done, how many fees they have to pay. Just today, in the Senate, the 'Your Super, Your Choice' legislation was passed. It's important legislation which understands that people's superannuation money is their money—not the Labor Party's, not the industry fund manager's, not any fund manager's. We believe it belongs to them because they worked for it, they earned it, they saved it. And when they need it in a time of pandemic we're going to make sure they can get access to it. Those opposite reject that. They resist it. They turn up here like puppets on a string on behalf of the union fund managers and they trot out the lines on their behalf. But we have a message for them: it's not your money. We won't let you take it from those who've earned it when they need it. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Sydney is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L We'll make it available to them, as we have made it available to them. Do you know what they're doing with it? They're ensuring that they can pay down their mortgages and they can protect their homes, that they can pay independent school fees, that they can look after and pay down their debt, that they can pay their rent, that they can look after their kids. Those opposite want to keep the hard-earned savings of Australians away from them when they need it most and have them tucked up in the industry fund by union fund managers as they count their directors fees. COVID-19: Great Barrier Reef 31 15:05 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is supporting local communities located along the Great Barrier Reef as they face the economic challenges that have arisen from the COVID pandemic? 15:06 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I thank the member for Ryan for his question. As a Queenslander, he knows the importance of the Great Barrier Reef and its communities to every single Australian. Whether it be Indigenous sea rangers spearing crown-of-thorns starfish or a tropical paradise where you can swim, snorkel, sail, dive or explore the ancient Daintree rainforest against an unforgettable natural marine environment, the reef is extraordinary. It normally contributes $6.4 billion annually to the national economy and generates 64,000 jobs. We're providing much-needed relief to regional economies along the Great Barrier Reef. We know they depend on tourism and are facing unprecedented circumstances with COVID-19. We've acted in several key areas. We've waived permit fees for tourism businesses till June 2021. We've waived lease payments on Commonwealth owned islands. We've committed funding to Reef HQ in Townsville—I know the member for Herbert will be on my case to do more for this great natural display of marine life that provides education and jobs in his main city. We're building on the $27 million towards Reef HQ in December last year. Through legislation recently passed in the parliament, tourism operators do not have to remit the charge collected from visiting tourists—the so-called environment management charge. The members for Dawson and Leichhardt worked hard and helped to make this possible. Indeed, the Whitsunday charter boat association described it as more of a godsend than we realise. Our fantastic reef envoy, the member for Leichhardt, can't be here today—he's with his community in North Queensland. He said: Combined with other economic support packages like JobKeeper, this has ensured reef tourism operators have been able to retain staff until we return to some semblance of normality. It has helped save jobs that would otherwise have been lost and it also provides financial relief to people who have spent a lifetime establishing world-class tourism operations. These short-term economic measures complement our ongoing commitments to the reef, which are benchmarked against global standards. Our management is recognised as a leading example and is considered by many to be the gold standard, according to a UNESCO report. We are investing $1.9 billion in the Reef 2050 Plan and, as the Treasurer has said, our economic supports, whether they be JobKeeper or what we're providing through the relief and recovery fund, are all about keeping businesses viable and keeping Australians in jobs so we can come out the other side stronger and successful and, in this case, showcase this extraordinary national wonder to the world. COVID-19: Aged Care 32 15:09 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. Is it correct that the Prime Minister waited until 25 July to announce the Victorian Aged Care Response Centre, well after high levels of community transmission in Victoria had taken hold, after 294 Victorian aged-care residents had been infected and after 26 aged-care residents in Victoria had died? 15:09 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Over the course of the many months since March, there were responses, as I articulated to the House earlier this week, undertaken to put in place the plan that was pulled together in March and then refreshed on several occasions leading up to the events which the shadow minister has made reference to. Preparations were underway to bring together that Victorian Aged Care Response Centre, and it was established at the time that the member has raised in his question. All through this crisis, though, and, indeed, before that time, engagement between the Victorian government and the Commonwealth government was being undertaken to provide the response that was necessary in these centres and consistent with the plan. Employment 32 15:10 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid My question is to the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's urban infrastructure program is boosting the economy and creating thousands of jobs as we come out of the other side of coronavirus? 15:10 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I thank the member for Reid for her question. As she knows, COVID has had a devastating impact on the economy right across the country and particularly on jobs. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost and even more will be lost in Victoria, as the Treasurer has outlined. This has an enormous impact on individuals' lives, livelihoods and—as the member for Reid knows, as a trained psychologist—mental health as well. One of the ways that we are supporting the COVID recovery is through a massive investment in job-creating infrastructure. As members would know, we already have a $100 billion pipeline of infrastructure projects across the country, and that, even today, is supporting 85,000 jobs in those projects which are already underway. Since then, we've announced so many more projects which will get started shortly, and that will be tens of thousands of jobs more. These will be jobs right across our great continent, including in our great capital cities. For example, in the member for Reid's home city of Sydney, we've got some enormous projects which are underway or just about to kick off. The Western Sydney rail, which we announced just a few weeks ago, in itself will create thousands of jobs—an extra 14,000 jobs. The Western Sydney Airport, of course, is supporting 10,000 jobs itself. The WestConnex project, of which one stage is done and the next stage is starting, supports a further 10,000 jobs also. In my home state of Victoria, which has been so particularly devastated by this second wave, we've got huge investments going on. The massive North East Link, where we have a $1.75 billion investment, will create 10,000 jobs as a standalone project itself, before the M80 investments, the Monash investments and so many other projects which we have going on in Victoria. And then, of course, there's the North-South Corridor in Adelaide and the METRONET in Perth. There's the Bridgewater Bridge in Hobart and the M1 up in Queensland. All of these other great projects are supporting jobs. And these jobs aren't just supporting individuals—of course, they do support them to have a living, get out of bed and go to work each day—but also support local companies who are doing the work in each of these capital cities across the country. These are not just local construction companies but the associated services as well: the cafes and all the other support services that assist the tradies when they're doing that work. We have a massive program underway: 85,000 jobs already and 10,000 more. It's a critical part of our COVID recovery. Mr Morrison E3L On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 33 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS COVID-19: Aged Care 33 15:13 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I seek to add further to two answers. The SPEAKER 10000 Yes. Mr MORRISON E3L In relation to the question raised by the member for Fraser in relation to the Kalyna Care COVID-19 outbreak, I note the following information. Kalyna Care notified the Department of Health that they had a positive case on 27 July 2020. The Department of Health organised clinical first responders, nurse testing, workforce support and PPE as soon as this notification occurred. The spread of the virus at Kalyna Care occurred because a COVID-positive staff member that worked in the kitchen had contact with a large number of residents prior to being diagnosed with the virus. Testing of staff and residents by Sonic commenced at Kalyna Care the day after the department was notified: 28 July. The Australian government responded to each request from Kalyna Care for workforce support and provided a range of surge staff from 31 July onwards. The majority of positive residents remain at the facility. The Australian Defence Force and leadership of Djerriwarrh Health Services are assisting with facility management. The Department of Health and the Victorian Aged Care Response Centre is continuing to provide intensive support to Kalyna Care until the outbreak is resolved. However, approved providers of residential aged-care facilities, like the Ukrainian Elderly Peoples Home, have a responsibility, obviously, to their residents, as I have noted in the other cases. In relation to the question raised by the member for Scullin, Heritage Care Epping Gardens notified the Department of Health that they had a positive case on 20 July. The Department of Health organised a case manager, a clinical first responder, testing, workforce support and PPE as soon as this notification occurred. I understand that the spread of the virus at Epping Gardens occurred because a COVID-positive staff member had contact with a large number of residents prior to being diagnosed with the virus. Testing of staff and residents commenced at Epping Gardens on the same day the positive COVID-19 case was identified. That was 19 July. I note that media reports that the outbreak was due to a lack of testing are not correct. The Australian government responded to each test from Epping Gardens for workforce support and provided a range of surge staff from 21 July on onwards. While some residents remain at the facility, the majority of the residents at Epping Gardens have been transferred to hospital. The Department of Health and the Victorian Aged Care Response Centre will continue to provide intensive support to Epping Gardens until this outbreak is resolved. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 33 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER COVID 19: Western Australian Border Closure 33 15:16 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Mr Speaker, I have a question, through you. While question time has been on, the Federal Court have handed down their judgement on WA border restrictions. They refuse to order a new trial, upon the application of the WA government, based upon— 15:16 The SPEAKER 00APG Leader of the Opposition— An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I don't need any interjections. I think I could sit here for a long time and get to the same conclusion I'm at: this has got nothing to do with me. Mr Albanese R36 It has, to the extent that I'm saying that the Attorney-General might want to give a ministerial statement, either today or tomorrow, on the outcome of the WA— The SPEAKER 00APG No, the Leader of the Opposition will need to resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition is raising a matter that could really only have been raised in question time, and the Prime Minister has asked that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. The Leader of the Opposition could do that or ask a question about it tomorrow. DOCUMENTS 34 DOCUMENTS Presentation 34 15:17 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce A document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 34 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE COVID-19: Aged Care 34 15:18 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Franklin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government’s failure to adequately prepare the aged care sector for COVID-19 outbreaks. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:18 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to start, on behalf of our side of politics, by acknowledging the very sad deaths and the infections that we've seen and the significant number of deaths in aged-care facilities right around the country, particularly in Victoria. Our thoughts are with every single person who has lost a loved one during the coronavirus pandemic. We are genuinely deeply sorry for the heartbreak that they have endured, particularly those families who have lost loved ones in aged-care facilities, some of them not getting news in a very timely way. And, as we've heard, there are some very tragic stories of people who have been unable to be with their loved one as they have passed away. I want to pay tribute to those aged-care workers who, because of the restrictions that this pandemic and this virus have inflicted, took the place of family members and held the hands of those elderly residents as they passed away. We know it's been a very difficult few weeks and months for those families, particularly those families who've been in some of the bigger facilities and outbreaks in Victoria. We have heard from so many family members about the desperation of hearing that their loved one has a COVID-19 infection and not being able to get straight answers about what is happening, and how it feels to not know, for days sometimes, what has happened to your loved one in a residential aged-care facility that has had a positive COVID outcome. It must be terrifying. Personally, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I were the minister for aged care. I would be desperate to do everything I possibly could to ensure that every single family and every single resident was getting the best possible care and advice that they need to help improve what is an incredibly difficult situation for so many people. Let's be very clear here: it is the federal government, and, ultimately, the Prime Minister, who are responsible for aged care in Australia today. They fund aged care, they regulate aged care and they are responsible for what happens inside aged-care facilities in Australia today. That is their responsibility. We've heard evidence to the royal commission. I think it's really important that I quote it word for word. This is from Senior Counsel Assisting Peter Rozen QC, about how prepared we were for what has happened in aged-care facilities in Australia: … the evidence will reveal that neither the Commonwealth Department of Health nor the aged care regulator developed a COVID-19 plan specifically for the aged care sector. We've heard a whole heap of excuses from the government and a whole heap of examples of guidelines and letters they've sent to providers, and they claim that this is a plan. When the minister for aged care was asked before the COVID select committee to table his surge workforce strategy document, he couldn't produce one. In fact, he said there wasn't one. I think it highlights just how scrambling and behind the eight ball this government has been when it has come to this outbreak. We've heard the Prime Minister say: … on those days that we fall short, we're sorry … And he should be. He also said: On the days that the system falls short, on the days that expectations are not met, I'm deeply sorry about that … But what are they are responsible for? What are they sorry for? What was it that they did wrong? What was it that they didn't do or they should have done sooner? We've had no acceptance of their responsibility, properly, for this. There have been no admissions about what they could have done or should have done sooner in response to the aged-care outbreak, particularly in Victoria and also in New South Wales. It is one thing to come in here and say, 'Look, we're sorry for the days we fall short,' but to be truly sorry they should be saying, 'This is what we have done wrong and what we are going to do better; this is what we have learnt.' Instead, we get a whole heap of excuses that it's just because of the level of community transmission. Yes, there is community transmission. That's what happens in a pandemic. But we haven't protected the people we already knew were vulnerable soon enough. We haven't done enough soon enough, and that has become very clear from evidence to the royal commission and from the minister and the department before the COVID select committee. It has been heart-wrenching to hear the stories, to hear how desperate people are. I want to quote, in particular, Merle Mitchell. Merle Mitchell AM is an aged-care resident in Victoria. She gave evidence to the royal commission's COVID-19 hearing. She said: I know I'm here till I die. And every morning when I wake up I think damn, I've woken up. That is the sad indictment of aged care in Australia today. Wouldn't it be good to have a leader of our country that came in and said: 'I accept responsibility for what we did wrong. This is what we did wrong, and this is how we're going to fix it'? That is what a true leader should do in a situation where we have thousands of aged-care residents and workers infected with COVID-19 and we've seen more than 300 older people who were in aged care die. Ms Virginia Clarke gave evidence at the royal commission also. Her father was a resident at Newmarch House in New South Wales. Sadly, he also passed away from COVID-19. Ms Clarke was asked at the royal commission what her message is, and she said: … I just think the communication needs to be better and, you know, our elderly need to be protected. It's not fair what happened to my dad and other residents at Newmarch House. She's right: it's not fair. Some of it could have been prevented if the government had done its job, but, sadly, it did not. Of course, we learnt from the reports at Dorothy Henderson Lodge and Newmarch House that the government was warned that this could happen and that we could be in a situation, in other aged-care facilities elsewhere in the country outside New South Wales, where we would have a whole range of staff immediately stood down and furloughed because they either have an infection or are a close contact. In fact, at Newmarch House, 87 per cent of the staff were lost. At Dorothy Henderson Lodge, 70-odd per cent of staff were lost really quickly in the first days. Of course, we know that this has happened again, sadly. We had some admission from the Prime Minister today that there were some facilities in Victoria where the unacceptable happened, but there was no acceptance of his responsibility for this having happened or that they could and should have done better. People are dying. You need to do more, quickly. Those on that side of the House need to accept responsibility for what they have done wrong, and they need to do it better and faster. There were three months between the government getting the Dorothy Henderson Lodge report in the middle of April and the first transmissions and community outbreaks in Victoria. In that three months, it appears nothing was learnt, sadly, by the government. We didn't have systems set up with state and territory governments about how to deal with outbreaks in aged-care facilities. You didn't have an aged-care plan in every state and territory. You only announced last Friday that you're going to establish protocols for aged-care response centres to be set up in other states and territories. We know from the regulator and the evidence at the COVID select committee that facilities were not audited for how much PPE they had, and we've had stories for weeks on end of workers in aged-care facilities not getting access to PPE appropriately to do their jobs. We've all heard the stories of nurses who are deciding which hand to put their glove on because they don't have enough gloves to do their jobs. It is appalling that we have had the Prime Minister come in here in the last few days and say, 'I'm sorry for the days we fall short,' but there's no acceptance of responsibility from him or his government about exactly what they did wrong and what they could and should have done better. Let's all remember: these are people we are talking about. They're not statistics or numbers, and people are dying. 15:28 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders From the earliest days, the Prime Minister, I and other members of the government have said that each life matters. As we saw the agony and the tragedy not just in Wuhan and across China but in Italy, in France, in Spain, subsequently in the United Kingdom and in New York City, and as we have since seen this tragedy spread across the world to over 23½ million people, with more than 811,000 lives lost, our vow was to fight for each life, and that's what we have done. Every life lost is a source of immense grief and immense tragedy, and every life saved, as thousands upon thousands have been in Australia, is a source of national relief and something for which this nation should be immensely proud of itself. This nation should be immensely proud of the work of our healthcare workers, the work of our public health officials and the work of all of those who have assisted on the front line or in whatever way. Against those backgrounds, each life does matter. Each life is fundamental. That's why, when we look to aged care, we do look at these international comparisons. As I set out in question time, in Canada—one of the most sophisticated countries in the world—the tragic loss of life is 600 per cent on an aged-care resident per capita basis than of that in Australia. In France, it's 1,300 per cent. In Spain, it's 1,300 per cent. In Ireland, it's 1,600 per cent. In Italy, it's 1,600 per cent. In the UK, it's over 3,000 per cent. These are lives lost. These are tragedies on an immense, incomparable scale. These are the things that have been avoided. We've warned from the outset that the pandemic particularly targets the aged. Although no-one is immune, those most at risk are the aged and the immunocompromised. Therefore, from the start we set out a national aged-care response plan. We began with the first of the stages. In January, it was the initial response plan. In February, there was the release of the national pandemic response, which set out very specifically the health shared responsibilities and the roles. The work through the national aged-care plan, prepared by the Communicable Diseases Network Australia, was passed through the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee. This is the central national plan for aged care. That's been updated on two further occasions, representing the fifth and the sixth elements. The fourth was the additional workforce support. All of those allowed us to combine together to bring four fundamental protections into play months ago. First was the public hospitals agreement. That was established in March with every state and every territory to provide workforce and transfers in the case of a significant outbreak in any one state or territory. Second was the private hospitals agreement. What we have seen is that agreement prepared and planned for long ago announced in this building on 31 March, with Dr Nick Coatsworth, myself and the AMA, amongst others, present. That has allowed us to transfer and support in facility and to provide the workforce required, as a consequence of those agreements with every state and every territory. At the same time it brings 54,000 nurses and 100,000 staff to the task of caring for our elderly and others affected by COVID. Furthermore, there was the surge workforce—actually it was announced on 11 March—with $101 million. That allowed us to bring in clinical first responders in different places around the country. Then there was the fourth major element, which was the testing. The testing contractors allowed for all staff and all residents to be tested in every facility once there was a first case identified. Those have all come together to protect and to assist. They have saved thousands of lives between them. Thousands of lives have been saved, but we also know that, where there is community transmission around the world, there cannot be an absolute guarantee of protection. What I do want to explore is something the opposition is putting forward, which is a deeply dangerous theory. The theory, in essence, is that we can have widespread community transmission and still have an absolute guarantee of safety in any facility. That's a discredited and dangerous theory. Effectively, to let it rip in the community and wall-off our elderly, with asymptomatic transfer there is no science to back them. It is a global pandemic with the most savage and frightening evidence, as we have seen, that, where there is community transmission, nobody is immune, most particularly our elderly. And for them we grieve and for them there is deep sorrow, and for every family member there is sorrow. But that's why we've established this plan in six stages and that's why all of those four agreements were struck months and months ago. More significantly, though, I want to address something which has been raised this week—the idea that there is no shared responsibility. Two seminal national documents were put out. The Australian Health Sector Emergency Response Plan for Novel Coronavirus was released on 18 February and activated on 27 February in this courtyard by the Prime Minister—and I remember at the time there was scepticism from some in this building about the calling of a pandemic long before the WHO. Under the implementation of public health measures, it sets out the Commonwealth's responsibilities with regard to aged care. But it also sets out that 'state and territory governments are responsible for the operational aspects of public health responses' and implementing infection control guidelines and healthcare safety. 'They will establish systems to promote the safety and security of people in aged care' signed off by every state and territory. And that has been done by every state and territory with the exception of Victoria, where we had to step in and create the Aged Care Response Centre. But we have worked constructively with them. We worked to get the Australian Defence Force in. Equally, the CDNA national guidelines, the aged care response plan for the nation, which was released on 13 March, sets out the state and territory Department of Health responsibilities. In aged care, that includes: … detect, characterise and manage COVID-19 outbreaks. …   …   … assisting facilities to confirm outbreaks …   …   … providing guidance on outbreak management monitoring for severity of illness … informing relevant stakeholders … informing clinical care providers in the local health district— amongst other things. Having said that, what the nation has done is battle a global pandemic, and we have numbers that we know are higher than any of us would ever have hoped but far below anything we had previously imagined at the outset. We've done that through a strategy of containment and capacity. That containment approach, as I say, is built around those four fundamental elements of borders, testing, tracing and distancing. In terms of the borders, I set that out in question time today. Seven out of eight states and territories have helped detect over 2,260 cases—positive cases that have been prevented from getting into the community through hotel quarantine. We know the consequences in Victoria of the catastrophic breach. Those are being laid out as we speak. We know that the testing in eight out of eight states and territories has been, I think, exemplary. The tracing has been very strong in seven out of eight, and exemplary in New South Wales. In Victoria, we have added over 400 members of the ADF. We worked hard to get those members of the ADF accepted in Victoria into the tracing program. That tracing program is what is protecting people in Melbourne and Victoria. But, as I set out earlier in question time, the consequences of the breaches in tracing and the breaches in hotel quarantine have contributed to an outbreak in Victoria which represents 95 per cent of the cases since 1 June, 99 per cent of the lives lost and 100 per cent of residential aged-care facility cases today. Our task, though, is to seek to save every life, to fight every day, and we will continue to do that. 15:38 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I echo the words of the shadow minister in passing on my condolences and thoughts in respect of all of those who have passed away in this terrible pandemic. Can I also pass on my thoughts to those who continue to fight for their lives—in particular, those individuals and families in Fraser, an electorate so hard hit by this pandemic. I also pay tribute to the many workers in the aged-care sector. It's a workforce that is working under very insecure conditions, often for low pay. It is a largely female workforce that often works in very difficult circumstances at the best of times, but in this pandemic they have worked in extremely difficult circumstances and, it's fair to say, have done an amazing job. I acknowledge the shadow minister for bringing on this very important motion. In Victoria we are seeing a fall in community transmission, but, day by day, we continue to see deaths announced in the aged-care sector. It is right that we put a microscope on the performance of the government in this sector. In my electorate, there have been a number of facilities which have been a reflection of the tragedy of the aged-care sector in this pandemic. There are 159 cases among residents and workers at Estia aged care in Ardeer, 119 cases in the Cumberland Manor aged-care facility, and, of course, there is the Kalyna Care aged-care facility that I referred to in my question in question time today. The main reason why I critique the government's performance is not that we ever asked for 100 per cent guarantees—that would not have been reasonable—but that they had forewarning of what could have been done in this sector, and, having been given that forewarning, they have not met reasonable community standards. What was the forewarning? They had the Dorothy Henderson Lodge case handed to them in April, which laid out not only the threats but also a number of actions that could have been taken. We had Newmarch House, which raised the potential for this to become a major issue were another wave to occur. And of course the royal commission has been providing ongoing commentary in this area. So there was every warning given to this government, but, sadly, there was not enough action. What options were available? There were so many short-term actions that could have been taken that would have been effective—workforce options like paid pandemic leave; that came far too late, despite the unions, the opposition and so many other stakeholders calling for it. So much more should have been done in relation to PPE. On surge capacity, we have seen instances where AUSMAT and interstate nurses and staff have come into facilities that are in trouble—even ADF nurses and staff. We've seen that that has been able to help where facilities have run out of staff or have not been able to cope with difficult situations. These exceptions should have been the rule, but too often they either didn't arrive on time or didn't arrive at all. I want to look at some of the defences the government is putting up to try and deflect attention from its performance. The Prime Minister's answer in question time today, frankly, was surreal at times. He said that this is only an issue in Victoria because there is community transmission, that it's not an issue in other states. But it is ridiculous to suggest that you have an aged-care pandemic plan that only works in states where there is no COVID. That is bizarre. We are not asking for absolute, 100 per cent protection. What we are saying is that, if a COVID protection plan for the aged-care sector doesn't work in situations where there is COVID, it is not worth calling it a plan. Quite clearly what we are seeing in Victoria at the moment is that the COVID plan is not providing timely support to aged-care facilities, and there are far too many preventable deaths. We also see the use of bizarre language. Harry Truman said, 'The buck stops here.' But the Prime Minister always caveats his acceptance of responsibility by saying, 'The responsibility stops with me, but, of course, it's not binary responsibility.' He doesn't accept the buck; he accepts 50c. That's not good enough. Quite rightly, residents of Victoria are bemused at this notion that the Prime Minister accepts responsibility on the one hand but tries to deflect it to others on the other. Finally is this notion that the Prime Minister and others so often put forward: that some of the difficult situations that arose in Victoria could not have been foreseen—the workforce issues, the PPE need and so on. That goes back to the first point that I made: of course they were foreseeable, because we had Dorothy Henderson Lodge, Newmarch House and the royal commission's findings. This is a situation where the government was faced with a very foreseeable danger and didn't take timely action. It is the preventable deaths and difficulty that arose that mean its response wasn't good enough. (Time expired) 15:44 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I, too, would like to pass on my condolences to all those who have suffered during the pandemic, those who have actually been incredibly sick and, particularly, family and friends of those who, relevant to this discussion, have suffered this illness as their last illness and passed on. In fact there are 25½ thousand people in Australia that have suffered from it. Unfortunately there have been 525 deaths, with 335 of those in the aged-care system—328, the vast majority, in residential aged care and seven in home care. As has been outlined, it has been worst in Victoria, unfortunately, and we have responded quite appropriately. You need to focus on the big picture on how Australia has responded, not just in aged care but in the whole nation's health system, to the pandemic caused by COVID-19. The other thing you have to remember is that the aged-care system, and residential aged care in particular, in common parlance often called a nursing home, is by no means meant to be like a hospital or act as a hospital. They are the homes of our nearest and dearest—our parents and grandparents—and they are meant to be homes. It's not meant to be lino floors with the smell of chlorine and disinfectant everywhere. But when the pandemic happened, we saw what rolled out and what the outcomes were in overseas countries with health systems similar to ours. The health minister has outlined the vastly different outcomes. There were 13 high-risk places in Victoria. That's been isolated down to three. The numbers are coming down, fortunately, in Victoria. Regarding the aged-care system, the assertion that we have failed as a federal government because we have regulatory and funding responsibility, that we manage every day-to-day incidence—it is a shared responsibility. Obviously, the aged-care facilities themselves have responsibility, as is outlined by the minister in the federal-state agreement in the national pandemic plan announced back in February, and then the aged-care plan in particular, in March, there is state health ministry responsibility and regulatory oversight for a lot of the clinical and public health measures. There have been six evolutions of the plan, both the initial pandemic plan and the aged-care plan. There have been funding payments, which I can go through, totalling over $1.3 billion—the first one, $445 million, back in March. There's been access to personal protective equipment. There have been training courses, webinars and all sorts of updates. No. 5 and No. 6—I could go through the list extensively. There's unlimited assistance for COVID affected places. We have upgraded testing. We have 450 Commonwealth healthcare workers. We have ADF people helping with testing and tracing. We have myriad other supports for both mental health for the elderly and for all Australians. We have upgraded all our hospital intensive care facilities. We have support for remote—for Indigenous elders, for metropolitan elders—you name it. There is a comprehensive plan. In comparison, and we don't want to gloat, the outcome in Australia is exceptional compared to what's happened in like countries—in Scandinavia, in Europe, in the UK, in the US and in Canada. I know people want to score a hit somewhere and claim a win, but this is one area in which people on the other side need to be fair. I will call out mistakes on our side if I see them, but I don't see much in this. It is a really good outcome for our parents and grandparents who are residing in aged-care facilities. One death is too many, but we have gotten on top of the problem and the mortality rate of 0.18 per cent is really a low rate, compared to what we have seen elsewhere. It is a community outbreak in Victoria. That's where the disease came into aged care. It walked through the door in people— (Time expired) 15:49 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin It's often said, and rightly so, that the measure of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. Some of the most vulnerable members of our society are older Australians, older Australians who have made a great contribution to this nation, who find themselves in their later days in aged-care facilities. They are people to whom all of us owe a debt and an obligation—all of us, but particularly, of course, those of us who are empowered to make a difference, and we have failed on this count. The attitude of some in this government, including this Prime Minister, to aged-care residents does not paint us in a very favourable light. Indeed, the contribution of the previous speaker, who talked about really good outcomes, I find very challenging. That's not a contribution that comes, of itself, in a vacuum. From this government, in recent weeks we have seen, when it comes to the crisis in aged-care facilities, a litany of failures followed immediately by a litany of excuses. This matter of public importance has been brought before the parliament by my friend the shadow minister, who's done an extraordinary job in holding the government to account. He's been constructive, identifying solutions and not simply pointing out problems. In making my contribution to this matter of public importance, I want to address my remarks in this context: how we treat people who are particularly vulnerable at a particularly challenging time. As the member for Franklin said, it is to not regard these people as statistics or justify our actions or inactions by reference to numerical arguments, but to give them the humanity they deserve and to embrace the responsibility we have, particularly those who serve in Australia's government—those who have an obligation that is clear. There's dissembling by the Prime Minister. There's dissembling by the Minister for Health, who wants to invent theories and arguments to respond to when he's got a big enough job to be getting on with. He could have played a role, and the Prime Minister should have played a role, in putting in place a plan. There were warning signs everywhere. It's extraordinary that the Minister for Health talks about some overseas example, as if seeking congratulations. What happened in Canada? What happened in the UK? What happened in Sweden? What happened in France? It's not a compare-and-contrast contest. These were warnings we should have heeded, which demonstrated the particular vulnerabilities of institutional aged-care settings. We had the interim report of the aged-care royal commission, a document entitled Neglect. That's a pretty powerful symbol, you'd think, to members of this government. We had the experience of two facilities in Sydney and still no action. It's a litany of failures followed by a litany of excuses. We have a regulator nowhere to be seen. We have a Prime Minister who, on Friday, engaged in the most extraordinary acts of dissembling about the fundamental role of the Commonwealth when it comes to aged care. It's dissembling that continues today. In question time today I asked about Epping Gardens, one of several affected facilities in my electorate but the one which has been most affected. It's a facility in which 28 residents have died. The Prime Minister could have started with a simple 'sorry' on behalf of the Australian government and expressed his condolences to the families of those affected, as I do now. He could have recognised the confusion and distress that was at stake for them and for so many others. Down the road, in the electorate of Jagajaga—whose member can't be present today—with the experiences of Estia in Heidelberg and Aurrum in Plenty, we saw, again, this confusion: issues about information, issues about access to PPE and issues about testing. These are issues that could and should have been dealt with. In the other place today, in question time, we heard the minister say, 'Aged care is in a very good position.' I ask members opposite: what would a bad position look like now? There are so many things that could and should have been done, and it's right, in this place, that we draw Australians' attention to them. It's our job as the opposition to highlight the failings of the government. But my fundamental plea to members opposite is to focus on what can be done now. That has to start with something that's been sorely absent. It has to start with the Prime Minister taking responsibility. 15:54 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise to contest the opposition's statement that the government has failed to adequately prepare the aged-care sector for the COVID-19 outbreaks. There really could be nothing further from the truth. I'm not sure whether those opposite have been to visit the aged-care facilities in their own electorates. I certainly have in mine. I've worked tirelessly, in the last few weeks and months, with my aged-care facilities to ensure that they are prepared. So it is almost an insult to hear what is happening from the other side. It is a cheap shot. That is because it is a very fragile system. We know that. We know that there are difficulties in the aged-care sector, and that is why there is a royal commission. With regard to COVID, it is a very special pandemic that is happening, a very special virus that has done something extraordinary. Unlike every other respiratory pandemic that we have ever seen, it has a predilection for the elderly. There is no other respiratory pandemic that has ever done this anywhere in the world. Every other pandemic, whether it is the Spanish flu or any other, has affected the extremes of age—both the very young and the very old. So this pandemic is unprecedented for many reasons. But one of the most unfortunate aspects of this pandemic is its predilection for the old. We know this because we have seen it unfold overseas. We have seen the carnage overseas—the carnage of those dying in aged-care homes at a significantly higher rate than in Australia. Our mortality rate in the aged-care sector is 0.17 per cent. That is 15 times lower than Canada, 30 times lower than Italy and Ireland, and 53 times lower than the UK. So if you want evidence of what would happen if we didn't have a plan just go overseas. I have spoken to many of my colleagues on a regular basis about how distressing it has been because governments like the UK government and the US government haven't had a plan. They haven't had a plan to deal with the health crisis that has approached the country. They haven't had an adequate plan to deal with those in aged care. We on this side are a federal government that has been on the front foot from the very start. I'm enormously proud of what we have done, what we've achieved and what we continue to achieve. As someone who has been in public health for most of my research career, I understand how hard it is to prove that prevention works. But right here in Australia you can see that a plan prevents death. I'm very proud of what the Minister for Health and the minister for aged care have achieved. It started back in January. We could all see what was happening in Italy, with deaths happening. I had colleagues calling me from Italy saying, 'Please, don't let happen in Australia what's happening in Italy!' Medical researchers and medical researchers in Australia also contacted me and told me people were dropping like flies in Italy. That has not happened in Australia, and that's because we put a plan in place. So to say that there was no plan is an absolute insult. To start with, in January we pre-emptively acted with the first of six stages of a national plan for aged-care prevention of COVID—it even has 'plan' in the title—and committed $100 million to aged-care sector preparedness. In February we then developed the aged-care COVID response guidelines by the Communicable Diseases Network Australia. That was ratified by the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, which is made up of all the chief health officers of the states and territories. These guidelines used world's best practice, including recommendations from the WHO and US CDC. And then in March we committed $440 million in funding to support aged-care workforce continuity, which included a retention bonus, because we understood that these aged-care facilities needed to be ready. We as a government understood that this COVID pandemic, if it gets out of control and there is community transmission, ravages the community and ravages the aged-care sector. So we were prepared. But unfortunately what happened was that the Victorian government let the team down. We had widespread community transmission—and it was actually the workers who took it into the aged-care sector. I'd like to give a shout-out to the aged-care sector because they have been doing it tough. It has not been easy. We should be proud of how they have prevented thousands of deaths here in Australia. I'd like to thank them from the bottom of my heart. Thank you. 15:59 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie One of my constituents, Denise Newton, has summed up where we find ourselves right now. Quoting an academic she'd been listening to on the radio as she drove to meet me and the Leader of the Opposition last week, Denise said, 'COVID has been like an X-ray, showing where all the broken bits are.' Denise was speaking at a roundtable discussion I held with a small group of women who have loved ones in aged care. I wanted to give the opposition leader a glimpse of the sorts of problems I hear about from families of aged-care residents in my electorate. I know they'll be similar to those being heard right around the country. Some of these women have known that the system has been broken for a really long time—years—and they've actively tried to improve it and have not been taken seriously by any of those who have the power to fix it—that is, those on the other side. In fact, in presenting a list of issues to the regulator during a visit to a facility, they were told, 'We're not the complaints department.' If a regulator won't hear of the problems being raised by residents' families, who will? Denise, Lisa, Sandra and Sue spoke passionately but calmly about the fears they have for the health for their loved ones residing in the Uniting Hawkesbury Richmond facility. This facility was recently among 104 aged-care facilities issued with noncompliance notices about infection control. I acknowledge that Uniting say that they've worked hard since then to implement a plan to improve infection control and that they're confident they'll demonstrate full compliance with all the standards and requirements. I don't doubt their efforts or the intentions to protect their residents and their team members, knowing that the staff themselves have so much pressure on them at the moment and that they are at a higher risk than any of us here, yet they earn a minimum wage. They are to be absolutely congratulated for the work that they're doing, but they can't do it alone. I've visited the facility on a number of occasions. The staff have been a delight, from those slogging away in the laundry to those who care for residents like Ken, Lisa's dad, who's just turned 90. But that doesn't change the fact that these families have had long-running issues that I think go to the broken bits of the system, which COVID is really exposing. There are not enough staff, which means there isn't the time or the people to provide the quality of care that I'd expect for my family. I think the other two participants at my roundtable, Liz and Jo, who have family members in other facilities, were shocked at what they were hearing. But we have to talk about this. That's why the royal commission is so important and so overdue. That's why it's not good enough for the Prime Minister to give a belated apology to families of those who have died, for whom all of us here have the deepest of sympathies. That's why it's not enough for the Prime Minister to try and pretend he doesn't have full and total responsibility for aged care and the tragic deaths of people in aged care with COVID. We're at over 330 so far, and no-one thinks that that number won't rise. It strikes fear into the heart of anyone with a family member in care, and that includes me. The reports on Newmarch House, where 19 people died—17 of those deaths being directly linked to COVID—and Dorothy Henderson Lodge, where six lives were lost, were kept hidden by the government even though they had them in April. Back in May, I called on the Morrison government to learn what went wrong in those facilities, particularly because Newmarch House is just outside my electorate and my constituents include residents of the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains who had family members there. The government didn't learn those lessons, and Victoria's heartbreaking experience shows us that. They knew from Newmarch that as many as 90 per cent of a workforce could be out of action if COVID got into a facility, but in late July the Prime Minister said it couldn't have been anticipated or foreshadowed. That is just not true. The report into Newmarch shows it could and should have been anticipated and planned for. The need for more PPE should have been anticipated. It was clear to me in conversations with the minister and others during the Newmarch disaster that PPE was being reserved for outbreaks, not being used to prevent them. Why was there no obvious plan to ensure that every resident had a way of communicating directly with their families if they were able to? The silence during the Newmarch debacle was agony for families, and that's why Sandra, Sue, Denise, Lisa, Jo and Liz, and everybody else who has a parent, a wife or a husband in aged care, deserves— (Time expired) 16:04 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I'd like to begin, as others have, by acknowledging the very sad loss of Australian lives to this one-in-100-year global pandemic. Given the nature of this matter of public importance, I want to particularly acknowledge and express my sadness for those older Australians who have succumbed to the disease. There is so much to be sad for. As we negotiate and deal with the new normal, I'm also sad that we're dealing with the same old Labor Party. It was the Labor Party that gave us 'Mediscare'. They're now working through a new plan. It's 'aged-care scare'. I'm really pleased that the member for Franklin has brought this matter forward, because she gave the Minister for Health 10 minutes in this place to very elegantly and graciously set out his efforts in relation to this. I've got to say that, in speaking to members of my community and other Australian citizens back in South Australia, all I hear is praise for the Prime Minister, praise for the Minister for Health. Do you know what else I'm sad about? I'm sad that this right now represents our parliament's best opportunity in the 75 years since the end of World War II to be at our best, and, sadly, we're not. Those opposite have decided that what they need to do now is look for the pressure points and agitate. That's another thing I'm sad about. I'm incredibly sad that we're having this discussion, when every single one of our efforts needs to be focused on saving lives and livelihoods. As a social conservative, I'm incredibly proud that, from my first breath in this place till my last, I'll be someone who will advocate for every life. Life in any form is sacrosanct. Our focus right now needs to be on defeating this disease, not defeating each other. Sadly, this matter of public importance is an attempt to win some cheap political capital, and I'm so sad about it. I'm so incredibly sad about it. Those opposite say, 'What plan?' I don't know how many times we need to set this out, but there was a six-step plan that is organic and developing as this pandemic which affects Australia—and, in particular at this stage, with the second wave, Victoria—develops. There was an initial response plan back in January. We then released, as part of stage 2, the national response plan. That was in February. There was then stage 3, the national plan which proceeded through March. It was a national plan and guidelines for COVID-19 outbreaks in residential aged-care facilities. Stage 4 dealt with workforce issues and PPE support. Stage 5 was a revised national plan and guidelines for COVID-19 in aged care, and that proceeded through March. More recently, through June and through till now, there has been a revised national plan and guidelines for the aged-care sector. Why do I know that these efforts were real and hitting the ground? I know that because I was in constant contact with my aged-care providers, whom I want to acknowledge, as others in this place have done. They are doing an incredible job, a very difficult job. And, yes, colleagues, there is important work we have to do as part of the aged-care royal commission, a process which preceded the pandemic and its arrival on our shores, but let's not conflate the two things. Let's not deal with cheap political capital. Let's be the best of ourselves. And let's not ignore the international comparisons. I've got relatives in northern Italy, and I've got to tell you, during that very difficult period for them, they could only have hoped for an aged-care system like ours in Australia. It's not perfect. As my five-year-old is wont to remind me, 'Nothing's perfect, Daddy.' We've got to keep working for every life and every livelihood. Those opposite need to think seriously about the damage they're doing to class politic. 16:09 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley I would like to start my contribution to this very important discussion on the government’s failure to adequately prepare the aged-care sector for COVID-19 outbreaks with the words of my constituent Cecilia from Langwarren. She wrote to me: 'This scenario was entirely predictable, but it has taken this pandemic disaster in aged care to reveal the saddest, most horrific and shameful we-told-you-so moment in this nation's history. The measure of this nation and its people is how we treat our most vulnerable and how we rectify these wrongs.' The first step in rectifying the wrongs is acknowledging that they happened, followed by actually putting in place measures to make sure that they don't happen again. Every death is a tragedy. The deaths from COVID we have seen in the aged-care sector, particularly in Victoria, over recent weeks are a tragedy for the husbands and wives of those who are in aged-care, for their children, for their friends and for our community. I don't think it's too much to say that we are a community in mourning. I accept one thing that was said by the speaker before me, the member for Barker, about nothing being perfect. Nothing is perfect, but that doesn't mean that, here in this place, the people who have the responsibility for making a system as good as it can be can use 'nothing is perfect' as a defence for the flaws. We know that aged care is the responsibility of the federal government. We know that the Morrison government regulates aged care. We know that it funds aged care, and many, many constituents have raised with me that it is not adequate funding. We know that the Morrison government has legislation that determines the quality of the aged care that older Australians get. If these things aren't working, the first step is to acknowledge they're not working, apologise sincerely and without equivocation and without blame shifting for the consequences of the fact that they're not working, and then get on and fix them. Standing here today and talking about the failures in the aged-care system is not political pointscoring. It's not opportunism. It's the role of federal members of parliament to hold to account a federal government that is responsible for a system which is not working as it should be for some of the most vulnerable in our community, all of whom have lived a life that involved people who they love and people who love them. They have contributed in so many ways to the community that we have now and that those of us in this place are privileged enough to live in. This is not political pointscoring; it is the role of this place. If we don't do this now, in six months time are we going to be having another interim report from a royal commission about the failures in the aged-care system? Are we going to have another hearing where we hear about reports that were never actioned, where we hear about plans that didn't exist and we hear about hundreds and hundreds of Australians who have died sooner than they should have without being able to say that last proper goodbye to their families? No-one in this place, on either side, wants this, which is why we have to do what we are doing today, tomorrow, the next day and every day until the Prime Minister stands up and acknowledges that it's not good enough and it needs to be better. I've been contacted by constituents who work in the aged-care sector who say they have been working at residences where there have been two carers for 60 residents, many of whom were ill enough to be patients. Cecilia is a registered nurse and is mightily concerned about the way in which the role of nurses in aged care has been undermined and dismantled. Constituents have been contacting me about not being able to see their relatives and being deathly scared of their future. Better needs to be done. 16:14 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Like so many who have spoken before me in this debate, I'd like to express my condolences for those who have passed away as a result of COVID, across the board, but, in particular, in relation to those who were living in aged-care facilities. There are so many things that one could say, such as one death is too many, and of course all of those things are correct. One of the things that strike me perhaps the most as a still relatively young person is that I think we have a vision of what our own deaths might look like, and hopefully we'll be surrounded by our loved ones when we go. We might be at home, we might be in a hospital bed, but we like to think—universally, I think—that we'll be surrounded by those we love and we can tell them we love them. Perhaps one of the saddest parts about those who have suffered from and those who have passed away from COVID is that, by and large, that's happened without their family being there, and that's a great source of sadness and sorrow. Likewise, as a result of the restrictions, we often haven't had the opportunity to say our goodbyes at their funeral. My parents are elderly. They live in Melbourne. I live in Queensland. I worry about them down there. I know that members here who live in Victoria are living in a totally different world from me in Queensland—and I hope that Queensland never goes the same way as Victoria. Those opposite talk about us having no plan, and that is fundamentally false. As the member for Barker, who spoke previously, and so many of those on the government side have indicated, there is a six-point plan which goes back to January and has been implemented. There are eight separate jurisdictions in the Commonwealth of Australia. If there were no plan, we would see the same sorts of problems replicated across those eight jurisdictions. That is not what we are seeing. We are seeing a problem specifically in Victoria. Across the whole country, the number of cases of people who have contracted COVID while living in a residential aged-care facility is 1,761. That's across the country. The number of deaths is 328 or, if you add home care to that, 335. The Victorian component of that is 1,698 cases, or 96 per cent of Australian cases; and deaths, 297, or 91 per cent. If those opposite were correct—their philosophy, their principle, their policy, their suggestion—that we have no plan, why is this predominantly happening in Victoria but essentially nowhere else? It's because their hypothesis is incorrect. Now, no system is perfect, and I don't say that as some sort of justification; I go back to my earlier comment that one death is too many. And one death should give cause us to pause and look at how we can improve the system, and that is exactly what we are doing. This is not 'set and forget'. The health minister and the aged-care minister are working very diligently and very hard to ensure that what we are experiencing in Victoria is not replicated across the country. But it is sad—I want to join the member for Barker in his comment—because this is a time for us to come together as a parliament. In this whole COVID crisis in particular, we need to come together and support Australians— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The discussion has concluded. BILLS 43 BILLS Product Stewardship (Oil) Amendment Bill 2020 43

Product Stewardship (Oil) Amendment Bill 2020

Second Reading 43 16:19 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 In accordance with standing order 133(b), I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for Fremantle on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing orders. No further debate is allowed. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fremantle has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form 'That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question'. Members should recall that we state the question this way so members do not need to change sides.

The House divided. [16:24]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 44 AYES Andrews, KL Bell, AM Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Dutton, PC Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ (teller) Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Haines, H Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Dowd, KD 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 Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG 32 NOES Albanese, AN Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Collins, JM Conroy, PM Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC Jones, SP King, MMH Leigh, AK McBain, KL McBride, EM Murphy, PJ O'Connor, BPJ Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Smith, DPB Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Zappia, A 35 PAIRS Alexander, JG Aly, A Allen, K Neumann, SK Andrews, KJ Bird, SL Archer, BK O'Neil, CE Broadbent, RE Burns, J Buchholz, S Butler, TM Chester, D Byrne, AM Christensen, GR Champion, ND Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Drum, DK Coker, EA Entsch, WG Dick, MD Evans, TM Payne, AE Falinski, JG Owens, JA Hammond, CM Ryan, JC Hastie, AW Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Shorten, WR Howarth, LR Fitzgibbon, JA Irons, SJ Georganas, S Joyce, BT Snowdon, WE Kelly, C Perrett, GD Laming, A Giles, AJ Landry, ML Kearney, G Liu, G Keogh, MJ Marino, NB Khalil, P McVeigh, JJ King, CF Morton, B Swanson, MJ O'Brien, LS Vamvakinou, M O'Brien, T Marles, RD Pasin, A Thwaites, KL Thompson, P Mitchell, BK Vasta, RX Watts, TG Wilson, RJ Mitchell, RG Wood, JP Wells, AS Young, T Mulino, D Zimmerman, T Wilson, J

Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 44 16:30 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. MOTIONS 44 MOTIONS COVID-19: State and Territory Border Closures 44 16:30 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Brand from moving the following motion immediately: That the House: (1) notes that: (a) today, the Federal Court found the Western Australian border closures were an 'effective' measure to combat COVID-19 entering the state; (b) the Commonwealth, led by the Attorney-General who himself is a Western Australian, intervened in support of billionaire Clive Palmer's attempts to force open the borders against the will of the Western Australian people; (c) the Commonwealth's subsequent withdrawal from the case prejudiced the Western Australian position, according to a Federal Court judge, and cost taxpayers unknown thousands of wasted dollars in legal fees; (d) the Prime Minister and Attorney-General put the interests of a billionaire who is trying to bankrupt the state of Western Australia over the health of Western Australians; and (e) the people of Western Australia will not forget this betrayal, and deserve an apology from the Attorney-General, the Prime Minister, and the Morrison Government; and (2) therefore, calls on the Attorney-General to attend the House immediately and be given leave to make a ministerial statement explaining his government's actions. Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 The damage is done. The Western Australian Liberals and this Liberal government have ensured that the damage is done. As was said in the Federal Court today: … the prejudice to Western Australia has not been caused by the withdrawal, but by the Commonwealth having intervened in support of the Palmer parties' case in the first place. There you have it: a Liberal government acting against the interests of Western Australians in the Federal Court. They pretended to withdraw, just the other week. They said that they'll withdraw from the case, but the truth is that the evidence was already put to the court. That evidence remains. The damage is done. That evidence remains on the court record. It will go to the High Court. The damage is done, and the Liberal government knows it. Government members interjecting— Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 They're a bit slow on their feet today, and the WA Liberals are very quiet today. They don't know what to do, because they act against Western Australians all the time. The damage is done! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The member will resume her seat. 16:33 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the member for Brand be no further heard.

The House divided. [16:38]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 41 AYES Andrews, KL Bell, AM Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Dutton, PC Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ (teller) Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Dowd, KD Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG 35 NOES Albanese, AN Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Collins, JM Conroy, PM Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Jones, SP King, MMH Leigh, AK McBain, KL McBride, EM Murphy, PJ O'Connor, BPJ Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Sharkie, RCC Smith, DPB Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Zappia, A 35 PAIRS Alexander, JG Aly, A Allen, K Neumann, SK Andrews, KJ Bird, SL Archer, BK O'Neil, CE Broadbent, RE Burns, J Buchholz, S Butler, TM Chester, D Byrne, AM Christensen, GR Champion, ND Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Drum, DK Coker, EA Entsch, WG Dick, MD Evans, TM Payne, AE Falinski, JG Owens, JA Hammond, CM Ryan, JC Hastie, AW Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Shorten, WR Howarth, LR Fitzgibbon, JA Irons, SJ Georganas, S Joyce, BT Snowdon, WE Kelly, C Perrett, GD Laming, A Giles, AJ Landry, ML Kearney, G Liu, G Keogh, MJ Marino, NB Khalil, P McVeigh, JJ King, CF Morton, B Swanson, MJ O'Brien, LS Vamvakinou, M O'Brien, T Marles, RD Pasin, A Thwaites, KL Thompson, P Mitchell, BK Vasta, RX Watts, TG Wilson, RJ Mitchell, RG Wood, JP Wells, AS Young, T Mulino, D Zimmerman, T Wilson, J

Question agreed to.

 16:40 The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 16:40 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth Seconded. You should apologise to the people of Western Australia. The Prime Minister should apologise to the people of Western Australia. The Attorney-General should apologise to the people of Western Australia. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Perth will resume his seat. The minister? 16:40 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the member for Perth be no further heard.

The House divided. [16:42]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 41 AYES Andrews, KL Bell, AM Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Dutton, PC Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ (teller) Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Dowd, KD Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG 35 NOES Albanese, AN Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Collins, JM Conroy, PM Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Jones, SP King, MMH Leigh, AK McBain, KL McBride, EM Murphy, PJ O'Connor, BPJ Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Sharkie, RCC Smith, DPB Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Zappia, A 35 PAIRS Alexander, JG Aly, A Allen, K Neumann, SK Andrews, KJ Bird, SL Archer, BK O'Neil, CE Broadbent, RE Burns, J Buchholz, S Butler, TM Chester, D Byrne, AM Christensen, GR Champion, ND Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Drum, DK Coker, EA Entsch, WG Dick, MD Evans, TM Payne, AE Falinski, JG Owens, JA Hammond, CM Ryan, JC Hastie, AW Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Shorten, WR Howarth, LR Fitzgibbon, JA Irons, SJ Georganas, S Joyce, BT Snowdon, WE Kelly, C Perrett, GD Laming, A Giles, AJ Landry, ML Kearney, G Liu, G Keogh, MJ Marino, NB Khalil, P McVeigh, JJ King, CF Morton, B Swanson, MJ O'Brien, LS Vamvakinou, M O'Brien, T Marles, RD Pasin, A Thwaites, KL Thompson, P Mitchell, BK Vasta, RX Watts, TG Wilson, RJ Mitchell, RG Wood, JP Wells, AS Young, T Mulino, D Zimmerman, T Wilson, J

Question agreed to.

 16:43 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the motion moved by the member for Brand be agreed to. 16:43 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I am for Mark McGowan and against Clive Palmer and Scott Morrison when it comes to WA borders, because Mark McGowan is right. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The minister has the call. 16:43 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion be put.

The House divided. [16:44]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 41 AYES Andrews, KL Bell, AM Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Dutton, PC Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ (teller) Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Dowd, KD Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG 35 NOES Albanese, AN Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Collins, JM Conroy, PM Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Jones, SP King, MMH Leigh, AK McBain, KL McBride, EM Murphy, PJ O'Connor, BPJ Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Sharkie, RCC Smith, DPB Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Zappia, A 35 PAIRS Alexander, JG Aly, A Allen, K Neumann, SK Andrews, KJ Bird, SL Archer, BK O'Neil, CE Broadbent, RE Burns, J Buchholz, S Butler, TM Chester, D Byrne, AM Christensen, GR Champion, ND Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Drum, DK Coker, EA Entsch, WG Dick, MD Evans, TM Payne, AE Falinski, JG Owens, JA Hammond, CM Ryan, JC Hastie, AW Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Shorten, WR Howarth, LR Fitzgibbon, JA Irons, SJ Georganas, S Joyce, BT Snowdon, WE Kelly, C Perrett, GD Laming, A Giles, AJ Landry, ML Kearney, G Liu, G Keogh, MJ Marino, NB Khalil, P McVeigh, JJ King, CF Morton, B Swanson, MJ O'Brien, LS Vamvakinou, M O'Brien, T Marles, RD Pasin, A Thwaites, KL Thompson, P Mitchell, BK Vasta, RX Watts, TG Wilson, RJ Mitchell, RG Wood, JP Wells, AS Young, T Mulino, D Zimmerman, T Wilson, J

Question agreed to.

 16:47 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the motion moved by the member for Brand be disagreed to.

The House divided. [16:47]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 44 AYES Andrews, KL Bell, AM Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Dutton, PC Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ (teller) Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Haines, H Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Dowd, KD 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 Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG 32 NOES Albanese, AN Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Collins, JM Conroy, PM Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC Jones, SP King, MMH Leigh, AK McBain, KL McBride, EM Murphy, PJ O'Connor, BPJ Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Smith, DPB Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Zappia, A 35 PAIRS Alexander, JG Aly, A Allen, K Neumann, SK Andrews, KJ Bird, SL Archer, BK O'Neil, CE Broadbent, RE Burns, J Buchholz, S Butler, TM Chester, D Byrne, AM Christensen, GR Champion, ND Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Drum, DK Coker, EA Entsch, WG Dick, MD Evans, TM Payne, AE Falinski, JG Owens, JA Hammond, CM Ryan, JC Hastie, AW Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Shorten, WR Howarth, LR Fitzgibbon, JA Irons, SJ Georganas, S Joyce, BT Snowdon, WE Kelly, C Perrett, GD Laming, A Giles, AJ Landry, ML Kearney, G Liu, G Keogh, MJ Marino, NB Khalil, P McVeigh, JJ King, CF Morton, B Swanson, MJ O'Brien, LS Vamvakinou, M O'Brien, T Marles, RD Pasin, A Thwaites, KL Thompson, P Mitchell, BK Vasta, RX Watts, TG Wilson, RJ Mitchell, RG Wood, JP Wells, AS Young, T Mulino, D Zimmerman, T Wilson, J

Question agreed to.

 COMMITTEES 51 COMMITTEES Treaties Committee 51 Report 51 16:49 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 189: Capital Increase WBG IBRD; Capital Increase WBG IFC; Amendments CMS; Termination IPPA-Indonesia. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). BILLS 51 BILLS Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2020 51

Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2020

First Reading 51 Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020 51

Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020

Second Reading 51 16:51 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The Liberals are undertaking a double-barrelled attack on superannuation in Australia. Firstly, they're encouraging Australians to raid their superannuation savings, to raid their retirement savings, and take that money out, and we've seen evidence of people doing that in circumstances where they haven't had reductions in their income. Unfortunately, the evidence has indicated that in some respects the money's being wasted. We know people are spending it on gambling. We know people are spending it on alcohol. The comeback from those opposite is: 'It's their money.' It is their money, but it was established to ensure that they had dignity in retirement, not to waste on gambling during their working years. And that's the problem with what this government's implemented when it comes to the early release scheme. The second barrel of the attack on superannuation is that it appears government backbenchers are being encouraged by members of the executive to say that the government shouldn't meet the commitment they delivered to the Australian people prior to last election—an iron-clad promise they made to increase the minimum contribution to superannuation from 9½ per cent to 12 per cent. This represents a breach of trust with the Australian people. They committed to that superannuation increase and now they're beginning the process of moving away from it and dumping it. Those opposite will say: 'It should go into wages. During a pandemic, during this period, it should go into people's wages so that they can save for their own home and the like.' As we've seen in the past, the problem with that philosophy is that, when you stall or you cut out increases in compulsory superannuation, the money doesn't go into people's wages at all. It goes into the pockets of businesses and into profits for big companies. That's where the money goes—it doesn't go to increasing the incomes of Australian workers. That's why the government are wrong about what we anticipate they're going to do in the coming months in again halting increases in superannuation savings. It's true to form for this government, and that is why the second reading amendment moved by the member for Whitlam should be agreed to. Every single government MP should come into this chamber and explain to the Australian people, who elected them, why they're going to break the commitment they made to them prior to the last election to increase compulsory superannuation so that Australian workers could have dignity in retirement. In terms of the substantive bill, the Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020, Labor will be supporting this element of the bill. We're supporting it because it's a sensible amendment. The bill allows former Public Sector Superannuation accumulation plan members to use their PSSap accounts for contributions in respect of any employment, including employment that does not attract a superannuation guarantee obligation. If they wish to make other contributions, such as non-concessional contributions, it means that, if they get a job outside of the public sector, they can still contribute to their public sector account. Current PSSap members can use their PSSap account for contributions from non-Commonwealth employers that they're working for at the same time. The Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme and Public Sector Superannuation members can establish a PSSap account for contribution from non-Commonwealth employers they are working for at the same time. The CSS and PSS members who cease being members and become pensioners, in the superannuation sense, or take a lump sum benefit to establish a PSSap account for contributions from non-Commonwealth employers or from other contributions, such as non-concessional contributions, can also use their PSSap account for that. CSS deferred benefit or PSS preserved benefit members can establish a PSSap account for contributions from non-Commonwealth employers or for other contributions, such as non-concessional contributions. Around 10,000 individuals would be able to utilise these new arrangements, with most of them being former PSSap members using their existing accounts for future super contributions. These are sensible changes to a legislative framework which allows for the continued use of PSSap accounts as well as for members of the old defined benefit scheme who want to use their PSSap account system. Whilst these are sensible amendments, I again go back to the comments that I made earlier, and those are to encourage the government to abandon this disastrous proposal that we all know is coming. They're laying the groundwork for it now. First, you get a few from the backbench start to make noise about it, and then you get the odd minister. Now the minister's saying she's agnostic about it. The Prime Minister's saying, 'I'll wait until the review comes down'—the review of the retirement income system that was handed to the government a month ago and that they won't release to the Australian public. The groundwork is being laid for this government to walk away from its commitment to the Australian people to increase compulsory superannuation contributions to ensure that people do have dignity in retirement and that, through that important tax concession that exists around superannuation savings, Australian workers get the support from the Australian government that they deserve for the contribution that they've made to our economy over their whole working lives. Increasing compulsory superannuation contributions, in line with actuarial advice, will ensure that people have a reasonable income to retire on, particularly low-paid workers and women. I urge those opposite to support this amendment moved by the member for Whitlam and come into this chamber and be frank and upfront with the Australian people. Tell your constituents what you are going to do with this particular proposal to stop the increase to compulsory superannuation in Australia. 16:59 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I am pleased to speak on the Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020. As the previous speaker, the member for Kingsford Smith, has indicated, we will support this bill. It is a modest bill, but it contains a sensible measure that we will support. As previous speakers have indicated, this bill contains an amendment that will allow for greater flexibility in relation to the Public Sector Superannuation accumulation plan. In particular, it will allow for greater flexibility in relation to when people can contribute to accounts within that scheme. For that reason, we will support this bill. It is our understanding that it will benefit around 10,000 people and give them greater flexibility to contribute either after they have finished working for the Commonwealth or while they are working for the Commonwealth and having contributions made through concurrent employment. Of course, the really substantive discussion that we are engaged in today is not in relation to this bill itself, which I suspect all in this chamber will support, but in relation to the very important second reading amendment put forward by the member for Whitlam, the shadow Assistant Treasurer. This is a very important second reading amendment because, as earlier speakers have indicated, it puts members of the government to the test. Will they support this amendment and affirm the commitment, or promise, they made to the Australian people at the last election? It's very important that we discuss that promise and why it is so important that that promise be kept. That promise, made by those opposite, was that they would increase the superannuation guarantee from 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent on the schedule, as legislated. It is critical that the government do so, because it fundamentally underpins the way in which our society is preparing to support the retirement incomes of generations to come. It's instructive to go back to 1991, when Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, John Kerin and other members of the Hawke government spoke in such visionary ways in support of the extension of the superannuation guarantee. As the shadow Assistant Treasurer and the member for Kingsford Smith have already indicated, this was done to provide people with dignity in retirement, with income security and with greater income in retirement. In particular, it was done to provide people with dignity in retirement in the face of a demographic challenge that has, if anything, increased as a threat to retirement incomes in the intervening years. It is absolutely critical that we support the superannuation pillar of our retirement system. Indeed, if we go back to the early 1990s, when Australia passed that visionary piece of legislation, it is instructive to look at what the rest of the world did while looking on. In 1993 the World Bank published a seminal piece of analysis of retirement income support systems, and that is where it set up the multi-pillar system. In particular, it recommended a system in which there would be a taxpayer funded retirement pension system supported by a mandated savings account system supported by voluntary savings. It was these three pillars that would support retirement incomes in the optimal way, and the World Bank and policymakers around the world have not changed their view in the 30 years since that time. In 1993, when the World Bank set up that system, it was basically describing the Australian system, the Hawke-Keating system that has proved so successful in the intervening years. The member for Goldstein in his contribution said that there were some private accounts before the 1991 reforms. The issue is not whether there were some mandated superannuation accounts before those reforms but who had access to them—and, of course, it was a small minority. When you look at who didn't have access to them, it was people on low incomes, people in insecure work, people who were the very rationale for the entire scheme—and they remain the rationale for the entire scheme. Indeed, if one looks at the situation today, those people were the beneficiaries of the scheme in the early 1990s because they were brought within the umbrella of the superannuation guarantee, and today it is those workers who get 9.5 per cent when many professionals are given the tax benefit of superannuation payments well above 9.5 per cent. As many speakers on our side have already indicated, people in this chamber who argue that workers in the community should be limited to 9.5 per cent are themselves receiving far more than that. So, in the intervening period, when our society continues to age, the need to increase the superannuation guarantee from 9.5 to 12 per cent has never been more urgent. One only need look at the taxation outcomes in a whole range of OECD countries to see the predicament that Australia faces in decades to come. At the moment, the tax as a share of GDP required to support our pension payments is a little bit under five per cent of GDP. But if one looks at countries in the OECD with far older populations—countries like Greece, Italy, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Japan—many of these countries have tax-to-GDP ratios to support their public pension systems of over 10 per cent of GDP, and some more than 15 per cent—and in many of those countries those percentages are increasing. What we see in those countries is what Australia will face in years to come if we don't plan for the future, which is precisely what the superannuation system does. If we, in a short-sighted attempt to play ideological games, hold the superannuation guarantee at 9.5 per cent, we will be committing ourselves to a future which will require a far greater tax burden on future generations to pay the pension payments that retirees deserve. The words that justified the introduction of the superannuation guarantee in 1991 still hold true today—and in fact hold true to an even greater extent, given the demographic changes that we still see unfolding. Those opposite claim that this is some kind of simple trade-off with wages, and that workers would in fact be better off if they forwent the increase from 9.5 to 12 per cent. Firstly, there's the lived experience of the last few years, when earlier administrations within this Liberal government held back superannuation guarantee increases. During that period we've seen the lowest period of wages growth on record. Workers in this country know from their experience that if this government goes back on its promise at the last election and holds the superannuation guarantee at 9.5 per cent, they will get no wage increase as a result of that. They understand all too well that the simplistic trade-off offered by those opposite will not result in greater wages. Moreover, it's ironic that those opposite argue that the superannuation guarantee should be held at 9.5 per cent so as to boost wages while at every turn trying to weaken the bargaining power of unions and trying to undermine their capacity to fight for higher wages. It's a very disingenuous argument. Workers in this country know all too well, from the last seven years of this government, what wages growth they can expect from a government that is trying to reduce the superannuation guarantee not to increase their wages but to undermine a public policy initiative that it never supported and has voted against and tried to undermine ever since. As the previous speaker indicated, this is not just an attack that we're seeing build up on the opposite side first from backbenchers, then from ambiguous statements by ministers and the Prime Minister and then, presumably, from a government response at some point during the budget or shortly thereafter. This is not just an attack on the increase in the superannuation guarantee. We've now seen two waves of early release, which is yet another means by which the superannuation system and our entire pension system are being undermined. What we've seen is the release of over $31 billion through the early-release scheme that this government put in place in response to the COVID pandemic. Let's be absolutely clear what this reflects: this reflects the government all too often forcing those on low incomes to self-fund what should have been a government funded response to a recession. The superannuation system was never meant to be a business-cycle funding mechanism. It was never meant to be a means by which the government could short-change its own fiscal response to economic downturns by forcing people to dip into their retirement savings. That is what this government has done, in this instance, on two occasions now, and there is every prospect that we haven't seen the end of it. There is $31 billion that should have been provided by this government that has been withdrawn from super. Let's think about the 600,000 people who have now entirely cleared out their superannuation accounts, who have zero balances—many of them young people under 35 who now won't get the benefit of a lifetime of interest earned on those dollars. Those people have a right to ask why they had to withdraw their own money to achieve worthwhile ends, it might be said. 'Why did we have to withdraw our own money to make ends meet, to put food on the table, to make the mortgage payments, when it's the government's job to support us during economic downturns?' It's extremely short sighted and simplistic to say, 'It's their money,' when, in fact, what the government is doing is forcing people to withdraw money from their superannuation accounts at a time when that is not in their interests. This three-word slogan 'it's their money' is papering over the situation, and it is putting many, many people at a great disadvantage in the decades to come. It fundamentally undermines the entire purpose of a savings account system in order to support retirement incomes. So we will fight any further extensions of the early release scheme that we've seen to date. And, as the shadow Assistant Treasurer has indicated—and he has put the government to the test with this second reading amendment—we will push the government to hold true to its promise at the last election that it would increase the superannuation guarantee from 9.5 to 12 per cent. This is a promise that the government made at the last election and this is a legislated schedule of increases in the superannuation guarantee which the opposition remains firmly committed to, because it is absolutely essential in order to maintain the integrity of our retirement income system. If one goes back to the very origins of the superannuation system, to the increase in the scope of the superannuation guarantee from the few who were benefiting from it in the early 1990s to the many—the vast majority—who benefit from it today, the rationale for that scheme is stronger than ever. It is crucial that this House vote up the second reading amendment so that the Australian public can move forward knowing that this parliament remains committed to the long-term integrity of our retirement income system. So we will support this bill, but it is absolutely critical to also support the second reading amendment to this bill and support the superannuation system that is so critical to the long-term future of this country. 17:13 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I rise to speak on the Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020. I'm going to address my remarks to the second reading amendment which has been moved, calling on the government to commit to making no cuts to the legislated superannuation guarantee for workers. People should be under no illusion about what this government is up to with superannuation. It is laying the groundwork, politically tilling the soil, for trashing Australia's superannuation system and for the Prime Minister to break the promise that he made before the election that superannuation would continue to increase in line with the legislated increases—that next year it would go up by half a per cent and so on, as per the schedule. In practice, what it means if the Prime Minister breaks his promise is that he will cut the pay of millions of working Australians and condemn people to a poorer retirement, because the fact is that a cut to super is a cut to pay. Super is part of your pay in Australia. Those opposite can't make this false little distinction between wages and super. Superannuation in this country is part of a worker's pay and it is incumbent on Labor to stand up for everyday Australians and defend the superannuation system that Labor built. Australians should be proud of our super system. It's something we're rightly proud of. Superannuation is part of the pay of Australian workers now. It's no longer a privilege, as it once was, just for the elite. It's a right for everyone now, for every worker. Super provides a more dignified retirement for Australians. It makes the Australian economy stronger as well. We now have in this country a $2.8 trillion—that's right—savings pool to invest in jobs and growth, and everyday Australians own more of the country and more of our wealth. The fact is, without superannuation, the system that Labor built, Australia's debt and budget deficit would be vastly higher, and in the coming years our AAA credit rating would be at risk—well, it's already at risk under this government. The fact is it would be lost if we had not provided as a country, as the Labor government in the 1980s did, for our pensions with an ageing population. But the political contrast is that the battlelines are drawn on behalf of Australians. They're very clear. Labor created super. We defend the system. We're champions of increases in workers' pay through these legislated increases that were legislated under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. But let's be clear on the record of the government, of those opposite, of the Liberal Party. They have opposed every single cent that has ever gone into workers' superannuation in this country. Every time legislation has come before this parliament in 40 years the Liberal Party have opposed it. They oppose superannuation. The only indication of support, in fact, has been the promise that the Prime Minister made before the last election that he wouldn't cut superannuation rises. That's the only indication we've ever heard from the Liberal Party that they have even the tiniest level of support for super, and they're about to break it. The Liberals' plan to cut superannuation and to run the system down will leave working people behind, and they're using COVID now disgracefully as a cover, as an excuse, to destroy super and pursue their decades-long ideological obsession with cutting workers' pay and condemning Australians to a poorer retirement. The fact is—and they said this for five years when the current Prime Minister was the Treasurer and before that the social services minister—they wanted to increase the retirement age for Australians, the pension age, to 70. They wanted everyday Australians to work until they were 70, and now they want to cut their super. Last week, they froze the age pension. Astoundingly, they froze the age pension for the first time in 23 years. And in the budget they will try and cut super and try and cut people's pay. It's ironic, isn't it—the party of debt and deficit. The first three years I was in this parliament we couldn't get up in a question time without having this mob rant at us like lunatics about debt and deficit disaster. It's funny now: we haven't heard anything of that, have we? We haven't heard about debt and deficit from this Prime Minister now he's overseeing the largest budget deficit this country has ever seen and the first recession for 30 years. Haven't heard much about that—it's not in your talking points, is it, Mr Blue Suit? Trashing super is economic vandalism. It is the biggest intergenerational rip-off this country has ever seen. What they're really saying by cutting superannuation and not providing for the retirement of Australians is: 'Don't worry, we'll put it on the bill. We'll run up the debt. We'll run up the deficit. Our grandkids can pay for our retirement.' The numbers are instructive—and we've heard this before—but one of the key rationales for introducing superannuation in the 1980s, the universal scheme, was our ageing population. In the mid-1980s we had about six workers for every retiree. Now it's about four workers for every retiree, and the projections are that within 15 years there'll be three workers for every retiree. Although with the cuts to migration the truth is, on the projections, that day is going to come sooner. We've smoothed the curve, but we haven't changed the trend. Labor in the 1980s planned for 50 years ahead. Politicians get accused of not planning for the future. Superannuation was one of the generational reforms in this country that provided for workers to have a decent retirement and provided fiscal security for the country. Make no mistake: COVID for the Liberals is just cover for their same ideological wars and their attacks on super, wages, corporate tax, industrial relations, privatisation—we'll see it all in the budget, with a little healthy dose of rent seeking. The scale of the superannuation system is enormous now, and I think Australians might not always appreciate what has been built over the decades. We have 15 million Australians with superannuation accounts. Sixty per cent of all Australians now have a super account. Eighty per cent of Australians between the age of 25 and 54 in that key working age bracket have a super account. We have $2.8 trillion in assets, and that is projected to grow to $10 trillion by 2040. It's now equal to 140 per cent of our national GDP. They are big numbers. So what do they mean? Firstly, it means more money and financial independence for retirees. Super is now the first- or second-largest asset that most Australians have. The average balance at the moment is about $270,000 for men and about $157,000 for women. It means most Australians can retire with their pension or part-pension and some superannuation. It's a better standard of living in retirement. And people are living longer. It's not yet enough for most Australians to replace the pension but if we stick with Labor's plan to legislate over the decade to increase it to 12 per cent, it will move in that direction. The median balance will be higher—about $300,000 for women and $600,000 for men. Of course, it also reduces the exposure of Australian households to financial shocks by diversifying their assets. Just a little aside on the gender gap: you can see from those figures that there is still a huge gender gap in the level of superannuation that men and women will retire with. But the Liberals' plan to cut superannuation will make things even worse for women. Right now, 40 per cent of older single retired women live in abject poverty in this country. They are one of the fastest-growing groups of homeless—single retired women. They are people pushed out of their work—maybe in their 50s. They are people retiring after a divorce or a catastrophe of some form, in their 60s, with no superannuation. A cut to super is a cut to wages that will hit women especially hard. One of the economically worst aspects of the government's handling of the COVID recession—and it goes to the second reading amendment—is the government allowing people to raid their retirement savings. Instead of providing support to those who need it, in the last few months the government has let over 560,000 Australians withdraw every last cent of their retirement savings. There is literally nothing left in their retirement savings. It might not sound like a lot but, for a 25-year-old, taking $10,000 out now means $233,000 in lost interest by the time they retire. It's enormous. It's the biggest generational rip-off in Australia's history and it's also the privatisation of stimulus. The work that the government should have been doing on behalf of the community and all taxpayers has been outsourced to the lowest-income—poorest—people in society. An opposition member interjecting— Mr HILL 86256 I know: socialising the losses caused by the economy in a much cheaper and more economically effective way. What a surprise from this mob! In the last few months alone, Australians have withdrawn $32 billion from their super accounts. As I said, 560,000 Australians now have not one cent left in their superannuation account. Even the government admits that, by the end of the year, at least $42 billion will be gone, with upper estimates in the order of $50 billion. But the real disgrace is that the largest single source of economic stimulus that the government has injected into the economy is from superannuation. They have privatised the stimulus. That's taking privatisation to a new level—even for this mob! It's bad enough to outsource Centrelink. It's bad enough to outsource the NDIA, with 7,000 casual temporary workers there. It's bad enough that the tax office is run by labour hire staff. Now they have privatised their stimulus! Australians have spent more from their super on getting through this crisis than the government has provided in any single line item in their so-called response. They've spent more from low-income workers' super accounts than they have on JobKeeper or the JobSeeker supplement or any other element of their response—let alone the lax administration of the scheme by the government, with the fraud and the scams. Nutty government backbenchers have been running around on Sky News telling everyone: 'This is free money. Go and have a crack, have a withdrawal. Just get it out. It's free money!' It's irresponsible. I'm not blaming the individuals, but we have seen that a significant percentage of people who have got the money out haven't told the truth or haven't filled out the form properly—because they've listened to these nutters on the TV. The fact is that that has now exposed people who have misused the scheme to severe fines and penalties—$12½ thousand—and potentially a whacking big tax bill in the middle of the pandemic. And compounding it—this is a gold-medal award in the Olympics of policy stupidity—is the impact on every other Australian, the 14½ million Australians who still have at least a dollar in their super account, by getting these people to withdraw their money at the bottom of the market. It has a compounding effect on the problems and on the value of the assets. It is the worst possible time in the economic cycle for these economic geniuses opposite to let people withdraw from their retirement savings. The final couple of points I'll make in this time are about the two great big lies that the snake oil salesmen opposite stand up and tell you. The first is about wages. Somehow they're saying, 'When the Liberals cut superannuation, don't worry.' It's a con trick. 'Then workers'll get higher wages.' Work that out: 'If we cut superannuation, you'll get higher wages—nothing to worry about,' which is absolute rubbish. Superannuation is part of your wages. It's part of your pay in this country. Cutting super is cutting your wage. Wages, of course, are stagnant under the Liberals. We've had record low wage rises for years under this government. Stagnant wages didn't just come in when the Prime Minister became prime minister after knifing the last one; they came in seven years ago. For many workers, next year's 0.5 per cent legislated superannuation rise is the only wage rise they're going to see under this government. Even if the Liberals got away with their plan to cancel the 0.5 per cent rise, there's no guarantee, of course, that it'll go to take-home pay. In fact, it's highly unlikely, in Prime Minister Morrison's recession, that for most people it will go anywhere near their pay packet. It'll get swallowed by the employer. The second big con trick that the government is trying to pull on the Australian people is that somehow this is going to be a choice between having a dignified retirement by having your super wage rise—of 0.5 per cent, mind—and owning a house. They're pretending that somehow it'd be good for homeownership if we let everyone withdraw their super and buy a house. What a con trick! Not only is it effectively trashing the retirement income system but it'd push up house prices. Imagine pouring that much cash into people's pockets to go and bid up house prices and leave average Australians poorer in retirement. That'd be a runner for the gold medal in the stupid policy Olympics when they enter next year, no doubt. The national wealth from the superannuation system that Labor built is stupendous. It boosts our national savings. It's enormously beneficial for the economy. That $2.8 trillion pool of savings helps grow the economy and invest in projects in Australia and overseas. The fact is that Australian workers now own more of the wealth that our country produces. It's a wonderful thing. That huge pool of capital that our nation has at its disposal is owned by all Australians, not multinationals or wealthy corporates. Superannuation funds now reduce Australia's reliance on foreign sources of finance. Anyone concerned about foreign investment should be very aware of the role that superannuation plays in creating an investment pool here and overseas. Since 2013, finally, Australians have owned more equity overseas than foreigners have owned in Australia, and that's because of superannuation, because we have this $2.8 trillion pool of national savings that we can take and invest in assets, infrastructure, agriculture and other productive things not just in Australia but also in other countries and projects overseas. That's a wonderful thing, because it means that we get profits from those investments overseas that come back and make Australians wealthier. There's a lot more to be said, and I know my colleagues will talk more. There's another superannuation bill, and we'll be back here for more. But let there be no mistake for Australians: Labor will always defend the superannuation system that provides for a decent, dignified retirement for Australians, makes them wealthier and also boosts our national economy. The Prime Minister's plan to break his promise and cut superannuation and wages will be opposed by this side of the House. 17:28 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Firstly, I'd like to thank all members who have contributed to this debate. The Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020 extends membership of the Public Sector Superannuation accumulation plan to certain current and former Commonwealth employees who are not otherwise eligible to continue making contributions to a fund run by the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation. The bill will ensure that the choice-of-fund principle extends appropriately to Commonwealth public sector schemes. It allows current and former PSSap members to avoid paying multiple fees to maintain separate funds under different trustees. This bill will support them in saving for their retirement. The bill allows former PSSap contributory members to use their existing PSSap accounts in respect of any employment, like self-employment, and not just employment that attracts a superannuation guarantee obligation. To make their other contributions, such as non-concessional contributions, PSSap contributing members will also be able to make contributions to their account in respect of any non-Commonwealth employment that they undertake concurrent with their Commonwealth employment—for instance, where they work part-time for the government and part-time for a private employer. The bill also allows certain members of the main Australian government civilian defined benefits superannuation schemes, the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme and the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme, who currently are contributing or preserved benefit members, to establish PSSap accounts where they choose to also have future superannuation contributions held by the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation. The reforms contained in this bill are consistent with the government's broader superannuation objectives to lower the cost that members incur for the administration and management of their superannuation accounts. The opposition has moved a second reading amendment related to the super guarantee rate and the age pension, neither of which is affected by the current bill. The opposition have low credibility on retirement issues, given their continued commitment to a $57 billion retiree tax that would hit almost one million Australians' self-managed super funds and some larger super funds. This is still Labor policy. On the age pension, I note that, since the coalition was elected in 2013, pensions have increased by $135.90 a fortnight for singles and $204.80 a fortnight for couples combined—and, to help manage the impact of the coronavirus, pensioners have received two $750 economic support payments. We also reduced social security deeming rates in May. To return to the bill before us, I note that it relates to specific Commonwealth public sector super schemes and not to general superannuation law. The bill, in short, facilitates the continuity of superannuation arrangements as workers move in and out of Commonwealth employment as they pursue diverse careers. These are sensible modernising reforms. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable the member for Whitlam has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

The House divided. [17:36]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 44 AYES Andrews, KL Bell, AM Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Dutton, PC Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ (teller) Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Haines, H Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Dowd, KD 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 Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG 32 NOES Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Collins, JM Conroy, PM Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP King, MMH Leigh, AK McBain, KL McBride, EM Murphy, PJ O'Connor, BPJ Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Smith, DPB Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Zappia, A 35 PAIRS Alexander, JG Albanese, AN Allen, K Neumann, SK Andrews, KJ Aly, A Archer, BK O'Neil, CE Broadbent, RE Bird, SL Buchholz, S Burns, J Chester, D Butler, TM Christensen, GR Byrne, AM Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Drum, DK Coker, EA Entsch, WG Dick, MD Evans, TM Payne, AE Falinski, JG Owens, JA Hammond, CM Ryan, JC Hastie, AW Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Shorten, WR Howarth, LR Fitzgibbon, JA Irons, SJ Georganas, S Joyce, BT Snowdon, WE Kelly, C Perrett, GD Laming, A Giles, AJ Landry, ML Kearney, G Liu, G Keogh, MJ Marino, NB Khalil, P McVeigh, JJ King, CF Morton, B Swanson, MJ O'Brien, LS Vamvakinou, M O'Brien, T Marles, RD Pasin, A Thwaites, KL Thompson, P Mitchell, BK Vasta, RX Watts, TG Wilson, RJ Mitchell, RG Wood, JP Wells, AS Young, T Mulino, D Zimmerman, T Wilson, J

Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 59 17:40 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020 59

Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020

Consideration of Senate Message 59 Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Superannuation, Your Choice) Bill 2019 59

Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Superannuation, Your Choice) Bill 2019

Consideration of Senate Message 59 17:42 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I move: That the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020 60

Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020

Second Reading 60 17:42 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam A few moments ago government members filed into this place and voted against their own election commitment. I found it extraordinary. The only explanation that I can conjure up to explain what has gone on is that they didn't understand what they were voting for. I'd like to give them the opportunity to reconsider that by putting forward a similar set of amendments in the second reading debate on this bill that concerns superannuation. 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 calls on the Government to ensure that all Australians can enjoy a dignified retirement, including by committing to: 1. the scheduled and legislated increases to the superannuation guarantee; and 2. adequate funding for the aged pension". This bill has a grandiose title. 'More Flexible Superannuation' hides a very simple measure. Who could possibly oppose a bill entitled More Flexible Superannuation? In this case, not us. The member for Goldstein will be delighted. The bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to extend access to the superannuation bring-forward arrangements to people aged 65 and 66 from 1 July 2020 to better reflect the changing nature of work. That is to say it's a minor fixer to align the maximum age in one piece of legislation with the current pension age. It's sensible and it should enjoy our support, although I am going to come back to that point about the change in the pension age. It is worth the House focusing on that for a moment and in a moment. So we're going to support the bill. But it does say something about the government that one of their highest priorities during the global pandemic and economic crisis is to make it easier for people with significant assets to make large, non-concessional contributions to their superannuation account. It's not a fix for our beleaguered aged-care system. It's not helping businesses and universities build jobs. And it isn't going to help plug the massive holes that this government has punched in our superannuation system, particularly for the 600,000 young Australians who have had to access their superannuation accounts— Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B for want of any— Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B other sufficient support from the government—sufficient and timely support. Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B I note that the member for Goldstein has got a lot to say in this debate and I also note that he's placed himself on the speakers list, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta. He'll get his go. He's got a lot to say in respect of me, but I have to say this: I am not the member for Goldstein's biggest enemy in this House. The biggest enemy of the member of Goldstein in this House sits just in front of him—and he's been very, very busy, I've got to say, attending to branch-stacking in the member for Goldstein's seat and the member for Flinders' seat, trying to rearrange the order of votes in the Senate preselection. He's too busy dealing with all these things to deal with the matters that are in his portfolio. Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! The member for Whitlam has the call and he'll be relevant to the topic. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B I'll be as relevant as the member for Goldstein is silent. It sounds like a fair trade. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The member for Whitlam will be heard in silence. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B When former Prime Minister Paul Keating established the compulsory superannuation system, the universal superannuation system, he viewed it, and we view it, as an investment in the nation's future, and that's exactly what it has become: Australian workers owning retirement savings investments, building a pool of national savings in the national interest but also in the interests of ordinary Australians for their retirement savings. It is relevant and on point that this bill is aimed at addressing an anomaly between the superannuation tax administration arrangements acts, superannuation acts, and the adjustment in the pension age. The pension age has been adjusted from 65 and 66 through to 67. What this reflects is the fact that Australians are now living longer, and it also reflects the fact that we have an ageing population. This is apposite to the second reading amendment, because prior to former Prime Minister Paul Keating, together with former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, establishing the universal superannuation system—beginning in 1985-86 with Accord Mark II through the award system—30 per cent of Australians had access to superannuation. We had a name for them: men. Women had very little superannuation. Less than 20 per cent of women in the workforce had access to superannuation. Superannuation prior to that was something that was available to salaried men in the workforce, and not really available to the rest of the workforce. That one move, extending it to award superannuation, expanded superannuation coverage of the workforce from around 30 per cent to close to 50 per cent inside of a year, growing again to 60 per cent within another year or two. But it was the superannuation guarantee legislation of 1992 which extended universal superannuation to the entire workforce. As a result of that decision, Australians now have a tax assisted means of saving for their retirement. Members opposite will often say that it is their money; they should be able to do with it what they like. It is absolutely members' money, not one dollar of which would exist in a member's superannuation account if we had listened to members opposite—not one dollar of it! They opposed it in 1985 and 1986, when Accord Mark II was struck, and they have opposed every single dollar of superannuation that has gone into workers' superannuation accounts, from the first moment until today. Nothing is more galling to those of us who have followed the passage of superannuation from its very beginning, and have been consistent in our advocacy for workers' superannuation, than hearing those opposite try to pretend that they are champions of individual workers' superannuation, when they have opposed every single cent of it. Those three million Australians who have accessed their superannuation through the early access scheme have the architects of superannuation, Australian Labor, to thank for that, not this mob over here, because not one cent of it would have existed in those accounts if they'd listened to the ranting and the railing of those members opposite. Yes, it is their money, and it's there because Australian Labor had the foresight and the courage to push through the opposition of those opposite, to push through the opposition of the coalition parties, to ensure that workers in this country had access to the same sorts of superannuation arrangements that the salaried men had enjoyed for decades. I want to talk a little bit about the ageing population. When the Keating government initiated the superannuation guarantee levy, the ratio of workers to retirees sat at around 6½ or seven to one. That is to say, for every one retiree, there were six to seven people within the workforce, with their tax contributions funding, amongst other things, the pension payments of those retirees. We knew back in 1985 that, with the demographic shift, the ageing population, it was simply going to be unaffordable down the track, without significant tax increases or significant reductions in pension payments, for Australia to be able to provide a level of pension payments that was going to keep pace with cost-of-living increases and the expectations of Australians for a dignified retirement. We knew that to be true when the ratio of retirees to workers was one to six. An honourable member interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! The member for Whitlam will be heard in silence. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B So we put in place a system of tax preferred savings, preserved until retirement age so that the trustees of those funds could invest that money in good investments to deliver the sorts of returns over the long run—the excellent returns—that superannuation members enjoy today, somewhere in the vicinity of six to seven per cent real. That is what they are enjoying through their superannuation investments today, and they have enjoyed that consistently for most of the last 10 years if they're in a good fund. If their fund is not delivering those sorts of returns, they should seriously consider switching to a fund which does, because that's what they should have been enjoying over the last 10 years. Back then, there was a ratio of six to one. Wind forward to 2010, and the ratio of workers to retirees had dropped to five to one—that is to say, five workers for every one retiree. Move forward another 10 years, and the ratio of workers to retirees has dropped again, to four to one. By the time we hit 2030, when many of these people, particularly the younger ones—perhaps not the member for McMahon and me but some of the younger ones—will still be here, that ratio of worker to retiree will have dropped to three to one. Mr Bowen DZS We're still borderline millennials! Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B We are still borderline millennials, you and me, Member for McMahon! That ratio, by 2030, will have dropped to around three to one. So we've got some tough decisions to make. Do we say to our grandkids: 'We're going to drop the ball on superannuation. We are going to drop the ball on self-reliance'—self-reliance used to be a Liberal Party value—'We're going to drop the ball on preparing our country for the future and leave it to our grandkids'? Are we going to put it on the tick and say, 'Darling, can you pick up the bill'? That is literally what they are arguing: don't worry about it; the grandkids can pick up the bill. The ratio of workers to retirees will be one to three. We don't think that's fair, and on this side of the House we want to maintain a system that is designed to ensure that workers—all workers, not just the privileged ones—have access to a dignified retirement. That was the purpose of superannuation in the first place. I have heard members opposite argue, from time to time, 'Superannuation should be treated as any other bank account.' Let me walk you through a couple of reasons why that is absolute rubbish and how all workers will be worse off if that proposition ever sees the light of day. Let's look at the rate of return that superannuation has enjoyed over the last 10 years. On average, it's six to seven per cent, in some funds closer to eight, per annum over the last 10 years. Find me a bank that is offering that sort of a rate of return even on a long-term deposit. You can't. Look at the medium-term deposit returns you're getting on a bank investment today. They're somewhere closer to two per cent, and probably closer to one per cent, at the moment, than six, seven or eight per cent. There's a very good reason for that: banks hold cash on demand. It's not invested for 10, 15, 20, 40 or 50 years. It's banked and held on demand, and it can be drawn down very quickly. The banks can't be investing in the long term and can't be getting the sorts of returns that a patient investor, like a superannuation trust, can get, because that's not what they're set up to do. They're set up to have cash on demand. They're set up for a very different purpose. These nongs opposite argue, 'Let's treat superannuation just like a bank account.' You can treat superannuation like a bank account, but you'll get the same sort of return you get in your bank account as well—probably seven or eight per cent less than you're getting today. If that's seriously what they're arguing, they'll be devastating the savings returns for ordinary Australian workers. Let me say something else about this for those who try and say superannuation money is just like any other money and should be treated the same. It attracts tax preference: 15 per cent on the way in, 15 per cent on the returns of the fund and, if held to preservation date, nothing on the way out. There is no other class of income or investment that attracts the sorts of preferential treatments that superannuation does. It attracts those preferential treatments because we want to encourage people, incentivise people, to save for their retirement. So there's a very good reason that it's not treated like any other money, although some of those nongs over there are trying to convince people it is. I withdraw, Deputy Speaker. It was most unkind of me and to the nongs of this world. Some of those people are trying to say, 'Let's just treat it like any other bank account.' It would absolutely devastate your savings and the investments of those superannuation funds. It's not the banks that are investing for the long term in our port infrastructures, our airports, our highways, the long-term infrastructure of this country, that require an investment not over one, two or three years or even 10 or 15 years but over 30 and 40 years. Banks play a good role but it's the superannuation funds and that patient capital that's doing the long-term investment, the long-term returns, and delivering excellent outcomes not just for the fund members but for the country. Jobs, economic growth, putting ballast into business investment, which has fallen off a cliff under those guys over there—superannuation funds are the key to all of that. They want to pull it all apart. Individuals will be worse off, the economy will be worse off, pensions will go down, taxes will go up and retirement incomes will be absolutely devastated. It would be hard to find a government that had a greater grudge against retirees and elderly people than this one. They have frozen your pensions. Labor indexed pensions. These guys opposed it and tried to wind it back and now they have frozen it. They are kicking the guts out of superannuation because they don't understand it or they don't believe in it. It wasn't their idea, so there is intellectual jealousy. They are freezing your pensions and kicking the guts out of superannuation and aged care. If you were to receive a report from a royal commission that told you that between 30 and 50 per cent of residents in aged-care facilities were malnourished—the technical term is 'starving'—would you sit on that report? Would you sit on that report for nine months, as the hapless aged-care minister has done, supported by this government? No, you wouldn't. You'd act. You'd ensure that those aged-care facilities received the funding, the support, the regulation and the oversight that our senior citizens so dearly deserve. I can't see the heart in this government. They are absolutely heartless—devastating for individuals. But there you have it in one. You've got their trifecta: kicking the guts out of the pension system, ripping the heart out of superannuation and being absolutely heartless when it comes to aged care in this country. That's the trifecta that you're getting from this government. We give them the opportunity to repent. We give them the opportunity to do a very simple thing—to come in here and vote in favour of their own election commitments. It's a very simple thing. We give all of them over there the opportunity to come in here and vote in favour of their own election commitments. It's actually much more than that. We're asking them to vote in a way that supports a recovery from the economic recession that this government is making ever so much worse, ensuring that we have the basis on which to build an economy and growth into the future; that we aren't kicking the can down the road on the cost of pensions and an ageing population; and that we aren't saying to our kids, 'We're putting it on the tick and you're going to pick up the bill. We'll be long gone and you guys are going to have to pick up the bill.' It didn't used to be Liberal ideology that the answer to everything was to put it on the taxpayer and we'll pay for it down the road. But, surprisingly, it seems to be today. We are going to oppose them every step of the way. We are going to invite them to vote in favour of their own election commitment when they consider the vote on my second reading amendment. Apart from that, we'll be supporting the legislation. We encourage the government to do the right thing by the retirees of this country, like the right thing by people living in aged-care facilities. We've got a lot of work to do to recover from this economic recession that this mob are making so much worse. Kicking the guts out of superannuation is not the right way to go. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Mr Keogh 249147 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The original question was that this bill be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Whitlam has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 18:04 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Yet another erudite speech—no, that's the wrong word—empty speech on superannuation from the member for Whitlam. We have this almost every day. In fact, I think this is the second or maybe the third time that he has come into this chamber and shadow-boxed and dodged and punched these key arguments that nobody is actually making. He doesn't actually deal with the fundamental issues. No matter what the member for Whitlam thinks, we can all see what is going on right here, right now. Once upon a time the Australian Labor Party was the party of the worker. They recognised that Australians wanted to work, earn a good day's income, support their family, own their home and recognise, yes, that they also wanted dignity and safety in retirement. That was when they represented organised workers. They did—a long, long time ago. What the Australian Labor Party today has become is the party of organised capital. What they seek, day in, day out, is an ever-increasing volume of Australians' incomes to go into funds managed by their mates so they can use it to achieve undemocratic means, using the superannuation system for things they could never get through this chamber and the other place. That is what they are. They are not the party of the organised worker; they are the party of organised capital. They are going to trade the invisible hand for the shadow fist of the trade union movement and their political objectives. That's what this is all about. It's not a debate about Australian retirees because, truthfully, they don't care about them. They don't care about Australian workers. They'd literally rather take more money out of the hip pockets of Australians today when they desperately need it and funnel it into the funds of their mates than improve the material conditions of Australian workers right now. I don't think this is bad; I think this is scandalous. I think it's the most outrageous thing I've ever seen in public policy. And they do it coming into this chamber with crocodile tears as they stab the people in the back that they claim they're representing. And they do so on the basis of a dishonest argument from the outset. The dishonest argument is that the most important thing for retirement security is the size of your superannuation balance. It is not. The most important thing for your retirement security is to own your own home. Yet, we turn around the priorities of this country in the legislation that they will consistently support and will attack vehemently much more than if you ever criticised the unions these days. It is to keep in place an entrenched system where the priority for young Australians—people who are only 20 years old—is to save for the compound benefits of something that's not going to happen for another 50 years at the expense of them having that income to save for a home that they'll get a benefit from for more than 50 years. This is scandalous, and a complete reprioritisation of human need for their political interests. And what happens? Australian incomes, 10 per cent of their incomes or nearly, goes out of the hip pockets of Australians into the funds that they support. And where do the donations end up? But in the hands of the Australian Labor Party. It is a form of political money laundering, and that is the basis of their political objectives on this issue. And so, once again, we have had this silly amendment because the member for Whitlam, like the member for McMahon and all those on the other side, go rabbiting on about how they care so much about Australian retirees' security, yet in this chamber—and the member for McMahon will experience this; I know he had a go at me in the previous speech. I know his policy on franking credits. We exposed his policy on the retiree tax, and I know that burns still to this day because you can hear it in the snark in his voice. In the end, they went to the last election saying, 'We are going to push Australian retirees below the poverty line,' and they have the gumption to come into this chamber and then lecture people on this side about how they care about retirees' security. No matter how much we pointed out to them that their retiree tax would smash the livelihoods of people who are independent—people with sicknesses, people who have disabilities, people who are low-income earners or, particularly, women—it didn't matter what we said, and it didn't matter what Australians said, they wouldn't listen. They sat arrogantly on the other side of the chamber and lectured us because they knew better and because this is their mad ideology. The good news is that the people of Australia had their say and exposed their empty policy then like they would expose their empty policy now. There are so many bodies that have looked into the economic consequences of what happens if you keep increasing the compulsory contribution to superannuation. The Australian Council of Social Service says that this will hurt low-income earners, that it will make it harder for them to get a job. That doesn't matter—it's the Labor Party who's the priority here. The Treasury says, 'This will cost wages and wage growth.' Those opposite say: 'It doesn't matter. We've got to get that money into our friendly funds.' The Grattan Institute has looked at the long-term impacts of enterprise bargaining agreements and the impact on wages and come up with exactly the same conclusion—but that's fine, because, if we didn't do this, the Labor Party would lose cash flow. The Reserve Bank of Australia appeared before the House Economics Committee meeting, and the Reserve Bank governor drew an explicit correlation between increasing the compulsory super guarantee and slower wage growth and then went on to draw a broader correlation between that and jobs. Let's face it: if there is anything at this time—at this recession caused by the coronavirus—that is going to be critical for young Australians, for families and, frankly, for everybody, it's to create the job opportunities for the next generation of Australians. If you haven't got a job, you're not chipping into your superannuation account. But those opposite don't care, because their only interest is themselves. This is why we have to stand up on this issue. They would trade the future opportunity of young Australians for themselves. To feed their own interests, they would force them to continue to lose the opportunity to own their own home. And where does the money go? It goes into funds where you lose out on the fees and make donations to the Australian Labor Party. It is a scandal. If you want to know how much of a scandal it is, you just need to go and look at the answers from Industry Super Australia themselves. In answers to the Economics Committee, we got research that they wouldn't publish otherwise and that they wanted to keep secret. It only reinforced what everybody else was saying—while they turned up in other public squares and said the opposite. This is the mad ideology that sits behind the Labor Party today—the party of organised capital. They don't prioritise the interests of Australians and how those Australians want to pursue their lives, their opportunities, their aspirations and, yes, their retirement security. I keep making the point—because it's so important—it is madness that we turn around to a 20-year-old and say, 'You must save for your retirement, which is in 50 years time, at the expense of owning your own home earlier and having more than 50 years of ownership and security that comes with it.' The people who do worst in retirement are not people with lower superannuation balances. They are people who rent, because they face ever-increasing rents as time goes on. Yes, there's also a correlation, often, with having a low super balance—that's true. But they are the people and they are the ones who are shown the most contempt by the people sitting on the other side of this chamber. I get passionate about this issue because I can see the rort that sits at the heart of it. For the member for Whitlam to come in here and constantly rant and rave in defence and say that he's standing up for workers when he's doing the exact opposite and facilitating a system that feeds his friends at the expense of small business, the worker and their retirement security, I find truly extraordinary. We ultimately have to stand up on this one. We on this side of the chamber want to create jobs so that young Australians have a go—so they can have a go, so they can have some chance of getting their go. But we don't hear that from the other side. You hear their sneers towards those Australians who, in a time of crisis, were given the opportunity by this government to be reunited with their own money. Those opposite come in here and say, 'We voted for it.' Go back and review the speeches on the day—they did so very reluctantly because they knew they would be exposed if they didn't. They continue, in public and in this chamber, to oppose it rhetorically. There's a sneer in the heart, because in the end they would rather the money stayed with their fundie mates than let Australians keep their own homes. I heard it in question time today. The Leader of the Opposition said, 'So it's supposed to be used towards mortgages?' Yes, if it's a choice between people losing their homes and drawing down early on their superannuation balance, I'd support them drawing down on their super balance if they wish. The material impact, the long-term impact, the societal destruction, the family destruction that can happen from the alternative is so much greater. We're all going to face choices during this recession. We will all face choices when we come into this chamber and decide whether or not we want to build an Australia for future generations. That's not the priority that sits at the heart of the Labor Party today. I can give you one guarantee that is absolutely square focus of what I stand for: I want young Australians to have their go too, and I don't want it taken from them by the Labor Party so they can feed themselves. Now is the time to stand up and to call out the empty rhetoric and the empty logic of those that sit on the other side of this chamber. 18:17 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley I've just sat and listened to a speech given by the member for Goldstein at maximum volume—which should be recorded for the sake of Hansard so that all those who read it in their head in the future read it at shrill yelling volume so they know its full impact. I heard him argue at that volume against superannuation—against superannuation, the entire scheme! I think many people in Australia will be interested to know that in fact his position is that superannuation, as a scheme, is madness, that the commitment that the Morrison government took to the last election to stay with the already legislated increase to the superannuation guarantee is, and I quote the member for Goldstein, 'mad ideology'. Where was this high-octane, high-volume argument against the government's own policy in the lead-up to the election? It's one thing to come in here and shout and rave and suggest in a way that has absolutely no basis in fact and is hardly comprehensible that the entire scheme of superannuation is somehow about feathering Labor's nest. It's one thing to do that—it's another thing to actually be honest with the Australian people and say that superannuation is a scheme that has been in place for many, many decades and that the Morrison government has no intention of completely dismantling it in an open and transparent way; its intention is just to chip at it and chip at it and chip at it. And who gets the money that apparently is going to be spent buying all of these houses? Could it be, perhaps, the people that donate to the Liberal Party? I might just leave that out there. It is just beyond the pale to have the member for Goldstein come in here and say that superannuation is madness and that the government's election commitment to abide by the legislated superannuation guarantee increase is mad ideology. I might note that all of us privileged enough to serve in this place have a superannuation contribution of 15 per cent, whilst people on the other side are arguing against their own policy for working Australians to have a superannuation contribution of 12 per cent. Here are some actual facts that show the superannuation system we have in Australia, which is world leading and a proud legacy of Labor governments, makes the economy stronger. It's a savings pool to invest in jobs and growth. It means Australians own more of the country and more of the wealth that our country creates. If Australians have less superannuation, they're going to have more reliance on a pension and less money for their retirement—and we know that we have a government that wants to increase the retirement age to 70. Superannuation was created to fix the budget and to give retirees a dignified retirement. Those people that the member for Goldstein and others on that side say they're fighting for—this younger generation of people who dream to own a home—also deserve to have a dignified retirement. They don't deserve to have a government that says, 'We'll think about how we're going to afford to pay for your age pension sometime down the track,' because it's not really going to be our problem. It's going to be some other government's problem in future years to fund what will be an enormous pension call on the budget if they get their way, which the member for Goldstein has made absolutely obvious in his speech, and they dismantle the whole superannuation system. Superannuation contributes twice as much to retirement incomes as the age pension. So consider the impact when people's superannuation is denuded in the way that this government wants and encourages it to be. Superannuation is also either the largest or the second-largest asset most Australians have. The current average balances at retirement are $270,710 for men and $157,050 for women. I'm going to come back to that gender disparity in superannuation and the implications of it later in this speech. It means that more Australians retire having to rely not on a full pension but only on a part pension and it means more Australians retire with a superannuation income that gives them dignity in their retirement. If we stick with 12 per cent, the median balance at retirement will be more than $300,000 for women and more than $600,000 for men, and workers on the lowest incomes will be between 15 and 20 per cent better off than they will be on the age pension alone. That's standing up for workers. That's standing up for low-income workers. Yet we have a government that has decided to encourage Australians to raid their futures—to raid their retirements, in the form of their early access superannuation scheme—to get through their current circumstances instead of having a proper and comprehensive plan to help them get through. No-one is critical of individuals who have taken the opportunity to access that scheme in good faith. The criticism is levelled at a government that is telling Australians that that's a good thing to do for their future. We know from industry analysis that the estimate is that a 20-year-old who withdraws $20,000 under the scheme could lose more than $120,000 from their retirement balance, a 30-year-old who accesses $20,000 could lose about $100,000 in their retirement and a 40-year-old could lose more than $63,000. It's not right and it's not fair to say that the most significant way to get through this pandemic is for people to raid their future to survive their present. It's also not right and not fair to put off the future impact on a budget. Six hundred thousand Australians have emptied their superannuation accounts, and 494,000 of those are under the age of 35. These, remember, are people under the age of 35 who are significantly impacted by this pandemic and the recession, and they're now going to be significantly impacted in their future because they miss out on compound interest. We also know that the early superannuation access scheme has been the subject of significant allegations of fraud and misuse, and that's had to be referred to the Auditor-General by Labor so that it would be investigated. Women, who already have significantly less superannuation in their accounts than men, have been more likely than men to access the early withdrawal of super. Recently, we've seen in Victoria more than 30 community and union organisations to get together to lobby the federal government and the national cabinet—if it remains after what we've seen in parliament over the last few days, with this federal government attacking state governments—urgently to address the worsening economic conditions of working women during COVID-19. McKell Institute research found a 7.1 per cent decline in the number of Victorian women in jobs since March and has identified that job losses among women were at five times the rate of job losses among men in July. That research has concluded that recent policy decisions mean disproportionate economic impacts on women are likely to accelerate. And what did the McKell report identify as those poor policy designs and ill-considered decisions? The early access to superannuation scheme, the end of the so-called free child care and the ripping away of JobKeeper from childcare and early education workers. The impact on women predicted by the McKell Institute is poverty in retirement. We already know that the fastest growing cohort of homeless people are women over the age of 55. There are a number of factors that play into that, and one of them is their poor levels of superannuation and retirement savings, particularly compared to their male counterparts. Women's Health Victoria chief executive Dianne Hill was quoted in The Age recently as saying that women are more likely to be at the front line of the pandemic as essential workers, more likely to lose their jobs, more likely to have increased caring responsibilities and more likely to access their superannuation early to meet basic needs. A cohort of Australian workers who are already suffering in retirement from lack of superannuation have been forced, because of a range of poor and ill-considered policy decisions, to access their superannuation early to meet their basic needs. So, when the member for Goldstein talks at high volume and high pitch about the future for Australian workers, perhaps he needs to just calm down for a moment and think about these women and the impact of policies on them. I want to endorse something else that Ms Hill said to The Age, which is that we must seize the opportunity to tackle these gender inequalities and build a more gender-equal society. That's what we should be looking at in terms of reforms to superannuation, not walking away from the government's previous election commitment to abide by the increase to the superannuation guarantee and the other reforms which are clothed in choice but are really about dismantling our superannuation system bit by bit. Of course, there are many Australians who rely on the pension in retirement, and the pension, in so many circumstances, is just not adequate for a dignified retirement. Jenny recently called my office about the age pension. She was really saying, 'How am I going to survive without an increase, particularly now that there's the freeze on indexation?' Jenny has to shop online at the moment in order to get her groceries delivered, which means it's much more expensive for her. She is on the pension and struggling to afford to buy her groceries online. Noel, a constituent, contacted me some time ago. He is not necessarily a supporter of my party, but he really wanted a message brought to this parliament and the Treasurer. He noted that there was a review into retirement incomes—I'm not sure what happened to the government's review on retirement incomes; we haven't seen that yet—but this is what he wanted me to raise back in June. He said: 'The recent increase in the age pension was $8.42 per fortnight. This, of course, equates to one cup of cappuccino a week. Our retirement savings have taken a huge hit. We trust the government will review the pension, the assets and income test, and the deeming rates. My wife and I are hitting 80 in a month or two and we don't have much time to recover financially. The age pension increase wasn't enough.' I haven't spoken to Noel recently, but I can't imagine that the news that the indexation isn't going ahead is going to make him feel any better. I should also give a shout-out to his wife, who is a terrific tennis player and, I understand, has a club in common with the Treasurer. One of the other issues raised with me by a lot of my constituents about the pension is fairly summed up by an email from Phil—which I think is in capitals because it was at the same volume as the member for Goldstein's contribution! He said: 'Why are the old age pensioners always left out in the cold when it comes to giving money to help us out a little bit? There's one fact they keep forgetting: most of us paid our taxes for 50 bloody hard years. I get $750 in April and $750 in July and that's bloody it. Is that fair?' (Time expired) 18:32 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's always interesting to rise in this place and speak about superannuation. My good colleague the member for Burt is here, and also the member for Kingsford Smith. I know they have more than a passing interest in the subject. I will reflect first and foremost on what this government has done for superannuation over the past few years. I spent more than a little bit of time in the superannuation industry prior to my time in this place, so I well understand not only the importance of superannuation to members of our superannuation funds but also the importance of the capital it provides for our economy more generally. The intersection of both of those is an important consideration in anything we do. I have heard a number of comments from those opposite about the early release scheme. I think around 20 per cent of the funds people have taken out of their super has been used to cover debt repayments. I think that is critically important during this period. Whilst I understand that there are longer-term consequences for those decisions, the immediate consequence in a lot of these examples is that people keep a roof over their heads. I think that is a far more important current consequence of being able to access super—keeping a roof over their heads—and we can deal with and work through the longer-term issues that result. Of equal importance is the work this government has done in the six years we've been in office to tidy up and improve the operation, transparency and efficiency of our superannuation funds. We recognise that a successful, well-run, transparent superannuation fund is good for this country on many, many levels—critically, no more so than in underpinning people's wealth creation and their planning for retirement. After owning their own home, superannuation for most people is their next biggest asset. We focus on ensuring that Australians can reap the full benefits of that superannuation system by ensuring that members of our super funds and everyday Australians are the priority and at the forefront of the decision-making process with respect to superannuation. That's why, since we've come to government, we've passed legislation to improve the efficiency through strengthening the powers of the regulator to deal with underperforming funds. We've capped fees on low-balance accounts, which has helped around seven million Australians save some $570 million in fees in the first year alone. Imagine what that's going to add up to over 20 or 30 years. We've banned exit fees on all superannuation accounts, and for the first time ever the ATO has had the power to proactively unite low-balance and inactive accounts with active accounts. This has seen the ATO proactively reunite almost 2.5 million accounts with almost $3.2 billion in savings—again, saving in fees and costs for running those super funds. I well remember the day a new client who had eight different superannuation funds came into my office, and it took some time and work to combine all of those into a single fund. We're focusing on delivering a better superannuation system for everyday Australians. When I talk to people locally in my community about superannuation, business and a range of issues, they want to know that their funds are well invested and well managed and that there's going to be something there for them in their retirement. Whether it's the employees at Beenleigh Glass, those at Luv a Coffee or those on the production lines of places like Thiess or ATP Science at Loganholme, these people every week have 9½ per cent of their wages effectively forgone and put into superannuation because that was, as those opposite have pointed out in their contributions, part of the trade-off for setting up super—not only that initial three per cent but ongoing future increases as well. We want to see people enjoy a dignified and comfortable retirement, but that covers a range of issues. You don't just look at superannuation in and of itself. You have to look at the ability of people to have their debt repaid by the time they get to retirement. You have a look at the decisions people want to make about the style of retirement they want to have. Do they want the lifestyle they've led in the years prior to retirement, or are they prepared to modify their lifestyle to have a more relaxed retirement? All of those decisions are critically important for people as they come to that important decision in their life. But this week we've also got on with the job of delivering for the Australian people. I'm very pleased to note that today the Senate passed the Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Superannuation, Your Choice) Bill 2019. This bill will provide a choice of fund for more Australians employed under federal enterprise agreements and workplace agreements. I made a comment about this yesterday in the Federation Chamber, and I challenged the shadow minister to support this bill in the Senate if they truly believe in choice and opportunity for Australians to choose where their money goes. Well, I wasn't disappointed, because the shadow minister and his colleagues on that side of the chamber didn't take up my offer. They voted against the choice bill in the Senate today. They can talk about the importance of superannuation, the importance of choice and all of those things. They can say all the right things but, at the end of the day, you don't look at what they say; you actually look at what they do. And they voted today to stop the Australian people from having a choice of where their superannuation money is placed if they have an enterprise agreement—again, for one simple reason: to protect the interests of their mates in the industry super funds. I've spoken about this plenty of times in this place. I was pleased when that legislation first passed through this House. But it's not the first time that those opposite have voted against that legislation. It was considered in previous parliaments, and the opposition refused to support it then, and it's refused to support it now. Denying members choice is fundamentally unfair, anticompetitive and inefficient. It's one of the reasons that we finish up in a situation where people have multiple superannuation accounts. Those opposite want to perpetuate the impediment to Australian people's ability to develop a sustainable balance in their superannuation funds to give them a sound retirement—shame on them. Whatever they have to say in this place on superannuation are just hollow words and noise, because, when push comes to shove, they don't turn up and support superannuation. In relation to this bill, as workplaces evolve and become more flexible or workers demand more freedom from their working arrangements, it's imperative that our superannuation system is fit for purpose and has the ability to adapt to modern requirements. This bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to extend, from 1 July this year, access to superannuation and the bring-forward arrangements to people aged 65 and 66, which will better reflect the changing nature of work. It will also allow people to make up to three years worth of non-concessional contributions to their super in a single year. This is important as people seek to downsize or change their arrangements prior to retirement. It helps older Australians boost their retirement savings within the super environment and gives them greater flexibility to make these contributions to super as they enter retirement. This bill also aligns the cut-off age for the bring-forward arrangements to 67, which is the same age for eligibility for the age pension. This is a commonsense measure which ensures the simplification of a number of age based measures in the legislation. I acknowledge that, whilst this bill is relatively straightforward, as I've said previously, it's yet further evidence that this government is committed to the superannuation system and to getting the best outcomes possible for the millions of members of super funds. As I outlined earlier, we've made a number of changes to superannuation since we were elected in 2013. We'll continue to refine the system to ensure the best possible outcome for members. We make no apologies for seeking to focus this week on protecting the interests of members through the Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Superannuation, Your Choice) Bill. I'm pleased for members of Australian super funds that we got that bill through the Senate today. I commend this bill, in its original form, to the House. 18:43 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith If you didn't know anything about superannuation and you wanted a crash course in compulsory superannuation in Australia, all you would need to know is this: the Liberal and National parties don't support superannuation. When they're in government, they do their best to water it down so that workers in Australia retire with less in their retirement savings than they otherwise would have. Labor takes the opposite approach. We established the superannuation system. We believe in it, we're very proud of it and, when we're in government, we do our best to strengthen it so that workers retire with more in their superannuation accounts and can enjoy a dignified retirement. The differences between the two parties are clear when it comes to superannuation. Labor's philosophy is that superannuation is about government saying to workers: 'Thank you for all of your hard work and all of the work that you did over the course of your working life to build the national economic wealth of this country. We're going to support you by giving you a tax concession to encourage you to save for your own retirement so that you can do things like own your own home and have an annual holiday every year, and to ensure that you can pass something on to your kids and your grandkids to give them a good life.' That's what superannuation is all about, and that is what this government is trying to undermine. At the moment, the government have two policies that will undermine the philosophy of superannuation providing a dignified retirement for workers in this country. This isn't the attack on superannuation that we ordinarily get from those opposite when they get to government, chipping away here, chipping away there. This is a full-on double-barrelled attack on people's retirement savings, through the superannuation early release scheme and now the campaign that's once again going on amongst government MPs to scrap the promised, guaranteed, legislated increase in superannuation savings for Australian workers. On the first one, we know that members of the government are encouraging Australian workers to raid their superannuation accounts in circumstances where they might not need to and might be able to get through this difficult recession period without having to do that. The evidence of that is in the fact that data released by companies like AlphaBeta, analysing the bank transactions of Australian workers, shows that in 40 per cent of the cases where people have raided their superannuation accounts there has been no discernible fall in their income. They've just taken the opportunity to get this money and, in some cases, go on an unnecessary spending spree. The evidence of that is in the fact that 10 per cent of the funds was spent on gambling and another element of it was spent on alcohol and tobacco by people who didn't have a reduction in their income. They are the Australian workers who are going to suffer down the track, because, as we all know, the great beauty of superannuation is in compounding interest. It's in the fact that a small nest egg becomes a big nest egg over the lifetime of a worker. It is Australian workers who are going to suffer in circumstances where they may not have needed to raid their superannuation but have been encouraged to do so by this government. The second element is the campaign by many on the other side to reduce or get rid of the legislated and promised increase in minimum amounts of superannuation for Australian workers. This is the 9½ to 12 per cent staged increase that has been legislated and was promised by the Prime Minister and members of his government in the lead up to the last election. We believe they're about to announce that they're not going to go ahead with this. They'll come up with the usual arguments. They'll say, 'We believe that it's better that it goes into wages, that people get that money now and can use it to try and buy a new home or ensure that they're secure at this point in their lives.' It's complete rubbish, and we'll know it's complete rubbish, because the last time that this occurred—when the Liberals were in government under the Howard government and they put a stop to legislated increases in superannuation—they used the same arguments: 'We'll put it into wages. Everyone will get a wage increase.' Guess what happened? It didn't go into the pockets of workers. It went into the pockets of employers in profits. Wages growth actually fell after those legislated increases were abandoned by the Howard government. That says everything about what this mob is about. They're not about ensuring that workers are better off. They're not about ensuring that workers have dignity in their retirement. They're about making sure that employers get the opportunity to keep more of the income that they generate and turn it into profit for their businesses. That is wrong. That is deceitful. They are misleading the Australian public by holding out the hope that they will get more in their wages when they know very well that the reality is that that doesn't work. The notion of trickle-down, that it will end up in the pockets of workers, simply doesn't work, and they're about to try it on once again. We all know that they're warming up for another broken promise to the Australian people and another broken promise when it comes to superannuation. The great beauty of the Australian superannuation system that Labor established is that it works. The evidence of that is in the fact that Australia is the 16th-largest economy in the world but we have the fourth-largest pool of savings funds. We certainly bat above our average when it comes to providing government policy that incentivises people to save for their retirement. That is why Labor is justifiably proud of that system. If you go back to before compulsory superannuation was established, 65 per cent of Australian workers had no retirement savings whatsoever. Now it's the complete opposite, and most Australian workers have at least some retirement savings, although they're going to be whittled away by those two policies that I just mentioned from this government. So it's important that we protect the integrity of the superannuation system, because it's been successful—and that is why Labor is justifiably proud of the system that we built. But you don't have to ask anyone about the statistics. You just have to ask the average worker who has benefited from compulsory superannuation right through their working life. They might have been on a voluntary scheme through an EBA prior to compulsory super coming in, and then they've benefited from the compulsory scheme that was established by the Hawke government. That person will tell you how they've benefited from the superannuation scheme. The advantages that that worker has received, in a dignified retirement, justify the policy, and yet that is what the government is trying to undermine. Labor is justifiably proud of the system that we built, and we're going to do all we can to defend it to the hilt, because we believe in the notion of superannuation. We believe in the dignity of retirement for Australian workers who have put their heart and soul into working their entire life and into building the great nation and the economic strength that we have and that we're able to use at times like this, when we enter into a recession. We can call on those savings to make sure that we continue to have people in employment and get through this difficulty and get back on a growth trajectory for our economy. That is why we will continue to raise these issues in this forum in respect of bills like this. I certainly support the intent of this bill, because it provides a sensible amendment to the Australian income tax laws that extends the bring-forward rule for non-concessional contributions to allow those aged 65 and 66 to make up to three years of non-concessional superannuation contributions. Current laws allow this up to 64, and the current law's inconsistency with pension ages is an artefact of the change in pension age. The annual non-concessional contributions cap is currently set at $100,000 a year, and this cap limits the amount of after-tax contributions that can be made into super each financial year. Individuals are able to bring forward some of the amount of that cap if they meet specified criteria—having less than $1.6 million in that balance and not having recently used the bring-forward arguments. In this amendment to our income tax laws, we're encouraging people and giving them the opportunity to save more for their retirement. That's a good thing. But the government is seeking to undo the good work in this bill with the policy of allowing people to raid their superannuation accounts and the foreshadowed proposal to ensure that we don't increase compulsory superannuation. It doesn't make sense in the current environment, when we're facing a very difficult economic circumstance. We're in recession. We need to be doing all we can to encourage people to save more so that there is that pool of investment funds for businesses to invest once we get the economy up and running again and get people back into work. That is why Labor is so passionately committed to opposing what the government is trying to do for Australian workers, and that is why we will fight to maintain the integrity of the Australian superannuation system, for the dignity that it provides for Australian workers who have put their heart and soul, throughout their working life, into building the economic wealth of this nation. 18:54 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan This year, 2020, has been difficult for many. It's been a difficult year because of the twin crises of health and economic fallout from COVID-19. This year has shown us many things. It's shown us how resilient we are as a nation; it's shown us how important it is to have a government that, through strong economic management, has been able to manage this crisis with a balanced budget; and it's shown us, in so many ways, how we've been able to adapt to such an uncertain environment. I'm proud as a member of the Morrison government, as I'm sure my colleague the member for Braddon is, that the measures we have put in place and continue to work on have helped save lives, and they've saved livelihoods. I'm pleased to be able to speak to people in my electorate about our plan for the future as we all play our part in the economic recovery. We've had to be flexible in our lives like never before about how we interact with our family and friends, how we go about our day-to-day activities and—probably the most significant—how we work. We heard earlier today, in question time, the Attorney-General outline the importance of that flexibility in the workplace, in keeping people in jobs and saving livelihoods. But Australian workplaces have been changing and evolving for many years. We have seen a consistent rise in workers taking career breaks and in part-time or job-share arrangements to be able to raise their children. Mr Deputy Speaker Wallace, you know that a few weeks ago my wife and I welcomed our second child, our beautiful baby girl, Isabelle, into our family. Mr Pearce 282306 Congratulations! Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Thank you, Member for Braddon. Dr Chalmers interjecting— Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Thank you, Member for Rankin. I appreciate the members' congratulations. But the point to be made here is that, at this point in my life, with a young family, it's important to me that we as a government do everything we can to support mums and dads as they raise their families and, ultimately, as they return to work and use their working lives to plan for retirement. The decisions we make throughout our working lives have a bearing on our future, particularly into retirement, and this government recognises that the modern workplace is changing and will continue to change. People are seeking more options when it comes to their work arrangements during the different stages of their lives, and workplaces are rightly adapting so they retain the best of those staff. Just as we are seeing our workplaces change and evolve, now, more than ever, so too must our plans for retirement. That's why I'm particularly pleased to support this legislation today. It's about an important measure to ensure that our super system is able to reflect the flexibility we are seeing in modern Australian workplaces. Fundamentally, we believe that Australians should be given as much flexibility as possible when it comes to spending and saving their own money. You only have to look at the outrage from the previous Labor speaker and how they consistently spoke about their concerns about the government's recent decision to let Australians doing it tough withdraw their super to help get them through this tough time. We have to remember—and it goes back to this fundamental principle—that it's their money. It's their money in their superannuation accounts. It's not the Labor Party's money. It's not the industry super fund manager's money. It's the Australian people's money. We know Labor's outrage is because, fundamentally, they like to tell Australians what they can do with their money. Labor think they can spend your money better than you can. Labor think their priorities are more important than your own. That's the reason they didn't bat an eyelid when they went to the last election proposing $387 billion in extra taxes—money out of the pockets of Australians—and why they were so shocked and surprised when they were rebuffed. They still don't get it. The member for Throsby recently described 500,000 Australians taking up the option of a second withdrawal of money as 'a run on super' and accused the government of trying to cancel superannuation. What a load of utter nonsense from an opposition that is desperately seeking relevance. People are using this money, drawn out of their super at a time of great financial hardship, to fund their mortgage, to keep their kids in their independent school with their friends, to reduce debt on their own balance sheet—and Labor continue to say that these people are wrong to have that choice. We trust Australians to know better than the politicians in Canberra what their financial priorities are during a one-in-100-year global pandemic. We trust them with their money, with their super. We are on their side. As the PM said today, Labor, on the other hand, is on the side and on the puppet strings of industry super funds. It just goes to show, once again, that the Australian people knew this at the last election and that is why they chose the coalition government. Labor will always be a higher-taxing government, a high-regulating government that doesn't respect the principle of choice for everyday Australians. We on this side of the House do understand that principle. We do respect Australians making their own decisions when it comes to their own money and we do believe in giving them greater options when it comes to their super. That is not because we are trying to destroy it but because we are trying to make it as strong as possible and as flexible as possible to meet the different needs of all Australians. And that's why we've introduced these important measures. The bill will allow our older Australians to boost their superannuation savings via voluntary contributions when they are in a position to do so—and, again, it's about providing that flexibility. We'll do this by lifting the cut-off age from 65 to 67, allowing people aged 65 to 67 to make three years worth of non-concessional contributions in a single year. By providing this measure, we are helping older Australians boost their retirement savings when they are in a position to do so. We understand that planning for retirement and that transition phase can be stressful for many senior Australians. By providing greater flexibility we will be able to help allay some of those concerns about the future. Notably, this will also align with the cut-off age of 67 for the bring-forward arrangements for eligibility for the age pension, which is scheduled to reach 67 by 1 July 2023. It is, of course, just one measure in a much broader package outlined in the 2019-20 budget aimed at helping older Australians save for their retirement. The remaining measures are to allow people aged 65 and 66 to make voluntary contributions to superannuation without being required to work a certain number of hours per week and allowing people aged 70 to 74 to receive spouse contributions. This government has a strong record of supporting our older Australians. We're passionate about it. We are allowing more older Australians to contribute more to their superannuation and recent retirees to make further super contributions. We've cut deeming rates. This means a boost to pension and welfare payments to around one million Australians. We're also helping to boost retirement incomes by expanding the Pension Loans Scheme and we're providing greater choice for older Australians to remain in their homes longer by delivering more home care packages. Finally, most importantly, we've saved older Australians from Labor's reckless retiree tax. I would like to thank our older Australians for their contribution, particularly to the local electorate of Ryan and to our nation. I will continue, as all of us on this side of the House will, to support them in their retirement. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House for the flexibility it provides those older Australians. 19:03 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020. Today, for the very first time since compulsory superannuation was introduced three decades ago, something really quite remarkable happened. What we saw today for the first time ever in our compulsory super system is that, in net terms, the superannuation balance of this country actually declined, by which I mean people took more money out of super than was put in. That hasn't happened before. On this side of the House—I know the member for Perth would agree with me, along with the previous speakers from this side who have contributed to the debate—we think that is a tragedy. We think that invites all kinds of intergenerational carnage, all kinds of disadvantage, all kind of consequences that we'd hope not to see in this country, in its remarkable superannuation system. The problem is that those opposite see those kinds of outcomes as 'mission accomplished', and that is really troubling. That's why my colleague the member for Whitlam has moved this really important second reading amendment. It makes the point that, although within the narrow confines of what is being proposed in this bill specifically we will support it through the House, we will not support, we do not endorse and we do not welcome some of the really damaging, destructive attempts by those opposite to diminish and undermine the superannuation system, which is not just a proud creation of Labor governments of years past but a proud creation of the Australian people. It is something that we can be genuinely proud of—something which has its imperfections but something which the rest of the world looks at and thinks, 'It would be good to have a system like that.' So we support the bill, but we do not support and will not support the attack on super, or the attack on pensions which we 've seen in recent months and which we all know is coming in the budget or at some point really quite soon. More than a month ago, those opposite received the report of the Retirement Income Review. They received it last month, on 24 July, the day after the budget update, and they've sat on that report now for more than a month. Our fears about that Retirement Income Review all along—and, if anything, our fears are more pronounced, now that the government has been sitting on it for so long—are that they would use the review as a stalking horse for more cuts to superannuation and more cuts to the pension. We've spoken publicly about those fears for some time now. A number of us—the members for Whitlam, Kingsford Smith, Barton and others, and the Leader of the Opposition—have said that this should not be a stalking horse for more cuts to superannuation and the pension. But we all know what's going on here. You can see them coming from a mile away. The party of wage stagnation and rampant wage theft is now gearing up to rob workers of their superannuation savings as well. When that 2½ percentage point increase in compulsory super from 9½ per cent now to 12 per cent could go to wages or to super, those opposite actually want it to go to neither. They want to make super voluntary. They want to take the 'compulsory' out of compulsory super. The thing that is especially galling about this is that, when the Prime Minister and the Treasurer needed to get themselves through an election and its aftermath, they promised repeatedly—over and over again, I asked them about it in question time, and they said, from that dispatch box—that they had no intention of changing the legislated superannuation guarantee increase. But we have known all along that this was rubbish. We have always known that, if you want to work out what the Treasurer of this country is going to do, you just need to hear what some of the weirdos up the back on that side of the parliament are saying. So we've known for some time. We saw this sort of bizarre auditioning for the member for Deakin's ministerial slot or Senator Colbeck's ministerial slot. We saw them time and time again, one after the other, step up to try and diminish superannuation. And we know that, in this Liberal Party, the tail wags the Treasurer. We saw it on energy policy and we're seeing it now on superannuation. Remarkably, we have a minister for superannuation who, when asked by Fran Kelly whether the minister for superannuation had a view on the legislated super guarantee increase, literally said, 'I'm ambivalent about it.' It would be like the health minister being ambivalent about hospitals, and the education minister being ambivalent about universities. It really is quite an absurd state of affairs—this minister for superannuation, ambivalent on the big issue, but spending a lot of time on Twitter, probably all of their time on Twitter, instead of protecting and advancing superannuation in this country. It comes as no surprise, really, to any of us that now, of course, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are inching over and inching over and inching over—and we all know what's coming. Once again, they will attack and cut superannuation for working people in this country. And their rationale is based on a really big con. They want to pretend now, all of a sudden, after seven years of wage stagnation, wage theft and superannuation theft, that the big justification for cutting workers' super is that they want to see wages growth. They're worried about the trade-off between wages growth and superannuation. Give me a break! When Tony Abbott froze the superannuation guarantee in 2014, all we got after that was wage stagnation—actually, historically stagnant wages. The idea that the old link between wages and super is somehow still there in perfect nick doesn't bear scrutiny. In recent years, not only have wages stayed where they were after those opposite froze the superannuation guarantee in the past; they have actually gone backwards. The member for Kingsford Smith made that point with characteristic eloquence a moment ago. Wages have gone backwards. Wages have actually never been weaker in growth terms than they are under those opposite. So spare us this rubbish that you're concerned about superannuation because of the trade-off with wages. We know that that is an absolute crock that those opposite keep referring to. The other obvious attack—and we're seeing this already—on the SG legislated increases is the coming carnage. When it comes to what's happening right now, we've seen it with the early super access regime. As I said at the outset today, APRA has told us that, for the first time in three decades, more money has come out of super than went in. For the first time since the great man Paul Keating, a friend of the member for Chifley's and of mine, legislated compulsory superannuation, more has come out than went in. That's a tragedy. As I said, that's intergenerational carnage. That's a very concerning development. Those opposite think it's a good development. Early access to super is a diabolical problem. Others have described it as intergenerational theft, and I think that's an appropriate description. It is a diabolical policy that those opposite have inflicted on the Australian people. And we warned them about it. One of the things that I think really shines a light on their motivations here is that, if they genuinely wanted to give people in hardship access to superannuation, they would probably check that the person was in hardship. But, instead of doing that, you can get two lots of $10,000 out of your super without anybody ever checking that you're in hardship. That's why we've seen all of this discretionary spending happen—all the stats out of AlphaBeta and elsewhere about people and what they're spending their money on. In some cases it is gambling and alcohol. In other cases they are just transferring it from their super account to their bank account. There is a lot of discretionary spending going on. Those opposite didn't want anybody to ever check. They never asked the ATO to do even random audits. And that, I think, exposes their motivations here. That's why more than twice the number of Australians than they thought would access super early are actually accessing super early. That's why something like 600,000 people cleaned out their accounts entirely. If you're a 25-year-old in this country and you take $20,000 out of your super, you could on average be $100,000 worse off in retirement. We knew that there would be a risk that this scheme would be rorted, that there'd be fraud. It gives us no joy to say that we've been right about that. In this scheme there has been widespread rorting, widespread fraud—all kinds of problems that we warned those opposite about. But they proceeded anyway. And that is going to invite all kinds of consequences into the future as well. At a time like this, when things are as difficult as they are in the economy, when the economy is crying out for investment, when we need to get the show going and get the wheels of industry moving again, we've got this remarkable asset, this incredible advantage, which is that three decades ago we had the foresight, imagination and courage to put in place this system—and again I pay tribute to former Treasurer and Prime Minister Paul Keating—and now $3 trillion of funds are available to invest in Australian jobs and Australian businesses. We have that advantage. We should be working out ways not to diminish super, not to undermine super, but to unleash it for purposes which are good for people and good for their retirement, but also good for investment and getting the place going again. I mentioned earlier the Retirement Income Review, and I think it's absolutely critical that the report is released sooner rather than later. Sitting on it for more than a month is obviously not acceptable. There is already enough uncertainty in our community, particularly, I think, among older Australians. We want to see that Retirement Income Review report released. And the context for that—it's something that's not that well known in the community yet, but it will be in time—is that there is another first that is approaching: for the first time since the 1990s, as it stands, the government will actually freeze the indexation of the pension next month. Think about that for a moment. Think about all the difficulties, all the uncertainty and all the anxiety that Australians who have contributed so much to this country are going through—and those opposite are content to see the pension frozen in September. Under Labor we saw the biggest-ever increase to the age pension in history. We talk about our proud record on social security. We ask the government why they have, time and time again, tried to cut the pension and various supplements. They say, 'No, it goes up twice a year.' But it's not going up in September, as it stands. This government is going to freeze the pension when people are doing it really tough. They have tried, time and again, to attack pensions, to increase the pension age to 70 and to do all kinds of things to the supplements. This is in their DNA. The reason it is, and the reason why we've got this ridiculous agenda, this attack on superannuation, is that those opposite can't see past their ideological obsessions to the national economic interest. When they rank their priorities, it's never Australian workers, Australian retirees or pensioners at the top; it's always about their ideological obsessions. We have heard that from one speaker after another on the opposite side of the House. We have heard it on industrial relations. We have heard it on pensions. We have heard it on superannuation. All across the board, they are always trying to tear down Labor legacies rather than build up the country and its people. The best evidence of these ideological blinkers is that the Prime Minister, when asked about superannuation today, referred to a part of the superannuation system which is actually equally represented by employers and employees; it's a triumph of cooperation in the workforce. He refers to them as 'union funds', and that, I think, is a tell. It gives us a sense of this ideological obsession he has. The idea that some of these funds have Master Builders or the AiG on them, or all these employer groups, equally represented alongside representatives of the workers—that is a good thing. We should be looking for more ways to harness that kind of cooperation. But those opposite refer to them as 'union funds', because they can't see past that ideological obsession. Those opposite have never believed in super. They have never believed in its vast possibilities to build a decent retirement for ordinary working people and to build a better future for this country. They opposed it, they froze it, they tried to abolish the low-income super contribution and they tried to weaken penalties for employers not paying. Not even a crisis of this magnitude can make a leopard change its spots; they want to use this crisis as an excuse to come after super. If they want a fight on superannuation, they will get one. The narrow proposal in this bill is fine, but what is not fine is to come after super, to destroy the system, to freeze pensions. If they want to do that, they'll have to come through us. 19:18 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020. I'm going to put a challenge to those opposite that will clearly demonstrate that what we're seeing from them is not anything other than ideology. But before I do I want to make this point: on this side of the chamber, a lot of us feel strongly about the issue of super. A lot of people say: 'Why do you get worked up about it? It's superannuation. It's financial services. Who really cares?' The reason why we feel so strongly about this is that the people we know in our communities, the people we've grown up with, the people from all backgrounds slog hard for most of their lives in their jobs. They work really hard. They work, in many instances, on low and middle incomes. As a nation, we made a deal with them that, when they get old, they're going to do better. They're going to do better than the age pension. They're going to retire in a way that gives them dignity. They're going to look after themselves and do it in a way that they don't have to question where their next meal is going to come from. They're going to do it in a way that they can have something they can give to their grandkids as a present. They've got a bit of income; they can relax after all those years of hard slog. And superannuation does that. What the income from superannuation does for working-class people—low- and middle-income people—in terms of giving them something better than the age pension is something that is absolutely worth fighting for and that we on our side of the fence will fight for every single day of the week. As the shadow Treasurer just indicated, we are absolutely prepared to have that fight, because this is about dignity, not ideology. It is not, as the other side try to make out, some sort of campaign to protect union bosses on industry super funds, on which, as was rightly pointed out by the shadow Treasurer, business are equally represented. Business and unions sit on super funds, and they are compelled by the law to make the right decisions in the interests of members—not union members or industry association members. The directors of those super funds are bound by law to make the right decisions on investment in that way. Those super funds do the best possible thing to make sure that the returns are healthy and that people, when they retire, are supported well. That's why we feel strongly about it, because it's about dignity. So here's the challenge if those opposite hate super so much, because it's clear they do. They don't have the guts to come out and say that they hate it and want to end it; they just want to get it cut into small slices, deny it every possible opportunity and make the case as to why super's not working so they can drain confidence in the system. They make those little changes such as, for example, what we've seen in the middle of this crisis with the pandemic, where they just open the doors to super. Six hundred thousand people have drained their accounts dry. Those opposite just do it that way, nice and slow. They don't have the guts to come out and say it. Here's my challenge: if they think they can run it better, they should put $3 trillion on the table, because that's roughly what superannuation funds amount to in this country right now. Are the government going to do that? No. They can't even increase the pension now. They will, for the first time in a quarter of a century, refuse to increase the pension, but they're telling us that superannuation's no good, and they don't have a backup plan. I'll tell you what I back: I back the common sense of the Australian people, because most people out there get that the Australian population's getting older. We have more grey hairs than not in our community, and we have to find a way, when people retire, to pay for it, because we can't just have people survive on the age pension. There are fewer and fewer taxpayers to pay for pensioners as we get older as a country. How do we know that? The government's own side first found that out when they had their first Intergenerational report under Peter Costello, then Treasurer. They have been saying for ages that we've got to find a way to pay for it. The deal was that we wouldn't rely so much on the age pension but would have a system to pay for people, when they retire, with superannuation. Those opposite tell us they're fiscally responsible. We have a system in place, superannuation, that is supposed to be able to accommodate the ageing nation we have and that can put in place something better than the age pension so that we'll be less reliant on the taxpayer. And what's the main game in town from those opposite? Basically to destroy superannuation. It's not because it's practical or because there's a compelling policy reason; it's all ideology. They fight it, as I said, in small ways. For example, they're obviously limbering up to deny the increase in superannuation. Someone from their side actually had the guts to step forward and say it. I think these people are gutless. They won't actually front up to the Australian people and say what they really think. Tony Abbott, though, just says it. He says what they're not prepared to. Tony Abbott said: We have always as a Coalition been against compulsory superannuation increases. That's Tony Abbott's view. It's what their view is. They're always at it. As the shadow Treasurer rightly points out, you would never have a Minister for Health say, 'I'm not pro hospital or pro health care,' but here we have the responsible minister, Senator Hume, saying, 'I'm not pro increasing the superannuation guarantee and I'm not pro the actual system.' They've basically got the ideologues running the show, including Senator Andrew Bragg, who was an industry lobbyist for superannuation and is going around now just saying the most outrageous things about superannuation. It is absolutely staggering what we are seeing from those opposite. And the thing is it's not just the backbench; as has been noted, it's straight from the top. I'm sick of seeing claims that the Prime Minister is somehow practical and he's not into ideology. Garbage! This is the absolute proof, exhibit A, if anything, that he has given up on solid policy and fiscal responsibility and that this is all a bit of a rah-rah moment to his backbench. They don't have the guts to step forward and say this is what they're going to do; and, on top of that, they deny Australian industry access to investment. We used to have to beg the rest of the world to get investment dollars, because we just didn't have enough here. We did not as a nation historically save enough. We never had that. Right now we have one of the largest savings pools on the planet—I think it's No. 4, generally speaking. Again, Senator Bragg, who has gone out and bagged out superannuation funds—those superannuation funds are responsible for some of the biggest investment in venture capital. The VCs know it and they're all nervous about the fact that Senator Bragg, a bloke who is supposedly pro tech, is going around bagging out the superannuation funds that are the only major platform providing investment support to venture capital and technology in this country. That's what led to the revival of venture capital. Those funds are there to support the growth of industry, strengthen the economy and lead to the creation of jobs, stemming from a superannuation system that can fund that. It earns the returns that can then go and build people's super accounts. In the one system we have something that's good for the economy, provides for growth, supports jobs, ultimately also reduces the impost on the taxpayer and, as I said earlier, delivers one of the most important things: dignity in retirement through a superannuation fund. That's what it delivers more than anything else. Take into account the fact that we're not getting a pension increase—for the first time in 25 years—and what this coalition have done since 2013 in terms of making it hard for people to even get on the pension and all their reforms to knock part-pensioners off and make life hard for them as well. So there is no increase in the pension, they make it hard for people to get the pension, they deny an increase in the superannuation guarantee and they undermine the superannuation system. It's clear that the only retirees the coalition cares for are the wealthy ones—not the ones on low and middle incomes, not the ones depending on pensions and not the ones depending on a modest superannuation scheme. If you are able to get a great gig, if you worked a senior role and were able to have a big income, you'll be looked after by the coalition. If you're anyone else outside of that, you're on your own. That's what's so offensive about this attack on superannuation that we're seeing, and the way it denies people the right to aspire to a better life. They say they're all aspiration—except when it comes to the time for paying for it. They say that they want people to do well in their lives, to be able to secure wealth in their lives. And what do they do? In this superannuation system, they undermine that. We are actually pro national wealth. We are actually pro the wealth of the individual through this system. We are pro dignity in retirement. What we are seeing from those opposite is the greatest example of public policy vandalism that you could ever witness—through the course of this pandemic in terms of what they did with the early release scheme. It drained 600,000 accounts. We certainly understand that, from time to time, people will experience hardship. We certainly appreciate that they should have ways to access their super when their backs are absolutely against the wall, and we never deny that. But we do deny the reality that we've seen under this scheme—it wasn't to help people out. It was to fund discretionary spending. It was, in some cases, to fund gambling. It was, in some cases, to pay off a credit card. That's not the deal with superannuation. People may not like that, but they do realise there is a deal in place to support people in their retirement if we have that money put aside wisely. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 75 ADJOURNMENT COVID-19: Employment 75 19:30 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin There are two things during this pandemic that we seem to hear over and over again, so much so that they risk becoming meaningless slogans. The first one, that 'we're all in this together', is true enough, but only if we mean it and only if we act on that basis. The second one, which we hear again and again, is that 'the virus doesn't discriminate'. I don't think that's quite right. Obviously, anybody is capable of catching COVID-19. But the impacts of this crisis and the impacts of the recession lean heaviest on some of us rather than others of us: old people in nursing homes, essential workers putting themselves at risk every day, small businesses and sole traders, women and young people in the labour market and in education as well. Young people are concentrated in the industries most impacted by what we're seeing here. Fifteen per cent of jobs in March were filled by young people. Thirty-five per cent of job losses since then have been lost by young people. Unemployment, at twice the overall rate, doesn't even take into account the 100,000 young people who gave up and who aren't in the official numbers in the last few months. No wonder more than half of young people surveyed by headspace said that their mental health had deteriorated. No wonder more than half said that their studies had been negatively impacted as well. These numbers speak to a deeper and darker truth, that this virus has exposed some of our deepest and darkest fears: the fear we might lose someone we love, the fear our kids will be robbed of the opportunities available to us, but also a fear that an entire generation could be discarded, an entire generation sacrificed to this virus and to this recession. One of the defining features of recessions throughout time, and not even recessions as deep as the one that we're dealing with right now, is long-term, entrenched unemployment and a long tail of lower incomes and stagnant living standards associated with that. Study after study show what we're up against. Academics and the economists call this labour market scarring. It's the idea that the longer that people are disconnected from work, the harder it is for them to find their way back into work. We cannot afford this spike in unemployment that we're seeing right now to concentrate and cascade through the generations, making joblessness something that kids inherit from their parents in communities like mine and communities like the member for Dobell's and others represented by this side of the House. We cannot see the long-term unemployment and intergenerational violence that comes with mismanaging recessions like this one—the skills destruction and the social dislocation which we avoided more than a decade ago during the global financial crisis and that we absolutely must avoid now with all of our strength and all of our efforts. We cannot afford a lost generation of Australians. That's why, as we respond, recover and reimagine the economy, the stakes are so incredibly high during this recession. There's a stunning clarity that comes from understanding that that's what we're up against. Avoiding this lost generation of Australians should be this parliament's reason for being. It should be this parliament's defining purpose. It should be our calling, our mission and our moment. Because the shadow of this recession will loom large over our country and its people for some time: over our physical health, our mental health and social cohesion. It will loom large over our jobs, incomes and living standards and over those who had the least to begin with. This all requires us to have the capacity to see ourselves in others, to put ourselves in the shoes of others, and to act boldly, decisively, with compassion and with courage here on their behalf. This is so that no Australian is left behind during this recession, so that no Australian is held back in the recovery, so that—when this is all over, when we wake up from this nightmare—we can say that we did what we could for the generations most at risk and so that the worst fears that we have for the impacts of this recession aren't realised and don't do all of that intergenerational damage that recessions like this are capable of doing. Scott, Mr Raymond 76 19:35 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Today I rise to say goodbye to a good friend and a great Australian, Raymond Scott. After his long battle with cancer, Ray was taken from us on 13 July this year. He was a man I deeply respected who was always focused on the national interest and how we build a better Australia. Before I was given the great privilege of representing the people of Barker in this place, I knew of Ray, but in the last seven years Ray became a mentor and a close confidant who was incredibly generous with his time and always available to discuss issues I needed advice on. He believed in protecting the values that made this nation great. He was a fierce advocate for the things he believed in, including the south-east, the trucking industry and agriculture, to name a few. The impact he had on his hometown of Mount Gambier is immeasurable. His loss will be one that the Mount Gambier community will feel for a very long time. As all of us here know, we stand on the shoulders of giants, and that was true for Raymond as well. In Ray's case, his father, Allan Scott AO, was a trucking magnate and also his biggest supporter. Ray was Allan's best operator. According to Allan, Ray was the most efficient on tyres and fuel and always kept his truck in perfect condition. He earned the respect of his father, and in time he earned the respect of the community. As a child, Ray was obsessed with trucks, and in school he dreamt of driving himself. By the age of 22, that hadn't faded, and he was sent by the Scott enterprise to the Northern Territory to run a long-term oil-hauling contract. This responsibility was the first of many that would build him into a pillar of the business community in the south-east of South Australia. With his father's passing in 2008, Ray began his own transport company, aptly named Raymond Scott Transport. His business group was also established—Southern Blasters, Southern Paint & Panel, Scott's Motorsport and Triple S Distributors. Ray's long-term commitment to the trucking industry was recognised in 2013, when he was inducted into the National Road Transport Hall of Fame. Alongside his trucking interests, Ray dedicated 40 years of his life to agriculture. His business Ray Scott Pastoral employs roughly 30 people, with properties in Townsville, Rockhampton, Ingleby, Echo Hills, Barham and Mount Gambier. For Ray, this enterprise represented the challenge of learning the new industry combined with his passion for driving. Along with running the operations of the enterprise, Ray also drove road trains through Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia to deliver farm equipment, hay and whatever else was required. Among his colleagues, he was known for getting on with the job, no matter the task. Ray's business interests revolved around building a robust regional community with strong industries. But Ray's contribution to our community extended way past his industrial involvement. He was a significant contributor to the greater Mount Gambier region in South Australia and nationally regarding employment sponsorship and community involvement. It was in that capacity that I came to know Ray best. Because of his understated humility, Ray's kindness and willingness always to lend a helping hand were not fully or always acknowledged. He was the best kind of citizen, one who shows kindness and makes a contribution, without seeking acknowledgement or reward. An example of that was his long-term position as patron of the charitable foundation Stand like Stone, which provides philanthropic contributions to people throughout the south-east. His achievements are far too many to mention in the time the House has afforded me this evening, which is probably just as well, because I think I can hear Ray right now telling me to get on with it and suggesting that everyone has heard enough already. As I've said, his loss will be felt hard in my home town of Mount Gambier, where he was a pillar of our community, and he will not be easily replaced. I extend our sympathies and prayers to his wife, Jill, their three children, Prue, Ashley and Libby, as well as his seven beloved grandchildren, Lachie, Alex, Parker, Ellie, Harrison, Sam and Stella. Ray was a trucking man, but, beyond that, I want to thank him for his service to the community and to our nation. I'm lucky to have had a personal relationship with Ray, and I'm a better person for having known him, as our country and my local community are better for his contribution to them. 'A great Australian' is a title reserved, appropriately, for very few of our fellow citizens. Vale, Ray Scott, a great Australian. COVID-19: State and Territory Border Closures 77 19:40 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi The New South Wales-Victorian border stretches for over 1,000 kilometres from east to west. All along this distance, communities have been split in two by border closure. I'm the only representative of those border communities who's an Independent in this place. Therefore, I have the freedom to say what I think and to tell the story as the communities ask me to do. I don't need to play political games or hold my tongue until I'm given the signal from my city colleagues or to position my leader to come up with an announcement at just the right time. Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister what he would do as our national leader to resolve the crisis that we're experiencing. I didn't get much—nothing, in fact, that convinced my community that anything would be done from a national leadership perspective. They still felt like they were forgotten members of the Australian community. But today came the announcement by the New South Wales Deputy Premier to extend the current 2.5-kilometre border zone to a 50-kilometre radius—promises, but scant on detail. It's taken seven weeks to get us back to where we began. Make no mistake: it's a good development today. The economic, cultural and healthcare benefits cannot be quantified. Many of my constituents will feel as though some of their humanity has been restored this afternoon, but many still will not. While I absolutely support this latest change, I want to know what the rationale is. Has the medical advice changed? We wouldn't know, because the public health benefit for this hardline approach has never been explained or justified. It came about because of an outbreak in Melbourne, and it resulted in a breakdown on the border. There is simply no national plan around border closures. Our lives on the borders remain in a vacuum; our lives hang, at times, actually in the balance. So the Deputy Premier of New South Wales has promised that these changes will occur within seven to 10 days. Why a week? Why 10 days? Why not now? Where is the procedure? One thousand applications for compassionate exemptions for border permits are right now sitting on the desk of the New South Wales health minister—1,000 really sad and desperate stories. Every time I pick up the phone and talk to the people in my electorate who've put in for an exemption for a compassionate permit, I honestly feel like we are living in some kind of dystopian nightmare. I can't believe this is happening in Australia. It's totally heartbreaking, and the thing that's even more heartbreaking for me, as someone now in this place, is that there is an appalling lack of procedural fairness. There's an opaque process, if you want to call it a process, which potentially is open to corruption, and I would say it must be fixed immediately. Despite the changes today, the catastrophe continues for many, many people. There is no guarantee that this is the end of the border closure saga. Over the last seven weeks, each new late-night public health order issued without consultation has us all on the border waking up to a fresh set of problems with no procedure to fix them. Our border commissioners have been outstanding, but, by golly, what a job they've got—shocking! Allied health professionals can't get to work to see their clients. Even after today's announcement, many of them still will not. Some patients can't access urgent care; many more are simply confused by the system and cancel important check-ups. With my intervention, 80 doctors, nurses and allied health professionals from Northeast Health Wangaratta managed to get back to work. Three maternal and child-health nurses at the Albury Wodonga Aboriginal Health Service—the only ones they had—needed direct intervention so they could get back to work. And the region's only two infectious-diseases doctors—cop this—couldn't cross the border until they had direct intervention from my office. Since the border closed, over 550 individual constituents have contacted me in distress with stories, such as these, of confusion, anxiety and grief. In a survey conducted by Business Wodonga, business owners said that the border closure is a bigger issue than COVID itself. Tonight, in the Senate, a motion was passed by the National Party calling for this to be fixed. It's extraordinary that this needs to happen. It must be fixed. (Time expired) Braddon Electorate: Telecommunications 77 19:45 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon There's been great news in the great state of Tasmania this week for residents from the town of Tullah, on Tasmania's west coast: their new 4GX mobile site was officially launched. This new Telstra base station has brought dedicated mobile coverage to the former mining town for the very first time. The Morrison government is committed to improving digital connectivity for those living in regional and remote areas right across the electorate of Braddon, and this service is an important part of that commitment. The launch was held at the Tullah Tavern, and I want to give a big shout-out to the publican, Di Ashwell, and her team for their hospitality. The place was packed. There was a roaring fire and they put on a great lunch. I had some of the best scones I've ever had. The tavern was full, with many who came along being beneficiaries of the new base station. This base station will help Di run her business more effectively. It removes the barrier for tourists visiting the region. Being connected is important for visitors to the region, and I look forward to the day when cashed-up mainlanders come to Tasmania, enjoy our generosity and spend their money in this great pub in Tullah. Another great local is Jenny Bowie. Jenny runs the post office and is president of the Tullah Progress Association. She told me that better mobile coverage means that locals can now get connected and, more importantly, stay connected, and the township can finally grow. Jenny described the coverage as '100 per cent' and thanked both Telstra and the Australian government for their commitment to Tullah. There are a lot of things that people living in larger metropolitan areas take for granted. Mobile connectivity is one of them, and those opportunities should be made available to all, including our rural people in the bush. The residents of Tullah and their mobile service are now comparable to their city cousins and, for the first time, they'll be able to promote their businesses online, access telehealth and online university courses, download large files, stream their favourite movies, watch sport and, more importantly, connect with loved ones right across the world. It's going to be a game changer for the region. I want to thank West Coast Mayor Phil Vickers and Waratah-Wynyard Mayor Robby Walsh for coming along to the launch. As mayors of their respective councils, they've been instrumental in delivering the project and I've worked closely with both of them. This forms an important part of the north-west telecommunications upgrade and is yet another example of the proactive relationship between local governments working with federal government and our telecommunications providers to provide great service. Mayor Vickers told the crowd how impressed he was with the relationship he'd formed with Telstra, the federal government and the community, and how it relied on everybody working together. Because we did this, the project is a reality. Improving connectivity in regional areas is a priority for this government, because we understand that choosing to live remotely shouldn't mean that you are digitally isolated. No-one should miss out on the benefits of connectivity because of where they live. Along with Tullah, there are four communities across Braddon's west coast that are now enjoying a faster, more effective mobile service. The towns of Waratah and Savage River are enjoying faster mobile coverage, thanks to 4GX upgrades, with their existing mobile sites in Zeehan and Strahan, which have also benefited from recently upgraded radio transmission links improving the network. 4GX is the new system out of Telstra for the state. It's aimed at the regional parts of our state, where it's difficult to deliver line-of-sight communications. It doubles the 4G bandwidth in the 700 megahertz range and provides the greatest data streaming. More importantly, this $790,000 federal investment backs our Tasmanian West Coast communities. I was incredibly proud to make this historic announcement and back Tasmania's regional communities in, because it's these communities that I'll always back. Bendigo Electorate: COVID-19 78 19:50 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Yep, life is tough, particularly in the state of Victoria. We are feeling acutely the effects of this pandemic—through the health crisis and through restrictions. It is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. I want to take a few moments to acknowledge the resilience of my local community and the efforts that are being made, and give a shout-out to the people who are doing it despite how tough it's getting. As I stand here, I think about how we are called upon to have that Australian spirit, that community spirit. We are told over and over again that we are all in this together and we need to have hope. The rhetoric is thick and fast; that comes with a pandemic. Qantas, which is known as the iconic Australian airline—it is 'the Spirit of Australia' and has the great song 'I Still Call Australia Home'—has announced that it is going to sack 2,500 baggage handlers and ground staff, and replace them with labour hire workers. Even though they've received JobKeeper, even though they've received millions of dollars from this government to keep their workforce employed, they are going down the labour hire route. Labour hire is the Achilles heel of this economy, and the pandemic has exposed how insidious it is. It is the cause for the spread of many of the COVID-19 cases through workplaces. It has often been referred to by the Premier as a problem—insecure work. This place and this government has a responsibility to do something about it. Despite the rhetoric of the government, there are hard borders in place in Victoria to stop the spread of COVID-19 from Melbourne to the regions. Just south of my electorate, in the electorate of McEwen, there are borders. I never thought I'd be standing here saying that there are roadblocks in place on the Calder Highway and the only way someone from Melbourne can get to Bendigo is if they have a work permit. That's the country we're living in at the moment; those are the extreme measures we've had to go to to keep the virus out of regional communities; that is the effort that is being had. But still, unfortunately, we have had some small outbreaks in Bendigo. All of those outbreaks have been linked back to Melbourne and most of them have been through workplaces—and I suspect that a lot of them have been through labour hire. It is fortunate that employers in our electorate have acted quickly and effectively to limit clusters and outbreaks. I want to acknowledge Don KR. We are, believe it or not, about to go through a shortage of smallgoods, particularly bacon. Don KR is one of the largest suppliers of smallgoods in our country and they have now been capped for health reasons. They have also had their own shutdown. They acted quickly. They worked with the community and with DHHS, and they are back up and running. They have worked effectively. They are now engaging just local workers—no Melbourne workers—so that they can keep people in work, and they are making sure they can continue to support their supply chain. Hardwicks, which is a meat processor, has not had an outbreak. Unlike other meat processors around the country and in Victoria, they have no labour hire workers. They have a close relationship with all of their staff, including their backpackers, to make sure they feel comfortable getting tested and have a safe place to get home to. They had their own fears when there were lockdowns in Melbourne, because some of their workers couldn't get out. What we are learning through this crisis is that the relationship between employer and employee is critical. If you have a good relationship, if there is trust in place, if there is a COVID-safe plan, if people are aware of that plan and feel supported, and if they have the correct PPE, then they get through. And, if somebody does get sick, if somebody does have symptoms or if somebody does have to take time off from work to get tested, they are supported. It took too long for this government to react on paid pandemic leave. We had workers in Melbourne who were having to self-isolate because a partner had tested positive or there'd been an outbreak at their workplace, and they had no access to any paid entitlement. The point of paid pandemic leave is that it comes in before the crisis to help people isolate if they need to. I could go on about the experiences of my electorate and I will over the next couple of sitting of days and next week. They are stories that need to be told so the whole country understands the challenges that we are facing in Victoria. (Time expired) Cashless Debit Card 79 19:55 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister and the cabinet on the way they've dealt with the COVID-19 virus right from the very start when they closed the borders with China, to some controversy at the time. As I travel around my electorate, the support for the government's actions is overwhelming, whether it be JobSeeker, JobKeeper, the pension supplement, commercial tenancy arrangements, the mandatory code of conduct, the underwriting for new bank loans for small and medium enterprises, debt protection, early access to super, relief on utility bills, mortgage payment deferrals, support for the arts or the extra support for mental health services. As with all broadbrush approaches—and we all accept that the assistance had to be put out there quickly to do the job, and it has been—in some cases things don't go exactly as one might have anticipated or imagined. I've received some calls from the Ceduna district. Ceduna, of course, was the first place in Australia to get, and had the longest running trial of, the cashless welfare card, and the news when I was called was that we'd gone back eight or nine years and that there'd been an outbreak of antisocial behaviour. Could I come and have a look? For the record, the reason that Ceduna and district ended up with the cashless welfare card came on the back of a coronial inquest in 2011, in which the coroner found that the deaths of six people in the age group of 33 to 43 between the years of 2004 and 2009 were as a result of alcohol abuse as the chief and common cause of death. He remarked at the time that Tank 18 camp just outside of Ceduna—which is where people were hanging out, where they were sleeping rough; a flat, desolate, pitiless area—led the Ceduna community. He gave a list of recommendations, many of which were adopted, around the sale of alcohol in Ceduna. It also started Ceduna and districts on a pathway which eventually led them to the cashless welfare card, a card that was asked for by all community leadership groups in Ceduna. The card has had an outcome that has significantly improved the lives of many in Ceduna, the image of the town and the tourist outcomes, because some of the social issues that were dogging the town have been cleaned up—less abuse, less sleeping rough, and happier and quieter communities. I can remember an Indigenous leader saying to me one day: 'I get all the figures. I get all the numbers and I read it, and it's good. But the whole place just feels like a better place.' I get that commonly. The reports of recent times that we've seen an outbreak of sleeping rough, of alcohol abuse, of drunkenness and of antisocial behaviour just happen to go hand in glove with the government actions of increasing the cash flow to a whole lot of people across Australia, but in this case those on the cashless welfare card. I think perhaps we've had the same kind of issues in other communities. Let it be said that those government payments are highly valued and making a great deal of good difference in a lot of families, but in some cases it's causing trouble. Of course, if you're on the cashless welfare card and you're on Newstart allowance at $489.70 a fortnight, or close to $540 if you have children, 80 per cent of that goes onto the cashless welfare card and 20 per cent—or just under $100 a fortnight—is available in cash. That means it can be used on drugs, alcohol or gambling services. With the $550 supplement for JobSeeker, that amount increased to $220 a fortnight. That buys you a few cartons of beer or whatever. This was coupled with the fact that a number of these people had had jobs in the past and were able to access superannuation payments, and for quite a number they had been in lockdown for two to 2½ half months with little ability to spend the money that was due to them. It all came due at once and it led to these antisocial outbreaks. I think the links are clear, and we need to keep our eye on the ball. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 80 NOTICES

Tuesday, 25 August 2020

The DEPUTY SPEAKER Dr Gillespie took the chair at 16:00.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 82 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS VP Day Anniversary 82 16:03 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney Fifteen August was an important day for Australians, as we commemorated the 75th anniversary of VP Day and the end of World War II. Victory in the Pacific marked the end of that awful war Australians endured for almost six years. For the first time in our modern history as a nation Australia faced the threat of invasion. The bombing of Darwin and the midget submarine attack in Sydney Harbour brought the war into the cities and homes of Australians. This was no war in distant foreign lands; this was on our doorstep. From 1939 to 1945, Australia played a significant role fighting in Europe and then the Japanese alongside our allied forces. They fought in places like Papua New Guinea, Malaya, Bougainville and New Britain, and at battles like Kokoda, Rabaul and Buna–Gona and at Milne Bay, which was of such strategic significance. Fighting against a numerically superior and battle hardened force, Australia's young troops proved themselves to be highly effective, formidable and tenacious. Tragically over 17,000 Australians would lose their lives fighting the Japanese or in the horrific prisoner of war camps. I was proud to attend the North Sydney Cenotaph on VP Day to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of Australia at a moving service organised by the North Sydney RSL Sub-branch. Of the one million Australians who served in the war, there are just 12,000 who are still with us. But, whilst their numbers have dwindled, the importance of recognising their service has not, so it was an honour to meet some of the World War II veterans who in live in my own electorate and present them with the special commemorative medallion struck by the Commonwealth to acknowledge the 75th anniversary of the end of the war. There were veterans like Allan Willoughby of Cammeray, who only turned 100 this month and who served in New Guinea. Allan is an amazing fellow and still lives in the home that he was born in—and six months ago he was still driving a car and doing his own shopping! Peter Comino, aged 94, of Lane Cove, is a real character. He is the son of Greek migrants who settled in Guyra in country New South Wales and who, following a well-beaten path, established a milk bar. Peter served in the 79 Spitfire squadron and witnessed the famous Japanese surrender at Morotai in present-day Indonesia. There was also Norman Hunter, aged 97, of Castle Cove, who gave up his accountancy studies to serve in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. Bruce Scott, also aged 97, of Greenwich, served in Merauke, also in Indonesia, and helped to defend the air base there from repeated Japanese attacks. Mr Scott later ran a newsagency here in Canberra, in Deakin, which is still there, and has fond memories of Prime Minister John Gorton picking up his newspapers when he couldn't wait for them to officially be delivered to the Lodge. Listening to their stories was an amazing experience and an opportunity for me to say thank you on behalf of our community. Our gratitude will endure for all times. COVID-19: Arts 83 16:06 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney It has been a very difficult year for all Australians, but it has been a particularly difficult year for some groups—those in nursing homes, students—and we've spoken about them over the course of this week. One group that we haven't spoken about this week are people working in the arts community. For artists and cultural workers, it has been a year of closed doors, of empty theatres, and of cancelled tours, with little support or recognition from their government. I'm not sure that people actually grasp how large this industry is. Arts and culture employs more than 650,000 Australians, which is about six per cent of our national workforce. That's a larger workforce than construction, agriculture and coalmining combined. I know that arts organisations have been doing everything they can to survive. They are very used to making do. As you would expect, they've been as innovative and creative as they can possibly be. I've seen it in my electorate. Gondwana Choirs, one of the world's finest children's choirs, has developed new online classes for the lockdown, delivering 102 weekly courses to more than 500 people across Australia. Belvoir theatre has organised fundraisers for its artists to keep them in work, putting 22 artists on staff and offering over 100 one-off gigs. The Belvoir theatre is soon to reopen, but, with social distancing, their ability to fit as many people as usual into the theatre will be much compromised. These are amazing initiatives, but they can only go so far without government help. JobKeeper wage subsidies weren't built for the irregular schedules of arts workers, and they weren't adjusted to fit them either. Most of these people work project to project. They work for a few weeks, and, when that performance ends, they move onto the next project. It took this government more than 100 days to finally announce a package of support for the arts sector, and it's now been more than 50 days since that announcement. Not a single dollar of that money has yet been spent. That's desperately needed support that has not yet been spent. This is a pattern we've seen again and again from this Prime Minister. We saw it, sadly, tragically, with bushfire relief. We saw it with the so-called HomeBuilder program. We're now seeing it with arts support—big announcement; no follow-through. Always there for the photo op; never there for the follow-through. Arts workers can't pay their bills with the Prime Minister's words. If we want to help save one of Australia's largest industries, we need much more than promises. Higgins Electorate: Level Crossings 83 16:09 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise to announce that I'm very excited by an election commitment that is now being rolled out to remove the Glenferrie Road level crossing in my constituency of Higgins. This is exciting because I have actual personal experience with this level crossing. My family lived in Warra Street, along the railway line, and I brought up my small children in this area. I also had a small medical practice along the railway line, so I have had firsthand experience of knowing how dangerous, how congested and how painful having this level crossing has been to the locals of this area. I'm delighted because hundreds of locals have written to me and so to be able to deliver a $260 million commitment for the removal of the Glenferrie Road level crossing and additionally to provide $8 million for a business plan, not just for the Glenferrie Road level crossing but for the Glen Waverley line, including the other intersections adjacent to the Glenferrie Road crossing at Kooyong station. The Victorian government has had on its list this level crossing for decades. In fact, VicRoads has identified this as the last level crossing that has rail, cars, trams and pedestrians all confluent in this one area. As someone who has sat in my medical practice and waited for patients to turn up late to their appointment every single time that I had appointments, it was an example of how painful it is to local businesses. It is the reverse of what often happens for medical practitioners, as often it is our patients kept waiting for us. In this case, my practice was often held up because patients were sitting on the other side of the boom gate waiting for a significant period of time. In fact, we know from reports that for 30 per cent of the time in peak hour, morning and evening, the boom gates are down. The congestion is awful, with cars stacked up for hundreds of metres in both directions every morning and every night. Go down to Warra Street and see it for yourself. On top of that, it is dangerous because it is also a pedestrian crossing. There are parks close by, with young families taking their kids to the park with their family pet or to play football and this is a very dangerous level crossing. It is a great delight we will have a congestion-busting removal of a level crossing. I am delighted that with my colleague and good friend the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, I announced recently a business plan for the commencement of this project to look at the best way to remove this dangerous level crossing that is a choke point for congestion which is unsafe, so we can ensure families can get home more quickly to their loved ones, so families can walk to the park and do so in a safe way with their loved ones. And we can make sure businesses can get on with doing business in the way they need to, without sitting in traffic and literally fuming at the fact that there's a level crossing in the local area. Garritty, Mr Patrick (Paddy), Gorton Electorate: COVID-19 84 16:12 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton It has become somewhat of a sombre daily ritual in Victoria to learn the latest figures on COVID-19 cases and COVID-related deaths. Each one of these deaths is a person and that person has a family and a story. I rise today to briefly tell you the story of one of those people. Paddy Garritty passed away on 16 August, last Sunday, from COVID-19. Paddy was a great champion of Australia and Victorian workers. There are many of us on this side of the House who have found ourselves on the other side of the bar from Paddy in the Trades Hall, a bar that bears his name, Paddy's Bar. For anyone who had the great fortune to be across the bar from Paddy it soon became evident that he had a passion for helping the oppressed and championing workers' rights. He had a lifelong love of the arts. He was tireless in his promotion of art and artistic endeavours, particularly in the western suburbs of Melbourne. The rejuvenation of the historically significant Trades Hall was driven largely by Paddy, and his stewardship has turned a building in disrepair into a vibrant hub for Melbourne's artistic community. To his partner, Mary, and his family and friends, I offer my deep sympathy and condolences. Rest in peace, Paddy. Turning to matters in my own electorate, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on the world and my electorate of Gorton is no different. Currently, the two local government areas that sit within Gorton, Brimbank and Melton, have had the second- and fifth-largest number of COVID-19 cases. Parts of my electorate have faced the longest lock downs in the country. Businesses like restaurants, gyms and beauticians have had to shut their doors for months. Many schools have been closed due to the infection, aged-care homes have been affected and too many lives have been lost. I am proud to say that many workers from the Gorton electorate have been on the front line of the pandemic. According to the most recent census data, the top five industries of employment in Gorton are hospitals, road freight transport, supermarkets and grocery stores, take-away food services and childcare services. These are the essential workers we have all been relying upon during the pandemic. Unfortunately, it has also meant that the residents of Gorton have faced a disproportionately high rate of this disease. While I can speculate on the reasons that my electorate has had such a high case load—and there have been multiple reasons—what I can say is that insecure work has had an impact on spreading this virus. If workers are scared that they will lose shifts or pay if they take time off, they risk spreading the disease. If workers have had to leave their children with friends or family members because they cannot take time off work as schools and childcare centres are closed, they risk spreading the disease. If workers have to work multiple jobs at multiple sites to make up a proper wage, they risk spreading the disease. Before the last election, Labor presented policies to mitigate insecure work. The government now needs to address these issues and others in the labour market, not just for the pandemic but also for our future. Tasmania: Mental Health Services 84 16:15 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass From little things, big things grow. This quote was used recently by the CEO of the Royal Flying Doctors Service, John Kirwan, to describe how a little idea has turned into action that will have a monumental effect on the health of regional and remote Tasmanians. Early last year I received a call from David Annear, a well-known Rotarian in the northern Tasmanian community. In typical David way, he announced that he had a deal for me that I just had to consider. Having convinced then state Treasurer Peter Gutwein to donate two former metro buses that could tour regional and remote Tasmania offering mental health services, David was seeking some federal government funding to assist with the fit-out of these buses. Happily, during the 2019 election campaign, Prime Minister Scott Morrison committed $100,000 to the mobile health buses. The original idea expanded from mental health support to also include other clinical services. Though much progress is being made, Tasmanians do still have high rates of people living with chronic disease, which can be worse in areas that are remote. In these communities, the mobile health units will go some way to filling the gaps. I have long been an advocate for improved mental health services and providing access to mental health services for young Tasmanians, particularly those living in remote areas of our state—which is critical. That is why I am so supportive of this project. These buses will deliver mental health services such as assessment and early intervention in a safe, warm and friendly environment and minimise the stigma associated with seeking access to mental health services. No-one in attendance for the funding announcement last year could have foreseen the circumstances under which we found ourselves this year and which will likely be with us for some time yet. There have been many critical learnings from COVID, and one key takeaway is just how important it is that services can still be accessed by members in our community who are isolated. We know the mental health impacts of COVID, from lockdown to financial distress and general anxiety, will be ongoing for many in our community. The services provided by the mobile health units will go a long way to providing valuable assistance and support. The buses can also be adapted for emergencies and were already put to good use earlier this year when one was used as a COVID-19 respiratory clinic, located outside the Launceston General Hospital, providing a quick and necessary solution to the problem of conducting COVID assessment in a safe space. The work of the Flying Doctors and Rotary collaborating to bring these projects together is a fantastic example of what can be achieved when organisations work together. I am proud of the role that the federal government has played in bringing this idea to life. National Disability Insurance Scheme 85 16:18 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to talk about the NDIS. One of the things I have been most pleased to be involved in since being elected last year has been to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS and be able to have a role in holding the government to account on delivering this vital scheme, which unfortunately is still not delivering the choice and control promised to people with disability when Labor delivered this great reform. This government is not putting the focus on it that it needs to get the implementation right. This week the Capital Region Community Services organisation—formerly, the Belconnen Community Service—here in Canberra has been forced to close their community support programs for NDIS participants due to the unnecessary complexity of the latest NDIS price guide. Before going into politics, I was the president of the board of the Belconnen Community Services, and I know first hand the battle that they have had to try to continue to deliver those services and the effort and dedication that that community organisation has put in to trying to make that work. It's very sad to hear that has finally been the outcome. That means that 84 participants and their families will no longer be able to access vital programs such as dance, drama, art and other education sessions The Canberra Region Community Service has negotiated with the NDIA over the last few years, imploring them to make the price guide easy for providers to use so that they can continue to deliver the services without the complication every time the price guide is reissued. The committee, throughout the COVID-19 experience, has shown, as with so many other policy areas, where things— Sitting suspended from 16:20 to 16:33 Ms PAYNE 144732 COVID-19 has exposed so many policy areas where things are broken and the parts of our community where not enough care has been put in. The disability sector has a lot in common with aged care, and people with disability and disability workers experience very similar problems to the people and staff in aged-care homes. Last week the royal commission revealed that people with disability were an afterthought in the government's planning for the pandemic. Disability wasn't mentioned once in the original February plan, although aged care and other sectors were. This is, unfortunately, obvious because when the pandemic broke in my electorate we were hearing that people with disabilities had no communication from the NDIA about a plan for delivering— A division having been called in the House of Representatives — Sitting suspended from 16:34 to 16:51 COVID-19: Mental Health 85 16:51 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein The COVID-19 pandemic has reminded us that none of us are immune to the challenges of mental wellbeing. We have all felt the pangs of angst, frustration and hopelessness in these past few months—particularly if you're from the great state of Victoria, where it's overlaid with frustration and sometimes, yes, anger. Some Australians have tragically lost loved ones before their time to the virus. Finding the strength and resolve to adapt has been more exhausting than normal when isolated from family and friends, particularly when people miss family members' funerals. Countless others, of course, have lost their jobs. Losing work can feel like losing part of our identity, our sense of security, our sense of purpose and, yes, even sometimes our dignity. Without work, we can feel more vulnerable to the roller-coaster of the broader economic uncertainty that sits around this time as a result of the COVID recession. Preserving relationships between workers and employers through JobKeeper has provided some comfort while constructing a real path to a strong recovery. JobSeeker has also helped build resilience for people facing new unforeseen burdens, like homeschooling and separation from support networks. And the federal government has provided assistance in areas like child care and other support grants as well. While social distancing has pushed us apart, it has never been clearer how much stronger we all are when we address those common bonds we share, and that our health overall very much depends on our sense of connection and how we make sure we should prioritise our mental health and wellbeing together. Last month I joined with headspace, in Bentleigh, to host an expert panel of health professionals and volunteers to broadcast their advice and guidance on mental wellbeing in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for younger residents in our community. They indicate that one of the toughest mental stresses has been our isolation from the fruits of social interaction and engagement, and that making sure we remain virtually connected with friends and family where possible is critically important for all of us and our mental health. At a policy level, a clear take-out was that new mental health challenges demand new innovative solutions. The Morrison government's additional $39.1 million contribution to mental health support in Victoria is a critical part of that. The funding particularly targets and supports younger Australians in secondary school who are very nervous about their circumstances. Now is a critical time, and if anybody wants to review the expert panel then they can do so at the Tim Wilson MP Facebook page, where we've uploaded the content, because any young Australians facing significant mental health challenges at the moment need support. Dobell Electorate: COVID-19 86 16:54 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell COVID-19 has changed Australia and the world. As the pandemic continues to unfold and we grapple with this new normal, economic and social fault lines are being exposed. When restrictions were introduced in March, regional coastal communities like mine were hit hard when hospitality, retail and tourism closed. As parliament was shut down, I felt it was more important that locals had their say. Between 30 June and 31 July I ran a COVID-19 community survey. Close to a thousand locals let me know how the pandemic was affecting them, their friends and families. Over 90 per cent of respondents expressed concern about the health impacts of the virus, which is no surprise in a community where one in five people are aged over 65. They see what is happening in aged-care homes in Sydney and Melbourne and they worry that it may happen closer to home. Recent media reports of a failure to disclose a cluster at Peats Ridge on the coast is likely to cause further concern. I asked locals whether they had downloaded the COVIDSafe app, the government's ticket to a COVID-safe Australia where we can once again go about doing the things that we love doing. At the time, 53 per cent of respondents said they had. Now the national uptake is around seven million, well short of the government's 10 million target. Labor supports the app. I have downloaded the app, but the survey result suggests that technology and privacy concerns persist. Over 80 per cent of survey respondents expressed concern about their financial security because of COVID-19. On the Central Coast 10,000 locals have lost their jobs since March, and there are now 34 jobseekers for every job vacancy. Young people are bearing the brunt of the economic downturn. There are now 10,565 locals accessing youth allowance and JobSeeker. By May, 47 per cent of local businesses applied for JobKeeper, and currently 10,649 local jobs are supported through JobKeeper. Labor pushed for a wages subsidy, which was initially rejected by the Prime Minister. While not perfect, the subsidy has offered assistance to six million Australians, and I'm relieved the government has walked away from a hard snap back come September. These are alarming figures, but the Central Coast economy was struggling well before COVID-19. Before the virus, youth unemployment sat at 14.6 per cent, and the Central Coast had the highest rate of underemployment for women in Australia at 34 per cent. In the survey, locals called for an increase in manufacturing, renewable energy and a boost to TAFE funding. Our community and regional coastal communities across Australia need a proper jobs plan as we recover from this pandemic. A good start would be proper investment in infrastructure on the coast. But what have we seen from this government? Not a single project for the Central Coast on the updated Infrastructure Australia priority list. In fact the last major project, the M1 upgrade, was funded by Anthony Albanese when Labor was last in government. The Central Coast is being left behind by this government. Our community deserves better to recover from this pandemic. Vietnam Veterans' Day 86 16:57 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn Tuesday 18 August, as we all know, was Vietnam Veterans' Day. We remember the 521 Australians who died and the 3,000 who were wounded. Overall 61,000 Australians took part in that war. The war involved Australia for about 10 years. It was a long, protracted war. It started in 1962, when we first sent advisory personnel to Vietnam. It wasn't until 1965 to 1970 that we upped the ante. At any one time our maximum was 7,500 troops. I remember that period well. We had national service and conscription. I was a 20-year-old. All young boys who turned 20 had to put our data into the department. It went on a marble, the marble went into a barrel, and if your marble came out you were conscripted. My marble did not come out, but some of us may remember a great cricketer for Australia, Doug Walters. His marble did come out, and he served as a nasho—national service—for his two-year term. It was because of that that I got to play cricket against Doug Walters. He was up in Shoalwater Bay, which is in my neck of the woods. There was a big bushfire in Tasmania—it burnt from top to bottom—so as a fundraiser Australian cricket organised Australia 1 versus Australia 2. So Doug had to come back from Shoalwater Bay. As he did, he knew the sports master at Rockhampton Grammar, a guy by the name of Mike Hussey. He was more a tennis player than a cricketer. Mike invited Doug to play with the masters against the students, because he knew the students had the wood on the masters. Doug played for the masters. He didn't get me out. I didn't get him out either, but the masters won the game, thanks to Doug and the recruitment of Mike Hussey on the side. He was a beautiful flow-on batsman. He was too good for us, I can tell you. That was beside the point. Then Doug did a term in Vietnam. That was the recruitment. It was a very controversial thing at the time. When Gough Whitlam got into power in 1972, he squashed it. The night of the election, the National Service guys who were at Townsville Army base ready to go— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Order. Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 I'm reluctant to interrupt the member, but, in honour of our Vietnam veterans, particularly those who gave their lives and the 3,000 wounded, I ask, by leave, that the member have a 30-second extension of time. Leave granted. Mr O'DOWD 139441 Thank you, member for Hunter. With that, the troops came out of the Army camp at 12 o'clock that night. The election was declared, Gough Whitlam won the election and they said, 'That's good enough for us. Gough said, "No more conscription,"' and they just walked out the gate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 I thank the member for Flynn for that lovely contribution, including the explanation of how he lost his marbles! The time for constituency statements has expired in accordance with standing order 193. COMMITTEES 87 COMMITTEES Joint Standing Committee on Migration 87 Report 87 17:01 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I don't know how I follow the member for Flynn. I've certainly never played cricket against Doug Walters and can't speak to his flowing craft. Regional Australia faces a number of challenges, and I speak now of the pre-COVID-19 world. Obviously, like all of Australia, indeed the globe, we face significant other challenges, but I just want to speak to the report of the inquiry into migration in regional Australia, which was chaired by my good friend the member for Berowra. I wasn't a member of that committee, but I took a fairly keen interest. Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— Mr PASIN 240756 The member for Hunter might want to be nice because I'm being particularly nice to him today, only because he's taken a very pro-coal position lately, which I think is a good thing. If only he could convince some of his colleagues in the Labor Party, they might stand a chance of winning the next election. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Order! The member for Barker won't be distracted and the member for Hunter will refrain from interjecting. Mr PASIN 240756 From the early work of this committee, I took a keen interest. I've got to say, the member for Berowra was open to some suggestions. Indeed, before the inquiry was concluded on account of, as I understand it, the impact of COVID-19 on their efforts, the committee visited my electorate. I was really pleased to join the committee in the work they did in my electorate, including a couple of visits. I want to speak to that because it talks a bit about the challenge of attracting migrants to regional Australia. But, before I come to that challenge, could I dispel a myth. I chair the Select Committee on Regional Australia—a select committee of the House of Representatives that the Prime Minister stood up. One of the things we've been asked to consider closely is the future of regional Australia and the policy measures that could be implemented to ensure we make the most of regional Australia. Some evidence that's come to hand in that work will assist me in dealing with and dispelling a myth. There are many myths when it comes to regional Australia, including that, if you move back to regional Australia or live in regional Australia, you have lost in some way. There are other myths around inadequate services and things. But the myth I want to speak to right now is the myth that what we're seeing in Australia is migration away from regional communities. The Regional Australia Institute commissioned a serious body of work on this topic. It assessed census data from 2011 and compared it with census data in 2016. What it confirmed was there is net migration away from capital cities in Australia. That didn't come as news to me, as someone who lives in a regional community—proudly so—but it certainly came as news to many people in Australia. Indeed, the number is 65,000. So 65,000 Australians moved from capital cities to regional communities on a net basis during that period. I don't know what the figures are today but I hasten to suggest to you that that trend is accelerating. I feel, anecdotally, it is accelerating but I can assure you, post-COVID, and what I've seen in regional communities, it certainly has its afterburners on. I think we need to be ready for, as part of this new normal, a regional Australia which is more populated, which I think is a fantastic thing. One of the pull factors in that migration, which I should point out precedes COVID, is the availability of jobs. There are parts of my electorate, even today, notwithstanding the impact of a one-in-100 year global pandemic, that are at full employment. I received a phone call today from one of the abattoir operators. Their challenge right now in the middle of a global pandemic in my electorate is to find sufficient accommodation for workers. That's a great position to be in. It speaks to the nature of the COVID-19 challenge, the need for food security and these things. But this is a challenge for regional Australia and it's one that preceded COVID-19. Quite frankly, we have two ways of solving this problem. We either encourage Australians to move from, what I think are, crowded and in some cases unliveable cities into regions where jobs exist, where we have low costs of living, where there are great lifestyle opportunities. Alternatively or perhaps additionally, we seek to deal with that skills, job and labour shortage by encouraging migration into regional Australia. I'm passionate about this because the fact is, if my father and mother, who both travelled as migrants to Australia separately—in my father's case by himself, in my mother's case by decision of her parents—hadn't migrated to regional Australia, I simply wouldn't have been here. I wouldn't have had the great privilege of representing my community in this place and I wouldn't have won the great lottery that it is to be an Australian citizen in the 40 or so years that I've enjoyed that privilege. This opportunity is laid out for very many Australians or soon-to-be-Australians, and I think we need to take this opportunity. I spoke earlier about the committee spending some time in my electorate and visiting some facilities. Costa Mushrooms at Murray Bridge, which, as the name would suggest, produces mushrooms on an industrial scale. It's an amazing facility. It is very labour intensive. At this stage, a lot of their labour needs are met by international students who are working in accordance with their visas. There's a real opportunity for the Murraylands community right there as one example of a more permanent workforce more connected to that community, instead of, if you like, international students travelling up from Adelaide, undertaking that necessary employment and returning to Adelaide. We spent time at Holla-Fresh at Tantanoola in the south-east of South Australia. If you've eaten a fresh herb from Woolworths, it has come from this facility. A shout out to the Karen and Karenni who have made Mount Gambier in the south-east their home in large numbers. They are incredibly well received in my community and—I have to tell you—the feedback we get from the proprietors at Holla-Fresh is they would love to see more of those Karen and Karenni individuals because they're so employable and are great people to be around. But I want to speak principally about Metro Bakery and Cafe, which happens to be right next to my electorate office. The committee heard really strong evidence that skilled migrants create jobs for Australians. This is important in this debate. This isn't a choice between a foreign migrant and an Australian worker. When we visited Metro Bakery and Cafe, we saw two skilled pastry chefs from the Philippines who had filled a job that was available at that facility that no appropriately skilled Australian was willing to fill. The great news from that point on is that these same two migrants have now trained no fewer than five apprentices in that craft, which has allowed that business to expand. Not only have they trained those five apprentices, but the business now employs 45 people. It's a great story and one that I'm really pleased to speak to. The member for Hunter will follow me and he will no doubt, as he's indicated, criticise the committee for failing to finalise its work in relation to this body of work. I can understand the decisions that have been taken by the committee, because, as we work through this global pandemic, as we deal with what will become the new normal, the challenges will, I think it is fair to say, need to be looked at afresh, particularly as it relates to migration into regional Australia and indeed migration generally. It's a little artificial to be considering these things right now when, in fact, it is unlawful to travel to this country as a foreigner on a visa or otherwise. I'm pleased that this issue has been considered. I'm incredibly grateful that the member for Berowra brought his committee to my electorate. It was great to participate in that in that limited way. I hope that this work can be considered afresh at an appropriate time. 17:11 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter What you just heard is what is commonly referred to in this place as a filibuster. We just heard from a member who is not part of this committee—nor am I, I should say—and who has no idea about the committee's work. Nor should he, I suppose, because it didn't do much work. We don't have the chair here—and I will be very careful; I have been around a long time. I don't know why the chair is not here. I know that the deputy chair is not here for good reason—because we're living in the COVID-19 environment. But it is more than passing strange that so few of the participating members of this committee are not here to speak on this report—or, should I say, non-report. I'm here because I saw the outcome of this committee inquiry and I was livid, angry, particularly as the government said, with some fanfare, that it was so keen to shift migrants to regional Australia. This was basically in the pre-COVID context—bushfires; drought; growers can't get pickers; unemployment high; cities overfull; roadblocks in our capital cities. This is a government that says a lot and does absolutely nothing. The government provided this reference to this committee to have a look at how we might plan—after seven years in office, I might add—to get more migrants into regional Australia, for their benefit, for the benefit of our overcrowded capital cities and for the benefit of our regional communities, so many of which are so under challenge. I am going to be careful not to be too critical of committee members because, while we guard our privilege in this place so ferociously, we know how it works with committees and we know riding instructions do come from ministers of the crown. But how this committee could have come to a halt in the way it has is just inexplicable. I thought, well, they're going to use COVID-19 as an excuse—can't travel and obviously can't have the same level of interaction with witnesses—but I read the non-report and found that that's not the reason. I wasn't that surprised, because plenty of other committees are still meeting during this COVID crisis. In fact, the parliament is relying on technology to meet. No, the committee tells us that it was because of the 'economic effects of the public health situation potentially changing the needs of regional communities'—that the needs of regional communities are so changed since COVID-19 that we may as well call the inquiry off. It then goes on to say: The changed economic circumstances mean that an inquiry which sought to encourage more migrants to come to and remain in regional Australia would not be as useful in the present economic environment. Well, I thought the Prime Minister believed everything was going to go pretty much back to normal after COVID-19, if we ever get to the end, God forbid, of COVID-19. But it now seems that the committee's inquiry had to come to a halt because the world might have changed. Well, I'll tell you what won't have changed, regardless of the longevity of COVID, and that is our desperate growers, struggling to get pickers and other labour in regional New South Wales. But there's a bigger question here. If the Prime Minister believes the world is going to be so different post COVID-19, where is his plan for what it might look like? We've been waiting seven years for an agriculture plan. The Prime Minister went to the Dubbo Bush Summit last year and announced that he was finally going to develop a plan. We're going to the bush summit again this weekend—this time in Cooma—and he'll probably say the same thing. This government likes to get at least three elections out of one announcement. We need a plan for Australian agriculture. We haven't had one for seven years. The Prime Minister said a year ago that we would have one, and we've not even seen a sign that that plan is under development. The question becomes: did we need an inquiry into the dispersion of migrants into regional Australia in the first place? I'm indebted to the member for Barker, because he said of the Regional Australia Institute's report that it was a 'serious body of work'—they were the words of the member for Barker—and, yes, it was. I happen to have it with me. I happen to have read the report. I doubt the member for Barker has. The Regional Australia Institute was, of course, an initiative of the former Labor government so that governments could make informed decisions about the future, both economically and socially, of rural and regional Australia. So, why were we having an inquiry? It's all here, and it's all in volumes of literature, going right back to my favourite, AnnaLee Saxenian's seminal book Regional Advantage, which was about the comparison between Route 128 around MIT and what happened in Silicon Valley. We know what is needed. We know that it's about liveability. People will go to regional Australia if they can get schooling for their kids and they can be assured that there is affordable health care, if it's a vibrant town, with nice parks, affordable housing et cetera. We know that to get that you've got to be able to provide both hard and soft infrastructure—social infrastructure and, of course, physical infrastructure, including connectivity, a la NBN, and connectivity between the regions and capital cities and between regional centres. 'Read the report,' I say to those opposite. 'It's all here.' We didn't need an inquiry. We know what needs to be done in rural and regional Australia. In the last parliament, the Prime Minister established a select committee into regional Australia. I think it was then called regional development and decentralisation. It travelled the country. It delivered a report. It made recommendations. What do you think happened to those recommendations? Zero. Then in this parliament the Prime Minister again established the committee and gave it almost identical terms of reference as the last committee in the last parliament. I'm sure the committee is doing its best and is doing good work, but the Prime Minister knows what needs to be done. This has become more urgent than ever before in the COVID and post-COVID periods—and hopefully we get to that period soon. I find it extraordinary that seven years into office and after all this talk about decentralisation and building our regions we've seen this underspend in infrastructure in the regions. The member for Dobell just gave us a fine example. When compared with what the previous Labor government spent, it turns my mind. There's no comparison between what we spent in rural and regional Australia and what this government has spent over the last seven years. I cannot understand why this government is not engaging more with local government. Every council across this country—all of them, both city and country—has shovel-ready infrastructure projects. They are ready to go. These infrastructure projects will create jobs and provide economic stimulus. But there is no real engagement between this government and our local government authorities. There should be. This is a government that loves a report, loves an inquiry, loves a committee and loves terms of reference. This government loves talking about and promising to do something about an issue but it never follows through. We see examples day after day. I can think of no greater example than this farce of an inquiry. In the end it was never an inquiry. In the end it made no recommendations. I feel sorry for the 131 people who provided a submission to the inquiry and will get no response. 17:22 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I rise to indicate my support for the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration and to detail how crucially important a number of Australia's migration programs are to my electorate of Mallee. The economy of the north-west along the Murray River is dominated by the horticultural industry. ABARES data from 2019 indicates that the output of Mallee's top three horticultural products—almonds, table grapes and oranges—accounted for almost 100 per cent of Victoria's production of these crops. The combined gross value of these products was over $700 million. These industries are heavily reliant on seasonal workers, including working holiday makers, backpackers and Pacific Islanders working under the Seasonal Worker Program. This is particularly true for the table grapes and citrus industries. Seasonal workers provide an invaluable contribution to our local economy. They fill seasonal demand that is not met by locals. Since coming to office I have been working closely with growers and employers in my electorate, listening to feedback on Australia's migration programs and raising concerns with relevant ministers. On two occasions I have facilitated roundtables with local stakeholders and several ministers to discuss seasonal workforce issues. This has been an effective way for locals to raise their concerns about Australia's migration programs. The Seasonal Worker Program, SWP, often draws the most attention and discussion in our region. The federal government listened to the feedback coming out of my electorate and implemented the Regional Agriculture Migration Package, which included extension and expansion of the Seasonal Worker Program pilot, measures to resolve accommodation challenges related to seasonal migration, and more effective channels for communication and coordination. More recently, in July, I met with Jan O'Connor and Nathan Falvo, two locals who operate labour contracting businesses in my electorate. As approved employers under the Seasonal Worker Program, they have intimate knowledge of the program—its strengths and its weaknesses. They have concerns that some workers coming to Australia under this program have not received adequate induction or are not ready for life in Australia. I'm pleased to say that the ministers involved, specifically Minister Cash, Minister Tudge and Minister Hawke, have taken this feedback on board and are actively engaged in improving the program for growers and employers in Mallee. I would like to thank these ministers for their continued support and readiness to receive and act on feedback. Limits on international travel and border restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic have presented new challenges and concerns for industry, employers and the workers themselves. The Commonwealth government's quick action to extend new temporary visas to more than 4,000 people was welcomed in my electorate and has helped to reduce the concerns of workers who were fearful of overstaying their visa due to travel restrictions. The closure of the New South Wales and Victorian border a few weeks ago caused huge issues for growers, contractors and workers that frequently require access to both states for operation of their business. The New South Wales government initially denied border exemptions for visa-holding seasonal workers based on the supposed health risks presented by this cohort. These essential workers were deemed to be potential superspreaders of the virus, as stated by the New South Wales minister for agriculture. The citrus industry was in the middle of its picking season when this decision was announced. I discussed this serious issue with the CEO of Citrus Australia, Nathan Hancock, who immediately saw the potential for this measure to have devastating impacts on the industry. I fought for this decision to be revoked and for common sense to prevail. Suggestions by senior officials in the New South Wales government that this move would not cause significant problems for the agriculture industry could not have been further from the truth. At the time Mr Hancock estimated that 1,200 seasonal workers along the Victoria/New South Wales border were affected by the ban and that over $2 million worth of citrus would fall to the ground as a result. To their credit, the New South Wales government opened effective channels of communication for border MPs and senators such as myself through the office of the New South Wales Cross Border Commissioner. The federal Nationals, including Damien Drum, the member for Nicholls; Bridget McKenzie, senator for Victoria; and Perin Davey, senator for New South Wales and I joined daily briefings with the Cross Border Commissioner, James McTavish, to campaign for this measure to be changed. In my view this was an incredibly discriminatory policy, and I'm glad that the New South Wales government reversed their position and made accommodations for these essential workers. The spike in cases of COVID-19 in Melbourne has led to a need for tighter controls around the movement of people in the whole state of Victoria. So far the Andrews Labor government has met this need with stage 4 restrictions in metropolitan areas and with blanket stage 3 restrictions— Mr Giles 243609 A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Mallee should direct her remarks to the report that is before the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 The member for Mallee should make sure that she is commenting on the report that is under consideration, but obviously in doing so you can make general remarks about the issues that the report's terms of reference sought to cover. I shall listen attentively to make sure you're doing that. Dr WEBSTER 281688 Thank you, Deputy Speaker. There are blanket stage 3 restrictions for all regional Victoria. However, these measures have not prevented people travelling from Melbourne to regional areas. Last week I was contacted by a local hostel owner who was worried about the working holiday makers travelling to Mildura looking for work. She has been contacted by these backpackers, who were making their way to the area on a V/Line bus. Regional Victorians are very aware of the risk to our smaller communities from travellers coming from Melbourne, and this level of unrestricted travel cannot be allowed to continue. With that said, in the upcoming harvests it will be vital for growers in Mallee to access seasonal workers, many of whom may need to travel from Melbourne and interstate. For this season, we need protocols in place to allow essential travel from COVID-19 hotspots to occur. I have written to Premier Andrews to suggest the adoption of a strategy that would allow essential workers to travel from Melbourne to regional areas. This could include a seasonal worker travel permit, reliant on a negative COVID-19 test within seven days, potentially a quarantine period, and proof of employment and accommodation. Given the breadth of Australia's agriculture and horticultural industries, I would also suggest a nationally consistent approach should be investigated by the National Cabinet. Doing so would also allow interstate travel to be fully considered. I also welcome the national cabinet's decision to resume the Seasonal Worker Program and the Pacific Labour Scheme to help with workforce shortages and believe a protocol governing travel from hotspots to regional areas could help manage any risks involved with this decision. In my view, despite rising levels of unemployment due to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on local unemployed Australians to meet seasonal workforce demands for agriculture is an oversimplification of the challenges facing farmers, growers and labour contractors, especially in my electorate. Locals with decades of experience in the horticulture industry have told me they have gone above and beyond to employ locals for many years. While we might see a rise in local employment in seasonal positions, suggesting that this will be enough to meet seasonal demand, it completely misses the mark. Industry is reliant on seasonal workers sourced from Australia's migration programs, including the Working Holiday Maker program and the Seasonal Worker Program. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that these programs are operating effectively and that's why I support this study. They are adaptive to the needs of industry, and we are committed to that. I plan to continue working with growers, employers and contractors in my electorate to achieve these outcomes. 17:31 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I rise to make some brief remarks on the report of the inquiry into migration in regional Australia. I would like to acknowledge all the work of the members who contributed to the report, particularly the chair, and my great friend, the deputy chair, the member for Calwell. I would also like to acknowledge, as the shadow minister did in his remarks, the contribution of the 131 individuals and organisations who submitted to the inquiry, some of whom had the opportunity to present evidence to the inquiry. The circumstances are such that much of this work has not been dealt with. I want to assure all those individuals and organisations that in Labor we take seriously the contributions they have made to this inquiry. While the report itself indicates the inquiry has been foreshortened, our interest has not been similarly shut down on the Labor side, because there are some very significant issues to be addressed in this place, particularly as we consider the potential for rethinking our migration program broadly as, hopefully, in the not too distant future, our international borders can be safely reopened. The report does highlight the challenges of ensuring that settlement works in regional community for skilled and for humanitarian entrants. We need to focus on both of these challenges and we have an opportunity to do better in this interregnal period. It is important to acknowledge that migration to regional Australia supports local communities and also enhances the economies of those regions. This is a laudable objective, and I'm sure widely shared in this place. I particularly want to note Wagga Wagga City Council's contribution to the report in highlighting the social benefits that regional migration can bring. In its submission to the inquiry it said: Wagga’s multi-cultural community has developed and supported highly successful events such as Fusion, which is a multicultural Street Festival and the region’s biggest outdoor live music festival. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Mr GILES 243609 I'm pleased to continue my remarks on this report. I was quoting from the submission from the Wagga Wagga City Council. The quote continues: It combines the music, food and culture of our community. In addition to Fusion, the diverse community has helped Wagga become a more progressive society through our Refugee Week, sporting clubs, Spring Jam, and Mardi Gras events. This is one example of many humanitarian settlements that have been so successful and so important to so many regional communities, highlighted in this report and otherwise. But it is important to recognise that these objectives have not been effectively supported by a series of decisions undertaken by this government over the past seven years. We know all about the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's record of cutting support to settlement services. The government has had seven years to deliver for regional Australia in this regard and has failed fundamentally to deliver the social support networks and services that are needed to support regional communities and to support effective settlement into those communities by migrants, both skilled and humanitarian. Members will be aware that, eventually, the Morrison government released the Shergold review into refugee and humanitarian settlement, more than a year after it was commissioned by the Prime Minister himself—a report that we on this side of the House chased for some time. Reading the report made clear why the government sat on it for so long—because, in many respects, it's a damning indictment. It raised concerns about the coordination failure of refugee settlement services and said this needed to be remedied as a matter of urgency. It also addressed the failure in helping refugees find meaningful work. These are issues which could and should have been explored through this inquiry. I trust that there will be other forms of this House as well as decisions of executive government that will enable us to look into these questions and find, frankly, much more satisfactory answers than those which this government has provided. The lack of support services from government for new migrants in regional areas is a matter of great concern. It has resulted in many not being provided with the services they need to successfully settle into new communities. Representatives of both state and local governments who appeared before this inquiry were keen to see the Commonwealth provide more resourcing and much more leadership in this area. In some parts of regional Australia, housing shortages present a further barrier for successful regional migration outcomes, with new migrants often struggling to find appropriate accommodation. Again, a general perception, as evidenced in the submissions, is that when migrants arrived it was found that the Commonwealth had done little to ensure that communities had what they needed to provide for them and that, rather, this task was largely handballed to state and local governments to do the heavy lifting without adequate support or an adequate framework within which this support could be situated. It's important to note the contribution made by Settlement Services International in respect of settlement capacity. They argued: Regional migration policy at all levels is constrained by a poor understanding of relative settlement capacity in different regions. This undermines the establishment of effective national, state and local policy settings, as well as preventing targeted investment to overcome barriers in settlement and retention of migrants in regional communities. This is a very important submission that, unfortunately, has not been adequately reflected by the government to date. I hope this report is a basis for further action from the minister. The report is also quite damning in respect of the Commonwealth's establishment, with great fanfare, of designated area migration agreements. I don't want to go into great length about this, but the report shows that this is not an approach that can be regarded as a silver bullet. Instead, the government should have regard to the breadth of contributions evidenced in submissions to this inquiry. We've seen in regional communities a consistent endeavour to go above and beyond in welcoming migrants and, in particular, refugees. Labor welcomes any step to encourage resettlement in the regions. But any resettlement targets the Morrison government proposes must be regarded as meaningless in the absence of proper support services, including funding, and a framework within which those support services can effectively be situated. We on this side of the House recognise that refugees, in particular, have too often lived incredibly painful and traumatic lives. When they settle in Australia, we need to be doing everything we can to help these people get the support they need to find work and integrate into the community. I hope that submissions to this report go some way to achieving this objective. 17:48 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn It's a pleasure to speak on regional migration. I might refine my speech to things that affect my region and my electorate. But I think what affects my electorate is reflected across regional Australia. I sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, and, in the hearings of that committee, we speak to a lot of people across the nation, whether it be Darwin, Perth, South Australia, wine growing areas or citrus growing areas. But it's not only the farming field that I'll talk about. It's to do with the shortage of doctors, allied health workers, engineers and skilled tradesmen like electricians. I wish the member for Hunter was still here. He would be very interested in that, coming from that background himself. There's a definite shortage of skilled tradesmen in regional areas, whether it be plumbers, builders and carpenters, all that type of thing. Then you go down the semiskilled workers. There are shortages across meatworks, I know that Teys brothers came out last week and listed the different meatworks and abattoirs under their ownership. They had shortages of labour across the board in those particular meatworks. In my electorate there are packing sheds, and there's one guy at 2PH Farms at Emerald where the owner told me he was short of eight forklift drivers for the current picking season. You just can't get tractor drivers and those types of people, and consequently fruit is left lying on the ground. That is what will happen this year. This year is probably not a normal year with COVID. Some of the seasonal workers were here in Australia and they couldn't get out. There were others outside Australia who couldn't get in, and likewise with backpackers. Backpackers do supply an interesting labour force, whether it be working in country hotels or restaurants and coffee shops. They do a fantastic job too. With backpackers, I find that generally whatever money they earn they leave in the town. That's unlike the Seasonal Worker Program. I understand why: it's a form of foreign aid, actually. They work very hard but send a lot of their money home. Australia's problem is that we have this unemployment of Australian people. There are a lot of people who say to me, 'Can't we give these jobs to Australian guys who are out of work?' Well, we can. More often than not it is offered to those people to work, but the work's in the regions and the unemployment is in the cities. Some cities, like Bundaberg and Wide Bay in Central Queensland, have an unemployment rate of 18 per cent. Yet we've got to rely on thousands of workers to come in and pick the fruit and that type of stuff. They just won't do it. The employer would like to employ Australian workers, but we just can't get them; and if they do get them, they don't last. So we've got a situation where we want to retrain, retain, and first of all, procure. In Gladstone in particular, the biggest city in my electorate, we just can't attract doctors. I don't know why. One of the reasons is that we haven't got the services that back up their skills. So they move to a bigger town like Bundaberg or Rockhampton or in fact Brisbane, where they have the backup services that they rely on to do their jobs. Another problem we've got in the regions is the lack of transport. You must consider that some of these people who come to Australia come from a country where they don't need a car because there's that much public transport in the way of buses and trains. If you're living in the middle of London or Johannesburg you probably don't have a car, but you've got buses and trains. You don't know how to make a cup of coffee because there's always someone else there who can do it. India is a prime example of that. We do have a lot of Indian taxi drivers. Those sorts of people are prepared to drive taxis or run service stations. That's probably not uncommon in any area in Australia. But the immediate issue I've got today is that in Darwin, in just the last week or so, the territory government and the Australian government, the immigration department, had to get 170 workers from Vanuatu because the mango season has started in the Northern Territory. That will be full bore from now through to January. By that time, the Queensland mangos will be on stream, and we'll be wanting those sorts of workers. But, because of COVID, the borders are closed, so the orchard growers will have to work out with the state government and the federal government how to get these workers in. Then we'll have to house them for two weeks in isolation, before they go onto the farms. In some cases the farm will have this accommodation available, and in other cases they won't. Today, in Emerald itself, in central Queensland, 500 workers are needed, and we're looking at whether they should go to the Northern Territory first and then come back to Queensland. I think the agriculture minister in Queensland, Mark Furner—some of you might now Mark; he was in the federal government at one stage—will have to wrestle with the problem of getting the borders open so that we can get the workers in, because if he doesn't get the workers in the fruit won't be picked. As farmers will tell you, their work is up to the picking stage, but if you can't pick the fruit then the whole crop will be lost. That's the problem we, as Australians, have got. We also have to work through the hospital issues. As the member for Hunter said, these problems haven't just popped up because of COVID; they've been here all the time. This is what the report picks up. I hope that we can do something about it, because it's been going on for far too long. Australia is a lucky country, but we've got to support our farmers, who grow the food for our tables. These are the issues we must resolve or help them to resolve. 17:57 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I want to start by acknowledging the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration on this inquiry. They unanimously suspended when members couldn't travel to public hearings due to the COVID-19 pandemic in March this year. I think I was part of one of the last site visits, as part of a public hearing in Darwin with the agriculture committee, when that was called short. But it is important work, as this is, and they go hand in hand. In Darwin, we heard that if we are to lift agricultural capacity in Australia to $100 billion a year then we've got to get migration right. We also need to get water right. There's a lot that we need to get right. I understand the reasons why this committee couldn't continue its work. While the committee's report didn't have the opportunity to provide specific recommendations, it does note that it wrapped up early because the health situation had changed and that the circumstances of regional communities would be changed for some time to come. I think this is in itself an important conclusion—that the challenges that rural and regional Australia were facing before this pandemic were already catastrophic for a variety of reasons and that now, during and after COVID regional Australia is unfortunately going to suffer even more. Without migration in the short term, our harvests are literally at risk of rotting on the ground, in terms of the mango crop, as the previous speaker alluded to. That's a real threat with the mango harvest that's going on in the NT at the moment. We've got our Pacific mates to thank, particularly those from Vanuatu, because we're going to have some of them helping us to get the crop off the trees. If we can get more, quickly, it will help us to get the rest of the crop off the trees and, hopefully, we can avert a catastrophic scenario for our farmers. Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks, I don't know whether you saw today in that other chamber but I was actually expelled by the Speaker for making this simple point—that the Minister for Agriculture is talking about a pilot and the truth is, once a pilot has run its course and we get further seasonal workers onto the ground, it will be too late for most of that crop. Apparently, we knew that the mango crop needed to be picked at this time of the year. Apparently that's a known and, unfortunately, because we had an NT election on the weekend, those opposite—not these particular members opposite, mind you, I hasten to add, but members of the executive—I would put it, weren't exactly helpful to the Labor Northern Territory government. We all knew the mango harvest was coming. We all knew there was going to be a requirement to have some sort of piloting of a situation where these workers come in from Vanuatu or Timor Leste, spend some time in quarantine and then go out to the farms to do their work. We knew that work had to be done, but I think it was more important for the minister to come up to Darwin and do a bit more of a he-said, she-said. That was particularly disappointing, and I thought he was a bigger man than that. When it comes to playing a bit of partisan politics, our farmers apparently come second or third. Anyway, we're past that now. The Northern Territory Labor government have been re-elected for another four-year term. I think we have got a bit of a chance to get some growth in the agricultural sector. I think they're serious about it. I would like the current federal government to get a bit more serious about helping them to achieve their outcomes. This committee was told of the deep support for migration in Australia's regions and we've heard that from previous speakers on both sides. We all know that our farmers are crying out and our regions are crying out for both unskilled and skilled migrants to do some of the work that is required, particularly in my case in the Northern Territory. The City of Darwin made one of the submissions to this committee's inquiry, as did Michael Gunner, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. The lord mayor, Kon Vatskalis, put in his submission, that Darwin, the city I represent, is one of the most diverse places in Australia, with nearly 30 per cent of people born overseas and a rich mix of 60 nationalities and 70 different ethnic backgrounds. I think that's probably understating it. I think there are probably more nationalities and more backgrounds than that. Kon wrote that in Darwin migrants fill skills shortage gaps in key industries, including mining, offshore oil and gas production, pastoralism, tourism and horticulture. In his submission, Chief Minister Michael Gunner called on the federal government to enable population growth of 2,600 people per year over the next 10 years in order for this to be effectively achieved. He wrote that the Territory's efforts need to be supported by the Australian government, saying, 'It would be good through their migration and legislation policy that the jurisdictions of Australia that depend on the federal government to do their job could have a regional growth policy and drive it with some seriousness.' With migration being a federal matter and with these borders being closed for some time—they will reopen at some stage—I would say to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for Agriculture that we can't just simply snap back to where we were before the crisis. That's not an option. We are facing a trying hour as a nation and as an economy, but, as previous speakers have said, regional Australia will face a more acute crisis. And that's not just because of COVID; it's because of that structural weakness in the economy and in our migration policy, particularly in relation to the regions. It has been clear for some time now that the government's plans for migration haven't been working. If we're all honest with ourselves, that has been pretty clear. The current federal government has had seven years—seven!—to deliver for regional Australia. It has failed in those seven years. For years the government have relied on temporary migration as a solution, and now with the borders closed it highlights the fact that they've failed to invest in skills training and apprenticeships for young Australians. We all know that there are several gaps, to the extent we've seen the defunding of VET by some $3 billion, so of course that's going to have an effect. In the time remaining, I want to refer to something that the Northern Territory government mentioned in their submission to the inquiry. They highlighted the government's decision to adopt a more expansive definition of 'regional' to mean everything but, by the looks of it, the south-east coast and the major cities. That has been fairly criticised by some who saw it as undermining what genuinely regional areas are. We saw that Darwin was all of a sudden in competition with much larger cities like the Gold Coast. All of a sudden we had semiskilled workers and skilled workers leaving Darwin to move down to the Gold Coast, which wasn't helpful for us. The Gold Coast, being close to Brisbane and having a much bigger economy, shouldn't be placed in the bag of being a regional area of Australia. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 I thank the member for Solomon for his contribution. Before I call the next speaker, I wish to clarify that my understanding is the member for Solomon was suspended for one hour under standing order 94(a) for interjecting. I call the member for Sturt. 18:07 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt In noting this report, can I start by commending the work of the committee, in particular the chair, the member for Berowra, who is with us in the Chamber at the moment. It is a very important topic, and unforeseen circumstances have added some complexity to the work that they've done. In reading through it, and particularly some of the submissions—they were diverse and very interesting, but also, in many ways, what I was expecting would be the kinds of responses to a call for public submissions that the committee issued. This is a really valuable body of work and something that will be very relevant for some of the decisions that we have to consider as a parliament going forward when it comes to the new challenges we're going to face around migration, which at the moment is non-existent given our international borders are closed, apart from repatriating Australians back into the country. We have a closed border, and that is going to have an enormous economic impact on this nation's economy; it will be felt more acutely in some parts of the country than in others. It's going to be very topical to talk about not just restoring immigration and the important economic dividend we receive from that, but also using it as an opportunity for reform. Frankly, I very much think there are opportunities for reform that are in line with the direction government policy has already been going over the last few years, in particular some of the decisions that the Morrison government has made to effectively move down the path of having differentiation in the way in which we treat migration policy in this country. I do think when you're a diverse continent and you have a big metropolis like Sydney and smaller communities in the remote parts of Australia, you cannot simply have a one-size-fits-all approach to migration. Recent data, which I grant is from before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, shows the population growth rate in this country has sat at about 1.6 per cent for many years, but in the state of Victoria it's been at 2.2 per cent. In my home state of South Australia, it's been at half the national average, at 0.8 per cent. It got up to 0.9 per cent in the most recent quarter that the ABS published. There's an enormous difference between Victoria at 2.2 per cent and South Australia at 0.8 per cent. There's the story of Australian migration, particularly in the last decade or more, in the large metropolises like Melbourne, which in recent years has had about 100,000 people a year swelling the size of the city. As well, Sydney and the south-east corner of Queensland have been very high population growth areas from a migration point of view. It's not just the small country towns. Small cities like my home city of Adelaide have really been lagging behind. There is going to be not just the loss of the immediacy of the economic dividend of migration but also the delayed impact on the demographics of a city like Adelaide and a state like South Australia. There are the challenges of an ageing population and having a smaller proportion of taxpayers compared with the overall size of the population of the jurisdiction. It creates an enormous amount of pressure when tax is raised on a smaller proportion of the population. I commend the purpose of the inquiry, which was to look at regional Australia and regional Australia's migration needs and workforce needs. Under the current migration policy settings, that includes the city of Adelaide. In fact, it includes basically everywhere except Melbourne, Sydney and now Brisbane. It was the Western Australian government that asked Perth to be considered regional under the regional migration scheme, and the Queensland Labor government asked the Gold Coast to be considered as regional as part of the regional migration scheme. So we now have a situation in our migration policy settings where, basically, regional Australia, from a migration point of view, is considered everywhere except Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. That invites the opportunity for us to consider why that has been the case in the past and what we're going to do into the future to reverse those trends and not have the pressures on our big cities from overcrowding. As migration is attracted to those areas and you have very high rates of growth—as I mentioned, in Melbourne, with 100,000 people a year—that puts an enormous amount of pressure on infrastructure and government services. I believe that those circumstances could start to really reduce the quality of life for the people living in those cities, because their infrastructure and their services are not keeping up with the growing population. You have the reverse circumstance in a smaller city like Adelaide, where, because of lower population growth, we have businesses that are struggling to recruit and employ people—probably not so much in the city of Adelaide but certainly in some of the regional satellite cities. The committee went to the member for Barker's electorate. There are some very good examples in his electorate of where they are really struggling from a workforce point of view. Also, as I mentioned, there are the pressures from low population growth. The direct correlation is indisputable between very low population growth and the impact on the overall economic growth rate. I'm a great advocate, as many of the relevant ministers and the member for Berowra and others in the Liberal Party room know, for a lot more differentiation in our migration program and for jurisdictions like South Australia and my home city of Adelaide to have smoother, cleaner and quicker pathways to attract people to our jurisdiction as we contract the overall migration program. We've reduced it from 190,000 to 160,000, which is fine, as long as a larger proportion of the 160,000 comes to the non-major metropolitan cities than under the program when it was 30,000 larger, at 190,000. We've had the Designated Area Migration Agreements, which I hold great hope for in my home state of South Australia and for other jurisdictions, because they are an opportunity to have demand-driven migration after you've first done very deep labour market testing to confirm that the roles you're trying to recruit people from overseas to are not able to be filled by Australians. That labour market testing is critical because of course our first priority is to make sure that any Australian seeking a role in our economy can preferentially get it over people coming into our economy from overseas under these DAMAs. Once that test has been met and once we've confirmed the skill capability of the people making these applications, we absolutely must do everything we can to help Australian businesses, particularly the regional businesses that are having massive pressures and labour shortages. Being unable to recruit the labour that they need in this country is holding back the economic prosperity of all of us because these businesses are not able to undertake the expansions that they'd like to. That is obviously contracting economic activity in the communities where these businesses would like to expand and cannot. That obviously has a multiplier effect across all the other businesses within that local economy that would receive the benefit of a larger workforce with income in their pockets to spend in the local communities. They would raise their families in those communities. That would grow the size of those communities and create the scale and critical mass we want to see in these regional communities. As a nation want to grow not purely in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Our regions, frankly, are capable of growing at a much higher rate than cities like Melbourne and Sydney. It is getting to the point in those cities where it's very difficult, with their current rates of growth, to keep up with the infrastructure and service needs that they have. I've often said before—and I think I said this in my maiden speech—when God was giving out continents not many countries got one. We are the only continent country on the planet. That makes us unique. It also underscores the fact that the cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane are vitally important to us, but our country is also much more than those three cities. The opportunities for economic growth are in those three cities as well as through the rest of this country. We need a heightened emphasis on migration to where the skill shortages are and to where the businesses are that want to grow their businesses but can't because they can't attract the labour force that they need. Evidence to this inquiry very clearly showed that is happening in a lot of the regional centres and remoter parts of this country. We as a parliament can undertake some great reform to address that imbalance and to drive really strong significant economic growth, not just in regional Australia but in the whole nation. I commend the work of the committee and thank them for what they've done. I look forward to being part of some really sensible reformist initiatives in this space going forward. 18:17 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I rise to make a few comments on this Joint Standing Committee on Migration report that has been tabled. I acknowledge the work of the committee in what has been tabled today. It's an incredibly hard time for all of our committees. What do we do with all the work we did pre-COVID? The world has changed. For so many of us, whether it be in immigration policy or education policy, there's life before COVID and life after COVID. I thought that, given the situation our country is in, it was premature to table any recommendations based upon the evidence in the hearings that they had. I want to make a couple of comments on some of the inquiry outcomes that were raised. I am a regional MP and regional migration is very close to the hearts of my electorate. I believe that this country has not got the settings right. This report suggests that a lot of the stakeholders who met with the committee were saying the same thing. Particularly I want to draw attention to the Regional Australia Institute, which I have met with several times, and the evidence that they raised. There is economic gain for regional communities in having regional migration. They were saying that you help people choose the regions by putting the regions up first. We do have a problem in our country because of the nature of our migration system and because of the way it has been cobbled together over years. When people arrive they go to where their support is and where they feel that there is a community. We haven't done enough as a country for long enough to make sure that we have the resources and support to help people migrate to regional communities. What's heartbreaking is the fact that we used to do this really well as a country. You travel all over regional Australia and you meet third, fourth, fifth or sixth generation people whose ancestors moved to our country. In my part of the world, in Bendigo, the gold rush area, we are known for our Chinese, who moved over here to become part of the gold rush community. People moved from the United States to California Gully. They settled and they stayed. I think of the Jack family, who are more Australian than I will ever be. They have lived here now for six or seven generations, whereas I'm the first in my family to be born in Australia. That's that migration story. We used to do this quite well as a country. You think about Wagga Wagga, you think about Griffith, you think about all these great regional towns. Post the Second World War, throughout our entire history, we had migration policy that worked, that attracted people, not just to Australia, but to the regions. We have to unpack why it worked then and not now. It comes down to the kind of visa that they had and the support services that were around. One of the reports that I want to raise in my comments, which relates to some of what came up in the inquiry, is the report Regional futures by Deloitte Access Economics in partnership with AMES. It focused on my town and the town of Nhill, where we've been successful in having Karen people moving to our region and calling our region their home. They identified six key areas that really helped people and were the reasons why it was a success. First of all was employment. We had jobs. We hear time and time again from people that there are jobs in regional Australia. But it's not enough just to have a job. We also have to have accommodation for them. We know housing can be more affordable In regional Australia. But when these communities first arrive, the concept of renting a home or owning a home is not something they're used to, particularly if they've grown up in a refugee camp like our Karen people. It's about having that leadership locally, people to work with the real estate agents to match the families to decent, effective accommodation. Leadership: having leadership in the community, having the mentors in the community—these are part of the critical six steps. Also, pathways for young people: making sure that they not only had educational opportunities, in terms of access to good schools or language program, TAFE options, vocational options if they wanted to, work options post-secondary; but that they also had activities to engage in. In my part of the world there is a very successful Karen youth organisation that has really helped to keep young people connected. Responsive services: making sure that the health services and the employment services all have the ability to reach out and that they have got people who are trained in health services who are from that Karen community—not just people in the health community who can speak Karen, but the other way around. It is critically important. We might not be in the crisis we're in in Victoria if we had more people from multicultural communities, new and emerging communities, who had been trained in the health skills and knowledge. It's coming up and it will come up in the future. It is critical going forward. There are the natural advantages of regional centres. We have strong job prospects. We've got a community that is committed to seeing these people succeed. We are making sure that we have the comprehensive health care. More importantly than anything, we need these people. That's where I think that, whilst I know we've got these benefits in the regions, it is one of those challenges of trying to get the people in the city to understand this way we've cobbled together our migration system. It would be great, because we've had this pause in temporary migration—that's largely what our migration has become—that we step back and say we will need people to migrate here in the future. We do have a skills shortage because we have not successfully trained people who live in our country, whether they be Australians or permanent residents, to match the skills we need. Until we do that, we are going to need some skilled migration. Let's look at family reunion. Let's look at bringing more partners here. Let's look at working with the families already here to see if they want to sponsor families to come over. It's worked in the past and it could happen in future. When we have labour market testing and we talk about it, let's make it genuine labour market testing so that we're not bringing people into our country to do jobs that already exist. Let's actually reward, thank and embrace the people who are currently stuck here. Yes, we're not letting people into our country but we're also not letting people out; our borders are closed. There are no flights. We have a million-plus international students, temporary migrants, people who are here on various different visas, who have had them extended, who are working in some of our industries that are keeping us fed. They should be embraced by us. It's a proposal that has been put forward by the United Workers Union. Let's talk about an amnesty. These people have helped us get through the crisis, particularly farm workers. We should be looking at how we can embrace them, encourage them to stay and give them the opportunity to become permanent residents. Let's be real about international students. I cannot believe that this government is letting more international students in when 60 per cent of the international students already here are starving. Report after report are talking about that. Rather than helping to fund our universities, we're looking at bringing more international students in. Why does this matter to this report? Because our international students go on to be our skilled workers, go on to be our permanent residents and then go on to be Australian citizens. When they get to that point, they are so excited because it's been a 10-year journey. It doesn't need to be that long. I really look forward to the work that this committee does in the post-COVID environment. There's been a pause on migration at the moment in our country and it's an opportunity for new thinking, or for old thinking that worked. This country had a great migration program that really embraced people moving here and allowed them to bring their families. Let's do it again. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 It being approximately 6.30 pm, in accordance with standing order 192 (b), the debate is adjourned and a resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 98 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 98 18:27 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise to talk about the Samuel review into the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the opportunity that we have to improve these laws and really protect our natural environment in a more meaningful way. The EPBC Act was introduced in 1999 by the Howard government. It provides a framework for environmental impacts to be considered before a planned development can go ahead. Unfortunately, the act has been shown not to be fit for purpose. It has had an incredibly limited impact throughout its existence and it is about time we changed it. In the past 20 years it has become so abundantly clear that the EPBC Act does not work. It neither protects the environment nor helps conserve biodiversity. Why is it that the biggest environmental challenge facing our nation and indeed our planet, climate change, is not even considered in the act? Why is it that the vast majority of decisions made to protect the environment under this act were made by Labor governments? And why is it that of the eight proposals that have been rejected by Liberal governments under the mechanisms of this act, two of those were wind farms? The EPBC Act allows far too much ministerial discretion to make decisions that carry long-lasting, potentially devastating environmental consequences. There is no clearer example of this than the approval of the Yeelirrie uranium mine in Western Australia by former environment minister Melissa Price. This mine was approved a day before the last election was called—one day! What's more, this happened despite the minister knowing that the project could very well lead to the extinction of several species. In her reasons for granting the project, the minister actually acknowledged the fact that the decision she was making could lead to the extinction of multiple species and went ahead with it anyway. In its 20-year history, only 23 projects have been rejected under the EPBC Act. Of those, most occurred when Labor was in government. This amounts to just 0.6 per cent of controlled actions being refused approval under the EPBC Act. This is absolutely damning. The EPBC Act is legislation that talks big but is undeniably toothless when it comes to protecting our environment. Australia desperately needs environmental laws that prevent these atrocious decisions from being made. Last Wednesday with my colleague Andrew Leigh, the member for Fenner, I met with a passionate group of people from Labor's environmental action network, or LEAN. It was fantastic to hear from LEAN on their thoughts regarding the recommendations of Professor Samuels in his interim report. I want to thank all the members of LEAN for their hard work in advocating for stronger environmental protection. I also want to thank the many passionate Canberrans who have been in touch with me about this issue. I hear you, and Labor hears you, and we will fight against the weakening of the laws in this place. In this vein, the Samuels review provides a great opportunity for this parliament to act to better protect our unique natural environment. We could do so much more to protect our environment with action in this place. We could create an independent environmental protection agency, not swayed by political agendas, that would enforce our environmental laws. I note that this proposal is supported by Professor Samuels, who said that a 'strong, independent cop on the beat' is required. I fully support this move and I call on the government to make this happen in their response to this review. We must also act to make protecting the environment a mandatory legal requirement. We cannot keep allowing decisions like the ones made by Melissa Price last year to continue. Such a legal obligation will not only protect the environment but provide certainty for business, allowing them to know the criteria that their proposals will be assessed against. I note that this measure is supported by the Business Council of Australia, and the government should take note of that. The parliament should also legislate that all proposed projects must disclose the full emissions profile of their development. I find it utterly unconscionable that our environmental laws don't consider the damage that high-emissions developments have on our climate. I was extremely proud of the policy that Labor took to the last election, in which we sought to have the impact of climate change factored into national environmental law for the first time so that it would have been considered when projects were considered as to whether they should go ahead. It seems so outdated in this day and age that we are not considering the impact of climate change when we are looking at protecting our environment. It just seems so obvious. In light of the devastating bushfires last summer, which killed over three billion animals, we need to be doing more. These are just a few of the things we could do right now. But, instead of this, the environment minister has worryingly suggested that this review will be used by the Morrison government to weaken these already ineffective laws. That's not what Australians need, and it's not what Australians expect. The Liberals have also suggested deferring to the states when it comes to environmental protection. This is a potentially disastrous proposition. We cannot trust the states do the right thing in this space. For example, under the New South Wales Berejiklian government, land clearing in the state has skyrocketed. In 2018, 61,000 hectares of woody vegetation was destroyed in New South Wales. That's a huge increase from the 34,200 that was cleared in 2013-14. Right now, Australia clears more land than almost anywhere in the world. Why on earth would the federal government give more power to state governments when that is the record? Future generations of Australians should be able to enjoy our natural environment. In fact, we have a UN mandated duty to ensure that intergenerational equity is guaranteed. One of the most amazing things I have ever done is go snorkelling in the Great Barrier Reef up at Port Douglas. Honestly, it is heartbreaking to me to think that my children are unlikely to see it in the state that I saw it and that it has already been so degraded. I want my children to be able to take in the marvellous views of the Great Ocean Road, to explore the magnificent Tasmanian wilderness and to see koalas in the wild. These are not things we should take for granted. We need to protect these things. We're letting these natural treasures be destroyed and we should be protecting them very carefully. I say to the people of Australia, especially the many who are concerned with the direction that we are going in, 'Don't trust the Liberals with our environment.' It's too important, and they have proven time and time again that they will abuse that trust. We need to ensure that Labor governments around the country are elected, including this October here in the ACT. Australia's natural heritage is so special, and we need to be doing more to protect it—not less. Labor will always fight for this, and I urge the government to do the same. Labor has an extremely proud record of protecting our environment, and I am so proud to be a part of the party that has achieved these things. Labor is the political party that has delivered every significant environmental reform in Australia. No other party has consistently protected Australia's natural assets. Now, as we sit on the opposition benches, our challenge is to push the Morrison government to act on climate change. We don't have another term of government to wait. In the early seventies, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam appointed Australia's first environment minister, Moss Cass, and the country's first urban planning minister, Tom Uren. Under Whitlam, the nation's first environmental impact inquiry established that sand mining on Queensland's Fraser Island was untenable. Embedding environmental outcomes while building the nation and its prosperity was central to Whitlam's modernisation of the Labor mission. In 1983 Bob Hawke saved the Franklin River from being dammed. Labor protected the Daintree, Kakadu and 170,000 hectares of forest protected as the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Labor reformed the native forest industry and protected the most important old-growth forests across the country. Bob Hawke and Labor lead the international push in 1989 for the rejection of mining in Antarctica, ensuring that Antarctica to this day remains a continent of peace and of science. The previous federal Labor government built the largest network of marine national parks in the world and set Australia on a path to a low-carbon future. Our leader, Anthony Albanese, has reiterated that our commitment to climate change is unshakeable, as is our commitment to the Paris Agreement, which ultimately achieves net zero by 2050. Again, I say to all the Canberrans who write to me constantly about these issues, who value the environment here in Canberra with our beautiful natural areas throughout our city but also the need to protect our whole world by addressing climate change, that Labor is committed to this, and we, a Labor government, will deliver the action we need to protect our environment. Thank you. JobSeeker Payment and JobKeeper Payment 100 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra The coronavirus pandemic is a momentous challenge for all of us. Australians have got sick, Australians have died and the economic consequences have been unprecedented. In such emergency circumstances, governments can take the unusual step of trying to cushion the impact of the worst of the economic vicissitudes through targeted and temporary measures. JobKeeper and JobSeeker have been important measures to ensure Australians stay connected to jobs and our communities are cushioned from the worst economic impacts of COVID-19. Around four million Australians will be benefitting from JobKeeper payments at the end of the September quarter. Those Australians are keeping their jobs and remaining connected to their employer, while JobSeeker has helped the 1.46 million Australians faced with unemployment during this time. The government's done exactly what it needed to do. Many Australians are out of jobs through no fault of their own, and the additional financial support the government is providing is necessary to get Australians through the worst of the economic challenges and back on their feet. These measures, as I say, are targeted and temporary. However, we have to prepare for their gradual relaxation. The coronavirus supplement of $550 per fortnight will remain in place until 24 September, and beyond this date the coronavirus supplement will reduce to $250 a fortnight until the end of the year when the supplement is due to finish. While the measures that have been put in place have been so crucial and necessary during this time, if continued as they are now they would hinder Australia's recovery. Unemployment is not good for the country, but, first and foremost, it's not good for the individual. In addition to the financial hardship caused, there are also undeniably significant psychological, social and health consequences. The personal cost of unemployment can be devastating and have lifelong ramifications. Recently, there've been people calling not only for a permanent increase to the former level of Newstart payments but calls to sustain the current rates of the JobSeeker payment. While a compassionate position is understandable, I'm alarmed when I hear how many people are insisting on sustaining a system that was intended exclusively for a time of crisis. These levels of support are not only unsustainable for the government financially but detrimental to Australians who are currently dependent on them. Ultimately left as they are, they will unintentionally perpetrate the state of unemployment for many Australians. Already, there have been real challenges presented by the increased level of support in place, and these challenges are likely to grow as we seek to rebuild the country. In my role as chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, which is currently conducting an inquiry into the Working Holiday Maker program, I've heard countless stories of Australians previously working in agriculture and in horticulture walking off the job as soon as JobSeeker commenced. As the CEO of AUSVEG told the inquiry: Even recently, when jobseeker payments were raised, many growers have reported that they've had workers collect their final pay cheques and leave because they'd rather go home and receive the jobseeker payment than work on the farm. The managing director of Agri Labour raised similar concerns. He said that, when the rate of unemployment first started to rise earlier this year: We were inundated with a 300 to 400 per cent rise in Australian applications. Four weeks later, after the announcement of the jobseeker and JobKeeper, we had a completely sharp decline. In many cases, we actually had permanently employed Australians resigned from their work to take up the jobseeker payments because there was a marginal difference in what they would take home. There's something fundamentally wrong when Australians are actively resigning from their jobs and choosing unemployment over employment. Such actions leave sectors such as agriculture and hospitality desperate for workers despite the rising unemployment rate. There's a cohort of workers available that just doesn't want to do the work. In my electorate, a recruitment agency contacted me because they've had five casual workers on JobKeeper who refuse to turn up to work. These workers have made themselves uncontactable, despite receiving the fortnightly payment. This is an appalling story of the abuse of a system that was set up to ensure Australians could stay in jobs. It's being used by some people to freeload off their fellow Australians. These actions are leaving employers without staff and stripping other unemployed Australians of the opportunity to work. This is so disappointing at a time when Australians should have each other's backs. There will always be people who are out of work and looking for jobs. During those hardships, it's the responsibility of government to provide financial support. However, we mustn't do things that inadvertently discourage and disincentivise people from taking up work. In addition to unintentionally encouraging high levels of unemployment and making it difficult for employers to find workers, one of the risks of accepting the helping hand of government is that it will foster a dependence on the state. Sir Robert Menzies addressed the importance of fostering independence from government in his 'The Forgotten People' speech in 1942 when he said: … we have nothing but the warmest human compassion--toward those whom fate has compelled to live upon the bounty of the State, when we say that the greatest element in a strong people is a fierce independence of spirit … The home spiritual so understood is not produced by lassitude or by dependence; it is produced by self-sacrifice, by frugality and saving. I saw an example of these values and actions recently when I visited a franchisee in my electorate who had used JobKeeper to keep his employees in jobs and his business open. He was incredibly thankful for the support JobKeeper had been to his business that would otherwise have faced closure. However, he was also proud to tell me that the business no longer needed JobKeeper and would no longer rely on government support, because his business had returned to a level that enabled him to pay his employees full wages. That is the pride that Australian businesses should have when they no longer need to rely on JobKeeper. To find a job such that they're no longer dependent on JobSeeker is also an aspiration that Australians must have. History shows us why it's so important to get people back to work as soon as possible. The longer someone is unemployed the harder it will be for them to find a job. A Reserve Bank of Australia paper published in 1993 explored the relationship between unemployment and job vacancies. It looked particularly at the time between 1979 and 1992, in the lead-up to the recession of the 1990s. It stated that men who'd been unemployed for fewer than three months at the start of the quarter had a 43 per cent chance of moving off benefits by the next quarter, and those who had been unemployed for one to two years had a roughly 20 per cent chance of leaving unemployment benefits within the quarter. In other words, their chances were 53 per cent lower than the men who'd been on benefits for fewer than three months. After two years, the chance of leaving benefits fell to just 15 per cent. The paper stated that this data shows very clearly that exit rates decline as the duration of unemployment increases. The reasons for this diminishing chance of obtaining employment includes employers using long-term unemployment as a screening mechanism and the erosion of job skills due to the long duration spent out of employment. The study of long-term unemployment income support recipients undertaken by the Department of Social Services, DSS, between 2015 and 2016 showed similar findings. Nearly 55 per cent of people who had been on benefits for up to three months had exited payment within the year. However, only 31 per cent of those who had been on benefits for one or two years were no longer on benefits by the end of the study. This means that their chance of exiting benefits within a year were 44 per cent less than those who had been on benefits for only three months. Only 23 per cent of those who had been on benefits for two to five years were off benefits by the end of the year, along with just 13 per cent of those who had been on benefits for over five years. The DSS concluded: 'The longer a person's income support duration, the more likely it is that they will still be on payments 12 months later.' There's an inherent lesson for young people who are experiencing their first economic decline of a lifetime. It's true to say that young people have been disproportionately affected by COVID. As the 2018 RBA publication Labour market outcomes for young people states: Poor labour market outcomes early on not only affect an individual's future employability but also have persistent negative effects on lifetime earnings. Researchers also find that those who graduate in weak economic conditions are unable to fully shift into better jobs even once the economy picks up again. They also found 'a similar deterioration in labour market outcomes for those younger workers who entered the labour market in Australia after the global financial crisis compared to previous cohorts'. The challenge we face today is preventing the unemployed from being long-term unemployed. Long-term unemployment is a human tragedy for each and every person who finds themselves in that situation. As lawmakers, we need to learn from previous economic downturns and focus ourselves on a series of important questions. How do we prevent people who face significant discouragement and defeat this year from developing a sense that there is no opportunity and nothing to aspire to? How do we reignite the fight in the Australian spirit that seeks to contribute and be part of something bigger? How do we transition out of this crisis in a way that celebrates and rewards Australians who take pride in their work and pursue freedom and independence? And how do we make it easier for businesses to take on people who have been out of the labour market? Businesses in my electorate tell me that they're increasingly taking advantage of the opportunity to take on new apprentices, but that they still find it daunting giving ordinary workers a chance because of the threat of unfair dismissal and employment related compliance costs. It's these questions that we as a parliament and as a nation will need to address ourselves to in the coming months. COVID-19: International Travel 102 18:47 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah This is an important grievance debate, because it goes to the heart of what Australia stands for. Are we a free and fair country? Do we have processes that comply with principles of natural justice, freedom of movement and rights of appeal? Do we treat our citizens fairly and equally, or do we have double standards in applying our laws and restrictions? These are questions that many in our community are starting to ask in response to the growing distress around our international travel restrictions. When the pandemic broke and emergency measures were put in place, we were prepared to accept them on the basis that they were urgent and temporary. We believed that our government would surely be looking at more viable long-term options. It's now becoming clear that there is no long-term plan. Thousands of Australian lives are in limbo, and the distress, uncertainty and anxiety are taking their toll. There is no denying that the swift and decisive action to impose international travel restrictions in March undoubtedly saved lives. Our international borders were closed quickly, with very little notice, and all international arrivals were forced into compulsory hotel quarantine, and I fully supported those emergency measures. But this is not a long-term plan. People with valid visas, some of them having lived here for years, caught unawares overseas at the time of border closures, have been denied entry back into Australia and to their lives. Australian citizens and permanent residents have been unable to return home due to the caps on international flights. And ordinary Australian citizens and permanent residents are unable to leave the country for compassionate reasons or important business or study. We need to understand how distressing these situations are for separated couples and families, for people who have unexpectedly lost their job or people with urgent situations where there is illness or death in the family. The issue of people with valid visas being denied entry has been well documented, especially for separated couples, who have to prove and justify their relationship, explaining to strangers how they met and the level of commitment they share, only to then be denied travel. Situations have occurred where valid visa-holders are being denied entry. A very prominent one for me in my electorate is the Bathgate family. On March 21, Sue and Brian Bathgate, an elderly couple, headed to Heathrow airport to fly out to Australia to join their daughter, an Australian citizen, and her family living in my electorate. The Bathgates had been granted a sponsored parent visa in November last year, had subsequently packed up their lives in England, sold all their furniture, bought a house in Sydney, and even sent their beloved pet dogs out in advance. At the airport, they couldn't get the second boarding pass from Singapore to Sydney, as they were scheduled to arrive just a few hours after our international borders had been shut. Devastated, they returned to an empty house. Since then, this elderly couple has been sleeping on a borrowed mattress, their lives in limbo, as seven successive applications to the Australian government to be granted a travel exemption and reunite with their family have been denied. They're prepared to pay for quarantine and comply with any other health conditions of travel, but no explanation has been provided to them for their continued refusal. Then there is the Madsen family of Manly. in 2018, Mr Soren Madsen, his wife and two of their three children migrated to Sydney to establish a Pacific region office for his Danish company. They left their eldest son, Victor, to complete his studies in Europe. Victor, now 19, completed those studies earlier this year and, relying on his approved Australian visa and the fact that he is viewed as a dependent until the age of 23, the family proceeded with plans for him to join them living in Manly. But no, Victor, against logic, has now had his request to travel and rejoin his family in Australia denied three times. Mrs Nihad Bate has lived in Freshwater for 17 years with her children and grandchildren. Mrs Bate is 77 years old. She has a valid bridging visa while her aged parent visa is being processed. Late last year, Mrs Bate travelled to Jordan to finalise her late husband's estate. While still there, she became stuck there when the country went into lockdown. Her three children and their families are Australian citizens and she has lived here for nearly two decades. In the words of her daughter-in-law, this is the only place she calls home yet that home has closed its doors on her and she's been denied permission to travel back to Australia. The issue of caps on international flights again is well documented and is one that raises questions of constitutional legal validity. The limit on inbound flights and passenger numbers is creating an ever increasing number of stranded Australians abroad as flights are cancelled or ticket prices inflated, prioritising business and first class seats. This has led to claims of discrimination, unfair treatment, as passengers repeatedly have their flights cancelled or are encouraged to buy more expensive seats. I'm pleased to see the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission investigate these serious claims of unethical behaviour. Some criticise these Australians, saying they should have come home sooner. But there are many very good reason why these fellow Australians are only now trying to return home now. For some, when the border closure was announced in March, they had flights booked for April and they thought they would be okay; they were not. Others thought they would finish their studies or their contracts and work and would return to Australia midyear. Some had to travel overseas urgently for medical or family reasons and have only just now lost their jobs and, with no income, need to come back home. There's a growing backlog of stranded Australians and they are experiencing great distress and anxiety. An example is Catherine Hilton from Manly. Catherine is an Australian citizen. She had to travel to the United Kingdom in early July to be with her dying father. He passed away in mid-July and, after organising the funeral and finalising affairs, she began making arrangements to travel home to Australia. Her return flight has now been cancelled three times at the last minute, only days before her scheduled departure. She's stranded in the UK, she has bills to pay in Australia but, as a sole trader with absolutely no income, in her own words, she's in total dread regarding her future. Kate and Christopher Smith moved to Dubai for a job but, having been made redundant, they need to come home. They can't afford business class seats, and the next available economy seat is not until early November. Until then, they will be living on limited savings, hoping their flights do not get cancelled. Finally, we have the issue of Australian citizens and permanent residents being unable to leave the country, couples being separated, family members prevented from attending weddings or funerals, students wanting to commence studies, workers wanting to commence new long-term contracts, families needing to be reunited. The emotional, physical and financial stress the government's current policy is having is not right. It's not consistent with a free and democratic country. A major source of concern is that there appears to be inconsistency in the application of this exemption process. There's a feeling that it all depends on whose desk your application lands on as to whether or not you'll get to see your only daughter get married in London, you'll make it to Sydney to say goodbye to a loved one or you'll be reunited with the mother of your children. No reasons are given for refusal, no contact details are provided to discuss your application and there are no avenues of appeal offered. In fact, a strongly worded email is sent by the department advising applicants that any future request for exemption will likely be unsuccessful. Adding to the resentment is the feeling that there's a double standard at play. While sporting teams and politicians fly in and out, while business moguls and movie stars have freedom of entry and while moves are in play to allow international students priority access, couples remain separated, families are disjointed and Australians are prevented from coming home. Are we honestly creating a situation where, if you're an international student, you have a greater chance of entering Australia than if you have lived here and contributed to our community for nearly 20 years? There are simple solutions, which I have suggested in writing to the government. Expand the definition of immediate family members who are currently permitted to travel to include parents of a citizen or permanent resident where the parents have a valid visa to travel to Australia. Ease the capped numbers on international flights. Enforce mandatory hotel quarantine, but let us also train up a proper workforce to implement that quarantine. This will assist the struggling airline industry and the hospitality industry, and also relieve some of the unemployment we're experiencing. The reality is that COVID may be with us for a long time yet, and the existing restrictions are not viable long-term solutions. The economic impact on business and tourism is devastating, but, more importantly, the emotional and social impact on our communities will be irreparable. I know many MPs from across the political spectrum agree that the current system is no longer working and is creating unnecessary heartache and distress. I urge the government: please, develop a long-term plan on travel arrangements, communicate that timeline and help the Australian people understand the policy and help manage expectations. COVID-19: Hydroxychloroquine 103 18:57 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes During my lifetime I've seen many examples where there has been complete abandonment of reason—media bias has led to groupthink—but never have I seen a worse example of this than the war we are currently witnessing on the drug hydroxychloroquine. It's not about whether my opinion thinks the drug is effective or not. It's about whether the big hand of government has the right to interfere in a doctor-patient relationship, and to say to the doctor, 'You cannot prescribe this drug to your patient if you think not only would it help them, but it may save their life.' That's what we're currently doing in Australia. At the state level, we have state governments that are putting rulings in that are making a doctor liable to go to prison if he prescribes hydroxychloroquine to one of his patients if he thinks it may save their life. What is this based on? It's based on the findings of our National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce. Their recommendation says: 'Based on the available evidence, hydroxychloroquine is potentially harmful and no more effective than standard care in treating patients with COVID-19. We therefore recommend that hydroxychloroquine should not be used.' How do they come to that recommendation? Well, they go on: 'Evidence informing this recommendation comes from nine randomised trials that compared hydroxychloroquine plus standard care to standard care alone.' But when you look at those nine trials that they looked at, not one of them looks at the way hydroxychloroquine, or the doctors that advocate for this drug, say it should be used. The doctors say it should be used with zinc and also an antibiotic such as azithromycin. That is how they advocated for it, and also that it must be prescribed and taken in the first five days after someone becomes infected. But none of those nine trials that this evidence task force looked at actually looked at the drug under those circumstances. So they should simply be completely irrelevant to what their recommendation is. But it gets worse. They go on: 'The vast majority of evidence is from the recovery trial which randomised 4,716 hospital patients with COVID.' The recovery trial. What they actually did in the recovery trial, which was in the UK, was they gave the patients—sick patients that had come down with COVID, that were very sick and frail—a dose of 2,400 milligrams of hydroxychloroquine in the first 24 hours. 2,400 milligrams doesn't mean much unless you compare it. That is actually four to six times higher than the recommended dose. So they dosed these people up with a toxic overdose of this drug. In fact the French medical literature says that a dose of only 1,800 milligrams in the first 24 hours, for someone that is 75 kilograms, is considered an overdose and can result in cardiac arrest and respiratory arrest. Yet in this trial they loaded these people up with well above what is a known overdose. This scandal gets worse. A French magazine asked the gentleman behind this trial to explain the 2,400 milligrams. I quote from the French magazine. This is FranceSoir. The quote was: 'We have chosen the dosage that is in line with dosages for other diseases such as amoebic dysentery.' A Professor Perronne said to that comment: 'This is the first time I have learned that we have used hydroxychloroquine for amoebic dysentery in supertoxic doses.' He said: 'The classic treatment for amoebic dysentery is another drug called hydroxyquinoline.' Professor Perronne concluded: 'I think they confused hydroxychloroquine with hydroxyquinoline.' Professor Perronne's quote was: 'This man who calls himself a doctor, the person behind this trial, is incompetent and dangerous.' Yet this is the trial that our national COVID evidence task force hold up as their gold standard, as the reason why they interfere in that doctor-patient relationship. In that study, the study's result, that so-called recovery trial, 27.5 per cent of the people loaded up with that toxic dose died within 28 days, compared to 23 per cent that didn't get that drug. This is an outrage and a disgrace. Yet this is what our clinical evidence task force is based upon. What about a second opinion about hydroxychloroquine? Let's take a second opinion from a gentleman called Professor Harvey Risch. Who is Professor Risch? He is the Professor of Epidemiology at Yale, someone with almost 40-plus years of experience. His words were: 'I conclude the evidence is overwhelming. There is no question that for people who need to be treated and are treated early, it'—hydroxychloroquine—'has a very substantial benefit in reducing the risk of hospitalisation or mortality.' He continued: 'I am an expert in science, and I can tell you the science is all one-sided. In fact, the science is so one-sided in supporting this result'—that is, that hydroxychloroquine is effective—'that it is stronger than anything else I've studied in my entire career.' This is a gentleman with more than 45 years experience as a medical doctor. He says: The evidence in favour of Hydroxychloroquine benefit in high risk patients treated early as out-patients is stronger than anything else I've ever studied. Yet we have bans on Australians being able to get this prescribed by their doctor. It's said that there are no studies that support this. Only yesterday there was a study from Belgium that looked at 8,075 hospitalised patients and 4,524 patients who were given hydroxychloroquine as a treatment. These were all patients who had contracted COVID. They compared them against a group of 3,533 who didn't get hydroxychloroquine. These are the results. Those who didn't get hydroxychloroquine had a 53 per cent increased chance of dying. And yet we have banned it. Time doesn't allow me to go on, but there are studies after studies. Yes, these are only observational studies, but the statistical chance of all these observational studies being wrong is approaching zero. There are studies from Spain and from Italy. They go on and on. I'm asking our national COVID evidence task force to look at the evidence and to make separate recommendations for the use of hydroxychloroquine as a prophylaxis and also in the early stage of treatment. The recommendations they have made are only on evidence that is in a late stage of treatment. There are many brave doctors supporting this and speaking out against a media groupthink. One of them is Dr Kulvinder Kaur, a brave doctor out of Canada. She said why she supports hydroxychloroquine. She said, 'My moral conscience won't allow me to silently watch people die and suffer when we have the means to save them.' I will conclude with the words of Professor Risch. He said: In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence. But for now, reality demands a clear, scientific eye on the evidence and where it points. For the sake of high-risk patients, for the sake of our parents and grandparents, for the sake of the unemployed, for our economy and for our polity … we must start treating immediately. (Time expired) Morrison Government 105 19:07 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I grieve for Australians who are missing out as a result of failures in media and communications policy under this Liberal-National government. Next month marks seven years of inaction and confusion in the communications portfolio under this government—seven years of lacking in values, policy coherence and progress in the public interest. Australians today have less than they should as a result—from Malcolm Turnbull's overbudget broadband network, whose substandard technology is having to be upgraded before the rollout is even complete, to the Fifield triangle, where under Mitch Fifield all manner of reform tasks, submissions, reviews and inquiries simply went missing. There is now a backlog of outstanding policy work and remediation to be done. But, unfortunately, there is no sense this groundhog day is coming to an end any time soon. The portfolio is now suffering under the Fletcher paradox where the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts says one thing but does another. Indeed, this minister is a walking, talking oxymoron. We now have a minister for the arts who has banished arts from the title of his department; a minister for communications who wants to abolish an entire communications service—broadcast community television; a minister who fails to communicate, simply ignoring proposals and correspondence from the ABC; and a minister who instructs ACMA to develop a misinformation code for digital platforms, yet himself spreads harmful misinformation about the ABC—the trusted institution for which he is responsible. This year the minister suffered the humiliation of having his claims about ABC funding found to be misleading by RMIT ABC Fact Check. But instead of retracting he doubled down, prompting Fact Check to issue a statement asserting its assessment standards. How does this minister expect anyone to believe him on important matters such as the fact that 5G technology is safe, in the face of unfounded conspiracy theories to the contrary, if he can't be trusted on something as simple as the fact of ABC funding cuts? It is little wonder that stakeholders have become wistful, saying that they wish they still had Mitch Fifield in the role. When industry starts suggesting that Mitch Fifield should return, you know you're in trouble. I turn now to media reform. There was some early hope, at the start of the 46th Parliament, that this minister would make up ground on media reform. After all, the ACCC had just landed the final report of the digital platforms inquiry—a report, with recommendations, that devotes an entire appendix to 'Recent reviews of media industry laws and regulations'. But, unfortunately, there has been no advance on this minister's undertaking to harmonise the media framework. There is still no sign of a genuine road map, methodology, principles or objectives, and, once again, industry submissions have fallen into a void. When this government first took office, they knew Australia's media laws were broken. The regulator had said so. Industry had told them. The government themselves decried the regulatory framework as 'analogue era', yet in seven years they have failed to provide a digital-era replacement, leaving the hulking analogue framework in place. In September 2017, Malcolm Turnbull and Mitch Fifield described the government's changes to media laws as 'A new era for Australia's media'. Less than three years later, the explanatory memorandum to a bill listed for parliament this week warns of market failure of regional broadcasting. This government's failure to address the systemic challenges facing the media has left the sector exposed to external shocks, and this minister still has no plan. Australians are missing out on public interest journalism and Australian content as a result. On the issue of Australian content, this minister has been all over the shop. Three years after his predecessor started a review of the Australian and children's screen content rules, the minister finally managed to release an options paper for consultation. But during this review he did two things. First he claimed to have suspended the content obligations in response to COVID-19 when in fact he had not. Then he introduced a bill to amend the Australian content transmission quota for commercial television broadcasters when the provision was still under review as part of consultation on the options paper, which was still open on the department's website. Both his action and his inaction are compounding industry uncertainty and frustration and have potentially cost jobs in the screen sector. Speaking of doing things under the cover of COVID-19, I turn to Australia Post. There is an important principle I want to state from the outset: this government should not be using the pandemic as some sneaky back door to cut postal services. Labor has sent this message to the government loud and clear. These changes, debated in recent times, were initiated as an opportunistic cost- and job-cutting exercise, which was the agenda of this government before COVID-19. The dishonest foundations of this announcement are evidenced by the shifting explanations for the changes. First they said Australia Post was going broke, but the Senate learnt that Australia Post was forecasting more revenues as a result of COVID. Then they claimed that addressed-letter volumes had collapsed by 50 per cent, but evidence to a Senate inquiry blew that claim to pieces. Addressed-letter volumes went from 139 million in February, the last month before lockdown, to 155 million in March. In April, addressed-letter volumes were on par with the pre-COVID baseline. Having run out of luck with these arguments, the minister then tried to claim that posties were not busy enough and that these regulations were actually giving them work to do. What a disrespectful and ignorant thing to say—and just plain wrong! The fact is that frontline postal workers have never been busier. They have been working endlessly throughout the pandemic, and they deserve respect and not insults. The minister then claimed that posties were dedicated to delivering letters and that he was liberating them to deliver parcels—a blatant untruth. Australia Post actually gave evidence to the Senate in 2018 that postal workers delivered between 45 per cent to 50 per cent of total parcel volumes. No wonder people don't have confidence in this minister. It's no secret that the minister has sought to frame himself as some sort of Titan of competition policy in the telco sector. Apparently he even wrote a book about this over a decade ago. So let's just step back for a moment. He's written a book and he's had 15 years to think about what he would do to improve competition in the sector—and what does he actually do when he becomes minister? He introduces a tax—but no ordinary tax; a broadband tax. It's not even an ordinary broadband tax; it is a tax specifically aimed at companies that compete with the NBN. In other words, if you have a go, this minister will give you a tax. Imagine spending all those years in opposition lecturing people about competition and encouraging the private sector to compete with the NBN, and then actually becoming the minister and legislating a tax aimed at discouraging that very thing from occurring. It says a lot. The Prime Minister has made a lot of saying, 'If you have a go you get a go'. It is clear that this sentiment doesn't apply in the communications portfolio. And it's not just the minister's broadband tax on competition that makes a mockery of the statement. Community TV is having a go, but, instead of giving community TV a go, for no good reason, this government is saying, 'This is your last year on the air.' Community radio is having a go. Station staff and volunteers played a key role during the bushfire season and those times when we have been hit by this pandemic. Yet the minister provides little to no relief for the sector. Small and independent news publishers are having a go, but the government failed to get funds from the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund out the door to them, and then directed the underspend to larger players under the PING. Small businesses in the screen sector are having a go. But, by suspending the content quotas, the minister has meddled in the screen production ecosystem, undermining the commissions our producers so desperately need. Our public broadcasters are having a go, and they face rising costs as against deep funding cuts. They want to do more in regional Australia and in the Pacific to keep Australians safe, but they aren't funded to do so. So no-one is getting a go. At a time when money is tight for households, this minister and his government have all the wrong priorities. Australia needs a minister who gets the job done in responding to digital disruption. But, sadly, we have discovered that, under this minister, he is not all that. (Time expired) Lyne Electorate: Bushfires 106 17:18 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne Last November, my electorate became the epicentre of a ferocious series of bushfires across the whole region. As I've previously reported to this House, over 250,000 hectares was destroyed. That included over 100 homes, hundreds of buildings, a school and many businesses. It was a frightening and devastating time for so many people in the Lyne electorate and in the mid-coast local government area. For more than a month, there was this grey-orange haze that blanketed the whole mid-coast precinct. There was, unfortunately and sadly, one death inside a burning house at Johns River, in the middle of my electorate. A total of 379 buildings and outbuildings were destroyed and another 175 were damaged. Bobin Public School was significantly damaged. The Rainbow Flat Rural Fire Service building was destroyed and so were three wooden bridges. In the Port Macquarie-Hastings area, which is the other part of my electorate to the north of the mid-coast council, there were 37 homes destroyed or damaged in the Hastings Valley. There were also 68 outbuildings destroyed. Over 500 rural landholders were affected, had their fences burnt or destroyed, and there was a timber mill that was totally wiped out—all by a fire that came from the national park to which they were prevented from creating a fire break. The fires could have actually been much worse. When you hear how bad it was, it could have been much worse. The place was overwhelmed with Rural Fire Service volunteers, people from New Zealand, people from Canada and the Australian Defence Force. We had a visit, just in the days while there was still quite massive fire activity, from the Prime Minister which was really great for community spirit, to know that he was interested and caring for us and put all the defence tankers and refuellers and the other hardware and people support behind it. I've been working with my state and local government colleagues to make sure that we get the best recovery out of this. But COVID has come along and kneecapped so many businesses, because we've had a tourism industry on the Mid North Coast and after the bushfire all the imagery of it kept a lot of those tourism travellers away. But there's been massive regrowth of the forest. You can see gum trees sprouting mini branches and leaves all over the place. I'd like to highlight about eight projects that we have aspirations to get going to increase the tourism activity; to increase business activity; to create markets; and to expand primary production processing in dairy—which is dotted around the mid coast and the Hastings and even down to the bottom in the Hunter River. But at the north end we have many large dairy farms that have an existing dairy processing facility that could do so much more, but, like a lot of things, we are trying to re-tool and re-industrialise our economy. That is a really good opportunity there. A proposal has been to expand that dairy factory and also create a regional produce market. Up above Hastings on the Comboyne Plateau, the Comboyne services club, like most services clubs in these towns, was a refuge during the fires and an emergency evacuation site. It's a community hub and centre, and they are hoping to expand. There'd be 40 direct jobs during the construction of what they have planned. In the Manning Valley, there's a significant project which will have huge ramifications, and that's the $8½ million expansion of the Taree indoor sports stadium for a multisport arena, called the Iron Arena. It would be able to cater for futsal, basketball, indoor events and indoor cricket. It will be the largest multi-indoor facility on the North Coast of New South Wales. We are hoping to create a new education and innovation hub as part of the already announced—very far in advance and about to do civil works on—Figtrees on the Manning project, a development which is a totally planned precinct rejuvenating the old dairy factory on the banks of the Manning River with an aged-care facility in one area, seniors living in another and a brewery is planned to go into the old factory. All that has been catalysed by the investment in the civil infrastructure that we're already funding. We could get more involved in projects like that, which would expand the economy which would keep more people in town. We have got the Taree university centre, which has been announced, and it's one of the regional university centres that this coalition government is expanding around the country. There are other interesting projects too that I would like to put on the record. The Manning Great Lakes has a huge, active, cycling club. They have plans to do some civil works to create a mountain-bike park. For those of you that have never mountain-biked, it is a massive growth industry. In another part of my electorate—a beautiful place called Dungog—they have set up a flow park on the Dungog Common, which is a graded and contoured mountain-bike track through the trees. There's a collection of possibly 24 kilometres that could be crisscrossed on this 650 hectare common. Since it's been opened, it is a mecca. Some weekends there are 600 visitors to this town to ride up through the common and race down. It's absolutely electrifying. I've done it. I got to know it so well, I thought I'd see how good my somersaults over the handle bars are! But I will be back; that won't stop me. It is a real thrill seeker opportunity. The Taree Tip Riders want to do that too because it gets the kids away from the Xbox. They're not hanging out at the supermarkets or at McDonald's; they're out there riding bikes, having fun. Things like multisport arenas lift all boats on the tide. Sport is a great generator of local and regional tourism. The Manning Valley has suffered like a lot of the manufacturing hubs of Australia in regional Australia, where a lot of manufacturing has been outsourced over the last decade or dozen years. A train building facility that used to make train bogies was taken to India. We had milk processing factories which we're trying to rejuvenate. We had safe making. We had metals, joineries, all sorts of industries. If we can get cheap electricity going again, these industries will relocate back to Australia. But focusing on the rejuvenation post the worst bushfire season on the mid-coast and with the Port Macquarie, Hastings history, we really do need to put some stimulus projects on the table and deliver them because, coming out of COVID, we want to get everyone working. We've had growth in that area in NDIS employment but we would like to have more value-adding exports like processing milk and cheeses. We have a massive abattoir which we would like to see expand. We have population growth. COVID has put the mid-coast on the radar. We have a freeway to our doorstep. We have a railway and we have an airport. It was one of the first areas to get fully NBN-ed, so it can be a digital hub. There are so many possibilities for this region. In Foster, which is also on the coast, just south of Taree, we have plans to upgrade the waterfront precinct with a boardwalk and cycleway. All of these aren't my hair-brained ideas. I harvested all the projects of the whole region, put them into a vision 2030 plan and I will be promoting it up and down the corridors, particularly as we announce a bushfire recovery plan. I commend all these projects to the House and to ministers. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 The time for the grievance debate is expired. In accordance with standing order 192B, 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 1 9:28   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 109 QUESTIONS IN WRITING