2020-10-26 46 1 4 House of Reps 0 1

Monday, 26 October 2020

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

 

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Member for Melbourne 1 Presentation 1 10:01 The SPEAKER 00APG The member for La Trobe can remove his scarf. I think the photograph has probably been taken. It would bring things to a sudden halt if I have to remove him under 94(a)! I table a document that expresses how the member for Melbourne would have voted on a range of motions last week. COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Petitions Committee 1 Report 1 10:01 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I present the 17th report of the Petitions Committee for the 46th Parliament, comprising 17 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented. The presentations contain no new petitions due to the unique cycle of the petitioning process, but be assured that petitioning the House is still very much active for our democracy and has been since the 13th century. Petitions are no longer received on parchment as they were then. Most are now received electronically in a format that our forefathers would never have envisioned possible. There are currently 80 e-petitions open for collecting signatures on the petition website which are scheduled to be presented by me, the chair, in the next sitting period. More are scheduled to be considered by the committee when we meet this week. Most petitions now receive a response from the ministers responsible on the matters raised, some of which are included in the report today. Responses are important because of the petitioning process, and the committee continues to be grateful for the ongoing support from the ministers and their officers in providing these in a timely way and for their continued involvement. Thank you, and I look forward to further updating the House on the work of the committee in doubt course. PETITIONS 1 PETITIONS Responses 1 10:03 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows: Hong Kong 1 Australian Bushfires 1 Religious Beliefs 2 Transport Industry 2 Uluru 3 Migration 3 China 4 Animal Welfare 4 COVID-19 5 COVID-19: International Students 5 National Rental Affordability Scheme 6 Qantas 7 Hong Kong 7 Hearing Health 7 Taxation 8 Higher Education 8 World Heritage Areas 9 BILLS 9 BILLS Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020 9

Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020

First Reading 9 Second Reading 9 10:04 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Every member here will have vivid memories of the first time they walked into this chamber as a new member of parliament. For me, it was the first time I felt the true depth of the duty to consider and debate robust laws, to measure up to the expectations of our individual constituents and to work hard to advance our democracy with respect, diligence and grace. These are the values I know all decent MPs hold dear as well. It is an honour to introduce the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020. This bill will establish the Australian Federal Integrity Commission, or AFIC, as a new independent body responsible for the implementation of a national pro-integrity framework. The focus on pro-integrity, not anticorruption, is deliberate. This is a principles bill based on the robust Beechworth principles. It's also a consensus bill that is designed the be owned by all MPs who care about making a real contributions to the law reform that their constituents are crying out for. I have collaborated with MPs from across this parliament since February, when I sent individual letters inviting all MPs to work with me on this. Some of those MPs are here right now; some are watching from afar. All of those MPs should feel pride in and ownership of this bill. This is the right bill for this parliament to debate. This is the right time for this parliament to have this debate. This bill would restore the public's trust, confidence and pride in the integrity of their MPs and their democracy. This is a bill that could define this 46th Parliament and us as parliamentarians. The Australian Federal Integrity Commission will have appropriate powers of assessment, investigation and referral. This will enable clear and practical responses to allegations of serious and systemic corruption issues at the federal level in the public interest, backed by procedural fairness and whistleblower safeguards. AFIC will be empowered to receive and consider public referrals. It is absolutely vital that any Australian and all decent public servants have a reputable body they can trust with corruption concerns and that they'll be protected and supported as whistleblowers. As a safeguard, the bill also includes statutory definitions for frivolous, vexatious or otherwise baseless claims. This empowers AFIC to vet referrals and collect information about perceptions of integrity at the same time. AFIC will work off a clear and sensible definition of 'corruption' that is fit for purpose. AFIC's purview will be broad when it comes to its pro-integrity work through education, prevention training, policy leadership and research. When it comes to investigations and inquiries, AFIC must focus on conduct that is serious or systemic in nature, such as conduct that constitutes a criminal offence, grounds for dismissal or a substantial breach of an applicable code of conduct. AFIC will also be empowered to hold public hearings when in the public interest. I have spoken at length with many MPs across the parliament about their views on public hearings, and I have incorporated numerous provisions in part 5 of this bill that assuage their concerns. All persons called to give evidence before AFIC will have a rolling right to request a private hearing and can present their reasons for this in private with the commissioner. The commissioner must base that decision on the comprehensive public interest test in section 86, which balances the overarching need for public accountability and transparency with qualitative factors, such as: objective advice from a new assistant commissioner for public interest about how serious or systemic the corruption issue is and how important it is to rectify it in Australia; the confidential nature of any evidence, such as a journalistic source; any unfair exposure of a person's private life or unfair prejudice to a personal reputation, even if by simple association with the commission by name; and whether the person is under the direct control of another, such as a junior staffer working for a minister. Witnesses will also have the same protections as those who appear before the High Court. I want to take a moment to expressly thank the member for Curtin who, as a former legal counsel and academic, contributed feedback and input into this critical public interest clause. I also want to thank the member for Wide Bay for our constructive discussions and his contributions to sections 71 and 76, which will require AFIC and the relevant minister to publish a standalone report setting out the evidence that exonerates a person who's been through the AFIC process and ultimately cleared their name. These contributions are what make this bill special. They show how we can get this done together. This bill strengthens natural justice and the rule of law. This bill does not apply new laws to past facts. If conduct was criminal at the time, it was criminal at the time. All integrity commissions at state level are retrospective. This bill is no different in that regard and allows AFIC to look into the past so we can learn from our mistakes and improve. This bill is the culmination of over a decade of prior consultation, over a decade of committing inquiries and over a decade of evaluations of the strengths and witnesses of the ICAC laws that exist in every jurisdiction in this country except this one. A decade ago I was a nurse and a rural public health researcher in Wangaratta who cared about good outcomes for good people. I have not changed since then, and I bring that same passion to this bill. In a recent town hall meeting where I shared this bill with my constituents, one attendee put it bluntly. They said: 'We are the people, and it seems like the people have been designated to last place, scribbled in on the last page in the catalogue of what really matters in our democracy. We need to be able to trust and feel secure in our government. We need this bill to pass.' This bill and the push for debate on this bill has the endorsement of some of the finest legal minds from the High Court, Federal Court and Supreme Courts across this nation. As put by the honourable Margaret White, the former Judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland and the first woman to claim such a title: When it is established, for surely it will be as no right-thinking person could resist the principles which underpin it, it will elevate Australian public life immeasurably. This is the right bill for this parliament to debate. This is the right time for this parliament to have this debate. This is the bill our constituents are calling upon us to pass. This issue will define this parliament and us as parliamentarians. I commend this bill to the House, and I thank my colleagues from across this floor who support debate and who support the ultimate passage of this bill. 10:13 The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 10:13 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I second the motion moved by the member for Indi. In the remaining time, I would like to say over 80 per cent of Australians support that we have a federal integrity watchdog. It is well over time. States and territories all have one, and it would be wrong to assume that the same need is not here at a federal level. All sides of politics claim to support that there be a Federal Integrity Commission, but the Australian people have seen little action. In the last six months, we've seen many legislations pass this parliament, and it is well overdue that we now have some accountability over our governance. There has been a disregard or a carelessness to accountability and good governance in the last few years. That is dangerous and, I would say, an insult to the Australian people. It is well over time that we, this parliament, put in place a body that can ensure public funds and public actions are for the good of the Australian people and that we have a national body that investigates corruption and integrity. The SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Commonwealth Parliamentary Standards Bill 2020 11

Commonwealth Parliamentary Standards Bill 2020

First Reading 11 Second Reading 11 10:15 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I move: That this bill be now read a second time. It's also an honour to introduce the Commonwealth Parliamentary Standards Bill 2020 which complements the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020, which I have just introduced. This bill sets out the components of the proposed national pro-integrity framework that are specific to the Commonwealth parliament. In particular, this bill creates a statutory code of conduct for MPs and their staff; a statutory basis for the existing registers of interest for parliamentarians; a new parliamentary integrity adviser, who will provide independent, confidential advice and guidance to MPs and their staff about integrity matters; and a new parliamentary standards commissioner who will assess, investigate, resolve or refer serious alleged breaches of the new code of conduct. When I arrived in this place I was astounded to learn that no such code of conduct exists for MPs. Every other significant public profession in this country, from bureaucrats to judicial officers, journalists, barristers, medical professionals, nurses have established codes of conduct. This code of conduct has 10 simple components: (1) MPs must prioritise public duties and democracy, (2) MPs must declare and avoid conflicts of interest, (3) MPs must never use their position for personal profit, (4) MPs must ensure outside community or employment engagements are clean, (5) MPs must refrain from accepting gifts and hospitality that create conflict issues, (6) MPs must not use influence for private purposes or as an agent of a foreign power, (7) MPs must comply with IPEA and Remuneration Tribunal rules around public resources, (8) MPs must not deliberately mislead parliament and must seek to act courteously without detracting from robust debate, (9) MPs must not exploit confidential or personal information obtained as an MP and (10) MPs must not take improper advantage of office for post-retirement activities. The code of conduct in this bill is based on the global recommendations of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, of which the Australian parliament is a member. This code is specifically designed to protect robust debate on issues of public importance, ensure parliamentary officers and resources are used in the public interest and discourage political office holders from clear unethical behaviours that discredit the integrity of the Commonwealth parliament. This new code of conduct will give the parliamentary standards commissioner a clear metric to identify and assess unethical conduct that we have seen countless examples of in this parliament. The parliamentary standards commissioner will have the same powers of the Auditor-General to conduct investigations with appropriate safeguards to protect rights to procedural fairness, rights to privacy and the protection of personal reputation and the advancement of the public interest. It will also be empowered to refer the most serious and systematic cases to the new Australian federal integrity commission for stronger, objective investigation if necessary. It is incumbent upon this parliament and all MPs to lead by example. The public holds us to high standards and so should we. This bill is an important component of the national pro-integrity framework proposed in the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020. It is my pleasure to comment this bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 10:19 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I second the motion. In the remaining time I will say a few words. I must say, as a former barrister, I was rather surprised that as members of parliament we don't have a code of practice and a code of conduct. I think it is something that is missing, and it takes away from the contribution we can all make. It is something that I think would elevate the conduct of members of this place and would ensure that the principles for which we are here—to serve the public interest and ensure a robust debate that serves the public interest—are carried out. There's no doubt in my mind—along with 80 per cent of the Australian public—that there is a call for a national integrity commission and, along with that integrity commission, a code of conduct for members of parliament. Too often the Australian people get cynical when they hear of one scandal after another involving members of parliament and departments. Just in the last few weeks, we've seen numerous scandals explode on the front pages of our newspapers, and the Australian people could be forgiven for getting cynical and believing that the bar is lowered just one little bit further, because, at the end of the day, we have these headlines but we don't have any outcomes. The Australian people never get to see or understand what happens next. We sometimes have people falling on their swords and sometimes we don't, but, often, it's a rolling front-page of headline after headline until we get to the next scandal. I done think that is a good outcome for democracy. We really should see a government and all members of this place looking to uphold a greater standard. If not from us, then who will it be? Who will make sure that we actually have a better standard? There have been a lot of calls during the pandemic this year that it's too hard to pass this kind of legislation or that the consultation needed simply isn't possible. I don't accept that reason, because we've seen that a lot of our operations have been able to be done through Zoom and other electronic mediums. In the last six months, during COVID, we've seen legislation brought to parliament ranging from easing restrictions on political donations, banning mobile phones in immigration detention centres and dramatically restructuring university fees. We've seen a push through of legislation when it came to environmental protections and we've seen collaboration from both sides of the chamber to bring about emergency legislation to ensure Australian people are properly cared for during this pandemic. So I think that amidst this kind of situation we absolutely have the right ingredients to bring every member of this parliament together to ensure that we pass legislation that will uphold a greater standard of integrity, accountability and conduct by the members in this place. There has been a disregard and a carelessness with accountability and good governance, and we absolutely must bring that back. I strongly believe that every MP in this place has a duty to their constituents. I believe it goes to the core of the values that we are here for—what we represent as members of parliament and what so many Australians fought so hard to protect and defend for so many years. I do believe that it's time for accountability and for every member of parliament to step out from behind party lines and come and be accountable for what you truly believe in. You either stand for integrity, anti-corruption and a code of practice and code of conduct and accountability or you condone every breach by inaction and by unwillingness to debate it and to vote on this legislation. I believe strongly that it's time to bring on the debate on both of these bills: the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020 and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Standards Bill 2020. The SPEAKER 00APG The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment (Making Gambling Businesses Accountable) Bill 2020 12

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment (Making Gambling Businesses Accountable) Bill 2020

First Reading 12 Second Reading 12 10:25 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill will ensure that gambling entities are more accountable and also prevent them profiting from illegal behaviour. The bill amends relevant legislation to put a positive obligation on gambling companies to report to AUSTRAC if they have reason to suspect a person is paying for a gambling service with money they have obtained illegally. Where a gambler has paid for a gambling service using funds they obtained illegally, the bill enables the Federal Court to order the gambling company to compensate the injured party for damage or loss suffered. This will prevent gambling companies from profiting off the misfortune of others and facilitate a remedy for the victim of the original theft. This bill targets the unconscionable conduct of gambling companies to ensure that all money they receive from gamblers has not been obtained at the misfortune of innocent parties. It was developed in consultation with Gavin Fineff, a former financial adviser who lost more than $8.4 million of his clients' money through gambling. Gavin was targeted by three of the big online betting agencies, whose predatory practices took advantage of his gambling addiction. I name them here: Tabcorp, Ladbrokes and BetEasy. To be clear, Gavin understands that he did the wrong thing, and he takes full responsibility for his actions. But he also feels that he is not the only one to blame—and I agree with him. Firstly to Tabcorp. After signing up with Tabcorp, Gavin was quickly promoted to VIP status, assigned a personal customer service manager and offered superior treatment including events, experiences and bonus money to bet with. But Gavin quickly started to lose money—big money—and, rather than offer him support, Tabcorp fuelled his growing addiction with bonus money and tickets to sporting events to encourage his gambling. Eventually Tabcorp did ask Gavin for proof of income, but it was way too late. Indeed, by the time Tabcorp finally asked for Gavin's annual salary and the process was started to freeze his account, he had lost almost $4 million. All of this obviously raises important questions. Given the size and frequency of Gavin's bets, how is it possible that Tabcorp did not ask Gavin much earlier for proof of income? Indeed, from September 2016 to June 2018, there were 194 times where Gavin deposited $10,000 or more into his Tabcorp account. And it wasn't as though Tabcorp hadn't been put on notice to clean up its act. In February 2017 Tabcorp was hit with a record $45 million fine for breaches of anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing law. That fine, believed to be the biggest in Australian corporate history up until that time, was on account of Tabcorp failing to alert regulators to reports of suspicious behaviour on 108 occasions over more than five years. Regrettably, though, Tabcorp wasn't the end of things for Gavin, because there were plenty of other predatory gambling companies ready to knock on his door. Indeed, about three weeks after his Tabcorp account was frozen, Gavin was contacted by a representative from Ladbrokes, who offered to sign Gavin up with a superior experience including thousands of dollars in bonus bets. When Gavin disclosed that his Tabcorp account had been frozen, the Ladbrokes representative didn't bat an eyelid and instead facilitated an account under a different name. Gavin was never asked for identification and again he was never asked for proof of income. He lost $700,000 in just 20 months. Nor was Gavin asked up-front for identification or ever asked for proof of income. Just a few minutes after signing with Ladbrokes, he was again contacted out of the blue by yet another gambling company, BetEasy, who set up an account for Gavin and gave him $50,000 in free bonus bets, all of which he lost within the space of 45 minutes. Over the next 16 months, Gavin lost approximately $3.6 million with BetEasy. All of that makes for a remarkable story of personal exploitation, apparent collusion between gambling companies and likely criminality by multiple people. Undoubtedly, such companies are preying on financially and emotionally vulnerable members of our community and must be held accountable for their unconscionable and unethical behaviour. Surely Tabcorp, Ladbrokes and BetEasy should have known that Gavin's gambling was suspicious. Gavin certainly thinks so and feels he was deliberately targeted by these companies because of his addiction. Certainly the evidence points to that, and I, for one, believe him. I also acknowledge that, despite knowing it may be too late for him, Gavin is prepared to admit his errors and fight for reform so others don't have to go through what he and his victims went through. As Gavin himself admits: The fact is, I lost $8.4m in less than 4 years and most of that was other people's money. It belonged to 33 beautiful people, 35 if you include the money I took from my daughter and son as well. Not one of these people authorized the use of their money for my gambling, it was all used without their consent or knowledge. These matters are the focus of a criminal investigation by the North Shore Police Area Command, which I support. My actions were horrible, and I accept the punishment from authorities. So, in closing, let's wrap some context around this. Australians are the world's biggest gambling losers per capita, which is worrying in itself, but even more alarming when considering recent statistics show significant increases of gambling engagement and losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, according to the Australian Institute of Family Studies report into gambling in Australia during COVID-19, one in three surveyed participants signed up for a new online betting account during the pandemic. But, despite this, Australian online gambling companies have still not linked their daily betting limit and exclusion safeguards, and the federal government has still not taken decisive action to prevent Australian gamblers from accessing illegal overseas gambling sites. And of course poker machine harm remains unaddressed at the state and territory level. For instance, the imminent changes to poker machine regulation in Tasmania explicitly exclude any harm minimisation measures, like $1 maximum bets, slower spins, tougher fines for venues which flout the law and the banning of addictive features like false wins. This is despite Tasmanian figures which reflect the national trend, showing poker machine losses, compared with the same time last year, as being up 23 per cent in September, up 20 per cent in August and up 20 per cent in July. That's a lot of numbers. So I ask members to please remember the human side of this. There are tens of thousands of gamblers who want to cut back or walk away, but they are addicted, and each one is a precious person—someone's mum or dad, son or daughter, brother or sister, loved one or work colleague. We really should be doing everything we can in this place to help those people, and this bill promises that. I now invite the member for Mayo, who will be seconding the bill, to say a few words in my remaining time. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Order. Is the motion is seconded? 10:33 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I am honoured to second the motion and support the bill of the member for Clark, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment (Making Gambling Businesses Accountable) Bill 2020. Australians lose $25 billion—$25 billion!—every year through gambling, with more than $1.5 billion lost on sports wagers alone. But what that figure conceals is the harm caused before the bet is even placed—the harm caused by those gamblers that continue to chase their losses, no matter what the cost. In the midst of a recession with little chance of set employment and time running out on JobKeeper and JobSeeker, how do gamblers feed their addiction? Well, we know. The speech by the member for Clark should send a chill down every Australian's spine. The story of former financial planner Gavin Fineff has already shown us. Gavin—and he admits his wrongs—stole $8.4 million from unsuspecting clients. And the gambling providers pocketed it, wilfully blind to how Fineff was sustaining tens of thousands of losses every single week. It's about time those betting companies applied the same level of scrutiny to the money coming in the door as they do to trying to stop the money going out. This bill will make gambling companies liable to the person placing the bet if they are using stolen money, and, if a better has paid for a gambling service using money they obtained illegally, the Federal Court could order the gambling company to compensate the victim of the original crime. This would be a truly remarkable step in accountability. In short, this bill would finally provide victims some protection and deter gambling providers from seeking to profit from the proceeds of crime. We need some action with respect to gambling. We do very, very little in this place with respect to gambling and we need to change because there are thousands of Australians hurting, there are thousands of Australians who are victims, and, as the member for Clark said, COVID has only exacerbated the problem. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. MOTIONS 14 MOTIONS GO LOCAL FIRST Campaign 14 10:35 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin I move: That this House: (1) notes the longevity of the 'Australian Made, Australian Grown' logo since its creation more than 30 years ago as Australia's most trusted, recognised and widely used country of origin symbol to promote authentic Australian brands all around the world; (2) commends the Government for providing the Australian Made Campaign Ltd, the not-for-profit public company which administers the logo, with $5 million to promote the logo in key export markets as well as establishing trademark registration in the United Kingdom, the European Union and Canada; (3) further commends the Government for its $5 million investment in the 'Go Local First' campaign, which is run by the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia and is encouraging all Australians to promote and support our local small and family businesses through the COVID-19 pandemic; and (4) encourages all Australians to recognise the importance of local industry, manufacturers, producers, and businesses to our economy, and the quality of Australian made products and Australian grown produce. Research conducted in July this year by Roy Morgan showed that 92 per cent of Australians trust the Australian Made logo, 99 per cent of Australians recognise the logo and the logo is used by more than 3,000 companies on thousands of products sold in Australia and around the world. For 34 years now, the iconic gold-and-green Australian Made kangaroo logo has grown in influence, stature and respect. It is now well and truly etched in our national psyche. Indeed, so loved is this Australian Made logo that, when news reports earlier this year incorrectly reported that it was being replaced, my office was bombarded with calls and emails from constituents preparing their pitchforks! I don't blame them. We are just as proud and protective of the products this logo sits on as we are of the logo itself, and I'm happy to reiterate that the logo is here to stay. The logo was first introduced by Prime Minister Hawke in 1986, but the promotion of Australian products dates way back before that. In 1961, Sir Robert Menzies launched what colloquially become known as Operation Boomerang. In one of his speeches, Prime Minister Menzies said: I'm no pessimist about today. I'm the most glorious optimist about tomorrow. He said: For if there is one thing about which we can all agree it is, with our characteristic modesty, that whatever any other country does, we can do better. He further stated: … it is of the first order of national importance that manufacturing in Australia should become international in its product so that it sells to the rest of the world … This year, 2020, has been an incredibly challenging year for many, and yet, even in the moments of uncertainty and fear, we have seen the optimism Menzies referred to on display all around Australia. We've seen the strength and ingenuity of our manufacturers, small businesses and primary producers as they responded swiftly to support Australians. Once again we have seen what 'Australian Made, Australian Grown' means—businesses like the Wine Thief in Wembley, in my electorate, who make their own Rottnest Island Gin; or Advanced Technology & Manufacturing in Osborne Park, who for over 25 years have been manufacturing printed circuit boards for projects around Australia. Just as Menzies and Hawke recognised that the future prosperity of Australian manufacturing and produce depended on increasing exports opportunities, the Morrison government understands that the Buy Australia message and logo is not simply a call to protectionist notions but, most importantly, a message to the world about the quality of the things that we make here. That's why, earlier this year, the government provided a $5 million grant to the Australian Made Campaign Ltd to increase and extend the impact of the Australian Made logo into new markets and to allow the trademark to be registered in the EU, the UK and Canada. I would encourage all Australian businesses, manufacturers and producers to look into registration with the Australian Made campaign and get the many benefits that go with being an authorised user of the 'Australian Made, Australian Grown' logo. Alongside the longstanding 'Australian Made, Australian Grown' campaign, this year the government also launched the GO LOCAL FIRST campaign to remind us all of the vitality and the importance of small and family businesses to our economy and to our local communities. This campaign, funded by the government with a $5 million grant, is being run by the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia and is helping to highlight the stories of the 3.5 million Australian businesses, encouraging us all to back our local businesses first. In Curtin there are close to 25,000 small and family businesses, and this year I've been amazed by their resilience. Earlier this year, when many of them had to close or change their operations drastically, they were blunt about the difficulties facing them, but they also adapted and reminded everyone in Curtin of just how central they are to our community. During restrictions, especially when older people were self-isolating, great businesses like the Cambridge Corner Store and the Village Pantry offered support with free deliveries. Our local IGAs did the same, and helped work with my office to get deliveries to constituents. These great businesses in Curtin—we see their names on the backs of community sporting teams' jumpers—are the people who employ young people in our community. Whoever they are, wherever they are, we know how important they are. So everybody: 'Go Local First', buy Australian made and continue to be optimistic about tomorrow. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Is the motion seconded? Mrs Archer 282237 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 10:40 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I, too, rise in this chamber to support the 'Australian Made, Australian Grown' logo—the green and gold kangaroo—and I applaud the longevity and pride Australia has shown through this iconic symbol since its creation, as we've heard, more than 30 years ago. As has just been illustrated by the member for Curtin, the logo is 'Australia's most trusted, recognised and widely used country-of-origin symbol, which promotes authentic Australian brands all around the world'. As we've heard, during COVID-19, our manufacturing sector has taken a hit and has been completely under attack, with a new paradigm for how manufacturing and advanced manufacturing will occur in this country. Whilst COVID-19 has shown the deficiencies in many of our systems, it has been remarkable to witness the manufacturing sector unite, become resilient and turn the corner. Australia, as we know, is in a deep and painful recession. Nearly a million Australians are unemployed, and 400,000 Australians will join them by Christmas. The government has just released a budget that leaves more Australians behind, instead of investing in social housing, child care and supporting our university students. With this motion, we're talking about a logo that apparently is staying, but, back in July, the government spent $10 million creating a new Australian logo. What happened to that in the speech today? I completely missed that in the member for Curtin's speech. Here's a tip through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the member for Curtin. When the minister's office rings you and asks you to put up motions such as this, don't. When you get the speaking notes from the minister's office, don't read them. You are being put in a position. You're the sacrificial lamb today, through you Mr Deputy Speaker. You're the person who is arguing in an alternative universe. Let's wind back the clock a little bit. We're in the middle of a deep recession. We're in the middle of a pandemic. This government thinks it's wise to spend $10 million on a brand new logo. Let's look at the commentary around this from members of the government at the time. Former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has weighed in on the decision to sideline the iconic Australian Made logo, calling the move a dippy idea and likening its replacement to 'a cross between the coronavirus and bird poo'. That is from a former deputy prime minister of Australia. Mr Joyce said in this place that the 'splotch of brilliance' cost the nation $10 million. Unsurprisingly, people who have been made aware of this believe our marketers have left the train station called 'Whoopee'. Don't take my word for it; that is from members of the government. When the member for Curtin comes up here, that's what they think of her motion today. There's other commentary I want to talk about of how we got this new logo in the first place. I did a bit of research into this. There is something called the National Brand Advisory Council, which is signed off by the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. The NBAC is made up of national business leaders, including mining billionaires and beer barons, and then it all made sense. Who do you think is on this brand commission that allowed us to waste $10 million? Are you ready for it? We know this person has completely outrageous and outlandish taste. Hence we got to the position today with none other than the CEO of Australia Post, Christine Holgate. What a surprise! The CEO of Australia Post came up with the wacky idea to spend $10 million on a brand new logo that nobody wants and that the government is now not going to use. Can you believe it? Is it bad enough that, in this economic recession that the Morrison government has delivered, where we're seeing complete wastes of money, complete abuses of power, we're now expected to debate a motion in this House ignoring the fact that this government wasted $10 million. Well, I'm calling it out today to the member for Curtin. Don't bring rubbish motions into this parliament, talking about logos that your government has completely wasted. You ought to be ashamed of yourself—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—that this parliament stands by and doesn't condemn the outrageous abuse of $10 million on an Australian logo that this government simply is not going to use. They're going to waste money and waste time rather than actually, as we heard yesterday from the minister, supporting the manufacturing sector in this country. I say shame on the government. They ought to do better for manufacturing in country. (Time expired) 10:46 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls It is an amazing opportunity to be in this place to represent an area of Australia that produces so many Australian-made products. The Goulburn Valley is one of, if not the most, eminent regions for food and produce from our farming sector through to our transport sector, our packaging sector and our manufacturing sector. Every day our people of Australia take advantage of the Australian-made products that are on our shelves, and they are supported incredibly well. So, for the Australian government and for Ms Hammond here to be putting forward a motion highlighting the need for us to get behind the Australian Made program is something that's very important. Throughout the Goulburn Valley we've always had SPC and Campbell's soups lead the way, but in the last couple of decades those iconic companies have been joined by Kyvalley, Consolidated Milk, Bega, Unilever, Freedom Foods, Saputo—and on and on it goes. So we've been very lucky in one sense, because with these companies and with this Australian-made ethic also comes tens of thousands of jobs and we should be very conscious of just how important these facilities are. We were recently talking through some industry forums about how important it is to support these Australian-made products and Australian companies even though some of them have foreign ownership, but the way that they operate within the regions means they are very much local companies. What's the best thing we can do to support some of these Australian companies? It is a question that we continually put back to our people, and they say, 'The best thing you can do to help us is to look after our farmers, to look after our water policy.' It's incredible how important it is. It's all linked. Agriculture is linked to our food production. Food production is linked to retail and what we can do to our engineering sector and manufacturing sector. It all comes back to how we support agriculture and how we support agriculture with water security. I know everybody in the Goulburn Valley is now aware of this little company called Med-Con, who were one of Australia's only producers of PPE. During the pandemic it's been a great story the way the ADF and the federal government have got behind Med-Con to ramp up their production so they're now producing tens of millions of masks as opposed to the fraction of that which was their traditional throughput at their site. In my opinion and from what I hear to push for, we need to get on board and push this sentiment of Australian Made. We need to education our younger generation about the importance of getting behind Australian Made every day. On the shelves of our supermarkets Australians have the choice. They have a choice in what's cheapest, and sometimes the difference is half the price. The best example, I suppose, is tinned Italian tomatoes. You can get them for half price if you want to go down that path, but there's always an Australian option right next door—an Australian-grown, Australian-made, Australian produced tin of canned tomatoes right next door. We need to educate our next generation coming through, our next generation of consumers, about the importance of 'Australian made'. Whether we do it via a new logo or an old logo, whether we do it by advertising campaigns—irrespective of how we do it—the concept of 'Australian made' is absolutely critical, because the need for us to support our own has never been more important; it is absolutely crucial to the future of this country that we be the generation that takes the Australian Made movement forward. It really is critical in this region. We've got thousands of businesses that are universally recognised as having the connection to Australian Made. We need to support them into the future like never before. We need to increase the impact of these trusted, iconic— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Before I call the next speaker, I would remind members that they should refer to other members by their proper titles. 10:51 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley I'm really pleased to speak today in favour of the Australian Made logo. But it's more than that, isn't it? It's standing to speak in support of, and to promote, Australian made: Australian manufacturers, Australian workers, Australian businesses. The member for Curtin, who put this motion forward, noted that the Australian Made logo, the iconic kangaroo, was introduced by the Hawke government. Of course, for many decades Bob Hawke really was the 'Australian made' logo. You saw Bob Hawke and you knew that he was a Prime Minister and a man who was all about Australia and Australian made. You certainly didn't look at Bob Hawke and think about money being spent on spin and advertising and trying to sell the idea of doing something for the Australian people. He was about doing something for the Australian people. It is extraordinary that this motion is being put up at a time when the government have just tried to change the Australian Made logo. They tried to change it from the iconic kangaroo, about which almost 100 per cent of Australians say they know what it means and associate it not just with something being made in Australia but with absolute quality, into a logo that, for whatever reason, looks like a coronavirus. Not only did the government try to change the logo into a gold, sparkly coronavirus, which perhaps 12 months ago we might have thought was pretty but which now we think is contagious; they spent $10 million doing it. How do you spend $10 million getting a new design in the first place, and then how do you find a design that you have to walk away from—or not really walk away from but run backwards from—when you put it out and everyone says: 'What are you talking about? It's a coronavirus, not the iconic logo.' It's interesting to note, of course, that this coronavirus Australian logo was produced, at a cost of $10 million, and walked away from at a time when the Prime Minister has said, 'There can't be any consultation or work on an integrity commission because not one single public servant will be taken away from working on COVID!' That is except for the ones who've worked on the $10 million new logo that no-one likes and that doesn't do its job. That's not a manufacturing policy and it's certainly not an Australian Made logo. To appropriate possibly the best-known Australian-made phrase of the 20th century: 'That's not a manufacturing plan; this is a manufacturing plan.' It is what the Leader of the Opposition and Labor have been saying about a future made in Australia: don't spend money on logos, spin and advertising; actually have a plan, a coordinated strategy, across the areas that are needed to bolster Australian manufacturing. Have a jobs and skills plan. Have an actual plan for investing in industries. Do things like rewire the electricity grid so that there is transmission of energy in the 21st century and beyond from Australia becoming a renewable energy superpower and so that there are jobs. Do the work with industry to deliver support. We heard yesterday from the minister herself that, from the so-called $1.5 billion manufacturing plan of this government that is supposed to be delivering economic stimulus to help us get out of this recession, $40 million is anticipated to be spent in this financial year. By the way, that is less than what was in the budget papers. So already they've reduced what was in the budget papers. It's $10 million on a logo and $40 million on supporting manufacturing and Australian jobs through a recession. There's just something not right. Let's just hope we don't get another four silly logos. That is right. Absolutely, the Australian Made logo is iconic and we know that Australian manufacturers can be and are second to none in innovation and smarts, but they need more than a government that says. 'Let's spend money on advertising and let's put motions forward in the parliament.' They need a government that has a manufacturing plan and has workers' backs. 10:56 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm I want to thank the member for Curtin for bringing this motion to the House. I am a strong supporter of the Australian Made logo and the benefit it brings to local Aussie made products. The green-and-gold kangaroo created 30 years ago has become one of Australia's most trusted and widely recognised symbols. It sends a message to the world that the product carrying that logo is reliable and of the highest quality. I want to commend the Morrison government for backing this truly iconic and integral Australian symbol. With an investment of $5 million, the mark of true Australian quality can be more effectively marketed abroad and ensures our trademarks will be protected internationally. Thanks to the Morrison government, the green-and-gold kangaroo logo is here to stay. We can rest easy knowing that Aussie made products will proudly carry the logo long into the future. As many of us know, the Australian Made logo has a significant effect on the success of our products overseas, but I would like to take a moment to reflect on the efforts of the Morrison government in promoting Australian made products right here at home. The GO LOCAL FIRST campaign, run by the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, has been an incredible success. It has encouraged Australians to buy from their fellow Australians. More than six million Australians are employed by local businesses, and this campaign has helped each and every one of them by encouraging Australians to buy local at a time when our small businesses need it the most. The Morrison government's investment of $5 million has paid off. Each time a dollar is spent in our local businesses it's another win for Australians. I want all Australians to know the importance of our local industry—manufacturers, producers and businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, and it's imperative that they are recognised across the globe for the quality of the products they consistently deliver. The Morrison government has backed and will always back Australians. Our commitment of $1.5 billion to the Modern Manufacturing Strategy will support growth in the manufacturing sector, helping to secure our success and a swift economic recovery. As a government, we are focused on creating jobs. Every day my constituents tell me their grave concern for the future of their jobs. In these turbulent times, I can understand their fears. But I am grateful that I can look the people I represent in the eye and say, 'The Morrison government is delivering job security for all Australians.' This government will focus on six national manufacturing priorities where we can achieve scale and growth. These priorities are: resources, technology and critical minerals processing; food and beverage; medical products; recycling and clean energy; defence; and space. In these sectors, we have a comparative advantage and have the capacity to harness emerging opportunities whilst addressing our strategic needs. The Morrison government should be commended for its unwavering commitment to Aussie businesses, Aussie manufacturing and Aussie produce. Whether it is through targeted investment like the GO LOCAL FIRST campaign or visionary policy like the Modern Manufacturing Strategy, our commitment to Australian Made stands. And the reason we are so committed is so simple: it is jobs. A coalition government is always focused on creating jobs. 11:01 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore It's very true that this year has been like no other. The trials we have experienced over the last year have taught us many things, but one of the most fantastic things to come out of it is our community spirit and our resolve to support each other. COVID-19 has impacted on local industry, local businesses and local jobs like never before. But, in my electorate on the New South Wales South Coast, our industry had already suffered multiple hits, even before the pandemic had hit our shores. Our local economy is structured around the tourism industry. Many local businesses do a year's worth of trade over the summer, taking full advantage of the many people who come to our towns and villages to enjoy our beautiful beaches, our beautiful food and wine, and our beautiful people. Shops employ extra workers, many of whom are young people needing that summer income to get them through the rest of the year. But last year we didn't have a summer—we didn't get our summer trade; we didn't have our summer boost—because last summer much of the South Coast was on fire. We had to turn tourists away, declaring a no-go zone in the Shoalhaven and the Eurobodalla, with knock-on impacts in areas like Kiama. It was tough times, and businesses suffered immensely. So I like to think that the South Coast had a little something to do with the start of GO LOCAL FIRST campaign. We were, after all, the ones who needed it first. Immediately after the bushfires, one of the first campaigns to start was Love the Bay BB, encouraging people to come back to Bateman's Bay. There was Rejuvenate in the Shoalhaven, Holiday Here This Year, Spend Here This Year, and Empty Esky. Kiama and District Business Chamber started the Buy Local Campaign on 1 July, with the slogan 'Think, Shop & Buy Local'. They had prizes and incentives for businesses and patrons alike to join in. Councils, business chambers, tourism bodies, local media outlets and the local businesses themselves came together to encourage people to spend local, buy local and support local businesses to get back on their feet. Even the local newspaper got involved, with the Bay Post Moruya Examiner running a Think Local, Support Local feature in July and August. This feature showcased local businesses, gave them the chance to tell their story, from the bushfires to the floods and COVID, and encouraged everyone to think about supporting local businesses first. It was wonderful. In those weeks and months immediately after the bushfires, I visited hundreds of local businesses, trying to do my bit to 'spend here this year', buying local produce and showing my support for businesses doing it tough. It was wonderful to see people from near and far just coming into our towns to buy something and show their support. It was giving businesses the lift they needed, a bit of encouragement to just keep going, even when everything felt so tough. During the bushfires, it was local businesses that were there for us, taking people in and making sure displaced people had food and shelter. Now was our turn to say thanks and give back. I did the same again when restrictions began to ease following the coronavirus outbreak, popping in to see how people were doing. The local butcher in Gainsborough told me how his business had been booming; people had started shopping in their local butchery again. The local fudge shop in Mogo told me that people had come from Sydney and Wollongong just to buy something in their store and show their support. I heard so many fantastic stories. Supporting local businesses means supporting local jobs and making sure the South Coast remains the most beautiful place to live, work and visit. I am proud to be part of this amazing community. I am proud to have supported all of our various 'shop local' efforts. It has been humbling and awe-inspiring to be part of a community so committed to helping each other. We have been through so much, but we have made it through because we are strongest when we stand together. We are by no means out of the woods. Many of the activities, festivals and celebrations we had planned, to get our community back on its feet, have sadly had to be cancelled because of COVID restrictions. Luckily, many of our local markets have now started up again, giving local growers, producers and sellers a chance to showcase their wares. The time to think local and shop local is still now. Support local businesses, support local jobs and shop local today. 11:06 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise to celebrate the green and gold symbol that proudly remains our trusted symbol around the world for products made in Australia. The Morrison government has committed $5 million over the next four years to expand its reach overseas. The Australian Made logo has never been more important. It's globally recognised and is associated with quality, reliability and sustainability. The Australian Made and Australian Grown logos, since their creation more than 30 years ago, are Australia's most trusted, recognised and widely used country-of-origin symbols to promote authentic Australian brands all around the world, with almost 99 per cent of all Australians recognising the logo. Our products are globally respected and loved, but, as we chart our economic recovery, it's so important that Australians buy Australian products. In June, Australian Made reported that monthly licence applications have increased fivefold and new licences issued have doubled. There's also significant media coverage and social media coverage. This is all very welcome, and that's because a recent KPMG study found that households spending an extra $50 a week, buying Australian-made goods, would deliver a $30 billion boost to fuel the nation's COVID-19 recovery and create tens of thousands of jobs. Separate economic modelling by analytics group AlphaBeta's director, Andrew Charlton, found a one-off $100 purchase of locally made products by every Australian would create more than 3,000 jobs. There's never been a more important time to buy Australian made, in the midst of the COVID recovery. The Morrison government has also invested $5 million in the GO LOCAL FIRST campaign, which is run by the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, COSBOA. This campaign encourages all Australians to promote and support our local small and family businesses through the COVID-19 pandemic. In my electorate of Higgin, I'm pleased to say that many of our businesses have pivoted to deal with COVID. Local cafes and restaurants are now delivering takeaway. There is now grocery shopping at the Prahran Market using a COVID-safe approach. People can buy books via Click & Collect at the Malvern bookstore and even get their bike serviced at the Cycleinn in Malvern. But our businesses in Victoria are suffering because of the persistent lockdown in Victoria. Despite the fact that Premier Daniel Andrews's target for a rolling average of less than five has already been reached, for some inexplicable reason he has failed to open our state economy up again. This is having an incredible impost on local businesses in my electorate of Higgins. As an example, Lisa Barron the fashion designer has had her doors closed. She's been very, very thankful and grateful for the use of JobKeeper, but she's had to pivot to doing things differently. She has done that willingly, but it is time to open back up our economy. We have achieved suppression of the virus in the state of Victoria, but now is the time to have the confidence to open Victoria back up again. We are going to have to live with COVID for a very long time. We know that a vaccine may come. We hope that it will be safe and effective and be ready soon, but it's not likely to be here in the next few months and we can't stay in lockdown for all of those months. I encourage the Premier to look to the confidence of his contact tracing to open up the Victorian economy. It would mean that our Victorians could get back to work and could get back to buying into the economy, which would help the businesses of Higgins and the businesses of Victoria. By going local first, you'll ensure that the money spent in our local economies keeps businesses afloat and supports local jobs and families. This would fuel our economy and drive our recovery from the COVID recession. These can be from purchases—small and large—to lunches with friends or a new outfit or even home renovations. Look for a local business or local tradie, and, importantly, look for the Australian Made logo. It is about Australian businesses getting back off their knees as they've had to deal with an incredible 2020. I know all Australians understand that business is the backbone of our economy. We need to make sure that we focus our renewed spending efforts on buying local and buying Australian. I encourage all Australians and those in Victoria to go local first, to think local and shop local, because, when you spend local, it stays local. 11:11 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills [by video link] Thank you— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 The member for Wills, we have just lost your audio. Can you hear me? You might need to unmute yourself. Do you want to try again? We can't hear you. Mr KHALIL 101351 I am trying. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 You're fine now. We will reset the clock. Mr KHALIL 101351 Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Finally the government is recognising the importance of Australian manufacturing. We can and should be a country that makes things, absolutely. The importance of a strong manufacturing sector is actually the Labor Party's DNA. We know it creates jobs and builds our economy. Yet, under this coalition government's watch we have seen the sector contracting by their own hand. Effectively, they booted car manufacturing out of this country. Frankly, as much as this motion is well intentioned, it is this government's track record which is abysmal when it comes to Australian Made and Australian manufacturing. No amount of smoke and mirrors or marketing sleight of hand—or even muting me surreptitiously—will actually fool the punters into thinking that this government supports manufacturing. The recent budget manufacturing announcement made by the government was all photo op and no follow-up. The coalition government has spent seven years attacking and undermining Australian manufacturing, and now they really want us to believe that they support it. It shouldn't take a pandemic and a recession for the Morrison government to start talking about the importance of manufacturing in Australia. Manufacturing has been declining for years, aided and abetted by the coalition's policies over the past seven years. The decline has been very much felt in my electorate of Wills, in the north-west of Melbourne, particularly with the loss of the Ford factory in Broadmeadows back in 2016—just outside of my electorate. Meanwhile, you've had COVID-19, with a devastating impact own local employment, and now Australia is reliant on offshore manufacturing, which has really put supply chains at risk. We need to take this opportunity to create new jobs in my electorate of Wills and across Australia. We must get Wills back to work and we must get the rest of Australia back to work, and a strong manufacturing sector can do just that. If we get it right a strong manufacturing sector can deliver world-class products, incorporate the best technologies and provide good, secure jobs that our workers need and deserve. Australians know Labor will actually bring manufacturing back home. Labor's national rail manufacturing plan, announced by the Labor leader in his budget reply, is a fantastic and a substantive start. Our country has the skills and the know-how. We just need a government that not only has a plan to do it but actually believes in it. We have a once-in-a-generation chance to rebuild the economy and move Australia forward. I want to see a future made in Australia. We can absolutely do more to promote and celebrate things that are made in Australia. In building our manufacturing capabilities we must also promote and support our local, small- and medium -sized family businesses, many of which are local manufacturers. In my electorate of Wills there are 295 manufacturing businesses spanning from coffee makers and operations to vibrant breweries and contemporary furniture design. The north of Melbourne has a very strong legacy of manufacturing with over 98 businesses being in operation for 30 years or more, that's a lot of corporate knowledge and a lot of history. Forty-one of these businesses are family owned. I have met with many of them, including Silver Lynx Furniture, who expressed to me the difficulties they are having competing with cheaper overseas imports in the furniture business. Small businesses and medium sized businesses are the backbone of our economy. They contribute a third of our economic activity. They keep millions of Australians in jobs and are responsible for paying the wages of more than half of our entire workforce. It's time for the government to step up with genuine support for local manufacturing, not just talk—talk is cheap. We want real, substantive policies that invest in the opportunities that are there. Genuine support for local, small- and medium -sized businesses is what is going to get this economic recovery going, not just more marketing spin. Labor has a genuine plan—if we were to win government—to bring manufacturing jobs back home. We've got substance to our plans. We will actually make a difference by investing in manufacturing and opportunities for people in all sectors to get a job and by bringing those jobs back home. Labor's plan is substantive. It's real. It's ready to go. I will applaud this motion— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 The member for Wills seems to have been frozen in time. His time has ended in any case. I apologise for whatever technology has caused that. Our video system seems to have collapsed under the weight of that powerful address. The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting day. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 21 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS National Disability Insurance Scheme 21 11:18 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) there are real issues with consistency and fairness in NDIS access and planning decisions but there is not enough information available about the Government's recently announced NDIS Independent Assessments (IA) to conclude it will address issues with consistency and fairness; (b) mandatory IA are not well supported (as the Government claims) by the findings of the 2019 Tune Review and the original Productivity Commission report; (c) there has been outcry about the lack of consultation and information available about IA among people with disability and disability advocates; and (d) there is evidence that IA may be a cover for the Government to restrict NDIS access and limit participant plans, and privatise the NDIS 'by stealth'; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) listen to participants and immediately pause the rollout of the current IA program; (b) hold a genuine, transparent consultation process to confirm what the issues are and trial different options; (c) co-design the solution best supported by evidence with participants, families, carers and the sector; and (d) make public all modelling, actuarial advice and evaluation reports used to support the chosen program, showing numbers of participants whose NDIS funding or eligibility will be impacted. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a world-first scheme. It aims to improve the independence and quality of life for hundreds of thousands of Australians with disability and their loved ones. Labor, tens of thousands of ordinary citizens, myself—many people—worked hard to create it. It is very important, which is why I now wish to talk about this government's recent changes to the way in which Australians with disability will be able to enter the scheme and remain on the scheme. In September this year the Morrison government moved to introduce a process it's calling independent assessments to the NDIS from next year. This is a change from a system where a person with disability would seek to prove their eligibility for funding under the NDIS using expert reports from their usual doctors and their treating allied health professionals, and where successful the NDIA approved their entry. It's going to be a change to a system whereby a private national panel, commissioned by the government, will see all applicants, and existing participants on the scheme, and assess them. Australians with disability will essentially be asked to audition before a panel of strangers, private contractors to the government, in order to be able to get on to the scheme and remain on the scheme. There are many immediate and obvious reasons for concern with these changes, which threaten to degrade the whole process and fabric of the NDIS. For some types of disability the prospect of facing up to strangers for a one-hour interview to be judged will be utterly terrifying and unreasonable. Many in the disability community fear that this will be used, like last year's budget cuts, as a way of squeezing people out of the NDIS in a covert savings drive. There are concerns in the disability community that members of particular groups of disabilities, such as those with autism or psychosocial disorders, could find themselves officially, or in effect, excluded from the NDIS. The basis for introducing independent assessments, according to the government, was as a response to the 2019 review of the NDIS Act and rules by respected former public servant David Tune, known as the Tune review. The Tune review made a single carefully qualified recommendation for independent assessments following the completion of a pilot program to be introduced through amendments to the NDIS legislation. The Tune review said the pilot program was limited to a small number of people and did not consider all types of disabilities, culturally and linguistically different groups and Indigenous communities and complex needs. This pilot program also was discontinued halfway through this year. That's right, it was never actually completed. We don't know, one way or another, how it would work. In the meantime, the government steamed ahead with the announcement. We presume that Mr Tune meant there should be a completed pilot, not an uncompleted pilot. The government's response to the Tune review cited independent assessments as a solution to no less than four of the Tune review recommendations. It announced that independent assessments will be mandatory. The absence of proper evidence to support the introduction of this scheme, though, is frightening and creating anxiety among 400,000 participants. Labor has heard from many people with disabilities—carers, service providers and their representative organisations—that the government has not consulted before introducing this scheme. It contravenes the principal of the NDIS Participant Service Guarantee, which says decisions will be transparent. Labor shares concerns that independent assessments could be a stalking horse to take away support from disabled participants in the scheme by unfairly restricting access and limiting planned funding. Labor agrees with the finding that there needs to be greater consistency in the scheme and fairness, but it will be unfair to simply put a person who is seeking to be in the scheme in front of someone who has no knowledge of the history, the set of circumstances, and this decision could become vital to whether the participant is successful or not. There is potential for positive outcomes if the government stops and listens to people. So Labor puts this position: the NDIS needs to be fair and more consistent; people with disability need fewer hopes to jump through, not more. But we say of the government: withdraw the tender. Listen to participants. Pause the rollout of the new assessment process. Hold a genuine and transparent consultation process to find out the issues and trial different options. Co-design an evidence based solution with participants' families, carers and participants. Make public all the modelling, all of the evidence used to support the chosen scheme. Do not have complexity, do not have dodgy plant reviews, do not have delay, do not ignore treating experts. Do not cut the scheme. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Is the motion seconded? Mr Hill 86256 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:23 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise to speak against the motion moved by the member for Maribyrnong. The Morrison government recognises that the NDIS, the largest social reform since Medicare, will require work to ensure we get the balance right and guarantee the future success of the scheme. As the Morrison government has always said, the NDIS is demand driven and fully funded. We are committed to rolling out a scheme that is fair, equitable and efficient. The Morrison government is attuned to NDIS participants' concerns and committed to supporting people with disability to achieve their goals. We are committed to continual improvement of this new and very important program for the Australian people. We now have more than 400,000 participants in this world-leading NDIS, an increase of approximately 100,000 participants over the past 12 months alone, and more than 175,000 receiving supports for the very first time. This is something we can all be proud of. The reform package announced by Minister Robert includes implementation of the Australian government's response to the 2019 independent review of the NDIS, the Tune review, and the new NDIS Participant Service Guarantee. These reforms will help deliver on the promise of the NDIS to provide people who have a permanent and significant disability with true choice and control over a flexible support package to achieve their goals. At the same time, these reforms will safeguard the integrity of the scheme. It is important to listen to participants, and that is why we have a Participant Service Charter. This charter stipulates that the NDIS is committed to offering a service that is transparent, responsive, respectful, empowering and connected. These five principles are at the core of these important adjustments to the scheme being introduced by the Morrison government. Assessing a person's function has always been part of the NDIS planning process. However, current arrangements heavily burden the participants' doctors, can be complex and costly and, most importantly, inconsistent. As a medical practitioner, I understand the complex nature of the doctor-patient relationship. Sympathy bias is a real thing. As a doctor you always strive to get the outcome for your patient. It is critical that the integrity of this relationship is not compromised. For this reason, the Morrison government is introducing independent assessments. Independent assessments were first recommended by the Productivity Commission in 2011, at the scheme's inception, and more recently by the NDIS Act Tune review. The member for Maribyrnong is not right. We have developed an independent assessment framework after talking to academics, allied health professionals and other experts in disability. They have provided valuable input as we fine-tune this approach. Over the coming months, we will release more information about independent assessments. This will involve continuing to talk to participants. It's not a set-and-forget policy. It's important that families and carers, peak bodies and disability organisations are all involved in ensuring these assessments have the best quality framework. Independent assessments are conducted by allied health professionals and they are completely independent of the person being assessed. This means that health professionals, GPs and others with past treatment and support responsibilities for the person would not undertake assessments. These will be completed by internationally-recognised evidence based and consistent assessments which will provide an up-to-date and complete assessment of functional capacity as well as the environment of the disabled person. The independent assessors will be able to factor in each person's health, home life and goals. It's so important for the benefits of the individuals that they have a framework, and it's so important for the system that we have independent assessors. This will lead to more consistent decision-making and will shift towards a whole-of-person assessment that considers a variety of factors, not just the disability. This is a very important set of reforms and I support them. 11:28 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce This is an important motion which calls out the governments latest efforts to privatise the NDIS, cut funding and force participants into a one-size-fits-all scheme which is set to be run by a multinational company. Australians may well say: 'I haven't heard about this. Where did this come from?' The government has innocently named these changes the 'independent assessment regime', but it is privatisation of the NDIS by stealth, and the government's trying to sneak this through. They buried it deep in the budget papers, and it will hurt nearly half a million vulnerable Australians in the coming years if it is not stopped. The changes will deprive Australians living with a disability of the dignity they were promised when the NDIS was legislated by Labor: access to individual, tailored and goal-orientated support, giving people living with a disability the fair treatment, the recognition and the dignity they deserve. Individual, tailored and goal-oriented is what people were promised. But, under the government's independent assessment regime, prospective and current NDIS participants will be forced to have their eligibility status and their current entitlements assessed, not by their own doctors, but from a government-approved list, for a limited time, to undertake a complex assessment. Just imagine that for 10 years the same doctor has helped you manage your complex set of disabilities—they are a person you know you can trust and someone who knows your conditions—only to be now told by the government that they know your disability better than you and your doctor. Even worse, these independent assessments are set to be undertaken by a private multinational company. Currently, it's the NDIA's job. The NDIA is not perfect. The government has staffed it mainly with casual labour hire workers. But I believe the government's full privatisation of assessments to a multinational company is fundamentally wrong. Citizens should have a right to have these assessments performed by accountable government agencies in the Public Service. We've seen repeatedly that privatisation doesn't save money and that service quality suffers. One thing it does do, though, is help the Prime Minister avoid his responsibilities. He loves the announcements and photo-ops but never takes responsibility for what actually happens. Just like in aged care or bushfires, privatisation of the NDIA assessments will allow the government to say: 'Hey, it's not us. It's just the independent assessor in that private company who cut your plan. We've just got to follow what they say.' That's how these changes will work. An Australian with a complex disability and multiple practitioners supporting them will have their plan come up for review. That happens regularly. But now the NDIA will say, 'You must see this doctor on this date for two hours.' The assessment will come back and, using the government's outsourced standardised assessment tools, the anonymous practitioner will cut $70,000 from their plan. The NDIS participant will complain to the NDIA and—you can hear it now—they'll say: 'Sorry, that's the independent assessor's job. It's not ours. We can't do anything about it.' What this one-size-fits-all privatisation plan of the NDIA boils down to is that disadvantaged people will suffer while the government avoids accountability. We saw it before with robodebt—'It wasn't us; it was the algorithm.' We saw it in aged care—'It wasn't us; it was the nursing homes and the states.' With bushfires and home quarantine, they said, 'It's certainly not us; it's the states.' Whenever vulnerable Australians come into contact with the government, they end up worse off. This is just the government's latest attack on the NDIS. Since coming to office over seven years ago, they've constantly chipped away at its funding and integrity, stripping $1.6 billion to help build their fake paper surplus, which didn't even happen. But the truly outrageous thing, as we heard from the previous speaker, about their privatisation plan is that it's based on a big, fat lie. The government are pretending that the Productivity Commission and the Tune review recommended these changes. They didn't. That's not true. The Tune review found that the NDIA should not restrict the number of medical practitioners able to provide assessments. The Productivity Commission recommended a strong oversight and appeal process, not privatisation and dodging of responsibility. The government's one-size-fits-all privatised independent assessments will destroy the very essence of the NDIS—individualised, tailored support to help every Australian achieve their goals and potential and live in dignity. The privatisation of public services must stop. The government should put these plans on hold, withdraw the tender and go back to the drawing board, making transparent the evidence that they say is there to support these changes. 11:33 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein There are times in this chamber when, of course, we come together on important issues of public policy because we all care about not just the future of the country but particularly the most vulnerable of Australians. Then we sometimes come in here and we have—let's face it—somewhat hysterical motions put forward by the opposition so they can fill the Notice Paperand so that they can alarm vulnerable Australians and try to convince them that they are their ally or their friend. That's precisely what this motion is about. We had the member for Maribyrnong and the member for Bruce come in here and clearly demonstrate to the parliament but, more critically, to the people that they have not learned the lessons of either the 2016 election or the 2019 election, rhetorically claiming all sorts of absurdities and unnecessarily alarming vulnerable Australians to whom the government is providing critical support. Frankly, that should embarrass them, because what the government have done is made sure that we have the proper support mechanisms in place to support people with a disability in getting the assistance that they need. We now have more than 400,000 Australians on the NDIS receiving support to manage often complicated and multiple conditions, as the member for Bruce correctly outlined. In the wonderful electorate of Goldstein itself, we have 1,579 people receiving support and assistance through the National Disability Insurance Scheme as individuals, of course, but also through collective support groups and organisations like Marriott Support Services and Bayley House in the Goldstein electorate. The evolution of the NDIS has been a continuum of refinement and getting the system right. When you implement one of the biggest social services programs that this country has ever seen, where we've taken responsibility, often from the states, it's important to get it right. It's critically important not just for those who need the assistance and support but also because we are the custodians of taxpayers' money. When it is given to people, we need to make sure that it's properly targeted and delivered so we get the outcomes that the individual client seeks, and it is also important that we identify any fraud, or people who would take advantage of them—because the billions of dollars that have been poured in by this government ultimately become attractive to someone who would like to take advantage of some of our most vulnerable Australians. So credibility matters, accountability matters, having proper processes in place to be able to account for public money matters—and that's the basis on which this government implements reform. We have done it by making sure there's sufficient funding. We provided a further $3.9 billion for the NDIS after the opposition left government with all the promises but none of the funding. But we've continued to fine-tune support mechanisms so that the money is getting to the people who need it, and, importantly, to bring the NDIS into alignment with the original vision for it around individualised care and support, consistent with proposals put forward by the Productivity Commission and of course the Tune inquiry. What the government have been doing hasn't been just by us but by agencies, particularly the National Disability Insurance Agency, in consultation and collaboration with over 40 peak health and disability bodies around the country to ensure they understand what needs to be done. We're not seeking to do anything to people with a disability; we're seeking to empower people with a disability. I note the point that the member for Higgins made, correctly—that the foundation of liberalism itself is about empowerment of individuals, and that is the basis on which we seek reform, because we want clients to get the help they need. Tragically, what the opposition is seeking to do is scare people with a disability from getting the help they need. I don't know how that could possibly make them proud. Having individualised plans that work to address the issues that people have as they continue through their life stages is critical to empowering them to live their best lives. 11:38 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper [by video link] I'm pleased to support this motion moved by my colleague the member for Maribyrnong today. I thank him for his passion and commitment to the thousands of people who are on the NDIS, which is such a vital support for so many in my community and in communities across the country. The NDIS is a great legacy of a Labor government and was created to provide a better life for people living with a disability. But we know the reality of the NDIS under this government is far from what Labor envisaged. The system as it stands has a number of glaring issues. People living with disability haven't forgotten the $4.6 billion which was ripped out of the system last year, which this government attempted to spin as an underspend. They haven't forgotten, because this so-called underspend isn't just a buffer to this government's bottom line, it's a real cut to the funding provided to NDIS participants and to the level of care they receive. People in my community have become housebound for months waiting for a piece of equipment to be approved. People's conditions are worsening while they wait for support. The member for Maribyrnong will remember well the heartbreaking story we heard when visiting the Northern School for Autism, in my electorate of Cooper, of a family forced to relinquish care of their child after being denied the respite care they so desperately needed. Then there's the issue of flexible and tailored plans. All too often I hear stories of people having to justify the slightest change to their plan or an expense that falls just outside what the person on the other end of the phone actually needs. Ask anyone about the delays to have plans reviewed. For many people, their disability doesn't fall neatly into a category. Their situation is complex and it's intricate, and they need support that is directly tailored to their individual and family needs. Individualised, high-quality support plans were at the core of what Labor envisaged the NDIS to be, and they have been sacrificed under this government. So in 2019, when a review into the system was undertaken by David Tune, there was hope that perhaps there would be some action to address these issues. The review found that it was worth looking at how assessments work and that to do so the government should run some pilot programs of an independent assessment system. This is reasonable. You trial alternatives, you consult with the sector and you see how a different approach may benefit participants in the functioning of the system. So when the government announced they'd be proceeding with independent assessments, you'd be forgiven for expecting they must have completed some pilots, just as the Tune review recommended. But again they've cut corners and gone their own way, ignoring expert advice. The government announced two pilot programs, the first of which was unrepresentative on just about every level you could imagine and the second of which ended early due to COVID. So they've failed to successfully trial this new system for assessments, but not only have they failed to trial it, as recommended by the review, they've failed to consult. I recently held a virtual forum with the member for Maribyrnong, where we got to hear from people living with disability and their carers, support workers and advocates. I can tell you the confusion and fear around independent assessments is palpable. They don't know how it will work. They don't know what it will mean for their plans or what effect it will have on the support they have available to them, and, rightfully, they are fearful it will mean less support. They know that this government has real form on that. As it stands, we won't even get the chance to get answers to these questions here in parliament. Rather than introducing these changes through legislation, as the Tune review recommended, the government plans on sneaking them through in regulatory changes. When there's so much at stake, NDIS participants at the very least deserve these changes to be properly scrutinised and, if necessary, challenged by this parliament. So much for transparency being the key to this government's approach. Where is the fair period of consultation? Where are the assurances that services won't be cut, that barriers to access won't be raised, that people won't be worse off? The government refuse to provide these assurances. So I echo the words of the member for Maribyrnong to those opposite: pause the rollout of the independent assessment program; properly consult with people living with disability and their families, their carers and the sector; and be transparent about how these changes will affect their lives. NDIS participants deserve to be involved in changes to the system. They deserve transparency. They deserve to be heard. 11:43 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff The NDIS is very important to the good people of Moncrieff and to our nation, as we know. In fact, as of June 2020, 1,681 people in Moncrieff were being supported by the NDIS. People with a disability and their carers deserve to see the NDIS delivered in line with Productivity Commission recommendations, and that is exactly what this government is doing through the reforms announced in August 2020. To summarise those recommendations: assessors should be independent of the person being assessed to reduce the potential for sympathy bias, assessors are to be approved or appointed by the NDIA for the purpose of conducting NDIS assessments and their approaches to assessment have to be aligned with the objectives of the NDIS. A common set of eligibility criteria with entitlements to individually tailored supports based on the same assessment and genuine choice over how needs are met. Assessors should not have a longstanding connection to the individual. Needs should be periodically re-assessed with a focus on the transition points in people's lives and establishing a tool box for assessors to utilise to do their jobs well. The Morrison government reforms also draw on the Tune Review of 2019. To summarise those key lessons being applied: they include standardised functional capacity assessments to improve the quality and consistency of NDIA decisions, reduction of the administrative and financial burden felt by both prospective participants and participants to provide evidence to the NDIA and clarity around the requirements for information required to support decision-making on both the use and the form of the information. The NDIA must have access to the best and most relevant evidence related to a person's functional capacity. The government has consulted widely, I say to those opposite. The National Disability Insurance Agency has worked with more than 40 peak health and disability bodies. The government made the decision to announce the introduction of independent assessments early. This was done so that there would be time to work through the detail in close consultation with people with a disability and representative organisations. The NDIA has been consulting extensively since the announcement and prior to independent assessments commencing in 2021. The NDIA will engage widely with participants, families, carers, peak bodies, disability organisations and peer and family networks to explain the new independent assessment process at the access and planning stage. The NDIA will shortly release an engagement and consultation schedule to support the implementation of independent assessments. Sessions will be conducted in urban, regional, rural and remote areas by email, by phone and by virtual and face-to-face engagement. Information sessions will be aligned to COVID-19 restrictions. Specific activities will be conducted to ensure independent assessments work for people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds and culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds as well as people with complex needs and psychological disabilities. The NDIA is resuming a second pilot that was paused due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This will continue to help the NDIA understand how independent assessments will work in practice. As part of the second pilot, the NDIA will offer independent assessments for up to 4,000 existing NDIS participants. with all disability types, on a voluntary basis. The NDIA paper has released a paper on the evaluation of the first independent assessment pilot and will release further information after the second pilot has resumed for the remainder of 2020. Over the coming months the NDIA will continue to share more information on the NDIS website about how the assessments will work. Labor, those opposite and the member for Maribyrnong should stop spreading fear and misinformation, Mr Deputy Speaker. Claims that independent assessment are a cover to restrict NDIA access and limit participants' plans are unfounded and simply untrue. There are some important reasons why independent assessments are being introduced for all participants, and applicants for the NDIS—all people regardless of the situation or where they live—should have the same access to internationally recognised evidence based arrangements. If it's time for a participant to transition out of the NDIS, an independent assessment will give them confidence in the significant gains they've made in their functional capacity as a result of capacity-building or early intervention supports. NDIS participants have reported they have spent thousands of dollars chasing assessments to show their functional capacity, and some Australians cannot afford the same access to professionals as others. Access to the NDIS should not be limited to those who can pay the most for a report. 11:49 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite [by video link] I stand to support this motion because it gives voice to people with disability who have grave concerns about the introduction of independent assessments. I thank the shadow minister for bringing in this motion. It exposes the gross failure of this government to properly engage with the disability community in making this change. The government is causing great fear and anxiety. The government must pause the rollout of independent assessments and engage in real consultation with NDIS participants and the workforce. Now, it is important we recognise there are challenges to delivering the scheme fairly and consistently. Like cases should be treated alike. This is a fundamental principle of justice. The 2019 Tune review found that the NDIA was not making consistent decisions during planning. Some participants with similar disability needs reported they received very different plans—like the Weir brothers, who suffer the exact same genetic condition but receive drastically different levels of support—and this is unacceptable. Inconsistency is a problem. The Labor Party stands ready to work collaboratively with the government to find a solution, but ramming through independent assessments with little community consultation is not the answer. The issue is that the government's chosen plan for solving this problem is more harmful than the problem. So far we know surprisingly little about how independent assessments will work. We know they will take between only one and four hours, but what we don't know is how much the introduction of independent assessments will cost. And, even though there has been an incomplete voluntary pilot program, we don't know how participants experienced the pilot because requests for evaluation reporting have been denied by the government. This is unacceptable. The government must come clean. A lack of transparency is holding the NDIS back from being the scheme it needs to be. Despite serious concerns being raised by many, including the Australian association of psychiatrists, Every Australian Counts, People with Disability Australia, Women with Disabilities Australia, the Rights Information and Advocacy Centre and Synapse, the government has chosen regulation over legislation on independent assessments in order to avoid greater scrutiny. It does not surprise me that organisations have expressed serious concern with the government's plan. Every day, I speak with people who have been mistreated as a result of the government's fixation on cutting the cost of disability support. And who can forget the $4.6 billion NDIS underspend? Rachael, a disability advocate in Geelong, told me it was shameful the NDIA had not consulted people with disabilities. If they had, they would hear what Rachael is hearing: 'Anxiety, fear and distrust. Participants turn to us, feeling traumatised about receiving a robotic letter stating they have only 28 days to provide more evidence on their disability or they will be removed from the scheme. Participants fear these independent assessments will not be about consistency but are about cost-cutting by stealth.' Rachael went on to say, 'The NDIS is supposed to be about choice and control, but this process is taking away the control. This is not the person-centred NDIA we fought for.' In my electorate of Corangamite, I have formed an NDIS reference group to help me in my work on the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This group includes advocates, carers, members of the workforce and participants, and their message is clear: they fiercely oppose independent assessments. The Morrison government must immediately pause the rollout of independent assessments and engage in genuine, transparent consultation with the sector. We need to build a pathway to meeting the challenge of inconsistency that isn't more poison than antidote. Since 2013, the coalition has viewed this scheme primarily as an expenditure line. It is failing to run the NDIS because it is putting cash before care. Labor stands for choice and empowerment for NDIS participants and the workforce. The very first step in that commitment is an open conversation about how the system should work. They should withdraw the tender. This is a flawed process without compassion and care for those that the scheme should serve. 11:54 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey The NDIS, like every other arm of government, should be open to sunlight. It should be clear and transparent and we should understand what is going on within the NDIS. It's interesting that this motion put forward by the member for Maribyrnong comes only a short while after the member for Indi put forward a motion about an integrity commission. It's very important that all government agencies do exactly what they are funded and designed to do. The member for Maribyrnong knows that. In fact, he was one of the first champions of the NDIS in this place, and I congratulate him: well done. The NDIS followed a Productivity Commission report in 2011 and, when it was legislated in 2013, I might say that it received bipartisan support. So both sides of parliament are responsible for the success of this program. At that time, the Productivity Commission estimated that the full scheme would cost $13.6 billion per annum to run. The states were contributing around $8 billion to disability support services around Australia, and a deal was done that the states were to transfer that $8 billion into the new fund, and then the Commonwealth would pick up the gap between that and, at that stage, the $13.6 billion. It's very debatable whether the states have actually delivered on that full $8 billion. In fact, a lot of us think that they squirreled a bit away. One way or another, the Commonwealth is still making up the gap, but the full funding figure is now about $23 billion a year—so not double, but certainly getting right up there—an 80 per cent increase or thereabouts. The NDIS has made a transformational difference on the ground. I have constituents that repeatedly come to me and say, 'I just cannot believe what we can do now' with young Freddie or Julia, or whatever their names are, 'that we could not do before. The support has been fantastic.' But it is absolutely right that the support should go to those who qualify and should not go to those who do not. The situation that exists is that people lobby the NDIS for extra funding. I would often argue that those that deal with the calamity of family on a day-to-day basis are not necessarily best placed to make the decisions about what kind of support should occur in that area. We are all conditioned by the person, by the personalities. That's not to say there are not needs that should be met outside what the NDIS is supposed to meet, but it is right that it should, as I said, have integrity, and that is what the independent assessments are about. At the beginning of the NDIS I was a little perturbed by statements about travel agents organising holiday trips for people with disability on the strength of the NDIS. I don't think anyone ever thought it was really for those arrangements, and some of the providers that were around in the early days—and I hope we're slowly clamping down on them—are to be questioned. The member for Maribyrnong says there's been an outcry about the lack of consultation and information available about the independent assessments among people with disability and disability advocates. Has there really? I checked with my staff: we've had no-one contact the office concerned about those particular issues. And I might say that the contacts to our office about the NDIS in general have dropped not to zero but down to a very low number. I can tell you that is a big change. It's because we're actually getting the parameters right and we're getting the delivery of services right. That's not to say we still won't have errors. That's not to say people still won't be disenfranchised. If they're not getting served properly, they should come to their members, and we will stick up for them and make sure that justice is served. But, as I often say to people, it's my job to make sure departments follow the guidelines and the rules. I cannot ask a public servant to break the rules on anybody's behalf. If the rules are wrong, the rules should be changed, but they need to be properly administered. That's what the independent assessment is about. For the record, there are 3,189 constituents in Grey receiving support under the NDIS, better than the pro rata for the nation, which is about 2,700. The SPEAKER 00APG The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 28 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Groom Electorate 28 Issue of Writ 28 11:59 The SPEAKER 00APG Members would remember that, back on 8 October, I said it was my intention to issue a writ today in connection with the by-election for the division of Groom on Saturday 28 November. I issued that writ about 20 minutes ago, and the dates fixed were, of course, those announced to the House back on Thursday 8 October, 2020. BUSINESS 28 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 28 12:00 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in the Federation Chamber to facilitate the consideration of the appropriation bills: (1) on Tuesday, 27 October there to be no grievance debate; (2) on Monday, 9 November the period from 12 noon to 1.30 pm and from 4.45 pm to 7.30 pm to be allocated to government business; (3) on Tuesday, 10 November the Federation Chamber to meet from 12.15 pm to 1.30 pm for government business in addition to its scheduled hours of meeting; (4) on Wednesday, 11 November the Federation Chamber to meet from 12 noon to 1.15 pm and 4 pm to 7.30 pm and there to be no constituency statements by Members; and (5) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister. Question agreed. BILLS 28 BILLS Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020 28

Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020

Second Reading 28 12:02 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Today I rise to speak on the Recycling and Waste Reduction 2020. This bill will repeal the Product Stewardship Act and establish a new legislative framework to allow Australia to better manage its waste. It's a timely bill. The rise of disposable masks and PPE equipment used during this pandemic, over the last few months, has refocused our attention on the need for sufficient and effective waste management. Waste is also an issue that is top of mind in Warringah. In 2019 a Warringah survey showed that 76 per cent of respondents to a question on the environment listed waste as their top issue. This legislation aims to prevent the huge problem that we have with plastics and packaging in our consumption driven society. For decades we have shipped our problem off to Asia. This is now halted, and we need to find solutions. That means we will have to redesign the waste system to repurpose, reuse and redesign over 1,700 kilotonnes of waste. The bill will help to do this through several measures: prohibiting the export of regulated waste material; providing for a system of exemptions and export licences; setting out obligations for manufacturers, importers and distributors of certain products; making provisions for the authorisation of certain persons to exercise powers and perform functions under the bill, including the minister; and, importantly, contributing to the development of a circular economy. The Ellen Macarthur Foundation is the authority on the circular economy and defines it as a framework for an economy that is restorative and regenerative by design: It entails gradually decoupling economic activity from the consumption of finite resources, and designing waste out of the system. I commend the government's efforts to progress towards the development of a circular economy. We should follow the example of Europe and become first movers in this sector. Since 2015, Europe, as part of Closing the loop—an EU action plan for a circular economy—has set targets for re-using and recycling as well as minimum product design standards. For example, by 2030, all plastics packaging placed on the EU market must be re-useable or recyclable in a cost effective manner. Europe has also committed 650 million euros for its major initiative on industry 2020 in the circular economy. Equally, I commend the government for its $250 million investment in recycling, going towards the Recycling Modernisation Fund to implement the National Waste Policy Action Plan, and for its $1.5 billion for the Manufacturing Strategy, a portion of which will go to the sector. These are important investments that will drive much-needed innovation. Why is the bill so important? Well, it's a very big problem that it is trying to fix. Waste is pervasive. It can be found in the deepest oceans, the most arid deserts and the highest mountains. The problem is acute in Australia and nowhere more so than in an electorate like Warringah where, as a coastal electorate, we see it in our oceans. The WWF recently found that on average Australians use 130 kilos of plastic per person each year and only nine per cent of that is recycled. More frightening still is that up to 130,000 tonnes of plastic will find its way into our waterways and into the ocean. The CSIRO has found that over three-quarters of rubbish along our coast is plastic, with up to 40,000 pieces of plastic per square kilometre. Clean-up days are regularly held to pick up huge quantities of plastic, but the sheer volume means we need to transition away from their use. In my electorate of Warringah we have a local movement Operation Straw, STRAWkle. In 2018 they started to go STRAWkling. They're a group of snorkelers dedicated to cleaning up Manly Cover. In just 12 weeks over the summer of 2018 volunteers collected over 2,000 plastic straws from the area. The findings from the project helped inspire more than 40 businesses in the local area to stop using plastic straws. This is how we get change. But we need more to make that commitment, especially the big fast food chains. McDonald's has committed to phasing out their straws this year, and KFC and Subway have as well. But more needs to be done by these chains on other plastic items like lids. I call on those big companies who are part of the problem, because they do create and sell their products with a substantial amount of plastic waste. I went down a few Saturdays ago and had a great time helping volunteers collect plastics in Manly. It was a great community initiative, but it was quite distressing to see just how much plastic we collected, from those horrible little red lids on the soy sauce to straws and building material plastics—the little bits that come between tiles and are washed down the drains to the beach—so many bits of plastic. We also have the Northern Beaches Clean Up Crew, who regularly get over 100 people at an event. To date, they've collected 13,233 pieces of rubbish from Sydney's Northern Beaches and lower North Shore. I'm pleased that my office has assigned this group to expand and has been able to assist them to expand through to environmental grants. I commend the government for having those environmental grants to assist local communities. Just last week I attended the unveiling of Manly's first operational seabin. The seabin is a trash skimmer, designed to be installed in the waters of marinas, yacht clubs, ports and any water body with a calm environment and suitable surface available. The unit acts as a floating garbage bin, skimming the surface of the water by pumping water into the device. The seabin can intercept floating debris, macro and micro plastics and, with an additional filter, even microfibres. It was a pleasure to unveil the unit, and I look forward to more seabins becoming operational throughout Warringah in the coming years. I urge all those out there to keep looking for solutions. We can't have a situation where plastic debris is killing so much of our marine life. The feedback from the Warringah community is strong on this issue, especially on this bill. Northern Beaches Council and Mosman Council both support it and support the government to innovate and succeed in this mission to create a circular economy. Local councils are on the front line and pay large amounts to sort and dispose of waste, and they must be adequately consulted with respect to these reforms. They want to know: with the passage of this bill, what is the next step? They say that the only way we can achieve an export ban is by making sure we're stimulating innovation in the industry in the right way and creating outcomes locally. They're looking for both state and federal government to step in and provide leadership. I appreciate the support of the Commonwealth, state and territory governments. They're giving up to $600 million in the Recycling Modernisation Fund, but more of this is needed to reach councils, who are on the front line of waste. There are still some remaining issues that need to be addressed. What further action can the government take? I echo the comment made by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills that elements of this bill should be made in principal legislation. We've seen an ongoing trend of ministerial discretion and less parliamentary scrutiny expanding through the use of delegated legislation. We have this again in this legislation. The minister, at their soonest convenience, should either move amendments to rectify those provisions or clarify why those provisions have been left to delegated legislation. This bill can and must go further. It should be strengthened so that eventually most products are covered by some sort of accredited agreement. This includes introducing packaging content targets and the banning of single-use plastics over time. I also ask the government to consider including the waste targets from the National Waste Policy Action Plan within the bill and some form of accounting and reporting to ensure we remain on track with our commitments. Accountability is always an important part in progressing issues like this. We need to make sure that the department is responsible but also that we are properly up to date with how we are progressing with waste and recycling. The legislation would also benefit from regular five-yearly, rather than 10-yearly, reviews so as to ensure it keeps pace with innovation in the sector and the latest environmental science. We know things move quickly in this space, and I have great faith that Australian people will keep looking for solutions. Whenever I visit schools in Warringah, the No. 1 issue the kids raise with me is the state of our oceans, including plastic in the oceans. It is absolutely something that we must fix. Even though, for constructive feedback, I support this bill, we all must do more. Waste and overconsumption are legacies of our generation and we absolutely must try to amend these problems. It's a commendable effort, through this bill, to get on top of the waste issue. Alongside the climate crisis, this will be a crisis of our times. We must do our utmost to take responsibility for our waste and clean up our oceans. 12:12 Mr JOYCE E5D New England Sixty-seven million tonnes of waste is what Australia produced in the 2016-17 year—67 million tonnes! I imagine that's around the same amount as we use in domestic black coal. Of course, one of the big issues we have is that countries that used to take our garbage don't want it anymore, and that's fair enough. Countries like China say, 'It's your problem; you look after it.' And so we should. Of course, that means we're going to be a lot more reliant on recycling and are going to have to pay the cost of it domestically. We'll also need to be very aware of exactly where we go for the landfill and of the methane and other by-products of it. I'm chair of a committee that is actually looking into this, and I must say at the start that it would be helpful if we had a closer connection to other people who are passing legislation on it. I want to acknowledge the people on the committee: the deputy chair, who is the member for Cunningham; the member for Cowper; the member for Higgins; the member for Hughes; the member for Moreton; and the member for Wentworth. We used to have the member for Paterson, but she's gone on to higher duties as the shadow assistant minister for defence. By reason of the fact that others don't want our garbage, we have to process it ourselves, and one of the great examples of that is Veolia, which is not that far from Canberra, actually. They use an old quarry. They collect rubbish from Sydney and also from Canberra. What's interesting about that is that a lot of what is recycled is turned into, basically, fertilizer. That is because a lot of it's vegetation waste and it goes back into fertilizer, and that's a great outcome. The member for Warringah just brought up the issue with plastics, and especially PET. That is one of the big problems that we have to deal with. In fact, if you go buy yourself a bottle of Coke or something like that, you'll notice there are different types of plastics. There's plastic in the bottle, there's plastic in the wrapping and there's a little bit of plastic around the top, where you take the lid off. It's the stuff around the top that causes a lot of the problems—the other stuff can be recycled. But this breakdown of the component parts is something that I was never aware and have now been made aware of through that. Plastics have become more abundant. I remember back in the eighties—there are few of us around here who would remember; Minister Irons would remember—that once upon a time you used to take water from a tap. It was fee. I remember people coming along and saying, 'One of the biggest sales in the future will be bottled water.' We said: 'How absurd is that? We're going to pay for something we get for free?' They said: 'You watch the markets. That's precisely what will happen.' And they were right. Of course, now we've gone from bottled water to bottles themselves, and they're creating a massive problem as they become part of the waste. Some of the things we can do to reduce waste will also reduce costs: we can avail ourselves of this wonderful invention, the tap—a tap and a glass, or a water bottle that is recyclable. A lot of them are steel. These are the sorts of small things that you can do in your own life which will make a big difference. What we must also note is that we've got opportunities with recycling waste as well as problems. One of the opportunities is people close to the major capitals don't want garbage tips near them anymore. It's funny, but they are kind of over it. But other areas out west wouldn't mind it, if they get the industry that comes with it. That's because they've got remote areas and mining pits and areas that could avail themselves to becoming the industrial or economic base of those areas. We've had representations in our committee from those councils, and I think that's something we can work on. We're building the Inland Rail at the moment. As I always say, you have to claim your wins, and I was very happy with the National Party paying the money for that as part of the coalition agreement that I did with then Prime Minister Turnbull—in fact, he wasn't the Prime Minister when we did it; he became the Prime Minister afterwards. What that means is that, with utilisation of such things as the Inland Rail, we have the capacity to get trains with a large amount of waste to regional areas. I might just suggest one of the advantages of that. As you know, we pull coal out of a whole range of places in New South Wales and it all makes its way to Wollongong or Newcastle to be loaded. Then all of the carriages—about 80 in a train; they can carry up to 120 tonnes each, but they load them to 100—go back out to the coalmines in the Hunter Valley, to Maules Creeks near Narrabri and to other areas empty. Logic would say that they are going to burn the coal—it's not as if you're going to have to eat it—so if the coal is coming in one direction, we might be able to utilise some of this infrastructure to take rubbish in the other direction. As coal comes out of a hole in the ground, when those holes are finished with we could utilise them, basically, for remnant landfill. What we do now is we actually put pipes through it. We line it and put pipes through it, and we collect the methane off it. That turns the turbine and creates power—not exceptional amounts of power, but enough power to warrant doing it. These are the by-products we get. We can recycle things back into their core components, such as steel and scrap metal, which can be recycled back into metal; plastics can be recycled, as long as you break them down into the component parts; vegetable matter can be recycled back into fertilizer; and what we don't recycle can be utilized in landfill, which is not the best way, but even with that we get the capacity to fill in holes, create methane, turn a turbine and create power. And we have the infrastructure in Australia to progress with this in such a form as we can do it away in the cities. It's going to have a cost. There is a cost on this and that cost is going to go back to the people who either create the rubbish or put the rubbish in the bin. At this point in time I think it's predominantly on the people who put it in their bins. It's on your rates and that's where it's off to. We have some problems and we need some attitudinal change. We have the example of multiple bins. We have the red bin, we have the yellow bin and we have the green bin. The red bin is for your dirty nappies and stuff like that. Your yellow bin is for things that you deem, or the council tell you, can be recycled. The green bin is for vegetable waste. These have been well taken up and people are pretty diligent about what they do. We have had some instances where they go to the tip and it all ends up in the same hole, because the cost of recycling it means that it's not warranted. That has obviously got to change. Once more, if I might direct you to, they believe that the methane that can be produced from the Tamworth tip alone could power the hospital. So it is worthwhile noting. But we have to have the capacity of what we put in that yellow bin to actually end up being recycled. We've also had the benefit, over time, of an attitudinal change. You might remember once upon a time driving along a road in Australia and it was just festooned with rubbish. When people finished stuff they would toss it out the window. To our credit, Australia has been incredibly good at stopping that. We still get instances of it, but overwhelmingly it's seen as a very bad move. If someone sees you throwing rubbish out the window it's an indictment on your character. You wouldn't do it anymore but in the past people didn't blink at it. That shows the attitudinal change that progresses towards recycling. So Australia has the capacity within its population to go down the path of recycling. The speaker before mentioned the prospective member for Groom, a gentleman by the name of Garth Hamilton. He is standing for the seat of Groom for the LNP. He was also part of the Green Shirts movement, something that I am involved with myself. I am sure if he gets the nod from the people of Groom he will be a great adornment of this parliament. I believe, with seat such as that, that he may well have a very long career. I also would like to acknowledge what Dr McVeigh did, both at a local level and at a state level, and then finally at a federal level. Dr McVeigh was most certainly a very capable and apt politician and an incredibly decent man. Why would I be mentioning Groom? Because we also have the issue of waste and one of the wastes that needs to be recycled is water, sewage. This caused a massive problem in Toowoomba, because people didn't like the idea of recycling sewage and it ending up in their drinking water. But other countries do it—Singapore for one. Even in London they say it's been through a couple of kidneys before you drink it. If we can't deal with the issue of recycled water, waste water, then we should at least walk down the path of having industrial use for that water. When I was in St George in western Queensland we had three lots of pipes in our house. We had brown water, which was used for your toilet. If you are going to poo in something there's no point doing it in potable water. Then we had bore water for washing. And we had drinking water. If you went into a house and saw clear water in the toilet that was not a good sign. In fact, I think there was some fine on it. It just makes sense. Why would you flush potable water? Why don't we use recycled water for industrial uses, for sewerage uses. Why don't new sub-divisions look towards the reticulation of different forms of water and utilise them for different forms of use? This is another progression of the attitudinal change. Referring back to what happened in Toowoomba, we are going to see this more and more in other areas. We see ourselves in many instances with a form of water crisis and we are having to build more water storages for a growing population. But, in the future, this will come hand in glove with a form of recycling. We can see the problems that even Sydney is having, having to expand Warragamba Dam, which it should do, with such things as Indigenous claims, fauna claims and flora claims. All these things have to be dealt with. But, whether you like it or not, the population's going to require more water and, therefore, we have to work out from what source it is going to come. If you decide you are going to do it through desalination, desalination is bottled electricity and Australia has the dearest power prices in the world, or certainly in the OECD, and so that is a very expensive alternative. So we will be forced, whether we like it or not, towards the recycling of water. I want to commend the members of the committee that I am working with at the moment. We have a great committee. It is very bipartisan. I want to commend the support of the member for Cunningham and the work she is doing towards this. We look forward to delivering a report. I think we are just about through all the witnesses. Today our committee will have one final meeting before we deliver a report on rubbish—that won't be rubbish!—in the coming days. 12:26 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I am very pleased to contribute to the debate on the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 and related bills today. At the beginning of 2018, Australia's longstanding practice of exporting our waste to China was thrown into disarray with the launch of China's National Sword policy. This policy, which responded to the increasing deluge of soiled and contaminated materials that were overwhelming China's recycling facilities, created strict rules about what China would accept. This was a major event that reverberated through waste management globally. In Australia, governments, councils and community organisations were blindsided and forced to grapple with the very real possibility that our entire recycling program could collapse, leaving millions of tonnes of rubbish without a destination. The path forward was clear: Australians needed to lift their game. We needed to radically reform and improve our waste management processes and increase our recycling capacity. These bills make a start, but they go nowhere near addressing what is a very real and growing crisis. They legislate the first of seven targets in the national waste policy action plan, specifically export bans on waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres. They also make minor changes to the current product stewardship regime, which was introduced by the Gillard government. Product stewardship is an important concept that places some responsibility for the life cycle and environmental impacts of goods with their designers and manufacturers, but the changes made to the scheme in this legislation are minimal. The measures in this legislation matter—of course they do—and Labor will support them. But they offer far too little and have come way too late. When it comes to waste management, the Liberal government has squandered the last seven years and, today, this opportunity to deliver substantial, wide-reaching reform has also been missed. The planet is choking on our waste, and we are doing next to nothing to avert that. The national waste report tells us that Australia generated 67 million tonnes of waste in 2016-17 or about 2.7 tonnes of waste per person for the year. Australians generate more than 100 kilograms each of plastic waste every year, but less than 12 per cent of that is being recycled. This can't go on. Pollution in the environment is reaching critical levels, with new research showing that plastic in the world's oceans is expected to triple by 2040. Shamefully, if we continue on this same trajectory, by 2020 there will be more plastics in the ocean than fish. This is heartbreaking. We are in the midst of a snowballing catastrophe. But we can turn things around. We need to commit to doing everything we can to developing a circular economy, in which materials are recycled and reused as much as possible and waste is reduced to a bare minimum. We need to move towards eliminating single-use plastics and ensure maximum plastics recycling through better design, producer responsibility, improved infrastructure and effective policies on procurement and recycled content requirements. We need to expand our product stewardship regime. We need big investment in domestic recycling infrastructure. All these measures should be delivered through a nationally coordinated strategic approach. Sadly, we are a universe away from this ideal. Some good work has been done, especially under the former Labor government, but we have a long, long way to go. If you listen to this government, you'd think that fixing the waste crisis was a major priority. Regrettably, while serving up a steady stream of photo opportunities like the so-called Plastics Summit in March, the Morrison government consistently fails to follow up with action. Indeed, it has undertaken no large-scale reform in this area. When Labor looked beyond the hoopla, we found that the so-called new $100 million Recycling Investment Fund, which the Prime Minister announced in May, was really just existing Clean Energy Finance Corporation money with a new badge put on it. And, as is so often the case with this government and this Prime Minister, progress ground to a halt once the cameras left the room. Indeed, six months after the fund was announced the Clean Energy Finance Corporation was asked, through Senate estimates, where the fund was at. The corporation's response was utterly clear and utterly damning. It said: No projects have been financed to date under this Fund, as it does not yet exist. Six months after the announcement, the CEFC hadn't even been given direction to establish the fund. Regrettably, it was confirmed in estimates again last week that this fund hasn't supported a single recycling infrastructure project. This is shameful, especially when you consider that the government's own report found that Australia has less recycling capacity now than it did in 2005. If we are to adequately respond to the export bans across our region we need to quadruple our recycling infrastructure. Instead, we are sitting on our hands. Again, this government is there with bells on for the announcement but completely missing in action when it comes to actually delivering. And, despite being in the midst of a waste management crisis, it took three years to conduct the Product Stewardship Act review. And, despite being in office for nearly seven years, the Morrison government has made zero progress on listing new items for a co-regulatory or mandatory product stewardship scheme. While Labor's first product stewardship system is still going well, the recent review found compliance is still a major problem. So how did the government respond? It cut staff in the relevant agency. Shame! Another announcement that was warmly welcomed was the Product Stewardship Investment Fund, which was announced in March last year. But again, a year after the announcement, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment confirms that the fund is still in the design phase and there is no grant application process in place. This is a government that seems to care more about the spin than the substance of government. In the area of waste recycling, the Morrison government has profoundly failed to deliver on its own promises. It is abundantly clear that Australia needs urgent national leadership if we are to shape meaningful action to respond to the waste crisis. This hasn't happened. Thankfully, however, some amazing work is still being done in our local communities. In the absence of genuine national leadership on the issue, local councils and community organisations have stepped up and taken a lead. On this I'd like to recognise the City of Newcastle for the leading-edge work it is doing in this area. Council has made a 25-year commitment to revolutionise food and garden waste treatment. Most recently, this included a new $24 million contract for an advanced organics recycling facility. Starting in 2022, the facility will divert almost a million tonnes of food and garden waste from landfill. During the terms of the contract, this will save ratepayers more than $50 million in operating costs and state government levies. There's also the $6 million Resource Recovery Centre, a 2,000 square metre site that allows metals, cardboard, wood and electrical goods to be extracted from loads of mixed waste. The centre recently celebrated its first birthday with some great news: it has diverted the equivalent of 74 semitrailers of waste which would have otherwise ended up in landfill. Great work, City of Newcastle! The city also runs a five-megawatt solar farm on site at the Summerhill waste centre which enables it to power the centre and generate revenue to save ratepayers money. To reduce its environmental impact further, Summerhill uses methane gas from landfills to power two electricity generators. These generators produce enough power to run thousands of households. Great work to the City of Newcastle! I'm also incredibly proud of the grassroots initiatives that have sprung up in my community—things like Feedback Organic Recovery, which collects food waste through a series of bins throughout the city as well as from local cafes and restaurants. The waste is then converted to compost for use on local urban farms. So far, feedback has converted 700,000 litres of waste. When you consider that rotting food in Australia generates methane equivalent to 6.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide on top of the space it takes up in landfill, you'll see how important this local initiative is. I'd also like to acknowledge the global network of Buy Nothing groups. Buy Nothing Project rules are simple: post anything you'd like to give away, lend or share amongst neighbours and ask for anything you'd like to receive or free or to borrow. In doing so, these groups not only set up a culture of recycling and reusing but they also build strong community connections. There's Take 3 for the Sea, a local incarnation of a global movement which urges people to take three pieces of rubbish from the beach when they leave. I also want to pay tribute to the work of the Hunter Wetlands Centre and their phenomenal environmental education centre, which provides a wide range of field work resources and programs allowing students to investigate and learn about this incredible fragile ecosystem and the sustainable management of our wetlands. Last but certainly not least, I'd like to give a shout-out to the three extraordinary women who are behind the iconic Newcastle clothing label High Tea with Mrs Woo. Rowena, Juliana and Angela Foong, your contribution to our city is both longstanding and much appreciated. The three sisters have been working with researchers from the School of Creative Industries at the University of Newcastle on a sustainable fashion initiative. This included low-waste pattern layouts, natural fibre choices and direct digital printing techniques for customised production, which allows the user to be involved—in short, the very opposite of fast fashion, which plagues our waste and environmental measures. These local initiatives are vital, but it's becoming increasingly clear that, as a nation, we are not doing enough. Resources are finite, and the environmental cost of inaction on waste is massive. We need to genuinely and actively work towards developing a circular economy by using less, reducing waste and increasing recycling. I note the impact that the TV program War on Waste has had. There are very few schools, I suspect, that any of us in this House would visit now that do not run their own quite sophisticated programs about recycling and reducing our impact in the environment. I think that programs like the War on Waste have done our planet a great service and have really provided the impetus for so many school groups to be very active in this space in their local schools. But the students of course go home and make sure that their parents and families are doing the right thing as well and remind them of the intergenerational consequences of not doing so. All our government systems, programs and incentives need to work to support and encourage these core goals of developing a circular economy, using less, reducing our waste and increasing our recycling. But that won't happen without strong national leadership and vision. Regrettably, this has been sadly lacking to date, and, whilst Labor is supporting the government on making the very timid initiatives contained within these bills, we say: you must do more—much, much more. There is no time to waste. Indeed, this planet and our nation are depending on the government stepping up and lifting its game immediately. 12:42 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I speak to the motion, and let me say that recycling is the buzzword and so it should be. The world has finite resources. Recycling is imperative for the environment. Recycling is imperative for the world's resources. And I hope that recycling will become lucrative for regional communities, because I think this is a great opportunity for regional communities to actually step up and say: 'Some of this industry can be relocated or created in areas where we need expansion in employment.' That's what the tenets of this bill, the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020, are about. The bill is about creating an industry in Australia—creating a base business line that private investors can invest in with confidence, knowing that the rules are not going to change around them. As to their supply line, it's an interesting concept. Normally, when we talk about supply, we talk about component parts and we're talking about new things, but, in this particular case, we're talking about old things; we're talking about rubbish. We need to ensure the supply line for the private investment community to actually build the facilities that we need in Australia to ensure that we recycle our waste. I'll start on the regions, because obviously I'm in this parliament representing a very large region. In the regions, it's been difficult and expensive to indulge in recycling. We've had little choice. We've been directed by state governments and others to recycle in certain areas. There's one area that draws my attention. I see a lot of things recycled from the Kimba dump, for instance—well, it's no longer a dump; it's largely a transfer station. One thing that we have focused on for many years is recycling paper, but in fact it costs more to shift the paper to the capital centre to the recycling plant than it is actually worth. So this comes as a direct cost to people living in regional communities. I'm very wary, as to all of these new rules that we may bring in about recycling, to see that there are cost-effective ways for all communities to meet those requirements. So we need to build regional capacity. Obviously, we won't be building specialised regional capacity. We need to target those things that we create the most waste in and then build the capacity for them. If it were paper it would be far better if we could recycle it in situ, at least in regional centres. The member for New England, who spoke prior to me on this bill, spoke of the possibility of having one-way freight traffic, using empty capacity to shift rubbish back into regional areas so we can create jobs there. I think there's a lot of merit in that suggestion. We need to guarantee supply, and we do that by banning exports. In this area of recycling one of the great challenges of the 20th century for Australia was our relatively expensive labour supply. It is still the case that we have a relatively expensive labour supply, particularly in the hemisphere of the Pacific where we are situated. But increasingly industrialisation is being mechanised and computerised. It's taking the people out. What on earth all the people are going to do in the end we may well ask ourselves—perhaps they'll make more cups of coffee and groom more dogs; I'm not too sure—but it is a fact. Even in my industry of agriculture we are removing people all the time—not with intent, we're not looking to get rid of people; we're just looking for that cost-effective model that allows us to prosper—and so it will be with recycling. I don't imagine we will see the hundreds of people in recycling lines sorting out all the bottles into the little things. I think we will see investment now that will do mechanical sorting, that will sort out these things by colour. I've seen opals sorted by colour mechanically—an infra-red light flashes and a little jet of air blows the opals out into the right bucket. If you can do it with opals, I'm pretty confident you can do it with PET plastics and with a whole host of other material. We can build that capacity in regional Australia. We have good education levels—sometimes we'd like to have a bit better—and we could run that kind of componentry. We could build that kind of equipment in Australia. That's what we should be doing. That's what this $160 million that is on the table out of the billion dollars will facilitate. It's anticipated that the $160 million will generate three-for-one investment from private industry, giving us a $600 million capacity. That is the money that I will be pointing out to the people in the electorate of Grey who already are involved in waste management and in recycling—we have quite extensive investment in green recycling already—and saying, 'Step up to the plate.' Or perhaps there are some new entrepreneurs out there who want to start a plant and have already been approached by a couple of local district councils wondering what they can make. It's estimated that the $190 million for infrastructure—I said $160 million earlier, but I've checked my notes now; it's $190 million—will generate 10,000 jobs. That's exactly what we need in regional Australia—10,000 jobs, or at least a fair share of them. And it will eliminate 10 million tonnes of landfill. I will keep pushing that line, encouraging those people in the industry to chase that. There are a host of other funding lines, including support for industry to take more responsibility for their products after their useful life. We already know that there is a levy paid in the electronics industry for televisions, computers, printers and computer parts. Their collection is funded by a levy that you and I pay when we buy a new television. What happens to the old televisions and computers afterwards is a bit of a moot point. Most of them are exported for recycling. We're not banning that at this stage. A few years ago I was speaking with Nyrstar in Port Pirie. They've had a considerable investment there, putting in a new smelter. It's given new life to the city. It will have an interest in the smelting of precious and semiprecious metals for many, many years to come. It is also a great consumer of waste generated in other industries. In fact, the waste from the zinc plant in Hobart is taken and reprocessed in Port Pirie through the smelter. One of the things they could do is process or break down electronic waste—e-waste. Australia generates a substantial amount of e-waste. At this stage they're not quite ready, so they're not pushing the line on this. But, if they were to go down that pathway and invest in making the smelter and the equipment fully adaptable, they would need a guarantee of supply. At the moment, all of our e-waste is shipped to Asia. The gold is smelted out of it. The various parts are pulled down and whatever else happens in the recycling process. We have the capacity to do that in Australia, but it won't be worthwhile them investing in the equipment needed unless they get the total supply. So the obvious answer is: when the smelters are ready to do so, we will probably need to do exactly the same thing for e-waste as this bill does now for paper, plastic, glass and rubber, to guarantee that they can make a safe investment. It will face challenges. It will mean we'll be shifting e-waste from Sydney, Brisbane and Perth to Port Pirie, if that's where the facility is situated. Given some of the freight arrangements around Australia, particularly with coastal shipping, that could prove challenging, but it should be done. It is a fact that in the nuclear industry—and this is something I know a little bit about—every country that uses nuclear product is under an obligation to the UN to deal with its own waste. Whatever they need to do, whether it's finding a permanently site, decommissioning it or burying it, they need to do it in their own country. There was a proposal put forward by the Weatherill government in South Australia. They had a royal commission, in fact, looking at the possibility of Australia taking high-level nuclear waste from overseas. That's not to say world regulations could not be changed or that the idea was necessarily a stinker. It failed, anyhow, but I make the point that every country in the world is required to deal with its own waste. Perhaps that should be the case with all waste. Why do we have the ability to send off baled-up plastic bags overseas for somebody else to deal with? We don't even know what they do with it, frankly, whether it goes straight into a furnace or whether something else is done with it. I think we all need to take responsibility. As a household we need to take responsibility for our own waste, and as a nation we need to take responsibility for our own waste. I spoke a little before about product stewardship and the electronics industry. It gave me an opportunity to talk about possibilities for the future of recycling e-waste in Australia. But I point to the bottle and can recycling legislation. Without having researched the subject—and you may well know better than me, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas—I'd say it's been operating in South Australia for at least 40 years. It's been a spectacular success. South Australians often remark that you go over the border and there's rubbish all along the side of the road. It's taken a while, but the other states are getting there now. The Northern Territory was first, and I think there are a number of others coming on board now. We know that, when you pick up the can of soft drink that shall remain nameless for the purposes of this debate, there is a stamp on it. It once read, 'Worth five cents if returned in South Australia'. It's now worth 10 cents, in keeping with the worth of money. That is a cost that is paid by the consumer. When you buy that can that shall remain unmentioned—let's pretend we're on the ABC—you pay that 10 cents into a fund which then funds the recycling of the cans and bottles. It makes sense. We are responsible for the whole product, not just what's inside of it. We are responsible for what the product is put in. In South Australia, the government has moved legislation to ban single-use plastics in a number of items. Plastic cutlery will cease to exist some time next year, when the law is implemented. They're waiting for the COVID virus to pass, to allow people to adapt. They're also banning swizzle sticks and straws. There are different estimates of how many straws Australians use each day, but it's in the millions. It's hard to imagine. I nearly always drink my cool drink straight from the can or bottle, but obviously other people like to use straws. And there are other products. We know there are other products. Maybe it's going to cost a little more, or maybe not. But, in the long term, we know it should be done. The previous speaker, the member for Newcastle, spoke about the rising plastic content in the world oceans, and that is a very serious subject, and the only way really to curtail that is to curtail the use of plastics or make sure that they go back to a recycler so they're dealt with in the right and proper way. Certainly, by banning the export of these goods, we can ensure that they are dealt with in a right and proper way in Australia under our supervision, something that we cannot do at the moment. 12:55 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley I'm pleased to be able to speak on this Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill today, because in my community, like, I am sure, other communities across this country, our young people are light years ahead of government in their concern about and their local action to protect the environment and the planet. Every single high school in my electorate of Dunkley—every single high school—has amazing young people who are in clubs like the Environmental Club, where they are working to make their schools single-use-plastic free and to encourage recycling within their school environment. Frankston High School, Elisabeth Murdoch College—the young people there have come to me time and time again to say, 'This is what we're doing where we live and where we go to school. Can we have a federal government that does this on a national scale?' And, whilst this bill is better than nothing, and it's one that Labor will support, it has to be said that this federal government is still lagging behind the people that it's supposed to represent, particularly the people whose future it's supposed to be protecting when it comes to matters of environment and climate change. When this bill was being debated last week, I was in the chamber and I heard a member of the government say that climate change should be a matter of science and not a matter of politics. Once I'd picked my jaw up off the ground after hearing that said by someone opposite, I of course agreed. I wondered why he was going to the effort of saying this, and then I realised that, in the pushing-18 months that I've been privileged enough to be in this parliament, I have not seen a speakers list for a piece of legislation that had so many members from the government benches on it as this one. Often—and this is something the public don't really get to see—the government puts forward legislation that, outside of this place, it trumpets as essential and important reform, but in the chamber the only people who speak on it, apart from the minister introducing the bill, are members of the opposition or the crossbench. I'm not sure what those on that side of the chamber are doing, but they don't seem to come in to speak on their own legislation. But, lo and behold, we have a long list of government members speaking on this bill. The conclusion I've reached is that they're speaking on this bill so that they can go home to their electorates and say to their high schools, to their young people, 'Of course we're doing something about the environment. Of course we're doing something about climate change. Look at what I said in the chamber. Look at this speech I gave where I said climate change was a matter of science.' If only that rhetoric were matched by real action. I know that the young people in my electorate aren't fooled by announcements that aren't followed by delivery, because they are switched on, and they care and they are worried about the future. Last week, when I thought I was speaking on this bill on Wednesday or Thursday, I put a post on my Facebook page for my electorate saying, 'I'm waiting to get on to speak about recycling and the environment. Anyone have any suggestions they would like me to raise?' And, because I have an amazing electorate, there were a lot of things that were raised. Incentives or tax offsets for small businesses that can demonstrate a percentage of waste reduction or a percentage increase in sustainable products and practices—that's a great idea. Melissa says, 'We need all levels of government investing and supporting businesses to improve waste, to have cost-effective, sustainable packaging and composting options.' Composting options are cost prohibitive at the moment, but there's more that can happen in this space. That's a role for government. It's a role that this government hasn't taken up. Government owned or subsidised recycling plants are a must. I got a comment on my Facebook page from someone I know who is not usually a fan of government-run industries but can see the need for government support in this area, because recycling is cost prohibitive for many in private enterprise—so bring the industry back for government to run was a suggestion that was made. I am going to read this comment in full as it really reflects the sentiment I hear over and over again from across the electorate of Dunkley. They said: 'We need to move away from single-use plastic. When single-use plastics break down into microplastics they infiltrate all components of the natural world and of course humans. Research is starting to show that this microplastic is being ingested by humans at an alarming rate—a credit-cards worth of plastic a week, humans are ingesting. Why? Because it is in the atmosphere and it's being absorbed by plants and been ingested by the animals that we then eat, and has been found in water that all research has so far touched. Studies are also indicating that it is a contributor to global warming through the process of its breakdown in the environment.' This constituent of mine suggests that I ask Scotty to go and do some homework and get back to me.' Mr Hogan 218019 Point of order: I'd ask the member to refer to members by their correct title. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Did the member not refer to the member by their correct title? Ms MURPHY 133646 I was reading a quote from a comment on my Facebook page asking 'Scotty to go do some homework and get back to me.' That was what it said. It was a quote. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 It would help the House if you quoted the correct title as well. Ms MURPHY 133646 The Prime Minister. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Thank you. Ms MURPHY 133646 I read those out. They are just a snapshot of comments from my electorate to show the commitment in my electorate to doing more in this area and to show the requests that I get over and over again for the government to do more. Now, we are very proud in my electorate in Carrum Downs that we have the company Repeat Plastics Australia Pty Ltd, or Replas as we refer to it in my electorate. This business has a manufacturing base in Ballarat and the head office and some work in Carrum Downs. Replas takes plastic waste and turns it into seats, tables and all sorts of equipment to be used in the community. For example, the Belvedere Bowls Club put in an application to the Dunkley Stronger Communities fund, which I was pleased to support, to get new seats at the bowls club. Those bench seats were made by Replas with recycled material. I was speaking to the company today and I asked what they need to continue to contribute to what must be said to be this fledgling circular economy in Australia. What they need is their product and products like theirs from other manufacturers to be promoted, because they can't recycle more waste unless people are buying their products. As they say to me, the local council is the first port of call for procurement, because they are the ones that are often putting in all of the local infrastructure, but it's something that the state and federal governments should be doing as well. This federal government needs to be looking, as part of its procurement policy, to not just procure from Australian manufacturers, but to build in requirements for recycling and recyclable materials. That will help this circular economy to grow. As I said, we are very proud to have Replas in the Carrum Downs industrial estate. This is the sort of smart, sustainable manufacturing that we are keen to build in my electorate of Dunkley. All we need is a government that's also committed to doing that. Other countries have been tackling recycling and the circular economy for quite some time. Of course, in Australia it was the previous Labor government that introduced the first version of the legislation that we're debating today, but, sadly, we've seen seven years of neglect in this area. I hear one of the members on the other side laughing—a bit like when I laughed when he said that climate change should be a matter of science and not politics, because it was one of the most astounding things for someone on that side of the chamber to say. Welcome to the debate, but, honestly, with a straight face, it's unbelievable. Other countries haven't been wasting time like this government has. From Japan to Finland to the Netherlands, these countries have understood that recycling is one element of the bigger shift that we need in our economy and our society. We need to move towards a clean and circular economy. We need to do that for the economics of it, for the jobs of it and for the future of our environment. Apart from when the Prime Minister wants to make announcements that make it seem as though they're doing something for the environment, we don't hear sustained debate and conversation from the other side of the chamber about the fundamental need for this shift in our economy and our society. This government has wasted seven years and hasn't forged a new clean and circular economy. It's one of the great wastes of our time, as well as the tearing down of climate change policy and the lack of a coherent and positive vision for the future. They've been left behind by everyone—every state in this country. The business councils, the unions, industry, countries around the world are all committed and signed up to net zero emissions by 2050, but not this government. I'm newly appointed to the House of Representatives economics committee and I attended my first hearing on Friday. Our financial regulators understand the importance of dealing with climate change and climate change risk being taken into account in investments. Our key economic regulators get it and this government needs to get it and to do more. We haven't seen anything that would give us confidence that this government is going to move forward in a way that builds our economy, recovers from the recession and protects the environment. We hear the suggestion that it's one or the other, and we've heard that for so long now, but it's just wrong. We do not have to choose between economic growth and sustainable development, between jobs and the environment. They go hand in hand. There's an opportunity for us as well as a moral imperative. The challenge to lead our country and to once again be seen as a leader on the world stage through climate change, to mitigate its effects, is also an opportunity to build a clean, circular economy and to build a vibrant economy with new jobs at the same time, and we can do it. Every single one of those school students who talked to every single one of their members of parliament about getting rid of single-use plastics, about recycling, believe we can do it. They want to do it and they want us to do it for them. It's beyond time that this government stops tinkering at the edges, getting expert reports and plucking out one recommendation but ignoring others and pretending it's doing something, re-announcing money to be spent on important projects but not delivering. It's time this government just rolled up its sleeves and did the young people of our country the credit of listening to them and delivering for them, because if we do that they are going to deliver for us in the future. 13:10 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's a pleasure to speak on the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 at this time because it's also National Recycling Week. The theme of National Recycling Week this year is 'Recovery: A Future Beyond the Bin'. The Planet Ark website states: We invite you to value your resources, giving them a second life by reducing virgin resource use, reusing and recycling. How timely that is given the nature of the bill that we are speaking about here today. I've just listened to the member for Dunkley's contribution and I want to pick up on some of her closing remarks about the future of our kids and the stuff they're doing. What really impresses me is the fact that our kids and our young people are taking seriously the responsibility for our looking after our environment. What's even better is that they are taking that opportunity themselves, without government interference mandating what they should or shouldn't do. The true value of our democracy is that society makes decisions along the way, not that governments impose those decisions and choices that people make. On this side of the parliament, we fundamentally believe that Australians have a free choice about the things they do or don't do. The importance of this legislation is that it's about us taking responsibility for the waste that we generate in this country. As I said this morning with Assistant Minister Evans in a video on National Recycling Week, it gives us the opportunity to reuse again and again the raw materials involved in our manufacturing processes. In the long term, that can only be good for us as a country. Nearly 650,000 tonnes of waste was exported overseas in 2018-19, or some 40,000 shipping or containers. They would span from Sydney to Canberra if laid end to end. Through this legislation, the Morrison government is introducing the important notion of responsibility for our waste. It's the first time ever that a Commonwealth government has shown true commitment to taking this important environmental and economic policy reform. The Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill will provide a national framework to manage waste and recycling across Australia now and into the future. It implements an export ban on waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres, and was agreed to by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments in March this year. The waste export ban is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform our waste management and recycling sector to collect, recycle, reuse and convert waste into a resource. This reform is expected to see the Australian economy turn over an additional $3.6 billion and potentially generate $1.5 billion in economic activity over the next 20 years. Importantly, this is ultimately about jobs. These new industries and new opportunities that will be created have the potential to create jobs—as I said when I was with the assistant minister this morning, jobs in the city of Logan and the northern Gold Coast. In many regards, those things are already occurring. I note that the member for Dunkley, in her speech, referred to kids in school. Well, I want to mention two great programs that are been funded by the Commonwealth government through the Community Environment Program grants process. Beenleigh State High School received $18,500 to implement recommendations to improve waste management systems and Marsden State High School received nearly $7,000 for a waste compounding and recycling centre, where they can sort their general waste in order to reduce their carbon footprint. They discovered through this process that they have reduced their landfill by over 85 per cent, and they've also introduced a container deposit scheme. Importantly, local businesses in my electorate of Forde are already highly involved in the resource recovery and waste recycling process. Gold Coast Resource Recovery has established a dedicated agency and service network to provide recycling solutions for used lead-acid batteries and used non-lead batteries in such a way that it ensures long-term environmental sustainability. V Resource is another local company based in Loganholme who are also researching and harnessing the latest technology to advance battery recycling. They say their goal is to protect the environment and produce cleaner, higher quality lead goods through recycling lead-acid batteries by using particular pre-treatment processes. In addition, there is Molectra. One of the items that we've got on that list for non-export is tyres. Molectra are dedicated to reprocessing tyres into a range of products. The are used in road surfaces. They create rubber car-stops for car parks and a range of other products from these recycled tyres. He's built this business from the ground up over many years. It continues to grow and is now moving to bigger premises as a result of the expansion of the business over the past few years. These are just a couple of the businesses in my electorate of Forde that are doing terrific work in the recycling space. I'd also like to mention Recycling Developments. They take over 90 per cent of in-coming waste to be transferred into useful, cost-effective environmental products such as soil, mulch, aggregate and recycled timber products. Also, the federal government, through I think the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, invested $6 million in a trial with Logan City Council to take sewerage waste solids at the Loganholme sewerage waste treatment plant to be converted into biochar. These are just another couple of examples of what is being done in conjunction with the private sector with the assistance of government funding. I note the member for Dunkley referred to plastics. That is, indeed, a huge problem—the issue of plastics getting into our waterways and oceans. But I note with interest something I read recently. Redland City Council, which our good colleague the member for Bowman represents, have built a one-kilometre stretch of road on Princess Street at Cleveland infused with recycled plastic called Green Roads PolyPave. So we can see from those examples, and a number of others that I will refer to, that there are an enormous number of initiatives going on right across the country, separate from this legislation that we have introduced and are debating today, for people already looking for opportunities to recycle and reuse the waste we create. The member for New England in his contribution earlier remarked on the importance of water. At Teys abattoirs in my electorate, they have put in a new treatment plant which has reduced their carbon footprint. As a consequence of doing that, the methane gas emitted in the treatment process is now captured and used to generate heat for their boilers, cutting the facility's natural gas consumption by over 30 per cent. Also part of that was a major water recycling initiative at the Beenleigh plant, through its utilities reduction program. As a result of that, the abattoir has been able to reduce its daily water consumption at the Beenleigh site by some 30 per cent. These are good, practical, on-the-ground measures that are ensuring our valuable resources are well used, not overused. That's important, especially considering that we've come out of a drought in Queensland in the last little while. Water security and the use of water have been critically important in that. Another business that I've had the pleasure of meeting with recently is BlockTexx. BlockTexx recycle textiles. Until I met with them, I wasn't aware that textiles are one of the major contributors to our landfill problem. Blocktexx are looking to unlock the value of discarded textiles by recycling and reprocessing them. That way, they can be reused to make new garments. That is another tremendous example of an area that we probably don't talk about. It is not on the list we refer to. But still these products are filling up our landfill sites. The member for Moreton, on the other side of the chamber, well knows—not that it's in his patch, but it's not too far from both of our parts of the world—the enormous issues they're having in and around Ipswich with landfills taking rubbish and waste from South-East Queensland and also interstate. So these are pressing issues that need to be dealt with for the future health of our communities. One product that is not often talked about but a product I have followed with a bit of interest over the last little while is solar panels. In a report several years ago, the Japanese government noted their growing concern about how the millions of solar panels that are being used around the world—specifically those in Japan—are going to be recycled, given the volume of toxic materials in those solar panels. I'm very pleased to say that the LNP Queensland opposition have recently announced that, if they are elected to government on the weekend, they will open a solar panel recycling facility in South-East Queensland, to work with councils to build new roads from recycled plastic as part of a plan to create new jobs and protect our environment. That is a tremendous initiative, especially when you think that solar panels have a life of 20-odd years and many are now coming to the end of their useful life. Given the number of solar panels we have in our roofs, particularly in Queensland but also in other states, how those solar panels are possibly going to be recycled is a real issue of concern. We certainly don't want them going into landfill, given the toxic materials that they create. Earlier I reflected on a program by Redland City Council. A number of years ago Gold Coast city council paved a trial patch of road with recycled rubber in the road surface to see how that worked. I'm aware of a number of governments overseas that are using recycled plastics and rubber for conduits to run electrical cables and other things under footpaths so they're easily accessible. There are a range of these initiatives, and I'm very pleased to see that the LNP state government has committed to making Queensland the recycling state, whether it's building green roads from recycled plastic, establishing the solar panel recycling industry or banning batteries and e-waste from landfill. With Minister Evans, I recently had the pleasure of meeting, in Yatala in my electorate, with TES, who take computers and old phones, break them down and recycle them. There is support for a recycling research and development centre and the fast-tracking of approvals for recycling infrastructure. All of these initiatives, whether they be at a school, community or private sector level and whether they are proposals by the LNP state opposition or the work that this government is doing through these bills, show that the Morrison government and this side of the House are committed to ensuring the long-term future and sustainability of our environment for the generations to come. I commend this bill in its original form to the House. 13:24 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the Recycling and Waste Reduction 2020 and the associated bills and note the amendment moved by the member for Freemantle: 'whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the government's poor handling and chronic delay in delivering meaningful regulatory reform for waste management and product stewardship in Australia'. I say upfront that, obviously, Labor will be supporting the legislation, but there is the opportunity to draw the attention of the people of Australia to what the government has actually been doing. These bills will introduce a ban on the export of waste through the establishment of a new licensing and declaration scheme and will also make some small adjustments to existing product stewardship laws, many of which are long overdue. But, as all of the speakers on both sides of the House have noted, there is a waste crisis in Australia. We've seen press conferences from those opposite. We've seen the Prime Minister come out and say, 'We're going to ban the export of tyres' et cetera, as if the Prime Minister has decided to stop Australia from exporting waste. But all of us who follow the news know that this is actually a result of the China Sword policy and countries like Malaysia and Vietnam having decided to stop the importation of these materials, which had been going on for a very long time. Many people in the suburbs had taken the time to recycle this relatively low-quality material by putting it in their yellow bins, and through other recycling programs. Unfortunately, even with those efforts, there's still a relatively high rate of contamination. So I understand why these countries have decided to stop taking our rubbish. It would have been nice to believe that those materials that were taken overseas were being reused, recycled and then sent back to us as a different product. But the reality, more often than not, was that rubbish was being burned or buried in fields or, even worse, thrown into rivers and was coming back to Australia as pollution, as some sort of environmental damage. So we can understand why those countries have decided to stop that practice. I am very cynical about a Prime Minister who says, 'I am going to take control.' It's like when you're a kid and you say to someone, 'You can't come to my birthday party,' and then that kid turns around and says, 'I have decided not to go to your birthday party.' This is what the Prime Minister is effectively doing by saying, 'We've got a great waste reduction policy.' In reality, he is just trying to put an advertising agency employee's spin on a global situation—the ad man trying to turn a bad situation into something positive. We do know that there is so much more to do, and it is hard policy. To get Australians to reduce waste material, to reuse it and to recycle it as much as possible does come down to individual choices. I guess it is that classic intersection of the Liberal Party saying, 'Oh, no, it's just individual choices,' against the Labor Party saying, 'It's a collective responsibility.' There are some things underway. I am glad to be a member of the committee chaired by the member for New England, with the deputy chair being the member for Cunningham, that is looking at recycling. We know it is a big problem confronting people. We heard from the member for Dunkley that it was suggested by one of her constituents that people ingest a credit-card's worth of plastic every week. There is the horrible figure of Australians producing 100 kilograms of plastic waste per capita every year. Obviously, we do make a bit of an effort to reduce waste, and we have changed. But, sadly, when you look back over the last 30 or 40 years, we see we are in a worse position than we were even in 2005. There is less infrastructure in Australia to deal with recycling now than there was in 2005. We know that the amount of plastic being produced is likely to increase and that part of big plastic's approach to business is to keep producing plastic well into the future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Order. 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 41 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS COVID-19 41 13:30 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills [by video link] To the people of Wills: I know you are frustrated, angry and hurting—I know, because I am too. My family and I in Pascoe Vale have lived through this long lockdown. We are all feeling it. There are days when you think, 'Okay, we can do this,' and days when you think, 'I can't take another day of this!' For many people in my electorate, part of the early postcode lockdowns, it's been even longer than 110 days. We are all over it. I've spoken out about mistakes by state government, like hotel quarantine failures and the problems with contact tracing, and about federal government mistakes, like the lack of planning for aged care. And what happened to the COVIDSafe app that was supposed to help us open up safely? But I've done this because it's about pushing for better public policy. In a global pandemic, it shouldn't be about partisan politics. That is the last thing Melburnians need right now. We need national leadership, not political games. Now is the time to acknowledge what we have achieved. Melburnians have done what has not been done anywhere else in the world: going from a peak of over 700 cases in July to zero today. We have done what many said would be impossible. We have done something truly remarkable. We deserve to be proud. But it has been incredibly difficult—the painful impact on every aspect of people's lives. I expect that we will hear good news on reopening in the coming days. Today, we've zero cases. Be proud, Melbourne and Victoria. The steps towards [inaudible] and opening state borders will benefit the nation. Our thanks to you, the people of Victoria. (Time expired) Lupus Awareness Month 41 13:31 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass October marks Lupus Awareness month. Around one in 600 Australians are currently diagnosed with lupus, although this autoimmune disease, where onset begins anywhere from the age of 15 to 45, is believed to be significantly underdiagnosed. The disease predominantly affects women, with more than 90 per cent of diagnosed cases occurring in women. The nature of the condition means that diagnosis can be challenging and often take many years. After many years of having mystery inflammatory symptoms myself, I was diagnosed with lupus a few years ago. Like many sufferers, I frequently have symptoms such as extreme fatigue, painful or swollen joints, unexplained fever, skin rashes and eye inflammation, particularly during times of stress. A common misconception about lupus is that it is a form of arthritis. It can in fact damage any organ or tissue, from the skin or joints to the heart, blood vessels and kidneys. The exact cause is not known; nor is there a known cure. Lupus Australia, a not-for-profit organisation, provides care and services to lupus patients across a number of states and delivers ongoing education, awareness, support and counselling services, providing comfort and hope to those living with lupus. I'm committed to working with Minister Hunt to try to find a pathway to future funding for lupus research and to support improved quality-of-life measures for lupus patients across the country and the services that support them. National Integrity Commission 41 13:33 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga [By video link] Today I highlight the urgent need for Australia to have a federal corruption watchdog. Over the weekend, I read numerous media reports of the Prime Minister's outrage at the CEO of Australia Post's decision to purchase Cartier watches for senior executives. I must have missed all the reporting on the Prime Minister's outrage about the string of scandals that have been plaguing this government! This government has been delaying the legislation for a national integrity commission for years. Why would the Prime Minister delay such an important issue? Maybe because we've seen scandal after scandal from government members go uninvestigated and without Prime Ministerial outrage. First, it was sports rorts, where the Liberals and Nationals funnelled government funding to sporting clubs in marginal seats, overlooking hundreds of worthy community organisations—including here in my own electorate of Jagajaga—for their own political gain. Then it was Angus Taylor's forged document, used as the basis for a political attack by a cabinet minister on the Mayor of Sydney. And now we have the airport rort, where the government paid 10 times the actual value of land for Western Sydney airport, costing taxpayers $30 million. So excuse me if I'm sceptical about the depth of the Prime Minister's current outrage. Prime Minister, if you've got integrity, you're prepared to be judged on it. Why won't the Prime Minister establish a national integrity commission? What is he afraid of? Moncrieff Electorate: Health Care 42 13:34 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff On the Gold Coast, as our tech ecosystem accelerates, more of the people who enjoy a morning wave will be getting ready for a day of coding or software marketing. Total tech innovation points to an even brighter future for the Gold Coast. Last week at the Health and Knowledge Precinct in Moncrieff, I visited two great examples of the Gold Coast technology sector. The Cohort Space has received an incubator support grant of $150,000 from the Morrison government to develop and deliver their Luminex health and wellness startups accelerator. This is the first such specialised accelerator program on the Gold Coast. Ben Howe and Dren Xerxa from Cohort are building our own Gold Coast tech ecosystem. This project will validate and commercialise up to 10 internationally orientated start-ups that will have access to hospitals and laboratories, connections to health industry leaders, mentoring and international market access and connections. The project will leverage existing resources at the Gold Coast Health and Knowledge Precinct, and the Morrison government is backing the Gold Coast tech ecosystem. Based at Cohort already is the AI Health business, the public-private partnership, and Dataway, an acute-care medical research data platform as a service. Thank you for your insights when I visited last week and congratulations to you for the great work that you and your team do on innovation that will translate to better health outcomes for patients. Privatisation 42 13:36 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne [by video link] People are sick of privatisation. People are sick of seeing our essential services sold off to be run by big corporations making billions of dollars of profit out of us, the public. People are sick of seeing their public services being forced to run at a profit instead of being allowed to run for the public good. We've seen it with electricity, where part of Australia's electricity network is now owned by companies registered in the Cayman Islands. We've seen it with TAFE, where dodgy private providers get millions of dollars that should be going to TAFE. We've seen it with our banks and the selling off of a publicly owned bank. We've seen it in aged care, where people have died because corporations have put profit ahead of care. And now we're seeing it with Australia Post, where what should be an essential service is being forced to run at a profit, where we're seeing slow delivery times, posties being cut back and that the executives can give each other $20,000 Cartier watches as presents. And now some are saying that the answer is to go further and to privatise Australia Post. The government must rule out privatising Australia Post. This is why the Greens have declared war on privatisation, why we're going to push for a once-in-a-generation inquiry into the failures of corporatisation and privatisation under both Labor and Liberal governments and why we will push for public services to be essential services back into public ownership. Energy, TAFE, Australia Post—it has to remain in public hands, run for the public good, not for a profit. COVID-19: Health Care 42 13:37 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling 2020 has required every Australian, every business and every government to do things differently. We have been forced to adapt and to innovate. Necessity is said to be the mother of all invention, and we desperately need the scientific capabilities of Australian academics and the inventive capacity of Australian manufacturers to come together and solve the monstrous challenges of our time. Today, I congratulate an organisation in my electorate, which has won a manufacturing grant, and the CRC who have facilitated it. Alcolizer Technologies have partnered with the University of Technology Sydney, to develop a new rapid COVID-19 antigen test with results in less than 15 minutes and without the uncomfortable nasal swab. The IMCRC manages $20 million in funds to stimulate innovative manufacturing, including $30 million in taxpayer funds. Alkalizer was awarded $150,000 in matched funds to develop the rapid test, which they hope will go to clinical trials soon. The IMCRC assessed and approved the Alkalizer UTS application within three days. The rapid response matches the urgent need for government to continue enabling innovations in manufacturing by Australian researchers and businesses to provide solutions to one of our world's most pressing needs. Hogan, Mr Ted 42 13:39 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Ted Hogan passed away in September this year, aged 88. I pay tribute to Ted and to his life. He was a beloved member of the Ipswich community and of the Labor Party in particular. He and his wife, Dorothy, or Dot, supported me in many campaigns over the years. Ted hasn't been well for some time, but you'd never know it from chatting with him. He was a former Queensland country police officer, which suited him perfectly. He had a strong sense of ethics and justice, fairness and service, care and compassion. He served in Ipswich and Brisbane, but he loved working in rural communities such as Gatton, Kalbar, Harrisville and Moore. After Ted retired, he continued his passionate love for and his interest in cars, particularly the Chrysler Valiant. Both Ted and Dot have been active members of the Catholic community in Ipswich and Immaculate Heart Catholic Church in their home suburb of One Mile, where they both showed their Christian love for the local community in so many ways. The Hogan family is deeply respected in Ipswich. We will miss Ted's insights, stories, wisdom and spirited conversations. Ted is survived by his wife of 56 years, Dot; their six children; their 18 grandchildren; and their great-grandson. Rest easy, Ted. You've served our community well indeed—in the Queensland Police Service, the Labor Party and your Catholic faith. Cowper Electorate: Mental Health 43 13:40 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper Today I would like to update the House on the great wellbeing and mental health support activities Fortem Australia has delivered in my electorate of Cowper. On 12 June this year, this government invested $11.5 million in Fortem Australia and the Black Dog Institute to deliver more support services to our first responders. In just four months, Fortem Australia has set up a shopfront in Port Macquarie and hired an activity officer, Jody Geosits, and delivered eight weeks of free surfing lessons to emergency service workers and their families. They've facilitated two group creative art classes at arthouse industries and delivered a catered family picnic at Flynns Beach on 10 October for World Mental Health Day. Through these activities, both our government and our communities have given back to the brave first responders defended our community in the black summer bushfires. One participant, Wauchope's Hastings Rural Fire Service volunteer Rebecca Copp, said the four-week surfing program made her feel like she'd made up for the time she missed last summer, fighting the fires. She said: It also gave me a chance to relax and completely get my mind off anything and everything, and recharge my batteries. It's good to feel supported. These support services have been well received by emergency service workers in my community, and I thank Fortem Australia for delivering them. South Australia: Health Care 43 13:42 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Tragically, four babies have died in recent weeks at Adelaide's Women's and Children's Hospital. The deaths have been attributed by some medical experts to the absence in Adelaide of a paediatric cardiac unit or a heart-lung bypass life support service, and the inability to transfer the babies to specialised cardiac units in either Sydney or Melbourne. It's also claimed that the deaths might have been avoidable, and that the internal hospital reporting system regarding the deaths is flawed. The Women's and Children's Hospital is South Australia's major children's hospital, and South Australia is the only mainland state without a children's cardiac unit. Premier Marshall and health Minister Wade must explain what went wrong for those babies, why they were not transferred to Sydney or Melbourne; what more could have been done; and why infant cardiac services are not available in South Australia. They must also ensure that, when life-saving surgery is urgently needed, South Australian babies can immediately access it. The families of those babies deserve nothing less than a full investigation into their deaths and an assurance that no other child will be denied life-saving surgery. I can only imagine the stress, pain and grief of those families sitting helplessly next to their babies. My heartfelt condolences to all of them. Best, Mr Ronald Alexander (Ron) 43 13:43 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls Ronald Best passed away on 14 August this year after a long battle with pancreatic cancer. Ron was a National Party member of the Victorian legislative council from 1988 to 2002, and he represented North Western Province. He was the secretary of the parliamentary National Party as well. Prior to his time in politics, Ron was a successful businessman, a motel owner, a hotel owner and also the owner of a frozen food company. He was well known and regarded as one of the best footballers never to play in the VFL. As a country footballer he kicked 1,624 goals over 16 seasons, popping 100 goals a year on 13 occasions. The first time he did that was when he was an 18-year-old playing senior football at Golden Square. He booted 10 goals on 48 different occasions. He was just an amazing player. He played in five premierships, including coaching Bendigo league to premierships and Sandhurst to its drought-breaking 1973 flag, when he was 23 years of age. He also had success with Golden Square and Northern United and with Boort in the North Central Football League. A medal has been struck in Ron Best's honour. I have amazing memories. Ron retired to enable me to run for the seat of Northern Victoria. I remember travelling around Northern Victoria with him, meeting all the people who make the community work. He was such an amazing man. He was so well respected. My thoughts go to Louise, Elizabeth, Chris and their families. I think everyone's going to miss Ron Best. Asylum Seekers 44 13:45 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I was delighted and privileged to meet with year 11 students from Marrara Christian College recently. These bright, passionate young Australians are driven to be good local and international citizens, which reflects their deep ethical and spiritual mentoring at such a great Northern Territory school. They were eager to hear that the Australian government had proactively shaped international law on refugees after World War II, but they asked some hard questions, to which I did not always have thorough answers. They were angry about the treatment of asylum seekers like the Biloela family taken in 2018, despite local support, including Priya and Nades, who are now growing up on Christmas Island. They wondered why we wouldn't do away with indefinite detention and why more humanity couldn't be shown to those seeking asylum. These are good questions, and while all in this place profess to support the principle of reducing harm, these students urge us to check our hearts for numbness to suffering. They understood the need for secure borders and that also, as student Bethany Sparkes said, 'in a globalised world sharing responsibility for global issues is the fair thing to do'. The students were excellent. (Time expired) Hearing Health 44 13:47 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney One of the most important inquiries of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport was our 2017 inquiry on hearing health, the report of which we entitled Still waiting to be heard…. With 3.6 million Australians living with a hearing impairment, this is such an important area for so many in our community. Our committee's report helped lay the foundation for the Roadmap for Hearing Health and was a great example of the positive work of the committee process. In this regard, I want to acknowledge the member for Hindmarsh, who was deputy chair at the time, and other members of the committee. Too often committee reports collect dust on parliamentary shelves, so I'm delighted that this year's federal budget has included a significant $21.2 million commitment to the hearing road map, and I particularly thank the Minister for Health and the Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government for their leadership in this regard. This funding is a very welcome step to implementing the road map and will support education and awareness-raising activities, improved aged-care support, expanded screening and research, and enhanced workforce capability. I'm really pleased that the funding will also boost support for Indigenous communities, where hearing health issues, particularly because of the prevalence of otitis media, are frankly at shocking levels. The work of advocates in the hearing sector has been so impressive during this process. I acknowledge one of my own constituents, David Brady, who is chair of the Deafness Forum of Australia and a real inspiration, and particularly those wonderful organisations, like the Shepherd Centre in my own state, who do such amazing work with young hearing impaired children. There is more to do, but this is a very welcome start. Gilmore Electorate: A Taste of Paradise Farm 44 13:48 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore I recently had the pleasure of visiting A Taste of Paradise farm in beautiful Berry to hear about the fabulous work Tim and the team are doing to support local young people. A Taste of Paradise is an organic-farm based charity focused on mentoring and work experience for disadvantaged and at-risk young people. Tim and Andrea Francis founded the farm in 1999 and have been doing an absolutely fabulous job since then working to make a difference in the lives of others. It is truly something to be admired, and I was humbled to visit their farm and see firsthand the wonderful work they are doing. Tim and Andrea take young people who are disillusioned with the system and give them a new lease on life through their programs, agricultural training, animal therapy and more. Over time, they have added more mentors to their team, growing their capacity. The volunteers at the farm sell their produce, run fundraisers and working bees, rely on local donations, as well as holding a regular stall at the Berry farmers' market to help keep the farm afloat. But they need more help. I don't want for see a fabulous program like this fall over because they aren't getting the funding support they need. I will work with and support A Taste of Paradise in any way I can to make sure they can continue their vital work into the future. Thank you to Tim and the team for having me. Sachdev, Dr Sudarshan, OAM 44 13:50 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar Today I rise to acknowledge the work of Dr Sudarshan Sachdev, a proud resident of Dee Why and recipient of the Order of Australian medal for service to the community and to medicine, particularly to ophthalmology. Dr Sachdev moved to Sydney in 1985 and founded a practice at Dee Why and a day surgery at Rosebery where he's currently a specialist ophthalmologist and acts as a senior eye surgeon and physician. Besides ophthalmology Dr Sachdev has developed a keen interest in the study and prevention of degenerative ailments and in metabolic disorders, while currently being involved in the eradication of trachoma. In 2000 he set up the Sachdev Foundation in association with his wife, Naresh, in order to raise funds to support research scientists engaged in finding treatments. Since 1987 he has also been a community member of the Rotary club of Rose Bay and a volunteer for the Rotary Club of Sigatoka Fiji and Rotary Club of Kathmandu. Dr Sachdev has been the recipient of numerous awards, including the Rotary district Humanitarian Service Award in 2008 as well as the Rotary Club of Five Dock Humanitarian Award in 2006. His efforts in ophthalmology, medicine and community causes make him a very worthy recipient of the medal of the Order of Australia. COVID-19: International Travel 45 13:51 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle In recent months I have been inundated with Novocastrians reaching out from all corners of the globe. While their stories vary, their reason to contact me is the same. They are stranded, they're desperate and they need to get home. I've heard from people trying to return home to attend weddings or, sadly, to see loved ones for the last time before they die. I've heard from people who've lost their jobs and have no means of supporting themselves. Others have been trying to get home for medical reasons, like a man stuck in France without access to medication. I've even had one gentleman in such a dire situation that he was forced to sleep in his car in Canada while he waited in vain for a flight home. Sadly, my constituents aren't alone in this plight. Indeed, they are among 32,000 stranded Australians across the planet. Despite all the Prime Minister's announcements and so-called fixes this number keeps growing as Christmas gets closer. But it seems not every Australian is in the same situation. Indeed, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott has been able to leave and return to Australia not once but twice in recent months. This double standard is appalling. Please, Prime Minister, I urge you to bring these Australians home as a matter of urgency. Queensland State Election 45 13:53 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert The people of Townsville have a very simple choice this weekend at the state election. They can choose what has been happening in Townsville for the last two terms—where people feel trapped in their homes, feel like prisoners, and an out-of-control crime spree is plaguing Townsville—or they can vote for the Liberal National Party who has a plan: a plan to fix Townsville's crime problem, a plan to work with the community, a plan to lead with the community to end this crime spree. But it's clear that the three Labor MPs that we have don't agree. They never speak about crime. It's no wonder, because in the Labor Premier's electorate robberies, stolen cars, break-ins are up around a two per cent. But in Townsville it's over 200 per cent. How can anyone at any representation in government think that is acceptable? But that's what happens with the three Labor MPs that currently represent the state in Townsville. My message is clear: Townsville, a vote for Labor is a vote for more of the same. A vote for Labor is a vote for high crime. A vote for Labor will wreck our economy. Relay for Life 45 13:54 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan On Saturday 17 October, I was honoured to once again attend and MC the Cancer Council Relay for Life Joondalup-Wanneroo at HBF Arena in Joondalup. This is the 13th year that it has been held at the stadium in Joondalup and the fourth year that I have been the MC. Relay for Life events raise vital funds for medical research in the hope of a cancer-free future, and people are drawn to those events for similar reasons. They may have experienced cancer themselves or watched someone they love battle with this terrible disease, which has touched so many lives. But everyone is there to make a difference. Relay for Life always begins with a survivors walk, and, as MC, I read out the names of the survivors and carers who are attending. This year was a little different: the event was smaller and only went for 5½ hours, as opposed to the 24 hours that it usually runs for. Nonetheless, it was a great success, raising more than double its fundraising goal. I'd like to congratulate Mayor Tracey Roberts, the event ambassador and mayor of the City of Wanneroo; Ms Pat Strahan, the chairperson of the Joondalup-Wanneroo Relay for Life committee; Mr Ashley Reid, the CEO of the Cancer Council WA; and everyone else who contributed to the event's success on that Saturday, in less than ideal circumstances. I look forward to supporting next year's event and to MC-ing many more Relay for Life events at Joondalup-Wanneroo. Lyne Electorate: Infrastructure 45 13:56 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for Maitland City Council's plans to upgrade Larg's Park and Ernie Jurd Oval, in my electorate of Lyne. The council has been working with the community and user groups on a longer-term plan to improve and maximise opportunities for Larg's Park. While some of the smaller components of the improvement plan have already been undertaken, including resurfacing the multipurpose court, the community is keen to seen the multibillion dollar upgrade plan realised, with lighting, parking, new amenities, a grandstand, a skate park, drainage, playgrounds, fencing, pedestrian pathways and the extension of the playing fields to include two football fields. In this year's budget, an additional $2,820,583 in federal funding, under the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, has been made available to Maitland City Council, and I'm hopeful that some of these funds will be invested in implementing the master plan. I've also encouraged council to look at applying for funds under the upcoming round 5 of the Building Better Regions Fund to assist with bringing forward some of their regional projects. Congratulations, again, to council and the user groups of Larg's Park on developing this important master plan. The bottom end of the Lyne electorate encompasses all of the beautiful northern banks of the mighty Hunter River, and Hunter economy is powering the New South Wales economy. It's an energy superpower. (Time expired) COVID 19: Transport Industry 46 13:57 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie There's a fleet of coaches from all over Sydney outside parliament today, desperate to get assistance to keep their family owned businesses afloat. The group includes Rod Williams from Near or Far Bus and Coach in the Blue Mountains. But many didn't come, simply because they can't afford to have their coach on the road. Some are on the brink of walking away from the industry for good due to the lack of support from the Morrison government to get them to the other side of COVID. They are distressed; there's no other way to describe it. They're shattered that there is not even recognition by this government that they're profoundly affected by the shutdown of school excursions, seniors trips and journeys to the airport and by border closures. They understand that those decisions needed to be made for health reasons, but they're trying to hang on to experienced coach drivers and feed their own families with the diminishing JobKeeper. One operator purchased a new coach two years ago. He is repaying $8,000 a month, yet that coach hasn't moved since March. As mortgage and loan holidays finish, these operators are finding the burden of depot rentals, registration costs, insurance and repayments simply too much to bear. There was nothing in the budget for them. They certainly can't spend six figures on a new coach to get an instant asset write-off, with no prospect to a return to pre-COVID demand for the foreseeable future. These operators need industry-specific assistance from the Morrison government, and they need it fast, or they'll be casualties of a government that is only pretending to care about small business. Perth Royal Show 46 13:59 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin For 186 years, the Royal Agricultural Society of Western Australia has been holding an annual show. Originally called the Fair and Cattle Show, now the Perth Royal Show, it has grown into an iconic Western Australian event that people of all ages eagerly await each year. Sadly, this year it couldn't go ahead. This is only the third time in its long history that it has had to be cancelled. While the show couldn't go ahead in its usual format, I want to extend a huge thank you to the society's president, David Thomas, and all the hardworking staff and volunteers who were determined to keep the spirit of the show alive in 2020 through the Spring Farm Fair. Between 26 September and 30 September the Claremont Showground came alive to the Spring Farm Fair, which gave an opportunity for people to still experience a slice of the show. Sadly, there were no prize bulls or woodchoppers, but there were stalls from local producers, an animal nursery, sheepdog trials, rides and, of course, show bags. It's been a tough year for the society, but, thanks to David Thomas and his team, the Perth Royal Show, including those magnificent beasts, the bulls and the woodchoppers, will be back. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for member statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 46 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I inform the House that the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week. The Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure will answer questions on his behalf as acting minister. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 46 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Australian Securities and Investments Commission 46 14:00 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Treasurer. Why did the Treasurer claim the Auditor-General's concerns about ASIC's leadership were only brought to his attention last Thursday? 14:00 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I made clear on 22 October— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Order, members on my left! The Treasurer has the call. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL I made clear on 22 October I received detailed correspondence from the Auditor-General of Australia regarding payments made on behalf of the ASIC chair, Mr James Shipton, and deputy chair, Daniel Crennan QC. This letter followed an email received from the Australian National Audit Office on 15 September saying, and I quote, 'The Auditor-General—' Dr Chalmers interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer might pause for a second. The member for Rankin has asked his question. I'm not going to keep warning the member for Rankin. I need to listen to the answer, and if that means him not being here to listen to the answer then that's what's going to happen. The Treasurer has the call. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL The letter followed an email received from the ANAO on 15 September saying: 'The Auditor-General—' Dr Leigh interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will pause. The member for Fenner will leave under standing order 94(a). I couldn't have been more clear right throughout last week. The member for Fenner then left the chamber. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL 'will be writing to you separately under section 26 of the Auditor-General Act, concerning payments made to key management personnel. The ANAO is currently working with ASIC on key management personnel disclosures to be included in the annual report, and we will write to you once the process has concluded.' As Treasury confirmed to Senate estimates this morning, their advice has been consistent throughout that I should await the letter from the Auditor-General, after which they would provide advice. I accepted that advice. Following receipt of the letter from the Auditor-General on 22 October, I received advice from Treasury later that day recommending that I direct the secretary of the Treasury to appoint an independent reviewer to undertake an independent review into the findings of the ANAO financial statements audit. The independent review will be undertaken by Dr Vivienne Thom, the former Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and is expected to be completed before the end of the year. Following the review, Treasury will advise me on its findings and any further course of action that may be appropriate. The email from the ANAO on 15 September, the letter from the Auditor-General on 22 October, the two letters from the ASIC chair to me, both dated 16 October, relating to the concerns raised by the ANAO, as well as my three letters to the chair and the deputy chair of ASIC and the Auditor-General, have all been tabled at my request this morning at estimates. The chairman of ASIC, Mr James Shipton, notified me last Friday, 23 October, that he was standing aside while the review was being undertaken. This morning the deputy chairman, Daniel Crennan QC, provided me with written notice of his resignation effective immediately. ASIC performs a vital role as Australia's corporate financial services and market regulator. The Auditor-General has raised important matters, which the government is acting on. COVID-19 47 14:04 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the Morrison government is protecting lives and livelihoods through the COVID-19 pandemic, and how our response compares internationally? 14:04 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Braddon for his question. He, like many others, will be pleased to know that Tasmania is opening up. That's tremendous news. This has been one of the most difficult years, if not the most difficult year, for Australians in generations because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the COVID-19 recession. This is the matter that has so completely dominated the attention of governments around the country, including our own federally and, of course, all businesses, families, children and older Australians. This has been the issue, understandably, that has dominated the attention of all of us. But we also know that Australians, working together, have ensured that the impact here in Australia has been mitigated. We have been weathering the storm, despite the heavy blow the pandemic and the recession that it has caused has inflicted on Australians. We have done better than most—in fact, almost better than all. Only a handful of countries around the world have been able to mitigate the impacts of this pandemic in the same way Australia has. The average daily number of cases over the past week in Australia was 19. In the UK, it was 21,650. In France, it was 36,248. This was the daily increase. In Germany, it was 9,830. In the Netherlands, it was 9,040. The fatality rate in Australia per head of population is less than a quarter of the global average. In France, it's 15 times higher. In the UK, it's almost 19 times higher. In the United States, it's 20 times higher. Our economy fell by seven per cent in the June quarter—a heavy blow in Australia. But we know that in New Zealand it fell by 12 per cent. In France, it fell by 14 per cent. In the UK, it fell by 20 per cent. Our debt will peak at half what it will be in the United Kingdom, a third of what it will be in the US and a quarter of what it will be in Japan, and, as was confirmed last week, our AAA credit rating has been affirmed once again. The comprehensive, coordinated approach across all governments around this country has been brought together by the national cabinet, which again, last Friday, recommitted seven out of eight states and territories to have Australia open by Christmas so Australia may open up safely and, importantly, stay safely open. These are the objectives that we are working to. The surveillance systems, the quarantine systems, the isolation systems, the testing, the tracing, the response capacity and, indeed, the app play a part in that. Of course it does. All of these things are keeping Australians safe. They're saving lives. They're saving livelihoods. That is what is our government has been doing to respond to the single greatest threat Australia has seen in generations. (Time expired) Australian Securities and Investments Commission 48 14:07 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Treasurer. Why did the Treasurer consider that concerns over ASIC's misuse of taxpayer funds were not significant enough to warrant immediate action when he's just admitted they were brought to his attention more than five weeks ago? Why did he keep the misuse of taxpayer funds secret from Australian taxpayers? 14:08 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong The honourable member didn't listen to the last answer, where I detailed— A government member interjecting— Mr FRYDENBERG FKL He was too busy shouting, exactly. He's interested in the politics but not the substance of the answer. The reality is on 15 September I received an email from the ANAO, saying: 'The Auditor-General will be writing to you separately under section 26 of the Auditor-General Act concerning payments made to key management personnel. The ANAO is currently working with ASIC on key management personnel disclosures to be included in the annual report and we will write to you once this process has concluded.' As Treasury confirmed to Senate estimates this morning— Dr Chalmers interjecting— Mr FRYDENBERG FKL He doesn't want to listen to the advice of Treasury. As Treasury confirmed to Senate estimates this morning, their advice has been consistent throughout that I should await the letter from the Auditor-General after which they would provide advice, and I accepted that advice. COVID-19: Freight 48 14:09 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government has been able to ensure the continuation of freight movement throughout Australia and beyond during the global COVID-19 pandemic? 14:10 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Mallee for her question. She represents a large regional Victorian electorate known for its agricultural produce. It borders two neighbouring states. So the member knows all too well the importance of COVID recovery and making sure we address the challenges. The movement of goods across borders, consistently and unfettered, is critical to supply chains for groceries, medical equipment, export markets and so much more. Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Moreton. Mr McCORMACK 219646 That's why, when COVID first hit, I called the transport infrastructure ministers from around the nation, of all political persuasions, and we worked together collaboratively— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Ballarat and the member for Chifley. Mr McCORMACK 219646 to ensure a national freight code was put in place. The approach was adopted by all. This was well received, certainly after national cabinet approved it, by our truck drivers, who, alongside frontline medical personnel, have been heroes during COVID-19. Mr Burke interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I hear 'Hear, hear!' from the member for Watson. He knows how important truckies are to transport farmers' produce, to keep supermarket shelves stocked and, therefore, to keep people fed. They have been keeping our economy moving. They deliver everything except babies! Truckies are so diligent, so committed—such application! We've worked to achieve the same reliability in air services through initiatives such as the Regional Airline Network Support grants and the International Freight Assistance Mechanism. Through the RANS program we're supporting regional airlines to maintain those vital services ensuring 164 return flights to more than 100 regional airports, 35 of which would not have received a flight to their airport but for that assistance. Through this mechanism Mildura Airport, in the member for Mallee's electorate, has access to support in maintaining four weekly return services between Mildura and Melbourne, with additional support available when borders allow—or, should I say, when premiers allow. Our assistance in aviation, through the IFAM, has made sure that there have been 6,430 freight flights nationwide, carrying more than 169,000 tonnes of Australian produce. Victorian asparagus producer Momack is a third-generation Australian-Italian business, one of those great migrant stories. It produces 8,000 tonnes of asparagus a year, half of which is destined for export. It's based in Koo Wee Rup in West Gippsland. The director of sales and operations, Adrian Raffa, said: 'IFAM has enabled Momack to maintain its presence through a more competitive and regular flight schedule to our main international markets. Through the assistance of the program our premium Australian asparagus can maintain its foothold in key markets such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan.' That's what we're doing to help truckies, to help aviation and to help the recovery from COVID-19. (Time expired) Australia Post 49 14:13 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway My question is to the Minister for Communications. How many of the eight non-executive members of the Australia Post board are either former Liberal politicians or candidates or former senior officials of the Liberal Party? 14:13 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I thank the shadow minister for her question. I make the point that when our government became aware on Thursday of the revelations in relation to watches in Senate estimates, we moved extremely quickly. Within an hour, we announced that there would be an inquiry— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. Members on my left! The Manager of Opposition Business has the call, I presume on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW Yes, Mr Speaker, a point of order on direct relevance. I don't see how this is even a preamble to the question that was asked. The question was really specific. As a hint, the number is four. I'll leave it at that. The SPEAKER 00APG I say to the Minister for Communications that the Manager of Opposition Business has a reasonable point of order. There wasn't a preamble and, as I've made clear, the question is very specific. The minister has the call. Mr FLETCHER L6B I am asked about the political appointments to the board of Australia Post: Bill Mansfield, assistant secretary of the ACTU, October 2008; Trish White, 16 years as a Labor MP in South Australia, appointed in July 2010; Peter Carne, appointed December 2009, law firm partner with former Labor state Premier Wayne Goss; businessman Talal Yassine, appointed in August 2012— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister will resume his seat. I will just say to the minister: the question was very specific, as I've made clear before. These questions can be asked, and it's not an issue of whether it's reasonable enough for the minister to carry that information around with him, but there are other forms of the House where he can present that if he wishes to. So, whilst it was a very tight question, I call the minister, if he wishes to address the question in a way that's relevant to the question, otherwise he will need to resume his seat. Minister. Mr FLETCHER L6B Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have got nothing to add to my answer. Climate Change 49 14:16 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week, Joe Biden said, 'Global warming is an existential threat to humanity, and we're told by all the leading scientists in the world that we don't have much time. We're going to pass the point of no return within the next eight to 10 years.' Also last week, our own Bureau of Meteorology confirmed in Senate estimates that, with current policies, including yours, we will pass this point of no return, with Australia on track for a catastrophic 4.4 degrees of warming during the lifetime of today's primary school students. Why are you sticking with Trump-like 2030 targets that cross the point of no return and threaten millions of Australian lives? Prime Minister, why won't you protect Australia's children? 14:17 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook When our government make commitments, we meet them. When we make commitments, we meet them. I am asked about these commitments. I recall that, at the 2013 election, in opposition, the Liberal and Nationals went to that election and we committed to a 2020 emissions reduction target. Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Moreton can leave under standing order 94(a). The member for Moreton then left the chamber . Mr MORRISON E3L There was seven years between that election and 2020, but we set out our plan to meet that 2020 target. And, in government, that's exactly what we've done. We haven't just met it; we've beaten it. We've smashed it. We smashed that target. Mr Hill interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L This is what Liberal and National governments do. We set out a plan to achieve a target and then we go and achieve it, whether it was 1.5 million Australians, prior to COVID-19 recession, that were able to get into work, or delivering the tax reform which ensured that Australians could keep more of what they earned. All of these commitments we set out, and we have steadily gone about meeting them. And the same is true for 2030. We have set out and stuck to our 2030 target, and we will meet it and we will beat it. That is what we will do, because that is our form. We will do it by investing in the technology that is transformational and by ensuring that we are accessing a lower emission form of energy, in particular gas, to ensure that we can meet our commitments. That is what is clear on the part of the government. What is unclear is what the policy of those opposite is. They cannot commit to a 2030 target. They can't even tell you what it is. They talk about something that's more than a generation away, and Australians deserve to know what their target would be in 2030 if those opposite were to go to the next election and seek to be elected by the Australian people. We did it in 2013—we were very clear about it, and we hit it. We hit the target and beat it. This Leader of the Labor Party can't even sign up to an emissions reduction commitment in 2030. I'll tell you why he can't do it: I could go through those opposite and get at least 30 different targets from amongst them. I could get 30 different targets. When it comes to this Leader of the Labor Party's commitment on this issue, it's a blank space. It's an absolutely blank space. COVID-19: Employment 50 14:19 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer remind the House of the significant level of income support the Morrison government is providing to help business and families get through the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in my home state of Victoria? 14:20 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the honourable member for her question and acknowledge her deep experience as a medical researcher par excellence and at the Royal Children's Hospital. She knows, like we know on this side of the House, that the economic recovery is now underway. In the last four months, 446,000 jobs have been created. We saw consumer confidence up seven weeks in a row, recovering around 95 per cent of its falls. We saw consumer sentiment up by 11.9 per cent, the largest single increase in a budget month since the series first began back in 1974. And recently we saw our AAA credit rating reaffirmed. Unfortunately, in Victoria there's been a very high economic and health price paid by the second lockdown. Victoria now represents half—or 52 per cent—of the decline in employment nationally since March. Jobs have fallen by 73 per cent in the last two months in Victoria alone—around 1,200 jobs per day have been lost—compared to an increase of 172,000 jobs across the rest of the country, or more than 2,000 jobs being created each day. Female employment has fallen by 24,000 in Victoria since May. This compares to 300,000 jobs created for women across all other states. Three-quarters of the fall in employment over the last year for those aged 15 to 24 is in Victoria. Between July and September, the number of effectively unemployed people has increased by 127,000 people in Victoria, or more than 2,000 a day. That paints a very painful picture of what has occurred. That's why it was with real surprise that there wasn't an announcement yesterday about the reopening in Victoria, with the Australian Industry Group saying: Today’s reversal is a shock and undermines any remaining confidence that the Victorian Government knows what it is doing to open the state’s economy. The BCA, COSBOA and the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry were equally critical. We, the Morrison government, will continue to support the Victorian people. We are continuing to provide around $200 million a day to Victorian families and businesses. We know that over the forward estimates the expectation is that around $75 billion will go from the Commonwealth to Victorians. So it's really important today that the Premier of Victoria seizes this opportunity with the reduction in the number of cases to open businesses in a COVID-safe way to allow Victorian to get back to work. (Time expired) Australia Post 51 14:23 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley My question is to the minister for communications. Why do the minister and the Liberal stacked board of Australia Post allow post offices to display Liberal-National Party election signs in their front windows? 14:23 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I'm not aware of the particular instance that he refers to, but if he wants to provide me with the specific instance I'll have a look at it and report back to the House. COVID-19: Health 51 14:24 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister please update the House on how Australia's containment strategy is helping keep Australians safe from coronavirus and, in particular, how the Morrison government is working with states and territories on further strengthening Australia's hotel quarantine system? 14:24 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Moncrieff, who's been a great advocate for Australia's COVID-19 response. In particular, this is a response which has been built on the twin pillars of containment and capacity. Capacity has been about building our primary care, our telehealth, our aged care, our hospitals—with 7½ thousand ventilators—and of course our vaccine capabilities. Containment has been about, as the Prime Minister said, taking the steps across the four fronts—borders, testing, tracing and distancing—to keep Australians safe. When we look at how Australia has performed, we look at a world where there have been over 400,000 cases a day in each of the past five days. Leading into the weekend there were three successive days of record COVID-19 figures. This disease, this condition, which has now taken 1.15 million lives officially and no doubt countless more, continues to grow. The first of, therefore, the great defence mechanisms in Australia has been our international borders. All of this has contributed to Australia having one case in the community in the last 24 hours, at a time when the UK has had almost 20,000 and France has had 50,000 in one day. Against that background, what we see is that our border protections have been fundamental. In international quarantine, we've identified over 2½ thousand positive cases, a rate of about two per cent of arrivals. Those arrivals and those defence mechanisms have helped protect Australia; in particular, the hotel quarantine system, which was instituted through the national cabinet. Jane Halton, a distinguished former secretary under both sides of politics, has identified success in seven out of eight jurisdictions. Obviously, there were clear challenges which occurred in Victoria, and we hope and believe that, going forward, they'll be able to reopen in a way which is safe. The Halton review has identified the importance of this system both to protecting Australians and to bringing Australians home, and it has identified means by which we can expand that capacity. In particular, there are recommendations for improving the quality end to end, in every state and territory, by having monitoring, checkpoints and reviews, but also for a risk based system where, when we look at countries such as New Zealand, we can proceed without hotel quarantine; where, when we look at other countries, potentially in the future we could have home isolation such as we've seen in the ACT; and where we can have a system in particular which maintains the protection for those who come from abroad. This is saving lives and it's protecting lives. (Time expired) Australia Post 51 14:27 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway My question is to the minister for communications. Why did the minister say last week he was shocked and concerned by developments at Australia Post when it had already been reported that Australia Post hired a $3,000-a-day reputation manager and a corporate credit card had racked up nearly $300,000 in expenses in the last financial year? Shouldn't the minister have seen this coming? 14:28 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I do thank the shadow minister for her question. I'll tell you what I've seen coming and what our side of government has seen coming: the changes to Australia Post's market conditions, with the number of letters dropping sharply over a significant period of time. That is why we moved quickly to engage— Opposition members interjecting— Mr FLETCHER L6B The number of letters is falling and falling and falling. That is why we've moved quickly to engage BCG to conduct a review. We moved quickly in relation to the issues in relation to the very high demand that Australians have for parcels, particularly during COVID-19. I'll tell you what we've also moved quickly to do. We've moved quickly to appoint a new chair of Australia Post, Lucio Di Bartolomeo, who brings extremely wide-ranging experience, including as Chair of Australian Naval Infrastructure, Deputy Chair of Moorebank Intermodal Company and non-executive director of Australian Rail Track Corporation. He's been the interim CEO of Moorebank Intermodal Company. He's been the managing director of Thales Australia. He was the managing director of FreightCorp. He has got serious experience in logistics and in the very business issues that Australia Post is facing. So we've moved quickly on those business issues. And I'll tell you something else: when the chief executive spoke at Senate estimates and disclosed the matter of the watches, we moved very quickly on that matter as well. Within an hour, we had announced that we would ask that the chief executive be stood aside and that we were establishing an inquiry, an investigation to be led by the departments supporting the two shareholder ministers with support from an external law firm. We make it very clear that the board of every government business enterprise must be on notice. We expect careful dealing with taxpayers' money. So, when issues arise, we deal with them quickly, and that is exactly what we've done here. COVID-19 52 14:30 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister please update the House on how the twin pillars of testing and tracing are helping to keep Australian lives and livelihoods safe during the COVID-19 pandemic? 14:30 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Berowra, who has been a great advocate for mental health in his time in this place and, in particular, during the course of the pandemic, has been one of the supporters and proponents of steps which the government has taken in conjunction with the states and territories to assist with mental health support around Australia, but most particularly in Victoria, where we know that, whether it's MBS presentations, whether it's eating disorders or whether it's Beyond Blue, we've seen huge increases in numbers. More generally, though, the greatest protection has been our containment strategy, and that containment strategy includes, as I've said, borders, testing, tracing and distancing. In terms of our testing strategy, what we've seen is an outstanding success story in eight out of eight states and territories. Over 8½ million tests have been conducted. One of the most important things that the government has done to protect Australians was, during February, March and April, when the world faced severe shortages of testing equipment, to maintain that air bridge, operating as a single government, operating with the Treasurer and the Prime Minister and, in particular, the minister for transport, who was able to assist in ensuring that we had those supplies constantly coming in to Australia, to provide those tests, when we saw, in parts of Italy and Spain and France and New York, huge challenges with those supplies. But that constancy and consistency has protected Australians right throughout. Shortly before question time, I was also able to meet with the chief scientist, Alan Finkel, and he was able to advise me on his judgement on the tracing programs around the country. Seven out of the eight states and territories—seven out of eight—have outstanding tracing capabilities. And Victoria is improving significantly, and I want to welcome that. It obviously comes from a situation where they had great challenges. We were able to provide 400 ADF personnel to assist; able to help bring in, from Western Australia and Queensland and other places, very experienced public health personnel to improve their quality. That quality is on the improve. And what that means is that Victoria is now, with low case numbers and a significantly improved contact tracing system, we believe, in a position to open in a COVID-safe way, in line with New South Wales. And, because of the national approach to testing, because of the national approach to tracing and because of the fact that we have a strong system, Australia is in one of the strongest places in the world. And I want to thank everybody involved—all of our public health officials. What they have done is to help save lives and protect lives. Administrative Appeals Tribunal 52 14:33 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs () (): [by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. If the test 'if you're good at your job, you'll get a job' applied to these 70 Liberal mates appointed to Administrative Appeals Tribunal jobs that pay up to $496,000, including former Liberal senator Gary Humphries, Liberal MP Andrew Nikolic, Liberal senator Helen Kroger, Nationals MP De-Anne Kelly, Liberal MP Karen McNamara, Liberal senator Grant Chapman, Liberal senator Stephen Parry— The SPEAKER 00APG The member's time has concluded. Mr Dreyfus HWG Liberal senator Karen Synon—there's a few more, Mr Speaker. A government member: There's no question! The SPEAKER 00APG There wasn't a question. I've had a summary of the question. There was something of a question at the start. It's a valid question even though the member for Isaacs ran out of time. The Prime Minister has the call. The Attorney-General. 14:35 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the member for the sort of question. With respect to the AAT, of course the purpose of the AAT is that its members, part-time and full-time—often lawyers but not always—are meant to have people from a wide variety of speciality skills, including engineers, people with medical experience, people with administrative experience. There has been a long history of members and former members of this parliament who have sat on the AAT from both sides of politics, and that list is equally as long from the other side of politics. The purpose of having people who have had political experience, both in state parliaments and in federal parliaments, is that they are well versed in administrative law and well placed to make decisions on those matters. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business is seeking to table a document? Mr Burke DYW I seek leave to table a list of 70 members of a wide variety of factions in the Liberal Party. Leave not granted. COVID-19: Vaccine 53 14:36 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government is backing our manufacturers to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to drive our health and economic recovery? 14:36 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank the member for her question. From day 1 our government recognised that this was both a health and an economic crisis. We know that finding a vaccine is important in order to provide the certainty that the Australian community needs, but also that businesses need, and that's why our government has invested around about $360 million in support of COVID-19 research and development so far. And we've announced $1.7 billion to secure early access to over 84.8 million doses of the vaccine if proven safe and effective. As a government, we are increasingly optimistic about the prospect of vaccine delivery as early as the first quarter of next year. Health experts have assured us that we are on track to start rolling out the vaccine. As industry minister, I'm very pleased to say that over 90 per cent of those doses will actually be produced right here in Australia. We have some amazing manufacturers here and those firms are capable of making various vaccines and various treatments. In fact, many of us will already have received a flu vaccine, potentially, from one of those suppliers. We know that the road to manufacturing vaccines is complex and we have to be prepared for numerous possibilities. Vaccines generally take a number of years to develop and test, but the brightest minds across the world are doing all that they can to develop and test a vaccine, so that we have one ready as soon as we possibly can. With hundreds of vaccine candidates being explored simultaneously around the world governments do remain confident that there will be a vaccine. We don't know as yet what the form of that vaccine is going to be, and for that reason we are working to make sure that we are covering a range of possibilities so that we can produce and deliver in the shortest possible time frame. I'm pleased to say that the CSIRO, Australia's leading science agency, is taking a key role in the development and the manufacture of a vaccine here in Australia. It really is a credit to them and to our scientists and researchers across Australia for the work that they are doing in vaccine and treatment research and development. We have consistently said that we must learn to live and work in the COVID environment in which we find ourselves, and that's why it is so important that we all work together to make sure that we keep our economy open and that we don't move to keep borders closed. (Time expired) Prime Minister 53 14:40 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio My question is to the Prime Minister. Evidence at Senate estimates today confirms that long-term Liberal mate and former Crosby Textor pollster Jim Reed received more than $1 million in government contracts at the behest of the Prime Minister's department. So why does the Prime Minister treat taxpayers' money as his own? 14:40 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook All these arrangements are done by the department through the appropriate processes. COVID-19: National Security 53 14:40 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is managing our borders to protect Australian lives and livelihoods? Will the minister outline how the Morrison government is working to safely reopen our nation to the world following the reopening of travel from New Zealand? 14:40 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the member for Herbert. He's a champion for Townsville. He wants to make sure that the tourism industry there can get back on its feet as quickly as possible and so do the Morrison government. We want to make sure that we can fight this virus, and we're doing that. We want to make sure that we can help small businesses and families recover in the best way possible from the COVID-19 pandemic. We recognise that, in particular, the aviation sector and the tourism sector are under enormous pressure. We know that, since March of this year, up until 25 October, total air arrivals into Australia had decreased by around 98.6 per cent. It is phenomenal when you compare it with this time last year. Outbound numbers have gone down by about 97.7 per cent. So there is devastation within that sector, and we're working day and night to make sure that we can help. We have an arrangement where we're able to facilitate quarantine-free travel from New Zealand to Australia. As at yesterday, there have been 1,665 passengers who have travelled into Australia on 17 green-lane flights from New Zealand since that scheme was put in place on the 16th of this month. And we look forward to New Zealand opening up to Australian travellers. We've also done a lot of work with Sydney airport and with other airports, and I caught up with airline CEOs only a week or so ago. We are planning for once we can get back into a normalised arrangement. I want to make sure that, if a vaccine or treatment comes in tomorrow and we can see passenger numbers increase dramatically over a short period of time, we have put the work in place to facilitate that ramping-up as quickly as possible. I want to say thank you to the ABF commissioner and all the senior staff and those that have been involved in negotiations with the airports and the airlines. Their work is incredibly important because thousands of jobs hinge on the success of that industry. We have, as the Prime Minister has spoken about, looked at, if there is a successful arrangement with New Zealand, expanding out the green-lane arrangement to include Pacific neighbours like Fiji and the Cook Islands, and we've had preliminary discussions with neighbours such as Japan, Singapore and South Korea to explore those possible green-lane arrangements. We'll continue that work because it's important that we, as a government, not only work hard to fight this virus to protect Australians but to make sure that we can help these industries recover as quickly as possible. That is exactly what we're doing, working in very close collaboration with the airlines and with the aviation sector. Thanks for your interest. National Integrity Commission 54 14:44 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the reason why the Morrison government hasn't introduced legislation for a national integrity commission the corrupt sports rorts scheme, the Leppington Triangle land scandal, stacking the AAT with Liberal mates, the Liberal mate paid more than $1 million for market research, wasting $20,000 on Cartier watches and the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction's involvement in countless scandals, too many to mention? 14:44 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The presumption in the question is false. What we've seen today I think is a very good commentary on what's happening in this chamber. The government is focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, the COVID-19 recession, saving lives, saving livelihoods and protecting Australians in their time of greatest crisis, and the Labor Party comes in here to throw mud around. That's the contrast—an opposition focused on politics, and a government focused on the welfare of the Australian people and the good government of this country. I might digress. The Leader of the Opposition, we know, has been focused on trying to get some likes on Facebook, as well. I wonder if he's getting any likes up in the Hunter. I wonder if the member for Hunter has responded to the four-day, 10,000 blitz on his Facebook advertising to see if he might get a few likes up there in the Hunter. I don't think there are too many likes up there for you, mate! COVID-19: International Students 54 14:46 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is working to support the return of international students to Australia; and why this is good for businesses and jobs, including in my home state of South Australia? 14:46 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon Can I thank the member— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG You need to lend him a tie! Government members interjecting— Mr TEHAN 210911 Can I respond to all the interjections. On behalf of the House, I congratulate the Richmond Football Club. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr Marles HWQ Point of order, Mr Speaker: you cannot allow this outrage in this question time today! And the tie's got to come off, as a prop! The SPEAKER 00APG Not during question time, it won't. The minister has the call. Mr TEHAN 210911 We definitely have seen the creation of another era. We've had the Hafey era and now we have the Hardwick era. We also have the Dusty era! Mr Marles interjecting— Mr TEHAN 210911 I take the interjection from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but I say 'Go, Tigers!' In 2019, more than 750,000 international students studied in Australia, generating over $40 billion in export revenue—8.2 per cent of our total export revenue—and this supported nearly 250,000 jobs. In the member for Boothby's home state of South Australia, international students are worth about $2 billion to the state's economy. So it's incredibly important that we do everything we can to get international students back next year. Currently, this year, there are 664,000 international students on student visas, year to date to August 2020, a fall of five per cent compared to the same period in 2019. The market has stood up incredibly well this year, but, obviously, we are going to have to take steps to make sure that we can stop it falling even further and get it back on its feet. As of 5 October, 75 per cent of student visa holders were in Australia. Pre COVID, we were on track to overtake the United Kingdom as the second most popular destination for international students in this country. So what are we doing? The Northern Territory is about to commence a pilot in November. South Australia is well progressed in planning for its pilot, which we hope will be up and running in November. New South Wales is keen to see a return of international students by early 2021. So we are continuing to work with the states and territories to ensure that we can get international students back next year. The Prime Minister has led a discussion in national cabinet to make sure that everyone is committed to improving the situation and that we can get the circumstances right to get international students back. Of course, our No. 1 priority remains getting Australians back here before Christmas, and that will continue to be our focus. Get Australians back before Christmas, and then work to get international students here for semester 1. I commend the states and territories for the cooperative way that they're working with the Commonwealth government on this. With 250,000 jobs at stake, we want to make sure that those jobs will be back when it comes to semester 1 next year. Of course, our No. 1 priority remains getting Australians back before Christmas, and that will continue to be our focus—get Australians back before Christmas and then work to get international students here for semester 1. I commend the states and territories for the cooperative way in which they're working with the Commonwealth government on this. There are 250,000 jobs at stake. We want to make sure that those jobs will be back for semester 1 next year. Morrison Government 55 14:50 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister 'appalled and shocked' at the behaviour of a government employee who spent $20,000 of taxpayers' money on Cartier watches when the Prime Minister himself and the ministers sitting behind him have repeatedly shown they draw no distinction between taxpayers' interests and their own political and private interests when spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars? Dr Aly interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Cowan is warned. 14:50 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I just reject the assertion that has been made by the Leader of the Opposition. It is a desperate tactic from a very desperate man who has lost the confidence of those who sit behind him. He comes in here and seeks to throw mud as some way of saving himself. Biosecurity 55 14:51 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison-McCormack government's commitment to ensuring a well-resourced and efficient biosecurity system and the importance of this system to the Australian agriculture industry? 14:51 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the member for Nicholls for his question, because he understands better than anyone the importance of biosecurity and protecting brand Australia, particularly when the seat of Nicholls is such a significant contributor to our $52 billion worth of agricultural exports. That's why, in the budget, the government outlined as part of our Ag2030 plan that one of the key pillars is biosecurity, protecting brand Australia, in supporting Australian agriculture's ambitious goal of $100 billion by 2030. We announced $873 million in biosecurity measures. This is some $243 million more than we spent in 2014-15. The reason we spend that money is to provide agility to our biosecurity office to be able to pivot to new threats. One of the best examples of that is African swine fever. We were able to announce an additional $66.6 million to protect a $1.2 billion industry that employs 36,000 Australians. That is through the technology of X-ray machines, surging boots into ports where there are greater risks and putting more dogs on the ground. Since November 2018 we have detected over 42 tonnes of illegal pork imports, over seven tonnes of which has been through our post office systems. That's why we've continued to make sure that this investment invests in the technology. I'm proud to say that with Australian Border Force, as part of the budget, we're also working through how those X-ray machines can use that new technology, that artificial intelligence, to work collaboratively together to identify not only biosecurity risks but also contraband. We're also working with them with respect to the new incoming passenger card, to digitise it. That gives real-time data to allow our biosecurity officers to pivot to where the threats are, making sure we encompass that data into further decision-making processes that we undertake. We're also saying today to those who want to threaten our biosecurity that we're going to penalise you. In April last year, the immigration minister and I announced that we were giving Australian Border Force and quarantine officials at ports the ability to cancel visas on the spot and to thwart anyone who had their visa cancelled from coming back into this country or applying to for up to three years, sending a strong message. We've also got legislation in front of the Senate, as we speak, to lift the penalty from $444 to $2,664 for those who fail to properly declare on those cards, and to lift the penalty for significant breaches to $444,000 and the privilege of doing 10 years in jail if you breach those protocols. This is a serious message to not only Australian citizens but others who come here that biosecurity underpins the importance of Australian agriculture now and into the future. MOTIONS 56 MOTIONS Morrison Government 56 14:54 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House: (1) notes the Morrison Government is weighed down by scandal and integrity issues, including: (a) the corrupt sports rorts scheme, with colour-spreadsheets used to divide up taxpayer money, and emails going in and out of the Prime Minister's office; (b) airport rorts in which the Government paid $30 million for a piece of land worth $3 million; (c) stacking the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with Liberal mates; (d) paying a Liberal Party mate and former Crosby Textor pollster more than a million dollars for taxpayer-funded market research; (e) the Prime Minister's Office recommending long-term Liberal mate Peter Crone for a lucrative Government contract; (f) the ASIC Chair and former Deputy Chair together claiming more than $180,000 to which they weren't entitled; (g) Australia Post spending $20,000 on Cartier watches; (h )reports the Assistant Treasurer used taxpayer-funded staff to branch stack; and (i) the Minister for Energy being involved in too many scandals to count; and (2) therefore condemns the Prime Minister for treating taxpayers' money as though it is his own. Leave not granted. Mr ALBANESE R36 I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion forthwith: That the House: (1) notes the Morrison Government is weighed down by scandal and integrity issues, including: (a) the corrupt sports rorts scheme, with colour-spreadsheets used to divide up taxpayer money, and emails going in and out of the Prime Minister's office; (b) airport rorts in which the Government paid $30 million for a piece of land worth $3 million; (c) stacking the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with Liberal mates; (d) paying a Liberal Party mate and former Crosby Textor pollster more than a million dollars for taxpayer-funded market research; (e) the Prime Minister's Office recommending long-term Liberal mate Peter Crone for a lucrative Government contract; (f) the ASIC Chair and former Deputy Chair together claiming more than $180,000 to which they weren't entitled; (g) Australia Post spending $20,000 on Cartier watches; (h )reports the Assistant Treasurer used taxpayer-funded staff to branch stack; and (i) the Minister for Energy being involved in too many scandals to count; and (2) therefore condemns the Prime Minister for treating taxpayers' money as though it is his own. Leave not granted. The watch is ticking on the need for a national integrity commission, and the rot starts at the top. 14:57 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That the member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the Leader of the Opposition be no longer heard.

The House divided. [15:03]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 50 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 45 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Burns, J Broadbent, RE Byrne, AM Buchholz, S Champion, ND Christensen, GR Chesters, LM Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Evans, TM Collins, JM Goodenough, IR Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Fitzgibbon, JA Howarth, LR Gorman, P Irons, SJ Kearney, G Joyce, BT Keogh, MJ Laming, A Khalil, P Landry, ML King, MMH Marino, NB Mitchell, RG Morton, B Mulino, D O'Brien, LS Neumann, SK O'Dowd, KD O'Connor, BPJ Vasta, RX O'Neil, CE Wallace, AB Payne, AE Wicks, LE Ryan, JC Wilson, RJ Swanson, MJ Wilson, TR Thwaites, KL Wood, JP Vamvakinou, M Young, T Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

 15:04 The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 15:04 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Seconded. The culture comes from the top. They treat taxpayers' money like it's their own, like it belongs to the Liberal Party— 15:04 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That the member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no further heard.

The House divided. [15:06]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 50 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 46 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Burns, J Broadbent, RE Byrne, AM Buchholz, S Champion, ND Christensen, GR Chesters, LM Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Evans, TM Collins, JM Goodenough, IR Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Fitzgibbon, JA Howarth, LR Gorman, P Irons, SJ Kearney, G Joyce, BT Keogh, MJ Laming, A Khalil, P Landry, ML King, MMH Marino, NB Mitchell, RG Morton, B Mulino, D O'Brien, LS Neumann, SK O'Dowd, KD O'Connor, BPJ Vasta, RX O'Neil, CE Wallace, AB Payne, AE Wicks, LE Ryan, JC Wilson, RJ Swanson, MJ Wilson, TR Thwaites, KL Wood, JP Vamvakinou, M Young, T Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

 15:07 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio Rorts and arrogance are what defines this Prime Minister. The Liberals have been— 15:07 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the question be now put.

The House divided. [15:08]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 50 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 46 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Burns, J Broadbent, RE Byrne, AM Buchholz, S Champion, ND Christensen, GR Chesters, LM Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Evans, TM Collins, JM Goodenough, IR Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Fitzgibbon, JA Howarth, LR Gorman, P Irons, SJ Kearney, G Joyce, BT Keogh, MJ Laming, A Khalil, P Landry, ML King, MMH Marino, NB Mitchell, RG Morton, B Mulino, D O'Brien, LS Neumann, SK O'Dowd, KD O'Connor, BPJ Vasta, RX O'Neil, CE Wallace, AB Payne, AE Wicks, LE Ryan, JC Wilson, RJ Swanson, MJ Wilson, TR Thwaites, KL Wood, JP Vamvakinou, M Young, T Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

 15:10 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be disagreed to.

The House divided. [15:10]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 51 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Haines, H Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 43 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Burns, J Broadbent, RE Byrne, AM Buchholz, S Champion, ND Christensen, GR Chesters, LM Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Evans, TM Collins, JM Goodenough, IR Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Fitzgibbon, JA Howarth, LR Gorman, P Irons, SJ Kearney, G Joyce, BT Keogh, MJ Laming, A Khalil, P Landry, ML King, MMH Marino, NB Mitchell, RG Morton, B Mulino, D O'Brien, LS Neumann, SK O'Dowd, KD O'Connor, BPJ Vasta, RX O'Neil, CE Wallace, AB Payne, AE Wicks, LE Ryan, JC Wilson, RJ Swanson, MJ Wilson, TR Thwaites, KL Wood, JP Vamvakinou, M Young, T Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 62 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Multiculturalism 62 15:11 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm My question is to the Acting Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. Will the minister outline how the Morrison government is supporting all Australian communities, including multicultural communities, during the COVID-19 pandemic? And will the minister outline how our multicultural communities are contributing to a safe and united Australia, including in my electorate of Chisholm? 15:12 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. The member for Chisholm is a tremendous Australian, such a great advocate for her community, including the great multicultural community in her electorate of Chisholm in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. The government is supporting Australians, including multicultural Australians, in unprecedented ways during this pandemic. $257 billion of economic support has been provided during this pandemic and, just recently in the budget, we provided further support and further tax relief for all Australians. Eleven million people who are earning money will get tax relief. The JobMaker hiring credit will support half a million Aussies into work. There's the ongoing operation of JobKeeper and JobSeeker. There are the incentives for businesses to invest and employ. We know so many in the multicultural community have initiated businesses in this country and do such a good job. We have also supported Australians, including multicultural Australians, through the tremendous health measures that we have put in place—in particular, the additional support for mental health, which has been so important during these very difficult times, particularly in my home state of Victoria. For newer Australians, particular measures have been put in place—better access to English language programs, for example, extra community support and an increase in the number of partner visas—in this budget too. Last Friday, the Prime Minister, Assistant Minister Wood and I met up with over 200 multicultural community leaders. We went through some of these measures they were interested in, particularly some of the economic measures. But we also used the opportunity to really say thank you to those multicultural communities for the leadership which individuals in those communities have shown. The Prime Minister, for example, as he's frequently wont to do, thanked particularly the Chinese community for their tremendous efforts and for really showing the way earlier on in the pandemic when they were coming back from their holidays in China. But equally we thank the communities for the way that they have supported their fellow Australians in unbelievable ways. So many different organisations have gone out of their way to raise funds for their fellow Australians, to cook meals for their fellow Australians. I note a couple in the member for Chisholm's own electorate—the Asian Business Association of Whitehorse, for example, which raised $40,000 from local businesses and groups to go towards medical equipment at the great Box Hill Hospital, and the Chinese Culture School Australia. Right across this great country, those multicultural communities— (Time expired) Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. eoqt DOCUMENTS 63 DOCUMENTS Presentation 63 15:14 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BUSINESS 63 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 63 15:15 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That leave of absence from the determination of this sitting until 14 March 2021 be given to Mr Gorman, for parental leave purposes. Question agreed to. BILLS 63 BILLS Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020 63

Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020

Second Reading 63 15:18 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I rise to speak about the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020. I do so, proud of the state that I represent, South Australia. We were one of the frontrunners, one of the first states to introduce recycling back in the seventies, recycling bottles, then tins, then plastics. We've been a leader in this area for many, many years, before most of the other states. With such a proud track record from state Labor governments, we on this side are pleased to support these bills. We've seen in reports from all sorts of inquiries and research that's been done that there is absolutely no time to waste when it comes to recycling and dealing with the world's waste products. We produce so much of it, everything from plastics to cement and a whole range of other things. This is a step in the right direction, but we need to do a lot more. When you think of the products that we buy, manufacture, consume and use, there is tonnes and tonnes of waste that is not being reused, every single day. Everything from using your credit card—when you look at what goes into those credit cards and the waste material that comes out of it—to batteries to plastics to straws—the list is endless. So we will be supporting this bill, and it is, as I said, a major step forward in developing a regulatory framework to encourage responsible waste management in partnership with industry. Since 2011 we basically haven't seen very much done by this current government. We've done virtually nothing to build on the progress of the 2011 Labor reforms that were brought in when we were last in government. What we've seen is seven years of wasted time in terms of actually implementing legislation to deal with the reality of waste. It's a shame that it took a ban on imports from overseas countries—China and several other key nations—for this government to act on waste and recycling. It's hard to take the government seriously on this topic. Their signature election commitment is a $100 million recycling investment fund. This is nothing more than a repackage of the existing Clean Energy Finance Corporation's fund. Over a year since it was first committed to, the fund remains absolutely untouched. In other words, not much has happened in this area, and it's clear that there is a serious deficiency in Australia's recycling capacity. Indeed, there is less capacity to recycle plastic than there was in 2005. That gives you an idea of the time that we've wasted in terms of dealing with and getting on with this particular issue. It's fair to expect that designers and manufacturers of products will take responsibility for mitigating their environmental impacts by seeking to reduce waste in the first place and also by enabling re-use and recycling, incorporating those costs into their business models. Here is a great example. Those of you who have young families and grandchildren—in my case grandkids—when you buy presents, think of the amount of rubbish that is packaged into it, from rubber bands to plastic material to cardboard boxes that aren't reusable, there is an area here where we can do so much more by putting a responsibility on the producers of those products to deal with the incredible waste that they put around the product that you're actually buying. On the set of targets to be achieved under the National Waste Policy of 2018, the looming deadline and lack of progress calls into question the government's wait-and-see approach. There's no doubt that the much-needed progress on waste and recycling requires national leadership, and it is only with national leadership that we will achieve the recycling of waste. There's absolutely no doubt that it's much needed and that progress on waste and recycling requires stewardship and leadership from this place. We on this side of the House started the process of creating the National Waste Policy in 2009. We also established the National Waste Reporting Process and introduced the Product Stewardship Act 2011. We are glad to note that the long-delayed statutory review of the Act confirmed the fundamental value of that policy by Labor, particularly in relation to the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme. I recall quite well being with the minister at the time, Don Farrell, when we went to one of the first outlets for recycling in my old electorate of Hindmarsh and had people delivering TVs and a whole range of older electronic equipment. That has been a good success, but we still need further improvements to compliance and outcomes. I've got to say we lack the ability to sustain a domestic recycling market that will protect our environment and meet the expectations of the community. When I go around the electorate and speak to people, there is a thirst for recycling. People want to recycle, but we, as a government, have to make it easier for them. We need to be able to protect our environment and meet the expectations of the community. Go to any classroom in any school and speak to any student: they get it; they understand it really well. As I said, there's a thirst out there for recycling. We just have to put the mechanisms in place to assist industry, manufacturers, retailers and the consumer to actually do all of these things. Up to eight million tonnes of plastic make into it the world's oceans every year. We've all been made aware recently of the plastic in the oceans. Global consumption of plastic could triple by 2040. So we have a monsoon to deal with. We have a monsoon that needed to be dealt with yesterday, not tomorrow. This government has shown a lack of will to deal with this issue. After seven years of being in this place, it is just tinkering with it. We need real results and we need them now. In Australia, we only recycle 12 per cent of plastics—not a half, not a quarter, but 12 per cent—and 58 per cent of waste in total. Some analysis indicates that Australia is going to need to increase its local plastic reprocessing capacity by 400 per cent just to effectively recycle and reprocess its own waste into a useful and valuable resource. Australia has a very poor record on plastics, yet we stand to be heavily affected by plastic pollution in our oceans. After all, we are an island nation surrounded by oceans. We have fisheries and we have people and industries that depend on clean oceans, and we have a duty to do all that we can to keep those oceans as clean as we can. One of the mechanisms to do that is to have good recycling legislation in place. As with the issue of climate change, if we can't lead by example, we're not doing our best to build regional cooperation in reducing plastic across the Indo-Pacific. In opposition, we continue to be critical of the government's lack of action on waste. It has been a regular occurrence through the shadow minister. We have a track record on this. It's not something that we just tinker with. It is a core value of Labor to deal with the environment, especially recycling. I'll go back to my own state, South Australia. In comparison to other governments' lack of action in recycling, successive South Australian Labor governments have ensured that South Australia has led the nation in recycling. I'm very proud, as I said earlier, of South Australia's achievements. South Australia is actually recognised as one of the world's leaders when it comes to waste management. The UN found that South Australia's waste management was global best practice. South Australia's waste management achievements were recognised in the UN publication Solid waste management in the world's cities, which assessed the waste and recycling systems of more than 20 cities worldwide. The publication reveals that South Australians are highly environmentally conscious. It states: 'South Australia has demonstrated a high level of political commitment and willingness to stick its neck out and implement some policies and legislation upon which other administrators take a more conservative position.' There is no room to take a more conservative position when you look at the figures I quoted earlier and the tsunami that is about to hit us when it comes to waste. The Zero Waste SA Act and plastic bag ban, both introduced by a Labor government, are two excellent examples of South Australia's government showing leadership by putting in place arrangements that support a major drive downwards towards the three Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle. Part of South Australia's success in recycling has been our nation-leading container deposit scheme. This was introduced in 1977. It's been very effective in reducing litter, increasing resource recovery and reducing waste that would normally go into landfill. We did that in 1977, whereas other states were still debating this only a couple of years ago. South Australia was the only state or territory which had a scheme for 35 years, until the Northern Territory introduced one in 2012. New South Wales and Western Australia have introduced similar schemes, and Queenslanders were able to collect cash for returning bottles and cans from mid-2018. In 2006, South Australia's scheme was declared a heritage icon by the National Trust of South Australia and, as a result of the scheme, South Australia has the lowest percentage of drink containers in our litter scheme of the entire nation. So that is an area where, if you take action, you can reduce some of these waste products. About 580 million drink containers are recycled in South Australia every year and the government said that the states waste and recycling sector employs almost 5,000 South Australians, so we can not only reduce waste and recycle but also actually grow jobs through the recycling industry. I can see it everywhere I go, when I go to recycling plants, in the amount of people that work there. Another example of where South Australia has led the way under Labor leadership was our plastic bag ban. In 2009, SA became the first state or territory in the nation to introduce a ban on single-use plastic bags. What a great thing that was. You see people going to the shopping centres now with their hessian bags and carry bags. I always keep a few in the car in case I have to stop off at the supermarket. It makes a difference, and it's something that you need leadership from federal and state governments on, especially from this place, to turn the psyche around and get everyone thinking about recycling and waste. The successes of these schemes show that, when you have the right leadership, you can make significant reforms that will again fit both the environment and the economy. Of all the states and territories in Australia, South Australia is known to have the highest percentage, at 76.5 per cent, of waste being recycled or composted. I read out the figure earlier of 12 per cent. That shows leadership by successive Labor governments in SA, where we have turned it around. That should be a model for the rest of Australia, to look at ways we can reduce our waste and those plastics in our waterways to ensure we have a pristine ocean and a great environment to hand over to the next generation of Australians, because we owe it to them. We absolutely owe it to them. What we've seen here today, or not just today but through this government over the last seven years, is that there is a lack from this Morrison government. Before I finish this speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, I'd like to draw your attention to the state of the House and the number in the House. (Quorum formed) 15:35 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass I'm very pleased to rise today to speak in support of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill, especially in National Recycling Week. It's a great opportunity to also talk about the fantastic things that are happening in waste reduction and environmental management in my electorate. Late last year I was very fortunate to have the Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management, Trevor Evans, visit the Northern Tasmanian community to show off the innovation that's already occurring in the waste and recycling sector from local businesses and organisations including Envorinex, Flat Out Bottles Tasmania, George Town Neighbourhood House and the George Town Council Waste Transfer Station. I've previously been on the record highlighting the incredible work of Envorinex, a Tasmanian owned and operated company. They provide innovative and proven polymer product solutions for national and international clients, recycling a range of products such as silage wrap, IV bags and tubes from hospitals, and poly pipe and plastic waste from horticulture and fish farm operations. They're also an important employer in north-east Tasmania and play an integral role in the local economy. The Morrison government recognised the potential for Envorinex to grow and expand, and funded over $700,000 towards a second factory as part of its regional jobs and investment package. The second factory officially opened last year and has more than doubled its workforce, with nine new permanent jobs created, which is a significant boost and a big win for jobs in Northern Tasmania. The plant is the first of its kind in the state and can process 500 kilos of soft plastics each hour. The company expects to process more than 1,500 tonnes in the first year, with the plastic to be turned into new products including fence palings, posts and rails, and roadside safety products. Importantly, the plant produces very little waste itself. Organic cast-offs from the collected plastics are used by potting mix manufacturers, and the water used by the factory is 100 per cent recycled. It's very pleasing to see that Envorinex is soon to expand to Toowoomba, with a new recycling plant that will process up to 8,000 tonnes of material every year. And it's not just big business demonstrating innovation in this field. There are many smaller businesses, including Flat Out Bottles in my electorate, who are making great strides. In a state renowned for our incredible wine, Amelia and Darren Clarke, from George Town, recognised an opportunity to reuse the countless empty wine bottles. Over the past two years, they have used a kiln to transform the bottles into cheese boards and candle holders. They have built a successful and profitable business and they are diverting glass from the waste stream. It requires all levels of government to create long-term change in this area, and I applaud local councils across the Northern Tasmanian community for joining forces to launch the digital platform ASPIRE, which has been described as 'Tinder for waste'. George Town, the City of Launceston, Meander Valley, Break O'Day, Flinders Island, West Tamar and Northern Midlands councils have all signed on to the platform, which will divert tonnes of waste products from landfill, working on circular economy principles and connecting producers of waste with those who can reuse, repair, remake and recycle the products. ASPIRE was started at the CSIRO and has worked with hundreds of councils and businesses across Australia to drive environmental and economic benefits. One example of a manufacturer of yeast for the baking industry saw it divert more than 160,000 tonnes from landfill to feedstock for supplements for nearby farms and produce electricity via methane power from biodigestion. The financial and environmental cost benefits were also substantial, with the company saving more than $40,000 per year in getting the waste to landfill, and preventing more than 3,000 tonnes of landfill and more than 700 tonnes of carbon dioxide, and saving more than 60,000 litres of water. Our government's groundbreaking investment in waste management and recycling will drive greater investment in recycling businesses and platforms like these. Creating a sustainable future requires effort from every single one of us and creating change here in Australia rather than relying on countries overseas to deal with our mess—the mess that we have created. The new landmark laws stopping Australia exporting our waste and establishing a national industry framework for recycling do just that. As the Prime Minister has said, it is our waste and it's our responsibility. This new legislation will end 645,000 tonnes of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres being shipped overseas each year. It's an enormous figure, but we can no longer kick the can down the road. Our investment also builds on the onshore capacity of our recycling industry, so that we can reprocess our waste here in Australia and turn it into valuable resources and new products. At the same time, the reforms to the regulation of product stewardship will incentivise companies to take greater environmental responsibility for the products they manufacture and what happens to those products and materials at the end of their life. Overall, a billion dollars is being invested to transform Australia's waste and recycling industry and to move towards a circular economy where waste is a resource to be collected, recycled, reused and converted into valuable new products. These reforms will create 10,000 new jobs over the next 10 years—a 32 per cent increase in jobs in the Australian waste and recycling sector—many in regional Australian towns like mine. My island state will positively benefit from this. Our plan will divert 10 million tonnes of waste from landfill. We have to deal with it, recycle it, repurpose it and reuse it here in Australia to drive those jobs in the recycling sector and to improve the quality of our environment. It's an enormous opportunity for positive environmental outcomes and creating economic development potential, and these principles are already being embraced. It's not just business and local government who are paving the way in recycling and waste management. As we've heard already, many schools are becoming increasingly involved in looking at ways to reduce waste and educate students in the process. I've talked previously about the efforts made by the wonderful Riverside Primary School in northern Tasmania, but I was thrilled to see the efforts undertaken by the leadership team at Brooks High School. Earlier this year, I was contacted by Brooks High School who were seeking donations to purchase recycling bins for their school, which led to a visit to the school and a meeting with the year 10 leadership team to uncover the details of their project. I'd like to read an extract from an article written by the leadership team: 'We've decided that it's time to focus on the specific issue of recycling and come up with solutions on how to better our environment. The main goal is to implement recycling bins around the school and analyse the way it benefits not only the environment but also every student's education. This project is important to everyone who attends Brooks High School, as it allows a freedom in making their own crucial decisions.' This year, students have been interested in creating a sustainable and environmentally friendly school by implementing recycling bins in every classroom. The recycling project is a step to creating a clean and safe environment for the northern Tasmanian and Brooks High School community. Implementing recycling bins around the school for every student to use benefits the earth while creating an educational experience for everyone to learn from. The recycling project leaves a strong legacy that will impact the school as well as the community. I commend the leadership team and the staff of the school for their commitment to recycling, ensuring a positive legacy for the school community for years to come. As part of my visit to the school, I brought along Trish Haeusler from Plastic Free Launceston to discuss their organisation's focus on what is an important component of the issue of waste and recycling: a focus on just using less. Plastic Free Launceston do a wonderful job of hosting workshops and information sessions for businesses, community groups, schools and individuals on how we as individuals and as a society can begin to use less and take on responsibility for a material that will be around long after we are gone. Trish and her team of volunteers offer practical advice on finding alternatives and, more importantly, on how we can change our behaviours so we begin to decrease the amount of plastic we leave for the next generation. Consuming and using less plastic is a critical component of this discussion if we want to create long-term sustainable change. From my decade in local government and now as a federal member, I have seen the enormous challenge presented by the waste we generate and the challenges of dealing with the problem. I've also been fortunate to see the development of several waste and recycling initiatives, and it's become an area of interest and passion for me. I'd like to thank the member for Corangamite, Libby Coker, for joining with me to create the inaugural Parliamentary Friends of Waste and Recycling. Thank you to all of those members of this place on all sides that've joined that group already. A launch is coming soon so watch this space. We all need to do more. This bill is an important step forward for our economy and for our environment. 15:45 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I'm happy to speak on the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 and the amendment moved by the member for Fremantle. In the time remaining I could sum it up for those who want the Reader's Digest version, because it's been said by all those who spoke before me—personally—we need to reduce, reuse and recycle. That's the simple message. But obviously government, in a Federation with states and territories and local government, is much more complicated and takes lot of leadership. I'd also draw people's attention to a recent Four Corners that focused on plastics and many of the innovations, trials and tribulations that've taken place in the United States in terms of what needs to occur. There are some scary things that're going on out there basically in terms of big plastics commitment to increase the use of plastic whilst we've got schools, we've got local governments, we've got farmers, we've got individuals, we've got so many people that are making that personal effort to reduce the amount of waste they create, to reuse the waste they can't avoid and to recycle those products into useful materials wherever possible. On that level much good is occurring, but we do have greed and, I would have to say, a government that isn't as strong in this area as they could be. This government is now in its eighth year of government but we haven't seen the leadership that we need when it comes to waste and recycling. At the last election Labor took a commitment to introduce a national container deposit scheme. We know how that has changed things in Queensland. I heard the member for Adelaide talk about how South Australia had been a leader. I know that in Queensland we saw the recycle fee available in South Australia. I saw that when I was a kid 30, 40, 50 years ago. Queensland eventually, under Premier Palaszczuk, did bring in a scheme and what have we seen? Lo and behold, there is suddenly value in waste and the behaviour has changed. Now I see all sorts of people at the recycling centre in Salisbury and Acacia Ridge in my electorate where people have made it a part of their daily program. At night I hear the recycle bins being rummaged through by people looking for those containers. We put a value on the waste and people are taking advantage of that. That's why at the last election Labor did take a commitment to a national container deposit scheme. Unfortunately, we haven't seen a commitment from the Morrison government as yet. I note that they did have a recycling summit. And there is a commitment to an inquiry under the member for New England and the member for Cunningham, the deputy chair. I'm on that committee that is looking at things. Sadly, sometimes there can be a big press release, a big announcement, claiming something as action, but I think sometimes the king of social media fails to actually show leadership in the real kingdom where on a day-to-day basis people are making decision about the food they buy and how it's presented. Fortunately, the states and territories have implemented container deposit schemes. As I said, I congratulate Premier Palaszczuk for the leadership in that area. Obviously we are federation. It would be much better if there were a harmonised and coordinated national scheme. For the people who produce food products, and the labelling thereof, it would be much better if there were the carrots and sticks of federal government when it comes to a national container deposit scheme. We do need a sustainable approach to waste. A container deposit scheme is something practical, but it's just the beginning, as those people know. I've got an 11-year-old son and a 15-year-old son and just explaining to them what goes on in what container—what goes in the compost bin and what goes in the rubbish—and when and how is a constant conversation. I won't name my wife as being someone who needs education, because that would-be inappropriate, obviously, but we do need people to be informed. Thankfully, as all of the speakers have indicated, schools are doing the educating. Schools are doing the hard yards in educating students. There is great hope, I think, in that next generation that is coming, but we need to make sure that they have a planet to inherit. It already looks like they are being left a planet that has nowhere near the advantages that we have. We already know that they're going to be struggling economically, with people graduating from school this year facing incredible debts should they go to university and incredible debt as a nation—$1 trillion of debt. Then not leaving them a sustainable planet would be an extra burden for that generation to carry. We need to start talking about a circular economy, where materials are used minimally and reused and recycled to the maximum degree, eventually creating a closed circle. That is crucial because the market mechanism in terms of where the profits are to be made work against that. That is why we need leadership from government. This sustainable approach not only is environmentally responsible but will create resource-recovery manufacturing opportunities and jobs. This sustainable, circular-economy approach is not what we have in Australia currently, despite the efforts of those farmers, councils, schools and the like. We currently have a linear economy where our limited materials are used in products which are then disposable, so disposable in fact that they could be put on a ship and sent to Malaysia, China or Vietnam and then burned in paddocks over there. We didn't have a recycling industry. We felt good about putting waste in the yellow bin, but we might as well have taken it out in the backyard and burned it. We would have been putting fewer emissions into the air because it wasn't put on a ship and steamed across the ocean to be burned or dumped in the river to eventually come back to us in the ocean. So we do need to do much more than this linear economy. Our resources are being used in much greater quantities and being wasted much faster. Some of these products are being used for only minutes before they're thrown away as unrecyclable waste. Obviously this is irresponsible and unsustainable, but, because we have good logistics, we can put them in a yellow bin and suddenly absolve our conscience or think that we were able to do it, but really that plastic has been coming back to us in some way, shape or form. Sadly, each Australian on a per capita basis is producing about 100 kilograms of plastic every year and ingesting large amounts as well, unfortunately. What is going to happen to that waste that we previously exported? We don't want it to end up in landfill or to be stockpiled. That is not a viable alternative. There is action that can be taken now and needs to be taken to ensure we process our waste. Investment in recycling and reprocessing infrastructure is a big part of it. We need to support the demand for recycled materials, rather than just rely on the market. We need to ensure that producers take responsibility for the life-cycle costs of their products. That may include making sure that manufacturers use packaging material that can easily be recycled. We need effective product stewardship regulation. That will have costs for individuals. You will need to consider that cost when you purchase something. Part of this is consumer awareness. For our domestic recycling systems to work, consumers need to understand what they can recycle and how it should be recycled. Effective consumer awareness will give Australians a choice when they're purchasing products so that they can choose the environmental footprint of their everyday purchases. Consumer awareness will provide economic support to producers who are genuinely trying to increase the environmental sustainability of their products. Labelling should be much clearer, indicating what is recyclable and what is not, so that we know what bins to send something to. Consumer awareness will ensure proper disposal and sorting of rubbish by families. Hopefully that will create less stress and an easier job for recycling operators. Australia's plastic recycling capacity is lower now than it was in 2005, and that is a national disgrace. A recent expert study shows that plastic in the world's oceans is expected to triple by 2040—to triple in the next 20 years. By 2050, it is estimated that the weight of plastic in the oceans will exceed the weight, the biomass, of fish. Eight million tonnes of plastic end up in our oceans each year, and that, as microplastics, is appearing in 50 per cent of some fish and marine birds. And this is why we need to do so much more. (Time expired) 15:55 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I applaud the government for this bill, the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020. It's a good bill. It's good that we're taking responsibility for our waste. It's good that we're moving towards a circular economy. It's also good to see all of Australia's governments have been able to agree on something. So I think this is a positive initiative. However, regrettably, it's a very small step. And when I say we're moving towards a circular economy, it's a very small step in that regard, and it's a missed opportunity to address a number of other really important related issues. I encourage the government to turn its mind—I see the minister coming into the chamber right now; I'd ask the minister to turn his mind—to other, equally important dimensions to this broader issue. For a start, we need much better product stewardship law in this country. I note we do have the Product Stewardship Act 2011. I note that it has recently been reviewed and the government will be responding to that review, and acting on it, hopefully. I would remind honourable members what this mysterious 'product stewardship' is. It's an approach to managing the impacts of different products and materials, acknowledging that those involved in producing, selling, using and disposing of products have a shared responsibility to ensure those products and materials are managed in a way that reduces their impact, throughout their life cycle. It's particularly relevant to commodities that you can't, basically, put in your kerbside recycling bin. Things like tyres, mattresses, batteries and e-waste are all good examples. The problem with the current act is that it's a combination of voluntary, co-regulatory and mandatory provisions, when, really, I suggest the Commonwealth should introduce mandatory product stewardship for all necessary items and not be relying on voluntary measures. The fact is that the current voluntary targets have simply failed to deliver results. In fact, the National Waste and Recycling Industry Council would be pleased to see mandatory stewardship laws, mandatory measures that would ensure whole-of-life consideration of a product by the manufacturer: for example, the labelling and packaging requirements or the requirements relating to recycling, recovering, treating and disposing of products—basically, giving the producer of an item ownership of that item right to the end. I'd also like to see a ban on single-use plastics, and I'm confident that I speak for a great many Australians—in particular, in my own electorate of Clark—who want to see decisive action and a ban on single-use plastics. Of course, this bill today does not ban single-use plastics. This bill would have been a good opportunity to implement a phase-out of single-use plastics, including of soft plastics like Glad wrap, to use a brand name; of plastic bottles, when, indeed, we could return to the lovely days of glass bottles and only glass bottles, even glass milk bottles; and an opportunity of doing away with single-use takeaway containers, single-use knives and forks, single-use cigarette filters and microplastics that are made of goods that can't be recycled. We also need the Commonwealth to set the example and take the lead. In fact, peak waste-management bodies have consistently called for the Commonwealth government to take the lead by committing to procurement of recycled materials. The export ban should have been seen as an opportunity to create genuine Australian markets for Australian recycled materials. For example, it would be easy to mandate that federal government departments use recycled materials in things like road surfacing and street furniture—material used in construction. I suggest a mandatory 30 per cent target for procurement of recycled goods by federal agencies would assist in the creation of a strong remanufacturing sector and show leadership for state and local governments, who hopefully would legislate their own mandatory requirement for the minimum amount of recycled materials. To that end, earlier this year I moved a private member's bill. It was the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Sustainable Procurement Principles) Bill 2020. That, in fact, did require in the bill that at least 30 per cent of a government agency's procurement of goods for a financial year be recycled. Importantly, my private member's bill also requires government entities to purchase consistent with sustainable procurement principles. In particular, the purchase of goods or property that can be re-used, repaired or recycled should be considered when making procurement decisions. It also said that government agencies should use goods that include recycled should be given preference when making procurement decisions. Hopefully, you can achieve a lot more than 30 per cent. Also, abide by the sustainable procurement principle that environmental impacts should be minimised when making procurement decisions by choosing goods or services that have lower adverse impacts associated with any stage of production, use or disposal. Finally, government agencies should consider that fair and ethical sourcing practices should be applied when making procurement decisions by ensuring that suppliers of goods and services are complying with social and legislative obligations, including obligations to employees. This all sounds well and good and sounds like just the sort of thing we should be pursuing, but that bill was not selected for debate and decision by the House of Representatives, and I think that was a great decision by the government. As far as I'm aware, it didn't have the support of the opposition either. I suggest we also need to harmonise our container deposit scheme. I thank the minister for the time he took several weeks ago to brief me on how we got to this stage nationally with our myriad container deposit schemes. I do note the explanation from the minister that the schemes in all of the different jurisdictions have all sorts of different histories and there are all sorts of sensitivities, and it might not be as simple as having a national container deposit scheme. But I do take this opportunity to urge the minister again that, if we're going to rely on harmonising existing schemes rather than having a national scheme, the pressure is on the federal government to harmonise those schemes as quickly as possible. It does seem that that is on the horizon now that every jurisdiction has or is getting a container deposit scheme, I think we have a very real prospect, with strong leadership from the federal government to, indeed, harmonise those schemes. I'll also raise something which may not have been raised in this place before: the merit of making appliances repairable. Now, this has been raised with me by a number of constituents. They are dissatisfied with the fact that you can just go to one of the big shops like Kmart, or Target or Big W and buy a toaster or jug for 10 bucks or a rice cooker for 20 bucks. They are pretty good except, when they break down, they can't be repaired and they're thrown out, creating waste—often waste that contains quite precious commodities and is highly toxic in the environment. I would note that the EU has a right-to-pair regime. It requires manufacturers to create repairable goods and to provide spare parts for up to 10 years. I think there is great merit in the government considering doing that. It's all well and good, particularly if you are on a low income. It's very handy to be able to buy a very cheap kitchen appliance, but, if the right to repair was cleverly designed, it would probably be cheaper to repair one of those items than to go buy another $10 toaster, $15 rice cooker or whatever. I'll wrap up by making the point that, as good as this bill is—and it is good—it doesn't go very far. The cynical amongst us might say there's a little bit of greenwashing going on here, because there are so many pressing environmental issues in this country that aren't being addressed. The obvious one is climate change. In the Federation Chamber earlier today I spoke about the urgent need for strong action on climate change, and I laid out my argument, in the little time I had there, that, really, we should be on a credible pathway to 100 per cent renewable energy in this country and to zero net carbon emissions, and that that is in fact achievable. Renewable energy is affordable—in fact, it's cheaper than building new coal-fired power stations or gas-fired power stations—and it's reliable. This nonsense that renewables are good only when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining is a nonsense because there are so many technologies that can plug the gaps or can store the energy from when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. Pumped hyrdo is probably the most obvious example, but there are other technologies that can be used to store energy when there's an abundance, say during the day and when the wind is blowing. There are so many other technologies, such as geothermal, wave, tidal and green hydrogen. There is the still unaddressed issue that this country needs a whole new environmental legislative framework. It was quite upsetting the other day, in the most recent sitting week, when the government went ahead with its push to devolve the EPBC Act to state and territory governments. The state and territory governments have proven time and time again that they can't be trusted to look after threatened species and the other issues covered in the EPBC Act. This country needs a whole new legislative framework, one that is at the national level, is totally independent and takes the ability to intervene away from the federal minister. It needs a legislative framework that will genuinely protect our flora and fauna, in particular our threatened species; our rivers; and so on. Finally, on what is needed for the environment in this country, apart from looking after waste, apart from addressing climate change and apart from having a whole new environmental legislative framework to protect flora and fauna, we've also got to do something finally about animal welfare in this country. Time and time again it has been shown that the state and territory governments can't be trusted to care for our animals. Time and time again it has been shown that self-regulation by certain industries can't be trusted. What a nonsense it is that the egg industry says that 'free range' is no more than 10,000 hens per hectare—that is, one square metre per chook. It should be at least 10 times that. There's an example of where an industry can't be trusted to be making its own rules or, at least, guidelines. How many times do we have to see the cruelty to animals in the racing industry, which is self-regulating, where animal welfare is mixed up with gambling and profit? It doesn't work. So there's another area to do with the environment and our flora and fauna where the government needs to act. We need to have an independent national office of animal welfare that is removed from the government so it can't be interfered with by the government, that can look at animal welfare in all its forms in this country and that has powers to investigate and to punish those who would be cruel to our animals. I'm talking not just about the live animal export industry. I'm talking about animal welfare in all its forms—on the farm, in the home and in the gambling and recreation space. It needs to be a body that can crack down on systemic cruelty in the thoroughbred racing industry, the steeplechasing industry, the trotting industry, the greyhound racing industry, the industrial production of eggs and pork and the puppy farms that are churning out puppies and kittens. No wonder places like Ten Lives, in my electorate of Clark, are bracing not only for the spring kitten-breeding season, which is upon us now, but for all the dumped kittens they'll get a month after Christmas, when the novelty has worn off and families move on. I've covered a lot of ground here. I do want to commend the government for this particular bill. It is good as far as it goes. But, heavens, there's a lot of work still to be done. There's a lot of work to be done with mandatory product stewardship laws, banning single-use plastics, having greater Commonwealth procurement of recycled goods, harmonising our container deposit schemes and making appliances reparable, and then there are the big issues: fixing the climate, protecting our environment and protecting our animals in particular. (Quorum formed) 16:13 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne [by video link] We've got a huge problem with waste in this country, and a lot of it has to do with plastics. We use them once and they're designed to be thrown away. What we've found out is that when you throw them away a lot of them end up in the ocean. Worse than that, a lot of the time we put plastics into the recycling bin thinking they're going to be turned into something else but find out that our recycling system is an absolute mess and a lot of plastic ends up getting dumped. Sometimes it gets put on a ship, is shipped to another country and is then dumped. Now we have the outrageous situation where even here in Australia there is a proposal to just burn it, supposedly turning it into energy, instead of either finding ways to recycle it or never producing it in the first place. So, when the government said they were going to take action on the enormous amount of waste in Australia, and in particular take some action on recycling, a lot of us were pleased. We were pleased that the government, after many long years of turning a blind eye to this problem, might actually come up with a proposal to do something. It's pretty clear what it is you need to do if you want to get on top of the waste crisis; in particular, the plastics crisis but also the other forms of waste and the fact that we don't recycle them. It's pretty clear what you'd need to do. Firstly, you'd need to ban single-use plastics—single-use plastics that we see in the form of wrapping for vegetables in supermarkets and sometimes even wrapping for individual vegetables and fruit, and single-use plastics that we see in many forms of packaging. They are made to be used once and then thrown away. Now, of course, there might be some instances where single-use plastics are critical, for medicines and the like, and of course we should have exceptions for those, but for broader use we should not have single-use plastics, because there are alternatives. To allow a product to be made that is designed to be used once and then thrown away is wrong. So we should ban single-use plastics. If we're serious about tackling the recycling crisis and the waste crisis, we would do that. Secondly, we would also make the corporations that produce a lot of this waste, whether it's plastic, glass or cans, responsible for looking after it at the end of its life. This is sometimes called product stewardship, which means that you can take the products back to the place that they were made, or to some other place, and they're responsible for looking after them—because, if you've produced something that could end up as waste, then you've got a responsibility to look after it when it reaches the end of its cycle, because you've made some money out of it. So one obvious form of something like that is a container deposit scheme, getting a deposit back on your bottles and your cans, something that the Greens have been pushing for a very, very long time but that the government hasn't yet taken action on nationally. That is one thing you could do. You could also start making other corporations responsible for taking back some of their products—either take them back to recycle them or have them required, by law, to repair them. That would be a good thing to do to ensure that products that were produced by corporations had to be looked after at the end of their life as well; you couldn't just produce them and then close your eyes to them. So you'd ban single-use plastics and you'd have some laws that required corporations to look after the waste product at the end, either by taking it back or fixing it, or by finding a way to turn it into something else. Also, thirdly, if you were serious, you'd put recycling targets in law. We've had a good look at this. The Greens, through Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, initiated a wide-ranging Senate inquiry into waste that had a good look at what you would need to do. One of the things that became clear was that, unless the corporations who are responsible for producing a lot of this waste are required by law to do something about it, voluntary action just won't work and won't be enough to tackle the crisis at the level that we need to tackle it. But this bill doesn't do any of those things. This bill does not do any of those things. What this bill does, though, is consistent with everything that the government has done so far, which is help give some money to big corporations and just hope they will do the right thing. So, in this bill, there are no required standards imposed on corporations who produce waste. The only thing in this bill is that waste can't be sent overseas. That's basically the main legally binding obligation. There are no legally required recycling targets, but there is a ban on sending waste overseas. Part of the problem with that is that it could, in fact, work against itself. If you don't have a great recycling industry in Australia and you don't have all those legally required obligations that I've just set out for big corporations to take back some of their waste and turn it into something else or to find ways of not using single-use plastics and instead come up with recyclable materials—if you don't make the top of the chain responsible for dealing with the waste they create—plus you just ban everything going overseas, that might in fact, counterproductively, drive the so-called waste-to-energy industry, which just means burning plastics and turning them into electricity. Because there will then be a stack of it here on Australian shores and there won't be any legally required target for less waste to be produced, there will be places looking for ways to deal with this waste and they'll be coming up with not ways of recycling it, not ways of reducing its use in the first place, but ways of just burning it—and that is crazy. That is crazy. But this bill, because it doesn't contain those other elements, might in fact drive the burning of plastics here in Australia. It's consistent with the government's approach to everything, which is to not put legally binding requirements on corporations but just give them a bit of money and hope they'll do the right thing. It hasn't worked when it comes to trickle-down economics and it's not going to work when it comes to recycling, either. Let's go back to some of the points that I made at the start. How ironic that the biggest legislative reform to waste management in a decade doesn't even mention plastic packaging. We all know what a problem that is. We all see it in the supermarkets and in the shops: single-use plastic packaging designed to wrap something up and then be thrown away, or single-use plastic bags. We all know it's a problem. This bill does not deal with that. Everyone is trying to do the right thing on this front. People keep their plastic bags in their cars and reuse them when they go to the shops. We try to cut down by remembering to take our bags. We don't always remember to do it, but everyone tries their best. At the end of the day, one thing we could do is not produce these plastic pieces of waste in the first place. Why? It's estimated that at least eight million tonnes—tonnes!—of plastic makes its way into our oceans every year. Eighty per cent of marine debris is plastic. Numerous studies have clearly shown that the majority of plastic pollution found on Australian beaches is produced and consumed locally. So most of the plastic that our marine life eat and that kills them, and the plastic that ends up washing up on our shores as well as into our oceans, is produced and consumed locally, but this legislation will go nowhere near the urgent action needed to combat Australia's contribution to the plastic pollution currently choking our oceans. These bills could be a valuable opportunity for the government to not only strengthen our response to the waste crisis, but, importantly, to address how we produce and consume waste, particularly plastic, in the first place. That's why the Greens believe that, if the government were serious about tackling plastic pollution, the Prime Minister would amend this bill to deal with those points that I raised at the start. When the Senate inquiry looked not only at this legislation but at the issue of waste generally, there was consistent feedback from stakeholders, including environment groups, local government and the recycling industry, that these bills don't go far enough to properly tackle our waste crisis and, in particular, our contribution to plastics in the ocean. Without product stewardship, which, as I said, is making corporations responsible for the products they produce, and without mandatory targets, which is what key recycling industry stakeholders and local governments are not only asking for but saying is required if you want to drive down waste in Australia, this bill really does nothing more than repackage some existing obligations on producers in Australia. Also, it really just continues the government's theme of dressing up something in an announcement, but, when you look at the detail, you find it doesn't actually do the job and in fact might work against it. The Greens have got answers to this. We have led on this in this parliament and we have a private member's bill in the Senate that would go far enough and that has received overwhelming support from the recycling industry, from the environment groups and from various governments across Australia. Our bill would introduce mandatory national targets—a requirement that corporations actually do something rather than hope that they will, the hope that hasn't turned out very well so far. Our bill would ban the most problematic single-use plastics found in the ocean. And we strongly believe that, unless there are binding provisions, we are going to be back here again in a few years having the same discussion. The government should adopt the Greens bill, but, if the government is not going to adopt the Greens bill and side with our war on waste, then the government needs to accept our amendments. The Greens have circulated a number of amendments in the Senate that will strengthen this legislation. They would establish a mandatory product stewardship scheme for plastics and packaging and they would also ban the most problematic single-use plastics. We are pleased that the government has already taken note of some of the amendments, and we have seen them here in the House, but a lot more needs to be done. We urge the government to agree to some more, sensible amendments to the bill, because it will make a real difference to our oceans and, at the end of the day, that is what this is about. This is about making sure our oceans, amongst other things, are healthy. This is a big, big part of the reason for this bill. It is to stop plastic ending up in the oceans, as well as other places—our waterways, our creeks and our rivers—and to stop it ending up in landfill. But we especially want to make sure that our plastics don't end up in the oceans killing marine life. To do that we're going to need a ban on single-use plastics, because that is a big part of the problem, and we're going to need some legally binding requirements on the producers and on the industry in this area. Just hoping that big corporations will do enough hasn't worked in the past. It's not going to work this time. The government has already, clearly, judging by the bill and the amendments, listened to the Greens in some respects and has adopted some of our proposals. We urge the government to pick up the rest of them. If the government doesn't want to do it here, we will move them in the Senate. Tis may be our best chance to tackle waste and to rein in the pollution that is choking up our oceans and our waterways. I urge the government, and the opposition and the crossbench, to have a close look at the Greens' amendments to this bill that we'll be pursuing in the Senate so that it has some teeth and we finally take some real action on recycling; make big corporations have some responsibility for looking after the products they sell, and make money out of, when they reach the end of their lives; and, most importantly, make sure we look after our oceans. 16:26 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I'm very pleased to sum up the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 and associated bills. These laws will become Australia's first-ever National Recycling Act. These are significant bills which I've had the privilege of helping to develop alongside my friend and colleague the Minister for the Environment, Sussan Ley, and alongside the recycling sector, environmental groups, industry and experts. These bills will give Australia, for the first time, a comprehensive and national framework to improve recycling, reduce waste and achieve better resource recovery. I thank honourable members who have contributed to the debate on these bills. These bills will accomplish better environmental outcomes in Australia and across our region, keeping waste out of landfill and out of our waterways and oceans. These bills will also achieve economic benefits. Australia will be creating value by transforming waste streams back into valuable resources. This better, smarter way of dealing with waste creates jobs, value and prosperity. Our nation can become more self-reliant and self-sufficient in key industries including manufacturing and remanufacturing. A few short years ago, indeed for most of Australia's history, federal governments in Canberra were not especially involved in waste and recycling. When Australians put their bins out on the kerb, what happens next has always been—and remains—a key responsibility of state governments, who, in turn, have often devolved it down to their local councils. Yet there are many reasons why our government is the first federal government in Australia's history to step so heavily into waste and recycling policy. Recent events have proven that there are, increasingly, national and international aspects to waste and recycling. When we see waste here in Australia being shipped not just around the world but also trucked or transported hundreds or thousands of kilometres around our nation, often past suitable recycling facilities, in order to take advantage of the different levies or rules or the arbitrage that exists between the states, then we know that the patchwork of state laws is letting us down. Furthermore, state governments are not as naturally equipped to deal with aspects of international trade, including sudden external shocks when other countries change the rules on what recyclable materials they will receive. So this bill implements our strong decision to stop the export of waste glass, mixed plastics, whole tyres and contaminated paper and cardboard from Australia to all other countries. As the Prime Minister has said, it's our waste, it's our responsibility. And it must be noted that the Prime Minister's personal interest and passion for this area of policy is another factor in our focus on recycling. I want to thank the Prime Minister for his keen interest and for making me the Commonwealth's first-ever assistant minister with responsibility for waste reduction. The Prime Minister knows that recycling is one of those challenges where the coalition's record of practical action and achieving tangible outcomes can make all the difference. The Prime Minister, I am sure, also sees the opportunity for Australia to help our friends and neighbours in our region, particularly in the Pacific, to deal with their serious challenges when it comes to reducing waste and our shared challenge of reducing maroon debris in our oceans. Most importantly, the Prime Minister understands how important it is to the Australian people we represent that we achieve better outcomes in recycling. Australians don't want to see the contents of their recycling bins being rejected at overseas ports or hear that their mixed plastics have ended up in rivers or oceans because other countries' recycling processes couldn't adequately deal with them. Australians don't want to be shocked, as they have been too many times in recent years, to discover that the contents of their recycling bins were dumped at their local landfill right alongside their general rubbish. So, while the federal government is not taking overall constitutional responsibility for these policy areas, we know that we can use some tools available to us at the federal level of government to move the dial. We can move the dial through our leadership and through our engagement with the community, with industry and with other levels of government. We can use the opportunities available to us to make the case for stronger action, for more consistency and harmonisation in Australia's approach and for extending the planning horizons for recycling policy in our nation. That's why it was an important foundational step last year when the environment minister and I worked together with the states and territories and local government to agree on the National Waste Policy Action Plan. It sets ambitious targets with measurable milestones for reducing waste and improving recycling over the next 10 years and it clearly identifies who is responsible for leading, funding and taking various actions. Following the plastics summit earlier this year in Canberra, the Prime Minister at COAG secured the final agreement of all state and territory governments for the laws contained in this bill that will stop the export of the unprocessed or contaminated waste streams I listed earlier. In July, the government announced our Recycling Modernisation Fund, which, together with contributions from the states and industry, builds a $1 billion transformation of Australia's domestic waste and recycling facilities. In short, we're building, here in Australia, the recycling facilities and infrastructure we need to process our waste streams we've been sending offshore. We want to co-fund the local facilities we need in every state and territory around Australia—for instance, to sort mixed plastics, to process single-plastic polymers and to turn the recovered materials into pallets or other commodities that can be picked up and used by Aussie businesses, making the next generation of fantastic products. So, as these laws come into force together with the record investments for recycling funded in our federal budget and together with our other recycling announcements and reforms, Australians can start to gain confidence that, when they do the right thing and put something in the recycling bin, it will actually be recycled, it will be recovered as a resource and it will support jobs, our environment and our economy. Chapter 2 of this bill creates a framework for stopping the export of problematic, unprocessed or contaminated waste streams, including plastics, glass, paper, cardboard and tyres. The minister in her second reading speech outlined the operation of this framework. Future exports will be managed through a licensing and declaration scheme through an online portal and, as detailed by the minister, significant penalties are proposed for those who fail to comply with export requirements or who make false declarations. We also propose to publish the list of licence-holders for transparency that can help empower whistleblowing against anyone who tries to do the wrong thing. Chapter 3 of this bill turbocharges Australia's approach to product stewardship. This is about empowering industry and businesses to take responsibility for their products to encourage better design, better manufacturing outcomes and better recovery at the end of life for products. Product stewardship is probably best known to most Australians through successful schemes like Planet Ark's scheme for printer cartridges or MobileMuster for mobile phones. In fact, Australia's very first product stewardship law, created by the Howard government 20 years ago today, was the product stewardship act for oil. That scheme has grown so successfully that it now achieves the collection and recycling of over 300 million litres of dirty, used oil each year out the back of mechanics, service stations and factories. There are now dozens of schemes like that established in Australia, achieving significant success, yet it's also widely acknowledged, including in the recently released review of the existing Product Stewardship Act 2011, that product stewardship in Australia can achieve much more with the right improvements. Taking up the recommendations of our review, the government is enacting many significant reforms to turbocharge product stewardship and set it up to achieve much, much more over the next 10 years. While the existing act has been somewhat successful at encouraging the creation of new schemes, it would be fair to say that most existing schemes pertain to individual products or categories of product. We want to see product stewardship in Australia applied more widely and more ambitiously, particularly to resources and material streams. We want to see new schemes that can recover and recycle materials regardless of what products those materials are contained within, such as, for instance, schemes for agricultural plastics or soft-plastic packaging. To encourage more ambitious product stewardship in the years ahead, we're putting product stewardship at the heart of this new recycling act and we're expanding the existing objects of the act. Notably, we're bringing sustainable product design into the objects of the act to encourage producers to properly consider their product through the life-after-use lens, from design and materials used through to recycling, remanufacturing and disposal. We're also proposing to make it easier for industry and businesses to set up schemes and to have them accredited. These reforms are accompanied by two other very important measures. First, we've established Australia's first Product Stewardship Centre for Excellence to provide mentoring and advice from some of the best minds behind some of our existing successful schemes. Secondly, we're investing $20 million to support the creation of new schemes or the expansion of existing schemes through our National Product Stewardship Investment Fund. The bill also proposes reforms that will boost the benefits from having an accredited scheme and the effectiveness of schemes overall. For example, the existing act has always allowed the minister to publish a list of priority areas where the government wants to see new schemes created; we're strengthening that by granting the minister the power to set a ticking stopwatch whereby, if no scheme is presented to the government by the deadline, the government makes clear it is likely then to proceed to regulation. Gone are the days when priority items like batteries sit on a priority list for years without action being taken. The free-rider problem is also often raised as being a factor that can hold back the success of many schemes under the existing act, and that's why we're adding a new dimension to the priority list process, to give the minister a regular opportunity to celebrate schemes and organisations that are doing fantastic work but also to publicly call out free riders who are not participating in an accredited scheme that's available to them. I know that industry and consumers alike will welcome this indication that the federal government wants to embed a more active role here in encouraging scheme outcomes as well as the government setting out a formal process to publicly name and shame those that are letting us all down. Product stewardship done right has the potential to contribute significantly to Australia meeting many of our targets for 2030 under the National Waste Policy Action Plan. As a result of the reforms in this bill and the government's other initiatives and incentives, I expect to see dozens more product stewardship schemes spring into existing in Australia, I expect to see dozens more schemes become accredited and I expect to see many more schemes working closely with our government to stamp out issues like free-riding. Ultimately, I hope to see all these schemes become more successful, improving product design and increasing the recovery of products and materials that would otherwise be going to landfill. Otherwise, as the minister described in her second reading speech, our government stands poised to use the co-regulatory and mandatory powers contained in this bill whenever targeted interventions are needed. In the next stage of the debate, I'll place some further thanks on record, because there has been extensive consultation in developing this legislative package. In summing up, I simply want to observe that to live in Australia is to live in a sanctuary. It's true in so many ways, and it's reinforced by the events of this year. Australians are fortunate to be the custodians of both a country and a continent. That provides significant benefits to us, and it also entails significant responsibilities. By introducing Australia's first ever national recycling act, the Morrison government is taking significant and practical steps to fulfil Australia's responsibilities to our environment and to our nation's future. I commend these bills to the House. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 75 16:41 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I move: (1) Clause 67, page 67 (after line 21), after subclause (1), insert:    First priority list must cover packaging    (1A) The Minister’s priority list that the Minister is required to publish under subsection (1) before the end of the financial year ending on 30 June 2021 must include packaging in the list of products referred to in paragraph (1)(a), and set out information as required under paragraphs (1)(b), (c) and (d) in relation to packaging.    (1B) To avoid doubt, subsection (1A) does not prevent the Minister’s priority list from including products other than packaging.    (1C) For the purposes of this section, packaging includes:       (a) a container, wrapper, confining band or other thing in which a good is packed, or 2 or more goods are packed; and       (b) anything around which a good is wound or wrapped, or 2 or more goods are wound or wrapped; and       (c) a container that is designed to contain a liquid for human consumption (whether for the purposes of transporting or storing the liquid, or for the use or consumption of the liquid). This amendment picks up the broad question of whether the newly created minister's priority list will be effective in dealing with some of the most harmful and most disappointingly unrecycled types of waste. There's plenty of evidence that a listings mechanism, which encourages a voluntary response from an industry or group of producers, has been pretty ineffective to date. Packaging is a very good example of that. That's why this amendment proposes to put packaging back on the minister's priority list from the outset. While the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation is a worthy initiative, and there's no doubt its targets are worthy, unfortunately so far APCO has not been a vehicle for significant change. So far we're not on track to achieve the key APCO targets which are, in effect, the agreed targets under the National Waste Policy Action Plan. These include the elimination of harmful and unnecessary plastic products by 2025. They include achieving 50 per cent of recycled content in packaging and a 70 per cent rate of plastic recycling all by 2025. At the moment, the rate of plastic recycling for packaging is only 16 per cent. In a few months, it will be 2021, and 2025 is not far away. We should stop kidding ourselves that we are making great progress towards the 2025 targets—we're not. APCO is effectively a voluntary scheme. To the extent that it does involve some obligations, those are supposed to be enforced through the National Environment Protection Measures, the NEPM, but, to a large extent, that hasn't happened. As I observed in the second reading debate, it's a shame that the NEPM review couldn't be landed in advance of the reforms we're considering. I accept there has been some positive movement in the last year or so. APCO has worked hard to increase its membership and the government has just announced that APCO will move towards accreditation of the existing voluntary scheme, but this is very belated progress, and it remains to be seen what it will achieve. For all of those reasons, this amendment would add packaging to the minister's priority list from the outset. If the new priority list will be an effective and genuine means of achieving change, as the assistant minister has just described, then why not get started on one of the biggest problem categories right now? The minister will still get to set the required actions and the timetable, as has been described. If the government is confident about the positive change that's in prospect through these mechanisms, then why hesitate to add packaging to the list? Australia is a sanctuary. Our environment is precious. When it comes to waste and recycling, we haven't done tremendously well. We're not doing well. There's a huge amount of plastic in our oceans, washing up on our coast, and a lot of it is from us. We do very poorly at 12 per cent of plastic recycling across the board and 16 per cent of plastic packaging. That's not good enough. We don't really have a lot of reason to be sanguine or to be optimistic about it. Considering how poorly Australia does when it comes to plastic pollution, considering how little progress we've made and considering how far off track we are with respect to the National Waste Policy Action Plan's plastic and packaging targets, there really is no good reason or excuse to avoid adding packaging to the minister's priority list right now, which is precisely what this amendment seeks to do. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House. 16:44 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah The amendment moved by the member for Fremantle is welcome, and I support it. Item 1 will insert new requirements on the minister to publish packaging products on the minister's priority list. Currently, packaging is dealt with under the National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure established by the National Environmental Protection Council in 1997 and also under the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation, or APCO, co-regulatory arrangements, which in 2018 listed a number of targets for packaging. Packaging, especially plastics, is one of the leading contributors to waste in our oceans and elsewhere in the environment. Community alarm at the deterioration in the health of our oceans and the extent of the issue means we must escalate our ambition in dealing with the problem. This amendment will ensure that packaging is a matter of priority for the government and ensure that attention is on the steps industry and APCO must take to deal with this issue. This bill is an opportunity to make headway on a pervasive and complex problem, and we must ensure we get it right. This amendment will help in doing that. 16:46 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I thank the members opposite for their contributions. As flagged, I will shortly be moving some government amendments that may address some of the issues that have been raised by the opposition and others. Regarding packaging and the proposal to add packaging to the minister's priority list, the government does not support those amendments. I certainly do understand the desire to see fast progress on packaging—we share that desire, and I'll return in a moment to what the government is doing—but it's worth really focusing on what this particular proposal means. Adding packaging to the minister's priority list does not make logical sense and leads to a somewhat redundant outcome. Let's be clear why that is. The minister's priority list is a mechanism to do one of two things. It's either a government encouraging industry and experts to create and bring forward a new scheme or it's a government flagging that regulation is likely to be considered in the future. Right now for packaging there is already a scheme and there's already regulation. In fact, there's more than just regulation. There are laws and, as has been referred to by other speakers, the National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011 and its state counterparts. If we think through for a moment how it would ultimately play out if this proposal were adopted, the minister would put packaging on the minister's priority list and then after, say, 12 months the minister would have to come out and ask, 'Has anyone come to the scheme?' Of course, everybody would say, 'No, because there is already one,' at which point the minister might say, 'What if I regulate? That's the other option available to me,' and everybody would have to reply, 'There are already regulations and laws, and they existed before you put this on the priority list.' So you can understand, I think, by going through that process, why I see that this would be a potentially redundant outcome if the parliament were to go ahead and do what is proposed. In my view, it's the wrong lever to pull. The real action, I suppose, is already further progressed, much further along than a listing might achieve. So I say respectfully to members opposite that there are more-effective actions that we can take, and that our government is acting in the following three ways. First, the government has officially endorsed the strong and ambitious 2025 packaging targets of the Australian Packaging Covenant, including for all packaging in Australia to be recyclable, reusable or compostable, and to achieve 70 per cent recycling rates for packaging by 2025. So we're backing Australia's packaging targets and we're helping the progress being made there, through our policies and our reforms and by way of our government funding. We've negotiated to increase some of the packaging targets and we've enshrined the targets at the highest levels of the National Waste Policy Action Plan, agreed to by all governments in Australia. Second, in relation to the packaging scheme we already have in Australia, the bills we're debating now will help that scheme to be a better and stronger scheme. The Packaging Covenant have publicly said that, as soon as parliament passes these laws, they'll take advantage of our reforms, they'll seek accreditation of the scheme under our new laws and they'll seek to utilise some new powers and mechanisms contained in our reforms, such as the ability to work closely with the minister to address issues like free riding. Third, in relation to the packaging laws we already have in Australia, which have been referenced, if one believes that those laws are in need of improvement—specifically I call out the potential issue of enforcement given that no Australian state has taken enforcement action under their laws in recent years—then obviously the best course of action is to directly amend those laws. I note that our government is reviewing the NEPM for used packaging right now. That's underway. There are other government actions which will significantly improve the recycling of packaging. Our government is working on finalising a national plastics plan right now, and it's funding the creation of a new product stewardship scheme. The government is working tirelessly on our nation's priorities for waste reduction across all waste streams, including packaging. Those actions I just outlined, in my view, are the more effective ways to tackle packaging issues, and that's what our government is focused on. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Fremantle be disagreed to.

The House divided. [16:55]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 50 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 47 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Burns, J Broadbent, RE Byrne, AM Buchholz, S Champion, ND Christensen, GR Chesters, LM Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Evans, TM Collins, JM Goodenough, IR Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Fitzgibbon, JA Howarth, LR Gorman, P Irons, SJ Kearney, G Joyce, BT Keogh, MJ Laming, A Khalil, P Landry, ML King, MMH Marino, NB Mitchell, RG Morton, B Mulino, D O'Brien, LS Neumann, SK O'Dowd, KD O'Connor, BPJ Vasta, RX O'Neil, CE Wallace, AB Payne, AE Wicks, LE Ryan, JC Wilson, RJ Swanson, MJ Wilson, TR Thwaites, KL Wood, JP Vamvakinou, M Young, T Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

 16:58 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (16), as circulated, together. Leave not granted. Mr EVANS 61378 I move government amendment (1): (1) Clause 2, page 2 (cell at table item 1, column 2), omit the cell, substitute: The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. The government has developed these amendments in consultation with the opposition and some crossbench members. I'd like to place on the record my thanks to some people and organisations that have assisted in this task of getting Australia its first national recycling act. Thank you again to all honourable members who've contributed to this debate. In particular I want to place on record my thanks to the shadow assistant minister for the environment for his valuable engagement and input. I know from the discussions we had together on the drafting of these bills and on broader policy aims that the shadow minister is as driven and passionate about improving recycling as I am. Now, more than ever, Australian want to see their representatives working across federal-state divisions and across all parties in the national interest. The legislation before the House today broadly reflects that spirit of collegiality. These bills have also benefited significantly from the insights of key industry groups led by Pete Shmigel and the Australian Council of Recycling, Rose Reid and the National Waste and Recycling Industry Council, and Gayle Sloan and the Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association of Australia. I thank everyone I have engaged with—here are so many, from the recycling sector, environmental groups, industry up and down supply chains, experts and consumers—for all of their valuable time and insights, for their assistance in drafting these laws and for their broad, wide-spread support of these bills. I also want to give a special shout-out after speaking last week with Pip Kiernan. She told many how her father, Ian Kiernan, the founder of Clean Up Australia had talked for almost thirty years about the potential power of product stewardship in recognising that there's value inherent in all the things that some people sometimes treat like rubbish. I did have the pleasure of meeting Ian a few times before he sadly passed, and I feel honoured to think how he'd be pleased to see Australia taking these steps and, in particular, the reforms to turbo-charge product stewardship. The proposed amendments to the Recycling And Waste Reduction Bill 2020 will make a number of changes, including to change the time frame for a review of the act from 10 years to 5 years and to change the commencement date to the day after royal assent. The proposed amendments will also strengthen the objects of the act and will replace, for instance, in the objects of the act the phrase 'promote the circular economy' to 'develop the circular economy'. We'll insert the word 'remanufacture' to clarify that the remanufacturing of products is so important for a circular economy, and we'll change the meaning of the list of responsible persons for products to clarify that manufacturers, importers, distributors, designers and other persons are taking responsibility for their products. The proposed amendments that we are moving today will also increase transparency around the granting of export licences and exemptions and will require quarterly reporting of information covering exemptions and export licences that have been applied for and granted. This information is also required to be published on the website of the Department of the Agriculture, Water and the Environment. The proposed amendments will also improve the minister's priority list process in two ways. Firstly, they will ensure that when something sits on the list and the time frame for recommended action passes, the minister will be required to either make a further recommendation or pursue regulatory options available under the laws, which might include, for instance, proceeding to develop a co-regulatory product stewardship scheme or a mandatory approach. In concluding, I'd like to again thank the Minister for the Environment for her support and everyone in our teams in the department and here for their hard work in getting these recycling laws to this point. I commend government amendment (1) to the House. 17:03 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Labor supports amendment (1). We've been glad to work with the government, particularly with the assistant minister and his staff, in considering a range of changes, some of which were put forward by Labor and some of which have been raised by the waste, recycling and resource management sector. Amendment (1) makes a change to the package of bills that essentially adjusts the timing of the bill, in terms of when it becomes operational. It's something that the assistant minister explained in our engagement with him about it. It seems to be an understandable change that means that the package comes into effect in a more timely way, and Labor will support amendment (1). The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 The question is that amendment (1) be agreed to. Question agreed to. 17:04 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move government amendment (2): Clause 3, page 2 (line 23), omit "promote", substitute "develop". 17:04 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I thank the Minister for the Environment and the Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management for moving these amendments and taking the time to meet with me. I had originally intended to move my own amendments but many of these are sufficiently resolved by the government amendments. In relation to amendment No. 2 it will now read 'to develop' a circular economy instead of just 'to promote', which is consistent with my own concerns and those of the industry, that we get on with the job of developing a circular economy. We must ensure that we tackle this issue head-on and are audacious with our goals. Just like our peers in the European Union, we can and should develop a circular economy in Australia. 17:05 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner It's extraordinary that the minister gave no reasons why the House should support this amendment. The minister has moved an amendment but said nothing in favour of it. The House declined to give leave for the amendments to be considered together. They need to be considered separately. We're taking that attitude because the government has consistently moved the Leader of the Opposition be no longer heard, and so on that basis it's up to the government to actually argue for things they believe in, rather than hope that the parliament will assent to amendments which simply have no government backing. 17:06 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane For the point of clarification and for the record these are amendments that were negotiated with the opposition, and some of them are based on proposals that were made by the opposition. They're in terms that were put by the opposition in their first draft amendment. I spoke to each of the amendments in detail on moving the first amendment and I think that they speak for themselves. 17:07 Mr BURKE DYW Watson It's important for the Australian people that this parliament is not simply deals or agreements, or the fact that the opposition has supported something doesn't in any way take away the obligation on a minister in this place to explain, and put on the Hansard, the reasons why an amendment should be supported. The fact that a speech was given on amendment No. 1 gives us no reason whatsoever to understand what the particular reasons are for amendment No. 2. My concern is that we may have a situation here right now where the minister at the table doesn't in fact know what amendment No. 2 does. It would be an outrageous slur if it were true. If you want cooperation in this place do your job and stand up and explain, for each of the amendments, why they should be supported. That's all you have to do. It is, in fact, your job to do them one at a time. Don't come in here expecting cooperation when the government offers none. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 I thank the Manager of Opposition Business and I just remind the Manager of Opposition Business to address his remarks through the chair. 17:08 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I spoke to each of these amendments very specifically as I moved the first amendment, so the House does have it on record what each of these amendments pertain to. I understand that the Manager of Opposition Business wasn't in the chamber when I did it. For the sake of clarity, amendment No. 2 is to change clause 3. We are speaking about the objects of the act—to replace the word 'promote' with the word 'develop' in relation to a circular economy. 17:09 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Labor will be supporting amendment No. 2. It changes, in the objects of the bill, the word 'promote' to the word 'develop', as the assistant minister explained. This is a change that was raised during the consultation phase on the bill by the sector. It's about ensuring that, with this package, rather than it being the case that the objects are promoted or advanced in that encouraging or promotional way, some of the changes are actually developed, and that's why the sector felt that this was a meaningful change, from 'promote' to 'develop'. We accept that. Clearly, the government does too. And, on that basis, we will support the amendment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 The question is that amendment (2) be agreed to. Question agreed to. 17:10 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move government amendment (3): Clause 3, page 3 (line 6), after "reuse,", insert "remanufacture,". It pertains to clause 3. Again, it's in relation to the objects of the act and it involves, after the word 'reuse' inserting the word 'remanufacture', given it's of critical importance to a circular economy. 17:10 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Labor will support this amendment, amendment (3). It's a pretty critical word-change, I suppose, from 'reuse' to 'remanufacture'. Just picking up on what the assistant minister said, if you're genuine about creating a circular economy, you've got to take things full circle. You've got to have materials and products that come all the way back around into new products, and reuse is part of the waste hierarchy but it's not really the key part as far as that circularity is concerned. 'Remanufacture' is a much better word because it picks up the idea that you're capturing, you're recovering, materials in a product that is no longer of use and has been disposed of, and, through some reprocessing and other process, you're turning it into something else. So the sector again raised that 'remanufacture' was a better term. The government has heard that and made this amendment, which we will support. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 The question is that the amendment, (3), be agreed to. Question agreed to. 17:11 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move government amendment (4): Clause 3, page 3 (lines 9 to 11), omit "those responsible for using, designing, manufacturing and distributing products to take responsibility for those products", substitute "manufacturers, importers, distributors, designers and other persons to take responsibility for products". Again, it is a change to the objects of the act in clause 3. This clarifies those who are responsible for products, particularly for the purposes of product stewardship, and it includes the phrase 'manufacturers, importers, distributors, designers and other persons to take responsibility for products'. 17:12 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'll take the hint from the minister for environment and I'll try and vary what I have to say in support of this amendment. The key thing here is the omission in the amended version of those responsible for using. We do see too much emphasis put on consumers and members of the community when it comes to improving waste outcomes. It really shouldn't be up to ordinary members of the community. Their desire to see much better outcomes when it comes to waste recycling and resource management is clear. They're actually doing most of the heavy lifting. The change that needs to be made is right at the other end of the spectrum—it's actually producers that need to take some responsibility for their products. There are many producers that take literally zero responsibility for the waste and disposal outcomes. There are some producers that take a little bit. But the reality is: producers need to take the large share of responsibility for what is going to happen to their products in the end—the circularity of those products—and this change reflects that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 The question is that amendment (4) be agreed to. Question agreed to. 17:13 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move government amendment (5): Clause 16, page 16 (lines 6 to 9), omit the paragraph beginning "The Minister must publish', substitute: The Minister must publish certain information on the Department's website about exemptions and export licences that have been granted, including the name of the holder of an exemption or licence, and the kind of regulated waste material that is covered by an exemption or licence. The Minister must also prepare a quarterly report containing this information. The amendment clarifies how publishing of certain information is to take place, including onto the department's website, and it specifies that the minister must also prepare a quarterly report containing this information. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 The question is that the amendment, (5), be agreed to. 17:14 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Labor will be supporting this amendment. It picks up one of a number of improvements in this space, and there are some amendments to come that achieve a similar end—and that's essentially to ensure that, where there is an exemption to the new export licence framework, there's proper transparency about why that exemption is being granted. The assistant minister, in the engagement we had with the government, made some points about striking the balance between, on the one hand, transparency and, on the other hand, some of the unintended consequences that might occur if information about exemptions was made available too widely or in an unhelpful way. I think, in the end, the changes that have been made do strike that balance. It is important that, where there are exemptions to this new export ban framework, people in the community and people in the industry can see why they have been granted, and that's why we will be supporting this amendment. Question agreed to. 17:15 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move government amendment (6): (6) Clause 65, page 64 (lines 11 to 25), omit the clause, substitute: 65 Publishing information about exemptions and export licences (1) The Minister must publish on the Department's website the following information in relation to each exemption and export licence granted by the Minister under Part 3 or 4: (a) the name of the holder of the exemption or licence; (b) each kind of regulated waste material covered by the exemption or licence; (c) the day the exemption or licence takes effect; (d) whether the exemption or licence remains in force for a specified period or until a specified event occurs. (2) However, the Minister must not publish any information under subsection (1) if the Minister is satisfied that: (a) there is a risk that publishing the information might substantially prejudice the commercial interests of a person; and (b) publishing the information is not in the public interest. This amendment will substitute a new clause 65 that requires the minister to publish on the department's website certain information. The original draft of the bill just pertained to export licences, and this makes the change to ensure that exemptions are also published. 17:15 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle As I said in relation to the previous amendment, this amendment continues to improve the way that exemptions and disclosures under the bill are made. I agree with the explanation given by the assistant minister, and we support this amendment. Question agreed to. 17:16 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move government amendment (7): (7) Page 64 (after line 25), at the end of Chapter 2, add: 65A Quarterly reports (1) The Minister must prepare a report in relation to exemptions and export licences for each quarter of each financial year. (2) The Minister must do so as soon as practicable after the end of each quarter of each financial year. (3) The report must contain: (a) the information set out in paragraphs 65(1) (a) to (d) for each exemption or export licence granted during that quarter; and (b) the information (if any) prescribed by the rules. (4) However, the Minister must not publish any information in the report if the Minister must not publish that information under section 65. Note: In some circumstances, the Minister must not publish information about exemptions or export licences on the Department's website (see subsection 65(2)). (5) The Minister must publish a copy of the report on the Department's website. This inserts a new clause 65A, which clarifies some of the requirements around the issuing of quarterly reports. For instance, subsection (2) will require the minister to prepare the quarterly report as soon as practicable after the end of each quarter of each financial year; subsection (4) will clarify that the minister must not publish any information in the report if the minister is not to publish it under clause 65 and so on. 17:17 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle We welcome government amendment (7) and we'll support it. It is important that this kind of reporting happens in a timely way. There have been examples in other areas of government where discretion in terms of the timing of reporting has allowed reports to come in late, to be delayed, or, in some cases, issued at times that might seem, to the casual observer, to be designed to ensure they don't get that much attention. I think the degree of certainty in this amendment is an improvement on the bill as it was first put forward, and we'll support the amendment. Question agreed to. 17:18 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move government amendment (8): (8) Clause 67, page 67 (lines 23 to 33), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) In preparing a Minister's priority list, the Minister must consult with: (a) each State and Territory; and (b) relevant Centres of Excellence (if any). This amendment relates to the preparation of the minister's priority list and makes it clear that consultation must occur with each state and territory and the federal government's new centre of excellence for product stewardship. 17:18 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle This is a significant change and I am grateful to the assistant minister and his staff for the way they engaged on this particular change. Amendment (8) and amendment (9) are related, and they go to the issue of how the minister will consult in preparing the minister's priority list, which is a significant change the government is making with respect to the product stewardship arrangements. While we don't think those changes, on the whole, go far enough or really grasp the nettle, it is important that the minister's priority list arrangements are as strong as they can be, and on that basis we support it. Whereas the draft form of the bill listed a whole series of bodies and sources of advice that the minister may engage with in reaching a decision about what goes on the minister's priority list and what actions and what timetable should apply, we felt that, for the minister's priority list to be in the best form and have the most rigour and effectiveness as one could expect, the minister's consultation with at least each state and territory and any relevant centres of excellence should be mandatory. That is what this change achieves, by shifting from 'may consult' to 'must consult' with respect to each state and territory and any relevant centres of excellence. The reference to any 'relevant centres of excellence' obviously looks to the fact that the government intends to establish the Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence, and there has been some information in the public domain about how that will be constituted. To some degree, you have to see the Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence in the context of what preceded it under Labor's form of the product stewardship arrangements, which was the Product Stewardship Advisory Group, an independent statutory body that existed to give advice to the minister and provide that kind of expertise. We don't feel the Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence is being established with quite the same standing and independence as the PSAG, but it is good to see this body being formed, and it's absolutely appropriate that the minister, in preparing the priority list, must consult with the new Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence, and on that basis we support the amendment. 17:21 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Under amendment (8) the minister will now be required to consult with each state and territory, which is an essential element which I certainly support. It is essential to ensure that Commonwealth actions are coordinated and that a strategic approach is brought to waste and recycling. Amendment (8) puts a clear requirement on the minister: they must consult with each state and territory and the relevant centre of excellence. Evidence received by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee from various proponents stressed that consultation must be conducted prior to the development of the ministerial priority list. This amendments clearly addresses that. I had originally proposed to move amendments that would establish a product stewardship advisory committee similar to what had previously existed. The committee has been superseded by the government's proposed centre of excellence, which would assume many of the same roles that I had proposed and more. I think it would possibly have been better for continuity and certainty if this body had been established in statute and the goings-on scrutinised by the parliament. To that end, I seek some clarification from the assistant minister or the Minister for the Environment in relation to the centre of excellence. Is it possible to confirm that the proposed centre for excellence will in fact operate independently? I understand it has seed funding for government. Will regular monitoring by the Auditor-General or the minister occur to ensure that it is effective in its duties in this very important area? 17:22 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I thank the member for her contribution, her question and her interest in this topic. As has recently been announced, the Morrison government has provided $1 million of seed funding to establish Australia's first product stewardship centre of excellence. I can confirm that it will play an independent advisory role in relation to the minister's priority list and it will also play an mentoring and development role. I am sure the member will be pleased to learn that the centre will be run by the University of Technology Sydney's Institute for Sustainable Futures, and it includes in the team some of Australia's most experienced and engaged experts in product stewardship, including some of the best brains behind some of the most successful schemes that we have here in Australia. We're talking about experts like Rose Read, who helped develop and set up MobileMuster, and John Gertsakis, who's the co-founder of the Ewaste Watch Institute. They bring a wealth of experience to the table. I note the member's interest in ongoing scrutiny of the work of the centre of excellence. There is a strong agreement—a memorandum of understanding, and an agreement between the department and the centre of excellence. There will be ongoing feedback between the centre of excellence and the minister in that annual product-listing process. And I can assure the member that any future minister operating in this space will absolutely have their door knocked down by people from industry, from businesses, from experts, from people who want to set up better or new product recycling schemes around Australia, and it will become incredibly apparent very early on to all of us if a centre of excellence isn't providing the support, the advice and the mentoring that they would be expecting. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 The question is that amendment (8) be agreed to. Question agreed to. 17:25 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move government amendment (9): (9)   Clause 67, page 67 (after line 33), after subclause (2), insert:    (2A)   In preparing a Minister’s priority list, the Minister may consult with one or more of the following:    (a)   persons or organisations involved in, or advocating for, best practice in relation to the reuse, remanufacture, recycling and recovery of products, waste from products and waste material;    (b)   industry groups;    (c)   consumer groups;    (d)   environmental groups;    (e)   local government authorities;    (f)   any other person or organisation the Minister considers should be consulted. Government amendment (9) dovetails neatly into the previous amendment that we spoke about, which talked about two places where the minister must consult in the preparation of the priority list. This amendment pertains to a list of entities that the minister may consult in creating that minister's listing process. It includes organisations or persons involved in, or advocating for, best practice in relation to product stewardship—industry groups, consumer groups, environmental groups, local governments and so on. 17:25 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle As the assistant minister has described, this really just makes up the second part of the consultation clause, clause 67, and is distinguished from the first part, which will be dealt with in amendment (8), because this is a list of categories of groups and persons that the minister 'may' consult with, as opposed to 'must' consult with. On that basis, we support the amendment. Question agreed to. 17:26 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move government amendment (10): (10)    Clause 67, page 68 (after line 1), after subclause (2), insert:    (2B)   In preparing a list of products for inclusion in a Minister’s priority list, the Minister must have regard to any relevant national waste policies or plans. This amendment states that, when preparing the minister's priority list, the minister must have regard to any relevant national waste policies or plans, such as the National Waste Policy Action Plan that I spoke about in my second-reading speech. 17:27 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle This is a particularly important amendment because, if the minister's priority list is to work in the way that the government has explained, there has to be a tight relationship between that list, as it's updated on an annual basis, and the National Waste Policy Action Plan. As I said earlier, the APCO targets in relation to packaging are incorporated within the National Waste Policy Action Plan. They are not just worthy targets, they are necessary targets. As I said before, the elimination of harmful and unnecessary plastic by 2025 is going to happen very soon. The minister's priorities will not be effective if, at various points along the way, the government and the minister aren't realistic about the progress that is being made. We are at 16 per cent of plastic packaging recycling now. If in 18 months we have crept our way up to 25 or 30 per cent, it's very hard to see how we can get to 70 per cent by 2025. At the moment, without considerable action that varies a great deal from what industry and producer groups have done today, it's pretty hard to make a case for saying that we will eliminate harmful and single-use plastics by 2025. It's really important that, as we watch those targets and their time lines, the minister's priority list picks up quite sharply and urgently the need to hasten things along if the 'tap the watch and waggle the finger' aspect of the changes that are being made doesn't produce the results lickety-split. Question agreed to. 17:26 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move government amendment (11): (11)    Clause 67, page 68 (line 12), omit “subsection (2)”, substitute “subsections (2) and (2A)”. This amendment is a consequential amendment to amendment (9). It amends clause 67 to reference our new subclauses that will have been asserted by way of amendment (9). The effect, basically, is that, when preparing the minister's priority list each financial year, the minister is able to have regard to the information obtained in their consultations with any of that list of people. 17:29 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle The assistant minister has explained this amendment about as well as it can be explained. It's ultra-technical and consequential, but necessary, and we will support it. Question agreed to. 17:30 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move government amendment No. (12): (12) Clause 67, page 68 (line 31), omit "may", substitute "if the recommended action has not been taken in relation to the product within the recommended time—must". This amendment relates to what happens when an item that's been on the minister's priority list times out, so to speak. We're essentially replacing the word 'may' with the word 'must' to strengthen the government's posture towards taking action at that point in time. 17:30 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle This is another amendment that I'm grateful to the assistant minister and the government for giving their consideration to. It is an important change, again. There's a big difference. It may not seem like a big difference out there in the world when you change the word 'may' to 'must', but there is a big difference. Certainly in this case we had a priority list in the past that hadn't been tremendously effective. Now we have a priority list that adds specific actions and a specific timetable, but, obviously, if the stopwatch gets to the end, as the assistant minister has described, and the minister has the wriggle room to embark on some further delay or some further consideration or to um and ah one way or another, the stopwatch doesn't really generate all that much. In this case, the addition of the word 'must' does at least mean that, where the minister has put on the minister's priority list a recommended action and got that stopwatch ticking away, at the end of it, the minister is required to do something. I think that, without that, the minister's priority list wouldn't be a very effective mechanism. That's why we asked for this amendment, and we certainly support it. Question agreed to. 17:32 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move government amendment No. (13): (13) Clause 92, page 96 (line 25), after "reuse,", insert "remanufacture,". Similar to a previous amendment, this relates to the objects of the act. After the word 'reuse' in clause 92, we propose inserting the word 'remanufacture'. 17:32 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I will cast my mind forward because, in the case of amendments (13), (14) and (15), the word 'reuse' is being changed to 'remanufacture'. I mentioned in relation to one of the earlier amendments that it's a change that the waste recycling and resource management sector identified as better describing what we need to see and better reflecting what needs to happen if we're to move towards a circular economy. On that basis, I support amendment (13). Question agreed to. 17:33 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move government amendment No. (14): (14) Clause 144, page 147 (line 16), after "reuse,", insert "remanufacture,". Very similar to the previous amendment, it's a consequential amendment after a similar wording change to the objects of the act to insert into clause 144 after the word 'reuse' the word 'remanufacture'. Question agreed to. 17:33 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move government amendment No. (15): (15) Clause 144, page 147 (line 26), after "reuse,", insert "remanufacture,". Similar to the last two amendments, this is a consequential amendment following a similar wording change in the objects of the act. In clause 144 we propose to insert after the word 'reuse' the word 'remanufacture'. Question agreed to. 17:34 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move government amendment No. (16): (16) Clause 185, page 181 (line 15), omit "be undertaken no later than 10 years", substitute "begin no later than 5 years". This amendment relates to the review of the act enshrined in the legislation or in the proposed bill. We are changing the words so that a review which would have otherwise been undertaken no later than 10 years after the commencement of the act will take place no later than five years after the commencement of the act. 17:34 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Again this is an important change. Under the Product Stewardship Act as it was, there was a requirement for a five-year statutory review, and in the first form of the bill it was suggested that that be moved to 10 years. We think, and I believe the sector is strongly of the view, that there should be a five-year review. The assistant minister made the point that as the phased introduction of the different material bands comes into place there'll be some that have only really been introduced close to the end of the five-year period. In reality, it's not the export ban part of this bill that is the big issue; that's pretty straightforward and most people agree with it. It's the product stewardship changes—we say relatively minor product stewardship changes—that are really the issue, and it's utterly appropriate that they be looked at sooner rather than later. It does have to be noted that the review of the Product Stewardship Act as it was commenced in 2011, was due in 2016, and occurred and was delivered woefully late. That's another reason why we don't really want to see a five-year review changed to a 10-year review. Obviously, this is the last amendment, and we believe that this amendment, along with the previous 15, makes some meaningful changes to the package. I've said a number of times, and I'll repeat it, that I'm grateful to the assistant minister and his office for the way they've engaged with us. It was courteous and professional all the way along. We didn't agree about a number of things but it was good that we could agree about some of them, and I do think they will result in a better piece of law. The changes in relation to the minister's priority list are the particularly important ones. We believe that, considering where Australia has got to, it's past time for us to do a lot more on producer responsibility. It's past time for us to realise that voluntary arrangements aren't effective and that co-regulatory arrangements and mandatory arrangements are really the way to go. The government are essentially giving voluntary arrangements one more go, one more opportunity to prove themselves, and that's their call. There hasn't been a lot to give us encouragement on that front. I don't think anyone could make that argument. Whether the minister's priority list is just that little bit of extra encouragement that the producer world and the industry need remains to be seen. That will be in the hands of the government. I'm glad that the assistant minister and the minister, in speaking about these amendments and the bills to which the amendments are being made, have made it clear that they intend to push on in an area where there has been much too much delay for too long. So I welcome this amendment. Labor supports it. I hope that by the time we get to the statutory five-year review the things that we need to see have either occurred or are very close to occurring. We will be in 2025 by then. The targets that have been set are ambitious ones. We're a long way from achieving them. The assistant minister did say informally that if they weren't to occur I could shout across the chamber at him. I wouldn't do that. I know he's committed to seeing this change occur. I know that he feels it. He's wearing his tie with fish on it. I know he understands how important it is to get better waste outcomes for our environment as a whole, particularly for our marine environment. He gets that. People around Australia get that. We wish these changes well. We don't think they're as strong as they could be, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. 17:39 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Well, we finally get to the final amendment. If only we could have this process done more collaboratively more often! I again would like to thank the Minister for the Environment and the Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management for moving these amendments and taking the time to meet with me. Item (16) will ensure that reviews on the performance of the act are held every five years. I originally sought to propose the same and I certainly welcome this amendment. It is important, because this area is innovating rapidly. There are changes happening very frequently, and legislation must be continually improved upon to ensure it keeps pace with developments. This issue is really important to so many in our community. This amendment will ensure that the legislation is reviewed at regular intervals of no less than five years and ensure it keeps pace with those developments. It will ensure there are no delays to its review, which is what we unfortunately did see under the Product Stewardship Act. Again I repeat my thanks to the minister and the assistant minister, and I look forward to seeing the progress we so desperately need in this area. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agree to. Third Reading 86 17:40 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I ask leave of the House to move the third reading immediately. Leave not granted. Mr EVANS 61378 I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay. 17:41 Mr BURKE DYW Watson The standing orders presume that we deal with the third reading on the following day. That's why you have to suspend standing orders to do it otherwise. Ordinarily, governments prefer to be able to get something through on the same day and so they seek leave, and cooperation is ordinarily given. But you've got to say two things. First: why does it have to go through today? When it finishes here it goes to the Senate, and the Senate is not sitting. Why is the Senate not sitting? There's a thing called Senate estimates! If you get on your TV and start moving through the channels—don't spend your whole time on Sky News—you will find there are all these committees called estimates. They're meeting at the moment, and that's why this motion shouldn't be agreed to. We should go through this in the ordinary way. We should deal with this in the normal way, which standing orders presume. What those opposite have to understand is that so much of this building relies on cooperation, so much of the way parliament works relies on cooperation. If this bill were urgent, if whether we dealt with it today or tomorrow made a difference to how quickly this could be implemented, then I would not be arguing this at all, because there would be a difference in the real world. The only difference here is to the convenience of the government, and we're all a bit sick of everything being about the convenience of this government. There is an obligation, when people get elected to a parliament, for the parliament to function as a parliament, for the parliament to function as a place where ideas are debated and different points of view are heard. If you want cooperation to make life convenient for the government then you need to behave like one and allow the parliament to act like a parliament. The last time we had environmental law dealt with in this chamber, everything was bulldozed through. I was on the list to speak. I'm a former environment minister; I had something to contribute to that debate. Members of the crossbench had amendments to move. But the legislation was steamrolled through. What was the urgency? It was sent to the Senate, and since it got there they haven't done a thing with it. The simple obligation and demand that this government had was that they wanted make sure that there would be no scrutiny in the chamber. They wanted to make sure that there would be no debate in the chamber. You behave that way and then turn up and say, 'Oh, can we have leave so that everything's more convenient?' No. No, you can't. Because a whole lot of members of the government—not all of them, but a whole lot of them—have gone through life where everything was about them. They have gone through life where they expect that the whole world is there to serve them and their privilege, and they then expect to be able to treat other members of parliament with such contempt that they will not allow them to speak on legislation of substance, where they will never accept an invitation for a debate from the Leader of the Opposition. They behave that way, and then the moment there's something for their convenience they'll ask for leave and they reckon they'll get it. This won't be hugely inconvenient for those opposite. It's going to mean that, whatever meetings the ministers are having, they're going to have to wander down to the chamber for a non-controversial bill. It's all a bit silly that people will have to do that, but what else do we have to push back with? Because this chamber is being treated with contempt, and that matters. It does matter as to whether or not debate is allowed in this chamber, and if this is all we've got to push back on, then we will. Because this term those opposite have voted more times that the member be no further heard than they have voted in support of legislation. That is the major parliamentary contribution for those opposite this term. No other term has ever been like this. I know that some of the newer members have been told this spin of: 'The moment for the opposition to talk is the MPI. That's their debate, and everything else belongs to the government.' Well, sorry, since Federation that's not how this place has worked. Even on the day of the Dismissal there was a suspension moved and it was accepted. When leave was sought for a debate, it was accepted. Even in the bitterness of that, the parliament was allowed to function. And I've got to say, if they were secret ballots I reckon we would have had a few more debates, from the number of corridor conversations people have had. Because some of us—and I dare say a majority of us; in fact, possibly everybody in the room now—believe it's okay for there to be debate in this chamber. They have enough belief in their own convictions to hold their own in those debates, and they're happy to bring the argument on. But we have a Prime Minister of a different view. We have a Prime Minister with a glass jaw who is not willing to engage in debate. He's certainly not willing to engage in debate publicly on the floor of the chamber, and, from what I understand, not that happy when debate comes to him in private meetings either. That is the way Australia is run right now, and if the only chance we have to push back on that is procedurally, if that's all we've got between now and the next election, then, when leave is sought, it will be denied. When a suspension is moved like this, it'll be opposed. Think of the radical nature of what Labor is asking for at this moment: we're asking that parliament be allowed to have debates. That's what we're asking for. We're asking that, when someone starts to speak, they will be allowed—as I have been allowed right now—to use their time. It might be persuasive for some—I reckon it's not that persuasive for some very close to me across there. A government member interjecting— Mr BURKE DYW I reckon I'm winning here. And welcome back to the chamber—you got booted earlier—but welcome back. The fact of that debate matters. Think of it in these terms: there are some countries around the world where the opposition is not allowed to speak when they have their meetings. Do we really want to be on that list of countries? John Howard never had us on that list of countries, Malcolm Turnbull never had us on that list of countries. Tony Abbott never had us on that list of countries. We had lots of issues with each of those people at different points, but none of them did this. None of them did what has happened this term, where there has been not one occasion when a debate which has been invited and requested from the Leader of the Opposition has been accepted—not one. And then there's this on legislation on issues as important as the environment. Remember the number of dixers we had about the ensuring integrity bill and how important and urgent we were told that that was? You were a supporter of thugs if you were going to oppose that bill, we were told. What then happened? The first thing that happened was it got pushed through when the only person who spoke on it in this chamber was the minister himself. Then, having sent it to the Senate, they did nothing with it and now it's gone. So the argument that they never heard apparently ended up winning. But we had a right for that debate to take place on the floor of the parliament. When those who come here were first elected, they would have imagined making a contribution and that their contribution would come to some pretty core values for everybody here. I'm yet to find anyone who doesn't arrive here for the right motivations. For some people, by the time they leave, their motivations aren't that great. But I think most people—everyone I've known—when they arrive here arrive with the right motivations. To then put the backbench of the government in the situation where they have voted more times to shut down debate than for legislation is an absurd circumstance. It's something that shouldn't be happening. It's only happening because of the glass jaw of one man. At some point, some of those opposite are going to have to talk to him. 17:51 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner The one thing you can say about some of the Liberal Party's heroes—people like Robert Menzies and John Howard—is that they loved this place. They loved its debates, they loved its standing orders, they loved the cut and thrust of question time and they loved the opportunity to have their ideas tested. But that's not what's happened to the modern Liberal Party. The modern Liberal Party of Australia don't love democracy, don't love debate and don't want to have their ideas tested. They want this parliament to be their own personal rubber stamp. That's why they don't allow the Leader of the Opposition to have his say on issues of utmost importance to the Australian people. On Friday, I was sitting in the House of Representatives economics committee expecting a regular briefing from the Australian Securities and Investment Commission when Commissioner Shipton opened up by saying that he was going to step down while an inquiry was held into $69,000 of relocation allowances paid to Daniel Crennan and $118,000 paid for his tax bill, which had to do with what was euphemistically called the 'optimisation' of his tax bill. Mr Hawke HWO On a point of order, Madam Deputy President, I will let the member gather his thoughts, but he has been going for one minute and 30 seconds and the question is why standing orders must not be suspended and he must go to the question. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 I thank the member for the reminder. Dr LEIGH BU8 The standing orders should not be suspended, because it is vital that Australia hear from the Leader of the Opposition on matters of high importance. One such matter of high importance is what the government knew about these payments that were being made. Standing orders should not be suspended, because it is vital that the parliament hear from the Leader of the Opposition on the government's culpability on these matters, whether the government picked up a full year ago, when it was reported in the Financial Review on 23 October 2019, that Daniel Crennan was being paid more than the Chief Justice. You'd think that would ring some bells. You would think that would make someone think, 'Maybe that's a Remuneration Tribunal issue.' But it clearly caused no-one to take issue. Standing orders should not be suspended, because it is vital to know why the government is cutting the budget of the Auditor-General at the very time when it is the Auditor-General that has highlighted the issues that are before the Treasurer. An issue of ASIC's making inappropriate payments was flagged not by the government—they didn't notice it—but by the Auditor-General, who has asked for a $6.5 million increase in his budget. Standing orders should not be suspended, because it is vital that the House instead have the opportunity to consider why it is that this government, which can rack up a trillion dollars of Liberal debt, can't spare $6.5 million to see the Audit Office continue its work. The Auditor-General isn't asking to double his work; he's saying he's been dipping into his reserve funds just in order to keep the operation going. You'd have to think that they don't want the Auditor-General to do his work. They know that he is the bloke who discovered sports rorts and who discovered air rorts. Standing orders should not be suspended, because it is vital that the Leader of the Opposition instead have the opportunity to ask this government why they are reducing the budget of the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General has saved the taxpayer money. Daniel Crennan and James Shipton have repaid those payments, putting hundreds of thousands of dollars back into the pockets of taxpayers as a result of his careful investigations. Standing orders should not be suspended, because it is vital that this House consider why the Auditor-General's budget should be cut at a time when he's saving the government money. Gosh knows the government need the money to be saved, given that they've been splashing it around on their mates, mates such as the former Liberal staffer Peter Crone, who has been given a $242,000 job in the National Bushfire Recovery Agency. When asked whether he was aware of the bushfire recovery credentials of Mr Crone, the head of the agency said he was not. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 The minister on a point of order? Mr Hawke HWO Yes. The time allotted for this speaker is five minutes under standing orders. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 I thank the minister for pointing that out. The member's time has expired. I thank the member for Fenner for his contribution. 17:57 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I move: That the question be put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion be put.

The House divided. [18:01]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 53 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Haines, H Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 43 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Keogh, MJ King, CF Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Burns, J Broadbent, RE Byrne, AM Buchholz, S Champion, ND Christensen, GR Chesters, LM Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Evans, TM Collins, JM Goodenough, IR Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Fitzgibbon, JA Howarth, LR Gorman, P Irons, SJ Kearney, G Joyce, BT Shorten, WR Laming, A Khalil, P Landry, ML King, MMH Marino, NB Mitchell, RG Morton, B Mulino, D O'Brien, LS Neumann, SK O'Dowd, KD O'Connor, BPJ Vasta, RX O'Neil, CE Wallace, AB Payne, AE Wicks, LE Ryan, JC Wilson, RJ Swanson, MJ Wilson, TR Thwaites, KL Wood, JP Vamvakinou, M Young, T Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

 18:06 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

The House divided. [18:06]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 53 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Haines, H Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 43 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Keogh, MJ King, CF Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Burns, J Broadbent, RE Byrne, AM Buchholz, S Champion, ND Christensen, GR Chesters, LM Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Evans, TM Collins, JM Goodenough, IR Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Fitzgibbon, JA Howarth, LR Gorman, P Irons, SJ Kearney, G Joyce, BT Shorten, WR Laming, A Khalil, P Landry, ML King, MMH Marino, NB Mitchell, RG Morton, B Mulino, D O'Brien, LS Neumann, SK O'Dowd, KD O'Connor, BPJ Vasta, RX O'Neil, CE Wallace, AB Payne, AE Wicks, LE Ryan, JC Wilson, RJ Swanson, MJ Wilson, TR Thwaites, KL Wood, JP Vamvakinou, M Young, T Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

 18:06 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that this bill be read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020 92

Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020

Second Reading 92 Third Reading 92 18:10 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I ask leave of the House to move the third reading immediately. Leave not granted. Mr EVANS 61378 I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 The member for Burt was seeking the call. The member for Burt. 18:11 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt We now have again this travesty before us of the government continuing to try to shut down debate in this House— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 The member for Burt will resume his seat. 18:11 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the question be put.

The House divided. [18:16]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 53 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Haines, H Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 41 NOES Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Keogh, MJ King, CF Leigh, AK McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Albanese, AN Broadbent, RE Burns, J Buchholz, S Byrne, AM Christensen, GR Champion, ND Coleman, DB Chesters, LM Evans, TM Claydon, SC Goodenough, IR Collins, JM Hogan, KJ Dreyfus, MA Howarth, LR Fitzgibbon, JA Irons, SJ Gorman, P Joyce, BT Kearney, G Laming, A Shorten, WR Landry, ML Khalil, P Marino, NB King, MMH Morton, B Mitchell, RG O'Brien, LS Mulino, D O'Dowd, KD Neumann, SK Vasta, RX O'Connor, BPJ Wallace, AB O'Neil, CE Wicks, LE Payne, AE Wilson, RJ Ryan, JC Wilson, TR Thwaites, KL Wood, JP Vamvakinou, M Young, T Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

 18:19 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

The House divided. [18:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 53 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Haines, H Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 41 NOES Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Keogh, MJ King, CF Leigh, AK McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Albanese, AN Broadbent, RE Burns, J Buchholz, S Byrne, AM Christensen, GR Champion, ND Coleman, DB Chesters, LM Evans, TM Claydon, SC Goodenough, IR Collins, JM Hogan, KJ Dreyfus, MA Howarth, LR Fitzgibbon, JA Irons, SJ Gorman, P Joyce, BT Kearney, G Laming, A Shorten, WR Landry, ML Khalil, P Marino, NB King, MMH Morton, B Mitchell, RG O'Brien, LS Mulino, D O'Dowd, KD Neumann, SK Vasta, RX O'Connor, BPJ Wallace, AB O'Neil, CE Wicks, LE Payne, AE Wilson, RJ Ryan, JC Wilson, TR Thwaites, KL Wood, JP Vamvakinou, M Young, T Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

 18:21 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that this bill be read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020 95

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020

Second Reading 95 Third Reading 95 18:22 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I ask leave of the House to move the third amendment immediately. Leave not granted. Mr EVANS 61378 I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 The member for Whitlam has the call. 18:24 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam This is an important matter that all members on this side of the House are passionate about— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 The member for Whitlam will resume his seat. The assistant minister. 18:24 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the question be put.

The House divided. [18:29]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 53 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Haines, H Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 32 NOES Aly, A Bird, SL Burke, AS Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Keogh, MJ Leigh, AK McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Rowland, MA Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Albanese, AN Broadbent, RE Burns, J Buchholz, S Byrne, AM Christensen, GR Champion, ND Coleman, DB Chesters, LM Evans, TM Claydon, SC Goodenough, IR Collins, JM Hogan, KJ Dreyfus, MA Howarth, LR Fitzgibbon, JA Irons, SJ Gorman, P Joyce, BT Kearney, G Laming, A Shorten, WR Landry, ML Khalil, P Marino, NB King, MMH Morton, B Mitchell, RG O'Brien, LS Mulino, D O'Dowd, KD O'Connor, BPJ Vasta, RX O'Neil, CE Wallace, AB Payne, AE Wicks, LE Ryan, JC Wilson, RJ Swanson, MJ Wilson, TR Thwaites, KL Wood, JP Vamvakinou, M Young, T Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

 18:30 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

The House divided. [18:32]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 53 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Haines, H Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 32 NOES Aly, A Bird, SL Burke, AS Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Keogh, MJ Leigh, AK McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Rowland, MA Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Albanese, AN Broadbent, RE Burns, J Buchholz, S Byrne, AM Christensen, GR Champion, ND Coleman, DB Chesters, LM Evans, TM Claydon, SC Goodenough, IR Collins, JM Hogan, KJ Dreyfus, MA Howarth, LR Fitzgibbon, JA Irons, SJ Gorman, P Joyce, BT Kearney, G Laming, A Shorten, WR Landry, ML Khalil, P Marino, NB King, MMH Morton, B Mitchell, RG O'Brien, LS Mulino, D O'Dowd, KD O'Connor, BPJ Vasta, RX O'Neil, CE Wallace, AB Payne, AE Wicks, LE Ryan, JC Wilson, RJ Swanson, MJ Wilson, TR Thwaites, KL Wood, JP Vamvakinou, M Young, T Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

 18:33 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move: That this bill be now read a third time. 18:33 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle We support the passage of this bill as part of a package of bills that will put in place an export ban in relation to waste that was previously exported to countries like China, Malaysia and Vietnam. That waste was highly contaminated and relatively low quality. Australians diligently put recyclables in their yellow bins in the expectation that that material would be recycled. Much of it was baled and sent to these other countries with very little quality assurance about what the final outcome was. Over time, it turned out that some of the material was being burned, that some of the material was being thrown into rivers and that some of the material was being dumped. When Australians go down to their local beaches and see plastic accumulating on our shores right around our island continent and they realise that microplastic is accumulating in fish, birds and, to some degree, in us, they would be horrified to know that we were contributing to that by sending off such low-quality waste. The government will claim about these bills that they're showing this great national leadership and they're stepping into the breach in banning this waste. In reality, it's being forced on us because other countries don't want to take that waste. We've turned a blind eye to where that waste has ended up. Some of it has been burned in parts of our region and produced toxic fumes for local communities. Some of it has been dumped in the ground. A lot of it has ended up in waterways and, ultimately, in the oceans. Countries like China, Malaysia and Vietnam have said they are not having it anymore. So we deal with the consequences. The government belatedly brings along a package of legislation that progressively bans certain kinds of materials from being exported. But it's not being done out of some burning drive to take responsibility for our waste. The Prime Minister says it's our waste, it's our responsibility. Well, after seven years nothing was done on that front until other countries essentially said they're not having it. To the extent that the bills put in place that export ban framework, we support the government. It has to be done, and the licensing declaration format that the government is introducing is adequate as far as that goes. It means that the first material will be banned from 1 January. That will be mixed plastics. We will then move through, in six months instalments, banning different kinds of material by category until mixed plastics, some single polymer, glass, paper and cardboard is progressively banned. What this legislation doesn't do is deal with the bigger waste picture. The second part of the bill goes to some minor and relatively ineffective changes to our product stewardship rules. The stuff that is galling to hear in the community, certainly in the waste and resource management sector, is that the government is stepping into the waste space and is somehow making significant advances towards a genuinely circular economy. There is no evidence of that. The reality is that, apart from the export bans, the changes this bill makes are relatively minor. As it stands, there is 67 million tonnes of waste annually in Australia. We recycle barely 37 million tonnes, which is 58 per cent of it. When it comes to plastic, there is 100 kilos of plastic produced for every man, woman and child in Australia every year. We struggle to recycle 12 per cent of it. So 90-odd kilos of plastic per person per year goes into landfill, at best, and we know that some of that is going directly into waterways and into the ocean. It has hardly changed at all since the turn of the century. Labor realised that when we were in government. We introduced the first national waste policy. We introduced the existing product stewardship arrangement and we started to act. We put in place a co-regulatory scheme for televisions and computers. That has been hugely effective. We put in place all the things you needed to understand how our waste system should change over time. But those challenges were not taken up by the government when it was elected in 2013. They neglected the priority list; they took plastic off the priority list. As it stands, we have less plastics recycling infrastructure in Australia than we had in 2005. The export bans will mean that we need an increase of some 400 per cent in recycling and reprocessing infrastructure. You would think that might have been what the Prime Minister had in mind in May last year when, as part of the election campaign, the government said it would introduce its recycling investment package, that it would deliver $167 million worth of investment to start to improve our parlous waste and recycling infrastructure. Well, $100 million of that was for a new Recycling Investment Fund. That was effectively rebadged moneys within the CEFC. The CEFC already had the capacity to make those kinds of investments, and the government decided to put a sticky label on existing CFC funds and say that's our Recycling Investment Fund. Here we are, 18 months later. How much of that recycling investment fund has been advanced? Not one single dollar. That $100 million out of the $167 million—not a dollar spent. The $20 million for product stewardship innovation—not a dollar spent. That is 72 per cent of the Prime Minister's signature recycling investment package, but not one cent has been expanded to deal with this challenge. So it's right for the community and the sector to be cynical when the government claims to be stepping into the space. I think the minister actually said 'stepping into the waste space' and perhaps could have stopped before getting to the last word. The reality is that the government has sat on its hands in relation to waste and recycling. It has chosen to be overly optimistic about producers and industry groups, which, under voluntary arrangements, have really shown no appetite for making the change that we need. The sector says that if you continue with voluntary arrangements you will just continue with free-rider problems—you'll continue with underperformance, poor recycling rates and greater waste going into our environment. We went to the last election talking about a national container deposit scheme. Mercifully, states have made their own progress and we're not far now from having container deposit schemes in every state and territory in Australia. But wouldn't it be great if that had been done on a nationally consistent and harmonised basis. That's not just what the sector says; that's not just what kids in schools say and what we on this side of the House say. That's what the Australian Beverages Council says. In its latest report, the Australian Beverages Council says that priority No. 1 is a nationally consistent container deposit scheme. That's what we said we would introduce, and this government said that was ridiculous. The change that will be put in place by the bills is good as far as it goes, but it leaves so much more to be done. While it was interesting to see, in the second reading debate, a higher than usual number of government members fronting up to speak, it tells you something about how they see waste and recycling as part of the national conversation. They desperately want it to be the fig leaf for their inaction on climate change. They desperately want it to be the fig leaf for their inaction on the EPBC. If my performance on environmental protection, biodiversity conservation and climate change were as nakedly unattractive as this government's, I'd want a fig leaf too. They are hoping that making a song and dance about waste and recycling will cover their blushes when it comes to climate change action and the failure of our national environmental protection framework, but we know the truth. The truth is that the APCO targets are a long way from being met. We're supposed to get to 70 per cent recycled plastic packaging by 2025. We're supposed to eliminate all harmful and unnecessary plastic by 2025. We're supposed to get to the point of having 50 per cent recycled content in packaging by 2025. We are way off track. It's going to be 2021 in two months time. The government should admit to itself that those targets are not going to be achieved using the current methods and using the current policies. We're at 16 per cent recycled packaging. That is miles off. These bills, apart from the export bans, which we support, do very, very little to genuinely improve Australia's waste and recycling outcomes and take us to what we should be able to achieve, which is a circular economy—for our own sake, for our environment's sake and to show leadership in our region. If a country like Australia can't do better than 12 per cent recycled plastic, how on earth can we look around our region, at Indonesia and countries in the Pacific, and waggle our finger and say, 'You need to do better on waste,' when we are doing so abominably badly ourselves! Labor supports the bills, but there is so much more for the government to do. We wish they would focus on that. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the question be put.

The House divided. [18:48]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 52 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 31 NOES Aly, A Bird, SL Burke, AS Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Keogh, MJ Leigh, AK McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Albanese, AN Broadbent, RE Burns, J Buchholz, S Byrne, AM Christensen, GR Champion, ND Coleman, DB Chesters, LM Evans, TM Claydon, SC Goodenough, IR Collins, JM Hogan, KJ Dreyfus, MA Howarth, LR Fitzgibbon, JA Irons, SJ Gorman, P Joyce, BT Kearney, G Laming, A Shorten, WR Landry, ML Khalil, P Marino, NB King, MMH Morton, B Mitchell, RG O'Brien, LS Mulino, D O'Dowd, KD Neumann, SK Vasta, RX O'Connor, BPJ Wallace, AB O'Neil, CE Wicks, LE Payne, AE Wilson, RJ Ryan, JC Wilson, TR Swanson, MJ Wood, JP Thwaites, KL Young, T Vamvakinou, M Zimmerman, T Wells, A

Question agreed to.

 18:50 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that this bill be read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020 101

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020

Second Reading 101 Third Reading 101 18:52 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I seek leave to move the third reading immediately. Leave not granted. Mr EVANS 61378 I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay. 18:52 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam So addicted is this mob to closing down debate they won't even let a speaker rise to speak their views. They are committed to shutting down debate. 18:52 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the question be put.    

The House divided. [18:57]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 53 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Haines, H Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 31 NOES Aly, A Bird, SL Burke, AS Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Keogh, MJ Leigh, AK McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Albanese, AN Broadbent, RE Burns, J Buchholz, S Byrne, AM Christensen, GR Chesters, LM Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Evans, TM Collins, JM Goodenough, IR Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Fitzgibbon, JA Howarth, LR Gorman, P Irons, SJ Kearney, G Joyce, BT Khalil, P Laming, A King, MMH Landry, ML Mitchell, RG Marino, NB Mulino, D Morton, B Neumann, SK O'Brien, LS O'Connor, BPJ O'Dowd, KD O'Neil, CE Vasta, RX Payne, AE Wallace, AB Ryan, JC Wicks, LE Shorten, WR Wilson, RJ Swanson, MJ Wilson, TR Thwaites, KL Wood, JP Vamvakinou, M Young, T Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

 19:00 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.    

The House divided. [19:00]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 53 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Haines, H Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 31 NOES Aly, A Bird, SL Burke, AS Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Keogh, MJ Leigh, AK McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Albanese, AN Broadbent, RE Burns, J Buchholz, S Byrne, AM Christensen, GR Chesters, LM Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Evans, TM Collins, JM Goodenough, IR Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Fitzgibbon, JA Howarth, LR Gorman, P Irons, SJ Kearney, G Joyce, BT Khalil, P Laming, A King, MMH Landry, ML Mitchell, RG Marino, NB Mulino, D Morton, B Neumann, SK O'Brien, LS O'Connor, BPJ O'Dowd, KD O'Neil, CE Vasta, RX Payne, AE Wallace, AB Ryan, JC Wicks, LE Shorten, WR Wilson, RJ Swanson, MJ Wilson, TR Thwaites, KL Wood, JP Vamvakinou, M Young, T Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

 19:01 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move: That the bill be now read a third time. 19:01 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie The Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020 is an important bill for this House to address. You might wonder why the Blue Mountains, as far from the sea as you can get in Sydney, would have such conviction around waste reduction. That's because we are a World Heritage area and we care about the environment. One of the things I notice about the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury people is that our holidays are often by the sea. When we go there, we're really surprised at the rubbish we see when we find things washed up on the beach. It's a real novelty for us to be at the beach, so we make sure we get out there a lot. I notice when I visit schools that, when some of the students talk to me about the issues that matter to them, the environment is always one of them. They talk about finding bottle tops. They talk about finding bits of plastic. They talk about turtles that have ingested plastic bags. One of my local schools has had a fantastic campaign around reducing the use of plastic bags, because they know that we should have had these sorts of laws a long time ago. They know we need to take strong action in this place, as Labor did when we were last in government, and that there's been no progress until now, out of the blue, seven years later, when we suddenly see a little bit of movement from those opposite. I have to say their environmental commitment hasn't been that apparent till now, certainly not on climate change. That would be the other issue that my community would be asking about. How about you find time while COVID's happening to do something on waste. I know you haven't got time to do anything on an integrity commission, but how about you find some time to do something on climate change as well. This sort of legislation is much needed. One of the stunning pieces of data that should horrify Australians is the amount of plastic that we recycle. Twelve per cent of our plastic is recycled. That's in spite of the efforts people make to sort it out, to put it in a recycling bucket and to get it out. At my place it's on a Wednesday night. It's even in the diary: put out the recycling. There is absolute commitment by people to do that, yet this place has let people down. We have not had the standards in place that are required. Self-regulation has not achieved a high quality of recycling. So for those reasons I absolutely support this and, therefore, I move: That the debate be adjourned. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the debate be not adjourned.      

The House divided [19:08]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 53 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Haines, H Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 40 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Rishworth, AL Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Burns, J Broadbent, RE Byrne, AM Buchholz, S Champion, ND Christensen, GR Chesters, LM Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Evans, TM Collins, JM Goodenough, IR Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Fitzgibbon, JA Howarth, LR Gorman, P Irons, SJ Kearney, G Joyce, BT Keogh, MJ Laming, A Khalil, P Landry, ML King, MMH Marino, NB Mitchell, RG Morton, B Mulino, D O'Brien, LS Neumann, SK O'Dowd, KD O'Connor, BPJ Vasta, RX O'Neil, CE Wallace, AB Payne, AE Wicks, LE Ryan, JC Wilson, RJ Swanson, MJ Wilson, TR Thwaites, KL Wood, JP Vamvakinou, M Young, T Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

 19:10 The SPEAKER 00APG The question was resolved in the affirmative, so the question remains that this bill be now read a third time. 19:10 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner A hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars on medals to be given to knights and dames; that's what— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Fenner will resume his seat. 19:10 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move: That the question be put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is the motion be put.    

The House divided. [19:12]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 53 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Haines, H Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 40 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Clare, JD Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Rishworth, AL Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Burns, J Broadbent, RE Byrne, AM Buchholz, S Champion, ND Christensen, GR Chesters, LM Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Evans, TM Collins, JM Goodenough, IR Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Fitzgibbon, JA Howarth, LR Gorman, P Irons, SJ Kearney, G Joyce, BT Keogh, MJ Laming, A Khalil, P Landry, ML King, MMH Marino, NB Mitchell, RG Morton, B Mulino, D O'Brien, LS Neumann, SK O'Dowd, KD O'Connor, BPJ Vasta, RX O'Neil, CE Wallace, AB Payne, AE Wicks, LE Ryan, JC Wilson, RJ Swanson, MJ Wilson, TR Thwaites, KL Wood, JP Vamvakinou, M Young, T Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

 19:13 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020 107

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020

Second Reading 107 Third Reading 107 19:14 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I seek leave to read the third reading immediately. Leave not granted. Mr EVANS 61378 I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay. 19:15 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam Time after time, members have come to the dispatch box or stood in their places and asked for the call to debate what is supposed to be a priority bill for the government. 19:15 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the question be put.    

The House divided. [19:19]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 53 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Haines, H Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 36 NOES Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Butler, MC Butler, TM Clare, JD Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Rishworth, AL Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Albanese, AN Broadbent, RE Burns, J Buchholz, S Byrne, AM Christensen, GR Chesters, LM Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Evans, TM Collins, JM Goodenough, IR Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Fitzgibbon, JA Howarth, LR Gorman, P Irons, SJ Kearney, G Joyce, BT Keogh, MJ Laming, A Khalil, P Landry, ML King, MMH Marino, NB Mitchell, RG Morton, B Mulino, D O'Brien, LS Neumann, SK O'Dowd, KD O'Connor, BPJ Vasta, RX O'Neil, CE Wallace, AB Payne, AE Wicks, LE Ryan, JC Wilson, RJ Swanson, MJ Wilson, TR Thwaites, KL Wood, JP Vamvakinou, M Young, T Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

 19:20 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the motion moved by the minister to suspend standing orders be agreed to.    

The House divided. [19:21]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 53 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Haines, H Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 36 NOES Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Butler, MC Butler, TM Clare, JD Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Rishworth, AL Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Albanese, AN Broadbent, RE Burns, J Buchholz, S Byrne, AM Christensen, GR Chesters, LM Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Evans, TM Collins, JM Goodenough, IR Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Fitzgibbon, JA Howarth, LR Gorman, P Irons, SJ Kearney, G Joyce, BT Keogh, MJ Laming, A Khalil, P Landry, ML King, MMH Marino, NB Mitchell, RG Morton, B Mulino, D O'Brien, LS Neumann, SK O'Dowd, KD O'Connor, BPJ Vasta, RX O'Neil, CE Wallace, AB Payne, AE Wicks, LE Ryan, JC Wilson, RJ Swanson, MJ Wilson, TR Thwaites, KL Wood, JP Vamvakinou, M Young, T Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

 19:22 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move: That the bill be now read a third time. 19:22 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley This bill is about waste, and do you know what's been a waste? The last seven years of this government, where they've done absolutely nothing to facilitate recycling. I move: That the debate be adjourned. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the debate be not adjourned.    

The House divided. [19:24]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 53 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Haines, H Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 37 NOES Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Clare, JD Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Rishworth, AL Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Albanese, AN Broadbent, RE Burns, J Buchholz, S Byrne, AM Christensen, GR Chesters, LM Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Evans, TM Collins, JM Goodenough, IR Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Fitzgibbon, JA Howarth, LR Gorman, P Irons, SJ Kearney, G Joyce, BT Keogh, MJ Laming, A Khalil, P Landry, ML King, MMH Marino, NB Mitchell, RG Morton, B Mulino, D O'Brien, LS Neumann, SK O'Dowd, KD O'Connor, BPJ Vasta, RX O'Neil, CE Wallace, AB Payne, AE Wicks, LE Ryan, JC Wilson, RJ Swanson, MJ Wilson, TR Thwaites, KL Wood, JP Vamvakinou, M Young, T Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

 19:27 The SPEAKER 00APG The question before the House still is this bill be now read a third time. I call the member for Griffith. 19:27 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith Paying $33 million for a $3 million plot of land is— The SPEAKER 00APG I call the assistant minister. 19:27 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the question be now put.    

The House divided. [19:28]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 53 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Haines, H Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wyatt, KG 37 NOES Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Clare, JD Coker, EA Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Owens, JA Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Rishworth, AL Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilson, JH 25 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Albanese, AN Broadbent, RE Burns, J Buchholz, S Byrne, AM Christensen, GR Chesters, LM Coleman, DB Claydon, SC Evans, TM Collins, JM Goodenough, IR Dreyfus, MA Hogan, KJ Fitzgibbon, JA Howarth, LR Gorman, P Irons, SJ Kearney, G Joyce, BT Keogh, MJ Laming, A Khalil, P Landry, ML King, MMH Marino, NB Mitchell, RG Morton, B Mulino, D O'Brien, LS Neumann, SK O'Dowd, KD O'Connor, BPJ Vasta, RX O'Neil, CE Wallace, AB Payne, AE Wicks, LE Ryan, JC Wilson, RJ Swanson, MJ Wilson, TR Thwaites, KL Wood, JP Vamvakinou, M Young, T Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

 19:29 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that this bill be read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. ADJOURNMENT 113 ADJOURNMENT Community Development Program 113 19:30 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari This evening I want to talk about the Community Development Program, which is an Indigenous welfare program which operates across northern Australia. I want to point out how bad it is and why it needs to be scrapped, and why a new program, developed along the lines of the old CDEP scheme, the Community Development Employment Projects scheme, which operated between 1976 and 2015, should be in place. The current Community Development Program is a punitive and coercive program that has so far used a total of 774,000 penalties to attempt to whip compliance from the now only 28,000 active participants in the scheme. In the last quarter of 2019, there were 27,000 penalties used to whip those 28,000 CDP participants. Given the mutual obligation requirements that have just been reintroduced, it's likely the penalties will again increase and current participation in CDP will again decrease. There are literally thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who would otherwise be eligible for income support who are not receiving CDP and not getting income support at all. At least a thousand of these are in Arnhem Land. CDP in remote Australia has been an absolute disaster. The government's own study of CDP found that 68 per cent of surveyed participants felt worse off; that their situation had not improved. The report found social problems had increased due to the introduction of the CDP, including an increase in break and enters to steal food, predominantly by children and young people; an increase in domestic and family violence; an increase in financial coercion and family fighting; and an increase in mental health problems—feelings of shame, depression, sleep deprivation and hunger. These are all issues driven by poverty, largely caused by CDP and its failure. The report said that CDP had had the opposite of its intended effect of getting people off welfare, or sit-down money. The report also said navigating the system was contributing to increased stress, anxiety and mental health problems. In 2017, the Audit Office said that CDP cost almost twice as much as the previous Work for the Dole scheme. CDEP grew from a pilot in 1977 to eventually run across 265 organisations with 35,000 participants at its height in 2004. It worked by giving community based organisations UB—now the JobSeeker payment—for allocated participants as a lump sum. The community organisation paid those participants and paid them largely on the basis of no work, no pay, except in homelands, where it was assumed people were actively engaged in livelihood activity and were certainly performing necessary work looking after their country. Usually people were paid 15 hours a week at an award rate. It was part-time work for part-time pay. It was an active labour market program, unlike CDP, which is absurd. CDEP was relatively cheap, owing to the notional wages offset with income support. CDEP did not require a punitive and expensive compliance process. CDEP generated extra jobs, income, social and commercial enterprise and basic income for homeland residents. CDEP was community controlled and could be adapted to the diverse local situations. CDEP participants were, importantly, paid award wages. CDEP participants were individually better off than the unemployed in many ways, including through earned income. CDEP was not income tested, so participants were incentivised to earn more money and work more if they so wished. CDEP was a program that could and did incubate new industries of the times. The old CDEP incubated the Aboriginal arts industry in the 1980s and the ranger Caring for Country programs in the 1990s. CDEP allowed considerable remote infrastructure work that was, in today's terms, nation-building. There's a lot to be done in remote Aboriginal communities across this country. Getting people off welfare and into work is one of the objectives we should all have. CDP is a welfare program. CDEP was an active jobs program. The government needs to scrap CDP and redesign it so it looks a lot like the old CDEP and works for all those people in remote communities as an active job and labour market program. Braddon Electorate: Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program 114 19:35 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon In the electorate of Braddon, which covers the north-west, the west coast and King Island are eight great local councils who are all doing an outstanding job of representing those who live and work in the region. It used to be said that the role of local government was roads, rates and rubbish. However, this is no longer the case. Over decades, councils' responsibility has expanded significantly. Local governments are the cornerstone of our regional communities and they are there to make sure that things function as they should on a day-to-day basis. Modern councils provide the range of services and facilities that our communities expect and deserve—roads, rates and rubbish, absolutely—but they're also there to plan and for building control, business and economic development, environmental management, and human and community services. Councils are the catalyst for building an area's local identity. They are at the forefront of building social cohesion, and the list goes on. I have great faith in our region's local councils. I have great faith in the mayors and the elected representatives who represent their constituencies and fight hard for their communities. I have faith in the general managers and the administration staff, who work tirelessly every day to deliver services to their communities. That is why I welcome the budget announcement that the Morrison government will provide an additional $1 billion for local governments through their Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. This investment builds on the $500 million previously announced in May this year. This funding is a vote of confidence for our local governments' capacity to deliver projects. It will facilitate grassroots, community led recoveries right across the region. The funding will empower local governments in our region to deliver the roads and community infrastructure projects that are on their wish lists. These programs will progress shovel-ready local priorities, support local jobs, and support local businesses, and that's a great thing. Braddon's eight councils have been fantastic. They've been a fantastic support to me since my election and they have been instrumental in supporting the rollout of many of the Morrison government's key investments in the region. Right across the north-west, the west coast and King Island, projects of significance are progressing, and it could not have happened at a better time. At the Latrobe Council I would like to recognise Mayor Peter Freshney, General Manager Gerald Monson and their team for the work they are doing on the Camp Banksia upgrade, the Latrobe township flood mitigation measures and the Perkins Park upgrades. At Devonport City Council I would like to recognise the work of Mayor Annette Rockliff, General Manager Matthew Atkins and their team, who are overseeing the significant Devonport Waterfront Precinct Living City Urban Renewal Project, which will transform the city, as well as the Spirit of Tasmania vehicle entry point and East Devonport upgrades. At the Central Coast Council, Mayor Jan Bonde and General Manager Sandra Ayton have their team working hard on two projects: the Ulverstone Cultural Precinct, and the Penguin Foreshore remediation and upgrade, which, when complete, will give visitors and locals yet another reason to visit the picturesque seaside town. Burnie is a town on the move, and I want to thank Mayor Steve Kons and his team for the work that they're doing progressing the new University of Tasmania campus, which will have a long-lasting and positive outcome for the Greater Burnie region. The Waratah Wynyard Council are currently working on Somerset's important Anzac Park all abilities playground, a great initiative. Thanks to Mayor Robby Walsh, General Manager Shane Crawford and their team for their work on this project and the other projects that are currently in the pipeline. Things are happening in Circular Head. A big shout-out to Mayor Daryl Quilliam, General Manager Scott Riley and their team for overseeing a range of projects, including the Duck River Meadows development and environmental projects targeting the restoration of the river. The West Coast mountain bike track and project will be a game changer for the region. I want to thank the Mayor Phil Vickers, General Manager Dave Midson and their team for doing a fantastic job in juggling the project and many other exciting developments in the region. On King Island, Mayor Julie Arnold, General Manager Greg Alomes and their team are working hard as well. They are progressing the King Island Hub initiative, making sure they maximise their potential on that great island. Thanks to everybody who works in councils and the services that you do every day. I encourage anyone who sees their local mayor, councillor or council administration staff to make sure you say thanks for their great work. COVID 19: Australians Overseas, Army Combat Badge 115 19:41 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean I'd like to take this opportunity to raise with the House the plight of two Australians from Bean. Steven Douda and Tenille Raynor are two constituents of mine who are currently abandoned overseas by this government. The pair left Australia for the UK in early 2019. When the pandemic spread through Britain, Ms Raynor, a registered nurse with expertise in accident and emergency at Canberra Hospital, worked with coronavirus patients in temporary critical care at the Nightingale Hospitals. Meanwhile, Mr Douda worked on critical projects, including the UK and EU epidemiological forecast models for the pandemic, while remaining an active reservist serving on exchange to the UK with 131 Commando Squadron Royal Engineers based in Bath. They were also both part of the Oxford vaccine trial, feeling it was their duty to support this critical cause with great potential benefit to all. Having taken unpaid leave from their jobs in Canberra, Steven and Tenille are now facing unemployment if they cannot return home soon. They first booked a flight back to Australia in July. They have also been registered on the DFAT COVID portal since it was opened. Yet, damningly, they've been relying on Facebook and social networks to get updates on what the government is doing. As a result of this government's inaction, they now have neither employment nor a permanent living address. They are having to hope for a series of flights on 28 October, with Qatar Airways, out of Doha. The couple are currently in Greece living out of their backpacks and in a rapidly deteriorating situation. This situation is just like that of so many other Australians across the world who feel abandoned by this government. Steven and Tenille do not ask for any special treatment and recognise that there are other Australians whose need to return to Canberra and other parts of Australia is greater than their own. This Prime Minister has had multiple options and offers to fix this, yet in classic Morrison style we hear over and over again the monotonous deflecting drone of, 'It's up to the premiers.' The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The member for Bean will resume his seat. The assistant minister. Mr Howarth 247742 The member needs to refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The member for Bean has the call, but he must remember that he must refer to members by their title. Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 My apologies, Deputy Speaker. What our constituents want to see is fewer words and more action. The other matter I wish to raise this evening is in regard to the service of former Lieutenant Colonel David Brown and other Vietnam veterans in relation to their eligibility for the Army Combat Badge. Mr Brown is the former head of corps of the Australian Army Public Relations Service and served two 12-month tours of Vietnam alongside frontline personnel. Mr Brown believes he and others are eligible for the Army Combat Badge due to the nature of their service in Vietnam. He has sought to have their important contributions are recognised. Unfortunately, the Department of Defence appears to have rejected the reconsideration despite evidence of the veterans' experiences. For example, a fellow corps member, Peter Thomas, served in Vietnam in 1968 and 1969, covering everything from motor vehicle workshops to some pretty grim operations. In Pete Thomas's words, 'We'd fly in on helicopters, we'd spend three, four, five or six days with an element of one of the battalions or the tanks or the armoured personnel carriers, we'd get our stories and photos and we'd fly back to base to dispatch all that material.' Mr Thomas said there was often only a single day's rest after doing that before they were sent to the next operation. More recent conflicts have better recognised the contribution of PR personnel, with members with similar service in Afghanistan and Iraq appropriately receiving recognition of their service with the Army Combat Badge—yet those who served in Vietnam have not been recognised. Moreover, as the first member for Bean, a seat named after Australia's first war correspondent, I support their request for recognition for the PR corps with the awarding of the Army Combat Badge. The irony, of course, is that much of the evidence that backs Mr Brown's claim resides in the records of the Australian War Memorial, an institution Charles Bean fought to establish. It's important that the combat service of those reporting from the frontline are recognised as well as those fighting on the frontline, and it's important to do so with some urgency. The ranks of those that are left are thinning. I urge the government to reconsider this request and for this injustice to be redressed. South Australia: 2020 Spirit of Excellence in Agriculture Awards 116 19:46 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Last Friday night, I had the honour of attending the South Australian Spirit of Excellence in Agriculture Awards, hosted by the Agricultural Bureau of South Australia and attended by the new South Australian minister for agriculture, David Basham, and also by the member for MacKillop, Nick McBride, and the Labor member for Light, Tony Piccolo. The night was compered by the wonderful, enthusiastic Alex Thomas, and it was good to catch up with her again. It was an awards night, but it was also an opportunity to give a send-off to the retiring chair of the advisory board, Mark Grossman, who served nine years in that position, and all and sundry and I thanked him for that commitment over that long period of time. It gave me an opportunity, too, to meet the incoming chair, Janette Ridgeway. That was a pleasure as well. I'm sure the entire agricultural community looks forward to working with Janette. But the night, as it should have, belonged to the award winners. I'm pleased to announce that Ellen Zibell from Kimba, my home town—in fact, remarkably, my home farming community to the north-west—won the 2020 Sustainable Agriculture Scholarship for Farmers. This is a rather special award for me in so much as the scholarship is in memory of the late Peter and Wendy Olsen, who lost their lives tragically in aeroplane accident 20 years ago in May. Peter and Wendy were close personal friends of my wife and I. It was a shocking day and a shocking time. But it is good that each year we remember them when these awards come around, and now there is a good, special reason for Ellen Zibell to remember them as well. Ellen won an $8,000 bursary. She is the co-director of a family farming business 50 kilometres north-west of Kimba and, together with her husband, Brett, and his brother, Mark, and his wife, Lisa, runs 7,750 hectares of land. They are a mixed cropping and livestock enterprise. She has a vision to diversify her family farm to grow unique ancient grains, sustainably regenerate the landscape, restore biodiversity and improve soil health to directly improve the environment, farming land and personal health. She has a vision to make the change that is needed for future generations to secure the longevity of farming. Ellen said: Taking some time to focus on raising our family, studying, and trying to help where I can with farming has given me the opportunity to live and witness the struggles of farming all around me. Ellen also believes the next generation of farmers will need different skills and that they need to question the current ways of doing things. She said: We need to have a state of constant curiosity to move forward in the industry we love for generations to come. So good on you, Ellen. The two other young farmers in that area were Jasmin Piggott from Cowell and Brody Sivia from Arno Bay, communities quite close to Kimba. Then we had the Rural Youth Bursary, which is a $5,000 award sponsored by Primary Industries. The winner was Matthew Maunder, from Glossop. Glossop is a small community between Berri and Barmera. Matthew comes from New South Wales and is a product of the rural science degree at the University of New England. He spent some time in western New South Wales in broadacre cropping, but he has come to be an expert in the citrus industry. He is working now for the technical officer at Australia's largest citrus farm, Costa Group's Kangara farm in the Riverland. Matthew's role has allowed him to manage numerous research trials looking at irrigation, chemical fertiliser, environmental sustainability and their operations. What he had hoped to do with his bursary was attend the International Citrus Congress in Turkey, but unfortunately, owing to the virus that is interrupting our lifestyles all around the world, he is having to rescope that. Instead, he will be travelling, I think, around Australia, making sure he is up to date on the best of technology. Well done to the winners and well done to the people who put their names forward and were willing to be assessed on their work. Well done to the Advisory Board of Agriculture, who continue to be an ear and a message line to the minister to keep them in touch with this really important industry that I am so excited by every time I mix with the young farmers, such as those that were at that event on Friday night. Foodbank, Aged Care 117 19:51 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa The COVID pandemic has put many of our most vulnerable in a state of crisis. Two particular areas of concern in my electorate are food insecurity and aged care. Recently I had the opportunity to visit Foodbank New South Wales and talk to their CEO, John Robertson. John has long been a passionate advocate for those in the community who need support. Foodbank provides fresh and packaged food for charities and community groups supporting those in our community who need it most. On the day that I was there there were fresh mandarins, lettuce and mountains of bread, as well as other staples such as pasta and canned tomatoes—a full list of varied and amazing products being kept out of landfill and helping people. Foodbank also supports breakfast clubs in schools, and during the disastrous bushfires and floods at the beginning of 2020 they helped get food to people in need all over New South Wales. Too many school children start the day without breakfast because of circumstances beyond their control. Giving them breakfast not only helps with their learning and behaviour but helps families as well. Foodbank works with the entire Australian food and grocery sector, including farmers, wholesalers, manufacturers and retailers, to address issues of food waste by redirecting product from landfill. Unsurprisingly, demand for food relief has surged this year. By the end of September, demand was up 47 per cent over pre-COVID times, with a further spike of 25 per cent expected as JobKeeper and JobSeeker are rolled back. Statistics from Foodbank suggest that 43 per cent of food-insecure Australians are now going without eating for a whole day each week. This compares with 30 per cent a year ago. Australia has a reputation for being a wealthy country, but even so, food insecurity is a reality for an increasing number of us. With work drying up, casual workers and international students are facing real crisis as they go hungry, because there's no means to buy even the basics. Universities such as Western Sydney University have supported their international students, but many other students are feeling the strain. Two-fifths of Australians experience food insecurity because they are low-income earners, pensioners, casual workers, jobseekers or workers who go without food to pay their mortgage or rent. Foodbank helps bridge these gaps, and I commend the volunteers and thank the CEO, John Robertson, for the important work being done to ensure our fellow Australians don't go hungry. Aged care in this country was in crisis long before COVID put extra pressure on services. The royal commission's interim report last October made it clear that there were symptomatic failures in the sector. This is not what we as a community should accept for our seniors. They deserve dignity, respect and support. Recently, I met with representatives of the Health Services Union—dedicated aged-care kitchen staff, cleaners and cooks. They told me about personal sacrifices they've been making during the crisis. For nine months they've isolated from friends and family so they could provide care for their residents and not unknowingly introduce COVID-19 into their facilities—all this for minimum hours or four-hour contracts, often for no more than $21.97 per hour and no paid overtime. They're also not afforded sick leave or paid leave when they need to take a COVID test. While many have lost hours and jobs because they can't work in more than one facility, they're not eligible for JobKeeper. They also weren't eligible for the aged-care retention bonus. The overwhelming thing that came out in my conversations with these workers was the care they have for their residents. They speak of the residents as their family. They are distressed because management cutting costs means they don't have enough time for a quick conversation to ease the loneliness of residents. I was told that during COVID and lockdown residents have become depressed and lonely because no-one could visit. Having the time to have a chat over morning tea would make such a difference in their lives, but these workers have been told that, if they don't finish their workload—their increased workload because of COVID—there is no paid overtime and if they don't do their jobs it's the patients who miss out again. Day after day the evidence mounts of serious neglect in aged care, and all we see from the government is an avoidance of the acceptance of responsibility for the failures. The recession we are currently in is the deepest in almost a century, and I fear decisions by this government will continue to make it worse for the most vulnerable of our Australians. Building and Construction Industry 118 19:56 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde There is no doubt that buying or even building your first home, or any home for that matter, can be a challenging but rewarding experience. For many Australians the process is relatively simple and trouble-free. After all, houses are built every day in this country. But, sadly, for one couple in the electorate of Forde, the process was not so simple and not so trouble-free. I wish to bring to the attention of the House the plight of Nina and Wayne Austin, who built their first home in Holmview through builder Homecorp. It's where Nina and Wayne had planned to raise their two young kids and build a future for their family. Their home was built in June last year and they moved in shortly after, but, unbeknownst to them, the house was built incorrectly by Homecorp after the garage was built on the wrong side of the property. It was not until construction began on the neighbouring property earlier this year that the builders' mistakes were revealed. Building the garage on the wrong side of the property caused the two properties to be built so closely there was only a 2mm gap between the gutters. Since this was discovered they have found a range of other faults throughout the property, and, as a result of that, they have sought to have these matters rectified. Despite the numerous errors and mistakes identified since the issues were first raised, neither the builder nor the certifier, who originally approved Nina and Wayne's home, have admitted fault or taken action to resolve these matters. In this instance their actions, or lack thereof, are disgraceful, especially at a time when so many Australians are hurting already. The Austins have sought assistance from every level of government and, disappointingly, while the planning and building regulations are largely the responsibility of state government and local council, in particular the state Minister for Housing and Public Works, Mick de Brenni, they haven't lifted a finger to help the Austins at all. This issue has dealt a devastating blow to the Austins financially, and more importantly, mentally. They have two young children—a six-year-old boy with special needs and a three-year-old girl—and they are on a single income, with Nina caring for the kids and her husband, Wayne, trying to make ends meet. They've worked hard to achieve the Australian dream of owning their own home, starting a family and building a future together. They now face an uncertain future and are in limbo due to the actions of the builder and the certifier unwilling to right past wrongs. All the Austins had hoped for and dreamed of was their own home and a backyard where they could raise their young family. Sadly, these dreams have been dashed by Homecorp and the building certifiers. I call on these companies to rectify the issues that they have caused and to help the Austins in this very difficult situation. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 118 NOTICES

Monday, 26 October 2020

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Vasta) took the chair at 10:32.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 121 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Veterans Health Week, Heart Health: Automated External Defibrillators 121 10:33 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon At Seiffert Oval in Queanbeyan on the weekend, I celebrated the launch of Veterans Health Week with the federal Veterans Motorcycle Club, Open Arms and the Yellow Wiggle, Greg Page, who was there to donate an automated external defibrillator, or AED, and he shared his story about surviving a heart attack. It was great to be with the Veterans Motorcycle Club, Open Arms and Greg as we celebrated the launch of Veterans Health Week. Greg's story is a good one. On 17 January, after a bushfire relief concert at Castle Hill RSL, Greg had a sudden cardiac arrest and he was in real trouble. Luckily, the quick attention of those around him and the availability of an AED nearby meant that Greg survived. He's now on a mission to save Aussie lives by sharing his newfound knowledge about sudden cardiac arrest and, in particular, the terrible death toll each year due to low survival rates if AEDs are not available. It's hard to fathom that, in Australia in 2020, there's a very low survival rate for sudden cardiac arrest. Around 30,000 Australians lose their lives each year because of an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Why is this death rate so high? The community is not adequately armed with two links in the chain of survival. The first one is CPR and the second one is these AEDs. Calling triple 0, as important as it is, is often not enough to save the life of someone who is in cardiac arrest. As many honourable members know, it takes a while for an ambulance to get there. In the case of a sudden cardiac arrest, the brain has already started to die. AEDs play a very important role in measuring the heart rate and applying an amount of electrical energy into the heart to get the heart started again. Not long after his cardiac arrest, Greg realised that he had no idea where AEDs were in the community. Most honourable members would maybe scratch their heads as well. I know near my office in Casuarina there's an AED in the Woolies across the road, but I think more work is needed. I commend Greg Page, the yellow Wiggle, for taking up this cause. We need more standardisation around the country. We need AEDs more available in more places and then we'll start to save some those 30,000 lives annually that are lost in a sudden cardiac arrest. Well done, Greg Page. COVID-19: Employment 121 10:36 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I rise today to pay tribute to young Australians, particularly young Australians in the seat of Fairfax on the Sunshine Coast. We've all been hit by COVID-19 in many different ways. The youth unemployment rate on the Sunshine Coast is now 15.9 per cent. That means that there are 5,400 people between the ages of 15 and 24 on the Sunshine Coast who are looking for a job but can't find a job. That's tough. The end of the year 12 schooling year draws near, so there will be more people out there looking for work. This is why the government has introduced the measures it has introduced, particularly the JobMaker program and the hiring credit scheme. Because the Sunny Coast is so reliant on tourism and, therefore, hospitality and retail our younger people have been hit more than most and our youth unemployment rate is typically far higher than elsewhere in the country. But beyond the government doing its bit, beyond young people doing their bit and beyond businesses trying to employ, I encourage young people to have a go at starting their own businesses. As some of my colleagues in this chamber may be aware, about 6½ years ago I started a not-for-profit called Generation Innovation. It helps 15- to 25-year-olds start their own businesses. Young people typically lack three things when they want to start a business: experience, a network and capital to get going. As a broader community on the Sunshine Coast, through Generation Innovation, we wrap these three things around young people to encourage them to follow their ability and passion to start their own businesses. Right now, as part of this year's annual GI Challenge, we have 10 ventures in our midst. There are 10 new startups on the Sunny Coast, each of them vying for the attention of the marketplace. This is a demonstration that, if as a broader community you pull together and encourage young people to follow not just their passion but their gifts and abilities, and to establish a venture, you can assist young people to move all the way from idea generation through to venture startup. As we move into the economic recovery from COVID-19 let us ensure that we work not just as a government but as community members to support our younger people as they seek their own jobs. Pensions and Benefits 122 10:39 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide (   I've been contacted by many of my constituents concerned about the financial difficulties that they're facing as pensioners. There's no doubt that the COVID-19 health and economic crisis is impacting all Australians, but it has made older Australians even more vulnerable. The impact has been enormous on them. This is particularly the case for people on the age pension, who already struggled to make ends meet before the pandemic. They are really feeling that impact more than anyone, especially while facing rising health, dental, energy and grocery bills and the rising costs of everyday living. The economic support payments have certainly helped many pensioners survive this initial downturn. However, according to most experts, the full impact of the crisis hasn't been felt yet. This should make us all very concerned. It appears that, for the very first time since 1997, pensioners will not get the automatic increase, because inflation has gone backwards. But, as I said, we know that bills for groceries, dentist visits, pharmaceuticals, electricity et cetera are going up—a whole range of things are heading into the upward sphere instead of the downward sphere. In addition to all of this, rising levels of unemployment are hitting older workers, especially women, hardest. It is hard to foresee when the economic crisis will end and when employment rates will get back to pre-pandemic levels. Currently, more than half of all JobSeeker recipients are aged over 45. Lifting the age-pension access age, which is due to reach 67 in mid-2023, will leave many people near retirement on unemployment payments until they can leave the workforce. This could mean that we'll have a whole generation reaching retirement age closer to poverty than we've ever seen in our lifetimes. I believe my constituents have every reason to be concerned for themselves, their friends and their families. If the government believes that pensioners need additional payments to see them through this economic crisis, perhaps it is an opportunity for us to review the pension and how best to support older Australians. Some of my constituents have suggested the possibility of including the $750 payments as part of the regular pension increase. Others have raised various suggestions from setting up an independent commission to determine the pension rate to having the pension rate linked to the basic wage increase. We find ourselves in unprecedented times, and perhaps it's time to consider unprecedented ways of supporting our society's most vulnerable citizens. I believe that, as a society, we should do better by older Australians who have worked all their lives contributing to the economy and to society. Barker Electorate: Employment 122 10:42 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise to discuss an issue of great concern in my electorate of Barker. I appreciate that the 151 electorates around this country, I think it's fair to say, are all unique. The issue is the current inability of employers in my electorate to fill full-time positions. I was challenged with that recently, because, of course, the rhetoric you hear in a lot of places is that there are significant levels of unemployed Australians—and I'm sure that is right. But I'm here to tell the House that the circumstance in my electorate is very, very different. Now, I don't know whether that's a product of how open South Australia is or a product of the fact that my electorate is one of Australia's premium food manufacturing electorates, but the reality is: in my electorate, I'm contacted almost daily by employers who are flat-out desperate for people to fill full-time roles—in fact, so much so that these people are actually advertising on the radio. Take it from me: there are ads running on the radio encouraging people to apply for these jobs. For those opposite, who want to say, 'Well, why don't they think about increasing pay?': these are not low-skill, no-skill jobs. Not only are very many of these jobs highly skilled and highly paid; they're also jobs that involve a career pathway. I have spoken to apprentices who are now full-time plant managers. This is about a progression. I was worried about this, so I took half a morning to make phone calls to my electorate—to major employers, albeit not every employer. Over the course of three hours I identified—wait for it—1,000 unfilled jobs in my electorate. Now, before everyone says, 'Look, they're fruit-picking jobs; they're not the kinds of jobs that people will travel for', can I tell you: half of those jobs, over 500, are full-time jobs available right now in my electorate. So the message I'd like to get out is this: if you find yourself unemployed right now and you're keen to take up full-time employment and you're happy to move to a regional area like the south-east of South Australia, contact my office and I'll put you in touch with the employment facilitator we've engaged in the electorate of Barker, or the RDAs. The reality is these jobs are available, and I'm not suggesting it's the case everywhere in Australia, but I'm telling you there are a thousand jobs available today in my electorate that we must fill. Cleanaway 122 10:45 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I want to draw to the attention of the House an article written by Michael Roddan of The Australian Financial Reviewthat indicated that the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority slapped Cleanaway, one of the largest waste management companies in Australia, with a raft of license conditions, show cause notices, warning letters and advisory letters after uncovering 'consistent areas of concern' following an inspection blitz of 26 of their sites in late June. The compliance blitz was triggered by two chemical spills at their sites that affected waterways. Some of the other findings included that workers had poor knowledge of site drainage systems and that pollution control equipment in some sites was 'questionable'. The Raffles Glade, Eastern Creek, in the Blacktown City Council area, was found to have debris in stormwater drains, numerous pools of liquid throughout the warehouse, bins designed to capture waste full and overflowing, hydraulic oil stored near stormwater drains and bulk containers damaged but holding liquid waste. The reason I refer to these matters is that Cleanaway is a company seeking to build an energy-from-waste incinerator at Eastern Creek. Dial A Dump proposed a similar facility only a couple of years ago, prompting a thousand injections to be lodged with the state planning panel and a similar number of complaints and submissions lodged with the New South Wales upper house inquiry last year. I stood up in the chamber to object to Dial a Dump's incinerator proposal then and I stand up to object equally firmly to Cleanaway's proposal. It's a facility no-one in Western Sydney asked for and no-one wants. It's proposed to be located within a kilometre of homes, schools and sporting facilities with 500,000 tonnes of waste to be incinerated every single year within a stone's throw of local residents. According to figures obtained by Seven News, 150 trucks are to be used every single day to deliver waste. We are not Sydney's dumping ground, and we certainly should not see this facility proceed. We urge the New South Wales government to reject the facility from being built. It's clear that people are upset about this. My neighbour, the member for McMahon, recently wrote to residents. He included a handy QR code that I'm told was very useful with helping residents register their objection with him. It's clear across numerous electorates that thousands of people do not want their backyards used as a dumping ground. This facility clearly is incompatible with this part of Western Sydney. What we need is high-quality infrastructure, high-quality support and a high quality of living for people living in Western Sydney. Braddon Electorate: Economy 123 10:48 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon 'Burnie booms' was the headline of a full-page newspaper ad that was recently placed in The Advocate, our great local regional newspaper. The ad was placed by Hampton Peters Real Estate, and I want to give them a big shout-out. Peter Bull and the team at Hampton Peters are working hard in the real estate market back home in the great state of Tasmania. Working hard they are, as the ad went on to say that property prices right across the north-west coast are soaring and that in the last few weeks record prices have been achieved. While most of Australia is in deep trouble with property prices predicted to drop as much as 50 per cent in some areas, what's happening in the north-west coast of Tasmania is unprecedented, the ad went on to say. In August 2020, Hampton Peters had a record month; in August, they had more sales than ever in their history. Congratulations to Hampton Peters and great real estate businesses across the north-west, the West Coast and King Island. They have rebounded out of the challenges of COVID-19 and they're doing their part to get our region's economy back on track. The positive indicators in our local housing market are a great sign of things across the region—that they're rebounding and that we've got great things to come. And I'm proud to be that region's representative in the Morrison government. Since day one of the pandemic, the government has done a great job in delivering an economic lifeline to our region, in outlining a clear road map for the way ahead and in building confidence and momentum in the economy. That's our job. That's the government's job. And it's right for people across the north-west, the west coast and King Island to expect the government to have their backs in times like these. The government's job isn't to drive our economy. That's business's job, particularly the thousands of small businesses right across the region, like Hampton Peters, which I've talked about today. They drive our economy. They are the engine room of our economy and they have stepped up when we needed it most. Often under very challenging conditions, they've kept their doors open, they've kept employees on their books and they've continued to deliver the services that we need as communities. The headline 'Burnie booms' is a testament to the small businesses across the north-west, the west coast and King Island, and I can't praise them enough for ensuring that our region is not only returning to where it was prior to COVID-19 but that we'll be in a better and stronger place than ever before because of their efforts. COVID-19: Queensland 123 10:51 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Mr Deputy Speaker, as you well know, 2020 has been a year like no other, challenging even the most resilient of us, particularly our Victorian colleagues. Queenslanders have been relatively lucky. We've seen far fewer cases of COVID-19 compared to Victoria and New South Wales. We're lucky to have a leader who has been committed to making sure Queenslanders are kept safe. Sadly, six Queenslanders have passed away due to this awful virus—six families with a horrible loss in a horrible year. Queensland currently has only six active cases of COVID-19, and it's been 45 days since we've had a case of community transmission. The Sunshine State should be congratulated for their testing efforts. More than 1.2 million Queenslanders have had tests in this time. We've worked together, led by a strong leader and incredibly brave and professional health staff, and Queenslanders have been kept safe. COVID-19 has caused significant damage to economies across the world, and, in Queensland, jobs and businesses have suffered too, but the Premier's firm and steady response to the virus has allowed businesses, for the most part, to reopen and trade with some sort of normality, while keeping COVID-safe practices in place. That has saved lives. We're thankful this crisis has been managed so competently. It might be a very different reality today if we'd listened to some of those other voices. We know that the LNP and Deb Frecklington have continually called for Queensland's borders to be opened up. Sixty-four times, Deb Frecklington called for COVID borders to be scrapped. She stood in front of a billboard 'She kept borders shut', but we know keeping borders shut was the right call to keep Queenslanders safe and allow our economy to at least stay on track. The LNP's short-term politics would have derailed businesses and cost lives. We're not out of the woods yet. The pandemic's not over, and a vaccine is not in hand. Hopefully Queensland's COVID restrictions can be relaxed even more, but these decisions need to be carefully considered and balanced, not berated by billboards and bleeding boofheads. Annastacia Palaszczuk is the best person to lead Queensland through this pandemic, keep us safe, get people working again and keep our economy ticking over. Deb Frecklington is just not up to the task. Queensland's economic rebound is forecast to be almost twice as strong as the Australian average because of the strong leadership of the Palaszczuk government. Queensland's gross state product is forecast to grow by 3¾ per cent in 2020-21, compared to an RBA forecasted national GDP of just two per cent. Local state members in my community like Peter Russo in Toohey, Mark Bailey in Miller, Jess Pugh in Mount Ommaney, Duncan Pegg in Stretton, Leeanne Enoch in Algester and Jackie Trad in South Brisbane are working hard in their communities, backing Annastacia's plan for a Queensland recovery. The strong health response by the Palaszczuk government has laid the foundation for Queensland's economic recovery. Easing restrictions internally has benefited businesses right across the state. Pedestrian Road Safety 124 10:54 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid I have spoken in this place before about the importance of pedestrian road safety. As the ambassador of Little Blue Dinosaur Foundation, an organisation that promotes child pedestrian safety awareness to the community, as a member who represents many families and as a mother of four little children, I am particularly passionate about this issue. Data from the Institute of Health and Welfare states that the most common cause of death of children aged one to 14 is road trauma. While road safety education plays an important role, we cannot deny that improved infrastructure such as traffic calming strategies and pedestrian crossings are critical to keeping our youngest and most vulnerable pedestrians safe. I would like to commend the Morrison government on its ongoing commitment to the Black Spot Program, which allows councils to seek federal funding for high-traffic areas that pose a risk to both motorists and pedestrians. The Black Spot program targets sites that are prone to traffic accidents or accidents waiting to happen. One such dangerous site in my electorate of Reid is Gale Street in Mortlake. This street sees a high volume of traffic, including vehicles like large freight trucks, with no points for safe pedestrian access. Gale Street is a particular concern because St Patrick's Catholic parish and primary school in Mortlake is located on this dangerous stretch of road. I have met with the principal of St Patrick's, Amanda Westgate, and Father Tom Stevens, who oversees the parish. They have gone to great lengths to keep pedestrians, young and old, safe. However, without a pedestrian crossing or speed calming devices there is no safe way to access the church or school grounds. Two proactive parents in my electorate, Melanie Carli and Nerida Shipley, have started a petition to see better pedestrian access installed. It has now received almost a thousand signatures and counting. The community clearly backs improvement to this traffic black spot, and I have been assured by the City of Canada Bay Council, the mayor, that this is going to be investigated and that traffic calming measures for the street surrounding the school and church will be investigated. Now that term 4 has commenced, traffic and pedestrian movement counts are taking place. It is important that all levels of government work together to ensure the safety of our communities. I look forward to seeing improvements to road safety for pedestrians, not only in Gale Street Mortlake but across Reid. Racism 124 10:57 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I rise to talk about priorities, about the standards we set in public life, the choices we make and the signals that they send. It took the Prime Minister an hour to act when it came to the purchase of luxury watches for Australia Post staff. But it has now been two weeks since Senator Abetz questioned the loyalty of Chinese Australians at a Senate inquiry, and the PM has failed to condemn those comments. So too has the acting minister for multicultural affairs. Meanwhile, Senator Abetz has still had plenty to say. Instead of showing decency and apologising, he has doubled down. This is at a time when the Prime Minister has exhorted that we are all in this together. He has been right to do, so but these words ring hollow when his deeds don't match them. Racism is on the rise here in Australia and around the world. Warning signs were visible before the pandemic. Reporting of racist abuse was on the rise. We saw the shameful treatment of our AFL great Adam Goodes. We saw a spike in attacks on Australian Muslims, including the shocking assault on a heavily pregnant Muslim woman in Parramatta by a stranger. We saw Nazi flags on public display in towns like Beulah. Then the world was shocked by the tragic Christchurch mosque shootings, murders committed by an Australian man. And as the pandemic reached Australia earlier this year, so did a wave of racism directed at Asian Australians and Chinese Australian in particular. They are the ones who have borne the brunt of this wave of racism. In evidence before Senate estimates this week the Race Discrimination Commissioner, Chin Tan, confirmed that there had been a substantial rise in racist activities, more in terms of some communities, particularly Asian communities. This demands a strong response from the Morrison government. There is no vaccine for racism, but racism is a virus, a virus that we as policymakers must do something to tackle and ultimately eliminate, especially when we have voices in the media spreading fear, hate and division. The Morrison government should join Labor in creating a new national antiracism strategy, a strategy aimed at changing attitudes and empowering communities so that we really are all in this together. We must all stand up for multiculturalism and for multicultural communities. The acting minister has lately been talking about the importance of social cohesion. He should recognise the threat his colleague's conduct is to this. He should think about the signal his silence is sending. He should think about his responsibilities to Chinese Australians and every Australian, and so should his boss. We need a leader who will lead all Australians, a leader who recognises that the standard he walks past is the standard that some in the community will see as being a standard he accepts, a leader who will squarely repudiate Senator Abetz's comments and conduct and make clear that every Australian is equally entitled to participate in our society. Herne, Mr Nathan, The Buckleys 125 11:00 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page ():I'd like to recognise 17-year-old Nathan Herne from Lismore. Nathan recently raced in the Aussie Tin Tops, a support race of the famous Bathurst 1000. He came third overall and placed first in the TA2 class—an exceptionally exciting achievement. He was also part of the pit crew for Garry Rogers Motorsport during the main race. Nathan was set to make his Supercars debut in this year's Bathurst 1000 as a wild card entry. Unfortunately, his superlicence dispensation was not awarded, which meant he couldn't make his debut. Whilst this was an extremely disappointing decision for Nathan, his family and the race crew turned their focus to the Aussie Tin Tops race. He said, 'It was an awesome experience to drive a car to the limit and to have a fair bit of fun.' Racing is in Nathan's blood, having kickstarted racing at the age of six in Karting. He has now burst onto the Australian motorsport scene with success in various categories, such as Formula Ford and TA2. Nathan has 28 career wins and 65 podiums out of his 123 races. Nathan, I know your parents, Stuart and Karen, and your two sisters, Bianca and Natasha, are very proud of you. Congratulations, and we are all excited to see where your career takes you. I would like to recognise The Buckleys, a local band from Clunes, indeed the same village where I live, who are building an international audience following the release of their first album. The family trio—Sarah, 20; Lachlan, 19; and Molly, 17—have always had music in their blood. They started busking in Tamworth during a family holiday in 2011. Lachlan said when they were growing up playing gigs it was something that came naturally to them. After winning a few competitions, they decided to save for a trip to Nashville, Tennessee—incredible ambition and commitment to their goals. Sarah said it was great growing up with supportive parents willing to send them overseas to play. Their father, Mick Buckley, was a member of the very popular pub rock band The Radiators in the 1980s, and, Deputy Speaker, I remember them and I'm sure given your age you remember them too—a great iconic band. Mick has also proudly played the drums and piano at the Buckley shows and performances over the years. The group are signed to Petrol Records, the same company as INXS and other big-name artists. Their debut album, Daydream, had a 4.5 million reach on their virtual world tour, and their debut single, the title track of the album, 'Daydream', won number 1 on Australian country radio. They recently had their first show back after COVID. The Queensland border opened at 1.00 am of the day of the show. They were waiting at the border to cross, drove two hours to stay in Brisbane, had three hours sleep, went to the airport, boarded the plane to Cairns, drove to the venue and made it just in time to play. That shows their commitment. Congratulations to the Buckleys on their new album, and we look forward to the next one. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 126 BILLS Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020 126

Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020

Consideration resumed of the motion:

That this bill be now read a second time.

11:03 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler 'I've spent the last two years stuck in the Federal Circuit Court trying to protect myself and my children from the vileness perpetuated against us by my former husband. I have directly experienced the incompetence of the court due to the focus on the presumption of joint parental rights. It keeps overruling without reviewing any evidence of family violence orders that have been made by the Magistrates Court and have been put in place to help our safety.' They're the words of Carissa Vita, a domestic violence survivor. I think she succinctly puts in perspective the inadequacies of the current family law framework. This issue is one at the forefront of Women's Legal Services Australia, which notes that up to 85 per cent of Family Court matters involve domestic violence and goes on to say the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility shifts the focus away from child safety, placing children at risk from further abuse. I'd like to thank the member for Moreton for his bill and his continued advocacy in this space. Earlier this year our nation was rocked to the core by the tragic and senseless murder of Hannah Clarke and her three children. Before Hannah Clarke's murder, the Women's Legal Service teamed up with Rosie Batty to establish the Safety First in Family Law plan. One of the first initiatives in the five-step program was removing the presumption of equally shared parental responsibility, as found in section 61DA of the Family Law Act. This campaign was started in October last year, with the call for action reignited in the immediate aftermath of the tragic death of Hannah Clarke and the children. Unfortunately, it's now been eight months since the tragedy and the call to action remains that—simply the call—as there has been a failed commitment to reform the family law system, so that it is safer for women and children. The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is often misinterpreted by the community and practitioners, I might add, as equal time—as misconception that is harmful to women and children. This misconception often plays a large influence in parents who are negotiating consent agreements. Women who experience family violence and who cannot access or afford properly legal representation are often persuaded to believe that equal sharing is the only option under the law. This misconception can further give an abusive partner the incentive to litigate a parenting dispute. This often has the effect of increasing the litigation costs and time, while perpetuating further abuse. While there are two exceptions to the equal shared parental responsibility under the Family Law Act covering abuse and family violence, these exceptions have been less than effective in real practice. Shorna Moore, Director of Policy at the Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria, highlights this when she says: In too many cases children are being forced to maintain a relationship with a violent parent, due to the presumption of shared responsibility. This view is also reinforced by the research conducted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies in 2010, which found that, where family violence and child abuse have been alleged, 'more than 75 per cent of cases resulted in orders for equal shared parental responsibility'; however, where the allegation is only in respect of family violence, 'almost 80 per cent' of cases result in equal shared parental responsibility. It is clear that the current framework is not working effectively and is only likely to worsen, in my opinion, if the Family Court is merged with the Federal Circuit Court. We owe it to Hannah Clarke and her children and the countless other women and their children who have been murdered or forced to endure a terrible ordeal at the hands of abusive partners to change this system. We must always act to ensure the best interest of the child is the paramount consideration in these circumstances. I quote the words of Laura Bos, Executive Chair of the Small Steps 4 Hannah Foundation: What we have seen with Hannah Clarke and her babies is that 'gaming' the custody system is one nobody wins, and in the worst possible way. 11:08 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass Some of the earliest meetings I had after my election to the seat of Bass last year were with family law experts and practitioners about their concerns with a range of issue, including the safety of the Family Court premises in Launceston—an issue which I'm pleased to say the Attorney-General has worked with me to resolve. From those discussions and from the countless discussions with constituents caught up in the family law system, I have concerns that the system is not working as intended across a wide range of areas. Not least, there can be confusion and misunderstanding of the legislation and how it is applied, leading to unnecessary distress for those engaged in the system and not serving anyone particularly well. What we're here to discuss today is one section of the legislation that has been cited as problematic. Section 61DA provides for a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility when making parenting orders. Although the presumption in section 61DA does not apply when there has been family violence or child abuse, it is evidently clear, from consultations with experts in this area and from what I have learned from those who have gone through the system, that this exception is not always easily applied and there are, of course, wider considerations about the best interests of children in particular. In preparation for speaking today, I sought the opinion, amongst others, of Women's Legal Service Tasmania, who daily are negotiating the adequacy of the law in protecting children and have concerns that the equal shared parenting presumption is inconsistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. These international law protections include the right of the child to be heard in all matters and decisions affecting them, the right of the child to have their best interests assessed based on their own needs, and the right of the child to have their legal rights respected. Yvette from Women's Legal Service Tasmania tells me: 'We fail to prioritise the child's needs above the rights of parents when we talk about equal shared parenting rights. The very term insinuates that the rights of parents override the rights of the child. This is a very traditional and old-fashioned view of being a parent and belongs in the era when children were seen and not heard. This does not accord with contemporary best practice. Often the system and the courts, in particular, fail to ask children what they want to happen. Blindly applying any principle like ESP is dangerous. It fails to take into account the personal attributes of each and every child. All people and children are unique and have their own needs. This requires an individual assessment particular to each and every child before the court, free from the application of the imposition of the rights of others and free from the imposition of the will of other parties, including either parent.' The Family Law Practitioners Association of Tasmania stopped short of recommending repeal but agrees that there needs to be further clarity around these sections, which I understand, from my discussions with the Attorney-General, the government is open to exploring. So often we are failing those we need to protect the most. Sadly, these sections of the act are just one piece of a complex issue with a lot of moving parts. How do we enable families to separate in the easiest, most equitable and least stressful way for all parties, especially children? More broadly, how do we create true social, economic and cultural change that finally moves the dial on family violence? I am not yet convinced that repealing this one section of the legislation will fix the challenging issues in this area or is necessarily the best approach, and I am very mindful that it could have perverse outcomes. We need wider structural, social and cultural reform, and this cannot be viewed in isolation. I understand, and I share, the member for Moreton's passion to see change, and I note that he and I are both currently engaged in separate inquiries into both family law and domestic, family and sexual violence. It is my belief that the outcomes of those inquiries should inform a way forward, and I don't believe it would be wise to pre-empt their recommendations with a single proposed change. But this issue is one of those that has been raised often, and we should remain open minded about it. There are a great deal of divergent views on what is a highly emotive issue, and I thank those on all sides of this discussion who have reached out to share their experiences with me. I believe more could be done to assist and educate people in negotiating the family law system, and I do think it is important to be able to discuss these matters openly in this place and to find the common ground and be constructive. There should be bipartisanship in these matters in the best interests of all Australians—particularly our children. I look forward to continuing to discuss these issues and to work together for a better future for Australian families. 11:13 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I'm very pleased to rise in support of this private member's bill, the Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020. I'd like to thank my colleague, the member for Moreton, who joins us in the chamber today, for tabling this bill, and for his longstanding advocacy in this area. This bill would remove the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility from the Family Law Act, ensuring that children's interests are given priority and placed at the very centre of family law custody decisions. When I asked the Law Council of Australia, during the recent public hearing of an inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence, for their priority reforms, they didn't hesitate to name this as their No.1 priority for law reform. The view was backed in by a number of witnesses, including frontline organisations who are working every day to combat the scourge of family and domestic violence. One woman is killed in Australia by a current or former partner every single week. Already in 2020, 40 women have been killed by violence. We know that the postseparation period is one of the most dangerous, not just for women facing domestic violence but also for their children. In 2006 the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in parenting orders was first introduced in amendments to the Family Law Act. Regretfully, it has been causing great confusion and damaging custody decisions ever since. In 2017 I was Deputy Chair of the House Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee inquiry into a better family law system to support and protect those affected by family violence. Evidence came before us then, in 2017, that there were great inadequacies in how the current presumption of equal shared parenting is operating. Even though there are exemptions available for families experiencing violence, these exemptions are very rarely exercised. Indeed, there was substantial evidence to suggest that the presumption was, in fact, contributing to inappropriate, and sometimes damaging and outright dangerous, postseparation parental arrangements. When the Australian Institute of Family Studies looked into this they found that, even where both family violence and child abuse had been alleged in a case before the court, over 75 per cent of those cases led to orders for equal shared parental responsibility, either by a judge or by consenting parties. This cannot possibly be in the best interests of the child, which is why the committee then, three years ago, recommended the removal of this legal presumption. There are too many cases where parenting orders made under the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility place children in the custody of abusing parents. When you consider that half of the matters before the Family Court of Australia and 70 per cent of those before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia involve allegations of family violence, this is no small matter. But it is not just about formal court decisions; the principle also sets a precedent for all decisions that are negotiated between the parties outside of the courts. Importantly, this bill has widespread support of community and legal groups who have direct experience in the operations of the family law system. Amongst the most prominent has been the Safety First in Family Law campaign that Women's Legal Services Australia launched with Rosie Batty. This campaign has secured the support of more than 90 organisations. So many of the things we know we must do in order to drive down the scourge of domestic violence are going to be resource intensive and expensive—we need adequate funding for frontline services so that no women seeking advice and support are unable to find it and we need to properly fund emergency and longer term housing options so no women and children fleeing violence are left with nowhere to go—but changing the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility costs nothing as a budget line item and yet has the potential to prevent so much damage. If we're going to drive down the rates of domestic violence, we must place the safety of children at the very centre of our family law system. This important change has widespread support. Despite this, it will go nowhere in this place without bipartisan support. That's why I sincerely thank the member for Bass for her public support and her contribution to this debate today. I urge all government members and those colleagues in this place of good heart and good conscience to support this bill. You know it's the right thing to do. Let's not wait for more women and children to die before we act. We can and must do better than that. 11:18 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I would also like to add my voice in thanking the member for Moreton for tabling the Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020. This very important bill removes the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. As the member for Newcastle explained, this provision in the Family Law Act was first introduced in 2016. We've heard evidence of the damaging aspects of this, supported by empirical evidence, research and a number of inquiries conducted by the parliament into the family law system. There have been so many inquiries, but no change, no real reform, has been made to the family law system. The current family law inquiry has heard further evidence from witnesses who have had experience with the Family Court and particularly from those who have been impacted by the provision of equal shared parental responsibility in the current Family Law Act. As the member for Newcastle mentioned, the bill has widespread support among practitioners in family law, among people who provide services in domestic and family violence and, indeed, among the public as well. I think I have spoken before about my own experiences with domestic violence and with the family law system. That was many, many years ago. Sitting on the current family law inquiry, I am astounded at the fact that, 20 to 30 years on, the substantive issues that I experienced all those years ago with the system persist. There has been no real structural reform within our family law system, particularly to address issues of family and domestic violence. The provision for equal shared parental responsibility, as members before me have rightly pointed out, does not work in the best interests of the child. We have example after example after example where this provision has placed children in harm's way, with a partner or a parent who is violent or who has perpetrated acts of violence and abuse towards their partner. The provision is also used by parties in a family law dispute as a weapon against each other—very simply, that's what it's used for. We already have an adversarial family law system; we already have an adversarial law system. Adding further measures to the Family Law Act that enable parties in a family law dispute of all things, where emotions are high, where tensions are high and where people come to the system feeling broken and defeated—it only serves to create more of an adversarial system. That can never be in the best interests of the child. In approaching reforms to family law, the interests of the child must be foremost in our minds. Legal experts, service providers, those who are at the coalface and even those who have experienced the family law system agree on this point—that the children must always be at the fore of our minds. I can see no logical reason why a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility puts the best interests of the child first; I can see no reason why that happens. In fact, it is counterproductive and detrimental in cases of family and domestic violence. As the member for Newcastle pointed out, the number of women and children killed by domestic violence in Australia is staggering. We are at crisis point in this country. We should, as members of parliament, be doing everything that we possibly can here to address this scourge within our society. Removing the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility would go some way to doing that, because it would not only put the best interests of the child first but also address those substantive structural measures that currently exist within the Family Law Act that allow it to continue. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 129 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS World Mental Health Day 129 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) 10 October 2020 was World Mental Health Day; (b) World Mental Health Day aims to raise awareness of mental health issues worldwide and to encourage action to promote better mental health; and (c) this year's theme for World Mental Health Day is 'Mental health for all: Greater investment–Greater access. Everyone, everywhere'; (2) further notes that: (a) 45 per cent of Australians will experience a mental illness in their lifetime; (b) 3.8 million Australians live with a mental illness while 65 per cent of all GP presentations are for mental health issues; (c) 54 per cent of people with mental illness do not access any treatment; and (d) levels of anxiety, social isolation, and emotional distress have increased significantly worldwide during this year's global health emergency; (3) welcomes the Government's additional investment of more than $500 million in mental health services during the COVID ‑19 pandemic; and (4) commends Mental Illness Fellowship Australia for their work supporting the mental health of more than 20,000 Australians each year. Saturday 10 October was World Mental Health Day. In part due to the local promotion of the event by Mental Illness Fellowship Australia, many thousands of Australians took the opportunity to wear a green ribbon and mark the day with activities all over the country. This has been an incredibly difficult year for a great many of us. However, improving Australia's mental health and wellbeing has in truth been an important challenge now for many, many years. It's estimated that 3.8 million Australians now live with a mental illness and 690,000 live with a severe condition. According to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, as many as 45 per cent of Australians will develop a mental disorder at some time during their lives. However, though the latest data reveal that 65 per cent of all GP presentations are for mental health issues, only around half of those who experience mental illness will ever seek help. Depression is one of the leading causes of illness and disability among adolescents and adults, while suicide claims the lives of eight Australians every single day—and I want to recognise my close friend and colleague the member for Berowra, who is also the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Suicide Prevention, who is going to second this motion here today. In these tough times of stress, anxiety and isolation for many, the statistics will no doubt have only become more serious. The theme for World Mental Health Day this year is 'Greater investment–Greater access. Everyone, everywhere'. Its aim is to see increased investment in mental health worldwide. I'm proud to be part of a government that is delivering just that in Australia. In the recent federal budget, we saw the Australian government again commit to broadening access to mental health support as one of its most important policies. The government committed $5.7 billion for mental health this year, including $100.8 million to double the support available under the Better Access program. Thanks to this government, Australians can now receive 20 Medicare-funded psychological services each year. Already around seven million of these services have been delivered, just since March. The government's recent $115 million extension to the Rural Health Outreach Fund will also see more mental health practitioners able to travel to rural and regional areas to provide access to services where we know they can often be difficult to find. In addition, the government's September announcement of a $2 billion extension of the COVID-19 health response will ensure that telehealth services, particularly in relation to mental health consultations, will be available to people in regional, rural and remote areas until at least the end of March 2021. We need to see more mental health practitioners to provide comprehensive access for all. So, as part of the government's Job-ready Graduates legislation, it has created the disciplines of professional pathway psychology and professional pathway social work, to reduce the student contribution for studying units as part of a pathway to professional qualifications. This will make it cheaper to study psychology and help more people into a career in this field. These are only the most recent measures in a long track record of commitment to mental health for all Australians, which in my electorate of Fisher has seen the government invest $7½ million into the University of the Sunshine Coast's Mind and Neuroscience—Thompson Institute, $3.2 million in a pilot for a new approach to treating eating disorders and more than $6 million for the construction of Australia's first ever residential facility for those needing help with eating disorders. I congratulate the Minister for Health and the Prime Minister for their personal commitment and their energy in dealing with these important issues. On the eve of World Mental Health Day this year, with the support of Mental Illness Fellowship Australia, I organised a media conference with my friend Senator Deborah O'Neill of the Labor Party. I want to thank Deb and those opposite for what is a truly bipartisan approach. Australians expect and demand nothing less. That's exactly what we are doing: working together for their benefit on this important issue. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the motion seconded? Mr Leeser 109556 Yes, it is seconded, and I reserve my right to speak. 11:29 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'm glad to contribute to this debate and I thank the member for Fisher for bringing it forward. It's absolutely right that we recognise World Mental Health Day. There's no doubt the year 2020 has emphasised the need to put a renewed focus on our mental wellbeing. I note that, as part of Labor's constructive approach to the COVID-19 response, we supported the extension of telehealth services and the expansion of the number of Medicare supported mental health sessions. I welcome the fact that the government has implemented those measures. Before I go further I think it's worth saying that if anyone is listening to us have this discussion on the radio or the web and it raises issues for you, then definitely consider the services that are available through Lifeline or other providers. That's a reference or a piece of encouragement that we hear a lot these days, and that's good; it's at the end of news reports and other things like that. We can't allow it to be a cursory observance. We can't allow it to be something that loses its impact through repetition. Too many of us, maybe all of us fall into the bad habit of not asking for help. Too many of us think, 'I'm not doing that badly,' or, 'I don't want to bother someone,' or even, 'I'm not the kind of person who experiences mental ill-health,' and that is a big part of the problem. The truth is we are all that person. Half of all Australians experience mental ill health at some point in their lives and one in five Australians will experience mental ill health in any given year. The truth is you don't lose anything by having a conversation with someone. Just taking the step to vocalise what you're experiencing will lift some of the weight. If you've had some experiences that leave you feeling bleak or down on a regular basis, if perhaps you start feeling that things are a little bit pointless, hopeless or overwhelming, or you are on edge or not taking any real joy in the things you normally relish, then talk to someone. Talk to your GP. It's what you would do, it's what I would do, it's what we would all do, if we felt persistent pain or if we experienced persistent nausea or some other physical symptom. Half the population will experience mental ill health at some point. It's normal, so don't hesitate to talk to someone. There is literally nothing to lose. There was a really important debate in the House last week about the mental health and wellbeing of Australian Defence Force personnel and I acknowledge the contribution to that debate by members in the chamber today—the member for Fisher, the member for Herbert, the member for Berowra and many others. Labor welcomes the government's creation of a national commissioner for defence and veteran suicide prevention. We continue to believe that a royal commission is justified. It is vital we recognise all those parts of our community where acute mental ill health and suicide are prevalent and concentrated. Clearly and tragically that's the case with our service personnel. At the same time let's not forget that the sharpest and most heartbreaking incidents of acute mental ill health are experienced by Indigenous Australians. For Indigenous men aged 25 to 29, the rate of suicide is four times the rate of non-Indigenous men. For Indigenous women aged 20 to 24, the rate of suicide is five times the rate of non-Indigenous women. Suicide is the leading cause of death for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children between the ages of five and 17. That is completely unacceptable. It should galvanise all of us in this place to do more to advance practical, social, cultural and historical reconciliation all the time in every way possible. We've made some long-overdue progress in the way mental ill health is understood and accepted as a common feature of the human experience but we've got a lot further to go. The stigma associated with mental ill health still exists. It exists in this place, especially with respect to serious illnesses like schizoaffective disorders. Across the board this stigma and a lack of understanding creates an obstacle for people to benefit from help, and we know that the response capacity services and facilities are still a long way short of what we need. Like most people, I have some personal understanding and experience from within my family and close friends around mental illness and the toll it can take. There have been times when I wish my capacity to respond to those circumstances had been better—more receptive, more supportive, more emotionally resilient. I accept that I've been conditioned to keep myself to myself, and I tend to assume other people would rather be left alone. That's something I try to challenge and I'm trying to change. I accept that part of my conditioning has been to believe that strong people battle on by themselves, when I know that's silly and it's wrong. The real strength and the real courage is to be open with other people, to be honest with ourselves, to make connections, to give support and to receive support from those around us. 11:34 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin I thank the member for Fisher for moving this motion and I also recognise the words of the member for Fremantle. More than a million Australians have sought mental health treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the last month alone, there's been a 14 per cent increase in MBS items for mental health. These figures are both shocking and reassuring. They're reassuring because they show that perhaps more Australians are aware of their mental health and are seeking the support that they need. And this is important because our mental wellbeing is just as important as our physical wellbeing and early intervention and pre-emptive actions can be important in preventing an individual developing a mental health crisis. But these figures are also shocking because they're another indicator that the social and economic impacts of COVID-19 are having a profound impact on the mental wellbeing of Australians. While Australia has been doing a fantastic job in flattening the COVID-19 curve, we must also continue to flatten the mental health curve. Individuals, including Professor Anthony Jorm, from the University of Melbourne, and Professor Patrick McGorry, executive director of Orygen, have written about the way in which the threat posed by mental ill health follows a very similar pattern to that posed by the COVID-19 virus itself. Professor McGorry wrote in an Australian article earlier this year: In the case of mental health, the whole population has been exposed to the harmful mental impacts of the pandemic to some degree and this will result for the majority in a relatively mild to moderate level of anxiety and stress for which support, self-help and the passage of time are all that is necessary. However, a substantial minority of Australians will develop a new episode of mental ill-health to a degree that justifies and requires professional help. In order to flatten the mental health curve for all of Australia, we need primary prevention strategies that ensure we focus on mental health conditions being developed and secondary preventions focused on stopping an existing condition from progressing or deteriorating. This is something that is understood and recognised by the government, as the member for Fisher has pointed out. The estimated health portfolio expenditure for mental health services and suicide prevention in 2021 will be a record $5.7 billion. This includes vital support in primary prevention strategies, like $19 million to extend the national suicide prevention and support program, which funds key organisations such as R U OK? and Suicide Prevention Australia. There's another $6.9 million for a targeted awareness campaign, promoting digital mental health services with a key focus on the government's mental health gateway Head to Health, and there's $5 million over 2021 to develop and deliver a letter and fact sheet about mental health information to be sent to parents, carers and guardians of school aged children because it is vital that parents know—it is vital that everybody knows—you shouldn't just be stoic. Sometimes you do need to get help. Of course, the government is also prioritising the mental health of young Australians with a record $630 million investment to expand the headspace network and reduce waiting times. Headspace plays a fundamental role in primary prevention through its risk awareness strategies, community engagement and targeted strategies to at-risk minority groups, and it does vital work in secondary prevention through its counselling services. One further initiative announced by the government in this budget was an additional $100 million to provide an additional ten Medicare subsidised psychological therapy sessions each year, which is incredibly important in supporting individuals with mental health conditions who require longer-term treatments to effectively assist them. The government is going to continue its vital work to reduce the lives lost to suicide. Mental health and suicide are one of the government's highest health priorities, and the government's budget in 2021 emphasises this. Whether it's World Mental Health Day, which we're recognising today, or R U OK? Day or headspace Day, what matters most, as the member for Fremantle said, is that we are having conversations and looking out for our own mental health wellbeing and the mental wellbeing of loved ones every day. Governments and healthcare providers have a role to play in this space, but so do all of us. When it comes to primary prevention, we can all be doing something. What COVID has shown us this year is that our mental wellbeing is incredibly important and that compassion can be incredibly effective. 11:39 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I thank the member for Fisher for putting forward this motion. And I also thank my friend the member for Fremantle—that's with just one 'e'; sometimes that escapes people's attention—for the important points that he made about First Nations mental health and suicide rates. They are incredibly important points for us to realise. As COVID and a succession of calamities and natural disasters have hit our nation this year, with the isolation and the feeling of being alone within a lot of First Nations communities and certainly, many in the Northern Territory, hopefully we all realise that the rates of young Indigenous people dying by their own hand are shocking. I was talking to someone in the Northern Territory just last week trying to help their community, and it related to a 13-year-old boy who had died by his own hand. It is shocking, but we need to be shocked into realising that there's so much more for us to do. I want to acknowledge the first responders, who have been doing so much during this time, and their mental health. They have been serving us as a community, but we need to remember them and serve them. In recent months, of course, coronavirus has wrought havoc on our communities and it is important that we don't see ourselves as too strong or needing to be stoic. We need to actually do the strong thing and take control and reach out for that help ourselves when we need it. I commend that to everyone. In my life, when I've had times of difficulty, I always thought that I needed to maintain control. I had responsibilities, so I had to keep my act together for others. Someone very wisely pointed out to me, that taking control is seeking help, because you're then able to discharge your duties and responsibilities in a better way. So, based on my personal experience, I say to everyone: seek some support when you need it, because that's what everyone around you who loves you is hoping that you do, because they want you to be well. I commend many things that the government has done during the COVID period. As was mentioned earlier, the extension of telehealth services is very important, as is the investment of $100 million in COVID-related mental health support, but I would like to see more funding specifically for people who have lost their jobs. I think we can do a lot more there. Back in March, the suicide prevention Turning the Tide report found that the rate of suicide for people who were unemployed was nine times that of the general population, and it could, sadly, be a lot higher than that now, so there is a bit more work for us to do there. As the member for Fremantle said last week, we had a very important debate in the chamber, and members opposite spoke about the issue of a permanent commissioner for veteran suicide, and those on this side were debating in favour of a full royal commission with a fixed end and start date to look at the whole continuum of supports for veterans. I'll take the opportunity whilst those members are there to say that a permanent commissioner may very well be a recommendation of a full royal commission. Obviously, we want to do a deep dive on any veteran suicide, but I ask you to not close off your mind to the idea of a full royal commission that would have a suite of recommendations that would improve the services for those who serve our country, and I appreciate your wanting to keep an open mind on these things. It being Veterans' Health Week, I want to acknowledge the ex-service organisations. They're doing great work in my electorate. In particular I acknowledge Mates4Mates, who will be setting up the wellbeing centre. They have a range of activities on for veterans and Defence Force personnel and their families, and I commend them for the great work that they are doing. I hope that we can do more and that there is a bipartisan effort to make sure that we support Australians as best we can. (Time expired) 11:44 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid On 10 October we marked World Mental Health Day—a day that aims to raise awareness of mental health and wellbeing and to encourage help-seeking behaviour. Just as it is important to look after your physical health, we must also prioritise our mental health and wellbeing. As a psychologist, mental health is an area of policy that I'm particularly passionate about, and I'm grateful that I am able to contribute in this place and pass on my expertise in this area. Forty-five per cent of Australians will experience a mental illness in their lifetime. For those who live with a mental health condition, the additional factors caused by coronavirus have no doubt made this year a very, very challenging time. Levels of anxiety, social isolation and emotional distress have increased significantly worldwide during this year's during this year's global health emergency. Australia was one of the first countries in the world to recognise the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact that the coronavirus pandemic would have on Australians' mental health, and we responded early and substantially in terms of our financial support and practical support. This year's theme for World Mental Health Day is 'Mental Health for all: Greater Investment—Greater Access. Everyone, everywhere'. This theme is in line with the Morrison government's commitment to mental health funding. We have spent more on mental health than any other government before us. The most recent budget also delivers more good news for mental health services in Australia. This year alone, our government has dedicated $5.7 billion to mental health services. Medicare funded psychological services through the Better Access have doubled from 10 to 20 sessions, which has had a big impact for those with mental health conditions on the front line. For those with complex conditions, it means additional services to treat complicated conditions using evidence based techniques—and that makes all the difference. Just as the theme for World Mental Health Day suggests, mental health services are most effective when they are invested in and easily accessible to all. This is why the MBS items relating to mental health will cover face-to-face, telehealth, video and phone sessions. These have been particularly important for those in Victoria who have sustained an incredibly difficult time during lockdown and also for those in regional and rural areas. These services have been an integral part in maintaining good mental health that is easy to access. This budget will also deliver additional funding for services like Lifeline, headspace, Beyond Blue and Kids Helpline, who do incredible work around the clock supporting Australians wherever they are located. On 10 October, the date on which World Mental Health Day fell, I was fortunate enough to have the Treasurer in my electorate in Reid visiting my local headspace, located in Ashfield. Headspace is a one-stop shop for young people. It includes clinical services, outreach support, help with employment and study support, and there's a range of mental health workers in the headspace clinics, including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and various other support staff. I want to thank all the mental health workforce who have been working incredibly hard during this period, helping Australians across the nation and supporting us all. The Morrison government is driving the largest expansion of the headspace network, investing $630.4 million over the next four years, to ensure that headspace is able to provide clinical services and outreach. By supporting the mental health of all Australians, we are better supporting the nation in the recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, and I commend the work of headspace and mental health professionals across our nation. 11:49 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Thankyou to the member for Fisher for moving this timely motion. Recognition of mental health issues in 2020 is particularly important. All too often, when we talk about health, we automatically think of physical health, nutrition, exercise, cholesterol levels and cancer screening, but all of us legislators and the general community, as a whole, need to make sure that a whole-of-body approach is taken in conversations about health and that we recognise that health is about mental, social and physical health. As we all know, it's much easier to respond to an individual's physical health or injury as it's clearly visible. It can be much harder to address an illness or weakness, as in mental health. It's unseen and often hidden by the person experiencing it. Statistics show the prevalence of mental health is real. According to the federal government's report Mental health services: in brief 2019, 45 per cent of Australian adults aged 16 to 85 will have a common mental disorder in their lifetime. One can only assume that, in the last 12 months since that report was published, the figure has escalated. To address this growing need for mental health support, it's essential that we, from this place, provide quality health care for all Australians. For that, we need a focus on prevention. We need the support of both the public and the private systems, we need excellent health facilities and services, we need a skilled health workforce and we need a strong medical research system. Of course, in 2020, now more than ever, it's important to reach out for help, particularly during Mental Health Month. We have a number of fantastic national and local organisations that are available to help, so I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the organisations working hard in the electorate of Warringah. They include: Community Northern Beaches, Gotcha4Life, Raise Foundation, Waves of Wellness, Heart On My Sleeve, and CatholicCare Broken Bay Diocese. I'd also like to thank the larger national bodies, including Mental Illness Fellowship Australia, as referenced in the motion before us, but also ReachOut, SANE Australia, Beyond Blue, headspace and Lifeline. These organisations have seen a massive uptake in demand as the impacts of the bushfires and COVID-19 have hit communities hard. The stress of these events has impacted on our communities. In a recent survey conducted by the Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils, 27 per cent of people are worrying about the security of their job and 25 per cent have experienced loss of income and/or employment. Many have struggled with the isolation of working from home, the isolation from colleagues and the lack of regular social interaction that the office environment provides. I was worried to read a recent University of Canberra study that found that people in my electorate of Warringah were twice as likely to put off visits to their GP than those elsewhere in Sydney. Given GPs now see more patients for mental health issues than any other illness, that's a worrying trend. Our youth statistics are also worrying. The latest study to come out of the Brain and Mind Centre at the University of Sydney predicts that, over the next five years, the prolonged economic impact of COVID-19 will result in a 30 per cent increase in the number of suicides of 15 to 24-year-olds. That is a very worrying statistic. Locally, this year, I attended the launch of a pilot program run by SANE Australia called Better Off With You, a campaign specifically targeting those who have attempted suicide, to support them and empower them through telling their stories. The Northern Beaches area was chosen as one of two pilot areas, sadly, due to our high rate of suicide. The pilot program officially ended in May and I look forward to seeing the outcomes. I'm pleased to see that the resources and powerful message of Better Off With You are still available online. That's only one example of many programs taking place across Warringah and nationally to provide much needed support for those experiencing mental health challenges. I'm looking forward to marking the end of Mental Health Month by joining the team of Waves of Wellness Foundation on October 31 on the iconic Manly Beach, surfing in our suits to raise the focus on mental health. Maintaining mental health is so crucial. Now, more than ever, it's important to reach out for help. To all those watching and listening, please remember to talk to your friends and family or contact those organisations that can help. We are always better off with you, so, please, do not hesitate to reach out. Thank you. 11:54 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I want to begin by acknowledging my friend the member for Fisher, not just for moving this motion but for his friendship and his leadership of the Parliamentary Friends of Mental Health in this place. I want to acknowledge the broader Wallace family for sharing the story of the member for Fisher's beautiful daughter Caroline and her struggles with mental illness over the years. The member for Fisher has not just been an advocate; he has been a person who has got results in this space. I particularly think of the wonderful research work that the Thompson Institute is doing into eating disorders as a great example of one of the many things that he has done and achieved in this space while he has served in this place. COVID-19 has brought the focus of mental health and suicide prevention to the fore like never before. We've seen in Victoria in recent days the reports of the 31 per cent increase in presentations to mental health services as a result of the continuation of the stage 4 lockdowns. We have seen the renewed focus of mental health activities in Indigenous communities, particularly after that spate of suicides in the Kimberley. With the member for Herbert present in the chamber I also want to acknowledge the renewed focus on veterans' mental health and suicide that he has spearheaded. The situation caused by COVID-19 has reminded people that mental health isn't an issue for someone else; it's an issue for almost all of us as parliamentarians, but certainly an issue for almost all of us in our own families. I want to acknowledge what the government has done in the present budget with the addition of $5.7 billion, record funding, for mental health and suicide prevention. One of the most important aspects of this funding has been the doubling of the number of Medicare funded consultations for people who need psychological or psychosocial supports. This is so important, because only 10 consultations a year, less than one a month, was never enough for somebody who had, certainly acute mental health issues, but even more mild mental health issues. Having access to 20 really provides people with major support. I think we will see that as a game changer. I want to acknowledge that the government is due at some point to release the Productivity Commission's final report into mental health and suicide prevention and to put forward its response to that. The government also has a zero suicides target. This is a very ambitious target, I don't think we have a more ambitious social policy target than the target for zero suicides. But as the Prime Minister said to me when I asked him about this, 'Life is valuable. How could we have any other target than zero?' He is quite correct on that. In my remaining time today I want to speak about something that was raised in the draft report of the Productivity Commission. That is the issue of aftercare. We know that if you have attempted to take your own life, you are more likely than any other person in our community to attempt again. The sad fact is that people who have made an attempt—we know very often who these people are, where they live and how they've come, particularly if they've come into contact with hospital services and medical services. Yet in most states there is inadequate aftercare provided. The government two years ago expanded Beyond Blue's Way Back program and gave $10½ million to that program to ensure that people who had been admitted to a mental health facility did actually have in some places that extra support and aftercare. If you break your leg or your hip and you go in for surgery, you go to rehabilitation afterwards. It should be no different for mental health. My quibble with the Productivity Commission's draft report is that they say that adequate after-care along the lines of a further expansion of the Way Back program will only reduce the attempt rate by about 19.8 per cent and will only reduce the death rate by about 1.1 per cent. I just cannot believe that those figures can be correct, given that we know the group of people and we know that if we put in place adequate support we are more likely to be able to help them on. As mentioned by the member for Warringah, if the social and psychological and health supports are supported by campaigns like Better Off With You that destigmatise and ask people who have contemplated suicide and attempted suicide to reconsider that the world is better off with you, I think that suite of measures together can help us reduce the suicide rate in this country. So again I want to commend the member for Fisher and all members who spoke on this very important motion today and to acknowledge the very important day that is World Mental Health Day. 11:59 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I want to thank the member for Fisher for moving this motion. 2020 has tested our resilience in ways that many of us have not experienced before. On the back of prolonged drought and before we even ticked over to 2020, thousands of people across Eden-Monaro were woken on New Year's Eve by a firestorm that came and took so much from us all. Not only did the New Year's Eve bushfires and those that followed decimate more than 750 homes across Eden-Monaro; people were killed, livestock was lost, fences were trashed and communities were displaced. As the 'black summer' bushfires unleashed their fury on Eden-Monaro over the following months, people lived through a deep sense of fear and heartbreak—which in many cases has changed us forever. For the thousands of family members whose homes and belongings were destroyed, this year has seen them relive their trauma by trying to navigate the complex web of support that is available. Bushfire affected people often describe to me the challenges of trying to understand their bushfire attack level or dealing with neighbouring government owned land agencies, all while living with what they call 'brain fog'. For those who weren't directly affected, many were forced to evacuate their homes three or four times, shut down their business in the height of the busy summer period or support family members or friends who had lost everything. The stress on our communities and our systems was unfathomable. For many, the stress has continued while 2020 has continued to throw us curveballs. The COVID-19 pandemic meant that bushfire affected communities, just as they started coming together to process the shock and pain, were separated again. The pandemic pressed pause on cups of tea or a friendly schooner in the pub with those closest to us. Most devastatingly, it meant that many support services like counselling couldn't happen on the ground where they were needed most. It's only been in the last few months that people have been able to gather, socially distanced, to support one another. The toll the delay has taken on people's mental health cannot be understated. We know that our services across Eden-Monaro are stretched to their limits, and in many cases were stretched well before the incidents of 2020. Headspace has been overwhelmed. Domestic violence and housing support services can't keep up. More funding for these services, especially after cumulative natural disasters, is an absolute must. I was pleased to see the government announce in this year's budget a plan to provide an additional 10 Medicare rebate sessions for people with a mental health plan. It means Australians will get access to 20 subsidised psychological therapy sessions each year—a doubling of the current arrangements. This is sensible, and I entirely support it. However, those of us living in regional communities know that getting access to psychological services, counselling services or psychiatrist services is near impossible. We need more of these professionals in our regional communities and more trained professionals to reduce waiting lists. It's been disappointing that federal money has slowly trickled out to bushfire affected communities when it should have flowed more quickly. According to the National Bushfire Recovery Agency, only 39 per cent of the more than $53 million announced to support the mental health of Australians affected by bushfires has been spent—only 39 per cent. Another bucket of money includes $13.5 million to boost emotional and mental wellbeing support for people affected by bushfires. Again, according to the National Bushfire Recovery Agency only 38 per cent has been spent. I appreciate that recovery takes time, but less than half of that money has been spent nearly a year on. It's something that I hear all the time from our communities; whether I'm in Batlow or Cobargo, people constantly tell me that more mental health support is needed. Teachers constantly tell me that mental health support is needed in schools. We know that those on the front line, the heroes who risk their lives for us, deserve proactive and ongoing support. I urge the government to fast-track this spending, because it is vital and desperately needed by so many. While many of us joked about turning our clocks forward to 2021 when daylight saving time came into effect recently, perhaps there are some positives we can gain from this year. For a long time, we've been urged to put our mental health first. About 45 per cent of Australians will experience mental health. About 54 per cent of people with mental health illnesses do not access treatment. After this year I think the message has sunk in: it is okay to say you are not okay. I hope this community empathy and understanding continues and grows into the future. At the start of my first remarks in 2020, I said, 'It has tested our resilience, but it's also a timely reminder of what's important.' (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Infrastructure 136 12:05 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I move: That this House: (1) recognises that the Government has failed to manage critical infrastructure within the City Deals program; (2) notes that the Government:    (a) will spend $4 billion more on the Western Sydney City Deal project, Sydney Metro-Western Sydney Airport;    (b) has tried to disguise the $4 billion increase in cost as a 'fast track' when, in fact, the funding timeline and the scope from St Marys to the Western Sydney Aerotropolis via Western Sydney International has not changed;    (c) has shifted responsibility for land acquisition to the NSW Government; and    (d) failed to action a 2017 Infrastructure Australia report to strategically plan and acquire critical rail corridors which would have resulted in significant savings; and (3) further notes the abject failure of this Government to:    (a) acquire land that delivers value for money to the Australian taxpayer, as evidenced by the Leppington Triangle purchase; and    (b) learn the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic and invest in critical social infrastructure within City Deals. The record of the Morrison government reflects the approach that its leader has taken. His focus on marketing in place of policy has led to a long series of announcements that have not been matched by delivery. Nowhere is this more clear than when it comes to infrastructure and to cities. Nowhere is this more clear than when it comes to the Western Sydney Airport and the city deal there. In the last week we've heard a litany of dodgy deals—luxury watches for Australia Post executives, six-figure tax advice for the chair of our corporate watchdog and the Leppington Triangle purchase. There has been all of this, but no movement on a national anticorruption watchdog, even though we've learnt that the Attorney-General has had ready since last December draft legislation to establish this commission. To be fair, the Prime Minister has acted on one of these scandals. He has a zero-tolerance approach to Cartier watches. When it comes to systemic issues, he has taken a vow of silence. Spending $19,000 on accessories warrants prime ministerial intervention, but not a $30 million gift to billionaire landowners—a purchase that is the subject of the most scathing ANAO report that I have read. His deputy still calls this purchase a bargain. The Prime Minister is all about presentation and never concerned with substance. The issues here go beyond allegations of impropriety, serious as they are. We must continue to focus on the first principles of policy-making and implementation. In Labor we know that better cities and better suburbs mean better lives for the majority of Australians. It's that simple. The people of Western Sydney deserve a better deal from this city deal. They also deserve a bigger say in how it has been structured. Labor sees City Deals as a means to bring together the three levels of government in partnership with the private sector and, critically, the community in order to achieve shared objectives. For the Morrison government it's just a ribbon to wrap around a project that they were going to do anyway. Already we are seeing the consequences of this confused and top-down approach, such as almost doubling the cost of the Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport rail line. Back in 2015 the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments announced a joint Western Sydney rail needs scoping study. Its outcomes report recommended the protection of the land corridor and also said that value-sharing mechanisms should be in place and communicated to landowners before confirming station locations. A separate Infrastructure Australia report in 2017 said, 'Failure to appropriately protect corridors could hold substantial costs and risks for governments,' and, 'Corridor protection requires immediate action by governments'—immediate. But what has the government done to action the recommendations from these reports? Nothing. Surely it says everything about the priorities of this government that it dresses up a $4 billion cost blow-out as a fast-track, passing over the inconvenient truth that it is no such thing because the time line and the scope of the project remain unchanged. Sadly, this is just one example of a short-term focus on political advantage, short-changing the Australian community when it comes to infrastructure. The experience of the pandemic has shown us much about how our cities work and our future infrastructure needs, but the Morrison government has not been paying attention. Opportunities to invest in social infrastructure have been missed. We have a Deputy Prime Minister who is still defending the indefensible over the Leppington Triangle and a minister for cities who rivals his Prime Minister with his announcement mania. This lack of focus is holding us back and selling us short in Western Sydney and right around the nation. Elsewhere in the world, national governments have been supporting bold thinking, reshaping cities for COVID normal and for our post-COVID lives. That we haven't is little short of a grace. Big changes in how we work, how we consume, how we get about and how we live our lives have to be factored into policy-making to build resilience and to shape our recovery towards the future that we want to see. Of course, it's much too early to speak with confidence about what behavioural changes will endure, but we must recognise the changes that have taken place to seize the opportunities they present and to manage the risks. Something else has happened during the pandemic. For the first time in a very long time trust in politics has increased. We can't afford to let this dissipate, so let's get moving on that national integrity commission. Let's get to the bottom of what has happened with the Leppington Triangle purchase and all the other questionable dealings and examples of poor governance connected to this project and other decisions of the Morrison government. Also let's bring the people of Western Sydney closer to these decisions about their community and their future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Is the motion seconded? Mr Zappia HWB I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 12:10 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I like the member for Scullin but, for somebody who has presented this motion, or served this motion up, his enthusiasm for his actual motion was somewhat lacking. I thought he would be a bit more forthright and enthusiastic. On this side of the chamber, we actually have reason to be optimistic and enthusiastic, because this government on this side of the House, the Morrison government, that has actually delivered on City Deals. This government actually initiated the concept of City Deals some three years ago. It has become a very successful process—three levels of government cooperating and collaborating to agree to long-term plans focused around three key areas of housing, infrastructure and jobs. As a result of that, we have seen City Deals leverage some $16.8 billion in commitments, including some $8 billion from the Australian government through this partnership approach with state, territory and local governments. Across eight City Deals there are 160 projects, which we have jointly invested in with state governments, local councils and private partners, creating nearly 221,000 jobs in their life time. So we do have the runs on the board and we do have the track record to be enthusiastic about this and show that we are committed to this. This also gives me the opportunity to speak about some of the terrific things this government is doing in the latest budget in the infrastructure space. There is a record 10-year infrastructure spend. It was a $100 billion but now, as a result of the recent budget, it is $110 billion, and City Deals continue to be delivered across the nation as part of that. In fact, it was the coalition government that—with these jobs we see the opportunities to put boots on the ground and create job opportunities across the country. The member for Scullin in his motion raised the 2017 Infrastructure Australia report. I can report to the House that one of the priority projects in that report was the M1-M3 gateway merge. I am pleased to tell the House that that project has been completed on schedule—actually ahead of schedule—and we are now onto the next stage of the M1 upgrades from Springwood to the gateway northbound. Not only that, we also have completed the Mudgeeraba and Varsity Lakes upgrade on the Gold Coast to the M1 and we are now working on the Varsity Lakes to Tallebudgera section of the M1 upgrades. We have also committed as a government, as part of our long-term funding commitment to infrastructure, $500 million to upgrade the M1 from Daisy Hill to the Logan Motorway, the final stretch of the M1 upgrade projects in my part of the world. In addition to that, we have committed funding to the Salisbury-Beaudesert rail study, to look at a passenger rail solution for the Salisbury-Beaudesert rail corridor, which is increasingly needed as a result of the development that is going on in the south-west of the city of Logan. All of these things have been enabled by this federal government. In contrast, let's look at what the state Labor government have done in that period. They have done nothing. The Palaszczuk government has spent on average a tiny 3.6 per cent of its annual revenue on infrastructure, compared to 8.1 per cent in New South Wales and 7.6 per cent in Victoria. It is this Morrison federal government that has done the heavy lifting when it comes to delivering infrastructure for Queensland over the past five years, doubling our contribution made to other states and territories. In fact, our share of the funding split for Queensland state infrastructure was 40 per cent. The Morrison government has invested 40 per cent of the infrastructure spend in Queensland, compared to 21 per cent in other states and territories. I've seen this firsthand with trying to get the state Labor government to the table on projects. They have found every single excuse to delay projects until the eve of a state election, and they then magically roll them out. 12:15 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Nothing could tell you more or speak louder about the contempt of this government for Western Sydney than when, on a motion about Western Sydney, we have Queensland talk one, Queensland talk two, Queensland talk three. Where is the member for Lindsay, a Western Sydney Liberal MP? She is not here. They have to get all the Queensland contingent to speak about Western Sydney, because they've got no clue about Western Sydney. When they announced the Western Sydney City Deal, they announced it in Redfern, 38 kilometres away from Western Sydney. Now they have to have people from Queensland defend a dodgy deal. The deal itself is nothing but marketing spin. It is basically a fancy-sounding plan to distract from the dirty deals and out-and-out political pork-barrelling and rorting that has become the pungent hallmark of this Liberal government. Western Sydney residents are paying the price for this, unless of course they happen to live in a seat occupied by a Liberal MP. Is that fair? No. Should residents be forced to sit in clogged roads or late, crowded trains because Liberals at a federal and New South Wales level want to rort and politically manipulate infrastructure funding? No. Western Sydney infrastructure is not being determined on the need of residents. It's being determined purely by the political needs of the Liberals. Exhibit A is answers that Finance Minister Mathias Cormann recently released to a question on notice about the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan Local Roads Package—a lot of blue, not much red. It's a Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan. There are a dozen seats in Western Sydney fully or partially covered. It's one of the fastest-growing regions in the country. You go through the list, and there are nearly 30 projects either completed, constructed or with plans for future work, and, out of the list, the overwhelming bulk sit in either marginal Liberal seats or targeted seats. Just two projects are in seats outside this classification or in Labor seats. One is in the Chifley electorate: $200,000 for intersection works at Luxford Road and High Street leading into Mount Druitt Hospital. Many of the 30 projects are designed to upgrade intersections. During the election you had the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure breathlessly announce federal investment into roundabout construction. Seriously. That was last year. This year in the budget look at the priority road and rail projects—six in Liberal-National seats, two in Labor seats and one split between Labor and Liberal. It's all here in the budget papers. Of the projects in the two Labor seats, one is for the Prospect Highway upgrade in the electorate of my neighbour the member for Greenway. Putting aside the fact that the project descriptions for both the New South Wales and federal governments get the name of the road to be upgraded wrong—it's Blacktown Road, not Reservoir Road—the project was announced as a plan by the Baird government five years ago. Five years ago they announced this upgrade project for Prospect Highway, and now we're expecting to see work on this begin in 2021. Overall I simply doubt the New South Wales or fed Libs will deliver, because they always make the funding announcements and don't spend. There was $1.7 billion underspent last year and an average of $1.2 billion underspent for the last six. When it comes to Western Sydney, or any deal for infrastructure for Western Sydney, they've always got an announcement or a press release but nothing concrete to make life better. The Australian Automobile Association reckons that the road and traffic congestion that we encounter is a problem for 78 per cent of Chifley residents, but this infrastructure pork-barrel can't do anything or find anything to decongest the major road leading to Mount Druitt Hospital: Francis Road, Rooty Hill. There is nothing to decongest Richmond Road between Dean Park and Marsden Park, which sits on the doorstep of massive residential growth; nothing to decongest the late and crowded T1 western rail line; nothing to extend the North West Metro rail line to St Marys; nothing to progress the M9 running parallel to the M7. On top of this, the Western Sydney City Deal that we are talking about excludes the largest local government area in Western Sydney, Blacktown City Council, who are expecting massive residential growth. They need to plan for the emergence of a new CBD at Marsden Park. They should be an ideal member of the deal. Why are they excluded? It is because they are one of the few councils to stand up and call out the federal government's dodgy, politically corrupt approach to infrastructure spending—the same spending that not only sees infrastructure built to meet political need but also saw dodgy land deals around Badgerys Creek airport delivered to Liberal Party donors, with the Liberals paying 10 times more for this land. The airport was announced five years ago and billions have been ploughed into it, and no-one in Western Sydney knows where the planes will fly because no flightpath has been released. This just goes to show that the way the Liberals approach infrastructure is all about politics. It is not about need; it's about their political need. It is an absolute embarrassment that they have not one Western Sydney MP to back in their deal in this chamber right now. (Time expired) 12:20 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan That was a far more inspired performance from the member for Chifley about the motion than that of the motion's mover, the member for Scullin. Member for Chifley, maybe you should be on the front bench with a few of the others. It was a great audition. You would be making a few on your side nervous, I'm pretty sure—very, very nervous. So well done. You were far more inspiring than the Labor member who actually bothered to move the motion. It just goes to show that, when it comes to infrastructure, the Morrison government and this side of the chamber are about actually delivering infrastructure on the ground; whereas, for Labor members, infrastructure is about playing politics, trying to find the political point and trying to push it. In the case of the Labor government in Queensland, it is about trying to stymie or delay it and trying to do everything they can not do it so they can use it for a political point. This side of the chamber and the Morrison government are all about creating jobs. Never has it been more been more important than now, during the COVID recession, that, with our economic recovery, we create jobs and opportunities for Australians as we climb this mountain out of the COVID-19 recession. But, of course, we are not just delivering infrastructure; we are also investing in skills and training, building on the instant asset write-off scheme, providing tax relief for hardworking Australians, increasing our sovereign manufacturing capability and investing in shovel-ready projects and infrastructure. We are also supporting mental health services and the NDIS as well as our local manufacturing capability. That is what providing the necessary support to families, businesses and industries during the COVID-19 recession is all about. We know the scale of the challenge. With the COVID-19 recession, we have seen the global economy contract by 4.5 cent. Compare that to less than one per cent under the GFC. Infrastructure plays a vital role in our recovery, and I'm delighted to talk about the infrastructure that the Morrison government is delivering, supporting over 100,000 jobs on worksites right across the country. It is a record program of $110 billion to create these jobs and to get Australia moving again. In the 2020-21 budget, we committed an extra $1.3 billion of government funding for infrastructure projects in Queensland. This includes $750 million for the Coomera Connector, $201 million for the Bruce Highway, and $112 million for the Centenary Bridge upgrade in my own electorate of Ryan, servicing the people of Ryan. Since the start of the COVID-19 crisis, the government has committed an additional $2.2 billion in new infrastructure and accelerated projects to Queensland, and that includes in the Ryan electorate. On top of the $112 million for the upgraded Centenary motorway, the Morrison government has also committed $50 million for the Indooroopilly roundabout upgrade, $12.5 million for the Kenmore upgrade, $1.4 million for the intersection at St Lucia, $700,000 for the new Gresham Street bridge at The Gap and over $11 million for the Brisbane City Council to upgrade local roads and improve safety. Together, these funding commitments demonstrate an extraordinary commitment to fixing local roads in the electorate of Ryan and getting people home to their families sooner and safer. An important way that we deliver this infrastructure is via our established city deals, and there is a new one in South-East Queensland that is been negotiated at the moment. Mr Giles 243609 How's that going for you? Mr SIMMONDS 282983 I'll take the interjection from the member for Scullin. It would go a lot faster if we had a LNP state government instead of a Labor state government. This is part of the problem. There is federal government funding on the table for infrastructure in South-East Queensland—one of the fastest-growing regions in the whole of Australia—and the biggest council, Brisbane City Council, is working hand in glove with the federal government to deliver infrastructure. Then, right in the middle, you have a Labor state government who refuse to get moving, refuse to get going, refuse to put shovels in the ground. Even when they're not asked for funding by the Morrison government, even when the federal government is willing to put all the money in, they can't even get out of their own way and allow us to spend that money on infrastructure for Queensland residents. Mr Giles interjecting— Mr SIMMONDS 282983 In response to your interjection, Member for Scullin, I would say to the people of Ryan and the people of Queensland, vote for an LNP government to get the South East Queensland City Deal moving, because that is what we need to continue to invest in infrastructure, just like we have seen successful city deals in Townsville, Darwin, Western Sydney, Hobart, Launceston, Geelong and Adelaide, which are helping to drive the COVID-19 economic recoveries in those cities. That's what we want for South-East Queensland as well, and electing an LNP government at the end of this week will be key to that. 12:25 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I welcome the opportunity to discuss the city deals in this place and the deals that were struck with Western Sydney as some sort of payoff for the impacts of the Western Sydney airport, an airport for which we still don't have flight paths because the government's too scared to get that conversation out of the bag. There is no question that there have been some funds for some really great little projects in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury. These are the things they have wanted to do, but they have been starved of funds for so long as the Liberal governments froze their increases year on year and every government has asked councils to do more with less. But it's the oversight of the spending of billions of dollars that we should be worried about. The lack of oversight shouldn't surprise anyone, given the Liberals' aversity to scrutiny. Let's look at the abject failure of the government to buy land that delivers value to money to the Australian taxpayer called the Leppington Triangle. $30 million for land worth $3 million—of all the valuations done, they chose the most expensive, an admission by the secretary of the infrastructure department that the unit making these decisions, the Western Sydney Unit, needed to be cleaned out. That does not give anyone confidence in the billions of dollars that are being spent. Sadly, the billions are not being spent in my electorate of Macquarie. The Blue Mountains got one set of lights on the Great Western Highway as part of the city deal. This was a small project already planned, but it is not going to help the traffic that we may see as a result of the Western Sydney airport. The other real problem is that the extra $4 billion increase in the cost of building the Sydney Metro Western Sydney airport line does absolutely nothing to make it easier for Hawkesbury residents or businesses to access the airport. There isn't going to be a connection to the Richmond train line any time in the foreseeable future. The trip to the Western Sydney airport will involve catching a train to Blacktown, changing trains to St Marys and then changing to the new line. The public transport needs of the Hawkesbury have been completely ignored in the infrastructure planning for this airport, and so too have been the road needs. There is nothing to improve the roads leaving the Hawkesbury and heading south to the airport. It's not until you reach the Penrith area—in the electorate of Lindsay—that any kind of upgrade occurs. As always with the Liberals, the Hawkesbury's being taken for granted. The people in the Hawkesbury are just expected to put up with stuff from Liberal governments. In fact they're expected to put up with what they don't get, rather than what they do get. The same criticisms have been made by the member for Macarthur about the lack of rail link to his community only a few kilometres south of the airport. More than anything, though, this is a missed opportunity to improve the safety of the Hawkesbury, which is among the most flood-prone valleys in the country. Yet there's nothing done to improve residents' safety by upgrading roads. Right now we have a state government that tells us you have to evacuate from the Hawkesbury via road if there is a major flood. There is a video showing you where to go, but it also stresses that every one of these roads floods, so you need to leave early. That is what happens when the roads are on the floodplain. We all know the Jim Anderson bridge locally, but did you know it was built by a Labor state government to make it easier to leave when the waters are rising? It is pretty much the only piece of infrastructure that has been put in. There are no roads that the last seven years of federal Liberals or the last nine years of state Liberals have delivered to this community to make it safer—certainly not the new Windsor bridge, which has already been shown to offer minimal support for flood resilience, and certainly not the Richmond duplication project, where the RMS has stated categorically that planning for flood is not part of its remit because it doesn't have enough of a budget to include flood resilience. That is a federally funded project. Let's remember that these city deals are meant to 'secure the future prosperity and liveability of our cities'. Well, hardly! The state government is looking to allow a further 134,000 residents to join the 30,000 existing residents on the floodplain over the next 30 years, yet there are no steps in the so-called Western Parkland City to improve evacuation of those residents. In 2017, an evacuation infrastructure analysis that was completed for the New South Wales government by Infrastructure New South Wales found that effective evacuation is the only measure that guarantees a reduced risk to life in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley. A $950 million program of upgrading roads to allow evacuation at higher flood levels was considered before being dismissed due to cost in the government's 2017 strategy. A similar finding in 2012 found there is significant risk without evacuation upgrades and recommended that routes around Windsor, Bligh Park, Richmond and Penrith be upgraded. These are the sorts of practical things the city deals should have invested in. 12:30 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher As we deal with the dual health and economic crisis of COVID-19, I know that the people of Fisher now more than ever want their three tiers of government—federal, state and local—to work together. They're not interested in what tier of government has jurisdiction over a particular issue or which of us is in charge. To those on the other side: let's not play silly political games, as you've been doing this morning. The people of Fisher, and most Australians, want us to cooperate as a team in their best interests and to get on with the job of delivering. The coalition government understood this need for cooperation long before this crisis. As early as 2016, the then Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation released our Cities Agenda. With this statement, the government declared the Commonwealth's door open for state premiers, local mayors and the private sector to join us in a coordinated and effective approach to long-term planning. We've provided a platform for cooperative long-term infrastructure investment, both public and private, which can help our economies to grow. With the COVID crisis on hand, this approach is exactly what Australians want to see, not the Punch and Judy politics of this disappointing partisan motion. The government's city deals concept is a bold agenda and one for which the government should be congratulated. We're already starting to see the benefits of this approach. Work is complete on the new $250 million North Queensland stadium and we've begun the $193 million port upgrades under the Townsville City Deal. I'm sure the member for Herbert is very, very happy with the outcomes of the Townsville City Deal. Local companies have taken up major contracts on these projects, already bringing hundreds of jobs to the community. Two hundred and sixty million dollars has been invested in Launceston to move the University of Tasmania's campus into the city centre, and the library and Student Experience building are already under construction. If I remember correctly, that deal was put together when there were Labor federal members in that seat, so there goes that argument for Labor! This project in Launceston is already employing 65 people, with another 650 jobs expected to be created. Thirty more projects are progressing under this city deal alone, and the Launceston economy is growing year on year. In fact, I believe the Tasmanian economy is growing the fastest amongst the whole national economy, amongst all the states. Good on you, Tassie. You're doing great work. It must be the great government you've got in that state. However, as my community has seen in recent years, this government is pressing ahead with investing in much-needed infrastructure in regions with and without a city deal. The recent federal budget included a record $110 billion over the next ten years to build new transport infrastructure, as well as a further $3½ billion to build new water infrastructure. This will support over 100,000 jobs across 10 years. In my electorate of Fisher, we've seen a total investment of almost $3.2 billion. I hear the member for Goldstein saying, 'How much?' There's $3.2 billion in upgrades to the Bruce Highway between the Sunshine Coast and Brisbane. This includes an extra lane each way all the way from the coast to Pine Rivers as well as major upgrades to the critical intersections at Deception Bay, Maroochydore Road and Caloundra Road among others. The recent budget allocated an additional $95.2 million to ensure that these upgrades are completed on time and in full. The current phase of these works between Caloundra Road and Sunshine Motorway are scheduled to be completed in the middle of next year, while the next section from Caboolture-Bribie Island Road to Exit 163, the Steve Irwin Way, is scheduled to begin construction later this year. In Fisher alone, these upgrades are already supporting 680 jobs. You're probably wondering why I'm saying these things. That is because this is proof that whilst City Deals are great and they're really important, you don't need a City Deal if you're a good federal member to get funding for your local region. You do not need City Deal to get funding for— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 198084 Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is interrupted, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Australian Space Agency 141 12:36 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I move: That this House: (1) recognises the opportunities for Australian businesses, especially our advanced manufacturers, in the growing Australian space industry; (2) acknowledges that the Government has: (a) set a goal of tripling the size of the space sector to $12 billion by 2030; (b) established the Australian Space Agency to drive the sector forward; and (c) recently commenced groundworks on the new Space Discovery Centre at Lot 14 in Adelaide, which will engage and educate our next generation of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics leaders; and (3) welcomes the Government’s opening of Supply Chain Capability Improvement grants that will enable Australian businesses to become part of the international space supply chain and have a role in NASA’s Moon to Mars mission. It was September 2017 that Adelaide had the great privilege to host the International Astronautical Congress, and that coincided with the announcement by the coalition government by Senator Birmingham that Australia would establish a space agency. This is not the beginning of a space industry in our great nation, but this is a milestone event to have a dedicated government that is focusing on what is not only a significant existing industry but one that is only going to be more and more exponentially larger as time goes on. It was a little over 12 months later that the announcement of where that agency would be based was made by Prime Minister Morrison. I had the pleasure in a former career before coming to this place of being heavily involved with the South Australian government's campaign to secure the Space Agency headquarters, located at the Lot Fourteen precinct in my home city of Adelaide. This is part of the broader City Deal that was announced by the Commonwealth government in partnership with the state and local government for the former Royal Adelaide Hospital site. And the Australian Space Agency, in many ways, is the jewel in the crown of that precinct, and that's saying something because there are so many other extremely exciting things happening on that campus. But, certainly, the announcement by Prime Minister Morrison that the South Australian government bid, if you like, had been successful and the agency would be based in South Australia was a great day for Adelaide and the future opportunities for space in my home city. I hasten to add though that the opportunities for space exist well beyond Adelaide, right across this great nation of ours, because the Space Agency frankly is an important government entity to regulate and encourage the development of the industry itself but it will be the industry that really provides the major economic dividend for our country into the future. There is not just the agency based at the Lot Fourteen precinct but also the Mission Control Centre and the Space Discovery Centre, which are both funded out of the $6 million allocated towards South Australia as part of a broader $20 million Commonwealth fund for space industry infrastructure. We're very grateful to have those two entities co-located with the Space Agency. We also were successful, through a consortium led by the University of South Australia, to secure the SmartSat CRC, which is to be based in Adelaide as well. So Adelaide is the home of space, and space is the future. Of course some of the elements of space are fairly obvious to us, but others are not. In fact, it's the more traditional industries that I think will have the most significant productivity gains through space industry development, particularly in mining and agriculture frankly, two industries that have been significant in South Australia and Australia since European settlement. They have the biggest opportunities for productivity gain through a mature industry that's developing solutions to the challenges that they have into the future. We have a strong, proud history in space development in this country. We know about the industry's association with things like the Apollo program many decades ago. It's estimated there are nearly 400 space related businesses already operating in our economy and they employ nearly 10,000 people. It's the government's ambition that, by 2030, we should be able to triple the size of the industry right across the nation. That's not just through landing someone on the moon, although we're very proud that we are investing in being part of NASA's ambitious project to explore Mars and potentially have humankind land on Mars in the future. We've announced some investment towards that, and that investment will be spent here in Australia, in assisting with the capability required for that mission. We've got a great partnership with NASA. We've also got an excellent partnership with the European Space Agency. Again, all the money that we're investing with the European Space Agency is being spent in-country, here in Australia. They are excellent partnerships that go to Europe, North America and also throughout the Asian region. We have excellent partnerships with companies in Japan and South Korea, and the list goes on. It's very exciting for the future. It's a real milestone legacy of the term of this coalition government that we've established the Space Agency, we're backing the space industry, we want to be ambitious for that sector and we want to triple it by 2030. We've got a great foundation in place led by excellent entrepreneurial companies. I'm very excited about the future and what it's going to do for my city, state and this nation. 12:41 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I rise in support of the motion by the member for Sturt. As a South Australian like the member for Sturt, I am particularly and especially proud to do so, because South Australia, and in particular Adelaide, has become the hub, as we just heard, of the Australian space sector. It's fitting for South Australia to play this role given that much of the history of Australia's space journey was centred in South Australia, in my state. It dates back to 1947, when the Woomera rocket range was established. This was the largest land-testing range in the world. But it wasn't until 1996, when Adelaide born astronaut, Dr Andy Thomas, became Australia's first member of NASA's elite astronaut course that the opportunities for Australia really began to emerge. Andy Thomas famously flew four missions, spending a total of six months in space. I'm sure that he inspired a whole generation of Australian girls and boys to dream of working in the existing field, including my eldest grandson, who is now seven and is in awe of Andy Thomas and anything to do with space. South Australia is also fortunate to have the highest density of space related organisations in the country. All these factors make South Australia the obvious choice as the location of the industry's headquarters, as we've seen. However, it would be remiss not to acknowledge the foresight of the then Weatherill state government, which established Australia's first dedicated space office, in Adelaide in 2015, followed by Adelaide successfully hosting the 68th International Astronautical Congress in 2017. The current government is following through with all of the great successes of the space centre and is supporting it. This initial activity was pivotal to the growth of the industry. It generated the first space strategy, which clearly set out the economic growth potential of the space sector and it resulted, ultimately, in the establishment of the Australian Space Agency in 2018. It's a true testament to the importance of this sector for Australia that support for the Space Agency and associated activity has continued to strongly grow in a bipartisan way ever since. The opportunities are truly vast. Morgan Stanley, for example, forecasts that, in the next 20 years, the global space economy will nearly triple in size from US$400 billion in 2018 to US$1.1 trillion in 2040. Here in Australia we've set our own target of tripling the size of the space sector to $12 billion by 2030. Judging by the growth we've seen just in the past few years, I believe we have every chance of achieving this. For example, in 2006 the sector had around 10,000 employees and revenue of around $4 billion. Since then we've managed to expand to 14,000 employees and $5.4 billion in revenue; that's in a short period of time. On an individual company level, there are also examples of extraordinary growth. Companies like Myriota, Inovor Technologies and Fleet Space Technologies, all based in Adelaide, went from employing a handful of people when they were first established in 2014-15 to employing more than double now. These results have been possible because of strong partnerships between government, industry and research. The perfect example of this is the SmartSat Cooperative Research Centre—or CRC, as they are known. This is one of the most significant space research collaborations ever forged in Australia. It brings together around 100 international and national partners who have invested over $190 million together with $55 million of federal government support. This represents $245 million in research effort over seven years. In a deal announced recently between NASA and the SmartSat Cooperative Research Centre, we can locally develop emergency beacon technology for the next moon mission. This is very exciting. It's important to note, however, that the application of space technologies goes far beyond missions to the moon; it plays an integral part in our daily lives. 12:46 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein You've heard of the acronym TGIF; it is only Monday, so it wouldn't be appropriate here. I am going to give you another one: TFIGTBA—'the future is going to be awesome'. That is the opportunity of the Australian space industry. I welcome this motion put forward by the outstanding, up-and-coming and rising star, the member for Sturt. I know he is passionate not only about Adelaide but also about the future, defining the future and the space industry, and he wants to make sure they are all in perfect alignment. I hope the member for Macarthur would agree. Dr Freelander 265979 Absolutely! Mr TIM WILSON IMW I certainly do, because I am very pro-Australian space industry—while there may not be a huge amount of it based in the Goldstein electorate. What we want to see in the success of our country is not one giant engine burning but those of the entire nation, and every part of the country reaching for the stars and success—and no, that was not a deliberate pun; it just rolled off the tongue. The space industry is particularly something that this government is very committed to, because it provides the opportunity for our scientists, our researchers, our engineers and all of those who are based in minerals, mining and advanced manufacturing to be part of a future industry that can grow the potential of the strength of our country. We know that this is not the first investment that Australia has made in the future of a space industry. As we look beyond the horizon and our planet, we look at how we want to be a participant. The member for Sturt has spoken already, as has the member for Adelaide, about the opportunity that exists to be part of future lunar activity and Australia wanting to be part of that journey. That's why we already have 380 companies employing over 10,000 Australians and contributing $3.9 billion to the Australian economy—to be part of a future space industry. We are planning to triple the size of the space industry and add $12 billion annually to the Australian economy by 2030. So, in only 10 years, we will see a tripling of the contribution the space industry can make and a doubling in the number of jobs available for Australians in this sector. We have already invested nearly $700 million in Australia's space industry, but that's the dollars; it's not the outcomes in terms of people's skills and capacity. It is not just for a space industry; there are rollover effects for so many other sectors of the economy where skills can be reapplied to develop other different sectors as well. As part of this government's manufacturing strategy, particularly in realising the opportunity for advanced manufacturing, the skills you need in space are the same skills you need on Earth and for the sectors that are going to ensure we build the future of Australia's economy. Mr Dick interjecting— Mr TIM WILSON IMW I know that the member for Oxley is enjoying my comparisons. He's right to. I hope that he too is committed to the future of the Australian economy and this Morrison government being able to deliver not just for Adelaide but for Brisbane and the rest of the nation. There are some areas where Australia can apply its skills and its knowledge on Earth to space. Our specialised contribution transcends the contributions of others, particularly our expertise in fast and secure communications, which are critically important. We made a huge contribution to the Apollo missions not far from this building at Parkes. The automation and control of robots and assets in space is much like the remote control of mining equipment in the Pilbara. I've been to Rio Tinto's head centre near Perth airport and have pressed buttons that have dropped tonnes of iron ore. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Rick Wilson, have had similar experiences to that. We have the capacity and can make a contribution. We can apply our experience in mining and mining technology in future to space. Earth observation from space can be used for similar observations of lunar services. This is also an area where we have critical capacity. The remote management of health in extreme conditions is very much part of the challenge of living in places like Antarctica. There is the application of Australia's expertise in mineral exploration to support scientific exploration of the moon and Mars. Never underestimate the potential for Australia to contribute to the success of the global space program. It goes to the heart of the Morrison government's ambition not just for Australia but for the globe. 12:51 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I rise to make my remarks regarding advanced manufacturing, particularly in growing the Australian space industry, and how that impacts not only my electorate of Oxley in the south-west suburbs of Brisbane and Ipswich but also right across this country. I have listened to the previous speakers talk about what investment the Morrison government are allegedly making in advanced manufacturing and how they are world leaders. Unfortunately, the facts don't back up some of the claims that we've heard today. Sadly, the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, who has championed this project and exploration in the space sector by 2030 as a hallmark of the government, let the cat out of the bag yesterday when it was revealed that, of the $1.5 billion that was to be spent this financial year, only $40 million will be spent. That's less than three per cent of the funding slated in the budget for Australian manufacturing. Manufacturing is critical to Australia's economic future. Advanced manufacturing is critical to the way that our country will trade in our region and across the globe. Sadly, yesterday's announcement by the minister confirmed that overall only about $40 million is to be spent before the end of the current financial year. Two weeks before, $1.5 billion was announced, but yesterday the minister confirmed only three per cent of that funding. As we always say, they're great on the headlines and the big-ticket items. Don't look at what the government say; look at what they do. Yesterday the minister confirmed that, despite the big headlines and the pomp and ceremony, the government is found wanting when it comes to manufacturing and advanced manufacturing. I want to focus my remarks today on highlighting a fantastic business in my electorate. Located in the suburb of Darra is a company called PFi, or Products For Industry. PFi has spent several years on a mission to understand the space industry, to bring real forward-thinking and innovative solutions and to help Australians learn and experience more about space and industry. I pay tribute to CEO Nick Green and all of the team at this brilliant local company. I have had a number of discussions with them—I have taken a number of shadow ministers there—and we have learned that as a nation we have about 50 years to catch up on and that, if Australia is to play a significant role in the space industry, we have to do a lot more in education—all the way from primary school to advanced education, engineering degrees and of course trades and apprentices. To this end, PFi Aerospace has been recognised by Northrop Grumman as developing a world-leading STEM program to help Australia make up this shortfall. They have some fantastic plans, and this week I will be writing to the minister, the Honourable Karen Andrews, asking her to see what the federal government can do to expand this company. Northrop Grumman has said of the PFi Aerospace STEM program: 'Their innovative, collaborative approach in design thinking developed a world-leading educational tool and demonstrated their ability to engage the wider community'. Australia's manufacturing output is worth around US$270 billion. It ranks last on self-sufficiency against all other OECD economies, including countries such as Japan which produce more manufactured output than they consume. The March 2018 review of Australia's space industry stated, 'Countries with commercially focused space agencies, such as the UK, Canada, France and Norway, invest in space to grow and diversify their economies at a rate between 0.16 per cent and 0.7 per cent of GDP in space agency funding alone'. Research suggests that for every dollar invested in space technology and development today approximately $40 return is secured. In addition, for every trained engineer in Australia, at least 15 highly skilled tradespeople are required. We know there has been a skills shortage and a trades shortage in this country. In my electorate, thousands of apprenticeships have been lost over the last seven years and it is time the government really took this industry seriously to make sure that we can encourage and enhance—and do what we can to support businesses, not only in my electorate but right across Australia, to reach their full potential and to deal with the economic recovery as we move forward, but also to look at employing particularly local people in my local community. 12:57 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan It is a pleasure to rise and support this motion today. Who could possibly dislike the investment in the Australian space industry? That was the rhetorical question I had thought to open my statement with today, but in fact it isn't rhetorical because there is one person who is against investment in the Australian space industry, and that is the member for Oxley, who we just heard. What an extraordinary spray! How could you possibly play politics with the idea of creating jobs in the space industry, increasing manufacturing in Australia and putting us at the forefront of global exploration! The member for Oxley managed to play politics even with that, such is his talent for playing politics. I am very, very pleased to stand up and support the Member for Sturt's motion. He is a tremendous advocate of the Australian space industry, particularly in his electorate. The rest of us are very supportive of the Australian space industry, but the Member for Sturt just won't let us have any of it in our own electorates; he has to have it all in the electorate of Sturt. It is because of his hard work that it has come this far. As our economy recovers from COVID-19, it is imperative that we continue to upgrade sovereign capability and build on our competitive advantages, and the space industry could hold such a competitive advantage for us. It already includes the Australian space industry: over 380 companies, employing over 10,000 people and contributing more than$ 3.9 billion dollars to our economy every year. The Morrison government is planning to triple the size of the space industry here in Australia by committing $12 billion annually to the Australian economy by 2030 and creating a further 20,000 jobs. Importantly, space technology is not just about the reach-for-the-stars stuff you see in movies—although that is important; we would all like to see the US achieve its goal of landing a person on Mars. It is also important to a lot of other Australian industries: farmers use space capabilities to help monitor crops; marine pilots use it to guide cruise liners; emergency workers use it to track the progress of bushfires; and scientists use it to study the effect and impacts of droughts. The flow-on effects of the economy investing in the space sector are enormous—as infinite as space itself, some would say. That is why the government has already invested nearly $700 million in Australia's space industry. These investments we are making in the space industry here in Australia are benefiting all Australians. We are developing a space sector to help create Australian jobs at a time when Australia needs it the most. Right across the supply chain, whether you are a data analyst, a rocket scientist, all the way through to tradespeople and manufacturers, you all have a role to play and an opportunity in the Australian space industry. The coalition government is the only government that has invested significantly in the space industry for Australia, because, unlike the Labor Party, we recognise the important role of space in our economy and the role it plays in creating jobs for Australians. The $19.5 million Space Infrastructure Fund that we have created is supporting a range of projects across the country and enhancing our domestic space capability. In particular, the Morrison Government, when we established this fund, consulted with states and territories, many of whom eagerly put up their hands to be a part of it. As I said, one of the most successful about putting up their hand to be a part of it was South Australia, thanks in part to the role that the member for Sturt played in his previous life with the South Australian state government. That included a $6 million mission control facility that was announced as part of the Adelaide City Deal, enabling small and medium-sized businesses to control satellite missions. The construction of Australia's Space Discovery Centre and Mission Control Centre has begun in Adelaide's innovation precinct. I had the great opportunity to be there with the member for Sturt to visit it at Lot Fourteen. It is amazing to see the innovation that is occurring there—not just that, but the passion and entrepreneurship that this is inspiring in Australia's kids, to see Australia and Australian industry reach for the stars. The Australian Space Discovery Centre is the Morrison government's centrepiece to ignite curiosity in young people and to promote the benefits of STEM. Sparking young people's imagination about space isn't just about the wonder of the unknown; it's about making sure that they can take advantage of the enormous opportunities the broader industry represents. Underpinned by a strong STEM education focus, the Australian Space Discovery Centre will highlight the diverse opportunities available in the space sector, including careers in manufacturing, engineering, space medicine, geology and computing. Because of the opportunity that it is creating for Australian kids, because of my keen support for STEM, I have a keen focus on Australia's space industry. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 198084 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Climate Change 145 13:02 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) 2019 was the hottest and driest year ever recorded in Australia, resulting in catastrophic bushfires, extensive coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef and ever-increasing rates of extinction of our native flora and fauna; (b) in the face of runaway climate change, and according to the Bureau of Meteorology, Australia is on track to warm by 4.4 degrees Celsius; (c) the Government has just committed to new fossil fuel exploration and infrastructure which will lock in continued greenhouse gas emissions and global heating for years to come; and (d) gas is a fossil fuel, not a transition fuel, while carbon capture and storage has a long history of absorbing taxpayers money for little benefit to the climate; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) stop fossil fuel exploration and extraction of coal, oil and gas, including the Adani project and drilling off the New South Wales coast; (b) end direct and indirect taxpayer subsidies to the fossil fuel industry; and (c) invest in large-scale renewable energy generation, storage and transmission through community-owned solar, wind, tidal, wave, hydro, geothermal and green hydrogen. It is unbelievable that here we are in October 2020 and we're going to have another debate about climate change and what to do about it. Surely all sensible people in this place who can read the science, or at least read the newspaper, would be in agreement. We would be in agreement with the first part of the motion that 2019 was the hottest and driest year ever recorded in Australia, resulting in catastrophic bushfires, extensive coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, and ever increasing rates of extinction of our native flora and fauna. Surely every member in this place would agree that in the face of runaway climate change, and according to the Bureau of Meteorology, Australia is on track to warm by 4.4 degrees Celsius. Surely sensible people in this place who can read the science or read the newspapers would agree that the Commonwealth government has just committed to new fossil fuel exploration and infrastructure which will lock in continued greenhouse gas emissions and global heating for years to come. Surely we can agree that gas is a fossil fuel, not a transition fuel, while carbon capture and storage has a long history of absorbing taxpayer money for little benefit to the climate. Surely all parties that claim to be focused on the public interest would agree with the second part of the motion: that we must stop fossil fuel exploration and extraction of coal, oil and gas, including the Adani project and drilling off the New South Wales coast. Surely we would agree that we must end direct and indirect tax subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, and we must start investing in large-scale renewable energy generation, storage and transmission through community-owned solar, wind, tidal, wave, hydro, geothermal, green hydrogen and other emerging technologies. But no: we are still here in the Federation Chamber again arguing about climate change and what to do about it, squabbling and carrying on. The government, for its part, is cooking the books by bringing forward the Kyoto credits. The government is cooking the books by having the community believe that the temporary reduction in global and national emissions on account of the pandemic is actually some part of structural change in this country. When the pandemic is over, not only will emissions return but they'll come back with a vengeance as global industry and transport et cetera seek to catch up. I'm sorry to say that the opposition is no better, because the opposition's continuing support for oil and gas is really very, very similar to the government's. It is just that the opposition thinks that, if we export our emissions to another country, that will be okay because, presumably, emissions in other countries will respect the borders between our countries. And both sides of the chamber will peddle this altruism nonsense—that it's all about providing cheap power to the poor in places like India. What nonsense! There is no altruism here. It's big corporates wanting to make a buck by trashing the environment. What is needed is for the government, with the support of the opposition, to put this country on a credible pathway to 100 per cent reliance on renewable energy and zero net carbon emissions. That's what the community wants. That's what's affordable. We know it's an undeniable fact that new renewable energy production is markedly cheaper than building new oil or gas energy plants. And it's reliable. Sure, the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, but, when wind and solar are integrated into a broader network that includes other technologies, like pumped hydro, battery storage, wave, geothermal, tidal and other technologies, we genuinely come up with a holistic solution that is reliable. Australia needs to take a global lead here. Let's not forget that, when we include our exported emissions, we contribute five per cent to global emissions. We are a significant emitter and we are a significant global leader. We need to set an example for other countries. We need to use our considerable know-how and our resources and our abundance of renewable energy resources to put this country on a credible pathway, as quickly as we humanly can, to 100 per cent renewable energy and zero net carbon emissions, and finally this country can be all that we are capable of being—a global leader doing something about climate change. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 198084 Is there a seconder for the motion? Ms Steggall 175696 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 13:07 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan I am very pleased to speak on this motion today, because it gives us the opportunity to talk about the hard work that this government is doing to take action on climate change and our commitment to ensuring that future generations and young people have opportunities for work and to succeed in the economy, because the two go hand in hand. The Morrison government knows the heavy impacts that this country has felt as a consequence of COVID-19 and the bushfires, which are referenced in this motion, which is why we have made record investments in recovery efforts. This government has also dedicated itself to action on climate change and waste reduction. In this budget alone, we have invested $674 million into oceans and marine ecosystems and $319 million into parks and heritage areas; improved research and development in the Great Barrier Reef and in the Antarctic; and, of course, helped encourage ecotourism. The Morrison government is committed to taking real and meaningful action to address the challenge of climate change. To this end, we know that it is a global problem that requires a global solution. That's why we've committed to our international target of reducing emissions to 26 to 28 per cent below the 2005 levels by 2030. The target is achievable and responsible. It represents one of the most ambitious reductions in per capita emissions among the developed countries, all the while ensuring that our economy doesn't wear an unmeasured burden like that suggested by the Labor Party during the last federal election. We have targets which are in line with the Paris Agreement and we are on track to beat those targets. We beat our Kyoto targets, so Australians know that we can do it. We have a plan to invest in technology that will allow us to meet and beat these targets. We know that all governments, businesses and communities must work together to achieve this goal, particularly as natural disasters occur and we set our minds to the recovery efforts. That's why the Morrison government has invested over $15 billion in natural resource management, water infrastructure, drought and disaster resilience and recovery, including $325 million in climate science and adaption research and services. This government knows that, in the COVID-19 recession, Australia is facing the greatest ever economic challenge that we have seen since the end of the war. To put it in perspective, as this chamber knows, we have seen the global economy reduce by some four per cent. When compared to the GFC, it reduced by less than one per cent. So it is a significant mountain that we have to climb as an Australian economy to get back to where we were, but we are dedicated to do it. But we are also aware that, as we do that, we need to continue the work to protect our environment. Gas will help us re-establish a strong economy as part of the government's JobMaker plan, making energy affordable for families and businesses and supporting jobs as part of Australia's recovery from the COVID-19 recession. If we are going to climb this mountain out of the COVID-19 recession, we need cheap and reliable energy. Gas is an important ingredient in delivering that, along with renewals, but our focus has to be on achieving cheap and reliable gas while we reduce our emissions as well. Gas doesn't prevent us from reducing emissions, as this motion would claim. In fact, it is a key part of the government's plan to reduce emissions without imposing new costs on households, while, at the same time, creating jobs, growing businesses and the economy. Only the coalition government can be trusted to be responsible stewards of our economy and only the coalition government has a responsible plan for Australia to meet its international targets without destroying the jobs that we so desperately need to retain during the COVID recession. That was very starkly shown during the last federal election and endorsed by the Australian people. We are taking climate action to ensure Australia reduces its emissions, but we are also protecting our economy during that transition. Under the leadership of Minister Ley and Trevor Evans as the assistant minister for waste reduction, we're investing millions of dollars in improving our environmental practices and, in doing so, are creating jobs for the future and reducing waste. I'd particularly like to point out the significant efforts that will be made with the passage—it's being debated in the House right now—of our first Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill. Along with the other investments, this is a truly transformative step in encouraging more responsible waste management and facilitating the industry to be more innovative in creating new technology to solve the issue of waste in our community. As you can see, the Morrison government are the ones to be trusted to reduce emissions and assist our environment. 13:12 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I thank the member for Clark for moving this motion, which I was proud to second. The member set out the facts in this motion. Climate change is the biggest challenge that we face as a society. Last summer's bushfires showed the worst of climate change impacts to date. Over 400 people died, over 4,000 were admitted into hospital with respiratory illnesses and still more have mental scars from forced evacuations. Over 5,900 buildings and 18.6 million hectares were incinerated, there was an estimated $20 billion in lost economic output and $2.4 billion in insured losses, and three billion animals were wiped out. The fires left no person on the East Coast untouched. The issue is on top of my electorate and many others. In the last years, there have been Warringah community surveys. Eighty-eight per cent of respondents said climate change or preservation of the environment was the issue that most concerned them. People in Warringah care about a safe and prosperous future for their environment, but they are not alone. Many other electorates care the same. There are dozens of initiatives in Warringah on climate happening at the moment, from early work on Warringah renewable energy zones through to Zero Emissions Sydney North going from house to house, helping people switch to solar. Unfortunately, it's not enough. Economists, like Professor Tom Kompas, are warning that, if we don't move faster and meet our Paris targets, the cumulative economic damage of not reaching those goals will be some $2.7 trillion over the next three decades. We must take the handbrake off and address the pandemic and climate crisis simultaneously. Australia is in recession for the first time in 30 years. Sensible future-forward policies are what are required to lift us out and ensure our competitive advantages going forward. While so many other countries around the world are embracing those opportunities, our government seems determined to put the brakes on our transition and undermine our opportunity to be leading the world. Countries around the world, including the UK, Germany, France and the EU, have recognised that acting on climate change will lead to a jobs boom in electric vehicles, in energy efficiency and in renewables. China and Japan have recently joined the fray, announcing net zero targets. As our largest trading partners, these announcements will have significant ramifications for us. Many of these countries have also realised that the best way to leverage private investment and direct government policy is durable bipartisan climate change framework legislation, like the UK's Climate Change Act, which includes a net zero target by 2050. If the government wants to attract private capital, and I know it does, it will support the climate change bill that I'll be introducing on 9 November to legislate a net zero by 2050 goal to attract that private investment. Modelling by Energetics, an investor group, on climate change released only a few days ago, found that a long-term framework and a net zero target by 2050 would attract over $64 billion in private investment by 2025 and over $375 billion by 2050. If the country keeps to its current targets and climate policies, investment worth some $43 billion would be lost over the next five years, growing to some $250 billion by 2050. In comparison—and in significant contrast—since the UK enacted their bill, they've grown and put people in jobs. They now have over 400,000 jobs in the clean industry sector, and low-carbon industries will have grown from about two per cent of UK GDP in 2015 to an estimated eight per cent of UK GDP by 2030 and 13 per cent by 2050. Acting on a green recovery and passing a climate change act would ensure a positive future. In last year's survey, 77 per cent of people in Warringah said they wanted me to advocate on climate change legislation, so that is what I am doing by bringing forward the climate change bill, which will set a net zero target, do risk assessment and adaptation plans, establish new green technologies and establish an independent climate change commission. This issue is not going away. To the contrary, it's only going to get more pressing. We can hear the political discourse constantly, but what we need is action. I would say to the Morrison government: do you want to be the Kodak government, the government that missed the opportunity to be at the front of the curve? It's time to act. 13:17 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I'm pleased to rise to speak on the member for Clark's motion, and I do have a great deal of respect for the member for Clark and the work he has done in this parliament, but on this issue we disagree. It's not that we all don't want a clean environment and a greater future for our children. That is not in dispute. It's about how we go about it. I note, as I rise to speak on this motion about the issues of global warming, that it's currently nine degrees Celsius outside here in Canberra. In Sydney, its current temperature is 14.4 degrees, and yesterday the hottest afternoon temperature we had was 14.8 degrees, which actually occurred at 10.30 pm at night. From what I can see, the 25 and 26 October were actually the coldest two days in October that we've ever had in Sydney's history going back to 1859. I think that's a rather apt fact that we should look at as we're doing this debate. Also, the other good news is that our dams, which we were told would never fill again—the good news is that Sydney's massive Warragamba Dam is currently at 96.3 per cent. That was actually said by, I think, one of the member for Warringah's advisers. They actually said the Warragamba Dam would never fill again. Well, I make the prediction that within the next few days the Warragamba Dam will, in fact, yet again fill up. When we also look at the rainfall patterns over the last 120 years, it's often said, 'Oh, the country is drying out,' but the facts are we had more rain in the first 20 years of this century than we did in the first 20 years of the last century. So from 1900 to 1920, we had less rain than we had from the year 2000 to the year 2020. We're getting more rain, not less. The other good news is, if we look at the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, a UN based organisation, they've shown over the last 20 years we're getting fewer climate disasters. Also the insurance data from Munich Re show the relative cost of disasters over the last 30 years is actually falling, not increasing. And, of course, there are deaths from climate disasters. There is an unprecedented 95 per cent decline in the number of deaths. In the first 20 years of this century compared to the last 20 years of last century, the number of deaths from climate related disasters has almost halved. On top of that, crop yields for almost every crop continue to increase and increase and increase. I'm told that these wonderful renewables are so much cheaper than fossil fuels. If that's the case, I say, 'Absolutely fantastic.' The government just needs to step back and allow that cheaper product to get into the market as it would in any other market. But of course we know that is a complete and utter nonsense when you look at the data and you compare apples for apples, because, if you are comparing intermittent generation that is dependent on the weather to a form of generation that is actually baseload and you have a supply and demand, they are not the same like-for-like product. The other interesting fact is when people talk about how we must set this target for net zero emissions. That's always very interesting, but, if the world was to get to net zero emissions, we'd have to freeze any further additions in energy. So there'd be no more energy for people in Africa and Southeast Asia—places where they are desperate for more energy. And what would we have to do? If we were able to build one over-1000 megawatt nuclear power station every single day until the year 2050 we still would not get down to zero emissions by the year 2050. One thing in this debate we often hear is about the confusion about the subsidies renewables. There is confusion about not understanding how our road excise is an excise on road users. Finally, if we look at what's happening in the atmosphere today, if we look at how CO2 is measured, even with the shutdowns that we've had during the pandemic, CO2 emissions as measured in the atmosphere continue to decrease. You cannot even see what has happened because of the shutdown during the pandemic. 13:22 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter I'm going to resist responding to the provocation of the member for Hughes because I will run out of time, but I respect his contribution—I mean, the member for Hughes does show a keen interest in this important subject. But extreme views from the Right, just like extreme views from the Left, are our biggest challenge within this debate. We need a consensus on this important issue. That's why I rise to oppose the motion from the member for Clark, not because I disagree with everything he says in his motion—in fact, there are points on which we can absolutely agree—but I have no opportunity to amend the motion so therefore I am left with no choice but to oppose it. We've been having these climate wars now for more than 20 years, and sadly I've been around for more than 20 years and have been involved in them. The only way we're going to front up to our responsibilities as a country is to work with the international community and to build a consensus here at home. We need to be realists, not idealists. I remind members of the House that 90 per cent of our country's energy still comes from fossil fuel sources, and of course I'm not just talking about the electricity generation sector, which usually focuses the minds of most people—that's what the member for Hughes spent most of his time talking about. I'm also talking about our planes and our cars and our trucks and our mining equipment and our tractors and other equipment on our farms. I'm talking about heating for our manufacturing plants. All of these things rely heavily on fossil fuels. There will be a time—sadly, I won't be around, neither in this place or else well—when we won't be so dependent on fossil fuels, but it is a long way down the track. We use coal to make steel, we use gas as feedstock, we use gas to keep us warm, we use gas to cook and, of course, we use gas to make PPE—a very topical product at this point in time. We have had our industrial revolution. That is behind us, but many other countries around the world are still having theirs, and they can't come into modernity without the assistance of fossil fuels—many of which will come from our country. Adani builds a mine in Central Queensland. What for? To provide its industrial revolution in India. Should we deny them that? No. But what we should do is work as an international community to ensure that we address this very important challenge. The climate is changing in adverse ways. Mankind is making a contribution. Mankind needs to do something about it. That's what the Paris Agreement is all about. We have signed the Paris Agreement, and Scott Morrison, our Prime Minister, should fulfil his obligations under Paris. But it is apparent to me that he is not on track to do so—and he needs to get on track to do so. He needs to stop listening to the extreme right, to stop listening to the extreme left, stop putting domestic votes in front of his responsibility as a Prime Minister and get on with it. We know the Greens don't really want to address climate change. We saw that when they voted against Kevin Rudd's CPRS. We saw that when they Adani convoy through Central Queensland—because they wanted to whip up the debate, because that wins them votes. Where would the Greens party be without climate change? What would they campaign on? What would be their relevance? How would they raise funds if they didn't have climate change? They don't want to fix this problem. The centre of Australian politics has to fix this problem and sensible people in this place need to get together and do so. There is a thing called the economy. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. The market is moving. It will move without government, but it needs the guiding hand of government. This government needs to embrace an energy policy so that business investors have a certain environment in which to invest. That's what we need to doing. These silly climate wars are making that difficult. As reluctant as I am to say it, the motion from the member for Clark isn't helpful. I'm sure it will win him a few votes in Hobart, but it won't save jobs in Central Queensland and it won't lead to any real and meaningful action on climate change. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 198084 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Sitting suspended from 13:28 to 16:00 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 150 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Mayo Electorate: Community Hub 150 16:00 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Currently South Australia is one of the safest places in the world for coronavirus, but community events in Mayo are thin on the ground. But, when we do host an event, we do it well. One example was Sunday's annual Houghton Spring Fair. We had a stall at the fair and we were very busy. Organisers said it was one of the busiest fairs ever, which meant it was also a great time to launch the building works for the community hub. The vision has been two decades in the making—20 years of fairs, raffles, sausage sizzles and patiently saving the money. The family-friendly footy club is growing, but the facilities are rudimentary. I remember hosting a forum in the clubrooms and discovering a bucket under the sink, when I was washing the dishes, and that was what was catching the water. It's taken years of advocacy, but I'm pleased that the federal government has committed $600,000 for stage 2 of this project. With $435,000 from the state government, funds from SACA and the local CWA's fundraising, the 20-year dream is now becoming a reality. When finished, this community will have a true gathering place to be proud of. I'd just like to finish with a quick shout-out to the Paracombe Primary School. I bought four of the children's butternut pumpkin seedlings, and I'm hoping that, like the song, from little things big things will grow, and they will turn into lots of pumpkins for soup in autumn. Queensland Election 150 16:02 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde This Saturday the people of Queensland will go to the polls and get to decide who will lead the next state government in Queensland. They have a choice between an LNP led by Deb Frecklington, with a positive plan to get Queensland working again, or a Queensland Labor government that has racked up a list of fails as long as my arm. The fails include the notorious ambulance ramping at Logan Hospital, the $500,000 rigged poll to change the name of the children's hospital, and border exemptions denied to grieving families. Who would forget the contempt the Queensland Labor government and the local member for Macalister, Melissa McMahon, showed to the residents of Eagleby, Coomera and Carbrook when in 2019 they were devastated by the Labor government's reprehensible decision to gazette the northern alignment for the Coomera Connector in the dead of night, without any community consultation whatsoever. This Saturday I encourage the people of Forde and the communities I represent to vote for the strong local LNP team that will deliver for our community. Mark Boothman and Michael Crandon on the Northern Gold Coast are tremendous champions for their communities. Clinton Pattison in Logan, Andrew Caswell in Waterford, Kirrily Boulton in Springwood and Judi van Manen in Macalister are a great team that will deliver for Forde and their communities and actually represent the communities that they live in and work in. Child Care 150 16:03 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand Raising young children can be one of the most rewarding and fulfilling parts of life, but it's also one of the most challenging things that you can do, especially if you're trying to juggle being a parent with also having a career. Governments should back in parents who try to make this work, and that means universal affordable child care. As an MP with two young children, I know that my family has leant heavily on child care in my community to enable me to do my job, but I also know that, all too often, it's women in families that end up having to take on the bulk of care-giving responsibilities and whose employment ambitions suffer in the process. The cost of child care is often the biggest barrier to women returning to work after having children. This is made worse by the current system. Under the Morrison government's current childcare system, an average family loses money by choosing to work another day and add a fourth day of child care. For every dollar they earn on that extra day's work, they take home 4c. Only Labor has a long-term plan to fix this, which the Leader of the Opposition announced in his budget reply address. Labor's childcare plan will help working women and working families in my electorate and around Australia. As my colleague the member for Kingston says, it's good for women, good for children and good for the economy. It's good for blokes too, I should say. Increasing participation in the workforce is fundamental to increasing economic growth in Australia. Increasing women's participation in the workplace by making child care more affordable will boost our GDP by billions of dollars. Everyone wins when government backs affordable, universal child care, and that's exactly what an Albanese Labor government will do. Ronald McDonald House 150 16:05 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert McHappy Day is just around the corner, on 14 November. We are very fortunate in Townsville to be able to see firsthand exactly where the proceeds of this grand fundraiser go. Ronald McDonald House is based at Townsville hospital. They do an incredible job. They look after families of sick children who are on the roller-coaster of hospital treatment. The house gives those who have come from out of town a place to stay and unwind when they're not sitting anxiously in waiting rooms in the hospital. Anyone with children knows how important it is to keep the family unit together, and that's exactly what Ronald McDonald House does in Townsville. I was very delighted and extremely happy to be asked to open the Townsville facility's brand-new kitchen. Together with community and individual donors, the federal government put in $176,000 as part of the Building Better Regions Fund. In most households the kitchen is the heart of the home, and that's no different at Ronald McDonald House. This new facility has been built like a home kitchen to make things feel as normal as possible and to ensure that putting together a home-cooked meal is as stress free as possible. We know that, in the kitchen, families can come together and talk about their experiences—the highs and lows. No-one would wish on anyone having sick children. Nuclear Weapons 151 16:06 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle It is a momentous achievement that the nuclear weapon ban treaty yesterday achieved its 50th ratification, which means it will come into force in January. At a time when global cooperation in the cause of peace and shared wellbeing is both necessary and at risk, this milestone is a cause for celebration. I pay special tribute to the International Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons, ICAN, which was born here in Australia. I say to every campaigner who rallies, marches, writes to politicians, paints banners, and stands out in the cold first thing in the morning on the approach to Parliament House and holds up the symbol of a broken nuclear missile: thank you for your commitment, energy and strength of purpose. I was glad to be a small part of the work at Labor's national conference in 2018 that saw a commitment to sign and ratify the ban treaty through progress to address its interaction with the NPT and build wider international support. Australia should be focused and proactive in that work. In the past we've been a leader in pursuing nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. We've let that mantle slip. We need to take it up again. I am 100 per cent a nuclear realist. The only way to ensure that we avoid nuclear devastation is to see the abolition of nuclear weapons. Every normative and every practical step we take in that direction is hard-won, precious and vital. Defence Industry: Naval Group 151 16:08 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt Only 10 days ago, on 16 October, it was my pleasure to attend the opening of Naval Group's new Port Adelaide offices at the old Port Adelaide TAFE. Naval Group is the French company that is building the 12 Attack class submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. This was a great celebration of a very significant milestone for it. One month before the coronavirus struck it was my pleasure to invite Minister Reynolds to attend their offices in Keswick, just adjacent to the Adelaide CBD. That was a happy celebration of the 200th employee joining Naval Group. They have now surpassed 250, as they move to a second premises out at Port Adelaide. Defence Minister Reynolds was again there to officiate. We had Minister Birmingham, the South Australian Premier and other federal and state colleagues there. This is a really exciting step forward because it sees Naval Group expanding from their corporate facility to another facility—in addition to that at Keswick—which is adjacent to the shipyards. Clearly, it is a demonstration of how close the beginning of this project is becoming. Obviously the north Osborne shipyards are under construction as we speak. Some of those milestones are approaching. It won't be long before they're on site and cutting steel for the first Attack class submarine. I congratulate them on this milestone. JobKeeper Payment 151 16:09 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo There's no dispute that JobKeeper has helped many businesses in keeping jobs, despite this government being dragged kicking and screaming towards a wage subsidy scheme. Since the introduction of JobKeeper 2.0, I've had the opportunity to speak to a few local businesses about how this new system is affecting them. Unfortunately, far too many workers are still missing out, and people who previously qualified now don't qualify. One particular business, Holgate in Woodend, is both a restaurant and a brewing business. Unfortunately, the brewing side of the business is no longer eligible under the government's new rules, so 10 staff are now missing out on JobKeeper despite the fact that Victoria is still recovering from the COVID-19 crisis and hospitality is only now starting to reopen. On the other side of the business, most of their staff still qualify. Another business that's been affected, and is disappointed that four of its staff now miss out, is the Barham Arms Hotel in Bendigo. They've said that the new changes have also made payroll incredibly difficult—something that this government just doesn't appreciate. Business is tough, and people are trying to do their best. All they look for in a government is one that understands and one that is working towards supporting these businesses, not making life harder. Sitting suspended from 16:11 to 16:15 Project Displaced 152 16:15 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein We should fight for Australians who want the dignity of work and the independence that it provides. That's the foundation of liberalism—the empowerment of individuals. And that is what Project Displaced does. It helps get young Australians back into work. Project Displaced is an initiative established by Ant Cohen in March, after he lost his senior leadership role at Qantas after 20 years of service. Ant has brought together a network of career counsellors and coaches, recruiters and mental health specialists to help young Australians impacted by COVID-19 get back to work. Recently, the Goldstein team held a panel discussion with Ant and two other Project Displaced leaders, Lois Freeke and David Vincent, who laid out concrete advice for young Australians to rebuild their careers. They highlighted that many young people have transferrable skills and should not be afraid to pursue jobs in different industries. They also pointed out the importance of relationships: it is better to build and leverage your network than rely on an online algorithm. The services offered by Project Displaced are free and available to anyone who seeks them if they are in need of assistance. There are tough times ahead, but utilising services like Project Displaced will help young people get back into work sooner. And, if you want to watch our video, go to facebook.com/TimWilsonMP. Morrison Government 152 16:16 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Between ad rorts, water rorts, regional rorts, reef rorts, robodebt, stacking the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and forging documents, the Morrison government is making the Rum Corps look like Mary MacKillop. The Australia Post board now doubles as a Liberal Party branch meeting, handing out Cartier watches to executives while postal workers cop pay cuts. Over at ASIC, the corporate watchdog paid one of its senior staff a $69,000 relocation allowance that pushed his pay packet higher than that of the Chief Justice, while another received $118,000 in tax advice so he could 'optimise' his Australian tax. Here's a hint for public sector top executives: you probably shouldn't be getting side benefits that are bigger than what the typical worker takes home in a year. The Morrison government didn't catch these payments; the Auditor-General did—as the Auditor-General caught sports rorts and air rorts. Yet, rather than rewarding the Auditor-General for saving taxpayer dollars, the government are cutting his budget, and they're using every excuse to avoid creating a national integrity commission. They're still funnelling public dollars to their mates. Just this year, the Prime Minister insisted the Bushfire Recovery Agency hire a long-term Liberal Party staffer on a salary of $242,000. His nickname is 'Cronie'. At least the Rum Corps knew how to grow the economy. COVID-19: International Travel 152 16:18 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth I want to speak about the government's recent decision to open the border up to people arriving from New Zealand and the encouragement that this has given to those working in the travel industry. This is an important first step and a necessary lifeline for the members of the travel agent industry and related professions. Whilst our borders have been shut to international travel for much of this year, the travel industry has been doing it particularly tough. Many of them have kept their doors open, but they have had no source of income—and they have had to return their normal source of income, commissions. They have done so out of a sense of duty to their clients and their customers, with whom many have longstanding relationships. We should all recognise that this is an industry that has been particularly badly hit by COVID-19. Not only are they getting no revenue at the moment but they are also having to give back money that they've earnt over the past year and are still having to pay expenses. I've been talking to members of this industry in my electorate of Wentworth in recent months as well as their industry body, the Australian Federation of Travel agents, and to individual business owners. I know how tough they're doing it, but they're compelled to keep their doors open out of a sense of loyalty and devotion to their customers. As we get towards Christmas, and the borders within Australia open, including Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania and Victoria—soon, we hope—I'd encourage all Australians to travel domestically. And, when you do, please think about using your local travel agent. Make a booking, give them some money and help them earn a living. Higher Education 152 16:19 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta Young people are bearing the brunt of the COVID crisis, facing record-high unemployment—15.7 per cent in Parramatta—and it's estimated that the COVID recession will cost them $7 billion in lost wages over a decade. Now the Morrison government has pushed through changes that will lock thousands of Australians out of university—increasing fees by seven per cent for all students, cutting government funding and doubling fees for 40 per cent of students. This will have a devastating impact in places like Western Sydney, where young people from disadvantaged backgrounds already face huge barriers to attending university and where attainment rates in some places are lower than they are in remote areas of Australia. I've heard from a lot of people in my electorate who are concerned about these changes. One local mum who wrote to me about her fears for her three children. Her eldest daughter, currently in year 12, is planning further studies in STEM fields, so she will be okay. But her younger daughter, a year 10 student, wants to study ancient history and archaeology, is now expecting to pay among the highest fees. Her son, a year 7 student, has an interest in both law and science. She believes education is critical to her children's future, and she is absolutely right. She thinks these changes will make it very difficult for her children and their peers to afford university, and she is right. Like all parents, she wants her children to have the opportunities to fulfil their potential. These cuts create an uneven playing field for students, even siblings in the same family. Grey Electorate: Grape Industry 153 16:21 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey It's been a tough year for grape producers in the electorate of Grey. They've battled a drought that affected them with low yields, but it has led to extremely high-quality wines. Due to the COVID crisis, the global distribution chain has broken down, cellar doors are closed and airline businesses have wound down. So it's good to see the Clare Valley currently enjoying record visitation, as the people from South Australia flock to this wonderful part of our country. On Friday the 16th, we were able to celebrate with the Langton's Clare Valley Annual Wine Show. I'm pleased to report that Jim Barry Wines won Best Vintage Section Cabernet Sauvignon with their The Farm Cabernet Sauvignon, Best Exhibition Section Dry Riesling with the 2019 Lodge Hill, the Best Fortified Wine of Show, and they were also the Best Exhibitor of Show. Tim Adams Wines won the Best Rose of Show with their Mr Mick Rose. Kirrihill Wines, owned by former senator Sean Edwards won the Best Vintage Section Dry Red with the The Pastor of Clare Cabernet Malbec. Reillys Wines from Mintaro, won the Best Dry Red from Exhibition Sections for their 2016 Stolen Block Shiraz. Paulett Wines Aged Release Riesling won the Wine of Provenance and Best Sweet Wine of Show with their 2020 Alison Riesling. Naked Run Wines, a winery based in the Barossa Valley, sourcing a lot of Clare Valley grapes, won the Best Exhibition Section Dry Riesling 2018 Vintage and Older. And their first Riesling, 2021, won Best Riesling of Show, Best Wine of show and Best Current Vintage. It's a good wine to stock. Pikes and Kilikanoon also won awards for outstanding wines. Chifley Electorate: Roads 153 16:23 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley It is a fact that Sydney has more kilometres of toll roads than any other city in the world. By 2023, we will have 12 toll roads. The obsession of the federal and New South Wales Liberal governments to slap a toll on every major motorway is a massive burden for Chifley residents. In fact, these tolls are a road tax that punishes you for not being able to afford a home close to the city. A research group recently did a report on the Sydney road toll network, showing that if you lived in the Chifley electorate, it would cost you nearly $20 one way to drive to the city. That obviously does not include the tolls on the way back. In fact, if you had to drive to the city every day for work, it would cost close to $10,000 a year—and, with awful regularity, the toll costs ratchet up, with the price of tolls going up like clockwork at three times the rate of inflation in a climate of low wage growth. Under so-called escalation rates for WestConnex and NorthConnex, tolls will rise at four per cent annually or the inflation rate—whichever's greater. CPI is dead as a doornail, so four per cent it is. These arrangements will stay in place for years. There has got to be a better way than charging this road tax for the people of Western Sydney. Braddon Electorate: North West Football League 153 16:24 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon Recently I headed over to the great town of Latrobe to watch the North West Football League senior grand final. It was a classic Devonport Magpies versus Burnie Dockers final. This year bragging rights went to the Burnie Dockers, who showed themselves to be the dominant force in the NWFL, securing their third straight senior title. Congratulations to Dockers' president Steve Dowling—a good mate of mine—coach Brent Plant, co-captains Nick McKenna, Harry Walters and players and everyone involved in the club. It's a great club. This year's grand final was the swan song for Burnie great Kade Munday. Kade had called time on his decorated playing career in style, winning his eighth senior premiership and the Wayne King Medal for best-on-ground performance on the day. I'd like to say that I reckon Kade has another season in him. He's a champion. Sport is the heart and soul of many regional communities throughout my electorate. When we look for a bit of normality, a sense of community, a sense of belonging, sport often fills that role. So I'd like to give a final shout-out to the administrators, officials, volunteers, sponsors, players and fans right across the north-west, the west coast and King Island, who've kept us going through this incredibly challenging year. COVID-19: International Travel 154 16:26 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce In the late 1990s the then Australian government quickly accommodated 10,000 people from Kosovo for 10 weeks to get them out of a war zone. They did this at very short notice: brought them here on military aircraft and chartered flights and put them in Defence barracks. If they could do that then, they can now do it now for Australians. I want to call out the government's failure of leadership in bringing home 32,000 Aussies still stranded overseas. The number just keeps rising. The Prime Minister ducks and weaves, avoiding responsibility—just like with aged care, bushfires, robodebt. 'Nothing to see here! It's not us! It's the states! It's not our fault! They should have come home earlier!' He loves announcing things with his so-called National Cabinet, doesn't he? That in itself is a marketing exercise. He comes out and says, 'We're lifting the cap.' But the numbers just keep rising. Meanwhile, they keep on going up. It's the same as with aged care, actually. He announces more packages and yet every month there seems to be more senior Australians waiting at home for home care. It's all spin and marketing. It's no delivery. This Prime Minister is a nasty fake. We need a national plan delivered to bring people home, not more announcements. He said he's going to bring 26,000 people home by Christmas. Yet there are 32,000 people out there now who want to come home. We can use quarantine facilities in the Northern Territory. We can use them in Defence facilities. We can charter flights. If we could do this for people from Kosovo in the 1990s, we can do it for Australians now. Barker Electorate: Economy 154 16:27 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker On the Friday before last, I welcomed to the electorate of Barker Treasurer Josh Frydenberg to see firsthand the incredible impact the HomeBuilder program is having on the residential construction sector. We were lucky enough to visit a fantastic local business, Kookaburra Homes. Steve Walker, the managing director of Kookaburra Homes, gave us a tour of their workshop. They employ 29 people at Murray Bridge alone, 50 per cent of whom are female. Over the last three years the company has grown exponentially—by 400 per cent. But when the global pandemic struck, they were obviously uncertain about the future viability of their business and their industry. Steve advised us on the visit that the HomeBuilder program and the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme were, in his view, the most successful construction stimulus packages ever presented by our national government. With $22 million of sales in the previous 12 months, they've been matched in a quarter of sales for Kookaburra in the middle of a pandemic. To meet this demand, Kookaburra Homes is now looking to utilise the measures in the JobMaker scheme, including the apprentice wage subsidy program. This is an incredible business that prioritises using local suppliers and local products to share the economic benefits with the broader Murray Bridge community. Once again, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Treasurer for visiting Barker and, of course, for the work he's done over the last seven months saving livelihoods. Adelaide Electorate: Women's and Children's Hospital 154 16:29 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I rise to speak about the Women's and Children's Hospital in my electorate. Recently I was approached by the Women's and Children's Hospital Alliance, which is made up of doctors, nurses, clinicians and concerned citizens, who are concerned that the hospital is deliberately being run down by the state government in order for their shift. So I decided to take it upon myself to write to Minister Greg Hunt asking him to tell me all the details about the funding and how it's been divvied out and who's responsible for what. Surprise, surprise—I note that I received a letter back from the minister on 28 September that basically says to me that the South Australian government and SA Health have not matched the percentage increase in funding to the Women's and Children's Hospital provided by the federal government, making a mockery of a particular accusation by the state Liberals that the state government has overfunded it by $8 million. I'm not interested in a slanging match between Minister Hunt and Minister Wade in South Australia, but what I know is that the Women's and Children's Hospital is a fantastic hospital that has serviced our mums and babies for decades. We need the hospital to provide the services that it is there for—to look after mothers and babies—and ensure the services are in place. Flynn Electorate: Water 154 16:30 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn On the weekend, my electorate of Flynn received some much needed rain—not near enough, but it was a start. A slight increase in dam levels was most important. The capacity of Callide Dam at Biloela is now at 24.3 per cent; Fairbairn Dam at Emerald is at 9.48 per cent, which is a very worrying low level; Awoonga Dam at Gladstone is at 61 per cent; the Boondooma Dam at Proston is at 30.77 per cent; the level at Bedford Weir at Blackwater is at 80.13 per cent; Glebe Weir is at 9.7 per cent, and that is situated between Taroom and Theodore; and Kroombit is very low at 0.92 at Biloela. We saw rain over most of the electorate. Thangool had 29 mil, Emerald had 49 mil, Gladstone had 5.8 mil, Rockhampton had 60 mil over two days, Springsure had 40 mil, and Gayndah had 30 mil. These areas have been most affected by the drought. It hasn't really disappeared for the last few years. I'm hopeful of seeing more increases in the near future. I would also like to congratulate the LNP state government in Queensland for committing to two dams in my electorate: Barlil Weir at Barambah Creek, and Cooranga Weir on the Boyne River. Corangamite Electorate: Ocean Grove Bike Park 155 6:31 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Ocean Grove in my electorate is a beautiful coastal township with a rapidly growing population. It will soon reach 20,000, when you include the neighbouring township across the Barwon River, at Barwon Heads. But, while there are many thousands of young families living in Ocean Grove, there is one thing missing: a bike park for all the young enthusiastic bike riders. Last week, I met with a fantastic group of Ocean Grove families who have formed a committee to establish a bike park in the town. The committee chair, Ryan Dodson, told me that, right now, kids are building illegitimate bike tracks everywhere. Instead, what these families need is a council backed bike park. It is essential, particularly during COVID, when there is a great need for young people to have a safe recreational place to connect and support one another. Mr Dodson and the committee have rightly pointed out that the bike park will improve health, wellbeing and resilience for all those who use it. As a former counsellor and mayor, I've supported many a bike park and I have seen just how vital they are in bringing a community together. This is a hugely important project. I will be urging the newly elected Geelong council to get behind this project and be involved in a community engagement process to determine options for a location, and I commit to working with the motivated community committee to get this project underway. Travel Agents 155 16:00 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper Over the past months, I've been speaking and corresponding with travel agents, not only in my electorate but around Australia, about the need for an industry-specific support package, along with an ongoing JobKeeper package for at least 12 months past its intended completion in March 2021. In early October, I stood in the House and spoke of the heavy lifting done by the travel industry in the past eight months, not only in helping our citizens return home but in managing the estimated $10 billion of cancellations and refunds on behalf of four million Australians, and they have provided all of those services for free. On top of this, they have been forced to hand back the commissions they earned for work already completed. I have since undertaken a Zoom meeting with travel industry representatives from all electorates represented by the Nationals and LNP to obtain their view on what they would like to see in a support package. I have also consulted with the Australian Federation of Travel Agents' CEO, Darren Rudd, and, as late as this afternoon, had a meeting with Mr Rudd and the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, in support of all and with a view to advocating for travel agents across Australia. Over 80 per cent of travel agents and people working in the industry are women and 40 per cent are in regional and rural Australia. The Nationals are here for regional and rural people and for regional and rural businesses. Australian Capital Territory Election 155 16:35 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean Last weekend the final votes were counted in the ACT election—an election where 70 per cent of all voters voted early. The ACT government was returned, with particularly strong swings in the southern electorates of Brindabella and Murrumbidgee. It was an endorsement of a government that had everything thrown at it this year, from bushfires, smoke pollution and a freak hailstorm to the impact of the coronavirus. It was an endorsement of a government that is experienced, competent and committed to opportunity for all. It was an endorsement of a government not afraid to have a resourced, independent integrity body. It was an endorsement of the efforts of Labor's 25 candidates and their campaign teams, and the support they received from the ACT Labor office and the broader Labor movement. Hare-Clark can be a brutal system in that, as much as it is a competition with other party candidates, it creates a competition between party members. I would like to congratulate those that have been successful—Joy Burch, Mick Gentleman, Chris Steel, Marisa Paterson, Andrew Barr, Rachel Stephen-Smith, Tara Cheyne, Yvette Berry, Michael Pettersson and Suzanne Orr—but also note the particular contributions of Gordon Ramsay, Deepak-Raj Gupta and Bec Cody, who were not returned, and thank the efforts of all the Labor team for the sacrifice they have made and for etching their names in the ACT Labor story. Wide Bay Electorate: Commercial Fishing 155 16:36 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay I am unashamedly pro-commercial fishing. Not only do our small fishing operators provide us with high-quality seafood from our clean oceans instead of low-quality, poor, imported seafood; they do so in a far more sustainable way than other countries. But they do more than look after our domestic needs; they export our fish to a global market and provide many jobs to the local community. However, commercial fishers in Wide Bay have been left without the ability to export some fish products after the Queensland government failed to meet several conditions of the wildlife trade operations declaration, contravening the law and forcing a revocation of export permits. As a result, an industry that brings millions of dollars into the state has been left in limbo while the Queensland Premier goes on the campaign trail, leaving this important reform abandoned in the caretaker period. Complying with the WTO is critical to the livelihoods of commercial fishers. Without the ability to export their product, their businesses are at risk of collapsing. I urge the Queensland government to do its job and meet the WTO requirements so fishers can continue to operate their small businesses, provide us with seafood and create jobs that are so necessary for our local economy. Crossett, Ms Janelle (Nell), Jones, Mr Russell (Russ) 156 16:38 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley There is no greater privilege than standing in this place and talking about a local person who is an inspiration. Today I want to talk about Janelle Crossett and Russell Jones, the recipients of the 2020 Elizabeth Tudor Award from OzChild. Nell and Russ have been foster carers since early 2015, and the two siblings that came into their care then remain with them today. They are such strong advocates for the children in their care and they navigate through challenging times to ensure that the children's voices are heard. In the face of adversity Nell presents to those around her as a positive and reliable source of direction and comfort. Her resilience and the high value she places on education is a wonderful example to the children in her care. Nell volunteers her time at foster care information sessions and carer training to share her experience with those considering becoming a foster carer. Russ cooks with the children and treasures the time they spent hiking, bike riding and exploring together during their recent trip around Australia. Over the last 12 months, though, their family has experienced major highs and lows. I can attest to the fact that they have continued to provide unwavering love, commitment and support to the children. Thank you, Nell and Russ, for everything you do for the children in your care, and thank you for reaching out in April for help. I am so proud and pleased to see how well you're now doing. National Rugby League Grand Final: Penrith Panthers 156 16:39 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Tensions certainly were running high last night as the Penrith Panthers took on the Melbourne Storm in the NRL Grand Final. A sold-out ANZ stadium of 40,000 people watched the two best teams in the competition in a historic NRL Grand Final. With the whole of New South Wales behind them, it was time for the Panthers to make it 18 wins in a row. After being 22 to nil at half-time, the young Panthers team had their work cut out for them. A determined effort saw them make an exciting comeback but just falling slightly short—just! The final score was Storm 26, Panthers 20. It wasn't the result our community was hoping for, but, in true Penrith fashion, the panthers put up a fight and fought very hard until the very end. Last Friday I met with people in our community down the high street of Penrith and saw many people wearing their Panthers jerseys and shops decorated with streamers and balloons in the Penrith colours: red, yellow, green and black. You could feel the excitement in the air as Panthers fans had waited 17 years for this opportunity to come around again. Although it wasn't a grand final win, I congratulate the panthers on their incredible season and on being the 2020 minor premiers. It was a hard-fought game. Although we just fell short, as halfback Nathan Cleary said, our team has the taste for next year. With so much young talent and fight on the team, I've no doubt that 2021 will be even bigger and better. Go the mighty Panthers! Local Government NSW 2020 Excellence in the Environment Awards 156 16:40 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore I rise today to congratulate Shoalhaven City Council on its amazing achievement at the recent Local Government NSW 2020 Excellence in the Environment Awards. Shoalhaven City Council has faced so many challenges this year with drought, bush fire, flood and COVID-19. Shoalhaven has been one of the hardest-hit government areas in Australia, so it is wonderful to have something positive for our community and for council staff to celebrate. At the recent state awards, our local council took out top prize in the Towards Zero Net Emissions category. Council was awarded for taking on a series of sustainable energy projects, including trialling three fully electric vehicles in its fleet, installing over 400 kilowatts of solar panels across 10 sites, commencing a revolving energy fund, replacing 4,200 street lights with energy-saving LEDs and supporting Repower Shoalhaven's community energy solar farm. They are absolutely remarkable achievements, and it was amazing to see our local council leading the way towards a net zero greenhouse gas emissions future. Council also won top prize in the Resource Recovery category. After almost 450 homes were destroyed or significantly damaged in the summer's bushfires, council worked to ensure that any demolition waste unaffected by asbestos could be recycled at a temporary bushfire demolition waste recovery facility—absolutely fantastic! National Unification Advisory Council 157 16:42 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid We recently celebrated the 20 year anniversary of the Sydney Olympic Games, which took place in my electorate of Reid. The Sydney Olympics were known as the games of the new millennium. They had many iconic moments and captured the spirit of international cooperation and unity. One highlight of the opening ceremonies was seeing north and South Korea march together under the Korean unification flag. It was an emotional moment witnessed by the world. It reminds us that sport serves an important role in opening a dialogue of peace and reconciliation. I recently attended the National Unification Advisory Council's special exhibition in Sydney Olympic Park to mark this milestone. It was a moving exhibition, and I would especially like to acknowledge the work of Jubek Hyung, Chairman of the National Unification Advisory Council Australia Chapter; Ms Susan Lee, Vice Chairman of the Asia Pacific Assembly of the National Unification Advisory Council; and Mr Sangwoo Hong, the Korean Consulate General of Sydney. Our Korean Australian community continues to promote peace on the Korean Peninsula, and I commend the work of the National Unification Advisory Council in making this event possible despite the limitations of the coronavirus pandemic. Goodna State School: 150th Anniversary 157 16:43 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I was recently privileged to attend the 150 year anniversary of Goodna State School, a longevity that speaks to the passion and dedication of all students and staff. There was a new commemorative book for the occasion. Making it 150 years is no small event. It makes Goodna State School one of the oldest schools in Queensland. I'd like to make special mention of Principal Nathan Eiby; organiser and MC extraordinaire, Merryl Macey; as well as Kylie Soe from the school's P&C. I commend Goodna State School on commemorating 150 years providing excellent in education to the south-west suburbs. School life has certainly changed over the years, and that was evident during the international pandemic, but some things will never change—certainly not the enthusiasm all members of the Goodna community have for supporting our kids and for providing a safe, supportive environment for them to learn in. With the Goodna and Ipswich area continuing to flourish as an economic activity centre for the region, Goodna State School will play a crucial role in leading the community into the future. And, with the hard work and dedication of staff, students and the broader community, the long and proud history of this school is set to continue. I'm looking forward to seeing how Goodna State School continues to shine a light to be a fantastic place for education and our local community in the years to come. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. I'm sorry; that's what happens when a quorum gets called and the government members leave the chamber. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 157 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Horticultural Workers 157 16:45 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I move: That this House: (1) notes that the: (a) exploitation of migrant workers on short-term visas in the Australian horticultural sector is an ongoing priority for the Fair Work Ombudsman and is the focus of a recent inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration; and (b) COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the reliance of the Australian horticultural sector on overseas workers, where up to 80 per cent of the harvest workforce comes from overseas on short-term visas; (2) calls on the Government to: (a) identify and implement measures that will lead to a sustained improvement in the number of Australians who work in the Australian horticultural sector, including in seasonal work such as fruit-picking; (b) take immediate action to identify and eliminate exploitation, underpayment and mistreatment of seasonal horticulture workers, particularly migrant workers on short-term visas; and (c) take immediate action to properly regulate labour hire companies involved in the recruitment and management of migrant workers in Australian horticulture; and (3) further notes that workforce shortages are now so dire for the current harvest that without urgent action, growers face significant hardship and consumers face higher prices. We know what the problems are; we've been told what is needed. All we need to do now is act. We've heard the horror stories, and here in my left hand are just some of the press clippings and articles of recent years that detail the level of exploitation, the harassment, the filthy living conditions, the illegal pay and the exorbitant rents. We know what the problems are. In 2015, the ABC's Four Corners reported on 'the dirty secrets behind Australia's fresh food'. The program centred on modern slavery in the global fresh food supply chain but it also touched on migrant worker exploitation within Australia. In November 2018, the Fair Work Ombudsman found widespread non-compliance along Australia's harvest trail, recovering $1 million in unpaid wages for more than 2½ thousand workers. It took legal action against eight employers for serious alleged breaches of the law, resulting in more than half a million dollars in penalties. The FWO established a stakeholder reference group, which met six times before ending in August this year, but the FWO states it remains committed to improving compliance. In March 2019, Professor Allan Fels AO and Dr David Cousins AM co-authored the report of the Migrant Workers Taskforce, commissioned by the government following widespread public allegations of migrant worker exploitation, particularly in the retail sector. That report provided 22 recommendations, all of which the government said it supported in principle. Nineteen months later, there has been no movement on those recommendations and no reason has been given for the delay. There are 22 recommendations sitting there waiting to be implemented. In February this year, the national agricultural workforce committee released a discussion paper ahead of its expected completion of a workforce strategy in July. The release of that final report has also now been delayed till the end of this month—so, there are four days to go before that, too, is late. In August, the United Workers Union provided a submission to that workforce strategy process. This comprehensive submission includes compelling data that outlines in stark relief some of the issues facing the sector, and who knows how many of the union's recommendations—if any—will be put forward by the report's authors. Importantly, the UWU submission provides practical, realisable recommendations for structural change that will fix labour supply shortages in Australian agriculture. There are too many to mention here. Just weeks ago, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration released an interim report of its inquiry into the Working Holiday Maker program. It made a number of recommendations, some of which have been immediately implemented by the government. The purpose of this private members' motion is not to allege that nothing is being done but that what is being done is not enough and that it is being done too slowly. Anyone with a fruit grower in their electorate knows that we face critical labour supply shortages this fruit and vegetable picking season, which is already upon us. In Tasmania, the fruit growers have a Rescue the Season campaign where they are seeking $1.8 million from various governments to provide shuttle services for 1,000 workers over the months of January and February to make sure workers can get on farm. The fruit growers in my electorate and in my state are absolutely desperate. What we know is that up to 80 per cent of Australia's harvest workforce comes from overseas on short-term visas. It's a mix of working holiday-makers, backpackers and seasonal workers from the Pacific. COVID-19 has seen that labour pool dramatically shrink. Ernst & Young told us last month that we are likely to be 26,000 workers short over the next six months. In Tasmania we are facing a 7,000-worker shortage. The result could be devastating, both economically and psychologically, for those involved. We're faced with two issues. First, we need people on the ground right now. We need them on the fields right now. The season is upon us, and the government needs to do much more to get people on the ground. Second, and just as important, the government needs to make long-term structural changes to the industry, to the sector, so that we can encourage more local workers to get involved. That means better wages, better conditions and more secure work. That's what we need to do to encourage an agriculture system that is fit for purpose for the 21st century. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is there a seconder for the motion? Ms Owens E09 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr DRUM 56430 As I said before we were interrupted, it's great to be given a chance to talk on this very important issue. In the Goulburn Valley, come December, January and February this is going to be the No. 1 issue in our agricultural sector. If you read this motion, you'd be totally misled about the issues facing the fruit industry. If you read this motion that has been put forward by Labor as being worthy of debate, you'll see that they talk about the exploitation of migrant workers as being the most important thing. On our migration committee we've heard that this is a minuscule issue. Yes, it does happen, but it's absolutely minuscule. Yet the Labor Party want to blow it up and make it into something that it purely is not. It's deceitful to give it prominence as the No. 1 part of this motion. The motion then calls on the Australian government to start work on a whole range of initiatives and incentives that are going to bring more Australians back into this work. You couldn't possibly get more incentives or initiatives put forward by any government to encourage Australians to do fruit picking. If the member who put forward this motion actually knew anything about this industry, he would know that the most important issue here is what he rates as the least important issue—that is, the millions and millions of tonnes of fruit on trees at the moment that we need to get picked. We need to work out how we're going to avoid an absolute catastrophe within the agricultural sector. We understand that we are 26,000 workers short in the horticultural sector. To get this fruit off the trees it's going to take 26,000 workers. Yet the Labor Party want to talk about how we're going to identify and eliminate exploitation, underpayment and mistreatment. We've heard evidence about the so-called squalor of people's living conditions. We've heard that people's living conditions were knocked back as being unsuitable because there wasn't a curtain ring in the accommodation. We have to put some reality around this issue. It is too important an issue to play politics with. All of a sudden we have an opposition that wants to blow up issues that simply do not exist. We're talking about an incredibly critical issue. We would normally have an additional 80,000 backpackers—very resourceful. Well, they are not going to be there; we all know that. The big missing piece of this argument is also the compliance of the states and what type of imposition is going to be put on our states' agricultural sectors by their health sectors, and this is certainly playing out in Victoria. We have an agricultural minister that's making all the right noises about how she can help get a workforce to get these crops off. Yet, everywhere we move with Victoria, we run into these incredibly tough quarantining procedures that are going to prohibit people coming down from other states that are going to prohibit people from coming in from COVID-free countries. It is just as if they are playing games with this and they don't realise that people's livelihoods are at stake. The federal government has opened up the Pacific Islander program and it has engaged 14 countries now. They are all putting their names forward that they want to be a part of this program. What is Victoria doing about organising the quarantining program? Absolutely nothing. What efforts are they putting into going out to recruit a workforce? Absolutely nothing. What we do hear is all about this so-called exploitation of migrant workers. We already have the fair work office concentrating their efforts on this all the time. We have recently recommended that we introduce a one-stop shop to put greater compliance and make it even clearer for anybody who comes from overseas, where you need to go if you have the slightest concern about your conditions, whether it's about pay, whether it's about your accommodation or your transport or anything. As a government we are trying to make it as easy as we possibly can for everybody. But we need to make sure that more and more people right around the world understand that Australia is a very safe place to come, to pick fruit, to work, to make real money for your family. If anything is wrong with that, we will jump on you. But we need to get these crops off. 17:07 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta That was an extraordinary contribution by the previous speaker. I hear his frustration; I really do. But I would respectively say to the speaker that the federal government, of which he is a part, has responsibility for most of the areas that he claims are failing. The federal government has responsibility for that, not the state governments. If you are a member of the government and you don't believe your government is doing a good enough job, then perhaps the people you should be speaking to are the ministers who actually have the power to solve these things—if they have the imagination, the courage and the will to do it. Don't blame the states. Don't blame everybody else. Don't blame Labor opposition for it. Blame yourselves. You have the power to fix it. This issue of migrant workers, particularly on farms, has been around for a while. I will only touch on it briefly because I want to talk about another group that is also being exploited at the moment. Way back in August 2017 there was a court case. I have an article in my hands here entitled, 'Hungry, poor, exploited: alarm over Australia's imported farmworkers'. It talks about people being here for six months and walking out of Australia with $150 in their pocket after virtually being exploited the entire time. Another headline, 25 April 2019, is 'Migrants trapped in slave-like conditions at Aussie farms'. Another media report, October 2020, 'There are no human rights here: inside the government's exploitative backpacker visa scheme'. Of course, they are talking about a federal government visa scheme there, not a state government scheme. So this issue has been around for a long time. If now it is causing people in the rest of Australia to wonder whether going to a farming community to pick fruit is a good idea or not, then that is on the government that has been in for seven years and that has not dealt with this in the way that it should have. They agreed to 22 recommendations and a few years later they have done virtually nothing. This is on the federal government. Workers in the horticultural sector are not the only group of workers in Australia that have come from overseas for whom the government shows an extraordinary lack of regard. I'm referring here to the international students and the skilled visa holders who came to Australia because we needed them, just as the horticultural workers did. They came to Australia and contributed to our economy and our society by doing so and, when COVID struck, the federal government—and it is their responsibility—walked away. They walked away from people who had come to Australia—who had been invited to Australia, had been asked to come to Australia—for the benefit of us, and the government walked away. Early on in the crisis, in late March and early April, Unions NSW surveyed 5,000 temporary visa workers. Sixty-five per cent of them had lost the job; 39 per cent did not have enough money to cover basic living expenses; 43 per cent were skipping meals on a regular basis; and 34 per cent were already homeless or anticipated imminent eviction because they could not pay rent. That was in March and April, and we are now a number of months further down the track. I am hearing every day from people who are providing food to international students. I delivered some food parcels about six weeks ago, and I found two-bedroom houses with three families living in them. These were people who had no work, having lost their work because mainly they were in hospitality, and students who had paid to be here who had lost their jobs, who were effectively homeless. One of those couples had a newborn. You come home from hospital with a newborn in a country that you thought welcomed you and you share a two-bedroom house with two other couples who also had four children. This is the world that we are in now because this government has no regard whatsoever for the people that it asked to come here and that we needed to come here. Australia is so dependent on foreign workers. We are one of the biggest employers in the world. I want to give these figures because they are really interesting. This was 2018, We are a country of 25 million and the US, which is known for its foreign worker programs, is a country of 330 million –more than 10 times greater. We have 163,000 international students and they have 360,000, a little over double. They are more than 10 times our size with a little over twice the number of students. We have 397,000 temporary visas, including seasonal labour workers, and they have 724—not quite double. So we are a huge employer and a huge user of people who come from overseas. We need them to come here. We've invited them, and this government has no regard for them. I would ask them to consider how they would feel if their children—their 18-, 19- or 20-year-old children—had gone off to work elsewhere and they had been treated like this. 17:12 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I rise to speak on this motion as the chair of the Joint Committee on Migration, and I have to say that I was a bit annoyed when I saw the text of this motion, because this motion, this represents the work that the Joint Committee on Migration is doing. The Joint Committee on Migration is not enquiring into worker exploitation; it is enquiring into the working holiday-maker visa. The economic growth as a result of that visa from the tourism side alone is worth $3.1 billion to the national economy. Sixty per cent of all farms in Australia are dependent on working holiday-maker visas to do some of the agricultural work. The benefit to the agricultural, hospitality and tourism sectors is massive, not to mention the very important benefit that we have in terms of soft power diplomacy by people having a cultural experience in Australia, including a great on-farm experience. We have delivered an interim report, not a final report. In the interim report we had one paragraph on the issue of worker exploitation—and, for the record, let me read that to you. It said: The Committee is in the process of hearing evidence about allegations of exploitation of WHMs. Over the last few years this has been a serious issue and has been the subject of investigations by the Fair Work Ombudsman and a Migrant Worker Taskforce chaired by Professor Alan Fels AO. The Committee is considering those reports and their implementation, and will have more to say in the final report. Let me be clear: if you are on a working holiday-maker visa, the same industrial laws that apply to you are the same industrial laws that apply to an Australian and the same industrial laws that apply to somebody working in the cities and that apply to every member of this parliament. If there is a boss that has done the wrong thing, we should throw the book at them. There is no excuse for this. But I think what has gone on here in some sections of the labour movement that do not like the working holiday-maker visa—that wants to abolish the working holiday-maker visa—is that they have overplayed their hand on quite legitimate concerns about worker exploitation in order to add to the case to remove this visa. I want to give him some perspective on the level of work exportation that came from the evidence that we received at the committee from the Fair Work Ombudsman. The Fair Work Ombudsman said, in response to questions on notice, that six per cent of all formal disputes during the year 2019-20 involved allegations in relation to working holiday-makers—six per cent of all their cases, and yet it is the major issue that we hear about from people in the labour movement about working holiday-makers. We also hear it's a very big issue in agriculture. But the facts don't bear that out as well. In 2019-20 the top five industries for completed FWO formal disputes involving working holiday-makers were: accommodation and food services, 29 per cent; administrative and support services, 14 per cent; construction, 12 per cent; agriculture, 12 per cent; and retail trade, eight per cent. So while it is an issue—and I don't wish to downplay the issue; as I say, we should throw the book at anybody who breaks the law—I support the working holiday-maker visa. It is absolutely vital to the future of our country. It's absolutely vital to the agricultural and tourism sectors. I acknowledge my friend the member for Bennelong, who's been an active member of that committee. We made a series of recommendations to restart the agricultural industries that are affected by the shortage of working holiday-makers, including extending the visas of working holiday-makers who are presently here and allowing other people on temporary visas to have extensions or changes made to their visa arrangements if they go out and work in the agricultural sector in hard-to-staff areas. We also encouraged the very innovative Have a Gap Year at Home campaign, to encourage young Australians to go out and see our country, pick some fruit and do something to help our country at a time when one of the absolutely iconic industries of our country—agriculture and horticulture—desperately needs the help of our young people. All of these recommendations have been responded to and the government has supported all of these recommendations, which is a terrific thing. None of these recommendations in total will solve the agricultural labour shortage that we have on our farms. That's why we want to see the Working Holiday Maker program restart. That's why announcements that the government has made about the Pacific Labour Scheme and the Seasonal Worker Program have been so important. While not downplaying the issue of the importance of worker exploitation, it's disappointing to get this particular motion distorting what the work of the committee is all about. It is about the working holiday-maker visa. It is about getting the fruit off the trees. It is about something which is good for Australia's relationships with 40-odd other countries and is also good for very important sectors in our economy like agriculture and tourism. 17:17 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I want to commend the member for Lyons on his important motion, and add my voice of support to it. The exploitation of migrant workers on short-term visas in the Australian horticultural sector is abhorrent, and it needs to stop. This is Australia, the first country on earth to elect a Labor Party—our great party. But we're now almost a quarter of the way into the 21st century, and the exploitation of workers has absolutely no place where our laws obtain. It has no place on our farms, on our ports, in our trucks, in our planes, in our factories, in our CBDs or in the Public Service down the hill from here. It has no place, whether you're an Australian, a permanent resident or a student driving for Uber Eats just to get by during COVID. It has no place in Australia, whether or not you're an Australian. That's one of the things that makes Australia such a wonderful country. It's not that we don't have abusive or corrupt individuals in business or government; it is that we don't tolerate them. We should never tolerate them, or else the rot sets in. If we lose that, then there's not much left to fight for here in our lucky country. As the motion highlights, the Australian horticultural sector relies heavily on these overseas workers. Up to 80 per cent of the harvest workforce comes from overseas, on short-term visas. We saw the importance of that workforce, to which we owe a fair wage and a hospitable welcome, to our economy this year; it is very important to our economy. During the fires, Vanuatu seasonal workers in Wagga faced the same fight against nature as Australians. Then, in the Northern Territory, Vanuatu seasonal workers came back to help our mango farmers. Our Territory businesses have faced one of the toughest years in memory, due to the pandemic, because the pandemic sent about 50,000 backpackers home. Arriving on 3 September, 160 seasonal workers were amongst those whose hard work is getting you the beautiful Kensington Pride mangoes that you see at your local shops. Regional governments have expressed concerns about the abuse of seasonal workers' rights, for which there can be no tolerance. We need to treat these workers well. They are helping our businesses as well as feeding us. If not for them, a lot of this produce would end up on the ground. This motion highlights the urgency of implementing measures to achieve a sustained improvement in the number of Australians who work in our horticultural sector, including as seasonal workers, going from, say, Melbourne up to the Territory. This is the most viable and sustainable long-term solution to an economic, industrial and trade problem that isn't going away any time soon. I firmly believe that young, patriotic Australians, including students, as well as international students, living in our cities can be incentivised to go and work on a farm for three to six months. There are ways for a visionary government to achieve this—a little investment, some sustained training programs, the promotion of a sense of civic service. A little national vision would be the Tassie cherry on the cake. I'm sure the member for Lyons would agree with that. All of these small steps would mean that, next time a harvest is about to rot on the ground, as it almost did on many farms in the Territory, the first line of defence against multimillion-dollar loss wouldn't be the flexibility to cobble together a deal at short notice but would be a bottom-up swell of young Australians and young people from elsewhere flocking to the country areas of Australia, particularly where there is agricultural produce, to help out. I think this can be entirely commercially viable, and I think it's a national imperative if we're to grow our horticultural sector, especially for the juicy export markets. Australia is proud of producing more than we eat and feeding our hungry Indo-Pacific region and countries further afield, but, if we're to achieve this increased export strategy, we'll need the Australian and temporary seasonal workforce to lift productivity and avoid the risk of farmers being slammed each time there is market volatility or labour shortages. 17:22 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I like the member for Solomon. He's a good fellow. The last part of that speech was almost Churchillian, but it was also romantic and it was also wrong. Unfortunately we don't get Australians onto farms. We get some. I've never picked fruit, I don't think, except in my mum's garden. My daughters have, at St George, definitely. I used to drop them off. I'll tell you who was there. There were a few local students from the high school or back from university, which included my daughters. There were a couple of pensioners, but they were usually pretty good. They were kind of professional. They worked with a timer on their hip and they knew how long they had to pick a box and they knew the speed they wanted to go. They were almost like professional pickers. Everybody else in that paddock, in that field, was from overseas. Mr Gosling 245392 I did say it would take a visionary government. Mr JOYCE E5D I take the interjection. He said 'a visionary government'. I want to get that on the record, because that's what we need and that's what we're going to deliver. People just don't want to do the work. You'd go back into town in St George and it was terribly frustrating. There were people who were unemployed, but there was a job just down the road. In fact, there were jobs all around them. One of the problems was that it gets a little hot at St George from around nine o'clock on in summer. It's pretty hot. It gets up into the 40s and stays there. They start in the dark and they knock off at two o'clock and go home because it gets hard. A lot of people just don't want to do it, so we've got to try and work our way around that. What you find with horticulture is it becomes the basis of so many towns. It's a big part of St George, and even in Guyra. St George is out in south-west Queensland—it's big there. They've got grapes out at Cunnamulla. But if you go to the highest part of Australia, to Guyra, it's a big part of it there as well. There's huge tomato production at Guyra, in glasshouses. If you go down the hill, there's huge blueberry production in my electorate, and just across the way in the seats of Cowper and Page, where the Sikh community have been instrumental in the growth of the blueberry industry. Both sides seem to be saying we've got a problem that we need to fix. Well, let's fix it. We can't fix it unless we get tens of thousands of backpackers into Australia, because they're the ones who are going to pick the fruit. In fact, you even know at what stage and what country you want them from, because you know the sort of job they do. At certain stages, there are certain people from certain countries who get through it very quickly, and at other stages there are other people do it a bit more precisely and pedantically. But if they're not here, it doesn't get picked. This is an issue not just for the farmers, because there's no money on a tree and there's no money on the ground; there's a money in a bank. The only way to get into a bank is if you sell the product. The only way you can sell the product is if you pick the product. We eat about four times as much as we export. So when you go into the shops and you go to the vegetable section, that's the Australian section overwhelmingly. So if we don't pick it—don't think it's just about helping backpackers or helping exports—it's not helping us, because it's our food. It's our food that's rotting on the ground. What's going to happen to the prices if you can't get these crops off? They're going to go up. If the prices go up, who's that going to hurt? The person with a lesser amount of money than most of the people in this chamber. That's the person who it hurts. It's a vital part of your diet, your fresh vegetables. It's not just important for the Goulburn Valley or the Murrumbidgee or Guyra or Tabulam or Tully, where the bananas are, or the tropical fruits on the Atherton Tableland; it's important for everybody who has dinner. For everyone who has dinner we've got to find a smarter way to get these people in. I understand the issues of the conditions which people work under. That's something that has to be monitored, and we've got to always make the case that they're being looked after. But we can't use that as a stalling factor. We are really at the critical stage here. If we do not get these people in, if we do not work around the bureaucracy and become a little bit adroit and adept at how we're doing this job, then this fruit is not going to get picked. It's going to absolutely kick in the stomach the economies of places like Shepparton. It's going to be a disaster for other places, whether it's from Atherton to Tully to Guyra, you name it, because horticulture is everywhere. It seems like a job we can do, and hope we've got the smarts to do it. 17:27 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I'm pleased to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Lyons. Whilst the federal electorate of Moreton doesn't have a lot of farms, we do have Brisbane Markets, where a lot of the produce picked around Queensland and northern New South Wales goes through to be sold. The other reason I'm particularly interested in this topic is because I have a significant Korean community and Taiwanese community, and many of the backpackers who have come previously are Korean or Taiwanese and are supported by my community. In fact, I have been on two trips with representatives from those communities to talk to Korean and Taiwanese and other backpackers in and around Bundaberg and in the Lockyer Valley, because there were many tales coming in of people being exploited over the years. As we've heard from other speakers, a significant part of the Australian economy relies on these migrant workers coming on these short-term visas. They make up about 80 per cent of the harvest workforce, which employs around 40,000 backpackers in an ordinary year, I concur with speakers on both sides who would like to see more Australians doing this work. I come from St George, which the member for New England was talking about, and I did farm work for most of my life from grade 10 on. That was what paid my way through university. It is hot, hotter than hell, up to 44 or 45 degrees, and it does make for long days doing that work. I can understand why people would not want to make a career of it, but we have to get that balance right. Obviously there is something that will always make these jobs more attractive—I think it's the market mechanism that involves paying workers more money. I believe that has been trialled over the last 5,000 years or so, and it seems to be an effective way to increase the number of people willing to do a job. But, I know that it is difficult. The COVID-19 pandemic has made this an extraordinary year. Obviously the Prime Minister shut the borders very early in the piece, and that meant those travel restrictions are a problem for our farmers who do rely on those 40,000 backpackers and others. There are obviously fewer of them around. And we did have that horrible situation where the Prime Minister said to these people, 'Go home'—I think they were the actual words out of his mouth. I don't think more damage has been done for the Australian travel product than when the Prime Minister actually engineered the So Where the Bloody Hell Are You? campaign. That was a horrible thing for a prime minister to say and no message to give to people who are often our best ambassadors when they return to their countries. Whether it be the Pacific island countries or others—and I know the member for Berowra touched on this in his contribution—that soft diplomacy is important so that we use all of the things we have available to make sure that we make our region stronger and interconnected, because there are some other nation states that don't always have the best interests of Australia at hand, obviously. That Ernst & Young report seems a long time ago, but they were saying we'd need an extra 26,000 workers. Things have moved on so much since then. They made that projection thinking that the global labour market would open up in March. Well, things have not gone that way at all. I know that worker exploitation is a problem and, to the farmers' credit, I will say often it is an intermediary. We actually heard people were more likely to be exploited by someone from a dodgy labour hire company that spoke the language of the worker who arrived from another country rather than the farmer. I think some farmers did close their eyes to what was going on in their fields, particularly when it came to some of the horrible working conditions and the exploitation. As the member for Berowra suggested, we do have some industrial cops on the beat, but it's hard to get the information in the hands of the workers. It's hard to put the industrial rights in their hands, and the horticultural award is a difficult award. We even had The Sunday Mail in Queensland totally misrepresenting what the piecemeal rate in the horticulture award is on the front of The Sunday Mail. So people can easily get this information wrong, particularly if English is your second language. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 The time allowed for this debate has expired. The debate is interrupted, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Australian Made Products 163 17:33 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman I move: That this House: (1) acknowledges the renewed interest, both in Australia and overseas markets, in Australian made products in the wake of the global pandemic; (2) recognises that: (a) Australian made products have a reputation for quality and value; (b) the changing global marketplace creates new opportunities for Australian manufacturers; (c) the Government has committed $5 million over the next four years to promote 'Australian Made' and expand its reach overseas; and (d) buying Australian Made supports local manufacturing businesses and local jobs; and (3) encourages all Australians to buy Australian Made where possible to support our local businesses as part of the national economic recovery. As we chart our economic recovery it's more important than ever to back our local producers and manufacturers and support Australian jobs. Australian made products are synonymous with high quality, safe and ethical goods that support local jobs. I've seen firsthand when visiting manufacturers in my electorate of Longman, like Factory Direct 4x4 Exhausts and Roy Gripsky and Sons, both in Narangba, how important businesses like these are to the local economy. They create jobs locally as well as further afield through various supply chains. In fact manufacturing employs almost 5,000 people in my electorate. To put that in context, the number of people employed in manufacturing in Longman makes up 7.4 per cent of all people employed in local industry jobs. This puts Longman among the top tier of electorates in Queensland that are providing manufacturing employment opportunities. It's just not manufacturers. Longman is also home to some wonderful producers and innovators like Little White Goat Cheese in Wamuran. Little White Goat Cheese owner, Karen Lindsay, started out a few years ago with two goats on her farm. She now has about 100 goats and produces anything from soap to ice cream and custard. She has created the world's first freeze-dried goat feta cheese that can keep in a pantry for up to one year without spoiling. This innovative product is now being sold to a number of high-end restaurants as well as IGA supermarkets. The COVID-19 pandemic has also inspired Karen to invent a product called 'love handles', which prevent shoppers from coming into direct contact with the handles on shopping baskets and trolleys. There is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has presented us with challenges. But it has also presented enormous opportunities for Australian manufacturers and producers. There is no finer example of this than Karen, who has rightly been recognised as a great local businesswoman and innovator. Despite these successes, Australia is still reliant on other countries for many products that could be produced locally. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the extent of this reliance on overseas products. For example, Australia has just one factory producing PPE face masks—prior to the COVID-19 pandemic—supplying just five per cent of the Australian market share. Nine out of 10 Australians have said they believe Australia should produce more products locally. In fact, there has been a groundswell of interest in Australian made products since the start of the pandemic. Since the virus hit, 52 per cent of Australians have shown a high preference for Australian made products. Almost half of all Australians are more likely to buy more Australian made products. A recent KPMG study found that if households spent an extra $50 a week buying Australian made goods, it would deliver a $30 billion boost to the nation's COVID-19 recovery and create tens of thousands more jobs. One of my main aspirations in government is to help create more jobs and reduce the unemployment rate. This government understands the importance of local manufacturing and has a plan to help local business grow, become more resilient and boost global competitiveness. The government has committed $5 million over the next four years to promote Australian made products overseas. The $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy will also help harness Australian manufacturing capabilities and drive our economic recovery and future resilience. Manufacturing is critical to a modern Australian economy and a vital part of our response during times of crisis. It is key to almost every supply chain and adds value across all sectors. The strategy will be led by industry, for industry. The government will act as a strategic investor and, together, we will grow manufacturing by getting the economic conditions right for manufacturers, making science and technology work for industry, building national resilience, and focusing on Australia's areas of advantage. We will work with industry to evolve the strategy. Over time, we will deliver manufacturing capability that drives positive economic outcomes and jobs for local communities. This strategy recognises that we must play to our strengths and target sectors that allow us to achieve scale and generate future growth. Research and development, innovation, design and services are all part of that. To be successful, we must compete on value, quality and products that are unique. Manufacturing looks very different to what it did a generation ago. There is still a huge amount of success and opportunity within the sector. Investments by the Australian government to support Australian made products and manufacturers will place Australia as a world leader. Not only as we come through this global pandemic but into the future as well. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 Do we have a seconder for the motion? Ms STANLEY 265990 I second it and reserve my right to speak. 17:38 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley Today, Melburnians and Victorians have had the news that we have been waiting for. I want to thank my community of Dunkley for the exceptionally hard work, the challenges that have been overcome and the sacrifices that have been made to suppress this second wave of coronavirus. As of tomorrow night, restrictions are going to start to be lifted. There's more work to be done and we all have to continue together to support each other and to make sure that we practice the COVID-safe rules, but retail will start to open, hospitality will start to open. I would never say 'get on the beers' but the Premier has a point when he says that we can get out and start to enjoy our lives again. So thank you for your magnificent work. But what it also means is this is the time to really think local—shop local and support our local businesses. From Mount Eliza Village through to the Frankston CBD, the Seaford shops, Carrum Downs and across to the little shopping strips in Langwarrin, there are local businesses. They are our friends, our neighbours and our parents who have really been struggling, and they need our support. This is the time to jump on board the Dunkley shop local campaign—think local, shop local, keep supporting each other and we're looking good as we move towards Christmas. I had a Zoom forum with local small businesses a few weeks ago to talk about where things were at. They've been struggling because of restrictions in Victoria and some of the issues with borders, domestic and international. Besides the restrictions being lifted, what was almost unanimously raised in the forum was concern about whether the measures in the federal budget were really going to be able to help our local small businesses. The instant asset tax write-off is okay if you have money to purchase capital equipment, but, if you have a small business that has been struggling and you have no money in the bank, it's not going to help you. It's the same with some of the policies such as guaranteed loans. I've been speaking to a lot of small businesses in my electorate who say they're just not in a position to take out a loan, even one that has some assistance from the government, because they don't have the cash flow. What is really concerning them is the cuts to the JobKeeper payment and the prospect of it being lifted entirely and too soon. So, it's the time to support our local businesses, but it's also the time for the federal government to support Victorian businesses. We have done magnificently well in the face of a cavalcade of negativity and abuse from the state opposition and the Victorian federal ministers in this place, who should know better. They should be supporting us, not criticising us. One of the things that the federal Treasury should be doing is looking at how to support our local small businesses to get through this time, particularly now that we're able to start some trading. When we talk about manufacturing in Australia, what we need to do is be champions of the local manufacturing precincts. In Carrum Downs, in my electorate of Dunkley, the industrial precinct is thriving and is amazing. It is South-East Melbourne's fastest-growing employment hub, doubling in size every five years. Job growth in the precinct of Carrum Downs and parts of Seaford is over 13 times higher than the southern region average. We have smart, modern manufacturing. They are productive, sustainable and innovative. As the Committee for Greater Frankston has pointed out, you can really put the manufacturing into three categories in Carrum Downs and Seaford: niche second-stage food processing, new-age building products, and made-to-order manufacturing. We need the federal government, with its so-called manufacturing policy, to look at the businesses at Carrum Downs and Seaford and support them. The minister has said only $40 million of the $1.5 billion manufacturing fund is going to be available this financial year. We need a significant amount of money in our thriving, growing manufacturing industry so that we can be better than ever. I will be writing to the minister and pushing her to make sure we are forefront in her mind. 17:43 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper One of the positives to come out of the challenges resulting from the coronavirus pandemic has certainly been the groundswell of public support for local manufacturers and for buying Australian-made products. A Roy Morgan survey has found that 52 per cent of Australians have shown a higher preference for Australian-made products since the pandemic. Further, 43 per cent are more likely to look at the country-of-origin labels on the product. They're amazing statistics. It's timely that the Morrison-McCormack government invested a further $5 million into the international reach of the Australian Made logo. The Australian Made logo is used by more than 2,800 businesses and is universally recognised by Australian consumers. It is a central element to the government's mandatory food-labelling laws. We want to increase the impact of the trusted symbol overseas so Australian exporters can grow and employ more Australians. The investment of that $5 million will allow the trademark to be registered and promoted in key export markets like the European Union, the United Kingdom and Canada, amongst others. There will also be an effort to crack down on the misuse of the logo, through a strengthening of its legal position in key export markets. Our government's $5 million investment will be provided over four years to the Australian Made Campaign Limited, which administers the logo. It delivers on an election commitment by the coalition government—as we have delivered on many. Since being in this place, which is only a short time, I've been intensely interested in local manufacturing in my electorate of Cowper. There are some unbelievable, excellent, forward-thinking manufacturers in Cowper. One of them, which I visited a couple of months ago, is Express Coach Builders, who manufacture buses in Macksville. Another is Thompson Brushes, who manufacture different industrial brushes for street sweepers, road machinery, factories and construction sites. They're actually approved by the ADF to provide gun-cleaning brushes and grenade-launcher-cleaning brushes. And there is a family that I grew up with, the Keir family in Kempsey, who make the famous Akubra hats, right in the middle of my electorate. It would be remiss of me not to mention the local manufacturers who export as well. Along with Thompson Brushes, there is Erskine Oral Care, based in Macksville, who manufacture and export Piksters, dental hygiene products. And there are a range of service providers exporting overseas, including the Coffs Harbour based fintech company XBert, who are selling a software app and service to accountants and businesses both here and overseas. I was with them a couple of weeks ago because they were the recipient of a $350,000 grant from our government's Accelerating Commercialisation program, to help them kick off their software app and to put two new employees on. They tell me that hopefully in the next 12 months they'll put on another six employees. An honourable member: That's excellent. Mr CONAGHAN 279991 It is excellent. When you visit these manufacturers and speak to the staff or browse their website, one thing which they all have in common is commitment to quality. Our local manufacturers pride themselves on producing high-quality, top-of-the-range products—products which stand the test of time and are backed with lengthy warranties. Take Express Coach Builders, for example. Each of its 75 staff hand-build each bus, coach or specialty vehicle that they make. On average, it takes about 14 weeks to produce a bus. It is our manufacturers' commitment to quality which I believe sets Australia apart. In conclusion, as we continue to deliver our economic recovery plan, and our economy and society reopen, it is more important than ever that we back our local manufacturers and support our Australian jobs. 17:48 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I've been committed to buying locally made in Parramatta for a long time, and most of my community knows that. In fact, everything I'm wearing today was made locally in Parramatta. So, when I see a motion like this before the House, it makes me a little bit angry because it is so lightweight. Of course we should buy Australian made. Of course Australians care about that. They've cared about it for a long time. They are way ahead of the government on this. They've been there for years. Now we have a motion like this, but, when you look behind what this government is actually doing for business, it's all announcement and nothing else. There is no substance to these announcements at all. Let's have a look at them. We've had the announcement in the budget of $1.5 billion for manufacturing, but Minister Andrews finally admitted on the Insiders program on Sunday that they'll be spending only $40 million of that this financial year. Between now and the end of July $40 million of that $1.5 billion will be spent—that's all. They've said in the budget that's $79 million, so they've been pretty upfront, except they won't even meet that target. She also said that, in terms of grants, the biggest stream would be the collaboration stream. It is $800 million, and they'll give only 10 grants for that. That's really not going to drive Australian manufacturing, particularly as now is the time they need it. When JobKeeper cuts out at the end of March and JobSeeker goes back to $40 a day in December the money that is going to be sucked out of our local economies will be phenomenal. This is what the government has to replace it. Let's look at what else we've got. Would you trust them to spend it anyway? If you look at previous spending and the funding program for small to medium enterprise export hubs, you see that 97 per cent of the first round went to Liberal or National seats just before the election. That wasn't about supporting business; it was about supporting Liberal members of parliament to be re-elected. Let's look further. Let's look at the $2 billion R&D tax incentives. It sounds fantastic until you realise that there's a bill before the House right now that cuts $1.8 billion. The bill says that they're going to cut $1.8 billion. I assume that they've said, 'We're going to cut $1.8 billion,' and then said, 'No, we won't. It's $2 billion more.' It's not. If you're going to cut $1.8 billion, you don't get to brag about not doing it. You don't cause the problem and then brag and pretend that you're doing something new. There's no new money there. It's simply reversing a decision to cut it. Let's look a little bit further. The six priority manufacturing areas announced by the government were in Labor's plan for 2013. The manufacturing task force report announced in the 2013 Plan for Australian Jobs has 13 key areas, including the six the government has now announced. But the government scrapped it and for seven years they did nothing. Now they're bragging about putting it back. Again there's no substance there at all. There's this wonderful $5 million committed over the next four years to promote Australian Made and expand its reach overseas. I have to make the point that, with fragmented supply chains—and anybody who has been paying any attention whatsoever has known about this for quite a while—this is something this government should have been doing for a long time. Back in the Hawke-Keating era, when I was in the arts industry, Austrade spent $1 million recognising that the film industry supply chains had fragmented. It went overseas and promoted the skills of our workers in Australia. That's what drove the development of the Australian film industry, not the making of films in Australia but the use of our postproduction people and our skill base in Australia, because in fragmented supply chains in the services industry you have a 24-hour work day without overtime. You make the stuff during the day in the US and then you send it to Australia and they do the next bit. They then send it to the next time zone and they do the next bit. All around the world in the services sector that is becoming more and more common. We have legal companies in India that use Australian back-end lawyers. Fragmented supply chains have been around for years now. They're coming with manufacturing because economies of scale are being replaced by economies of scope. I was giving lectures about this in the arts sector 25 years ago. This government has finally found $5 million to do something about it. Really? This motion belongs in another century. It's absolutely in the wrong century. Since I have time, let's talk about JobMaker. Are there 450,000 jobs? No. The Treasury Fiscal Group deputy admitted in Senate estimates this morning it's 45,000 jobs. It's not 450,000 new jobs but 45,000 new jobs. It's all spin. There's nothing in this. It's outrageous. 17:53 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling It has been shown time and time again that the Australian character is all about helping your mates, whether that's a soldier on a battlefield helping someone who has been wounded, whether that's a firefighter travelling to another state to help put out fires or whether that's shopping for a quarantined neighbour—and we've seen during the COVID response great stories of the Australian community coming together. Today I'd like to focus on another thing that we all know helps our fellow Australians—that is, buying Australian made. There's already been a massive increase in interest—we've probably seen it in our own communities—for Australian made. It's been reported that in fact monthly licence applications have increased fivefold, new licences being issued have doubled, monthly traffic to the Australian Made website has doubled and social media across all channels has tripled. A recent KPMG study also showed that if households around Australia spent an extra $50 a week focusing on buying Australian made goods, that would translate to a $30 billion boost to really help fuel our COVID recovery. It would also mean the addition of tens of thousands of jobs. Australia has fared comparatively well when we look around the globe, in terms of COVID response. This is an opportunity for us to really capitalise on that by getting behind Australian manufacturers and helping them to launch into new overseas markets. That's exactly what the Morrison government is helping Australians to do, with a $5 million grant focused on extending the international reach of the Australian Made logo. Already, around home, I think we'd all agree that the Australian Made logo is very recognisable. In fact, 99 per cent of consumers recognise what that means. Now it's about increasing the international potency of exactly that symbol. The logo's already registered in the United States, China, South Korea and Singapore, and proceedings are underway to register that logo in Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. I'm on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Part of our terms of reference is to look at practical and policy measures where Australia can enhance our resilience. Certainly one of those ways is manufacturing. That is why the Morrison government is also manufacturing a new future for our nation through the $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy. This strategy will create a manufacturing sector that is right for modern Australia's economy. It will help businesses to scale up and to become more resilient and more competitive. Indeed, manufacturing is critical to our modern economy and is a vital part of our response as we emerge out of COVID-19. There are six new National Manufacturing Priorities: resources; technology and critical minerals processing—extremely important to my home state of Western Australia; I note the member for Cowan and I'm certain that she agrees with me that mining and critical minerals—we're already very good at it in Western Australia and we know that we can get even better and more globally competitive. Then there's food and beverage; medical products; recycling and clean energy; and Defence, as well as space. Those are the National Manufacturing Priorities. Those priorities represent— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:58 to 18:10 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Those priority areas that the government has focused upon are there because they represent sectors where we have a comparative advantage, where we've got the capacity to harness emerging opportunities, all because there is a strategic imperative behind them. There are close to 900,000 people employed in our manufacturing sector—the seventh-largest employing industry in Australia. In fact, total field jobs in manufacturing increased by 36,400 over the 12 months to December 2019. Our manufacturing exports were worth close to $55 billion in 2019, up nine per cent on 2018. Manufacturing looks very different to what it did a generation ago, but there is a huge amount of opportunity for success if we continue to modernise our approach to manufacturing. As we move into the recovery phase, as we come out the other side of coronavirus, it is important that we look for that Australian Made logo to back our local manufacturers and support Australian jobs. 18:11 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan Today I'm wearing a recycled silk top—which I got as a steal—by WA designer Flannel, and a silk skirt from their winter 2020 collection. My earrings are from a shop called Gypsies, Tramps & Thieves, which— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 18:12 to 18:39 Dr ALY 13050 I'm going to start again by saying that today I am wearing a recycled silk top by WA designer Flannel, which I got for a bargain price, and a silk skirt from their winter 2020 collection. My earrings are from a shop called Gypsies, Tramps & Thieves. It's in Hervey Bay and it's owned by my dear friends Damo and Amanda. Some might think that name is quite apt! My jacket is by KOOKAI and it was made in Australia. You might think it's a little bit frivolous to talk about fashion in the hallowed halls of parliament, but the point I am making here is not about the anaesthetics of fashion—which, of course, I am a very big fan of—but that the Australian fashion industry, whether it is in textiles, apparel, footwear or bags and accessories, is a growing industry and one that we should be speaking more about. I mean, apples and oranges are fun, but, let's face it, fashion is so much more fun! The domestic market in Australia is at $28.5 billion a year, annual retail sales of fashion are at $21 billion a year, and employment in textiles, clothing, leather and footwear manufacturing is at around 37,000 people. In the UK, fashion is actually the largest creative industry. We have the potential in Australia to lead the world because we have sought-after designs and talented designers. We have iconic Australian brands that cater for different tastes, ages and budgets, including Zimmermann; Ellery; Manning Cartell; Maticevski; CAMILL; Billabong; Cotton On; Seafolly; sass and bide; Alex Perry; Academy; Nobody Denim; Romance Was Born; We are Kindred; Aje; Collette Dinnigan; Carla Zampatti; Realisation Par; Flannel, which is, of course, a WA brand; Dion Lee; Alice McCall; RM Williams, which is iconic; Tigerlily; and Steel Blue Boots, which has a factory in Cowan. And there are new and emerging designers like Thomas Puddick and jewellery designers like Mountain and Moon. It is incredibly difficult for Australian designers to break into the market, both internationally and domestically. Since the 1980s, the textile industry in Australia has been decimated. My father was a textiles engineer. When we arrived over here from Egypt, he worked for Jennings, a famous women's underwear brand, for several years before he was made redundant and his line of work was no longer available in Australia. That's when he became a bus driver. Australians have sourced their fashion from overseas, where it is usually produced en masse and without any view to sustainability, but Australian designers are, by and large, ethical in their production and are transitioning into a circular textile economy. The Australian Fashion Council is an independent not-for-profit body. Their members are drawn from across the fashion and textile industries and include organisations and individuals as well. When they look at the industry—and I think they look at the industry in a great way—they view fashion as encompassing the entire spectrum of the value chain, from students to multinational companies, from shopping centres to fibre growers, from workwear companies to luxury goods, and from the product right through to the consumer. When viewed through that lens, fashion isn't just about aesthetics. It's not just about the earrings that I am wearing today. Let's not mention the shoes! They're flat shoes today—it's Monday! It's not just about those things; it is about an industry that spans across a range of sectors, and we should be supporting it more in Australia. I'm disappointed that the Perth Fashion Festival was dissolved after going into administration and Telstra ending its support, but I note that the Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week, a global fashion event, will be celebrating its 25th anniversary next year. So, let's all get behind Australian fashion, because supporting Australian made means supporting our textiles, apparel, footwear and accessories industries. As they say on Project Runway, 'In fashion, one day you're in and the next day you're out!' 18:43 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins As we pivot from the health crisis to our economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is more critical than ever before that we back our local manufacturers and support Australian jobs. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Proceedings suspended from 18:44 to 19:33 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:34