QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS

2020-11-10 46 1 4 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 10 November 2020

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

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 1 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Australian Bushfires 1 12:01 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I seek to add to a response I gave in question time yesterday relating to the Emergency Response Fund. The member for Eden-Monaro asked about spending from the Emergency Response Fund this financial year. In responding to the member, I framed my answer in the context of our meeting on 29 September, where I invited the member to submit suggestions for the use of this fund. The member has provided suggestions that have been forwarded to the department. In answering, I stated: … we invited all members, no matter their political persuasion, to put forward those programs. I clarify that we have not formally corresponded with those opposite inviting suggestions but have continually said that we will continue to engage with members from both sides and have done so. I continue to stress that this should be above politics. BILLS 1 BILLS Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Wellbeing of Veterans and Their Families) Bill 2020 1

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Wellbeing of Veterans and Their Families) Bill 2020

Second Reading 1 12:02 The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Burt has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 1 12:03 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Health Insurance Amendment (Administration) Bill 2020 1

Health Insurance Amendment (Administration) Bill 2020

Second Reading 1 12:04 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I don't propose to detain the House for very long because there is not much to detain the House about; this is a very straightforward bill. This Health Insurance Amendment (Administration) Bill 2020 makes some improvements in administrative processes and improvements to Medicare. The bill's main provision is to remove the annual requirement to remake the Medicare Benefits Schedule. The passage of the Legislation Act 2003 made this process redundant, because up-to-date compilations of all legislative instruments are now placed on the Federal Register of Legislation. The government assures us these minor changes will not impact on Medicare patients or providers; they relate solely to government processes. So this bill is uncontroversial and it will receive the support of this side of the House. It does say something about the government's reform agenda, particularly in the health portfolio, that this is the 'urgent' piece of legislation. While it does fix an anomaly, this is an anomaly which has existed since 2003. The Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments have lived with it until now. This is a government so bereft of agenda that it brings forward this sort of legislation as its health agenda. There is nothing about record out-of-pocket costs, which are the highest they have ever been; waiting lists, the highest they have ever been; nothing about the private health insurance crisis, no reform agenda there—the minister keeps talking about a second wave but we have yet to see it—and there was some tinkering in the budget; that's it. The health system in Australia needs serious reform. Whether it is the social determinants of health or whether it is an increased emphasis on prevention, whatever it shall be, there is a case for big reform in the health system. Instead, we get from the government this sort of administrative tinkering, which we will facilitate through the House. 12:06 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I actually disagree with the member opposite's comments about major reform required for our health system, because we have just been through quite an incredible COVID crisis. If you look around the world, who is doing the best? Australia. Why is that? It is because WE have one of the best healthcare systems in the world. I would say as an Australian that all Australians should be very, very proud of our healthcare system. To the average punter, the Medical Benefits Schedule, otherwise known to most of us in the medical system as the MBS, would appear to be a boring administrative instrument. However, as someone who really cares about health, I would say that there is nothing further from the truth. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has taught us that it is anything but a boring administrative instrument. Indeed, the MBS is a key component of our broader Medicare system. This Health Insurance Amendment (Administration) Bill 2020 brings the law into line with practice and reduces the unnecessary administrative work in the MBS. That's good news for patients and it's good news for practitioners. I would like to take the opportunity to reaffirm the Morrison government's commitment to Medicare and to the health of Australians more broadly. It is a fact that is rock solid. The total cost of all Medicare services in 2018-19 was $24 billion. This is not a small piece of legislation, a small piece of policy; this is a centrepiece of the Morrison government. There has been an increase of 3.5 per cent in benefits paid from the previous year—most important for those who may be struggling to pay their healthcare costs In the US, where I have many colleagues, I know personally of people who struggle to even get a test for COVID because of the inordinately high cost of things like COVID testing, which is up to a thousand dollars in the private healthcare system in the US. While here in Australia, we have an ability to access low-cost health care. GP bulk-billing rates, which are a centrepiece of that low-coast healthcare system under Medicare, hit a record high of 86.2 per cent for the full year of 2018-19. Patients made some 136 million bulk-billed GP visits. That's up more than three million on the previous financial year. So Australians are enthusiastically supporting bulk-billing. The bulk-billing rate for total Medicare services reached 79 per cent for 2018-19, up 0.2 per cent compared to the previous year and up to 2.7 per cent from 76 per cent in 2012-13. The benefits for patients are clear. Australians accessed 335 million bulk-billed services, including GP, specialist, pathology and diagnostic imaging services, in 2018-19. That is up 8.9 million more than the record set last year. The great thing is Australians are getting bang for their buck, medically speaking. When it comes to healthcare, we know that the Australian healthcare expenditure-to-GDP ratio is amongst the best in the world. As a middle-order power with an outstanding healthcare system, our healthcare expenditure to GDP was 9.6 per cent. This is lower than the UK, which is 9. 7 per cent; Canada, which is 10.6 per cent; and the US, which is a whopping 17.2 per cent. I have worked in the UK and the US system and I know Australia takes a back seat to no-one with regards to health care and public health care. We know that. The government knows that. And, most importantly, the Australian taxpayer knows that. These figures show that Medicare is supporting the health and wellbeing of Australians more than ever before. This has only been possible through the Morrison government's continuing and increasing investment in Medicare. The MBS is central to our Medicare system. It lists a range of professional services and allocates a unique item number to each service, along with a description of the service. In broad terms, the types of services on the MBS include consultation, diagnostics, therapeutics and procedural services. It could be said that the MBS is analogous to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which lists the medicines available to be dispensed to patients at government subsidised prices. However, this list is for health services rather than medicines. On 1 July this year the government increased the patient rebate for further GP items on the MBS, specialist procedures, allied health services and other GP services, such as mental health and after-hours services, which were all indexed. I would like to take the opportunity to talk about a very important aspect of the MBS, and that is telehealth. The MBS has been a vehicle for the rapid expansion of telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this has been a lifeline to patients. Importantly, it's kept our practitioners off the front line. This was important particularly when we were dealing with a crisis and shortage of PPE equipment—masks and gowns—across Australia and across the world. The telehealth item number was incredibly important for specialists, GPs and allied health practitioners. Many practitioners from right around the country contacted me to say, 'We are concerned about our ability to provide services to our patients through COVID.' You can imagine their absolute delight over the increase in the use of telehealth. Early during the crisis the Morrison government undertook an expansion of telehealth services that would have otherwise taken 10 years. As the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, has said, it was achieved in just 10 days. This helped to reduce the risk of community transmission of COVID-19. It was a very important new MBS item number. During this period Australians took up this new service with exceptional alacrity: 110,000 telehealth consultations were provided by GP, specialist and allied health professionals, as well as a whopping 1.1 million phone consultations. The uptake of this COVID temporary telehealth item was most pronounced for GPs, with 7.5 per cent of GP visits provided by telephone or telehealth in March. We also doubled the bulk-billing incentives to support these critical services because of the health crisis that has been COVID. History shows that, in a time of crisis, innovation flourishes, and the expansion of telehealth is indeed indicative of this. I hope to see these services becoming a legacy piece of the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, the Minister for Health has committed to funding them now and into the future. With these sorts of reforms, we've responded to the crisis using innovation, swiftly and in a meaningful way, for the taxpayers of Australia—and they have told us that that is what they want. Instead of having to travel for hundreds of kilometres to seek medical care, patients can now pick up the phone. Instead of having to sit through hours of traffic congestion or take time off work, patients can access their GP or specialist more easily, with higher productivity. What does this all add up to? Medicare is the jewel in the crown of our healthcare system. We must protect it and always be striving to improve it. That is exactly what this bill today does. Its primary purpose is to remove the annual sunset period for the regulations that prescribe the table of medical diagnostic imaging and pathology services covered by the MBS. These regulations provide the legal basis for the $26 billion in Medicare benefits paid each year. So this is no small thing that needs to be assessed. The current imposition of the sunset clause means that regulation pertaining to the MBS currently need to be remade every year. This is not very practical. The benefit of the change that is being put forward in this bill is twofold. First, it reduces the onerous and complex administrative work involved in annually remaking the regulations pertaining to MBS items. Secondly, it mitigates the risk that an error during the remake process could affect patient entitlements to benefits under Medicare. Cutting this red tape means Australians have clarity and certainty of items listed on the MBS. The bill also makes changes to several small but redundant provisions in the act which are no longer required. This includes removing references to the establishment and operation of the Medicare Benefits Advisory Committee, which has been inactive for more than 20 years and has been replaced by the MBS review committee. It removes calculations relating to Medicare benefits which are no longer used. It also removes references to historical requirements for optometrists, which were removed in 2016 to reflect modern administrative arrangements. It removes section 18, which formerly dealt with the repayment of Medicare benefits where a person receives compensation or damages for an injury that incurs medical expenses. Finally, it removes the now defunct section 10C, which required the minister to establish an independent review of the extended Medicare safety net benefit capping arrangements. In conclusion, ensuring Australians have access to Medicare services that are effective and appropriate for patients now and into the future is a key priority of this government. I'm proud to be a part of a government that guarantees patient entitlements under Medicare whilst cutting red tape and ensuring that the law is in line with modern practices. This can only be a good thing for health outcomes. This bill builds on the Morrison government's commitment to supporting the health and wellbeing of all Australians. We should be proud to be Australians. We should be proud of how we have addressed the COVID crisis together. You should be proud of a Morrison government that is committed to the health and wellbeing of all Australians. 12:16 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie It's great to rise and speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (Administration) Bill 2020. I want to thank the member for McMahon and the member for Higgins for speaking on this bill. As the member for Higgins just said, the Morrison government invested some $24 billion last year in health. We've seen, during this COVID period, bulk-billing increase and telehealth also increase. I want to take this opportunity to thank all the frontline workers, GPs and specialists and all health professionals in my own electorate of Petrie for the great job they do, day in, day out. The bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to make minor changes to Australian government administrative processes relating to Medicare. These changes do not affect the existing arrangements for patients or health professionals. The bill removes the annual sunset period for the regulations which prescribe the table of medical, diagnostic imaging and pathology services covered by the Medicare Benefits Schedule. And, in relation to diagnostic imaging, I know that, in my own electorate of Petrie, we're about to install an MRI machine at the Redcliffe Hospital that is publicly funded by the federal government. We announced this over two years ago and are just waiting for the state government to build the room, which they'll do soon. This bill removes the requirement for the Medicare regulations to be remade each year so patients can continue to be eligible to receive benefits through Medicare. This change will reduce unnecessary administrative work and mitigate the risk that an error during the remake process could affect patients' entitlements to benefits under Medicare. The bill also removes a number of provisions in the Health Insurance Act 1973 which are no longer required as they do not reflect current administrative practices. This includes removing references to the establishment and operation of the inactive Medicare Benefits Advisory Committee, removing calculations relating to Medicare benefits which are no longer used, and removing references to historical requirements for optometrists, to reflect modern administrative arrangements. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 4 12:19 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2020 4

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2020

Second Reading 4 12:19 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton Can I begin by saying that Labor will be moving a second reading amendment which has been drafted and distributed in my name. I will submit the amendment to the desk once we are able to do that. Believe it or not, this was the legislation that Angus Taylor actually gave a speech for some weeks ago. An opposition member: Was it the right speech? Ms BURNEY 8GH That's right. I just wanted to point that out. The amendments are really important. I note that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Families and Social Services have just completed a press conference in the Prime Minister's courtyard. They were talking about the fact that the payment for the coronavirus supplement to JobSeeker will be reduced to $150 at the end of December and remain until the end of prescribed time for JobKeeper, which of course is in March. Labor is moving amendments in the Senate today that talk very much about the JobSeeker coronavirus supplement, which we are arguing should remain at at least $250, at least until the end of the JobKeeper payment. We are also arguing it is another missed opportunity by the government to announce a long-anticipated and anxiously awaited announcement about a permanent increase to JobSeeker. The Business Council of Australia, ACOSS and everyone in between on that spectrum have agreed that JobSeeker needs a permanent increase. Labor has consistently called on that for a very long period of time. I just want to put those things on the record this morning in terms of what Labor will be moving. Those things have been moved in this House and were defeated by the government, but we're moving them again in the Senate today. They are modest requests and they are inevitable requests that the government is going to have to grapple with. That's why I find it so baffling that the government wouldn't grapple with those things today. However, they are clearly not going to. The clear intention is to further reduce the coronavirus supplement to JobSeeker from the current $250 to $150. Labor's argument is that this is going to create two tiers of issues that I'd like to outline through you, Mr Speaker, to the House. The first thing it's going to do is make it incredibly difficult for the people who are currently on JobSeeker. We know that that cohort of people is going to increase, according to the government, by about 300,000 before Christmas. So it won't be 1.6 million on JobSeeker; it will actually be something around the order of 1.8 million people. The other thing, of course, is that we know a very small amount of money for people on JobSeeker pushes them into poverty. It also makes it incredibly difficult for those people to participate in the jobs market and participate in seeking employment, which is of course what we on both sides of the House all want to see them be able to do. The second reason is an economic imperative. The economic imperative is this: we know that people who are on JobSeeker, living on smaller amounts of money, are more likely to spend all of the money that they are in receipt of in the economy. At a time when we are in a very deep recession and at a time when the economy needs stimulus, it just seems incredulous to me that the amount of the stimulus package for JobSeeker would be reduced. As I said, there's still no announcement about a permanent increase. The amendment that I will be moving to the second reading today will be what's been circulated. It goes to the points that I've actually spoken about, including the fact that many pensioners—age pensioners, people on a disability support pension and people on carer payments—have faced increased costs during the pandemic. The Leader of the Labor Party made the point that, prior to the pandemic, people didn't have to spend money on masks or sanitisers. For people, particularly those people on a disability support pension, it has been extremely difficult with additional costs as a result of the pandemic. The minister has the power under the Social Security Act to extend the coronavirus supplement but has chosen not to. We are appealing to the better angels of the government to think about this action carefully. These requests and the amendment Labor is moving are modest. They have been thought through very carefully. We are simply saying: keep the $250 extension, in line with the JobKeeper payment, which is until the end of March; better support pensioners, including age pension, disability support pension and carer payment recipients facing increased costs in protecting their health because of the coronavirus pandemic; and announce a permanent increase to JobSeeker. I'd like to also say that the purpose of this omnibus bill is to introduce a number of technical and administrative amendments that go to compliance and sharing of information. One of the measures in this bill is to put beyond doubt that an offence applies to Services Australia generally, not just a particular officer of the agency. This change is proposed in the context of online service delivery, where an officer might not actually be provided with information. It also requires persons served with a formal notice or summons by a royal commission to produce documents or information, or give evidence, to comply with that requirement. It will require that, even if the document or information is protected by secrecy provisions in the social security and related law. This will ensure that the Department of Social Services and related agencies will participate fully in the disability royal commission and future royal commissions. That change will put the department in the same position as any other person served with the requirement by a royal commission under the Royal Commissions Act. My speech is brief—I just wanted to make that clear. This bill will also make a range of technical amendments to correct errors and anomalies and repeal obsolete provisions. While Labor supports these changes, all Australians will never forget the government's dismal record when it comes to social security. The government has previously sought to make it very, very painful for people who are in receipt of social security, and to make it difficult for those Australians to access income support, in the hope that they just give up. When it comes to compliance, no Australian can or will trust this government. For three long and anxious years the government pursued tens of thousands of Australians with false and inflated debts in what has now become known as the robodebt scheme. I still remember the many anxious Australians who contacted my office, seeking help and assistance during the early stages of this fiasco. Scott Morrison, the present Prime Minister, was the Minister for Social Services when the massive robodebt system was launched in the 2015-16 budget. It was spruiked by the government as a more cost-effective and automatic way to cross-reference ATO payment summaries with Centrelink data. It had removed human checks and balances which had previously existed to protect people from unfair debts. I remember this very well because I was the shadow minister for human services at the time. This government deliberately designed a system that was wrong and unfair and they applied it to hundreds of thousands of people who had access to Centrelink payment all the way back to 2010. This included expanding the system for vulnerable groups and drawing in people such as students who were very likely to have uneven earnings and for whom averaging was totally unsuitable. It counted on people's fears and anxieties in the hope that these false or inflated debts would not be challenged, that people would just give to the government out of fear of further legal cost. This particular government has had a track record of demonising Australians who have lost work and had hours slashed. It has insulted millions of Australians in very hard circumstances by implying that they choose not to work. It has sought to find new ways to demonise and humiliate Australians doing it tough. It has sought to force older Australians who have lost their jobs—people like our parents and grandparents—to take humiliating drug tests and urine tests as a condition of receiving social security. It has sought to force Australians onto the cashless debit card, preventing them from purchasing basics and essentials at affordable prices. The social services minister has previously said that Australians receiving Newstart or JobSeeker spend their money on drugs and alcohol. In closing, I want to take a brief moment to note in this place a number of developments we've learned through Senate estimates last week in relation to our social security system. We learned that the number of people on unemployment payments will surge to 1.8 million by December. This is an increase of 300,000 people from previous projections. In four years time that figure is expected to remain at almost one million. With so many Australians on unemployment support and more expected to lose their jobs, it's perplexing how the government plans to end the corona supplement on 31 September. They've now announced, of course, as I referred to earlier, that it will be continued at a lower rate until the end of March. For all of this demonisation of social security recipients, the government forgets that they spend at local and small businesses. It means local and small businesses have more to spend on wages and jobs. Yet, when the social services minister was asked by Senate estimates how many jobs would be lost when the government ends the coronavirus supplement, she did not know. I suspect she still doesn't know. I want to reiterate from this side of the House that our call is for the government to provide certainty for Australians on unemployment support but also for local businesses by delivering a permanent increase to JobStart. I finish my comments by moving: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes that: (a) since the start of the recession, the number of people relying on unemployment payments has doubled; (b) many pensioners—including those on the Age Pension, Disability Support Pension and Carer Payment—have faced increased costs during the pandemic; and (c) the Minister has the power under the Social Security Act to extend the Coronavirus Supplement; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) extend the $250 per fortnight Coronavirus Supplement until March, in line with Jobkeeper; (b) better support pensioners—including Age Pension, Disability Support Pension and Carer Payment recipients—facing increased costs in protecting their health because of the coronavirus pandemic; and (c) announce a permanent increase to the base rate of the Jobseeker Payment". The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the amendment seconded? Ms Madeleine King 102376 The amendment is seconded, and I reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Barton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form 'that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question'. 12:35 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling I rise today to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2020. I'd like to make some general comments, firstly to deal with the bill itself. As the honourable shadow minister points out, this is a bill seeking to make some technical amendments to the legislation to enable a freer flow of some of the intended outputs. I have some small degree of personal experience with respect to social services that I'd like to come to in a moment, but firstly I'd like to speak about the principles under which this government continues to operate. The first principle is that we want to support all Australians, including people who are already employed in the workforce, and we can support them by seeing them paying less tax and having a more fruitful life, better able to support their families and reach their personal objectives. We as a government are also focused on providing a safety net, and I note the Prime Minister's comments this morning in speaking about the extension of the JobSeeker payments through to March next year. The Prime Minister made the point that we've always had a safety net but that we have had to—and rightly so—expand and strengthen that safety net commensurate with the blow that coronavirus has inflicted. Right across both sides of this chamber and both houses of this place, I haven't heard anyone suggesting that it has been wrong for this government to invest in expanding and enhancing that safety net, and I know that all of us in this place feel very strongly for those people who are impacted. We know what it means to not be able to provide for one's family or, indeed, even for oneself, and that brings us to the importance, obviously, of the social safety net. I would just like to share briefly my own personal circumstances from some time ago now. I separated from the regular Australian Army back in January 2005 and had a period of time when I was working in a family business that was commenced by my parents on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland. It was very rewarding work, and I was certainly enjoying that role. My wife was originally from Western Australia, and we had always had a plan to live in Queensland for about five years and then to sort of share ourselves and the grandkids around by moving back to Western Australia. We were about a year into that plan and all seemed to be going well when my wife got information that unfortunately her mother's cancer had resurfaced and that she was given, by the doctors, about 12 months to live. This naturally came as quite a shock to us at the time. We had no immediate plans to uproot ourselves and move right across the country, but we needed to quickly formulate one. Quite understandably, my wife wanted to be with her mother for what was expected to be the last months of her life. Accordingly, quite rapidly, my wife picked up and moved with our three children across to Western Australia. I kept going in the family business for a time, but naturally enough, and particularly at that very difficult time, I wanted to be with my wife and children and able to provide support to them. However, the challenge was that I had no employment ready to move into in Western Australia. So, naturally enough, I began looking for and applying for jobs, but there is, understandably, a bit of a challenge when you are based on one side of the country and seeking employment on the other. So I made a decision to move across to Western Australia and then to seek employment once I was already over there. Even though I had a professional skill set, having been an officer in the Australian Army and a consultant as well, as anyone who has transitioned from one type of employment to another will know, there was still a period of challenge in finding a new role. I have to confess that the idea of relying on any form of welfare safety net had actually not even crossed my mind. It was a friend who suggested to me that I find out whether or not I was eligible for what we commonly referred to then as 'the dole'—a payment that is still sometimes referred to that way, although it has changed names a couple of times since then. I have to confess that I felt a bit conflicted. On the one hand, I'd always been a taxpayer. I'd served as an Army officer and moved into a professional career, and I have to say that I felt an initial reluctance to reach out for financial help via government means. But then I reflected on the personal circumstances. My wife was trying to support her mother who had terminal cancer and I had three young children, for whom we were providing, and needed to continue to provide with accommodation, education and all of the other accompanying living expenses. So I made the decision to apply for the dole. Even though it was only for a very short period—because I was then able to move into part-time employment with the Army Reserve and then on to further work—I have to say that it was a very welcome filler at a time when my family and I definitely required some assistance. This is a message to those Australians out there at the moment who are relying on a safety net. All of us seek to work hard and contribute in our communities, but all of us also recognise that there are times when that becomes challenging, either through personal illness, a change in work circumstances or an employer whose business is not as viable as it was. My personal message of encouragement is don't feel shy, don't feel nervous and don't feel guilty in relying on the safety net. But I'm sure everyone in this House would provide the encouragement that, as soon as we can, we all need to move back into the workforce whilst we are fit and able, and that is a way in which we all contribute to our great nation. 12:42 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie As the government of the day, the Morrison government is 100 per cent committed to social security. During this coronavirus period, JobKeeper, JobSeeker and all the stimulus measures that have been put in place for people right around the country have been a big benefit. As an assistant minister in this space, I've seen firsthand and had feedback about how those measures have helped people right around the country. The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2020 makes technical and administrative amendments to support service delivery and will update social services portfolio legislation to remove obsolete provisions and correct errors. The bill will amend portfolio secrecy provisions to require the Department of Social Services and Services Australia to comply with notices issued by royal commissions where the notices require the production of information protected by those secrecy provisions. The bill will update some offence provisions in the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 so that it is clear that the offences apply in circumstances where a claim is processed by an automated system within Services Australia. Lastly, the bill makes minor technical and administrative amendments to social security law and other social services portfolio legislation, and related minor consequential amendments to other legislation. The amendments remove obsolete provisions, correct errors, update legislation and improve the operation of legislation to support service delivery. I commend this bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The original question was that the bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Barton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 8 12:45 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 8 BUSINESS Rearrangement 8 12:45 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 4, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 8 BILLS Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 8

Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2019

Second Reading 8 12:46 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs The Native Title Act was passed by the Keating government in 1993, giving legislative form to the historic decision of the High Court of Australia in the Mabo decision. Since 1993, Labor has worked to ensure that our native title laws continue to facilitate the recognition and protection of rights of First Nations people to country. We in Labor have a proud history of creating, strengthening and defending native title law, working in close and respectful consultation with the communities most directly affected as well as with the wider Australian community. Through our decades of work in this area, Labor understands that the native title system is still far from perfect. Numerous inquiries into the native title system have highlighted some of its problems, and the inquiry into this bill, the Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee revealed once again just how dissatisfied many First Nations communities are with the way in which the Native Title Act currently operates. It was concerns about shortcomings in the native title system that led me, as Attorney-General in 2013, to direct the Australian Law Reform Commission to inquire into a number of aspects of the Native Title Act. The Australian Law Reform Commission carried out that inquiry and in May 2015 provided a comprehensive report—regrettably to the coalition government—including 30 detailed recommendations for reform. It is regrettable that five years have passed and this government has still not bothered to produce a formal response to that excellent report by the Australian Law Reform Commission and the detailed recommendations that it made. This bill makes a number of reforms to the Native Title Act. Labor will be supporting the bill because we support those changes designed to improve native title claims resolution, agreement-making, Indigenous decision-making and dispute resolution processes. However, as the committee minority report into this bill, from Labor senators, makes very clear, Labor is concerned about the fitness for purpose of the native title system generally and has a number of specific concerns about several provisions in the bill. The Labor committee members made the following general criticism of the native title system: First Nations have placed their trust in legal institutions to secure their native title rights yet have be repeatedly supplanted by the legislature denying their position in the interests of third parties. Multiple submitters noted that the high original undertaking of the Native Title Act has been brought into disrepute by amendments that have progressively eroded the rights and interests of First Nations. The Labor senators on the committee went on to note: … recently significant court decisions have been made affecting native title. In McGlade v Native Title Registrar [2017] FCAFC 10 (McGlade), the Full Federal Court of Australia made a decision with potentially sweeping impacts on a range of existing and future native title claims, negotiations and arrangements. The Government responded by expediting amendments to the Native Title Act, primarily as advocated for by third parties concerned their interests would be impacted by the McGlade decision. In 2019, in Northern Territory v Griffiths[1] (Timber Creek), the High Court of Australia ruled that where native title was extinguished, native title holders were entitled to compensation for both economic loss and for non-economic loss arising from the intangible harm caused by the loss of spiritual connection to country. The Government has not responded to the Timber Creek decision. Labor Senators are concerned at the clear pattern from this Government of being unresponsive to native title holders but being expedient to accommodate the interests of third parties. However, because there are a number of aspects of this bill which Labor supports, and it is now just over a year since this bill was introduced, Labor has agreed to expedite passage today in the expectation that this bill can be subject to a full and rigorous debate in the other place with a view to passing it before the end of the parliamentary year. My friend and colleague in the other place, the shadow assistant minister for reconciliation, Senator Dodson, participated in the committee inquiry into this bill and I expect that he will speak in some detail about Labor's outstanding concerns regarding particular provisions in this bill when it is debated there. I will highlight just one of Labor's concerns here today, and that is the changes the bill makes to the law in relation to deregistration of Indigenous Land Use Agreements. The government argues that the amendments to sections 24EB and 24EBA do no more than clarify how the current law operates. However, far from removing doubt, as section 24EB purports to do, it creates doubt about the integrity of the system by purporting to establish a presumption of validity for future acts done pursuant to an ILUA, notwithstanding that the ILUA has been deregistered as a consequence of fraud, duress or undue influence. This aspect of the operation of Indigenous Land Use Agreements was examined by a 2016 COAG investigation into Indigenous land administration and use. Amendments of the kind this bill contains were considered by that investigation but were opposed by the Expert Indigenous Working Group participating in it. Many submitters to the inquiry into this bill also expressed concern about the consequences of validating future acts, even where the ILUA that those future acts relate to has been so tainted by fraud, duress or undue influence that it has been deregistered. As the National Native Title Council noted: This means that any future act authorised by the ILUA that has been done through fraud, undue influence or duress remains valid and will still affect native title. The Law Council of Australia opposes these provisions for the same reasons. Given the opposition to these changes to the law from the COAG Expert Indigenous Working Group and from other stakeholders during the inquiry into the bill, including the Law Council of Australia, our firm view is that these amendments should be reviewed as a priority as part of the independent evaluation of this bill in five years time. As I've said, I'll leave a more detailed discussion of our outstanding concerns about certain provisions in this bill to the shadow assistant minister for reconciliation when a fuller debate on this bill takes place in the other place. But I will briefly make two further points. First, we thank the government for agreeing to an amendment in this bill requiring an evaluation and report on its operation within five years of commencement. The recommendation for a review of this kind was one of the recommendations of the Senate committee's minority report. Second, I note that, as a consequence of the government's changes to laws directing the work of the Australian Human Rights Commission, since 2016 the mandatory annual report by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner into social justice and native title is no longer being produced. We therefore thank the government for its commitment to instruct the social justice commissioner to undertake a review of the Native Title Act following the completion of her current work on her Wiyi Yani U Thangani (Women's Voices) report. Labor understands that law reform is an ongoing process and that considerable work still needs to be done to review and reform the native title regime. Many Indigenous communities understand, through their intimate experience of native title law, how that law works in practice and how it could work better. That's why we in Labor are committed to always consulting closely with Indigenous Australians on any changes to the Native Title Act, and I call on the government to always show that same concern and respect. Before I finish my remarks about the native title reforms contained in this bill, it's appropriate to acknowledge that this is NAIDOC Week, our nation's annual celebration of the history, culture and achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Speaking on the occasion of NAIDOC Week just yesterday, my friend and colleague the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians and member for Barton reiterated in unequivocal terms that Labor's position on the Uluru Statement from the Heart is rock-solid and it includes support for establishing an Indigenous voice to the parliament in our Constitution. It includes establishing a makarrata commission, which will have responsibility for agreement and treaty-making, and it includes establishing a national process for truth-telling. My friend and colleague in the other place Senator Dodson, known across the nation as the father of reconciliation, had this to say yesterday: The Uluru Statement is a very important invitation to the nation, in order to take things forward and deal with a Voice to the Parliament, have that constitutionally entrenched; to deal with the Truth-Telling about our history, and our relationship, and an understanding of how it's intertwined, and has contributed good things as well as many sad things. But it's also an opportunity for us to relook at our relationship and enter into agreements around the many things that still cause consternation to First Nations peoples, and that actually diminish our nation because we haven't resolved them. Voice. Treaty. Truth. These are the pillars of Labor's commitment to honouring the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It is of deep regret to me that the three pillars of the Morrison government's response to that invitation to reconciliation appear to be arrogant silence, cynical obfuscation and, if forced to speak on the subject, lame excuses and marketing spin trying to justify the government continuing to do precisely nothing. Despite the appalling failings of the government in responding to the Uluru statement and despite the shortcomings in this bill, it does make a number of positive reforms to native title law, and Labor commends this bill to the House. I move the second reading amendment that is being circulated in my name, in these terms: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) recognises the critical importance of native title law for the self-determination of First Nations people; (2) notes that several provisions of this bill as presently drafted may undermine the integrity of the Native Title system; (3) regrets that the Government has declined to make requested amendments to remedy the identified deficiencies in the bill; and (4) calls on the Government to act on matters of importance to First Nations people, including: (a) improving native title law so that it better serves the interests of First Nations and non-Indigenous Australians; (b) improving access to justice and justice outcomes for First Nations people; (c) progressing a meaningful government response to the Uluru Statement from the Heart; and (d) devoting more attention and resources to Closing the Gap targets to reduce the disparities between First Nations and non-Indigenous Australians". The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E I thank the member for Isaacs. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Josh Wilson 265970 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 12:59 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I speak in support of the second reading amendment that's been moved by the shadow Attorney-General which points out the importance of consultation with First Australians around important changes to native title legislation such as this and, like the shadow minister, I reiterate my—and Labor's—support for all of the elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and, in particular, a constitutionally enshrined voice to the parliament. Getting the views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from throughout the country about important amendments to legislation such as this would be quite beneficial and helpful for us in our deliberations. We again call on the government to work in consultation with First Australians and, indeed, with us—as the Labor Party and the opposition—on progressing this important issue for true reconciliation and true recognition of the role, the important role, that First Australians have played in the development of our nation. This bill amends the Native Title Act to extend the operation of subdivision JA for another 10 years. We support that extension. In 2010, Labor introduced this subdivision into the Native Title Act to assist in the urgent construction of public housing and a limited class of community facilities, including education, health and emergency services. Improving housing and infrastructure in First Nations communities is vital in helping to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. The subdivision provides for a degree of consultation with affected parties, including periods for comment on any proposed construction. Labor introduced these provisions in government to deal with situations where there was an urgent need for the construction of public housing and other public facilities on land subject to native title. We all know the importance of providing a roof over people's heads, particularly in some of the harshest environments in the country, and there was a definite need for urgent provision of amendment to that act at the time by the Labor government to ensure that that could occur quickly. The subdivision has been used 127 times since being introduced 10 years ago: 53 times in Queensland and 74 times in Western Australia. When introduced, the provision included a 10-year sunset which was to approximate the duration of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing that Labor had put in place when in government. Limiting the period of the extension to a further 10 years provides the opportunity to reassess the ongoing need for this provision later on down the track. Improving housing and infrastructure in Indigenous communities must remain an important role of the Commonwealth and, importantly, working with the states on this issue that traditionally has the responsibility of delivering social housing for Australians. It's a crucial step in supporting the health and economic outcomes of First Nations communities. Indigenous Australians make up three per cent of the Australian population but, unfortunately, at the last census 20 per cent of all persons who were homeless were Aboriginal. We all know that there are additional problems that come with homelessness. Homelessness is, unfortunately, a catalyst to further social and health problems, and I believe it's one of the principal reasons you see higher rates of health issues and of social dislocation for many First Australians throughout the country—all stemming from the fact that they have that 20 per cent rate of homelessness when they make up only three per cent of our population. The high rates of overcrowding and overcrowded dwellings in First Nations communities was included in the revised Closing the Gap targets to increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in appropriately sized housing to 88 per cent by 2031. Labor's called on the Morrison government to invest in the construction of social housing across this country as a stimulus measure and as a measure to provide jobs and support, particularly in rural and regional communities that are going to be struggling the most during this pandemic. This would be a win-win to keep more tradies working and to solve some of these problems of homelessness and in particular overcrowding in First Nations communities. Of course, it's essential that communities are sufficiently involved in the planning and ongoing management of constructed facilities, and it's important that the Morrison government ensures that this subdivision continues to be used only when strictly necessary to facilitate urgent construction. The shadow minister for reconciliation and constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians expressed concern that the current framework doesn't guarantee sufficient involvement of communities in the planning and ongoing management of constructed facilities, and the procedural rights of native title holders to comment are fairly weak and do not guarantee ongoing involvement in the management of facilities once constructed. These concerns were raised with the National Indigenous Australians Agency by the shadow attorney-general, who received assurances that the provisions will continue to be used only when necessary, for urgent construction of facilities. When these are utilised, the government will seek to ensure that there is appropriate consultation and ongoing engagement with communities about the management of any constructed facilities. That's something that was reiterated in the second reading amendment moved by the shadow attorney-general, and I want to put in the House the importance of this framework for consultation when this particular provision is used, albeit sparingly. One of the principal issues and complaints that First Australians have had about management of remote communities has been the lack of consultation and having whitefellas, if you like, tell them what's best for their communities. That's why it's important that we get that consultation piece right, and it's important that we have a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament so that there's a formalised process of that consultation taking place and that voice being heard in this place on important legislation such as this. At all times, the proper consultations should take place with affected communities before, during and after the construction is completed. The Morrison government has a real opportunity here to deliver substantive investment in housing and infrastructure that will change the lives of First Nations people and hopefully reduce that elevated rate of homelessness in some of these communities—and not just in remote communities but also across urban communities, where we still see rates of homelessness, rough sleeping and overcrowding for First Nations Australians that are unacceptable. We as a parliament, as a Commonwealth authority on these things, need to make sure that we get the balance right and that we're providing not only the funding but also the legislative mechanisms to improve those rates. 13:08 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie (—) (): I thank the honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. The bill will amend the Native Title Act 1993 and the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 to make practical and pragmatic improvements to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the native title system. In doing so, the bill will implement recommendations for a range of recent reviews of the native title system, including the Australian Law Reform Commission's Connection to country: review of the Native Title Act 1993. The passage of this bill will improve the native title system for all parties by supporting the capacity of native title holders by providing greater flexibility around internal decision-making; streamlining claims resolution and agreement-making processes; allowing historical extinguishment to be disregarded over areas of national, state or territory parks with the agreement of the parties; increasing the transparency and accountability of native title corporations to native title holders; and improving pathways for dispute resolution following a determination of native title. The bill will also confirm the validity of important mining and exploration related agreements made under section 31 of the Native Title Act potentially affected by the full Federal Court's decision in McGlade v Native Title Registrar & Ors. Despite significant progress, the government considers there is scope for improving the native title system to improve the recognition and management of native title rights and traditional lands. The bill demonstrates the Australian government's commitment to ensuring that the native title system meets the current needs of all native title stakeholders. Taken together, these amendments will improve the native title system for all parties, promoting effective native title claims resolution and agreement-making in the management of native title land, post determination. I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Isaacs has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. So the immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Consideration in Detail 12 13:12 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move the government amendments on sheets QW110 and QW111, as circulated, together: (1) Schedule 6, page 45 (after line 29), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 3—Evaluation Native Title Act 1993 13 After section 209 Insert: 209A Evaluation of amendments made by the Native Title Legislation Amendment Act 2020 (1) Before the end of the period of 5 years after the commencement of Schedule 6 to the Native Title Legislation Amendment Act 2020, the Commonwealth Minister must cause to be conducted an evaluation of the operation of the amendments made by that Act. (2) The Commonwealth Minister must cause to be prepared a report of an evaluation under subsection (1). (3) The Commonwealth Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the preparation of the report. (1) Schedule 6, item 2, page 41 (after line 25), after subsection 141(2), insert: (2A) However, if: (a) a native title party mentioned in paragraph (2) (c) (the original party) is, at the time the objection is lodged, a registered native title claimant in relation to land or waters affected by the act to which the expedited procedure objection application relates; and (b) the original party ceases to be a native title party; and (c) a body corporate (the replacement party) becomes a registered native title body corporate in relation to the land or waters; the replacement party becomes a party to the inquiry in place of the original party. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The minister? 13:12 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I present an addendum to the explanatory memorandum. Third Reading 13 13:13 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 13

Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020

Second Reading 13 13:13 The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The question is that this bill be now read a second time, and I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Corio. 13:14 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and can I say it is very good to see you physically in the chair and not on the screen! Honourable members: Hear, hear! Mr MARLES HWQ And, on indulgence, I might just give a nod to all the Victorians who are up here this week. I rise to speak on the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020, and the cognate bill associated with that, and, in doing so, I move the amendment that is circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes: (a) the desirability of greater oversight and review mechanisms for decisions made under the bill; and (b) the lack of clarity in the definition of 'arrangements' and 'institutional autonomy' in the bill; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) address the regulatory gap of private universities; (b) provide clarity on the treatment of the Port of Darwin in the bill before the bill proceeds; (c) make clear how this regime will interact with the existing legislation and guidelines that work to safeguard Australia's sovereignty, and provide confidence that the bill does not present a sovereign risk that will undermine investment and cost Australian jobs; (d) engage in genuine consultation with Australian entities covered by the bill on the design of the regime; and (e) redraft the bill and re-present it to the Parliament at the earliest opportunity". Australia, at this moment in time, faces the most complex set of strategic circumstances that we have since the end of the Second World War. The world around us is changing rapidly, and there are challenges being presented to us which are far from obvious. They require much analysis and much thought, and they are complex in terms of the path forward. Whatever else it means, there is a requirement for our nation today to play bigger than perhaps we ever have done since the Second World War. There is a sense in which the journey forward is for us to determine; we don't have many countries who are in our circumstances with whom we can share the strategic burden of thought. We of course have New Zealand and we are of course in an alliance with the United States. But the way the world looks to a global superpower with capital on the Atlantic seaboard in the Northern Hemisphere is very different from the way the world looks to a middle power in the Southern Hemisphere in the East-Asian time zone. It means we have to work this out for ourselves. That's why we need to have a foreign minister and a Prime Minister who act with leadership in relation to the course we take forward in respect of foreign and strategic policy. It's not good enough to pursue foreign policy on the basis of slogans. When we hear our Prime Minister talk about 'negative globalism', without really explaining what that means and all the implications it suggests, it doesn't help us guide our way on the particularly complex and difficult strategic international waters. When we hear our foreign minister talking about the need for global institutions to improve their performance, but not a cent is offered in additional resources from the point of view of Australia to play its part in those global institutions, all we can take from it is that these are slogans; they are not actually meaningfully about trying to build Australia's strategic weight to give a sense of the pathway forward for Australia at this most complex moment in time. As a nation, more than anything, we need to be speaking with one voice—and that is very much the desire of the Labor Party. Foreign policy should be a matter of bipartisanship—basically, it is—but there does need to be a sense of deep thought in relation to this. There needs to be a dialogue with the opposition and indeed all the stakeholders around this nation so that we can meaningfully build that voice and act with that one voice. It's not beyond us. It's really not a matter of partisan political divide, but it does require the government to lead and to do that work. The intent of the bills that are before us today is something that the Labor Party supports. To state the obvious, our Commonwealth government, our federal government, government at a national level, should be the tier of government which leads in relation to foreign policy and, more than that, leads in relation to the way in which we strike arrangements with foreign entities. Whilst there are plenty of legitimate reasons why subnational entities—states, territories or other entities—may enter into arrangements with foreign entities, that obviously should occur consistent with a policy which is determined nationally by the Commonwealth government. That is the intent which fundamentally underpins the bills we are discussing today. That is an intent which Labor clearly supports. But the way in which this bill has found itself before us today, the way in which the bill made its way into the public domain, ultimately ended up being all about politics. This bill was announced on 27 August, the very day the government was under pressure in relation to aged care. We all know it; we all saw it. It was the very day the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians walked out of the Senate after repeated questioning about the parlous situation of our aged-care sector in the face of the COVID-19 crisis, particularly as it was playing out in the state of Victoria. We were seeing multiple deaths—more than that, really—in our aged-care sector. We had seen a failure in the management of infection control and that's what led to this virus ending up in the aged-care sector and what led to the pressure that the aged-care minister found himself under on that day and, indeed, the pressure that the Commonwealth government found itself under on that day. So why is this relevant in the context of today's debate? Because this bill was announced on that very day, in that very moment, to try and change the conversation. That's what everyone understood. That was what every commentator could see. So we have a really important bill which goes to the question of a completely sensitive part of federal public policy being rushed into the public domain in order to try and change the conversation which the government was finding difficult on that day. As a result, the bill that we have before us right now just isn't ready; it's not ready. It's been in the making for some time but it was rushed into the public domain well before the work was done and that, ultimately, is the position that we bring to this House today. We on this side support the intent of the bill, but the work behind this bill needs to be done. This bill is poorly drafted. This bill finds itself before us without any proper consultation with the critical entities that it seeks to regulate. This bill finds itself before us today with the entire public university sector included in the regime set out in this bill, but included essentially as an afterthought and with many problems in it. This bill should be a considered part of a suite of legislation and measures taken at a federal level in relation to Australia's foreign policy and strategic path forward. For example, it should be part of a suite of measures which includes the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme, the University Foreign Interference Taskforce, the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act. All of these are critical pieces of legislation or measures that are taken by the federal government, of which this legislation should be a part. But how this interacts with those other areas is not at all explained in the legislation or by the minister involved. A huge compliance task is now being placed upon the universities. Exactly how the universities are to behave in a way which meets their obligations under this legislation, or how they interact with the Universities Foreign Interference Taskforce, is unclear, and this legislation does not include the regulation of private universities. Collaboration by our universities is fundamentally important; that's what science is about. Science is actually about international collaboration in so many respects. Some of the most important advances that have occurred in science in this country have been the result of international collaboration. The Gardasil vaccine and working out the genome of the COVID-19 virus have both been a function of international collaboration. There are thousands of agreements that universities enter into to facilitate that international collaboration. That is not to say that there isn't a legitimate issue that this bill goes to; there is. It is really important that we don't see foreign interference on our campuses around the country. But again, how this bill interacts with the task force is not at all clear. States and territories were not consulted before this bill was brought into the public domain, and there was no evidence presented by the states and territories in the Senate inquiry into this legislation. Again, what we see is thousands of agreements that states and territories enter into that may potentially be covered by this legislation, and it's really unclear how that administrative burden is going to be met and exactly how this legislation interacts with that. There are other questions at large which stand out. How does this legislation interact with the Foreign Investment Review Board requirements? How is foreign engagement to be pursued by subnational entities which need foreign engagement? How is that now pursued in the context of this legislation that has been put before us? There are a whole lot of outstanding questions in respect of this government's own performance which are very unclear in respect of the impact of this legislation. This government has overseen an increase in trade with China of 18 per cent. We're now in a situation where there are real issues around the future of trade with China, and we see nothing from this government, which signed the China free trade agreement, about how it seeks to protect the trade that we now have with China. What will this do in relation to that? What will this bill do in relation to the Belt and Road Initiative agreement that this government itself signed? What will this legislation do in relation to the sale of the Port of Darwin? There are no oversight mechanisms in this legislation. There is no clear indication of how an appeal of a minister's decision is made in relation to this legislation. We support the objectives of this legislation, but, as I said at the outset, the work that needs to underpin it simply hasn't been done. So, on that basis, we call on the government to withdraw this bill and to redraft it to get it right—to redraft it in a way which establishes an oversight mechanism and, subject to appropriate arrangements to protect national security, requires the minister to provide reasons for the decisions that the minister makes and a process for the review of that minister's decision. It needs to be redrafted with a view to providing much greater clarity to the word 'arrangements' and the words 'institutional autonomy'. It needs to be redrafted to create an obligation on the minister to report to this parliament annually outlining the engagement that is occurring between entities in this country and foreign entities and to explain how that is consistent with Australia's foreign policy. There needs to be a redrafting of this legislation so that the regulatory gap in relation to private universities is closed. In other words, the actions of private universities also need to be a part of this legislative regime. The opposition is calling on the government to make clear how this legislation interacts with all the other legislation and guidelines which are currently in place to safeguard Australia's sovereignty, including the University Foreign Interference Taskforce guidelines, the Foreign Interference Transparency Scheme and the relevant Foreign Investment Review Board processes. We need to be sure that this bill, as it comes before this parliament, is presented in a way which does not undermine our sovereignty and does not give rise to sovereign risk. We need to be clear about how it impacts Australian jobs. We need to understand what it means in respect of the Port of Darwin. The government needs to do the work to repair this bill. The intent is laudable, and we support it, but what's been brought before the parliament is severely underdone. Most significantly, the government needs to do the work in consulting with those entities which are going to be regulated by this regime. There needs to be proper engagement with them, because they are the ones who, at the end of the day, will be required to administer the obligations that are contained within this legislation. Labor wants foreign policy to be a matter of bipartisanship, and we want to be able to have that conversation with the government to get to that point. I reiterate that we absolutely support the intent of this bill, but this bill needs a whole lot of work done on it, and it's on that basis that we make the remarks that we do before the House today. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Remembrance Day 15 13:30 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Remembrance Day is a national day of commemoration for the brave soldiers who sacrificed their lives whilst serving Australia in all wars, conflicts and peacekeeping operations. On 11 November 1918, four years of continuous war came to an end. The armistice was signed, bringing to an end the First World War. Tomorrow will mark 102 years since that peace was declared. Three hundred and thirty thousand Australians served overseas during the First World War, and 60,000 of them made the ultimate sacrifice. In total, 102,000 Australian men and women have given their lives in all wars, conflicts and peacekeeping operations across the world. Their names are memorialised at the Australian War Memorial. Tomorrow, Australians are encouraged to stop and observe a minute's silence at 11 am—the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month—to commemorate our fallen service men and women. But Remembrance Day is far more than a commemoration of those who've served Australia. It is a recognition of the effects of war on soldiers and their families as well as on the people affected on the home front during conflicts abroad. Tomorrow, I will pay tribute to the men and women who served and are still serving domestically and internationally. I want to assure this place that, in Werriwa and across Australia, those brave soldiers will never be forgotten. We will remember them. Lest we forget. Lyne Electorate: Manning RiverStage 16 13:31 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne The newly constructed Manning RiverStage came alive last Friday night with its first concert to celebrate its opening. The river stage was a project of the combined service clubs of Taree and the Manning Valley. Congratulations go to the Lions and Rotary members who drove this project with the assistance of funding from the MidCoast Council and the Nationals MLA member for Myall Lakes, Stephen Bromhead. Friday night's concert was in aid of the Australian Children's Music Foundation and their work in my local community. I'm proud to inform the House that over $45,000 was raised on the night. Acts on the night included all local talent: Darren Jack, Cass Alyson, Matty Zarb, Jake Davey, Scott Greenaway, Michael Eyb, Kalin Woods, Brad Bunyan, Keanu Jai, James Johnston and students from Wingham Public School, Taree Public School and Chatham Public School. I'd also like to thank Uncle Russell Saunders for his welcome to country and the didgeridoo performance. It was all streamed live on Facebook by Pluto Entertainment, which is a great digital asset for the Manning Valley. You have to see this river stage to believe it. On the river banks of the mighty Manning River are carved wooden pillars with Indigenous motifs and a semicircular arch—it was absolutely fantastic. (Time expired) Fraser Electorate: Economy 16 13:33 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser This pandemic has had a massive economic impact on my electorate of Fraser. The local economy was 14 per cent smaller in September 2020 compared with the year earlier. The number of employed residents has fallen by over 10 per cent, and many more have lost hours. Manufacturing in my electorate has been particularly hard-hit. This is a high-value sector which employs over 13,000 residents and adds $1.4 billion to the local economy. But the gross value add of manufacturing in the region is down 60 per cent. Labor values these jobs and these workers, but the government doesn't have an effective plan to support them. It has a manufacturing plan that is significantly too small and isn't being spent fast enough. The number of JobSeeker recipients has doubled in Fraser since March. Nine per cent of local jobs and eight per cent of local residents are reliant on the JobKeeper wage subsidy that Labor called for, but it is being wound back too quickly. My electorate needs support now. This government is pouring money into coalition electorates and target seats through programs like the community development infrastructure grants, but, in my electorate of Fraser, one of the hardest-hit in the country by this pandemic, there's no money for shovel-ready projects like the St Albans Health and Wellbeing Hub. This project will generate long-term benefits to an area with the worst health outcomes in Melbourne metro via a much-needed integrated centre for wellbeing. I urge the government to fund this project and to govern for all Australians. Moore Electorate: Veterans' Services 16 13:34 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore The Joondalup City RSL operates a Veterans Support Centre in Heathridge, providing advocacy and welfare services to all ex-service personnel, including non-RSL members. The centre advocates for veterans seeking support from organisations such as the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Defence Force Ombudsman. It provides referrals to emergency relief and mental health service providers and operates a telephone support service. The centre is staffed by volunteer welfare officers, who are required to have the necessary training, assessment and accreditation to ensure that they have the knowledge and competency required to assist clients with accessing their entitlements correctly. At a recent community forum I was informed that the experienced accredited trainers and assessors are currently based in the eastern states, which poses difficulties for volunteer welfare officers seeking to upskill due to Western Australia's current hard border closure. Volunteers at the centre have suggested exploring alternative means of delivering the training, assessment and accreditation of welfare officers online or by providing exemptions for assessors from the eastern states to enter Western Australia for the purpose of training, assessing and certifying new volunteers. I call upon the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to assist with facilitating access to the necessary training and accreditation resources for our volunteer welfare officers who are keen to continue. (Time expired) Cooper Electorate: NAIDOC Week 16 13:36 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper It's NAIDOC Week and I'm so honoured to represent the electorate named after William Cooper, one of the most prominent Aboriginal activists. He helped to establish National Aborigines Day, now known as NAIDOC Week. William Cooper furthered the causes of land rights, enfranchisement and direct Aboriginal representation in the parliament. He embodied the strength, resilience and resistance of his people. NAIDOC was born from this resistance, and I pay tribute to William and his fellow First Nations activists today. This year's NAIDOC theme is 'Always Was, Always Will Be', an important message recognising that First Nations people have lived on these lands for 65,000 years. This land always was and always will be theirs. It is a land stolen, never ceded. The legacy of William Cooper continues today, including in my electorate, where there are many wonderful First Nations organisations, including 12 First Nations peak bodies. I'm so grateful for their contributions to our community and for the lessons and truths we learn from them. It's only right that we play our part in this relationship and walk with them, implementing what First Nations people have called for—most notably, the Uluru Statement from the Heart. We on this side have committed to doing so, to enshrining a voice to parliament in the Constitution, to establishing a makarrata commission to oversee agreement-making and treaty, and to engaging in a national process of truth-telling. This always was and always will be Aboriginal land. Petition: COVID-19 Travel Restrictions 17 13:37 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin I rise today to present to parliament petition EN1860, on inclusion of parents as immediate family members for travel exemption. Everyone understands that putting in place international border restrictions have been and continue to be critical to our measures for containing the COVID-19 pandemic. But, as I've spoken about previously in this place, we need to be very aware of the impact which border and travel restrictions are having on the mental health and wellbeing of our fellow Australians. We are a very multicultural country. Close to 30 per cent of Australia's resident population was born overseas. A significant number of these Australians still have close family living overseas. At present, and under the COVID restrictions, the immediate family members of an Australian citizen or permanent resident are allowed to enter into Australia, and that is wonderful. However, 'immediate family' does not include parents. This is despite the fact that parents are a key part of an emotional support system for many immigrants and their families, and that many immigrant residents are also primary caregivers for their parents who reside in their native country and are not able to travel because of COVID restrictions. Because of the mental health and emotional stress this is causing, the 11,000-plus signatories to this petition are calling on the government to include parents of Australian citizens and permanent residents as immediate family members. On behalf of all signatories, I present this petition. The petition read as follows— Due to the Covid-19 related travel ban, the parents of Australian citizens and Permanent residents can not travel into Australia. The immediate family of an Australian citizen or permanent resident is allowed to enter into Australia. However, parents are not considered as immediate family. Parents are a key part of an emotional support system for immigrants and their families. Some of the immigrant residents are also primary care givers of their parents who reside in their native country and are not able to care due to the travel restrictions. We know this pandemic is going to last long and not able to meet or grief or celebrate events together is causing mental and emotional stress. The separation is now having an impact on people's emotions and mental health. Other countries like US, UK, Canada are allowing parents of citizens to join them in the country and spend time together during this pandemic. We therefore ask the House to include parents of Australian citizens and Permanent residents as "immediate family members", which allows them to enter and stay in Australia as per the visa conditions. The parents should be sponsored and supported and will not a burden on the government or the community. A mandatory 14-day paid quarantine at designated facilities should be applied so to protect the health of the Australian community, but post this at-least the family will be able to spend time together. from 11,181 citizens (Petition No. EN1860) Petition received. Lyons Electorate: Volunteers 17 13:39 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Volunteers come in all shapes and sizes, and none are larger than life by more than Layton Hodgetts OAM, who sadly died on 5 November. Layton was the founder of the Derwent Valley Concert Band back in 1993. He is much missed by the Derwent Valley community. Volunteers come in all shapes and sizes. Over this pandemic, volunteers in my community have been keeping people fed through neighbourhood houses and community houses. They've been bringing together meals that have been prepared by people in their homes to keep fed people who haven't been able to afford those meals themselves. Over this summer, we are going to have volunteer firefighters from brigades across my electorate go all through—we hope and pray it's not necessary, but we know history tells us there will be bushfires this summer. This week in Tasmania, it's 30 degrees and above. We've got a lot of very, very long grass, and it's going to dry off this week. So we can only hope and pray that there won't be fires this week, but we can count on the volunteer firefighters across Lyons to do the right thing and be there for their communities. Volunteers are the lifeblood of my electorate. We have thousands of volunteers: firefighters, ambos, community workers, St John. They're out every weekend and every day of the week. I tip my hat to the volunteers of my electorate. Thank you. Have a merry Christmas and a happy and safe new year. Economy 18 13:41 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Nobody wins from low interest rates. What we've seen has been a consistent decline in interest rates, particularly recently with the Reserve Bank cutting official rates from 0.25 to 0.1. Of course the intention is to assist the economy in its recovery, but the challenge and the practical reality is that the cost of capital is not the problem many businesses are facing in Australia. The biggest challenges they face are COVID restrictions and their capacity to secure revenue. We have responsible—or 'restrictive', I should say—lending laws which make it harder for small businesses and households to borrow. But who pays the price? Self-funded retirees. People who have saved and invested so they can secure their finances into the long-term future are paying a very heavy price. Young Australians who want to get ahead and buy their own first home are also finding it increasingly difficult, not just because of employment prospects but because what's happened over the past 30 years is that every time interest rates go down the price of housing goes up, so there is greater inflation of assets, which makes it more difficult to buy first in. The Reserve Bank recently announced a quantitative easing program by buying long-term government bonds, but ultimately we are tapping an empty well. The reality is that we need a number of methods to address the challenges of economic reform. Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, National Integrity Commission 18 13:42 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark Today I table a petition which has been considered by the Petitions Committee and found to be in order. It is signed by 8,782 people and calls for the lifting of suppression orders on documents presented during the Wood royal commission in the 1990s which contain the names of 28 political, judicial and other high-profile figures allegedly connected with paedophilia. A similar petition on change.org has recorded 31,072 signatures, with more added each hour. The petition also calls for a federal integrity body because otherwise the community can have no faith that there will be a proper investigation into these very serious allegations. It needs to be a fair dinkum integrity agency, not the half-baked proposal that the federal government announced last week, because the Australian public doesn't want to see the implementation of the weakest watchdog in the country with investigations held behind closed doors and decisions kept secret. Public trust in politicians and our institutions is at an all-time low, and suppression orders and uninvestigated allegations of paedophilia help to explain why. So let's get serious about this and do exactly what these petitioners are calling for. Sure, the allegations from the 1990s may ultimately not be substantiated, but, just as surely, they need to be properly investigated by a strong and independent integrity commission. Anything less betrays the community. I present the petition. The petition read as follows— On 20th October 2015, Senator Heffernan brought to Parliament and Australias attention, official documents presented during the Wood Royal Commission and again during Royal Commission into Ritual and Sexual Abuse within Institutions. These documents include police documents, naming 28 high profile paedophiles, including one former Prime Minister. Investigation into these documents were stopped. The government and Judiciary have been noted suppressing these documents with orders for 90 years, choosing not to investigate as the public would 'lose faith in the judiciary'. The public have already lost faith in the Government and Judiciary. This is compounded by these suppression orders. We the Australians with integrity and honour stand against these suppression orders and wish to protect our children. We insist these people and institutions be fully investigated, and held to account, including those whom have chosen to cover and suppress any investigations. We therefore ask the House to 1: Lift the 90 year Suppression Orders on these documents. 2: Create and support permanently, Independent Corruption and Integrity Commission to investigate ANY and ALL corruption exposed within Government, Judiciary and other formal Institutions. 3: Investigate these particular documents suppressed, and bring those guilty to account. 4: Bring justice to the victims and survivors, by exposing those people and systems in place that are corrupt and currently hidden. 5: Clean the institutions of all corruption, to start bringing the public's faith back, showing that our government and judiciary will be honest and work for the people of Australia, while protecting our children's future. from 8,782 citizens (EN1856) Petition received. New England Electorate: Saleyards 18 13:44 Mr JOYCE E5D New England It's great to see some more money for saleyards in New England. We've got some great announcements for Guyra saleyards, which 300,000 sheep go through a year. I know Michael Jackson, who is a great agent in that part of the world, will be very excited about the money we are getting for Guyra saleyards as we upgrade that facility and get more money to the people and back onto the streets of Guyra. But it's not only that. It's also the Armidale saleyards. We're putting $2.4 million towards the Armidale saleyards, with the Guyra saleyards, so that we can upgrade that all the way to solar panels. It's not just the Guyra saleyards and the Armidale saleyards that we're working so hard on; we've also been working very hard on the Inverell saleyards. The Inverell saleyards are a great venue of the cattle industry of northern New South Wales, but it's not just that either. Before I knock this down, we're also going to look at the Scone saleyards. The Scone saleyards have been around for a very long time and do a really good job. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Guyra saleyards and Armidale saleyards are there for you. It's anybody's. It's there for the taking. I'll take it once! I'll take it twice! Done! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Sold! Lalor Electorate: Coronavirus Supplement 19 13:45 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor It's an absolute pleasure to be back in the people's house and I share that pleasure with all the Victorians and my friend, the member for Gellibrand, who is behind me today. The reason it's important to be standing here today is that this House needs to know that, in August this year, 16,080 people who live in my electorate are receiving the coronavirus supplement. That means that 16,000 residents in my community are reliant, in this crisis, on government support. I want to make this point really clearly: those 16,000 people deserve that support. As a community, we are in a crisis, but that support does something else. It stimulates and creates jobs for other people in my community. It means that those 16,000 people might stop at a shop and buy something. So, when I hear the Prime Minister today announcing a cut to the coronavirus supplement in December, I say to him, 'Santa, seriously!' Prime Minister, that will reduce these individuals to $715 a fortnight. That's $375 a week for those in a community where the average mortgage is $430 a week and the average rent is $320 a week. Prime Minister, it is too soon. This is the cruellest cut of all. This is not the way we want Christmas in Australia! (Time expired) COVID-19 19 13:47 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I'd like to take this opportunity to update the House on the latest published medical studies on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for COVID. While the results of the studies are mixed, they can distinguish between early treatment studies—where treatment starts within five to seven days after the first onset of symptoms—and late hospitalised treatment studies. All up, there are 21 early treatment studies published in the medical journals. The majority of them are peer reviewed and, on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for COVID, 21 out of 21 of these studies—100 per cent of them—show a positive effect in terms of reducing hospitalisations and reducing deaths. If hydroxychloroquine is an ineffective treatment, the probability of getting 21 out of 21 studies all showing positive results are one in two million. Therefore, I call on the National COVID-19 Evidence Taskforce to look at the evidence and come up with a set of recommendations for early treatment that are consistent with the evidence. Of those 21 studies, 100 per cent of them, as I said, all show that the drug hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID to reduce hospitalisations and reduce deaths. Stott Despoja, Ms Natasha, AO 19 13:48 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I rise today to offer my wholehearted congratulations to Natasha Stott Despoja on her election to a seat on the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. She is the first Australian to hold such a position in 30 years. Natasha was Australia's candidate after the completion of a merit based selection process, and I can't think of anyone more qualified to take on this role. This appointment is a continuation of Natasha's vital work in the fight to advance the rights of women and girls around the globe and end discrimination against them in our laws and institutions. Natasha is well known in this place as the founding chair of Our Watch, the national foundation to prevent violence against women and their children, appointed by the then Labor government—an organisation that I have been delighted to host at Parliament House many times in recent years. Previously, Natasha was Australia's Ambassador for Women and Girls, a member of the United Nations' High Level Working Group on the Health and Human Rights of Women, Children And Adolescents and prior to this, of course, Natasha was a senator in the other place and a leader of the Democrats for an extended period. I know Natasha is a friend, mentor and adviser to many members of this House and in the other place across all sides of politics. Importantly, Natasha will serve as the only representative from Oceania on this committee—a region where Australian leadership on gender equality is so crucial. I know Natasha will use this significant platform to continue her important work of promoting gender equality around the world, including back home in Australia. While we have made progress, Australia clearly has more work to do in this regard. Remembrance Day 20 13:50 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert Tomorrow is Remembrance Day. This year, unfortunately, it will be very different, like so many other things, because of the COVID pandemic. But it won't be as different as Anzac Day was this year. We missed out on the opportunity to gather together and remember but also, as veterans, to catch up with mates, reconnect and support one another through whatever we might be going through. That's why this year I'm throwing my support behind an initiative called A BBQ To Remember. A BBQ To Remember is the brain child of veteran mental health charity Swiss 8, which I'm the patron for. The idea is that now that a lot of restrictions are starting to ease we can take the time to hold a barbecue with friends and family and have that hour or two to connect, flipping a few steaks, cooking a few sausages and making up for what we missed out on, on 25 April this year—the connection. I want to take this opportunity to encourage everyone, no matter whether you're an ex-service organisation, an RSL or an individual, to register to host a barbecue at bbqtoremember.com. I'm looking forward to my own barbecue breakfast tomorrow with the Swiss 8 team outside the Australian War Memorial. I would encourage people in this place to attend, show support, pause, remember and come together. Lest we forget. Bendigo Electorate: Jobs 20 13:51 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo As we meet here in Parliament House, 150 workers in Bendigo have stopped work. It's not easy to stop work and to give up wages. You only do it if you have to do it, but the workers at Lactalis in Bendigo, formerly known as Parmalat, have done it. Their fight, their struggle, is about job security. Far too many of them are still casuals or on fixed-term contracts. One of the workers I spoke to last Thursday, the first day of their action, has been a casual for seven-plus years. It's the same roster each year, yet his company has not confirmed him as a full-time worker. This is simply outrageous at a time when people want job security. You may not know the name of this company. It is the largest dairy company in the world. And the family who own it are worth an estimated $22 million, but they manufacture products we all know, Paul's, Aldi products and Vaalia. These are all popular brands that many of us consume each day. Yet the workers who make these products are struggling with job insecurity and pay disparity. The workers in Bendigo are paid far less than the workers in Echuca. In this dispute, they are not asking for pay parity, just some form of pay equalisation. I stand with these workers, like the community does. We want this multinational company to sit down and work this dispute out—give these workers the job security they deserve. Berowra Electorate: Education 20 13:53 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Jillian Tourlas retired as principal of Galston High School at the end of term 3, after serving the Galston community for 10 years and committing almost 40 years of her life to the education of children. Jill is a great leader. She brought vision, passion, integrity and good humour. Jill transformed the school, improving academic performance, increasing school pride and connection with the community. She leaves a proud legacy. Under Jill's leadership Galston High School has gone from being just the local school to the school of choice for local families. Jill embraced a concept of a community school, providing broad learning opportunities and encouraging students to achieve excellence. Some of the many things achieved during her time at Galston High School include the addition of a special education unit into mainstream school; extended opportunities for student leadership; improved academic results; whole school and students awards; student welfare programs; transition programs at all stages that enhance student engagement; upgrades to school facilities, including the library; and links with community organisations like the Bendigo Bank, Rotary clubs, the Galston Christian Education Association Inc and local businesses, like the IGA. Despite retiring at the end of term 3, I know she has been helping the new principal, Karen Shepherd, with her work in the school. Jill is continuing her work in education, taking on a leadership role across New South Wales, supporting principals as they develop. We wish Jill and her family a long, healthy and happy retirement and particularly good wishes to her son, who is sitting his HSC exams. Queensland State Election 20 13:54 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley Ten days ago the people of Queensland had their say on what sort of state they want to live in. They chose a government focused on protecting Queenslanders' health with a strong economic plan. They gave the privilege of forming government to a true Labor legend, Annastacia Palaszczuk. Premier Palaszczuk and her team were rewarded with four years of majority government to build on the strong economic recovery they've laid out for our state. The federal and state LNP, from the Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales right down to a host of members in this place and a gaggle of no-name Queensland LNP senators, did their best to try and see our Premier break on her strong stance on our borders. Every step of the way, Premier Palaszczuk stood up to the LNP. Queensland has backed her and one of the best treasurers in the country, the Hon. Cameron Dick. Right across Queensland, the ALP prevailed in places like Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Hervey Bay, the Gold Coast, Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast and won seats like Caloundra and Nicklin, seats the Labor Party has never held. Now Australia's longest-serving female leader in any jurisdiction, my friend Annastacia Palaszczuk has already begun the hard work of leading our state in the COVID recovery. Queenslanders have once again rejected the LNP's plans of cuts to services, sacking frontline workers and selling our essential services, and they've rejected the chaos and mistruth of Clive Palmer and One Nation, aided and abetted by the LNP. With Annastacia Palaszczuk, they have a strong leader, someone who cares about our state and will not leave them behind. (Time expired) Diwali 21 13:56 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm Today I would like to talk about the Indian festival Diwali, which symbolises the triumph of light, knowledge and hope over darkness, ignorance and despair. These are values shared and ideals aspired to by Australians of all faiths. In the lead-up to Diwali, I would like to particularly acknowledge the Indian community in Chisholm and make special mention of the Indian Senior Citizens Association of Victoria. This incredible organisation, led by its president, Dr Prem Phakey, has been vital in lowering the stress of COVID-19 among members of the Australian Indian diaspora. By moving their many activities online, including yoga and bridge, they have kept the spirits of their members high. In a time when many of our senior citizens have experienced loneliness and isolation, the organisation has been of real service to our community. In many ways, their work encapsulates the spirit of Diwali. To everyone in Chisholm and across Australia celebrating this weekend: I wish you an enjoyable Diwali and a prosperous year ahead. National Integrity Commission 21 13:57 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs If Rotten Tomatoes reviewed anticorruption bodies, the Morrison government's integrity commission would be certified rotten, with a score of zero. It's got worse reviews than Cats. The Centre for Public Integrity says the Attorney-General's integrity commission 'would be the weakest watchdog in the country'. Former judge of the Victorian Court of Appeals Stephen Charles says that, instead of tackling corruption, 'It's an attempt to protect ministers, politicians and senior public servants from investigations into serious corruption.' And Geoffrey Watson SC, former counsel assisting the New South Wales ICAC, says, 'It is designed to cover up corruption, not expose it.' Here are just a few of the scandals that could not—I repeat: could not—be investigated by this weak, ineffective and compromised integrity commission: the robodebt scandal, sports rorts, the energy minister's fake City of Sydney travel figures, the Western Sydney airport land rort and the Minister for Home Affairs' au pairs. In fact, any scandal that occurred before this legislation is passed could not be investigated by this toothless commission, because it's not retrospective, and neither could any scandal the government wants to cover up, because it could only investigate government scandals the government asks it to investigate. This isn't an integrity commission; it's a cover-up commission. Foley, Dr Catherine Patricia, AO, PSM 21 13:59 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid This year has demonstrated how critical scientists are to our nation as Australia and indeed the world have faced the COVID-19 pandemic. As a psychologist I was a scientist practitioner, and as a parliamentarian I am a strong advocate for evidence based policymaking. I rise today to congratulate Australia's new Chief Scientist, Dr Cathy Foley. Dr Foley has had an outstanding career in physics, including in her current role as Chief Scientist of CSIRO. I should point out that Dr Foley was educated in Reid at Santa Sabina College in Strathfield. For young women around the country who are seeking a career in STEM, I hope that Dr Foley's appointment will be a source of inspiration and optimism. Dr Foley has been a champion for women in science across all disciplines and has spoken about her desire to encourage a greater representation of women in labs across Australia. Australia needs more women across science, technology, engineering and maths, and the Morrison government has introduced programs—such as the Future You initiative—to help raise awareness of STEM industries for young girls, as well as targeted apprenticeships and cadetships in universities. Congratulations to Dr Foley. I look forward to your contributions in your role as the Chief Scientist of Australia. SHADOW MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 21 SHADOW MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler For the information of the House I present a revised list of the shadow ministry. Following the resignation of the member for Hunter as a shadow minister—and I thank him for his contribution—the member for Chifley has been appointed as shadow minister for agriculture and resources. Welcome back, mate. I congratulate him on his election by the caucus. The document read as follows— FEDERAL SHADOW MINISTRY 10 November 2020 Shadow Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. The SPEAKER 00APG Under standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. Member for Chifley, congratulations. This means you can't interject anymore. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, it must be said that I did not ask that of him. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 24 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Ministerial Conduct 24 14:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister assure Australians that his ministerial standards have been and will be enforced? 14:02 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook It is always the case. I would hope that the same standards that are set out in this document would be adopted by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to his own frontbench. Morrison Government 24 14:02 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's actions to address the important challenges facing our nation both at home and abroad are making us stronger and building a more secure future for all Australians? 14:02 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Bass. It was good to see the member for Bass in Tasmania on the weekend. It's wonderful to see Tasmania opening up again and the opportunities that are coming to Tasmania. Whether in Tasmania or anywhere else around this country, this has been the most difficult year for so many Australians—for many, the most difficult in living memory. Throughout this time, our government has remained absolutely focused on the welfare of the Australian people. We are standing by the Australian people to ensure that we are delivering on the support that they need right here, right now; during the worst of the crisis; when it first hit back at the beginning of this year; and indeed into the future as well. Our priority as a government is obviously to address the health impacts of the COVID-19 global pandemic—some $18.5 billion of additional investment, supporting our states and territories, but also directly investing in key areas, such as mental health, hospital support, respiratory clinics, and essential PPE and other equipment—but also to address the recovery plan required for the COVID-19 recession. That has included many measures. JobKeeper has meant $101 billion—almost $70 billion has already been delivered—providing the lifeline that those businesses and those employees have needed during the worst of this crisis. That extends to the end of March. Today, we announce an additional $3 billion—more than that actually; some $3.2 billion—to extend the COVID supplement for the JobSeeker payment out to the end of March. It is $3.2 billion in additional support—not just into the economy, but recognising that we need to go through further transitions. And our economy is transitioning. We are moving through the gears again. The comeback has begun. Businesses are opening their doors again and they are looking for workers. As I speak to my many members, they relay the stories back from their own electorates of employers who are seeking people to come back into work. We need to connect those who found their way out of work because of the COVID-19 recession back into those jobs. We will continue to support them through the JobMaker hiring credit and the many other measures that were contained in this year's budget to ensure that businesses will be able to invest, employ and bring forward the decisions that will enable our recovery to continue. But these aren't the only issues that we must remain focused on. The threats of counterterrorism and the strategic challenges we have faced in this region have not gone anywhere, and we need to remain vigilant on all of those issues. We saw the terrible attacks in Austria and in France, which we have deplored. Here in this country, we have not been diverted from the task of keeping Australians safe. We will continue— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister's time has concluded. Climate Change 25 14:05 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister ruled out committing, before the next election, to net zero emissions by 2050? 14:06 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for the question, because we would like to achieve it, and we have an aspiration that we would like to see this achieved. We have no issue with being able to achieve this, at some point in the future—indeed, as we have already committed to under the Paris accords, in the second half of this century. That is actually a commitment as part of the accord. That is the same commitment that countries that have signed up to the Paris accord have also committed to. Indeed, there are only four countries in the world today who have committed through the formal process to the very exercise that the Leader of the Opposition is outlining. That is a formal process which has accountabilities attached to it. But I'll tell you what I'm not going to do. What I'm not going to do is make a commitment to the Australian people when I can't tell them the cost of it and when I can't tell them what it would mean for their jobs, their incomes and their livelihoods. I won't make such a reckless commitment as that. What I will do, what the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction will do, and what my cabinet and my government will do is put in place the technology and the investment in the technology that is necessary to get us to the place that the Leader of the Opposition has referred to. I know this: if you can't get there by technology, the only way to get there is by taxes, and that's why the Leader of the Opposition is so quick to commit. The Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party are not committed to getting there by technology; they are committed to getting there by taxes. And they will not be upfront with the Australian people, just as they were not at the last election when the former Leader of the Opposition could not explain the cost of their policies to the Australian people. The Australian people smelt a rat, and they rejected the policies of the opposition, because they could not come clean with the Australian people about what it meant for them. We would like to achieve these goals. We think they're good goals. We think we should be ensuring that we invest in the technology and working with countries around the world to achieve these goals, but they must be achieved by technological advancement that does not cost Australians jobs. My members agree with this position. They agree strongly with this position. And the member for Hunter agrees with us, as well. The member for Hunter has been driven out of the shadow cabinet by an ideological group of zealots on that side of the House who have no interest in the jobs of Australians in regional areas. That is the view of the member for Hunter— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister's time has concluded. An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No, the call goes to the government side. COVID-19: Regional Australia 26 14:09 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy PM inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government is meeting the challenge of the pandemic recession through providing critical support to regional Australia? Is he aware of any alternative approaches and policies? 14:09 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the free-ranging member for Dawson. If the member for Hunter wants to come across to this side, it's the Nationals he should come to, because we've got plenty of free-rangers in our party! But I welcome the member for Chifley to the shadow frontbench. I have messaged him and I congratulate him. I'm not sure they grow too much barley in Blacktown or wheat in Woodcroft, or produce many sheep in Shanes Park or do much mining in Marsden Park— The SPEAKER 00APG Deputy Prime Minister, you are 30 seconds in. This is a long introduction. Mr McCORMACK 219646 I just wanted to make the point that the member for Hunter is welcome anytime. I thank the member for Dawson for his question. He represents an agriculturally and resource rich area—but it is very diverse up there in North Queensland and we see the abundant opportunities in this region just like we see them right across the nation. That's why we are backing local government areas, 537 of them—in Chifley, in Hunter, in Dawson—with the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. Indeed, to date we have approved $430 million for 2,300 projects under the now $1.5 billion Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. Burdekin, Mackay, Townsville and Whitsunday are all great regional councils in the member for Dawson's electorate. Burdekin Shire Council is utilising $240,000 of this funding to improve the condition of Rita Island Road—resealing and rehabilitating the surface, a series of works which will support 10 full-time jobs. It might not mean much to some of our metropolitan friends, but, let me tell you, that is a good delivery for a council such as that. We are seeing it right across the nation. In urban areas, in small rural, remote and regional areas— Ms Burney interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Barton. Mr McCORMACK 219646 and even in the member for Barton's electorate—we are making sure local councils get the funding they need. Our recovery will not be Canberra led. It will certainly not be Brisbane led. It will be led through local engagement, local stakeholders, local people and local excavators on local sites. That's what we are doing through local government areas. Ms Collins interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 Yes, you're right, Member for Franklin: through local governments. We are also, as part of our budget plan, a blueprint for the future, supporting essential social supports with increased mental health services—that's pretty important in regional areas and in all electorates—and also through the JobKeeper plan. Damien Connors, owner-operator of The Dispensary, a restaurant in downtown Mackay, went from 70 staff to 20 staff overnight. But he has put half of those staff back on, through JobKeeper. That's local delivery. That's a good local small business we are supporting. COVID-19: Income Support Payments 26 14:13 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton My question is to the Prime Minister. One million Australians are unemployed and 160,000 more are expected to join them by Christmas. There are seven jobseekers for every job available and Australia is in the worst recession for nearly a century. Isn't this the worst possible time for the Prime Minister to cut the coronavirus supplement? 14:13 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question. It is indeed true that during the course of this COVID-19 recession many Australians have found themselves in a situation they would never have imagined. They would never have imagined themselves having to be in touch with Services Australia to avail themselves of JobKeeper support. That is why the government acted quickly to double the level of support during the worst part of this crisis, when their uncertainty levels would been at the most extreme. We did not have any real indication of the severity of this, of how difficult this would be, but we had to prepare for the worst of storms—and, indeed, we did. We provided that support first. We said the safety net must be strengthened first, and that's exactly what we did. And we followed it up with measures like JobKeeper and radically increasing the capacity—drawing public servants from not just this place but many other places—to ensure we could process the unprecedented level of claims. The work of Services Australia to ensure that support was provided to those Australians was absolutely outstanding and I commend them again for their service, here in this place today—and I'm sure all members would agree with me. As we come out of the COVID-19 recession, what's important, under our recovery plan, is to go through the gears up again. In the same way we provided temporary and targeted support for those who needed it most, at the same time as the economy improves, it's important that our safety net arrangements do not negatively impact on how the labour market performs in this country and potentially provide an impediment, as we hear from so many employers around the country who are seeking people to go into jobs. Those job advertisements have doubled since May. There will be more jobs coming as we open up, and it's important that's the case. It was essential to provide these emergency measures, but for Australia to move forward again, we can't remain trapped by those emergency measures. We need to ensure that those emergency measures move with the recovery that is underway. We are extending the JobSeeker payment at a cost of $3.2 billion to taxpayers around this country. The level of support provided by this government through the course of this pandemic is unprecedented and, at a global comparison, is one of the most significant of anywhere in the world. I know that Australians have greatly appreciated that. They have greatly appreciated the context of it, the fact that it cannot be there, at those levels, forever and that we need to graduate from those levels of support in order for our economy to recover again and get back to the strength that all Australians want it to be at. These are sentiments that were also expressed by the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Treasurer at the time that these measures were put in place. (Time expired) Ministerial Conduct 27 14:16 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to last flight's Four Corners program and the revelations about toxic sexual culture in the Liberal Party, ministers' offices and this parliament. Prime Minister, this is the parliament's 'Me Too' moment. Women in this place and around the country want you to act. Will you immediately commence an investigation into what's going on in ministers' offices, stand aside the ministers involved with the Four Corners story while the investigation takes place, and put in place a proper framework for sexual misconduct to be reported and investigated so that every woman working in parliament feels confident that they can come forward without fear of reprisal? 14:17 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for his question. The matters that were the subject of last night's report were matters that arose several years ago. They were not matters that were contemporaneous; they were matters that were raised several years ago. In fact, they predate my time as Prime Minister. These matters were addressed by the then Prime Minister Turnbull. His response—which I strongly supported as members in this place at the time will know—was to put in place a new standard for ministerial conduct in this place. He did so prospectively. We have upheld that standard and we will continue to uphold that standard for one very important reason—and it goes to the very issues that the member has raised. Every single person who works in this place, and any place in this country, should feel safe. And there should be, as there are in this place, as you will be aware, Mr Speaker, arrangements that are put in place for staff who work in this place to raise issues such as this through the Department of Finance in an anonymous or very private and confidential way. That is the process that is set down for all members of this place. But there is an even higher standard that was put in place by Prime Minister Turnbull, and is upheld by me, to ensure that ministers go beyond those arrangements. Frankly, I don't see why the simple process of not saying it's okay for members of this place—ministers, shadow ministers, leaders of political movements who are representing this party or anyone else—should not be held to the same standards in terms of the conduct the member for Melbourne is referring to, that are set out in the ministerial standards. It doesn't matter if you're a staffer in a shadow minister's office, the leader of the Greens's office, my office or any other member in this place's office—it doesn't matter. That sort of thing should not be on in this place. Under my government, and under my predecessor's government, we made sure that those standards were put in place. And when we did it, some in this place—including on that side—mocked it. Some outside of this place, including in the media, mocked it as well. And they continue to, with the language with which they refer to that change in standards. I decry that, because it's an important change in standards. And you can have it from me, Mr Speaker, that those standards in my government that are set out in that code will be upheld. I would invite the Leader of the Greens and I would invite the leaders of other political parties in this place to ensure that their staff have the same protection that staff in my ministers' offices have. COVID-19: Income Support Payments 28 14:20 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House of how the Morrison government's unprecedented economic support, including the JobSeeker supplement and the JobMaker hiring credit, is meeting the challenge of the COVID-19 recession and providing real assistance to Australian families and helping businesses to create jobs? 14:20 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Bowman for his question and acknowledge his contribution to the medical profession before he came to this place and his deep commitment to improving Indigenous health and mental health. The member for Bowman and others on this side of the House acknowledge the fact that there's been a once-in-a-century economic shock that saw 1.3 million of our fellow Australians either lose their jobs or have their working hours reduced to zero at the start of the pandemic. In the June quarter we saw GDP down by seven per cent—a record fall. But, importantly, the economic recovery is now underway. A total of 446,000 jobs have been created in the past four months. Consumer sentiment had its biggest increase in a budget month since the series first began back in 1974. Australia's AAA credit rating has been reaffirmed. Last week the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia said that our fiscal strategy is the right fiscal strategy and that we are on the right track. I can confirm to the House that today consumer confidence is up for the 10th straight week, at an eight-month high, and business confidence is up by nine points—up for trade, up for transport, up for construction and up for mining. The measures that we introduced have helped support that recovery. They are measures that contribute the equivalent of 26 per cent of GDP. JobKeeper: we have got $70 billion out the door. The cashflow boost: $32 billion out the door. The coronavirus supplement: $15.6 billion out the door. Two $750 payments to pensioners and carers: more than $9 billion out the door. And the one that those on the other side of the House don't like to acknowledge, which is that we on this side have allowed Australians to access their own super: more than $36 billion out the door, helping to support the economic recovery, giving Australians access to their own money. Today we took another step forward by extending the JobSeeker coronavirus supplement, at $150, out to the end of March, at a cost of $3.2 billion—another measure that will help provide support to those who need it. That is economic support to help get Australians back into jobs, economic support to help our economic recovery, economic support to help Australians right across the country to get through the biggest crisis of the last century. (Time expired) COVID-19: Income Support Payments 28 14:23 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said today that we cannot allow the lifeline that has been extended to now hold Australians back. Can the Prime Minister explain how supporting unemployed Australians during the worst recession in almost a century is 'holding the country back'? 14:24 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I will simply quote the member's own senior members in relation to these issues. They have said that the government needs to take into account all sorts of considerations about the state of the budget and the state of the economy and that they expect that a new JobSeeker rate will be lower than it is right now. That's what they've said. They've consistently said that the level of the JobSeeker COVID supplement would be at its elevated levels and then it would be reduced. That is what the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have said consistently, and that is what the government is doing. The member opposite would be aware that, when you set these allowances, these rates, these welfare payments, if you set them at rates which can potentially impede the labour market from people moving into work as the economy strengthens, then that can prevent the economy being able to get people into work. Our job is to get people into jobs, not have them stay on welfare. Our plan is about getting businesses open; our plan is about getting Australians into jobs and off welfare. That's why the JobMaker hiring credit has been put in place in the budget. It specifically goes to Australians who have been on JobSeeker and go into a job—a job that will support their incomes, not just with the support of the government but the support of a viable business that is part of the great Australian comeback and recovery that is underway not only as a result of the tremendous resilience of Australians but also as a result of the strong policy settings and economic supports that were put in place by this government. Those who need support will continue to receive it, and we have extended the JobSeeker coronavirus supplement out till the end of March, at a cost of $3.2 billion. But Australians always knew, as we went into these most difficult times, that the elevated support that was necessary during these times of crisis was not sustainable on an ongoing basis, and they understand that we need to regear the economy as we move through to the recovery and we return our economy to the strength that it was before. You don't achieve that by weighing it down. You do it by freeing it up. And our policies are about freeing up businesses to employ more Australians. It may come as a surprise to the member opposite, but, all across regional Australia at the moment, there are farmers and orchardists and others who are crying out for people to come and work on their fields and to realise that harvest. And it was our government that put in place a $6,000 relocation allowance that could say to Australians who are in need of that work— (Time expired) COVID 19: Vaccine 29 14:27 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is addressing the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic through its advancement of potential vaccines? 14:27 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Higgins, both for her question and, in particular, for her work as a doctor and as a leading medical researcher. As she well knows and as the House well knows, the pandemic continues to rage around the world. In the course of the last week, extraordinarily, more than 3½ million cases were diagnosed. The world is almost at 51 million cases. What that means, of course, is that more lives will be lost and that more lives are being lost than ever before. We've seen 50,000 lives lost in those same seven days—50,000 lives lost. We are now at over 1.26 million lives lost officially, and inevitably the real total is far greater. Against that background, I'm privileged to be able to inform the House that Australia has had a third successive day of zero cases of community transmission Australia-wide, and all Australians should be congratulated for that. All Australians have played their part, and I want to thank and honour them for that work. But the work is not done. We know that we're making great progress in our hospitals. The advice from the National Incident Room is that not only is it three consecutive days with zero cases, but this is the first time since 27, 28 and 29 February that we've had three consecutive days with zero cases. We now have zero Australians in ICU and zero on ventilation as a result of COVID-19. But, with the numbers around the world as they are, our work with vaccines is more important than ever before. We've completed the contract for four different vaccines. Yesterday, we referred to the fact that commencement of manufacturing had begun in Victoria for the AstraZeneca vaccine. Today, I'm privileged to be able to inform the House that, in relation to the Pfizer vaccine, the information, internationally, is very positive. There's more work to be done. We need more data, to be absolutely certain. But, after discussions with the CEO of Pfizer Australia, Anne Harris, this morning, I am more hopeful and more confident than ever. What we see is a putative effective rate of 90 per cent for this vaccine, where the hope had been 50 per cent. So: a 90 per cent effectiveness rate, on the data available so far, hasn't just lifted hopes and opportunities here in Australia; it lifts hopes and opportunities for the world. What we have done with vaccines is to build a portfolio of vaccines—a pipeline of 135 million units. We are fortunate to have made the right choices. We are fortunate to be part of this. And, ultimately, we are saving lives and protecting lives. COVID-19: Income Support Payments 29 14:30 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is cutting the coronavirus supplement for about 7,000 Australians on JobSeeker in my electorate of Corangamite. Why did the Prime Minister say: 'We cannot allow the lifeline that has been extended to now hold Australia back'? Doesn't he realise that people want to work, but there simply aren't enough jobs in the middle of the worst recession in almost a century? 14:31 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the honourable member for her question, but I can inform her that what we have done today is to extend the JobSeeker coronavirus supplement at a cost of $3.2 billion. And I'd say to the honourable member: if you look in the budget papers, announced on 6 October, there wasn't an extension of the JobSeeker coronavirus supplement from January to March. Opposition members interjecting— Mr FRYDENBERG FKL It wasn't. But today we have announced an extension, at $3.2 billion, at $150, and the reason we are tapering down these payments of JobKeeper and JobSeeker is that the Australian economy is recovering. The honourable member may be interested to know that, at the peak of this pandemic, the effective unemployment across this country was 15 per cent. Right now, today, it's 9.4 per cent. But if you took out Victoria, where we've seen the terrible impacts of the second wave, the effective unemployment rate in Australia would be about 7.8 per cent. So what we have done is to provide an extension of an extra six months for JobKeeper and an extension now for JobSeeker. But I would just say to the honourable member that if she'd listened to the Leader of the Opposition when he was asked, directly, the question, by Karl Stefanovic on the Today show, 'So how do you start to balance the books if you want to extend JobKeeper and extend those increases to JobSeeker?' the Leader of the Opposition replied, 'Well, we haven't said to extend it. What we have said, though, is it would need a tapering off.' The Leader of the Opposition has said it's needed a tapering. We have undertaken a tapering, and it's in the best interests of Australian jobs. Energy 30 14:33 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister update the House on how Australia's approach to the development and deployment of new energy technologies will help meet the challenges posed by rising global emissions? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:33 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the member for Sturt for his question and for his passionate focus on the role of energy technologies. It was a pleasure, recently, earlier this year to visit the Australian Hydrogen Centre in Adelaide, where they're feeding hydrogen into the pipelines down in South Australia. What a great project. Now, like all of us on this side of the House, he knows that the secret—the way to reduce emissions whilst we keep a strong economy, to drive investment and drive jobs as we bring down emissions—is to ensure that we deploy and develop technologies that are going to achieve those outcomes, and that's why we've developed our Technology Investment Roadmap, which is all about focusing on those technologies where Australia has competitive advantage, where we can bring down emissions here in Australia and around the world. And we know, on this side, if it's not to be technology, it is to be taxes. It's a choice. One of the technologies that we focused on is carbon capture and storage. There are 59 carbon capture and storage projects around the world, the biggest of which is here in Australia and almost half of which are in the United States. I note that President-elect Biden has recently said that he will 'double down' on carbon capture and storage. He will double down and continue to invest and provide incentives for carbon capture and storage in the United States. Alongside carbon capture and storage, there is soil carbon, stored energy, low-emissions steel and aluminium, and, of course, hydrogen, as I mentioned earlier. It is about choice. It's about technology versus taxes. Today the member for Hunter made his choice. He called time. He doubled down. He called time on the Leader of the Opposition. He confirmed what we on this side of the House all feared: that the Labor Party has walked away from those hardworking Australians that they used to support. They've walked away from their blue-collar base. The member for Hunter said today, 'How did it all go so terribly wrong?' Well, four words: the member for Hindmarsh. But it gets worse than this. We hear from the member for Hunter that, after 14 years of trying, the Labor Party has made not one contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gases in this country. Not one contribution. We're meeting and beating our targets. We met and beat Kyoto. It's time for others to join the member for Hunter and stand up for hardworking Australians because that is what we do on this side of the House every day. COVID-19: Income Support Payments 30 14:36 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is cutting the coronavirus supplement for more than 7½ thousand Australians on JobSeeker in my electorate of Lyons. Why did the Prime Minister say, 'We cannot allow the lifeline that has been extended to now hold Australia back'? Doesn't he realise that in Tasmania people want to work, but there simply are not enough jobs? 14:37 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Lyons for his question. I was in Tasmania on the weekend and I was pleased to see how the recovery has begun. The comeback in Tasmania is underway as that economy starts to move forward. In Tasmania they raised two particular issues with me. One was that they are needing more workers in Tasmania. They don't just need more workers in the tourism and hospitality sectors but they particularly need additional workers in the regional parts of the country where they struggle every year to get workers on the orchards and in the other critical industries that drive the Tasmanian economy. That is normally done with a great deal of assistance from the backpacker market that comes in and supports those industries. But under COVID there is a real problem as a result of not being able to access those workers. That's why the government put in place a $6,000 relocation allowance. Whether they be people who are living in the member's electorate or people further down south towards Hobart, if they wish to go and travel to another part of Tasmania to take up those jobs, there's $6,000 there to support them. Our response to the COVID-19 recession is not to have policies that keep people on welfare but to have policies that get them into jobs and support the businesses and the investments that they want to make. In particular, the JobMaker hiring credit, which is going through this place this week, is about getting people who have been on JobSeeker payments and putting them into jobs. The best form of income support anyone can have is a job in the real economy. That's where we see the future. We may differ from the Labor Party about that. They may see the future of Australia under COVID-19 being weighed down, but we're not going to be. Australians won't be. Businesses are wanting to invest again. Businesses are wanting to move forward again. Businesses are wanting to hire again. We will support them in that exercise because, whether it's in Tasmania, whether it's in the Northern Territory, whether it's in Western Australia, Victoria or anywhere else, we know Australians want to work. We are going to continue to ensure that they get every opportunity to do so. National Security 31 14:39 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is keeping Australians safe by meeting the challenges posed by the scourge of terrorism, including domestic terrorism? 14:39 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for her question and for her very keen interest in making sure that the Gold Coast remains a safe community for people to visit and to live in. This government is absolutely determined to make sure that we can keep Australians safe. We work every day with our agencies to make sure that we can deal with the threat of terrorism. As the Prime Minister mentioned earlier, all of us in this place condemn the terrible tragedies that took place in France and Austria. We extend our deepest sympathies to those families and the victims of those heinous attacks. As we know, the threat is extant not only in Europe and right across the Western world but of course also in our own country. The threat level is currently at PROBABLE in our country, and it's always worth reminding ourselves that this is an ever-existing threat. Terrorists haven't gone away because of COVID, and the threat remains in our country as much as it does elsewhere around the world. We know that since September 2014, when the National Terrorism Threat Level was raised, there have been seven attacks and 18 major disruption operations in response to imminent attacks that were being planned on Australians. One hundred and sixteen people have been charged as a result of counterterrorism operations, and right now 22 people are before the courts for terrorism-related offences. Yesterday, a 56-year-old male faced court following an investigation into a stockpile of illegal firearms and explosives by the Queensland Joint Counter Terrorism Team. I want to pay tribute to all of those officers who were involved in that operation. We supported those officers, and police officers and intelligence officers right across the country, by the fact that we have introduced and passed 20 tranches of legislation since 2014. This government has made it an absolute priority to protect Australians and to deal with that threat, and that work continues. I want to congratulate ASIO for the work they have undertaken, for the way in which they have engaged with the business community and the way in which they have provided advice in a very sober way to Australians, to allow people to understand the threat. The work of ASIO officers and the work of the Australian Federal Police officers has been bolstered significantly by this most recent budget and by more than $2.3 billion since August 2014. We have managed the budget well. We've made tough decisions over recent years to make sure that our budget is in a very strong position, not just to deal with COVID but to make sure that our agencies can be properly resourced so that those police officers and intelligence officers on the front line can continue to do their work. They work 24/7 and spend a long time away from their families to keep us and our families safe, and we really honour and thank them for the work that they continue to do. COVID-19: Income Support Payments 31 14:42 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is cutting the coronavirus supplement for nearly 9,500 Australians on JobSeeker in my electorate of Dunkley. Why did the Prime Minister say that we cannot allow the lifeline that has been extended to now hold Australia back? Doesn't he realise that people want to work and that they need this lifeline to continue during the worst recession in nearly a century? 14:43 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I say to the member for Dunkley that we've actually extended JobSeeker, at a cost of $3.2 billion, providing an additional $150 through the supplement out until the end of March. We've done this because we recognise that there are people in need but, at the same time, the Australian economy is recovering from this once-in-a-century economic shock. There are 1.3 million Australians who either lost their jobs or saw their working hours reduced to zero at the start of the crisis; 60 per cent of those are now back in work. Of those jobs that have been created, 60 per cent are for women and 40 per cent are for young people. We also know that the effective unemployment rate, which got as high as 15 per cent, has now come down to 9.4 per cent. But for Victoria it would be at 7.8 per cent. We also know that the job ads have recovered three-quarters of their fall since the start of this pandemic. We also know that both Treasury and the RBA have updated their labour market forecasts. Originally, they were expecting unemployment to peak at around 10 per cent by the end of this year, and now they're saying around eight per cent. The fact that 446,000 jobs have been created in the past four months shows that the economic recovery is underway. But when it comes to tapering both JobKeeper and JobSeeker, I'd say to the honourable member: don't just listen to the words of your leader; also listen to the words of the shadow Treasurer, who is yet to ask a question. The shadow Treasurer was asked, on the ABC: 'When Labor talks about wanting to see these programs tapered, how long would that tapering be for?' And then the member for Rankin says: 'The government should be looking at this kind of tapering.' And then the member for Corio, the deputy leader, turned up on Sky and said, 'There needs to be an appropriate tapering of the government's support,' that the tapering of the removal of the government's support should be done at a slow enough pace to enable the private sector to bounce back. And that's what we're suggesting. Today we've talked about how consumer confidence and business confidence are up and how the jobs are coming back. So those on the other side should stop playing politics and start focusing on the substance of this policy, which is the extension of the JobSeeker payment for another three months, supporting Australian jobs and supporting the Australian economy, at a cost of $3.2 billion. National Security 32 14:46 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Will the minister inform the House of how the Morrison government is working with our partners in the Indo-Pacific to meet Australia's national security challenges? 14:46 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for her question and for her strong support of the Australian Defence Force. We have made a massive investment into our Defence men and women and we will continue to do so, because not only do we want to keep Australians safe but we want to keep people safe and protected in our own region. We know that the Indo-Pacific is in the midst of the most consequential strategic realignment since the Second World War, and Australia stands very firmly with our partners in this region. We want to make sure that we have a free, open and prosperous Indo-Pacific. Australia will never, ever compromise on our values, and our partners know that. We will continue to work very closely with family, as the Prime Minister often describes our near neighbours. We want to make sure that we can provide support to them, not only in the response to COVID but also in making sure that over the coming years and decades we can work very closely with those partners to secure our region. The defence minister, Minister Reynolds, recently met with her counterparts from Japan, Singapore, Brunei and the Philippines to discuss challenges and opportunities for our bilateral partnerships. These are very important partnerships in terms of our response in this region. As many Australians will know, Australia is currently taking part in Exercise Malabar, for the first time since 2007. It is an absolute milestone opportunity to enhance Australia's maritime capabilities and to build our interoperability with major regional democracies. Last week HMAS Ballarat joined our close partners—the US navy, the Indian navy and the Japan maritime self-defence force—for the Malabar naval exercises. Australia accepted India's invitation to take part, building on the positive momentum of our recent comprehensive strategic partnership. It is through these strong regional partnerships that we can ensure that our region continues to be secure and prosperous and that both large and small nations have their sovereignty respected. I want to pay particular tribute to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force for their tireless work. They do us incredibly proud. They work here; they work across the world. And, as I said in my remarks in relation to the men and women of ASIO and the Australian Federal Police, similarly in the Australian Defence Force these men and women work away for many months of the year with their comrades to protect our interests, and we should recognise that their families miss them during that absence. But as we go to schools in our electorates and speak to the kids whose mums and dads are deployed, we are incredibly proud of the work that they do in our country's name, and we honour their service again today. Dunkley Electorate: Centrelink 32 14:49 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley My question is to the Minister for Government Services. Can the minister inform the House on why he still plans to close the Mornington Centrelink shopfront in March 2021 when the site received over 31,000 contacts in the 2019-20 financial year? 14:49 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I thank the member for her question. As the House would know, Services Australia runs an extraordinarily diverse property portfolio—in fact, 728,000 square metres across 402 commercial properties. Services Australia runs 325 customer-facing sites. It's a large portfolio. That portfolio used to be larger. In fact, it used to be larger by 256 sites, which were those that Labor cut from 2009 to 2013. In 2009, 61 sites were cut. In the 2011-12 budget, 67 sites were cut. So I say to the member: your tactics committee has given you the hospital pass from hell when you walk in here and talk to us about sites when the colleagues of yours over there closed 256— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Dunkley on a point of order? Ms Murphy 133646 My point of order is on relevance. The question was very direct: can the minister inform the House on why he plans to close the Mornington Centrelink shop in March 2021 given the number of contacts? The SPEAKER 00APG I just say to both the member and the minister that the minister is entitled to give context, but I judge that he's done that, and the question was very specific. Mr ROBERT HWT Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Mornington service centre has been extended, and the extent of the lease is up to the date the member had. Clearly, as we move forward towards that date, we have conversations with our leaseholders, as we do. It's important to also understand that, in terms of leaseholders, we have 354 individual landlords that the department engages with across our 402 commercial sites, and we continue to engage with them as necessary. But, in terms of service delivery, it's important that the member understand that the service delivery to her constituents will continue. For example, it's important that the member understand that yesterday Services Australia answered 147,000 calls, and on the social services and welfare line those calls had an average speed of answer of 67 seconds. I'd say to the member that in 2013 the average speed of answer across social services and welfare under those opposite was 90 minutes. Australians waited for 90 minutes. Yesterday they waited 67 seconds. That's the difference. I'd say to the House that, unfortunately, this financial year 47 Australians haven't been able to get through to the call centre, compared to when the member for Sydney was there. It was 40 million calls that were not answered in the 12 months the member for Sydney was there. So I'd say to those opposite that, if we're going to have a discussion about service delivery standards, we will stand up every day and compare our 67 seconds to 90 minutes. We'll compare our 47 Australians who couldn't get through on our lines to 40 million. We'll compare 256 closures over there— (Time expired) COVID-19: Cybersafety 33 14:53 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin My question is to the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is keeping Australians safe online by meeting the challenge posed by the increase in online activity during the COVID-19 pandemic? 14:53 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I thank the member for Curtin, who of course, in her previous role as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Notre Dame Australia, was a very strong champion of the education and, of course, safety of younger Australians. So this is an area in which she has a considerable interest: how do we keep Australians of all ages, certainly including younger Australians, safe online? As the member has rightly noted, during COVID we saw an extraordinary increase in the amount of activity occurring online around Australia and, indeed, around the world. In fact, the National Broadband Network saw an increase in daytime network traffic of up to 70 per cent. The internet is a very important place where Australians come together to engage, to do business, to socialise and to be informed. We welcome more activity on the internet, but we also need to recognise that, as in all forms of human interaction, when people come together, there will be a percentage of times when the interactions are not as we would wish. That's why it's so important that we have the eSafety Commissioner—an initiative of our government in 2015—to support Australians in staying safe online. We've seen a surge in reporting to the eSafety Commissioner over the March to September period: a 49 per cent increase in adult cyberabuse, a 32 per cent increase in youth cyberbullying and a 123 per cent increase in illegal and harmful content. We are making sure that the eSafety Commissioner has the resources to help keep Australians safe online. This year's budget provides $39.4 million over three years for the eSafety Commissioner. This builds on the $11.9 million over three years we provided to the Be Connected program to help older Australians get online and stay safe online and a $10 million funding boost we provided in June 2020 to support the eSafety Commissioner in dealing with the increase in workload as a consequence of COVID. So, in total, the Morrison government is investing over $100 million over the next three years to help keep Australians safe online through the work of our world leading eSafety Commissioner. We are also committed to and well advanced towards introducing a new online safety act that will give the eSafety Commissioner expanded powers. It will reduce the required take-down times from the digital platform from 48 hours to 24 hours. There will be a new adult cyberabuse scheme. We will introduce what are called the Basic Online Safety Expectations to make it very clear to the digital platforms what the Australian community and the Australian government expects of them in keeping Australians safe online. The eSafety Commissioner and her office will keep providing practical tools and tips for Australians to stay safe online: esafety.gov.au. Australians deserve to stay safe wherever they are, including online. Employment 34 14:57 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Minister for Government Services. Will the minister please explain why 600 jobs of staff of up to two years experience were axed at the end of October across multiple Centrelink application processing sites—in Mill Park, in Dandenong and in Sydney—at a time when more Australians than ever before are struggling to find work? 14:57 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I thank the member for his question. I'd say to colleagues in the House: when COVID-19 was running rampant in March, Services Australia expanded its staffing by 14,800 people. That's the amount we mobilised. Three thousand came from within Services Australia; over 3,000 came from other government departments. This included security guards from this place here, who went into a processing centre up in one of the alcove areas to process applications. Eight thousand extra staff were employed from our external agencies to assist us, and, as we've responded to the pandemic—including processing over one million claims in 55 days; an amount we'd normally do in two years—the staffing levels are coming down. So we used our service delivery partners to surge staff up when the crisis was in place and to surge staff down. Luckily the finance minister is not in this House, because we are still about 300 staff over ASL as we've come down. Like a tale of two cities, we should compare the Morrison government's response to this pandemic to how Labor responded to the GFC, because, from 2009 to 2013, Labor cut staff by 4,800. Four thousand eight hundred staff over there were cut in response to the GFC compared to a plus 300 today. That's the tale of two responses. So this side will not have a bar of the member for Maribyrnong coming in and saying that, while we surge contract staff up, we shouldn't be surging them down as the requirement for processing has come down, particularly when those opposite, in response to the GFC, cut 4,800 ASL permanent public servants. And, at the same time, if you look at the processing and where we are right now, Services Australia has on hand JobSeeker applications that are actionable amounting to 36,000, which is just shy of two days worth. That's just two days worth of processing actionable claims on hand. That's what we've got. So I say to the member for Maribyrnong that a 1,046 ASL cut in the 2010-11 budget—oh, that's the member for McMahon! That's awkward. There were 1,000 permanent public servants cut on that member's watch. Where is the member for Gorton? This is always a surprise, isn't it? The member for Gorton—2,381 average staffing level permanent public servants were cut in the 2011-12 budget. That's what the members cut. This side can be proud of what we've done. Environment 34 15:00 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is meeting Australia's environmental protection challenges, including through initiatives to address plastic waste in our oceans? 15:00 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I thank the member for Robertson for her question. Whether it be the shocking spectacle of marine turtles tangled in discarded nets, or seabirds ingesting pieces of brightly coloured balloons because they look like food, or micro-plastics that we cannot even see entering the food chain, this Recycling Week is a reminder of one of the most pressing issues facing our environment—plastic debris in our oceans. The Morrison government's commitment to tackling this problem comes in three key approaches. The first is major policy reform. Our waste export ban gives value to the plastic you throw away. It turns it into something that is recycled, re-used, remanufactured. Innovative new approaches are starting to do that, behind the Prime Minister's waste export ban. Secondly, we are creating international partnerships such as those in the Pacific, where we are recognised as the leaders on blue carbon, marine park management and everything to do with keeping our fishing activities sustainable. I visited the Clean4shore activities in the electorate of the member for Robertson some time ago. We met the amazing Jono Johnson and his barge, and the schoolchildren picking up a huge volume of plastics that are in the waterways. Those practical activities contribute enormously. We are cleaning out the Yarra, the Torrens, the Brisbane, the Swan and the Hawkesbury rivers. We are partnering with conservation volunteers and Clean Up Australia to reduce the litter on our beaches and the litter in our waterways. We are partnering with our Pacific neighbours—and I recognise the minister for the Pacific and the foreign minister in the other place. There is 310,000 tonnes of plastic waste generated every year. Through our Pacific Ocean Litter Project, we are cleaning that up. This year's budget included new funding to get rid of ghost nets in the waters of northern Australia. There was a $14 million commitment to funding new technologies to trap and map this discarded fishing gear. We're also providing Indigenous ranger groups employment opportunities to retrieve and recycle waste. These measures are on top of the $1.9 billion over a decade for the Great Barrier Reef to implement the Reef 2050 plan. That funding manages the crown-of-thorns starfish, reduces marine debris and implements an ambitious world-leading marine restoration program. There is our Antarctic science—the role our meteorologists and scientists play in Southern Ocean climate systems and in the impact of krill and plastics. That research is shared internationally, and every Australian should be incredibly proud of it. I've spoken in the House about how we are driving a $1 billion transformation of our waste and recycling industry. The plastic that we recycle doesn't get into our oceans. The work we are doing internationally and at home is practical and on the ground, and it makes a difference. Centrelink 35 15:04 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Minister for Government Services. Why does the Morrison government continue to merge and close Centrelink shopfronts right around Australia when data shows that this slashing and cutting has led to a 30 per cent increase in wait times for Australians visiting Centrelink seeking assistance? 15:04 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden He's the gift that just keeps on giving, isn't he? What part of those opposite closing 256 service centres from 2009— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister can pause for a second. I was endeavouring to pull him up in the last answer. This was a very specific question. He can compare and contrast, but, to be blunt, he can't just start with a contrast. He's actually got to address the question. The minister has the call. Mr ROBERT HWT For the benefit of the House, prior to COVID-19 an average of 69,000 Australians would visit a Centrelink service centre, over 325 every day. That number now varies between 29,000 and 35,000. It varies like that, because, if you actually call a call centre now, you are answered in 67 seconds. Prior to COVID-19 last year, 560,000 Australians logged into our digital channels every day. Today it is an average of 2.6 million and all major payments are online. The number of channels that Australians can go to is now wide, varied and efficient. The 35,000 Australians that are now going into the 325 Centrelinks each day have the opportunity to receive— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. The member for Maribyrnong, on a point of order? Mr Shorten 00ATG A point of order on relevance: my question was very specific. Perhaps the minister may never need to visit a Centrelink office, but what about the waiting times for people who have visited? The minister is answering about digital, but what about the people who actually have to visit Centrelink? Why has the waiting time increased? The SPEAKER 00APG The minister has the call and, as I said, it was a specific question. Mr ROBERT HWT Because half of Australians are now going to our service centres—because they can access digital and telephony channels, there is now the opportunity for our service delivery personnel to spend more time with more complex service centre service delivery cases. Because the vast majority of Australians who are updating income, updating assets, updating the work they've done can do it online, it means more needy Australians and Australians with complex cases are now able to have more time spent with them in service delivery. The numbers show that we are now providing Australians with more complex cases a higher level of service delivery at our shopfronts. What is interesting is the number of staff in our service delivery is still 300 over ASL. There are still 325 service centres. There's still the same number of staff there. They're providing a greater level of care for complex cases to Australians and, when you compare that to the 4,800 staff cuts from those opposite and the 256 service centres closed, the contrast between service delivery and the dignity with which Australians have been served during this pandemic compared to those opposite in the GFC could not be starker. Australian Natural Disasters, Climate Change 35 15:08 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee My question is to Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison-McCormack government is responding to the challenges posed by climate change for regional Australia and building resilience to natural disasters? 15:08 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the member for her question. Australia, over the last two years, has faced fire, flood and drought. Deloitte Access Economics estimates that natural disasters currently cost the economy around $18.2 billion to our economy, and by 2050 it will be around $39 billion. Building that resilience within our community is important. It's quite poignant today as the Mayor of Longreach Regional Council is in the gallery. He's at the forefront of the drought and he has led the way in building resilience in his local community in Western Queensland. I acknowledge him and the local government leaders that have done that. That is why the government has rolled out a range of programs across all of those natural disasters. Over $10 billion has been committed to the drought, ensuring that we equip our farmer with the tools to be prepared and more resilient for these droughts. There's $86 million going into innovation hubs—eight of them around the country—to get cutting-edge science and to give our farmers the tools to equip them for a changing climate and to be able to adapt and continue to add to our agricultural productivity. For a localised climate guide, the Bureau of Meteorology is getting $2.7 million. That will give farmers real-time data to make real-time decisions, which is important for them in terms of being resilient through droughts. We haven't forgotten cyclones and floods: $10 million is for the Queensland Household Resilience Program. That's helping households to renovate their homes to be prepared for cyclones in the future. In fact, it's reducing insurance premiums by potentially up to $320 a year. There is mitigation work for monsoons, to make sure that they're prepared for flooding and to protect them, their homes and their livelihoods. Obviously, the royal commission into national disasters, focused primarily on the bushfires, has been handed down. The Prime Minister is taking our response to the national cabinet, because this has to be a coordinated approach. This isn't just the federal government; we have to work hand-in-hand with the states to make sure that this response is targeted and has the results that we ask for. We haven't necessarily been sitting idle on this. The federal government has put $88 million into research to get cutting-edge science into understanding the risk of bushfires into the future and also to equip our firefighters with the practical techniques to be able to protect them and ourselves. Also with respect to working with the states: we're trying to engage around hazard reduction and are engaging with our First Australians and the thousands of years of knowledge that they have. That's to bring it together with that cutting-edge science to protect all Australians. That's the smarts of the 21st century: bringing back the culture that should be acknowledged and understood. But we're also not forgetting the most important asset in all this: our people. Through all those disasters, the federal government has committed $132 million to mental health programs. Of that, $84 million has gone out the door, building the resilience in our most precious asset, our people, and making sure that they're prepared for the future. Mr Morrison E3L Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 36 DOCUMENTS Presentation 36 15:11 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. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 36 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Parliamentary Budget Officer 36 15:11 The SPEAKER 00APG Members would be aware that, under the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, the Presiding Officers have the responsibility to appoint the Parliamentary Budget Officer, subject to the approval of the proposed appointment by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. Following the resignation late last year of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Ms Jenny Wilkinson, the President of the Senate and I commenced a competitive recruitment process to fill the position. I'm pleased to inform the House that following this process the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit has approved the appointment of Dr Stein Helgeby as the new Parliamentary Budget Officer. His term will commence on 18 November. On behalf of members I congratulate him on his appointment, and the President and I look forward to working with him. I'm sure members will join me in wishing him every success in this new and very important role. 15:12 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson The committee responsible for the oversight of the Parliamentary Budget Office—the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit—is required by legislation to consider the appointment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer as proposed by the Presiding Officers and to approve or reject this proposal. The committee is then required to report to both houses of the parliament on its decision. In accordance with the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, I am pleased to inform the parliament that the committee has approved the proposal that Dr Stein Helgeby be appointed as the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The purpose of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to support the parliament by providing independent and non-partisan analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals. Dr Helgeby has extensive experience in these areas and has held a range of positions in the Australian Public Service, including as deputy secretary in the Department of Finance for the last 10 years. Dr Helgeby has also held senior executive roles in the Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance. As Deputy Secretary, Budget and Financial Management, he was responsible for budget reporting and financial management frameworks. The committee considers that Dr Helgeby's background, together with his public policy experience and familiarity with budget frameworks and fiscal policy issues, will enable him to ensure that the PBO continues their important work whilst maintaining the independent and non-partisan nature of the office. The committee looks forward to working with Dr Helgeby on his commencement in the PBO. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 37 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Morrison Government: Vulnerable Australians 37 15:14 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Maribyrnong proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The government's failure to provide for Australia's most vulnerable. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:14 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong To Australians who are listening to parliament, Labor has nominated as a matter of public importance today a discussion, an overdue discussion, about the Morrison government's failure to provide for Australia's most vulnerable. Rarely has there been a time in this nation's history where we've had a greater need for a strong and generous safety net to help Australians when they're doing it tough. Yet Australia's vulnerable are the Morrison government's forgotten people. Things were hard for a lot of Australians before the COVID-19 pandemic. There were more than three million of our fellow Australians living in poverty—that is, having less than $457 per week as an individual to live on. That is one in eight Australians. There were 774,000 kids, those under 15, living under this definition of poverty, this reality of poverty. That is one in six Australian children. I know it's not considered polite in some circles to talk about it, but there's been a polarising effect of wealth in this nation for the last 20 years. Earnings have risen three times faster for the top 10 per cent of income earners than the bottom 10 per cent of income earners. We praise the idea of aspiration in Australia, but I think Australians would be disturbed to discover that social mobility is a far more realistic prospect in many European nations than it is in what we call the Lucky Country. If you are a child in Australia today, your parents' income is more likely to determine your income as an adult than it has for a very long time. COVID-19, though, has made things worse. This doesn't take away from the generous increases to JobKeeper and the increases to JobSeeker, but it should be noted that COVID-19 has had unequal effects across Australia. If you have a big bundle of shares, the prices are going okay. If you are lucky enough to own your own house or more than one house, your property values are generally on the up. But the real rate for unemployment and underemployment is far closer to 20 per cent. When the pandemic hit, if you earned more than $1,600 a week, three in every five of you were able to do telework, but, if you earned less than $800 a week, only one in five could do telework. So the shutdowns have been tough for poorer people in this country. They have been tough not just for individuals without assets or wealth who are income-dependent but for small businesses. These phonies in the government say they are the friends of small business. But they are not if you're a partnership, not if you're a sole trader, not if you're a trust running a travel agency. Their loss carry-back mechanism only looks after registered companies. The coalition government is limping along in its eighth year, slightly surprised that it's here. But, although its leaders may change, the fundamental neglect of Australians needing a fair go has been a consistent element. 'Neglect' may be putting it kindly. I actually think that contempt is the attitude of this government towards those quiet Australians who are in need of a little assistance, a little mercy. What else could it be but contempt when you put the member for Fadden in charge of the NDIS? His advice today in question time, as waiting lists increase for people visiting Centrelink, is: 'Buy a computer; use the internet.' Not everyone gets $40,000 of internet costs paid per year. How do you spend that? I acknowledge that my opposite number is interested in techno-digi stuff. But the rest of it—I'd call him a time server in this portfolio, but that's not really fair, is it? He thinks he's slumming it in this portfolio and he can't wait till he's elevated somewhere else. NDIS and government services—these are caring portfolios. They exist in an area where the social contract has meaning for millions of Australians. The failure to serve the public, to honour the social contract, results in real tragedy. These portfolios should be about a world-class safety net. There is nothing wrong with being the best in the world at looking after the least well-off in our country—providing a safety net for veterans, a safety net for those who can't find work, a safety net for people who genuinely, because there are just not enough jobs out there, need this safety net. A safety net is a path to independence. But, time and time again, the government—the Morrison government, the Turnbull government, the Abbott government—have treated these portfolios as a quarry, as an ATM to plunder, to serve their other forms of economic incompetence. Has there ever been an Australian cabinet that presents so differently to the Australian public than their real selves? They are the vanilla men from central casting. As my friend the member for Sydney has pointed out, they beat up on arts students, even though they've all got arts degrees, and of course, on disability, in the NDIS—taking $4.6 billion from people with profound and severe disability. This has real-world consequences. There have been terrible deaths by neglect of NDIS participants in lonely homes: Ann-Marie Smith; David Harris. And they've been caught out on these issues. People with disability have to go to lawyers to access their NDIS packages. In Australia, you should not need a lawyer to access the safety net. But the figures don't lie. NDIS appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have spiked at more than 700 per cent since 2016. I wonder if they ever look in the mirror and wonder whether they've got the balance right? No. As with any good culture war, beloved of the conservatives, they unleash legal warfare on Australia's most vulnerable. In the last financial year, this government spent $29 million to oppose participants' appeals to get NDIS funding—to get a wheelchair, an occupational therapist, ramps in their house. The stories are heartbreaking. Even worse, they're true. A robodebt action is due to hit court on Monday: 400,000 people who were illegally served letters of demand by their government and paid, and another 70,000 people who haven't paid but received these illegal letters. The bill for this illegality by this government will top out at $1 billion, and all we get is a smirk from the other side. It is not good enough—not good enough at all. Then of course there are the Centrelink queues. Only the member for Fadden could be surprised that Centrelink demand would go up during a pandemic. This constant sense of amazement by this government at how the world works is frustrating, because it denies the millions of people who deserve support the support they should actually be getting. It's a serious issue, and the question really is: is looking after the vulnerable in Australia just pity politics? Is it just looking after people who don't really deserve a generous safety net? Or does it actually matter? This government is patting itself on the back today for extending JobSeeker by three months at the higher rate. The problem is, though, that people won't stop breathing after 31 March next year. I think there are lessons from this pandemic that all of us need to adopt—and Labor also needs to take this advice, as well as the coalition. When we treat the most vulnerable as important, the benefits go to all of us in this country. I think it's time to recognise that fairness is an economic growth plan. It's time to recognise that a fair go for the disadvantaged is an economic growth plan. It's time for government to take new responsibilities and make new investments, required to give every Australian a fighting chance. It's time to stop looking the other way. It's time to see that an injury to any is an injury to all. It's time to recognise that, where there is long-term, persistent, stubborn unfairness in any postcode, that applies to all postcodes. A great country is a caring country. No country can be great if it does not take the concern of the least well-off to be a most important proposition. Every citizen in our country has value and meaning. Every child deserves an education. Every person deserves the opportunity to learn. Every person deserves to find fulfilling, meaningful work. The lesson of the coronavirus is not to leave the most disadvantaged behind. They've been too invisible for too long. There is a deficit of effort in the Morrison government to look after the most disadvantaged. People are disillusioned, disempowered and disengaged. We have no time to waste. Newstart should not go back to what it was. Sole parents' funding should be properly restored. The youth allowance is too low. The housing market is too hard. Casualised work is too insecure. The loss of dreams and the loss of hope is a price too high to pay. (Time expired) 15:25 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney The member for Maribyrnong! What a coincidence! What an audition! On the day of the resignation of the member for Hunter from shadow cabinet, we have the member for Maribyrnong leading the MPI, and never before have I seen those opposite look so intently, as they weigh their important decisions in their mind. But the old class war is back. That's what we have seen from the member for Maribyrnong—missing completely the facts and the commitment of the Morrison government to make sure that Australians don't become vulnerable as a result of the pandemic and to make sure that we provide support to those people who are vulnerable in our community. One of the government's first responses to the economic impact of COVID-19 was in relation to JobSeeker. The $550 per fortnight coronavirus supplement expanded, as did the access criteria, and we waived waiting periods for the period of six months from March through to September. We extended the supplements for three months to 31 December at a rate of $250 per fortnight, while introducing a boosted income-free area of $300 per fortnight to encourage jobseekers to take up work where available. We're focused on providing the temporary and fine-tuned, elevated levels of support in response to the ongoing impact of this once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. Only today, the Prime Minister announced that JobSeeker will be extended to 30 March 2021 at a rate of $150 per fortnight, extending the income-free area, because we want to encourage Australians who are out of work to dip their toes into the job market. The expanded eligibility criteria will cover sole traders, people who are self-employed, those who have been stood down but remain connected to their workplace, people who are in isolation and those who have to care for somebody in isolation. We're focused on striking the right balance between temporary, enhanced support and incentives to work as the Australian economy reopens. Meanwhile, our $101 billion JobKeeper program has kept Australians at the risk of unemployment connected to their jobs, and we have extended it to 28 March 2021. The JobMaker hiring credit, currently before this parliament, will help young people access job opportunities as the economy recovers. It will be available to employers for each new job they create over the next 12 months for which they hire an eligible young person aged 16 to 35 years old. COVID-19 had a severe toll on many vulnerable people. It had a severe toll on the mental health of those who are vulnerable in our society. The Australian government was one of the first governments internationally to recognise the impact of this pandemic on their citizens' mental health, and we responded. The Australian government is continuing to take action to support Australians whose mental health and wellbeing is being affected by COVID-19 by providing $315.9 million to support a doubling of Medicare-funded psychological services, expanding access to services for young people, older Australians and particularly those Victorians who were hit the hardest because of the decisions and failures of the Victorian government. Earlier this year, we announced that the government's digital mental health portal, Head to Health, would be a single source of authoritative information and guidance on how to maintain good mental health. A national communications campaign, delivered in conjunction with the National Mental Health Commission, was devised to provide information about maintaining mental health wellbeing, raising awareness of the signs of when you or your loved one needs additional assistance and where to find important further information, support and care. Ten million dollars was earmarked to create a dedicated coronavirus wellbeing support line delivered by Beyond Blue. Of course, younger Australians studying this year were affected by coronavirus and the pandemic, and so $6.75 million was provided to deliver the headspace digital work and study service, an e-headspace. Charities and other community organisations have stood up during this pandemic and the government has been there to support them. $200 million was provided to support charities doing great work in the community, such as emergency and food relief, as the demand for their services surged. Sadly, the COVID pandemic has seen the rise of domestic violence in our community, and so our $150 million domestic violence response package is expanding perpetrator interventions, providing case management for survivors through court processes, producing tech-enabled support services and increasing safe accommodation capacity. The states and territories have now received a $130 million allocation, through a September instalment payment, to help family and domestic violence support services across Australia. Carers, disability support pensioners and age pension recipients have been supported by this government during this pandemic as well. Eligible recipients, including recipients of DSP, carer payment, carer allowance and age pension, have received two economic support payments of $750. The first payment was automatically paid by Services Australia, who have done an amazing job in supporting Australians in their time of need. Payments were made from 31 March and went into the same bank account as their payment. The second economic support payment of $750 was paid to eligible recipients from 13 July 2020. These payments were designed to support confidence and domestic demand in the economy, and it would support those vulnerable Australians when they needed the support the most. Pensioners will also benefit from two additional economic support payments of $250 that were announced by the Treasurer in the 2020-21 budget. The first will be paid from December 2020, and the second from March 2021. We are focused on supporting Australians through this difficult time. Nothing is more important than the health and wellbeing of Australians, and this government has the track record to show that we are focused on preventing Australians from becoming vulnerable and ensuring that we have supports in place for those that are. Now, as we focus on coming out of this pandemic, the Australian government has secured an additional 50 million doses, through two new advance purchase agreements, taking our total to over 134 million doses, if proven safe and effective. We are focused on vaccines to ensure that we can protect Australians, all Australians, vulnerable and otherwise. Access to these vaccines will be subject to clinical trial outcomes on the safety and effectiveness of each candidate, and approved by the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration. Agreements strengthen Australia's position to provide access to safe and effective vaccines as soon as available for those that wish to vaccinate against COVID-19. We've invested more than $3.3 billion across five separate agreements with local and international pharmaceutical companies. We're contributing significantly to vaccine development both in Australia and around the world, investing $96 million into COVID related vaccines, therapeutics and further preparedness. When they become available, these vaccines will protect Australia's most vulnerable. On 19 August 2020, the Prime Minister announced that COVID-19 vaccines will be available, free, to every Australian. This government, the Morrison government, has stood up when we've needed to do so, whether it be in health; whether it be the leadership of Greg Hunt as the Minister for Health; whether it be the Treasurer; whether it be the Minister for Families and Social Services and the support that we're giving through the automatic stabilisers in our economy to provide support to those vulnerable Australians. We've seen the opposition, again, talking down Australia, again, talking down Australians. We've seen what I can only describe as an audition from the member for Maribyrnong today. Those behind him were watching very intently in relation to his performance—some perhaps moved, some perhaps inspired, some perhaps weighing up decisions that they may or may not have to make over the coming weeks—including the member for Dobell. We are confronted by an opposition that is always willing to play the class war, as the member for Maribyrnong has done and has failed to do so previously, while we remain a government that is focused on the wellbeing of Australians. We remain a government that is focused on supporting Australians at the times when they need it and we will continue to do so. 15:35 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell This year has been tough. Australians have faced the 'black summer' bushfires, floods and of course the virus. It is often said we're all in this together, when we're not. This virus has exposed the fault lines in society, and the most vulnerable Australians are falling through the cracks. The government has failed Australians most at risk, struggling before the virus and not helped by the government's patchy response. This year, more than any in recent times, Australians have relied on mental health support to support them through. Since March, Beyond Blue has seen an increase in demand for counselling services of between 30 and 40 per cent, peaking at the height of the pandemic in May. ReachOut saw a 48 per cent increase to its youth, parents and school services between March and May. More than 184,000 people accessed additional support, with most seeking COVID-19 specific support. Before coming to this place, I worked as a pharmacist and, for much of that time, in acute adult mental health in-patient units where each day I saw firsthand the circumstances of people's lives—the mental health crisis, the emergency that led to an acute adult in-patient admission. Where you are born, live and grow up in Australia matters. The government has the opportunity, as we emerge from this crisis, to address the underlying inequalities in Australia which mean that those most at risk are carrying the burden of this crisis. They have the opportunity to boost employment, to create safer housing, to make sure that everyone has a fair shot at education and, most importantly, to make sure that everyone has health care when they need it. I worked in teams, stretched with growing demand and scarce resources, where people were discharged to the circumstances that made them sick. We need to, in Australia, not have this narrowcast view of provision of services that fail to look at the underlying cause. I look across to the member opposite me, who grew up in the same home town as me. He understands this and he knows this. We cannot continue to send people back to the circumstances that made them sick; nor can we leave older Australians and those who love them at risk and vulnerable. I lost my dad to younger onset dementia and, through the crisis, people have spoken to me about their family members living with dementia, about the isolation, about the loneliness, about them not being able to understand why people can't visit them or why they're not having visitors. We know that health measures matter and that provisions put in place were well intended. We also know that it has left many people vulnerable and at risk. Before COVID, the royal commission had laid bare the neglect in some aged-care homes, and the impact of COVID has struck those most vulnerable. There are 102,000 older Australians waiting for home-care packages. The 23,000 additional home-care packages, though welcome, are simply not enough. For the past two years there have been consistently more than 100,000 older Australians on the waitlist, many of them waiting for level 4 packages, most of those living with dementia. The government needs to understand the urgency to act, whether it is for young people living with major mental health problems or for people living with dementia in their homes. During COVID, support has fallen away, and carers have stepped up. When the government fails to act, they have no other choice. Through COVID-19, unpaid carers of children with disability, frail elderly parents and partners of those with chronic health problems have taken on more responsibility than they can bear and more than they should have to. The value of informal care in Australia is estimated to be at $78 billion yet, at the same time, the government's financial support for carers is only a small fraction of this amount. The budget did not do near enough; carers will only receive an extra $500 over six months, less than $20 a week, which is not enough to meet the extra costs they've faced as a result of the pandemic. It is no surprise then that many carers feel overlooked and left behind by this government, like my friend Bev, as she cares for her husband, Steve. It is clear that there is a growing gap in our society, that health care is not universal, that not everyone has a fair shot at education and that not everyone lives in a safe home. As we emerge from this virus, the government has a chance and a responsibility. It is incumbent on them that we come out of this crisis a fairer, more equitable country. Those who have the least, the poor of this country, should not be shouldering the burden of this pandemic. It is not fair and it is not right, and we are risking the lives of vulnerable Australians and those who care for them through the government's response to this crisis. Australians deserve better. 15:40 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I want to thank the member for Maribyrnong for enabling me to have this opportunity to speak about how the Morrison government is delivering for vulnerable Australians. As the federal member for Petrie and the Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services, I'm exceptionally proud of the strong safety net that the Morrison government has delivered and its historic decisions and continuing support for the nation's most vulnerable Australians. As the federal member for Petrie, I value all Australians and everyone in my electorate. No matter where they sit and no matter what their occupation or their upbringing is, they all have an important part to play. We understand that Australians at this time need work. They want to get back to where they were before the crisis. We also understand the importance of a strong and enhanced safety net to help those doing it tough during this time. In my own electorate of Petrie, 11,039 individuals have received the coronavirus supplement, expanding eligibility to give access to more people in vulnerable circumstances. This has really helped people like Ethan, a young man in my electorate who fell on tough times and was homeless and sleeping in his car. With supports in place and having been introduced to a local businessman, Michael Kennedy from Kennedy's Timbers, Ethan is now able to work full time, and not only is he working full time but he's got himself a unit and now he's training others on the job. What a remarkable effort! There are hundreds more people—perhaps even more—like Ethan who just in the last few months have been able to make this change as well. We are making available targeted and enhanced support, with extension of the coronavirus supplement until 31 March 2021. JobSeeker, Commonwealth rent assistance and emergency relief payments have been rolled out through the states right around the country—a strong safety net to help those who are most vulnerable as we emerge through and from this crisis. Thanks to JobKeeper, there are 4,500 workplaces in Petrie who have remained connected to their employees. That's workplaces, not individuals—people like MBRIT, the tourism arm of the Moreton Bay Regional Council, who said to me that without JobKeeper they would have folded and their staff would have been laid off. We continue to work in partnership with state governments, who have primary responsibility to deliver social housing and homelessness supports as well. In 2021 alone, the Morrison government will invest more than $7½ billion to support Australians in need of housing assistance. This is an increase of over $1 billion on last year. Having a roof over your head is important for all Australians, but having a home is most important. It's more than just four walls; it's about privacy, security and safe and secure access to housing. I've heard firsthand in my role as assistant minister about the supports made available to Australians during this time. Over 8,000 people were provided with accommodation that was safe, where they could self-isolate and recover after presenting symptoms over the last few months. Four billion dollars has been spent on new or expedited policy interventions at key points of the housing systems of the states and territories, and this government has assisted more than 1.7 million Australians in the private rental market through Commonwealth rent assistance, which is $5½ billion a year. During the early stages of COVID, the Morrison government was instrumental in delivering the rental moratorium to protect Australia's most vulnerable renters. We know that family and domestic violence is a leading cause of homelessness for women and children, and vulnerable women and children are often displaced and family life is disrupted greatly as a result of violence, abuse and coercion. Thousands more women and children will have access to safe and secure accommodation, thanks to the $60 million in programs through Safe Places that I recently announced in South Australia with Minister Ruston. Places like Coast2Bay in Fairfax. I was with the member up there recently, and I was just talking to the member for Macquarie about Wentworth Community Housing in her own electorate. Housing investment, as a whole, through the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, as well as the First Home Super Saver Scheme, has helped to add stock, which will help people in need. Our investments in NHFIC, health, aged care, the NDIS, mental health and carers have played a big role in helping those most vulnerable. 15:45 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen This debate could go on for days if we talked about all the issues where people are being left behind. Vulnerable people are being left behind by a government that is truly out of touch and does not care. Each and every day we are confronted in our electorates by people who are suffering because of the failure of this government to deliver and the failure of this government to actually care for people who need our help. If we judge society by the way it treats its most vulnerable then this government fails on every single level. We just have to look at the understanding of things that we talk about such as government services—when we talk about what's happening in relation to Centrelink. The government is working to close Centrelink face-to-face services in the middle of the biggest recession in our lifetimes: the Morrison recession, on top of the COVID pandemic, when people are out of work. People are being stood down and have lost their jobs. They're struggling to put food on the table and struggling to pay their bills. And what's the government doing? It's shutting face-to-face services. You have to sit there and ask, 'Why would you do that?' Honestly! We know how much the government really cares about this and how much they support it: the minister couldn't even come to the table. Minister Robert, who has failed at everything that he has put his hand to, could not even come to the table and debate a motion on his own portfolio. We only have to look at what's happening with the NDIS. The government likes to come into this place, mislead the Australian people and say, 'Oh, we fully fund the NDIS.' No, they haven't. In fact, what they've been doing consistently in their seven years is cutting and slashing support for the NDIS. You shouldn't need a lawyer to access NDIS support. It's a government service; it's what we should be doing to help people who are vulnerable. But when the government keeps squeezing the support from the NDIS, all we see are more and more people who are suffering. The NDIS is a national service; it's something that we know is so important for people who need the help. The pattern of behaviour by this government and its neglect of the NDIS is a national shame. It's been slashed, mismanaged and diminished to such an extent that all that's left is a bureaucratic nightmare for the people who it's meant to serve. Reports lead to quotes which lead to more reports which lead to more quotes. In my very own electorate, a constituent came to my office in February because of ongoing issues which, by November, are still not resolved. You'd think that a bloke who spent thousands and thousands of taxpayer dollars on internet could respond to emails and letters. But, no, he fails to do so. This poor lady needed her home modified just to move around her house—a basic human right; to live with dignity and independence. But in reality she's been strung along by the endless feast of NDIS mismanagement. Some of the issues she's facing in dealing with the NDIS are repeated requests for information on different solutions and more quotes on different options. Each request for OT services eats into her funding and each request for a report, or a quote or an alternative adds to delays in getting solutions implemented. Each delay adds to the stress, anxiety and depression that many of these participants and their families are already struggling to deal with. I cannot emphasise enough that in many cases the NDIS only seems to make matters worse, not better. I know the stress that is put on my staff as we try to deal with this, day in and day out, in trying to help people living with disability and their families. And this government sits there on its hands and does nothing to support them. We're not all in this together: this government fails every vulnerable Australian there is. Look at things such as robodebt or, as we like to call it, 'Robert-debt', because Stuart Robert is the one who created this mess, day in and day out. An opposition member interjecting—He's a mess! Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E He's an absolute mess! It wrought destruction on many people in our communities. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member will withdraw that last statement. It was a personal reflection upon— Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E I'll happily withdraw, if you want to go that way. Robodebt has been proven to be illegal. I know that people on that side might want to support the minister, but at the end of the day this was a scheme that the minister knew was illegal and that he continued to deal with. He is like the Irish Midas—everything he touches, he fails with. Now he's got assistance and support in putting this together from the embattled Attorney-General, who is the first law officer in this land, who was the one who actually didn't even bother checking to see if it was legal under the Social Security Act. In fact, the government ignored over 70 AAT decisions spelling out the illegality at the heart of the scheme, and the minister paused the debt recovery not before many thousands of Australians had lost their lives. (Time expired) 15:50 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan This year, the COVID-19 pandemic has meant that many Australians have found themselves in situations that they never imagined—families needing government support for the first time in their lives. As the Prime Minister and the Treasurer outlined earlier today in question time and as they and we as a government have consistently outlined, when Australians were at their most vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic, this government had their back. We were there for them. Indeed, we doubled the level of support during the worst part of this crisis, and we continue, as a government, to provide that support that Australians need to get through the COVID-19 pandemic and recession. Today the Treasurer announced that we will extend the coronavirus supplement, at an extra cost of $3.2 billion. That's an extra $3.2 billion in support for Australian families on top of the hundreds of billions in support that have already been delivered by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic, as part of the extension of the $150 coronavirus supplement for the further three months. We are entirely focused on Australia's economic recovery, and we are recovering. This is good news for Australians. It is something that Labor members should be heralding, as we are. The fact is that consumer confidence is up for the 10th week in a row. This is a good sign. This is a good sign for the COVID-free Christmas that we have in front of us. The fact that we are recovering is the reason these emergency measures that were put in place to support Australians at the peak of the crisis are being tapered. Australians want to get back to work, and they will. We will make sure that there are opportunities for them to get back to work. In this year's budget, the Morrison government's economic recovery plan showed again that we are focusing on that most important of objectives: creating jobs. This is the best thing that we can do to support Australians during the COVID-19 recession. It is intriguing that, once again, on one hand Labor seek to attack the government for the work that we are doing on the road to recovery. They attack our plan to taper some support measures so as not to provide an impediment for Australians looking to return to the workforce. On the other hand, we've got the senior Labor leadership saying that these payments need to be tapered. Yet, when they are tapered, they attack. They are simply incapable of holding a consistent position. This MPI is about the importance of this House providing for the most vulnerable in our community, and the most vulnerable of all in our community are our children. I would like to take this opportunity to speak about an issue that I'm passionate about, and that is the Morrison government's efforts and commitment to keep Australian families and, particularly, Australia's kids safe online. Unfortunately, children are facing a horrid threat every day in the form of child sexual exploitation, and the most vile humans are using the cover of darkness and the cover of COVID to increase their levels of online predatory activity. I want to take this opportunity to really commend the Minister for Home Affairs for what he has done and what the government is doing to keep children safe from these truly heinous predators and to keep our kids safe online. The government has opened the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, known as ACCCE. It's a purpose-built facility that brings together resources from government and Commonwealth agencies, law enforcement, non-government organisations and other partners in a centralised hub to prevent and disrupt the online sexual exploitation of children. Recently I was able to visit the ACCCE in Brisbane, my home town, and speak to the remarkable staff doing their work there. All members in this House should take the time to pause and just consider what is involved in identifying these threats and what these officers go through to identify the threats: the images that they have to view, the online conversations that they have to pick up and be a part of—it is truly disgusting. And these individuals are driven, on our behalf, by the important goal of shutting down this behaviour, catching these predators and removing children from harm. This is just one of the many ways that this government is supporting the most vulnerable in our community, along with all the support payments that we have provided during COVID-19. Australians know that this government has had their interests at heart throughout the COVID-19 recession, and Australians know that this government has the backs of all Australians, including the most vulnerable. 15:55 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this matter of public importance today, outlining the way-too-many ways in which this government has failed vulnerable Australians. It is a long list indeed, and my Labor colleagues before me mapped out a few of those. But I want to start with the unmitigated failure of this government to in fact do anything about the national scourge of domestic and family violence in Australia. It is unforgivable—unforgivable. This government had full knowledge of the spiralling increase in domestic violence throughout COVID-19. It knew the way that those prolonged lockdowns, for some families, actually caused not only increased levels of violence for women who were already in violent relationships and their children, but also a phenomenal increase in new incidents of family violence in Australia. The government had that knowledge and those reports at hand. It knew the number of brutal murders that continue to occur in Australia—at least one each week. Despite all of that, there was not a single dollar, not a single bit of new funding, in this budget for women and children fleeing family and domestic violence. An opposition member: Shame! Ms CLAYDON 248181 It is a shame. It is utterly shameful. Likewise, it is shameful that this government oversaw robodebt. We are about to have a court case in relation to robodebt; I believe it is coming up—perhaps tomorrow. Yet this government saw fit to allow a shocking sort of sneaky algorithm to actually go against vulnerable citizens in this nation. It was a shocking, harsh algorithm that really attacked people with disabilities and their carers, the partners of veterans and people working in the casual and gig economies—people with often insecure income. This was a painful and shameful algorithmic act of political cruelty—that's what that was—and this government is being called out for it. And may the court run its process, because we know that—despite all the promises that this government made to remedy that robodebt—the government has still failed to deliver on its promise to refund victims of the scheme, knowing that there are at least 3,000 dead people's estates that are still owed robodebt refunds. How you lie in bed at night with that knowledge is beyond me. This government knew for a very long time that robodebt was not just a heartless algorithmic weapon of political cruelty; it was, indeed, illegal. It was illegal, and yet it continued in its course. But let's not forget also the shocking treatment of a whole lot of people who have not had the benefit of any support whatsoever from this government throughout the global pandemic. Let's not forget the students and the universities of Australia that have been left hanging out to dry—and very deliberately so. This government has had at least three occasions where it could have voted to include universities in the recovery process; it chose not to. Let's not forget those more than one million casual employees in Australia who were left with nothing and left out to dry. This is a shameful government with a shameful record. (Time expired) 16:00 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper The one-in-100-year coronavirus pandemic has hit our young people and our vulnerable people very hard. A lot of young people living in my electorate of Cowper have lost their jobs or lost hours working in the hospitality and the tourism sectors. Community members who are vulnerable—whether it be through disability, mental health challenges, family breakdowns or violence—have been through a period of heightened turmoil as well during the pandemic. This is why I've actually been very proud of our government's economic recovery plan for our nation and the hard work of our Prime Minister and ministers to repair our economy and to help our community recover from the pandemic. I've been particularly pleased with the coronavirus supplement, paid at the higher rate of $550 a fortnight, now $250, and, of course, the announcement of the extension at the rate of $150 per week to the end of March next year. Anyone on a range of different income support payments—including a partner allowance, widow allowance, sickness allowance, youth allowance, Abstudy, Austudy and the farm household allowance—has been eligible for the coronavirus supplement. I know this supplement has made an improvement in the lives of vulnerable and young people living in my electorate, bringing the average recipient's income up to $815 per fortnight. It's been at a significant cost, by our government, of $14 billion. I referred to that announcement by the Minister for Families and Social Services on the extension of the coronavirus supplement. This is an additional $3.2 billion of taxpayers' money. In addition, it extends incentives to work, with the boosted income-free threshold of $300 per fortnight for jobseekers. We believe it's important to strike the right balance between temporary support and incentives to work. In addressing this MPI today, it's important we also address domestic violence. Our government's commitment to the prevention of domestic violence and the protection of its victims has been unwavering, as evidenced in the government's investment in the Fourth Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022. I was pleased to have the Minister for Women, Senator Marise Payne, come to my electorate of Cowper in January of this year to hold a roundtable with many dedicated support organisations and women's support groups. On the table for discussion were the impact of the bushfires on domestic violence, how trauma and economic stress impact families and contribute to family violence, and the importance of the supports and the support networks for the victims of family violence. Little did we know, at the time, how important that roundtable would be for reinforcing our support networks for communities for the impact of COVID-19. In March this year, our government announced $150 million in support for Australians experiencing domestic violence and family violence through COVID-19. This fund has boosted the programs under the national plan, including counselling support for families affected by or at risk of violence, assistance and support for men in building healthy relationships, and support for women and children experiencing violence to stay in their homes, when it is safe and they choose to do so. Additionally, in this year's budget we saw around 700 new safe places for women and children escaping domestic violence across the country. The Morrison-McCormack government will invest a further $60 million in the Safe Places initiative for new and expanded emergency accommodation, transforming buildings and homes into accessible and suitable accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic violence. The once-in-100-years coronavirus pandemic has hit our young people and vulnerable people hard. It is a tragedy, as is the economic recession we are now experiencing as a result. But because this government was in a good fiscal position before the crisis hit we have been able to support our youth and vulnerable Australians with billions of dollars in investment and support. 16:05 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills A government has a responsibility and a duty of care to the most vulnerable in a society. It's a sign of a civilised country. In government we should have a heart; we should have a soul. Governments should have enough heart that they don't just callously throw people on the rubbish heap because they are not strong enough or rich enough. Wealth is not a sign of worth. You will hear those opposite say individuals should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. But what if they don't have boots? What is a sign of true strength? Is it that we as a society, as a government, as a parliament should look after people less fortunate than ourselves, the disadvantaged and vulnerable in society, no matter where they come from or their age, ethnicity, gender, voting preference or ideological stance? A good government doesn't govern for just a select few; it doesn't just rule. A good government governs for every Australian. Yet we have seen, time and time again, this government making decisions based on ideology. In all of their decisions, prior to and during the pandemic, they have managed to leave out of the packages they have put forward the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our society. And those who have become more vulnerable because of the pandemic have also been left out. These people, through no fault of their own, are socially and economically disadvantaged. Instead of offering a helping hand to those who have fallen through the cracks created by COVID-19—and those cracks are now so big they are chasms—this government has wilfully ignored these people. Instead of providing adequate support for the unemployed, they sought to cut payments at every turn. Instead of owning up to their mistakes when mistakes have been made, they've washed their hands of responsibility and looked away. They have looked the other way when it comes to the needs of millions of Australians who work in aged care, casual workers, those looking for work who are older than 35, the thousands of Aussies stranded overseas, the 4.4 million Australians who live with a disability and their carers, and temporary migrants. The NDIS, a vital service that Labor created, has been gutted by this Liberal government over the past seven years; it's no longer fit for purpose. And the NDIS commission that was set up to investigate its compliance and investigative capacity has stopped short on many occasions, issuing only two infringement notices in the last two years. This is despite receiving 8,000 complaints. On many of them, no further action has been taken. This year it was revealed that 1,200 Australians with disability had died over the past three years while waiting to be funded by the scheme. The minister responsible denied these cold hard facts; he looked the other way. When it comes to JobSeeker, again and again we've called for this government to support people who are doing it tough. We've called on this government to maintain the JobSeeker coronavirus supplement of $250 per fortnight. We've called on the government to permanently raise the rate of JobSeeker/Newstart. There will be 1.8 million Australians relying on unemployment benefits this Christmas season—one million more than last year—and 11,000 of those people are in my electorate of Wills. That's why we voted to support the increase in the rate. No-one is surprised that the government refused—blocked that amendment. Today the government announced they are cutting the supplement in December. Cutting, cutting, cutting—they are cutting another $100 a fortnight. The impacts of the virus are far from over. People looking for work don't need cuts. People struggling to support their families on JobSeeker don't need cuts. Let me talk about pre the pandemic and the obscenity of those opposite, squeezing money out of the most vulnerable in society with their travesty of a robodebt policy. That was obscene. They made a choice to go after the most disadvantaged people in society to pad up their so-called surplus at the time. Thousands of Australians who are suffering, who are disadvantaged and who are vulnerable were given false debts by those opposite, by their robodebt scheme—the travesty that it was. Australians need a government that will support them during the tough times. Labor has a plan to get people back to work and to create jobs in manufacturing, in renewable energy, in affordable child care, in restoring public housing. We have a vision for a fairer Australia. (Time expired) 16:11 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff We have Australians' backs. This is a government that is standing behind every Australian at this time. I simply cannot stand on this side of the chamber and accept what those opposite, including the member for Maribyrnong, are saying about the Morrison government's response to the coronavirus pandemic, especially for those in our communities who need extra support at this time. During the worst health and economic crisis in living memory, they simply cannot and will not acknowledge the outstanding work of the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston, and the Minister for Government Services, my Gold Coast colleague the member for Fadden. Australians are reasonable people. Australians understand that the coronavirus supplement is a temporary and scalable measure that must be stepped down over time. They get it. The Leader of the Opposition himself has agreed to that point, as we heard earlier today in question time. Today we heard the announcement of an extension of the coronavirus supplement to help Australians, for those who need it the most—an extra $3.2 billion in measures to support them while they need it. Our government is walking hand in hand with Australians to assist them during and coming out of this time of crisis. Let's talk about the facts—not the untruths from the other side—when it comes to the Morrison government's support for Australians who need extra support. From 1 January through to the end of March 2021, the coronavirus supplement will have a new rate of $150 per fortnight. That's an extension of an extra three months to assist the economy to bounce back and for more jobs to become available for jobseekers, an extra three months of support so there will be more jobs on the market so that more Australians can get back to work and get the country going again in the new year. It is very important for our economic recovery. Over $15.5 billion in critical assistance has already been paid through the coronavirus supplement. Public servants did a great job ramping up the activities of Services Australia, under Minister Robert, to respond to an incredible increase in demand. By the end of October, Services Australia had delivered over $8.9 billion in economic support payments. That is an enormous amount of money, an enormous amount of support, that's gone back into the economy to help vulnerable Australians. The government has always recognised the importance of not only the amount of support provided to those in need but the speed at which we have been able to deliver it. That speed is particularly important to those Australians who need it fast, who need extra help. The capacity of myGov has been upgraded to support 300,000 concurrent users—that's 300,000 people online at the same time getting extra benefits through online platforms. They don't need to go to the Centrelink office anymore. Jobseekers can earn up to $300 per fortnight from their job without losing a cent of their payment. That helps households, it helps those out of work and it helps individuals. When it comes to the NDIS, it has already delivered more than $666 million in advance payments to more than 5,000 NDIS providers to ensure that Australians with a need are supported. The question must be asked: why does the member for Maribyrnong come into this place and spread fear and misinformation? Is he very out of touch? Is he unable to comprehend the reality? Far more likely is that the reality doesn't suit him or his ambition. The member for Maribyrnong hasn't listened to the people of Australia. His divisiveness was rejected by Australians at the last election. His disregard for the evidence of these matters shows that he just hasn't learned to listen to Australians. They don't like being treated like fools, and Australians do not like divisive politics. The member for Maribyrnong has to understand, realise and acknowledge the great work that the Morrison government has undertaken to deliver for all Australians during this very difficult time, this coronavirus pandemic, once in a hundred years. I'm very proud to stand here, as a member of the Morrison government, and tell those opposite exactly what we've been doing to help Australians and not to divide them. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The discussion has concluded. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 46 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Fourth Annual Statement on Veterans and their Families 46 Reference to Federation Chamber 54 17:01 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 54 BUSINESS Rearrangement 54 17:01 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland On behalf of the member for Bradfield, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the private Members' business notice relating to the disallowance of the Australian Postal Corporation (Performance Standards) Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2020, made under the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989, and presented to the House on 10 June 2020, standing in the name of the Member for Chifley being called on immediately. 17:02 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I don't intend to delay the House. I don't intend to make any contribution to this debate beyond saying that there is an understanding that the mover and the seconder will be allowed a limited amount of time to make their contributions. On that basis, we support the suspension. Question agreed to. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 55 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Australia Post 55 Disallowance 55 17:03 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Thank you— Mr Chester interjecting— Mr HUSIC 91219 I will take the interjection from the member for Gippsland, who called me 'the farmer's friend'. I absolutely hope to demonstrate that. Mr Chester interjecting— Mr HUSIC 91219 I would be very honoured to visit your electorate, member for Gippsland, because the regions are very important to Australia, and Australia Post is very important to regions. It provides a very important service to our regions. We also feel strongly about the value of the people that work in Australia Post— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Will the member for Chifley please move the motion prior to— Mr HUSIC 91219 I move: That the Australian Postal Corporation (Performance Standards) Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2020 made under the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 on 14 May 2020 and presented to the House on 10 June 2020, be disallowed. Hansard has recorded my previous contribution. I don't need to reheat that dinner! But I make the point that we feel strongly with respect to the moves that were being proposed within Post and the regulatory relief being provided. We've been particularly concerned about reports of posties being fatigued, leaving Australia Post or being unable to deliver the product of the day. My friend and colleague the member for Greenway will go into some detail in terms of the opposition's concerns with what has been proposed through the regulatory relief, what is now being enacted through that regulatory relief and what we are hearing on the ground is occurring in terms of workplaces. Employees of Australia Post are part of a government business enterprise that falls under the Commonwealth. Their work is valued and we should not be making their jobs harder. I think it's important that the parliament should take every opportunity to note that. As has been flagged by the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business, we intend to keep these contributions rather tight but I do want to indicate in the strongest possible terms the concern that many of us in the opposition have with the way this regulatory relief is impacting ordinary workers in Australia Post. I welcome—and I think the House would welcome—the chance to hear from the member for Greenway who can elaborate on these matters further. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is there a seconder? 17:05 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I second the motion. What we have before the House today is an attempted cheap shot by this government to attack the workers of Australia Post. This is a government business enterprise that is over 200 years old, and never has its brand been so tarnished as under this hapless minister for communications. It has gone from trusted brand to a hot mess under this minister. In the middle of a global health pandemic, the No. 1 priority of this minister was to use COVID as a premeditated exercise to cut services and attack the frontline workers of Australia Post, and that is an absolute disgrace. Imagine being on the cusp of a parcel boom unlike anything seen before. Rather than investing in growth, you look for ways to sneakily cut the jobs of essential workers in our postal service. This truly requires a level of incompetence that even I did not think this minister had. On 22 October—the day that the Senate learnt that $12,000 worth of taxpayers' money, later revised to $20,000 of taxpayers money, had been spent on luxury watches—we had the spectacle of the minister and the Prime Minister coming in here and saying on this floor during question time that they were 'shocked', they were 'appalled' and they were 'concerned'. I have a few questions for them. Is the Prime Minister shocked or appalled that frontline postal workers are having to demand the presence of on-site counsellors to assist with mental health issues, including some who have pulled the pin on their employment, unable to keep up with workload demand because of these regulations and because of staff shortages? Is the Prime Minister shocked or appalled that postal workers are being forced to skip meal breaks and tea breaks and speed on footpaths and nature strips in order to complete their delivery runs, and still struggle to finish at all? Is the Prime Minister shocked or appalled that Australia Post was spending $3,000 of taxpayers money per day for 39 days on a reputation consultant? Of course he's not, and I'll tell you why. When it comes to Australia Post and what has been going on there, this Prime Minister is a tin pot of confected outrage. He is all spin and no substance, and Australians are seeing right through him and his hapless minister. We know that the Prime Minister on that day effectively sacked the CEO of Australia Post on the floor of the parliament. That's effectively what he ended up doing. It's not just me saying that; that's commentators who are not on my side of politics. This Prime Minister wants us to think that he is acting on wasteful spending. But, like all of his governing, it's just a con. He's willing to throw a public servant under a bus but do absolutely nothing about the board of Australia Post who signed off on these decisions. The reason for that is that they are Liberal mates. If he really cared, if he really wanted to punish wasteful spending, then his communications minister would be the first one out the door for burning taxpayers' money on a second-rate dodgy NBN and a Western Sydney airport deal, which is now being investigated by the Federal Police. He would be the first out the door. On top of this, the board, a board that is entrusted with the oversight of a cherished national institution, has literally been reduced to a dumping ground for Liberal Party hacks, mates and former politicians—people who really are occupying those benches simply because of where they stand in the Liberal Party hierarchy. You can imagine the scene: you walk into this meeting and you look around and you see all these Liberal Party hacks. You say: 'I'm sorry. I thought I'd walked into the Australia Post board meeting.' They say: 'No, you're in the right place. Don't go anywhere; you're in the right place.' Finally, after being announced by the minister's media release on 21 April this year, we had Australia Post writing to members of parliament in mid-August saying that the alternate-day delivery model was only just coming into effect by 31 August. Regulations were announced on 21 April, the implementation was to be 31 August, and it still hasn't been implemented properly. If it was so urgent, why did four months have to elapse before it was actually put into effect—and not even put into effect properly? Why did it take four months to do it? This is a joke. We have a minister for communications who doesn't even know what postal workers do. He can't be straight with the public. We have a $1.3 million review into Australia Post that this government refuses to release. One of those reports was the basis of the excuse to use COVID as a cover to cut postal services and cut postal workers' jobs. It's an absolute disgrace. That is why Labor is seeking to disallow these regulations: because this government needs to get a clear message that COVID-19 should not be used as an excuse to sneak through premeditated, existing agendas. That's an important principle. But it's not just me who has concerns with these regulations. Indeed, on that day, 22 October, we found out that Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells had moved a motion in the Senate seeking to disallow her own minister's regulations. So it's not just us on this side of the House; it is the Liberal Party that has a problem with this embattled minister and these ridiculous regulations that should never have been brought in. It's not only Senator Fierravanti-Wells who has a problem with them either; we have the Deputy Leader of the Nationals on the record complaining about regional parcel pricing. We had, on Queensland election night, Senator McDonald complaining about the timeliness of mail deliveries when she was discussing some conspiracy theory about the election result and postal votes. Well, maybe she'd like to know that she is a member of the party that voted for intrastate deliveries to go from three business days to a full seven days. She votes for it and then complains about it. There is a deadset rap sheet on this minister when it comes to the shenanigans at Australia Post. They printed, then shredded, six million DL postcards that posties were supposed to deliver that conveyed political messaging from the government. Posties refused, rightly, to deliver it, and they had to pulp them—six million DLs! They spent $900,000 on indoor plants at their Melbourne head office over a two-year period. During the period from January to July this year—during COVID—they spent $85,000 on events, entertainment, gifts and other experiences. They hired, as I said, this $3,000-a-day spin doctor who previously advised on James Hardie. We then, as I said, also had the spending on luxury watches for already highly remunerated senior executives. Let's not forget the sending of stubby holders to people in public housing during lockdown in Melbourne. That intervention will be a topic for another day. From this minister, there has been absolutely no accountability, no accountability whatsoever. He was asked in the media, 'What do you think about the moves for Australia Post to hire this PR consultant, a crisis manager, spin manager?' What did the minister say? He said, 'These are decisions for board and management.' So, one minute, these are 'decisions for board and management'; next minute, they are 'shocked and appalled' by what's going on. Well, the only thing that is shocking and appalling is the way the Australia Post brand has been tarnished under this hapless minister. It should come as no surprise that we are here today. The minister has said that these regulations before the House were intended to be temporary changes. But we know what they were really meant to be: permanent cuts that bypassed consultation. Cutting services was the agenda of their secret $1.3 million Boston Consulting Group report. The evolving explanations about these service cuts just go on and on. There is absolutely no consistency when it comes to this minister and when it comes to these regulations. This government has opportunistically used COVID as an excuse to cut services and attack the jobs of one in four postal workers. At a time when the company should have been investing in growth, they were trying to cut jobs. A functioning board would not have let this occur. But we don't have a functioning board; it is a dysfunctional swamp of Liberal Party hacks. We have a minister and a Prime Minister, with all their confected outrage, doing nothing about it. Meanwhile, all Australians want is good services and to get their deliveries on time. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the member for Chifley be disagreed to.

The House divided. [17:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

55 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Christensen, GR Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Haines, H Hammond, CM Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Laming, A Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wyatt, KG Young, T 47 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR (teller) Gosling, LJ Husic, EN Jones, SP Katter, RC Kearney, G Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mulino, D O'Neil, CE Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Ryan, JC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Thwaites, KL Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH 23 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Bird, SL Broadbent, RE Byrne, AM Buchholz, S Chesters, LM Coleman, DB Clare, JD Evans, TM Claydon, SC Falinski, JG Georganas, S Hastie, AW Giles, AJ Hogan, KJ Gorman, P Howarth, LR Hayes, CP Irons, SJ Hill, JC Joyce, BT Mitchell, BK Kelly, C Mitchell, RG Landry, ML Neumann, SK Marino, NB O'Connor, BPJ Morton, B Owens, JA O'Brien, LS Payne, AE O'Brien, T Perrett, GD O'Dowd, KD Rowland, MA Sharma, DN Smith, DPB Tehan, DT Murphy, PJ Wilson, TR Swanson, MJ Wood, JP Wells, AS Zimmerman, T Zappia,

Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES 58 COMMITTEES National Broadband Network Committee 58 Reporting Date 58 17:25 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a message from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate: That the reporting date for the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network be extended to 31 March 2021. BILLS 58 BILLS Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020, Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020 58

Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020

Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020

Second Reading 58 17:27 The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Corio has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Is there a seconder? Ms Madeleine King 102376 I second the amendment. 17:28 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I'm glad I had the opportunity to speak on the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 and the associated bill after the member for Corio. Prior to question time and our community 90-second statements and the matter of public importance and other matters, the member for Corio gave—and I will give him points!—an erudite speech to this chamber about this bill and why he would be supporting it but putting forward an amendment. The challenge I had was that there was not a constructive discussion about Australia's foreign relations and why we need to make sure we had measures of integrity, so that, if different levels of government who were not responsible for our foreign affairs, as by the Constitution, were doing so consistently with Australia's national interests, there be integrity behind those measures and they be made in Australia's national interest. Instead, what we heard was this rambling speech of interference to give cover to, particularly, the state government of Victoria for subverting this very parliament, this very government and Australia's national interest. That is the fundamental problem with the opposition's approach. They are more interested in playing the politics of foreign affairs than securing Australia's national interest. And, frankly, any member who aspires to sit on this side of this chamber should be very cautious and very wary of doing so, because, when you see a state government signing agreements with foreign governments which may not be consistent with Australia's national interest, of which they may not have informed the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and which they may not have run past the current government—or previous governments, I might add—you have to question where their priorities lie. The point of this bill is actually extremely straightforward. It's that state governments—and entities at other levels, like councils, where they have responsibility—where they choose to negotiate with foreign governments, must make sure they run their agreements past the people elected to this place. It's hardly a radical proposition—despite the efforts of the opposition to run interference against such a proposition—because this parliament, under the Constitution that was negotiated between the colonies, the now states, over 100 years ago, recognised that the different levels of government had different responsibilities. The states had responsibility for service provision and scale and for providing for the taxation arrangements to provide support and assistance to the Australian community, because there was an understanding that they had a greater relationship, a greater proximity, to the people who they were elected to serve. This parliament represents the whole of the Commonwealth. Its relationship is around standardisation but also, critically, Australia's relationship to the world. That's why we deal with immigration; that's why we deal with trade; that's why we deal with foreign affairs; that's why we deal with defence. Frankly, that's why we shouldn't be dealing so much with taxation—but we'll leave that topic for another day. So our job is to negotiate foreign agreements, our job is to negotiate treaties, our job is to negotiate trade agreements, because we don't make decisions in the parochial interests of certain state capitals or states themselves but in the interests of the Commonwealth, of all of us. And when we have states that seek to subvert that process and to put forward their parochial interests against the national interests of our country—whether it is on economics, health, security or the long-term sovereignty of our nation—that should ring alarm bells. So I absolutely applaud the efforts of the foreign minister, the Prime Minister and the government in bringing this bill forward. Now, this bill does not affect one agreement negotiated between one entity and another entity. It covers all of them. But, clearly—and I say this as someone who has spoken out very strongly against Victoria's negotiation of an agreement under the Belt and Road Initiative with the Chinese Communist Party without informing this parliament and this government—something needed to be done, because we saw a subversion of the authority of this parliament and of the national interest. We in this parliament face a choice. It's not just about whether we are going to assert our authority—although, obviously, that's very important—and not just about asserting the relevance of the people elected to this chamber, who have not just the authority but the skills, capacity, knowledge, departments and infrastructure to be able to back it up, but simply about making sure that all agreements between different entities and foreign governments are consistent with our national interests. So this is about knowledge and capacity and understanding what is in our best interests as a nation. Sometimes there are disagreements between the states about such matters, and that's why we're empowered to make these decisions. But it's also important to understand whether the agreements that are being negotiated by different levels of government or entities with foreign governments are also consistent with our agreements—the ones that we're negotiating with those countries. We shouldn't have states negotiating with foreign governments agreements that undermine our trade agreements, our defence pacts or our national security arrangements; or that provide back doors for foreign interference, influence or economic engagement. Frankly, it astounds me that the members of the opposition somehow think this is problematic. I'm not sure what principle they're harking to. At best, I heard something about 'the politics of the day' in the member for Corio's speech on running interference to defend a state government subverting this parliament. He was making some ridiculous, audacious claim that somehow the issues that prompted the discussion on exactly these types of bills—circumstances which far transcend day-to-day politics and go to global movements and national security, global movements and repositioning of power, contested environments in theatres of tension within our world, the changing nature and relationship of multilateral institutions, the changing nature of relationships between countries—all came down to something to do with a press release or something else. It does raise very serious questions about the judgement of the member for Corio for going down that path rather than looking at how he and the opposition can work together to advance the national interests of the Commonwealth. The measures are relatively straightforward: to make sure there is an approval regime and a notification regime around those agreements that are being struck. We're not seeking to stop states, universities, institutes, councils and various others from negotiating with foreign governments where there's some advantage. We just kind of want a heads up; we just kind of want to know what it is you're signing up to; we just kind of want to know that you're not undermining our national security, our defence, our health relations, our diplomacy, our economic interests and the very sovereignty of this country and this parliament. I would have thought this bill should be able to pass this parliament easily for that exact reason, because if we are not elected to this chamber to stand up for Australia's national interests, its place in the world, its security, its strength and its sovereignty, then, frankly, I do not know what members would be doing here. That's the basis on which we should support this bill. That's the basis on which members should not be moving trivial, meaningless amendments to try to virtue signal and to undermine or water it down. That's the basis on which the opposition should seriously question where their priorities lie. We want the strength of this country to be built on a bipartisan consensus around maintaining the integrity of our foreign relations between nations. Yes, sometimes there will be differences of opinion around specific areas of approach. But that this parliament's role is to protect and defend the interests of the Commonwealth, despite the parochialism of the states, should not be something we should be distracted by. And I would hope the members of the opposition could see past that and see the strength and the importance of this bill at this time as part of defending the security, the strength and the sovereignty of our nation. 17:38 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner The bill before the House today is, at a high level, uncontroversial but, in the detail, deeply problematic. At a high level, it's perfectly sensible that the Commonwealth should have oversight over arrangements which states and territories make with foreign entities. But in the detail, this bill could well prohibit arrangements which many of us in this House would regard as desirable. Professor George Williams gave such example. He said: … let's say, the United Kingdom government. They have a tender of some kind and perhaps the opportunity for a major research agreement—a collaboration dealing with COVID-19. In that case, the UK government may put something like that out to tender or competition. It will be on the basis that the Australian university can only take part in that if we can agree to the terms as preset by the government without any possibility of variation. We can't do that. A tender term is typically, 'You will accept these terms—no variation,' so you run the risk of locking us out of tenders from friendly governments that are highly advantageous to Australia because we no longer have the institutional autonomy that the UK and US universities will have to compete on that playing field. Professor Williams raised a point, too, which is in complete contradiction to the comments of the member for Goldstein. The member for Goldstein takes the view that the Commonwealth covers the field when it comes to foreign affairs. Professor Williams makes the point that, under our Constitution, there is some degree of shared responsibility. It's on that basis that states and territories have traditionally had overseas trade officers, for example. And, while the government has claimed that the bill is fully constitutional, it has failed to provide evidence to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. Professor Williams has said that this could render the law unconstitutional, and it is worrying to those of us on this side of the House that the government hasn't provided clear evidence to show why, in their view, Professor Williams is wrong. This bill has been terribly rushed in its consultations with stakeholders. The state and territory first ministers were advised only the day before. Universities were not consulted prior to the announcement of the bill on 27 August. The bill doesn't adequately define 'foreign policy' or 'foreign relations'. Nor does it define 'arrangements' or, with respect to foreign universities, 'institutional autonomy'. That means that it's possible that the bill in its current form encompasses tens of thousands of administrative arrangements, potentially even capturing emails. And yet, while it's so vague, it also has a clear omission, which is that private universities or other educational bodies are left out. It's like the flip of the way in which JobKeeper applied only to benefit private universities, with public universities being left out. I feel as though every time universities are considered by this government, there's always a little carve-out for private institutions so they're put in a better position than public institutions. But there's no clear public policy reason why Bond University should be treated differently from the University of Queensland when it comes to dealing with foreign governments. Let's get that right. The lack of transparency is also a concern which was raised by the Senate committee. As dissenting senators pointed out, there simply isn't the ability for appropriate oversight as to the arrangements which are being pursued. Labor believe that we ought to have additional oversight provisions, and it's because of that that we have called for an appropriate oversight mechanism and an annual report to the parliament by the minister outlining engagement with entities covered by the bill, to articulate and explain Australia's foreign policy and how entities should engage with foreign entities in Australia's national interest. Labor senators have also pointed out that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade does not engage systematically with Australian entities covered in the bill. It does so on an ad hoc basis only. These concerns have been raised by stakeholders. The University of Western Australia has said that the lack of definition means it's impossible for Australian universities to make a meaningful assessment of what would be within the bill's scope. All universities—bar one—that made submissions contended the bill would significantly impact their ability to maintain productive international partnerships and sustain Australia's world-class research capacity. According to work done by the Australia-China Relations Institute, Australia's No. 1 scientific research partner is China. There is a range of research collaborations taking place between Australia and China, many of which are in areas such as medical sciences, which should be encouraged, and it's important to ensure that that work isn't damaged. What is particularly striking about this bill to me is to see it in the light of another bill which is before the House, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020. That's a completely unnecessary bill which is before the House only because the government did a dodgy deal with One Nation to support its cuts to universities. There's no freedom-of-speech issue on Australian campuses. The French review found that claims of a freedom of speech crisis on Australian campuses were 'not substantiated' and there is 'no evidence of a free speech crisis on Australian campuses'. Nonetheless, the government has decided to insert a definition of academic freedom in the higher education standards act and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act, which protects, in part, 'the freedom of academic staff and students to engage in intellectual inquiry, to express their opinions and beliefs, and to contribute to public debate, in relation to their subjects of study and research'. But it should say 'with the exception of the freedom to engage with international entities', because that freedom is curtailed by the government's other bill. It's characteristic of the way in which this government's ham-fisted approach to public policy plays out in this parliament. The government are just unable to think consistently about how they want universities to engage. On the one hand they're saying, 'More freedom, more freedom'; on the other hand they're saying, 'Less freedom, less freedom'. It's important to recognise that we are not in a monolithic world. There are people at Australian universities who will have different views of the government and that's one of the great strengths of a democracy. We need to be very careful about curtailing differing voices and taking foreign policy back to the 1950s. The submission to the Senate inquiry by Yun Jiang and Adam Ni from the China Policy Centre also pointed out the sheer breadth of Australian foreign policy in the bill, saying: Such policy need not be written, publicly available, or even have been formulated. This means the Minister have substantial power to prohibit any agreement the State or Territory government makes with foreign governments. For example, if the Commonwealth Government's position was to commit to zero carbon emission and to support renewable energy export, then the Commonwealth can potentially prohibit any State or Territory government's agreement with foreign governments that may increase carbon emission or support coal and gas export. They went on to point out that modern diplomacy has evolved and that it is potentially anachronistic to curtail voices of non-profit organisations, corporations, international organisations that may well have divergent views on foreign policy. To have the notion that state and territory governments should speak with the same voice as the federal government is one thing. But to then say that everyone in an Australian university should similarly speak with the same voice takes the matter a great deal further and could, indeed, imperil freedom of speech on Australian campuses. The submitters Yun Jiang and Adam Ni also say that under the proposed bill the minister can reconsider the relevant agreements at any time, even if it was previously approved. This means all the agreements could be reconsidered any time there is a change in Australia's foreign policy, noting the minister is not required to identify a particular written policy, and the policy need not be written or even have been formulated. They point out that this creates significant uncertainty for state and territory governments and public entities. The dissenting report from Labor senators points out that the bill does not allow for any process of review or appeal by affected entities of ministerial decisions, that it excludes procedural fairness and that it doesn't provide appropriate transparency. The Northern Territory government stated that the bill 'potentially leaves State and Territory Governments exposed to significant loss and damages' and that the bill should provide compensation for state and territory governments 'beyond acquisition of property'. Other witnesses have raised a concern that the bill could introduce commercial uncertainty, thereby putting Australian jobs at risk across industries large and small. The lack of state government perspectives on the inquiry was also noted, and senators called on state and territory governments to be encouraged to provide their views on a redrafted bill. It is going to be necessary to redraft this bill; it simply isn't fit for purpose. Labor supports the notion of the federal government playing a crucial leading role when it comes to foreign policy, but we need to do that with a sophistication that recognises the value that Australian universities bring, that recognises the constitutional issues and the way in which powers are shared, that provides appropriate transparency and that provides proper oversight and reporting back to parliament. 17:51 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise to speak on the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020. On 1 January 1901, the states of Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania united to form the Commonwealth of Australia. Six individual states at the time joined together through deliberation, consultation and debate to form a united and prosperous Australia. Prior to this date, Australia remained fragmented, with each state comprising its own government, laws, taxation and tariff systems, and defence forces. Even the very foundation of our nation's transport and trade system found itself divided, complicating transport of people and goods across the continent. I grew up in the border town of Albury. When I was a young child, the Albury primary school would take us down for a visit to the Albury train station to look at the foolhardy aspect of having different train lines across our great nation. The Albury train station was the longest train platform in the southern hemisphere, and we used to smirk and laugh that two governments couldn't agree on a unified rail system. That's just one example of why federation has been so important in the history of this country. However, through unity and an understanding of the importance of national unity and a national government, support for federation grew. It was understood that in order for immigration, defence and trade to blossom unification was required. So on 1 January 1901 the Commonwealth of Australia was proclaimed—a remarkable accomplishment and a great stride forward towards a flourishing and united Australia. Now, some 119 years later, we find ourselves in an ever-changing global landscape. Our global trade is expanding exponentially. In the 50 years from 1963 to 2013, Australia's exports of goods and services grew from $3 billion to $330 billion annually. Meanwhile, our imports have seen an average growth of 10 per cent annually. Indeed, Australia is proud to be recognised as a global leader in developing high-quality infrastructure, engineering, education, professional services and agriculture. Foreign investment drives our economic growth. It creates skilled jobs. It improves access to overseas markets and enhances our national productivity. Without foreign investment and trade, production, employment and income would all be worse off, and our nation would not be as we know it. However, our national security interests must always remain an absolute priority. The Commonwealth government has always held responsibility for foreign policy. Only the Commonwealth government has the necessary expertise and the knowledge required to ensure that our foreign trade agreements are guided by our national interests and security. It is therefore necessary to have visibility and the ability to scrutinise sub-federal-government arrangements to ensure that they do not undermine the consistency of Australia's foreign policy and its application. This increasingly globalised landscape has led to our states and territories engaging more and more in foreign trade and investment activities. Yet currently it's almost hard to believe that there is no requirement for states and territories to consult properly with the Commonwealth on arrangements with foreign governments. This goes against the very logic that led to our Federation in 1901, and now is the time for it to change. With this increased engagement by our state and territory governments with foreign entities, we've become vulnerable to increased risk like never before. Our state and territory governments have begun entering into arrangements that have tangible and vast impacts on Australia's foreign relationships. The tyranny of distance has become the power of proximity. And as the paint is not yet dry on the digital revolution, we know the world is getting ever closer. In this digital world, where information can be so easily shared and data has become a sovereign entity, it's important that we have better oversight of interactions between our sovereign state of Australia and the rest of the world. Whilst foreign investment is of course something that we seek to embrace, this risk requires necessary oversight and control, and that is ultimately what this bill seeks to accomplish. The Victorian government's recent decision to sign up to the Belt and Road Initiative is one example that highlights the absolute need for this change. The lack of transparency surrounding the Victorian government's deal has caused great concern to many Victorians—who are equally Australians and have the right to know, as does the rest of the country, about the security details surrounding China's Belt and Road Initiative agreements. Over recent months, countless Higgins constituents have written to me to express their concerns that the Victorian state government has acted against the interest of national security in this deal and, more than that, has acted without due and proper consultation or consideration of the Commonwealth. One constituent wrote to me: 'Stop this madness.' Another expressed the concern that this agreement, made without necessary Commonwealth government consultation, aims to 'undermine our sovereignty and our values'. The Commonwealth government has raised countless concerns over Victoria's involvement in China's Belt and Road Initiative. We've asked the Victorian government to explain why it is the only state in the country that has entered into this agreement. Meanwhile, the federal government has not signed a memorandum of understanding on the Belt and Road Initiative with China. In 1901 Victoria entered the federation as the state with the most overwhelming support for a unified Australia. Yet now, in 2020, we have seen a key player in team Australia divert from the national interest. This is not just deeply disappointing; it is deeply concerning and may even be dangerous—and certainly dangerous for the common good of Australia, for our national interest and indeed for the Commonwealth of this country. The Morrison government certainly supports regional investment initiatives that are transparent, uphold international standards, meet genuine need and avoid unsustainable debt burdens for recipient countries. While the memorandum of understanding between the Victorian and Chinese governments has now been released, little else is known about the deal. That is why it has, rightly, caused great concern both in my community and in the community at large. It is in this light that the Australia’s Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill aims to ensure that no such future agreements can be made without assurance that arrangements are consistent with Australia's foreign policy and interests. Whilst intentions may be pure, states and territories do not have the same level of understanding as the Commonwealth government of the specific risks regarding our national interests. How could they? They represent a subset of Australia's interests, not the entirety. This understanding formed much of the foundation for our need for Federation in 1901, and it continues to ring true today. It is for this very reason that improved oversight is required, and this bill aims to address this concerning gap. Where prospective or, indeed, existing arrangements are inconsistent with Australia's foreign policy or seek to adversely affect our national interests, the federal government should and must have the capacity to invalidate or halt such agreements. This is not a matter of our states' independence; this is a matter of national security. Importantly, through this bill, if the foreign minister considers an agreement to be inconsistent with Australia's national interests, the minister will thereby have the capacity to declare the agreement invalid. This is a necessary step towards ensuring that Australia's national interest is upheld in all circumstances and agreements. I know many of my constituents in Higgins will applaud this bill loudly. Importantly, this bill does not seek to intrude into the business and powers of states or territories. Similarly, this bill does not seek to stifle foreign investment; to the contrary, this bill aims to support state and territory governments to ensure that they are acting consistently and in line with our national interests. Furthermore, while this bill will apply to some university arrangements, it is not designed to impede the normal and important business of our thriving universities. Certainly, this bill in no way aims to limit universities' academic freedom and engagement. It's important to note that this bill goes forward following consultation with key stakeholders, including our universities. One such amendment to the bill following consultation is that it now includes insertion of the definition of 'institutional autonomy'. A second amendment includes a three-year statutory review. This bill only affects public Australian universities as far as they have arrangements with foreign governments or foreign universities that do not enjoy institutional autonomy. It's plain to see why these sorts of arrangements are important. Conversely, this bill will provide governments at all levels—so we're now talking federal, state, council and, indeed, the Australian people—with the confidence that due diligence has been afforded to all international arrangements undertaken by Australian entities. Furthermore, this bill will ensure robust protections and transparency for commercial and sensitive information. This has become incredibly more important in the digital revolution. Included in this bill is a requirement of the foreign minister to maintain a public register of notifications provided and decisions made under the bill. These measures will ensure the heightened transparency that the Australian public want and deserve. In this light, this bill seeks to foster a consistent approach to our foreign policy engagement across all levels of government in Australia for the sake of all Australians. Ultimately, these reforms aim to preserve the underlying principles of our system. Australia will of course continue to welcome foreign investment for the significant benefit it provides. Australia is a nation driven by global trade, and this bill will not change that. However, we must ensure that investments undertaken are not contrary to the national interest. Accordingly, this bill delivers the necessary powers to the Commonwealth government to ensure that robust transparency and protections are in place to safeguard our national interest, and that is why I rise to support the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020. 18:03 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Since the Morrison government announced the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020, Labor has made it clear that we support its objectives. Traditionally, of course, diplomacy was the sole remit of national governments for as long as these have existed. Talleyrand and other famous diplomats in silk stockings didn't worry about subnational actors, because Napoleonic France, which he represented, wasn't a democratic or inclusive society with a federalist bent but a closed and highly centralised republic in which affairs of state were directed from the centre. Some modern societies are still organised like this. In a great democracy like ours whose gifts we should daily cherish, we have to reckon with the daily tension of being representatives of our local interests and those of our nation. That was hard at the best of times, and our political and diplomatic records record this constant struggle of trying to get it right. It has become harder with the onset of globalised economic supply chains, labour mobility, and information and communications technologies which, many feared in the 1990s, were making national foreign ministries like DFAT redundant. Around this time, state and territory governments, business councils, industry peak bodies and thousands of non-state actors in Australia and elsewhere began taking advantage of the amazing opportunities that Australia's economic opening and integration into global value chains—and I'll point out that these are products of the great Hawke-Keating reforms—offered to the Australian people. That has continued and will continue, because that's a feature of the world we live in, and it's as inescapable as the awesome computing power we all carry in our handheld devices on which we conduct business across time zones and countries. We can't have technology without the power it gives us all, and this bill goes to this fundamental proposition. We can't take on the wealth and power accrued by our citizens, thanks to growing technological and international economic opportunities, without also taking on and having to manage a growing risk with it. State and territory governments, for example, have become central actors in the advocacy and prosecution of their jurisdictions' trade and investment interests, to great effect. Often our state governments vie for the same market share abroad in a competition stiffer than the State of Origin. All's fair in love and trade. The Northern Territory's got the goods, and that's the horse that I'm obviously backing. But there are clear and compelling reasons that Australia should speak with one voice internationally in the years to come, because when push comes to shove the most powerful tribes in the world are still nation-states like ours. The biggest ones, the great powers, still command vast economic, cultural, ideological, industrial and military power. Subnational actors—like big tech companies, the Fortune 500, transnational activist networks and independent entrepreneurs—independently and collectively account for more global economic activity than many countries on earth. At $2 trillion in valuation, if Apple were a country it would be the eighth-largest economy on earth this year, after France. It would come ahead of Italy, Canada, South Korea, Russia, Brazil and, yes, Australia, which would be at a projected 13th place in 2020. That's a humbling fact, but it's important to understand the national and global foundations that these economic giants enjoy. Apple is a global economic Goliath for sure, but it is still an American and Californian Goliath. You can see that in the 10 per cent of GDP it earns the US economy. It still depends on the arteries of the global economy, whose plumbing is laid by nations, as we all have rediscovered recently. The global economy still relies on the rules and norms that powerful nation-states negotiate, uphold or undermine through multilateralism, bilateral arrangements or unilateral actions. Peace and security is one such global public good, and that's where no subnational actors can compete. That's why foreign affairs, defence, and trade and investment are national powers in the hands of the federal government. In a world that's not getting any less dangerous, when the threats to Australian national interests are growing, we need to have enough trust in ourselves, our institutions and our values to get behind national interests that are always so far above politics, as exhibits in the Australian War Memorial remind us. That's why I support the principle of this bill: that foreign affairs should be a power that rests, in the final analysis, federally. This is a sensible national-interest proposition, and that's why I regret that this bill was so sloppy in its presentation. It was announced in haste before it was ready and before affected entities were consulted, just so Scott Morrison could change the headlines from the tragic neglect in aged care on the same day his minister walked out on scrutiny in the Senate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! Sorry, honourable Member for Solomon. I call the honourable minister. Mr Howarth 247742 I just ask that the member for Solomon refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title. Mr GOSLING 245392 That's not a responsible way to steward the national interest. Labor has called on the Morrison government to rewrite the legislation and focus on delivering robust, carefully written laws instead of just grabbing headlines. This is a very important debate of national strategic importance. It should have been delivered after much, much greater consultation with relevant stakeholders and after bipartisan consultations, I would have thought. We want to play a constructive role, because we take foreign affairs, national security and strategic policy seriously, but, if the government refuses to play fair and take our feedback, of course we'll do what we can to amend the bill, focusing on flaws we've identified through the Senate committee process. These include the lack of a requirement for the minister to provide reasons for terminating arrangements made by the states, local governments and universities; the lack of clear definition of critical terms, and broad discretion for interpretation that exposes tens of thousands of contracts to sovereign risk; no capacity for oversight or review of ministerial decisions; and uncertainty around the bill's effect on the 99-year lease of the port of Darwin to a Chinese company, an issue close to my heart. The common theme of Labor's concerns is that, while we will uphold the national interest, we don't think a lack of transparency and accountability is part of that interest. This government has a sub-par record, to say the least, on transparency and accountability. There is a case down the road, in the ACT Supreme Court, that puts on display the federal government's tendencies in this area—and 'puts on display' is a generous overstatement of the facts; that's why it's so important that there be clear definition of critical terms in this bill. I'm by no means a lawyer, but I understood that to be Law 101 sort of stuff. It's concerning that there's such a broad discretion for interpretation that exposes tens of thousands of contracts to sovereign risk—a risk posed by a foreign minister's pen flick. But what's so bewildering in this bill to me, as the member for Solomon, is the great gap, the great hypocrisy, in this bill. On the one hand the bill could be interpreted by the government as giving it a power of veto over every university library that orders from abroad; every international scientific collaboration in our country in the most important fields in our economic future; and every local government funded University of the Third Age, community meditation group and martial arts association that has contractual arrangements with foreign businesses. You might say these are absurd examples which no sitting minister would ever dare act on—a critic might argue that. Yes, they might be absurd, but the fact that they might plausibly fit into a reasonable interpretation of the text does tell you a lot. That's why Labor is trying to clean up definitions that are so open to interpretation you could drive a semitrailer through them. On the other hand, what gets me is that, at the same time as the bill might leave a taekwondo club unduly worried, the government explicitly, and before having even tabled the bill, discounted out of hand its application to the Darwin port. Allow me to pause for a moment as I try to wrap this mere mortal's mind around this fantastical proposition by the federal government—I mean, seriously! At the same time as this bill possibly imposes on local and state officials around the country the extra work and responsibility of scouring through their every engagement with foreign counterparts—interactions numbering in the tens of thousands a year, if not millions—the federal government straight out decreed, before any debate, that Darwin port was off the table. 'Nothing to see here! Carry on as you were!' If this wasn't such a grave issue, it would crack me up—and I'm sure it would crack a lot of others up. But it is a serious issue. The port of Darwin should never have been sold. It is one of the most important pieces of critical infrastructure in our nation for both defence and commercial purposes. This has been my longstanding position since before I came to office. A lot of Australians and Territorians support the idea of the government reviewing the lease or even buying back the port. This same coalition government which oversaw the sale of the port for 99 years and whose then trade minister consulted for Landbridge, the company which leased the port for 99 years, is now telling us that this can't be discussed and it doesn't come under a bill about contracts with foreign powers. To those opposite, to the federal government, I simply ask: why? Seriously. I'm asking for a lot of friends. I'm asking for the member for Spence. I'm asking for a lot of friends in Darwin, in the Northern Territory and all across Australia—and for our allies and strategic partners. Does the Territory just not make the cut in terms of the government's national interest analyses? I can tell you that Territorians are sick of being treated like mushrooms by this federal government—kept in the dark, fed fertiliser, and not really taken seriously until there is a buck to be made. We're sick of it! I heard the member for Goldstein earlier, having a go at Victoria. I heard him argue that it's not politics when he and the government use this bill to try to bash the Victorian Premier, Dan Andrews. I heard him argue that it is politics when Labor expects the government to avoid double standards by looking at all deals equitably, regardless of which party is in power. I thought that was the definition of the national interest, or does the government have another much looser definition of the national interest? It's an open question. We've seen how vague its definitions of key terms are. Is the Morrison government, the Prime Minister's government, suggesting that we should cover our eyes and ears when a potentially dubious deal is done by our own party? Is that what they're suggesting? And should we scrutinise only those potentially dubious deals done by our political adversaries? That is the stuff of an autocratic state. These are the kinds of obvious problems with the bills as they stand and with the government's partisan attitude to them. Even the majority report of the Senate committee, written by those opposite—the government's own senators—recommends further consultation to resolve major questions. This bill is a patch-up job to make up for the government's seven years of failure to protect the Australian national interest. Those opposite, the federal government, have encouraged Australian universities to become more reliant on income from international education; overseen Australian exporters becoming 18 per cent more reliant on a single market, with no plan to help them diversify or survive through tough times; signed a secret federal Belt and Road deal in 2017; and allowed the 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company. That is this government, which is in its eighth year; all of that happened under its watch. But to have a crack at the Victorian Premier, they just threw this legislation together. It has more holes in it than you would care to try to fix. But we are going to try to fix it. We do look forward to the Morrison government giving this proposed bill further consideration and invite those opposite to work in a bipartisan way to advance our shared national interest—our shared national interest. 'National': that means everyone. As I said at the outset, we support the objectives of this bill. There's a lot of repair work to be done on it, and I look forward to taking part in those debates in the time ahead. 18:18 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I have to say that the Labor Party really are lost—they're lost at sea on this one. Every single speaker who has come into this House on the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 claims to support the bill and then spends their entire time arguing against it. I think it goes to the problem with the Labor Party right now; they don't know if they're Arthur or Martha. They don't know what they believe in, the poor dears! Here we have it again: we actually have a bill addressing a very serious issue of foreign policy and we still don't know what the Labor Party actually believe in. 'We support the bill,' they say, 'and, therefore, let's withdraw it, kick it into the long grass and just think for a little bit longer until we come up with a different idea.' This is the problem with the modern Labor Party! They haven't got a clue—not a clue! The leader of the attack today was the deputy opposition leader. Guess what he started with? He started by claiming that the foreign minister's suggestion that the international institutions might need to be improved is nothing but sloganism—sloganism! Imagine that, Deputy Speaker. This is the position of the Labor Party. What that implies is that the Labor Party are perfectly happy with all international institutions as they stand today. They're happy with them because the Labor Party have nothing to offer. They have no policy prescriptions, period. We're not talking about some obscure area of government public policy. We are talking about our foreign policy. We are talking about our national interest. We are talking about the security and safety of our nation, which is the core, No. 1 principle and objective of government. And the Labor Party are lost. I think what we all know is that we are amidst a period of unprecedented uncertainty for those of us living today. That was the case before COVID-19. COVID-19 hit, and all of the complexities of the international political economy were accentuated. And here we are today. There is a need for us to do what nations do with foreign policy—that is, have an outward expression of who we are as a nation, of what we believe in. And what we believe in is best defined by what unites us. What unites us is not ethnicity, not the colour of our skin, not our history, not our gender, not how we walk, not how we talk. The one thing that unites us in this country is a common set of values, and those values are liberal values: freedom, equality, rule of law et cetera—the very values that define the nation we are but also the world in which we wish to operate. It's one thing for a Commonwealth government to reflect those values in foreign policy and act accordingly. But it's a far greater challenge for other tiers of government—state and territory governments, and local councils—to do the same. It's very difficult for other tiers of government, and also universities, without the demonstrable expertise that lies with the Commonwealth, to get it right and to be consistent. That is the challenge we face and that is why today I stand to commend the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020. This is why it's so vitally important. This bill plugs a gap. It plugs a gap in what should be a team Australia approach. As some of those opposite have themselves said, Australia should speak with one voice. Internationally, it is vitally important that we speak with one voice, we coordinate and we act in a united fashion. But we need instruments to assist other tiers of government in this regard. A team Australia approach means that we continue intelligence briefings to premiers and chief ministers. It means seeking a level of bipartisanship on foreign affairs where we can. It means continuing to share intelligence with the Leader of the Opposition. And, in the words of those opposite during this debate, it means to speak with one voice. But, to plug that gap, we need the measures outlined in this bill. We know that, in reality, states and territories, in an increasingly globalised world, will continue to engage with foreign governments and their entities. And with that engagement comes a commensurate degree of risk—risk that actions of states and territories or universities may not align with the foreign policy adopted by our nation. We cannot afford for such inconsistencies to exist. If they do exist, we need to make sure they are not exploited by foreign powers—foreign powers that understandably will pursue their own interests, but unacceptably may pursue their interests at the expense of our own, and that is what we must be mindful of. It is of a concern that no formal mechanism is in place today that provides the Commonwealth with oversight of arrangements entered into between Australian states and territories, and foreign governments. This is the gap to which I refer. This is the gap that needs to be plugged, and this bill does so. It would be unreasonable if we were to expect states and territories, let alone local councils or universities, to have a full understanding of Australia's foreign policy—the specific risks and the sensitivities. Thus the mechanisms in this bill will assist, not constrain, other tiers of government along with universities and so forth. I want to emphasise that very point. In no way does this bill discourage states, territories and others from entering into arrangements with foreign governments and their entities, but it does propose that any such arrangements must align with Australia's broader foreign policy and our national interests. I think all Australians would agree that that simple objective is more than fair enough. To this end, the bill enables the minister to prevent negotiations or entry into arrangements or to invalidate existing arrangements where they are found to be inconsistent with Australia's foreign policy or where they adversely affect Australia's foreign relations. The Labor speaker before me referred to the Victorian government's engagement with the People's Republic of China in relation to the Belt and Road Initiative, otherwise known as the BRI. It is important to therefore emphasise that this bill, regardless of the media surrounding it, including reference to the Victorian BRI deal, is country neutral. It is a framework that does not seek to target any one particular state. It's an act which is concerned with protecting and managing Australia's foreign relations with all foreign states, across all levels of government in Australia and it applies to all arrangements, whether or not they be legally binding. Nevertheless, let me openly address Labor's claim about Victoria's BRI deal, because it is a good case study on what a team Australia is not about. As some in this House will know, the BRI is a mechanism used by China, the PRC, for prioritising overseas lending, investments and trade. The point here is not about one's view on the BRI and whether it's good or whether it's bad. The point is not about how the foreign minister might conclude on Victoria's deal with China on the BRI after an assessment under the terms referred to in this bill. The point here is simply this: it is ludicrous that despite the Australian Commonwealth government having neither signed up to nor endorsed the BRI, the Victorian government decided to go ahead and sign themselves up anyway. They did so without proper consultation with the Commonwealth. They did so without having the likes of DFAT do a detailed due diligence for their consideration. Therein lies the problem, because we cannot afford to see Australia picked off polity by polity. What we should see is Australia act as a united country, and a united nation, when it comes to foreign affairs. This bill will ensure that the Minister for Foreign Affairs can assess arrangements between state and territory governments and foreign governments and entities related to them, and whether or not they would adversely affect Australia's foreign relations or be inconsistent with our foreign affairs—our policy. We know that any arrangement, whether by state, territory, university or other, with a foreign power will typically involve complex foreign policy considerations. These considerations are exclusively the remit of the Commonwealth government, and this bill reinforces that fundamental principle. It gives effect to the head of power that lies with the Commonwealth. The bill therefore carries my support, and I'm happy to commend it to the House. 18:30 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs Like so many things that this government does, the Australia’s Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 suffers from the marketing and spin around its being prioritised over its substance and effect. It's another case of 'all sizzle, no sausage' from this Prime Minister. I'll start with the fact that Labor supports the objective of this legislation, and if Liberal members had been listening to the speeches that have been given by Labor members on this bill they would have understood that Labor supports the objective of this legislation. I'll make that clear again: Labor supports the objective of this legislation, which is that there should be greater federal oversight and review mechanisms of arrangements between sub-national governments and foreign government entities. In particular, and all the Labor speakers who've spoken on this bill today have made this clear, Labor supports there being a federal legislative scheme that gives the foreign minister power to terminate arrangements—that is the term the bill uses—between state, territory and local governments and government funded universities and foreign entities if the agreements adversely affect Australia's foreign relations or are inconsistent with Australian foreign policy. Our concerns lie not with the stated intent of this bill but with the many flaws in the scheme that this bill would establish. In a way, it's not dissimilar to the support Labor offered from the outset to the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme bill that was brought to this parliament on 7 December 2017 by former Prime Minister Turnbull. That bill suffered from a number of deficiencies. It had to be very substantially rewritten by the time it passed this parliament in June 2018. But it was supported as to its intent that there should be transparency of foreign influence in relation to a range of Australian activities. The problem with the bill as originally presented to this parliament was that it was far too broad in its reach. In particular—and this is something that this bill suffers from, too—the government had simply not thought through the effect of its first proposed Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme bill on the universities of Australia. So too for this bill, the Australia’s Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill; the government hasn't thought through the effect on Australia's universities. There are a very large number of concerns about the bill that's now before the parliament. I certainly haven't got time to go through all those concerns, but a number of my colleagues who spoke earlier today have outlined the concerns that not merely Labor but also many, many parts of the Australian community have expressed about the legislation that this government has brought before the parliament. To begin with, it's worth noting that our nation already has a range of legal protections, processes and institutions in place to help protect us from malign foreign interference. Yet the government has failed to explain how this bill complements and interacts with the suite of existing legislation, processes and institutions that already works to safeguard Australia's sovereignty, build domestic institutional resilience and regulate international engagement. This includes the countering foreign interference legislation. It includes the defence export controls. It includes the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act passed by this parliament in 2018. It includes the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act passed by this parliament, also in 2018, and the University Foreign Interference Taskforce, or UFIT. It has been extraordinary to listen to a number of the speeches that have been given by Liberal members on this bill. You would think that none of this long-established set of safeguards and controls that have been built up painstakingly by successive Australian governments over decades even existed. But you'd be forgiven for thinking that, because both the government and the Liberal members who've addressed this bill in speeches today have made hardly any reference to these long-existing safeguards and controls. It's also clear that, in the Prime Minister's haste to distract Australians from his government's tragic neglect of the aged-care system, the government failed to consult with any relevant stakeholders in the development of this legislation. For example, universities were not consulted before the announcement of this bill on 27 August this year, despite the potential impact on the sector, which is already suffering from the loss of foreign students caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and from the Morrison government's bloody-minded ideological vendetta against education, which led it to exclude universities from the JobKeeper program. Even more astonishingly, state and territory first ministers were only advised about this bill the day before it was introduced to the parliament. That kind of arrogance from this Morrison government does nothing to further support for a scheme such as this; nor does that kind of arrogance and haste give the Australian community confidence that the Morrison government actually might know what it is doing. The drafting of this bill was self-evidently rushed, and it means that a range of fundamental issues have not been properly considered. We invite the government to properly consider them before this bill passes both houses of this parliament. Just to give an example, the bill excludes procedural fairness. It excludes the operation of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. It excludes any form of merits review. Some might be thinking: 'What does it matter if merits review is excluded, given that the Morrison government has decided to make the AAT into a taxpayer funded retirement home for Liberal Party former MPs, staffers and failed candidates? So maybe it's a blessing that merits review has been excluded.' But judicial review of ministerial decisions is also very important. Perhaps there, again, one might comment that even that would have limited use without a requirement for the minister to provide reasons for any of the decisions which the minister is empowered to make under this bill. The bill fails to provide clear definitions of critical terms, including the terms 'foreign policy' and 'foreign relations', which you might think were absolutely central to the scheme that this bill proposes to establish. The broad discretion this leaves to define those terms as the government of the day or the minister of the day might wish to define them leaves the ambit of this legislation entirely unclear, and ironically, given the laudable objectives of the bill, it exposes tens of thousands of valuable contracts, agreements and arrangements to sovereign risk. With respect to Australian universities, it is also clear that the bill's undefined—or broadly defined, in some cases—key terms, the regulatory gap that a number of previous Labor speakers have referred to in that private universities are not covered, the lack of transparency and the lack of procedural fairness will all limit university international engagement. For decades it has been understood just how important international engagement is for all of Australia's universities. The bill will create sovereign risk concerns for Australian universities. It will generate significant administrative burdens for Australian universities. The point has been made—and universities have made this point publicly already, over and over again, but there is no indication the government is yet listening—that in its current form the bill could apply to tens of thousands of arrangements between Australian entities and their foreign counterparts. There are thousands of agreements reached on all manner of activities between Australian universities and universities in other countries, and it will undoubtedly impact significantly on universities if this bill continues to take the form that it currently has and if it continues to be expressed in this broad way. The bill, I might say also, provides the foreign minister with broad discretionary powers and as yet provides not one bit of oversight for the regime. It means that the regime that this bill would establish, like so many other things that this government has done and wishes to do, would lack transparency. The government has entirely failed to provide clarity on how the 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company permitted by this government—this government—in 2015 would be treated under the regime established by this bill. As Senator Penny Wong said earlier today: … this bill is the sloppy result of a Prime Minister who puts his political interest above the national interest That is why Labor has called on the government to rewrite this legislation. I say again, so as to leave no room for doubt, that Labor supports the objectives of this bill, but the legislation itself is so sloppy that it must be rewritten. If the government refuses to do that, Labor intend to do what we can to address the flaws that have been identified through the Senate committee process. Somewhat reluctantly, I commend this bill to the House. 18:42 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I rise to speak in support of the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 and the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020. This legislation is timely for the security and wellbeing of Australia. This legislation clarifies the capacity of the federal government to do one of its most important jobs—that is, protect Australia's interests and interact with other nations on behalf of our citizens. If there is one task we are trusted with in this place, it is the defence of Australia and its interests. Before we ask questions about what sort of country we may become in the years ahead or how we will cut taxes or where we will build a new road, we must first secure the ability of our people to govern themselves, free of outside malign interference. Each person who has a seat in this place only does so because they represent those Australians who have elected them. This is fundamental to the integrity of our system of government. It is what ensures the sovereignty of the Australian people. On questions of foreign policy, it is the federal parliament and the federal government that have the unique responsibility in this area of policy. There was a time when defending this nation from foreign influence meant submarines, defence personnel and aeroplanes only. It meant patrolling seas and intervening when foreign agents entered our shores. That's still relevant to today's security environment, but just as relevant is the need to ensure we don't foolishly roll out the red carpet to those who seek to compromise Australia by entering into deals and arrangements that put Australia at risk. Foreign interference is exerted not only militarily but economically and culturally as well. Many countries have become increasingly aware of the ways that foreign powers have sought to influence their domestic political affairs through financial arrangements, cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns, combined with trade sanctions and threats. For instance, in 2017 the Swedish Institute of International Affairs found Sweden had been the target of a wide range of foreign interference activities from Russia that were designed to influence that country's decision-making. In recent years, Sweden's Civil Contingencies Agency not only prepares for natural disasters but now monitors websites for exaggerated news stories that could breed fear among the Swedish population. Earlier this year the Australian Strategic Policy Institute released a report looking at the Chinese Communist Party's coercive diplomacy. Tracking reports over the past 10 years, the report found 152 cases of coercive diplomacy, affecting 27 countries in the European Union. The volume of cases has increased significantly since 2018. These coercive actions involve things like the arbitrary detention of foreign nationals, restrictions on travel—as experienced by my friends the member for Canning and Senator Paterson when their visas to China were denied last year—boycotts, trade restrictions and other threats. The report describes the tactics used against countries as being 'divide-and-conquer tactics'. It states: The CCP intentionally isolates countries in this way to retain comparative strength and ensure the effectiveness of its coercive methods. Sometimes we think of Australia as being singled out for special treatment in recent times by the Chinese Communist Party, but, in fact, this is happening all over the world. For instance, in November 2010, China blocked salmon imports from Norway on the spurious grounds of food safety after the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to a Chinese dissident in Oslo. Sales of salmon to China collapsed by 61.8 per cent between 2010 and 2013. The situation improved after 2016, when Oslo agreed not to support actions that undermined China's interests. In March 2017, the Chinese government organised boycotts against South Korean businesses after South Korea agreed to host the US Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-missile system. Hyundai reported a 42 per cent drop in sales, and Kia recorded a 54 per cent drop. South Korean supermarket Lotte had nearly all of its stores in China forcibly closed due to unspecified fire code violations. In October 2019, a US congressional delegation were denied entry visas into China. Chinese authorities wouldn't allow them entry unless they cancelled their scheduled trip to Taiwan. In December last year, the Chinese Ambassador to Denmark made threats during a meeting with the Prime Minister of the Faroe Islands autonomous territory that they wouldn't enter into a free trade agreement if Huawei were not given a contract to develop the region's 5G infrastructure. In the same month, the Chinese Ambassador to Germany threatened economic consequences against Germany after draft legislation was written to exclude untrustworthy vendors such as Huawei from developing Germany's 5G infrastructure. Just this year, Australia has also experienced a significant amount of threats and trade restrictions. In this environment, it's essential that the Commonwealth government retains primacy and oversight in all areas of foreign policy, in order to counter the divide-and-conquer tactics of foreign powers. This bill ensures that our own people don't recklessly or naively give foreign governments the keys to the country. The events of recent years have given us reason to be concerned that foreign actors could more easily interfere with our sovereignty. The Victorian Labor government under Daniel Andrews has been rightly cited in relation to this legislation. His courting of the Chinese Communist Party to give state owned Chinese companies access to Australia has implications well beyond his own state's borders. Premier Andrews has made numerous trips to China's as Premier, and, in October last year, at a roundtable in Beijing, the key message prepared by his department set out the Andrews government's desire for Chinese firms to establish an office in Victoria and to bid for Victorian projects. His talking points stated that the Victorian government's vision for Victoria is to be China's gateway to Australia. The Chinese Communist Party's Belt and Road Initiative is a mechanism by which China will invest in infrastructure, including roads and telecommunications, across the globe. The Victorian Labor government had pitched for rail and road projects in Victoria to be part of this scheme and, in 2018, signed a memorandum of understanding that compromises the future security and sovereignty not only of Victoria but of all Australians. This act of the Andrews government alone is evidence for why this bill is essential. The Belt and Road Initiative has been described by Peter Cai from the Lowy Institute as one of President Xi's most ambitious foreign and economic policies. He says that the Belt and Road Initiative has geostrategic and economic goals. He further says: The two goals are not, in fact, contradictory. China is using OBOR to assert its regional leadership through a vast program of economic integration. Professor Clive Hamilton's submission to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee regarding this bill puts plainly the risks facing Australia. When a former Greens candidate and former director of The Australia Institute can see the problems we're facing, the situation is very serious indeed. He states: … until recently it has not been evident that a foreign state has been building relationships with subnational governments and with universities as a means of influencing or interfering in Australia's foreign policy and shaping the national conversation in ways more favourable to the foreign state. … As long as subnational governments and universities continue to live in a state of innocence, they will remain easy targets for the CCP's influence campaign. He also refers to the Chinese Communist Party strategy of 'using the local to surround the centre', which is described as using good relations with local actors in order to put pressure on the national government. He says: The Victorian government's decision to sign the state onto a Belt and Road Agreement with Beijing, and to make the state China's "gateway" to the nation, is a classic example of "using the countryside to surround the city" (that is, Canberra), or in this case, use the countryside to bypass the city to achieve the objective and undermine national foreign policy. The federal government needs the power to prevent a state entering into an agreement that is not only inconsistent with Australia's foreign policy but actually undermines it. The federal government must be able to exercise its responsibilities to the Australian people without that task being compromised by state and territory governments or universities. We do not want to put ourselves in a situation where another country can turn off our trains or shut down our telecommunications or our water supply. The Victorian government's actions would risk this. The actions of the Victorian government compromise the security not only of Victorians but of all Australians. One hopes that the Victorian Labor government were simply naive when they did this deal, but history would suggest that that's unlikely. Sadly, the Labor Party has a long history of compromising Australia's foreign policy, exercising extraordinarily poor judgement in who they seek to align with, whether it's the Whitlam government's recognition of the annexation of the Baltic States or Kevin Rudd, in more recent years, selling out traditional allies in order to secure a seat on the UN Security Council. Labor's track record is disastrous when it comes to standing up to regimes that compromise the freedom of their own citizens and act aggressively on the international stage. The Morrison government is clear that Australia will always stand by our values and protect our sovereignty. This bill is important in ensuring we can maintain our sovereignty given the shifting geopolitical environment we operate in. State and local governments and universities do not have the requisite knowledge or experience of foreign policy or Australia's strategic interests. Even if their intentions are good, their capacity to assess the strategic implications of their partnerships is limited. This bill will fill the gap that currently exists by giving the Minister for Foreign Affairs a scheme which the minister can maintain to oversight Australia's international engagements. The legislation would give the minister oversight over arrangements made by Australia's public universities and state, territory and local governments and a foreign government or its related entity such as a foreign government controlled university. The minister will have the capacity to determine whether those arrangements adversely affect Australia's foreign relations or if they are inconsistent with Australia's foreign policy. If they're problematic, the minister can prevent negotiations and arrangements from proceeding. The minister can also cancel or vary existing relationships. Importantly, there are a number of considerations the minister must balance in making this judgement. Among those considerations, the minister must take into account the importance of the arrangement in assisting or enhancing the functioning of the state or territory, whether the declaration would significantly curtail or interfere with the capacity of the state or territory to function as a government and whether it would have serious financial consequences for the state or territory. In some circumstances the Commonwealth would also be liable to pay compensation for financial or other impacts that result from a ministerial declaration. Some of the criticism that this bill has attracted is related to the inclusion of public universities within its scope. There are principled reasons for this inclusion. Publicly funded universities are strongly engaged in international affairs regarding research relationships and partnerships. They do so as institutions established largely by state and territory law. They are publicly funded and they have the potential to significantly impact Australia's foreign relations and foreign policy. Frankly, I don't think our universities, in particular the group of eight, have taken this issue seriously enough. This bill does not seek to squash foreign partnerships and collaboration but simply to ensure that those partnerships do not unwittingly compromise Australia. It doesn't compromise the institutional autonomy of universities; it simply gives the minister oversight to intervene when that university is risking Australia's interests—its security or its intellectual property—through its partnerships with a foreign government. As DFAT explained to the Senate inquiry, this bill will not apply to bilateral arrangements between Australian universities and foreign universities that enjoy the same institutional autonomy with which we're familiar in Australia. The vast majority of foreign universities will remain unaffected by the bill. This aspect of the bill is also essential because of the genuine risks that exist in the university sector. It's concerning that many universities are concerned about their institutional autonomy in relation to the way their own government will have oversight of a very small and distinct aspect of their work when their real concern should be around the risk of their campuses being used for foreign interference. The treatment of Drew Pavlou by the University of Queensland when he protested against the Chinese Communist Party's treatment of Uighurs and the people of Hong Kong, the two contradictory statements issued by UNSW when one of its academics published a tweet about human rights abuses in Hong Kong, and the infiltration of China's Thousand Talents program don't leave people with confidence in our universities. The sort of influence foreign actors have in universities has been long known. Earlier this year, Professor Salvatore Babones from the University of Sydney described Confucius Institutes as places: … not so much designed to indoctrinate the students who take their courses as to influence the administrators of the universities that host them. He wrote: Rising totalitarianism in China has turned the tables on Western universities: Instead of spearheading the liberalization of China, they are uncomfortably vulnerable to Chinese pressure in the opposite direction. I declare: I'm a director of the Ramsey Centre for Western Civilisation, and it beggars belief that some of the Group of Eight universities were afraid to host a Ramsey centre to study our own culture and our own civilisation but that they were very quick to adopt the Chinese Communist Party sponsored Confucius Institutes. Our public universities are a key part of Australia's international relationships, and we've all got good reason to be proud of the research and academic work that they do. This bill is not in any way designed to damage or compromise universities. It will do exactly the opposite. Rather than hamstringing the universities, this bill will protect them from foreign interference that they may not even be aware of. It's unfortunate that we're in this situation where this legislation is needed. But we would be naive to ignore the very real challenges that Australia faces. This legislation arms us to better confront these challenges in the years ahead. We must not allow Australia's sovereignty to be eroded by stealth. The naivety of those universities and state and territory governments who do not believe this is essential legislation demonstrates the need for these measures in the first place. The national parliament and the minister for foreign affairs must always be able to retain the oversight and the key policy-making functions of our foreign relations and our foreign policy. That is in the interests of all Australians. 18:57 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I watched in horror the 60 Minutes segment on the University of Queensland. Unfortunately for me, I have had the dubious privilege of being president of almost every organisation within that university. I was the vice president of the student union for three years. I was president of the law faculty. I was president of the college and president of the combined colleges council. The University of Queensland has the Maltese cross as its emblem. The 720 knights of St John stood up against the Ottoman Turks who were taking 50,000 Christian slaves a year. Almost everyone in the harems stretching from Portugal through Spain and back to what we now call Turkey was a Christian woman. If you doubt me, the two greatest leaders of the Middle Ages, Peter the Great and Suleiman the Magnificent, both had wives who had been Christian slaves. The incident spoken of on 60 Minutes bears detailing again. Some idealistic youths—and we hope we always produce idealistic youths—got together. There were about 20 or 30 of them. They had a little demonstration, which was really a meeting; they were just talking to each other. And along came a bunch of thugs. They weren't Australians; they were foreigners, from China. And I do not condemn the Chinese people. Heaven only knows, I'd say probably a fifth of our population in North Queensland have Chinese ancestors, including one of our little party's members of parliament. The youths were bashed by these people. It was on television—the whole thing was recorded. They physically bashed them, pushed one of them over on his back—it was lucky he didn't smash his head down and crack his skull—and kicked all their gear to pieces. The outcome of this was—nothing. Here was a clear-cut case of brutal assault—assault and battery. And it was on television. We know who did it and we could see the actions: totally unprovoked assault and battery. After 11, 12 or 13 months there was no action by the police force. When I went on the second 60 Minutes and said that I was going to have an inquiry in this place, three of the crossbenchers had the guts to stand up—only three of them—and say that they were going to second the motion. That meant the government didn't have the numbers, so then, and only then, we got a serious inquiry. Was action taken? Yes, it was. There was action taken by the University of Queensland. The names of their senate will go down in infamy, because not one of them has absented himself from the decision. So their names will go down as people who in time of war would be called traitors to their country. That's because they took action—they took action against some Australians who were speaking their mind about the brutality that was taking place by the Chinese government. This wasn't the Chinese people; it was the Chinese government against students in China. They didn't demonstrate against the Uighurs. It's quite clear that there were 10 million people in that province and now there are only nine million people. The release of satellite photos indicate that the concentration camps—and we know what they mean from the infamous British in the Boer War, from the infamous Turkish murder of a million people in their country during the First World War and, of course, from Hitler—are doubling in size. These boys had the temerity to speak up, as every generation of Australians has spoken up, bravely, courageously and intelligently. And they were punished by the university—punished by their own university. It is supposed to be the cradle of intellectual thought; the protector, the nursery—the womb—of intellectual thought. Here, it was the persecutor of intellectual thought and freedom of thought. If you stand up, you might be surprised. I'm a nobody; I can just stand up and say, 'I'm going to move in this parliament; the people of North Queensland have given me a voice and I'm going to use that voice to stand up in this parliament and have a fair dinkum inquiry and go after these b-a-s-t-ds with a hatchet upraised'. They are traitors to Australia, and that is not an overstatement. When our country is divided into four parts, the port in the north-western portion is now owned by China. The only development project in that area is the Ord stage 2 and stage 3. The hypocrisy of the Liberal government in condemning Labor on this came when they gave stage 2 and stage 3 to China. I'll repeat that, slowly: that the only development project available in the north-western quadrant, a quarter of Australia, is the Ord stage 2 and stage 3. It was given, not sold—and 31 Australians applied for that water—to China. Not to China—to the Chinese government. I must always make that distinction. We could talk about 'Dictator Dan', the man who brings us fantasy land. I think watching him is a great comedy show. I can't look at him without laughing. What's his latest fantasy? His first one was the Belt and Road, that the Belt and Road would bring trade to Melbourne. What trade? What's Melbourne going to sell to China? Motorcars, is it? What is it going to sell to China? Oranges? Is it going to sell oranges to China? So, Belt and Road: yes, it was successful. What it brought in was COVID-19, straight in on the Belt and Road, straight into Melbourne! So Mr fantasy land said, 'Oh, we're going to do something about it.' The rest of Australia are killing themselves laughing. And I feel sorry for you if you're a Victorian. I mean really, I feel sorry for you, because you're the laughing-stock of the country. And of course that leadership—there was some stupid act by we people of Australia giving four years. To quote the great but much-maligned Bjelke-Peterson: if you can't do it in three years, then you're not entitled to four! And that's a good call. Who owns Australia? Well, we only have three exports now; the rest of them are so small they hardly warrant mentioning. We have only three exports: iron, coal and gas. Let's start with iron. By some miracle—God bless Twiggy Forrest and Fortescue; God bless them. But 60 per cent of our iron is foreign owned. The top six companies mining coal, which account for almost all of our coal exports, are 100 per cent owned by foreign corporations. I'll name the six corporations: Glencore, BHP, Yancoal, Anglo American, Peabody and Whitehaven. Whitehaven is an Australian listed company, but it's majority shareholding is overseas. So, there you go: all six of them are foreign owned. The other huge export item we have is gas, which is probably about $60,000 million or $70,000 million a year. I think the next biggest one might be aluminium or cattle or gold; they're about $10,000 million. So, that's the big three. Let's have a look at gas. It was sold by the government of Queensland and the government of New South Wales and the federal government of Australia, Liberal and Labor. It was sold holus-bolus for 6c a unit. Mount Isa Mines is going broke because we have to buy our own gas at $16.60 a unit. Who was responsible for that? What, penguins in Antarctica were responsible for that? If you did not have the foresight to see that some of that gas should have been kept for Australia—so: the other huge gas producer in the world is a little tiny country called Qatar. It's one of those backwoods Middle Eastern countries. They sell 107 billion cubic metres, and we sell 105 billion cubic metres. So, we both sell the same amount of gas. Qatar gets $27 billion a year in revenue from that gas. The Australian figure provided to me by the library is $600 million, but I think it's more like about $4,000 million. So, they get $27,000 million, and we're lucky if we get $4,000 million out of the gas. Who is responsible for this? Penguins in Antarctica? My fellow colleagues in this place, when you go to bed at night and you ask yourself who sold out this country, look in the mirror and you will have your answer. I hope and pray that my grandchildren, when they ask, 'Who did this to us?' will remember that at least one person in this place stood up. And some of my colleagues on the crossbenches have stood up—at least some have stood up. And it's much worse than that. Our water and sewerage: society cannot exist without water and sewerage. Our water pumps and our sewerage pumps come from China, but they are not bought-off-the-shelf technology; they have to be poured. I know, because the foundry that did a lot of this work in Australia is in Innisfail, the heartland of the electorate I represent. Now, if you have a fight with China, you can't get the parts to pump water into Sydney or Brisbane or wherever. You can't pump the sewage, because you can't get the pumps. And by the time you founder the pieces—you have to pour them in a brass foundry—by the time you've done that, you are talking about weeks and maybe months. Agriculture is the saddest story of all. The biggest farming operation in Australia is Van Diemen's dairy, owned by China. The second-biggest, and the biggest landowner in Australia, is the AA Company, owned by foreigners. The third-biggest farm in Australia is Cubbie Station, owned by China. The fourth-biggest in Australia is Consolidated, owned by overseas interests—arguably China. The fifth-biggest is Kidman's. Well, we'll leave a question mark over Kidman's. I said at the time when the federal government knocked back the sale to the Chinese company CRED, 'Don't worry about it; straight after the election, CRED will be back wearing a different suit of clothes.' I'm not going to make any accusations; I'll just leave it at that. But bigger than all those put together will be the Ord stage 2 and stage 3, and it was given to China. You have a very limited amount of time to turn this around. If you're bringing in half a million people from China every year and the Chinese government declare them to remain Chinese citizens, they might become naturalised Australians but the Chinese government is a much more powerful force than Australia. If you cower in your hidey-hole and say, 'Oh, they're too big for us; they'll cut off our exports,' it's a pity you didn't get off your backside and create some experts or create a motor vehicle industry. Jeez, that's hard! All we have to do is say that all vehicles bought under a government contract will be Australian made, and you have yourself a motor vehicle industry. All you have to do is build two giant oil refineries and bring in ethanol, as Brazil did, and you can get all your petrol from Australia. So don't worry too much about the $100 billion that goes to China. You can replace that tomorrow if you get off your backside and develop your country. If you say it can't be done, I note that when England joined the common market 30 per cent of our exports vanished, and Jack McEwen—I sit under his picture—went out there and got those new markets for us in Asia. The VIP countries are almost as big as China—Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 I thank the member for Kennedy for his contribution. Before I call the next speaker, I would like to remind the member for Kennedy, although it is a broad-ranging debate, of the importance of remaining relevant to the legislation and also of using appropriate language. For the benefit of the House, I indicate that spelling certain words out, in the correct way or otherwise, does not constitute appropriate language. 19:12 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth The Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 and the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020 are very important pieces of legislation. One of the most important roles of the Commonwealth government is to conduct Australia's external relations and foreign affairs. There is but one actor in Australia with international personality that can enter into and conduct diplomatic relations with other countries; negotiate, ratify and implement treaties; and represent our nation in international bodies and fora. That entity is the federal government. In a federal system such as ours, with multiple levels of government, this can present challenges. State and territory governments and local governments often have a reason to engage with foreign governments, perhaps to encourage investment, to foster cultural or educational exchange or to promote ties in specific areas, such as clean energy or agriculture—any number of things. On the whole, this should be welcomed. Most of these engagements add to the breadth of Australia's international ties and are all to the good. However, this state of play does present some challenges. One is that there is no formal visibility of such arrangements by the Commonwealth government, which means at times that we're not making the most of them. The other is that from time to time there is a risk that arrangements entered into might be at odds with, or perhaps even undermine, Australia's broader foreign policy interests and objectives. At times, unscrupulous foreign governments may seek to exploit a lack of knowledge and expertise about such objectives at the state government level for that very purpose: to undermine or subvert a policy of Australia's that they do not like. This could be as innocent as a local council entering into a friendship agreement with an entity that might claim status in international law but which Australia does not formally recognise as a country entity, such as Somaliland or Western Sahara. It could be lending support to a particular perspective on an international issue that is highly contested, perhaps involving a border or a territorial dispute in areas such as Crimea or Nagorno-Karabakh. Or it could be endorsing a campaign which Australia is resolutely opposed to, such as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel. When it comes to foreign affairs, it's vital that Australia speaks with only one voice, and this legislation will help ensure that we speak with one voice on the international stage. It will remedy a gap in Commonwealth oversight and in Commonwealth knowledge and it will create a process where all levels of government can work together effectively in a way that is consistent with our foreign policy objectives. Under this legislation, the foreign minister will have the power to review any existing and any prospective arrangements between state and territory governments, local governments, public universities and foreign government or related entities. The foreign minister will be empowered to determine whether such arrangements are in any way contrary to, or likely to adversely affect, Australia's foreign relations. And arrangements that may adversely affect Australia's foreign relations, or are inconsistent with our foreign policy objectives, can be prevented by the minister from proceeding or can be terminated. This bill is not directed abroad or directed at any particular country, it is directed internally, towards Australian entities and institutions, and is designed to ensure that our own systems and processes are up to speed. The bill's not to intended to discourage non-federal entities from pursuing agreements with overseas counterparts, or to overly impose bureaucracy or to be intrusive. The bills are intended to be proportionate and risk-adjusted, and it's for this reason that these bills establish an approval regime and a notification regime—two separate regimes. So-called 'core' arrangements, such as those between state and territory governments and foreign national governments, are rightly subject to a higher level of scrutiny under these bills as they have a greater prospect of impacting on, and potentially undermining, Australia's foreign policy. For this reason, for core arrangements, approval will be required from the Minister for Foreign Affairs before commencing negotiations or entering into such an arrangement. So-called 'non-core' arrangements are lower risk and are subject to a lower level of scrutiny and oversight; just a simple notification regime. This covers things such as agreements between states and overseas provinces or local councils, or sister-city relationships. In this instance, notification of the foreign minister is all that will be required. The bill also empowers the foreign minister to look back and review any pre-existing arrangements at this level concluded prior to the passage of this legislation. When it comes to universities, it's important to be clear that the legislation only affects Australian public universities to the extent that they enter into arrangements with foreign governments, or with foreign universities that do not enjoy institutional autonomy. So most university-to-university arrangements will not be captured and the arrangements that do meet this test will only be subject to the notification regime. The Senate Legislation Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recommended two amendments to this legislation in its report of 5 November, to better define 'institutional autonomy' for the purposes of assessing arrangements with foreign universities and a three-year statutory review. I support both of these amendments and I understand the government will shortly introduce these. In conclusion: in a more globalised and interconnected world, and in a more contested and uncertain strategic environment, ensuring Australia speaks with a single and coherent voice on the international stage is more important than ever. This bill will allow us to do just this. I commend it to the House. 19:18 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne You always have to be suspicious when this government comes in and says that they've got a bill to deal with 'foreign interference'—in their words. Year after year, I sit and watch this government pass free trade deals that have allowed state-owned companies from other countries to come in and sue the Australian government; it has opened up holes in our labour law and our migration law that are big enough for planeloads of exploited overseas workers to be flown through; and it has created the situation where—including in my electorate of Melbourne—unions, through very good investigative work, have found many workers working in, effectively, slave-like conditions. They have been brought in under visa and labour-hire arrangements enabled by this government, with Labor's support. They're working for a few dollars an hour, sleeping several people to a room, working in unsafe conditions and being told that if they don't like it, they'll be put on the first plane back. That is the kind of exploitation that has been allowed, and the kind of opening up of Australia's governance arrangements to overseas actors that has been facilitated by this government and by Labor. They have systematically put the needs of big corporations—and, in some instances, overseas governments—ahead of local interests. And they've done it for money. You don't hear the government being concerned about so-called foreign interference when big corporations come knocking and say, 'We would like you to rewrite our rules.'. The government just says, 'Tell us where to sign.' The government says, 'Jump,' and Labor says, 'How high?' And all of a sudden we have another free-trade deal—and another one and another one and another one. I repeat the point: the agreements that the Liberals and Labor have signed up to allow corporations from other countries to sue the Australian government if the Australian government takes action in the interests of its own people. They can force them to have the laws changed. And the government has the temerity to come in here and say it's concerned about foreign interference! Seriously? If you were really concerned about that, you wouldn't have entered into a string of free-trade deals that essentially allow large multinational corporations, including some state owned corporations from other countries, to come in and tell the Australian government and the Australian people what to do. But that's what they've done. When they come in here and say they have a bill that's about ensuring that Australia has a consistent foreign policy, and about helping minimise what they say is foreign interference, you look at it and think, 'Okay, are they going to start to unwind some of these free-trade deals?' No. Even though those trade deals minimise Australia's ability to legislate for the benefit of people in Australia, they're not going to unwind that. And then I looked at the bill and thought, 'Is something else going to be in there that would go a long way towards making sure Australia can operate democratically—that is, getting big money out of politics?' No, that's not in there either. Why should that be in this bill? That should be in this bill for a very simple reason. For many of the scandals that we have seen over recent years, which have been about so-called overseas actors attempting to influence the Australian political system, what has been therein? Money. Therein has been to use money to try and fund candidates in the Liberal Party or the Labor Party and get them elected and get them into parliament and then seek to influence them in that way. Surely, if you are concerned about that and you are concerned about the integrity of the Australian democratic system, the place to start is by reforming our donation laws to get the big corporate money out of politics—because that is a way that people can be influenced. Suggestions about how this bill can be improved, if that is something the government is seriously considering, would include a ban on political donations from certain sectors, full stop, which some states have done. Let's take it across the country. Mining, property development, tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries? No, you can't donate. And then you say there is a cap of $1,000 for everyone else; that's what you can donate each year. If you do that, you close off one of the main routes of influence over politicians—and it closes off all influence. Even big corporations in Australia might not like that, because it might mean they have a bit less influence over decisions that politicians make. But it would go a long way towards restoring some integrity to our democratic system. Again, if the government is concerned about people in Australia acting in a way they think undermines integrity and democracy here, let's have a proper corruption watchdog—not the toothless tiger that the government is proposing, where politicians won't be publicly held to account, but a proper national ICAC. Those things would have the dual benefit not just of countering potential foreign interference but also of removing the pervasive corporate influence that degrades our politics. In relation to universities, if the federal government wants to ensure that there is no risk of foreign interference in our tertiary institutions, provide them with secure, adequate funding. That might be a start. Put universities in a position where they don't have to go cap in hand, looking for funds. Fund them properly. Legislative changes over many years have shifted the cost of university education onto students and away from government, with dire consequences for student debt and university funding. The Greens are going to keep calling for proper funding of our universities, including increasing research funding, increasing the Commonwealth contribution to enable free higher education and increasing funding per Commonwealth supported place student by 10 per cent. Then our universities won't be compelled to seek financial support from elsewhere. Aside from the fact that the bill is ineffective in what it sets out to do, because it doesn't include the things that actually would get to the source of interference in our democratic process, we are very concerned about the inadequate consultation process leading up to this bill. A large number of Australian universities have made it clear that this bill is unworkable. I quote from the Universities Australia's submission: it will 'deter the collaboration that is the lifeblood of Australian research'. The Greens are going to move amendments in the Senate to exempt universities from this legislation. In addition to the tertiary sector's concerns, experts like Professor George Williams have flagged that there are issues with the constitutional validity of the bills. The very concept that it is only the Commonwealth that can do it is something that needs to be further consulted on. I want to take this opportunity to reflect on some of the coalition members' recent treatment of Chinese Australian citizens. At a Senate inquiry hearing on issues facing diaspora communities in October, Liberal Senator Eric Abetz asked the only three Chinese Australian witnesses to 'unconditionally condemn the Chinese Communist Party'. No other witnesses were singled out in this manner. To single out and question those three witnesses in that way is completely unacceptable behaviour, and Senator Abetz must apologise. The fact that he has not is an indictment on his superiors, including the Prime Minister. We must be very careful in our debate around foreign interference to ensure that multicultural Australians—particularly those with Chinese heritage—do not feel singled out. They should not be subject to loyalty tests, and nor should they feel that every time they speak about global issues or China or foreign interference they must condemn the Chinese Communist Party. The Greens do not support these bills. We encourage the government to come back to parliament with legislation to implement donations reform and a proper anticorruption body and to reverse the trend of stripping our universities of funding and instead invest in our education system. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 76 ADJOURNMENT Cunningham Electorate: Business 77 19:28 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to attend a function that I regularly go to in my electorate, the Illawarra Business Chamber's annual business awards. For so many businesses in my electorate, as in all of my colleagues' electorates, I'm sure, it's been a really tough year. This was an opportunity to particularly acknowledge a range of businesses who, even in the toughest of times, have been able to really make significant achievements in their businesses. The Illawarra Business Chamber has a very rigorous process to determine the winners of the categories. A panel with very esteemed local people goes through a whole process of application and interview to decide who the winners are. I would like to acknowledge the winners of this year's awards. The Excellence in Customer Service Argyle Professionals award was won by Easy Agile and Ericom M2K; Excellence in Innovation and Adaptability was won by His Boy Elroy; Excellence in Import and Export was won by Itree; Excellence in Sustainability was won by Burnetts on Barney; Excellence in Digital Service Delivery was won by His Boy Elroy; Excellence in Workplace Culture was won by FinoComp; Resilience in Micro Business was won by Dr Olga Lavalle and Associates; Resilience in Small Business was won by His Boy Elroy; and Resilience in Business was won by IOH Injury and Occupational Health. The 2020 Inspiring Employee was Novica Blazeski of Home Instead Senior Care Wollongong and the 2020 Inspiring Business Leader was Adam McMahon of Dignam Real Estate. And the overall 2020 IMB Bank Business of the Year—probably not surprising to anyone—was His Boy Elroy. I just want to say that they're all magnificent, wonderful businesses and that I have dealt with them in many different capacities over time. But I do want to say something about His Boy Elroy, the overall winner and the winner of several categories, and the owners, Lachlan and Selena Stevens. They are involved in a program called Barstool Brothers. It originally started out as a group of guys catching up on a monthly basis who would hit the restaurant at His Boy Elroy in the name of men's mental health. The Barstool Brothers have now grown to a group of over 600 people running over 10 events per month at different venues around the Illawarra. They have events like golf days, trivia nights, morning walks, lawn bowls, family barbecues, beach days and so forth. His Boy Elroy also participated in the Relay For Life this year. Oscar, who is the son of Angie Howes, this year's ambassador for Wollongong's Cancer Council Relay For Life, teamed up with the crew from His Boy Elroy to make his mum something special as she fights her second battle with cancer. He came up with the 'Her Boy Oscar' burger. Oscar's creation was a double-beef patty, maple bacon, liquid cheddar cheese and Dorito extravaganza! It sold for a week in October for $25, fries included, with the team at His Boy Elroy donating $15 from every burger to the Cancer Council in Wollongong. Overall, he raised $3,800. That's a magnificent achievement. I have to say that there was a donation of $2,480 from Mitch Henry and an individual donation of $2,200. A massive amount was raised, so excellent work by Oscar and the His Boy Elroy team. In the short time I have left, I want to acknowledge that I've had the chance to meet with travel agents in my area. Boy, are they doing it tough! They're busier than ever before, but they're doing work that is actually costing them money because they're looking after their customers and trying to get them refunds or rearranging bookings and so forth. This is a sector which has really done it tough. I was able to meet with a number of local travel agents and I want to put out a call to the government—I know that members on the other side have done so as well—to please look at this sector and see if there is not more that can be done to support these many small businesses in the travel agency sector in our electorates. Lung Cancer Awareness Month 77 19:34 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong ( November is Lung Cancer Awareness Month. We have lots of awareness months right now and many things need our awareness. Lung cancer sounds so ubiquitous that surely it doesn't need the awareness that a month would provide. In 2020 more than 13,200 Australians will be diagnosed with lung cancer and, incredibly, more than 8,300 of those will die. The diagnosis rate is compatible with that of other big cancers—breast and skin cancer et cetera—but 3,000 people will die of breast cancer this year and only 1,300 people will die of skin cancer. It is hard to say what's more shocking—the huge number of deaths from lung cancer or the massive fatality rate of the disease. Every hour an Australian loses their life to lung cancer, almost three times that of prostate cancer. The latest Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data shows that the prevalence of lung cancer continues to grow, with an increase of more than two per cent each year since 2010. Despite lung cancer having a five-year survival rate of less than 19 per cent, compared to 95 per cent for prostate cancer and 91 per cent for breast cancer, Australians diagnosed with the country's biggest cancer killer continue to go without best-practice specialist nurse care. It's certainly something we need to be aware of. Action is required. Why does everybody know about lung cancer but no-one knows these statistics? It comes down to a single issue: stigma. Lung cancer is permanently associated with smoking, and smoking is universally recognised as an unhealthy personal choice. Our antismoking ads over the last two decades have been incredible in bringing down the rate of smoking, but they have had the unintended consequence of making lung cancer and smoking connected and associated with an individual's agency. No other cancer has a connection like this. People with breast or prostate cancer aren't blamed for their poor life choices, but lung cancer sufferers are. Certainly smoking is an unhealthy personal choice, and smoking can lead to lung cancer, but lung cancer and smoking are not synonymous. There are thousands of lung cancer sufferers who have never smoked, yet they are caught up in this stigma. I would like to quote from Lorraine Tyler, a former ultramarathon runner who was diagnosed with breast cancer in May 2017 and then lung cancer just four months later: 'Lung cancer is a lonely place. The stigma is real and has a far-reaching impact. The universal compassionate response and depth of care that is there for other cancers just isn't there for lung cancer; neither are the nurses, neither are the positive life expectancies. Breast, prostate and other cancers haven't improved their five-year survival rates by luck. The Australian government has heavily invested in these other cancers, and we can all picture the ads, the Pink Tests and the good media that is associated with these causes. Lung cancer gets none of this. Worse, whereas there are hundreds of wonderful breast cancer nurses out there, there are only 12 full-time equivalent specialist lung cancer nurses in the country. That's 12 nurses looking after more than 13,200 Australians who will be diagnosed with lung cancer this year.' With such a limited workforce capacity to support thousands of patients diagnosed each year, it is no surprise that patients like Lorraine feel isolated and alone. The stats on care speak for themselves: 28 per cent of patients aren't staged when diagnosed, potentially missing out on life-changing treatment and care. Worse, 20 per cent do not receive any treatment following diagnosis. With so little investment and so few specialised nurses, is it any wonder that care is so poor and survival rates so low? We can't yet cure cancer, but we can reduce its impact on families, and it should be our responsibility to make the changes to give people like Lorraine the care she deserves. The member for Adelaide and I share the honour of being the co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Lung Health and Lung Cancer, which has brought us into contact with people like Mark Brooke, the dedicated CEO of the Lung Foundation, and, more importantly, people like Lorraine. We had hoped to present a pledge calling for lung cancer nurses, signed by 30 national and international health and medical bodies, to the federal Minister for Health today, but, in a year with a pandemic, health ministers are justifiably busy people. (Time expired) Asylum Seekers 78 19:39 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I take this opportunity to remind honourable members that the global refugee situation remains dire. In fact, by the UNHCR's own figures dated June this year, there are 79.5 million people forcibly displaced worldwide, of whom 26 million are refugees, 45.7 million are internally displaced people and some 4.2 million are asylum seekers. Indeed, approximately one per cent of the world's population have currently fled their homes and are displaced in some way or another as a result of conflict and persecution. They are almost unimaginable figures, but they are real figures. But at this time Australia is actually reducing its global contribution to addressing this humanitarian crisis. In fact, in the recent federal budget for 2020-21, the humanitarian program has been cut by some 5,000 places to a fairly paltry 13,750 people, while all the time we are failing to address the situation both on shore and in our detention centres. I'd remind honourable members that there are still some 290 people held in PNG on Manus Island and in the Republic of Nauru. In Australia, over 200 people are held in locked immigration detention centres or are imprisoned in alternative places of detention such as hotels, and there are tens of thousands of asylum seekers and refugees in the Australian community without a safety net. Indeed, over 1,000 women, men and children have been transferred to Australia from offshore detention centres, mostly for critical medical treatment, and now live in transitory visa limbo. I remind my colleagues that the Minister for Home Affairs has recently decided to move hundreds of refugees, who have been medically transferred from Nauru and PNG, onto bridging visas with no access to any financial safety net. I remind my colleagues that a recent report commissioned by the Refugee Council estimated that nearly 19,000 refugees and asylum seekers in our community on temporary visas will lose their jobs due to COVID, with homelessness among those people projected to rise to some 19 per cent. Some of these people, who are eligible for status resolution support service payments, are going to lose their payments or have their payments cut by some 50 per cent. This is a dreadful situation. We can do so much better. For a start, this country has to finally start acting with integrity and compassion, and we have to start abiding by international law. Heavens! The list of international agreements that we are in breach of currently is mind-boggling. It's not just the Refugee Convention but also the refugee protocol; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; and the Rome Statute. It's a long list, and we are in contravention of all those international agreements to one degree or another. We need to take practical steps. We need to end offshore processing, we need to end mandatory detention, we need to end temporary visas and we need to end tow-backs. What we should also all be turning our minds to is the campaign Time for a Home. This is a campaign by a coalition of over 90 legal, medical, community and human rights organisations calling on the Morrison government to release and resettle asylum seekers and refugees held in indefinite detention by World Refugee Day in June 2021. I certainly support this, and I call on all honourable members to support the Time for a Home campaign. Let's get everyone out of detention before World Refugee Day in June 2021. That would be the right thing to do as a country. It would show compassion, it would show integrity and it would show our respect for international law. It would be the right thing to do, and it would be a great example for other countries that often look to Australia to see how we behave and what we do. They might follow our lead. Renewable Energy 79 19:44 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins Australia is now officially in the midst of a major energy transition to a carbon neutral future. In the last three years alone, over $30 billion has been invested in Australia in renewable energy. The Clean Energy Regulator's latest Quarterly carbon market report estimates total delivered additional renewable capacity for this year is likely to match the record 6.3 gigawatts set in 2019. This is something we should all welcome and celebrate. It's the equivalent of 920,000 homes putting solar panels on their roof every year. Affordable reliable energy will be critical to re-establishing a strong economy and supporting jobs as Australia recovers from the COVID pandemic. To get emissions down, new technologies will need to be nurtured, developed and embraced right across all sectors of our economy, but many are not yet matured to the point where we can rely on them to the exclusion of current market players. Take battery storage, for example. Even in South Australia, where renewables now provide nearly half of the state's electricity needs, gas is still required for practically all of the other half, with less than 0.4 per cent provided by batteries. Some argue battery technology is ready for prime time, but this is simply not true. Currently, two hours of storage is the maximum a battery can provide in the National Electricity Market and our biggest battery only has enough storage for one hour and 15 minutes. Grid reliability requires firming power for much longer, for instance, overnight when the sun is no longer shining. Batteries are not yet capable of providing this energy for extended periods. They can add to gas's firming power, but they can't yet replace it. That's not to say that research investment in battery technology is not incredibly important. The federal technology investment roadmap regards long-duration energy storage technology as one of its five priorities in technologies for bridging to a carbon neutral future. This includes a stretch goal to drive the technology to a point at which it becomes more competitive than existing alternatives. Our goal for long-duration energy storage, for instance using batteries, to be dispatched at under $100 per megawatt hour would enable firmed wind and solar power to be delivered at prices around or below today's average wholesale price. By optimising technology, science can help ensure our push into advanced manufacturing is fuelled by cheap and clean energy, but we need a transitionary approach to unleashing technology advances. That is why I recommend that all members of this House obtain a copy of the Technology investment roadmap: First low emissions technology statement 2020 and read it thoroughly. Harnessing Australia's ingenuity and supporting the uptake of new and innovative technology is key to this government's recently released low-emissions technology statement. This statement is the first time this country has delivered a concrete plan for emerging technologies with real action. This will pave the way for a zero net carbon future. Australia's first low-emissions technology statement has resulted from deliberations by the ministerial reference panel, chaired by Australia's Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel AO, comprising of input from industry, private investment, government and research leaders. Recognising the panel's ongoing role in supporting future statements, it will be formalised and into a permanent technology investment advisory council, also chaired by Alan Finkel, who is stepping down after five years as a wonderful Chief Scientist of Australia. Importantly, this technology plan has five stretch goals: clean hydrogen under $2 kilogram; technology storage, which is electricity from storage firming, under $100 per megawatt; low-carbon materials, which is low emissions steel production, under $900 per tonne; low-emissions aluminium under $2,700 per tonne; carbon capture and storage compression hub transport under $20 per tonne of carbon dioxide and soil carbon, which is to look at the measurement under $4 per hectare per year. By optimising technology, science can help ensure our push into advanced manufacturing is fuelled by clean and cheap energy, but we need a transitionary approach to unleashing technology advances. This is important now more than ever as we stretch to a post COVID world. NAIDOC Week 80 19:49 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton The House understands that this week is NAIDOC Week. I particularly want to recognise your role, Mr Speaker, in making sure that the day was a success. I really appreciate that, as we all do. I want to particularly recognise the current chairs of the NAIDOC Committee nationally, Patricia Turner and John Paul Janke, but I also want to put very much on the record the enormous contribution of Dr Anne Martin and Ben Mitchell who are the past chairs of NAIDOC. I know Dr Martin spent 13 years in that position, and, through both Anne Martin and Ben Mitchell, we saw NAIDOC grow to be the amazing thing it is today, reaching across schools, local government areas, parliaments and all aspects of life. I want to particularly recognise their contribution. This year's theme, as we all know, is: 'Always Was, Always Will Be'. This is an interesting theme. Last year the theme was about recognition of women: 'Because of her, we can!' The theme this year was born out of the civil rights movement and aligned rights movement. The rest of that saying is: 'Always was, always will be Aboriginal land.' I want to also say that NAIDOC is not a new thing in this nation. It has a long history. We saw that, in the 1920s, when Aboriginal rights groups boycotted Australia Day to protest against the status and poor treatment of Indigenous Australians. By the 1920s, the broader Australian public was clearly still largely ignorant of those boycotts. By Australia Day in 1938, the boycotts were finally noticed by the wider Australian public with thousands marching through the streets of Sydney. In the forties and fifties, a Day of Mourning became an annual event held on Sunday before Australia Day, and was known as Aborigines Day. In 1955, Aborigines Day was shifted to the first Sunday in July, which is what we now all celebrate. It became a day to also celebrate Aboriginal culture. In 1972, as an outcome of the 1967 referendum, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs was formed, and, in 1974, the NAIDOC Committee was composed entirely of Aboriginal members for the first time. The National Aborigines Day Observance Committee was formed in the early 1990s, and the title was expanded to include Torres Strait Islanders. The National NAIDOC Committee made key decisions on national celebrations each year and has representatives in most Australian states and territories. NAIDOC is now recognised by all of us as something to bring this country together, and I couldn't be prouder of that. The theme this year is: 'Always Was, Always Will Be'. First Nations peoples always have been, and always will be, spiritually and culturally connected to land. They have also occupied and cared for the land for over 65,000 years. One of the things I like to say is that this 65,000 years of story, of history, is not just the culture of First Australians. It is the story of this country, and, therefore, it is the history and culture of all Australians, and that's what's so wonderful about the NAIDOC Committee. I conclude my remarks today by saying that I am extremely proud and touched by the care towards today on both sides of parliament. I am disappointed with the outcome of the flag debate in the other chamber, but it is what it is. Of course, we'll continue to prosecute that. The fact is that, if you go down Commonwealth Avenue, there are hundreds of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags. If you drive into Sydney airport, the flag flies there. If you drive past the New South Wales parliament, it flies outside. On occasion—not very often, but now and again—it actually flies off the Harbour Bridge. It is in front of schools; it is in front of the War Memorial. It is part of the Flags Act of Australia. As I said to 2GB this afternoon, flying the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flag is not meant to be divisive; it is something that we can all celebrate and embrace. Tame, Ms Grace, Let Us Speak Campaign 80 19:54 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass Earlier this year, in a speech to mark International Women's Day, I spoke about the brave work undertaken by a young Tasmanian woman, Grace Tame. Until recently, sexual assault survivors in my state were gagged by Tasmanian law, unable to share their experiences in the media. Grace was repeatedly abused by her former maths teacher Nicolaas Bester a decade ago. Her abuser has always been free to speak. But when Grace worked up the courage to tell her story, she was unable to do so due to the archaic law. Grace joined forces with journalist, survivor and advocate Nina Funnell, and they created the Let Her Speak campaign, fighting to change the legislation. Grace had to take her case to the Supreme Court to be allowed to publicly self-identify as a rape survivor. Their fight saw the Tasmanian government amend the law earlier this year. Just recently, I was thrilled to learn that Grace was named the 2021 Tasmanian Australian of the Year. In her acceptance speech, Grace discussed the journey from where she found herself 10 years ago, in a place of hopelessness, to standing on a public stage accepting such an esteemed award for her work. As Grace has told local media, her award is an important symbol for sexual assault survivors, stating: It's hugely empowering for that community recognising and normalising the act of speaking out. There's no shame in surviving. The shame sits at the feet of predators, of perpetrators of these crimes. As a survivor myself, I can attest to the empowerment that comes from hearing the stories of other survivors, the hope for a future and the relief that the shame is not yours to carry. As Nina has said: … I know firsthand that it can also be an important way of reclaiming a sense of ownership and control over an experience where one has felt fundamentally robbed of power and control. Well done, Grace. We are so incredibly proud of you. And, while these positive changes have been made in our state, it is distressing to hear what is happening in the Victorian parliament today, where the same type of draconian legislation is being considered, including whether to criminalise the naming of murdered sexual-assault victims. While I understand that the intent of the new reforms is to protect the needs and rights of victims-survivors of sexual violence, the proposed changes miss the mark, with perverse outcomes. For families of women murdered by acts of sexual violence—and I say 'women', as the victims are overwhelmingly female—the proposed changes include forcing grieving relatives to obtain a court order to speak. As Grace herself has commented, this bill fuels the stigma about sexual violence by attaching shame to the victim. Once again, Nina is leading the charge, fighting for the rights of victim-survivors and the families of victims to be heard. Nina, I know how hard it is. I see you and I applaud your grit and determination to drive forward. I am absolutely dismayed to learn that the Victorian government did not even consult with any grieving relatives who would be affected by the bill before first introducing it last month. Jill Meagher's mother, Edith McKeon, has said: 'It's such a heartache on all of us who lost our precious ones. How dare they! We will fight it.' And what happens to the legacy of survivors who do speak out? Sexual abuse survivor Ashleigh Rae Cooper has expressed her dismay that her life's work as an advocate may need to be removed. She says: 'I'll be lost to public memory. It will be as if I had never been able to speak at all.' Let Her Speak has become Let Us Speak. Nina's call for the bill to be amended has also been backed by a coalition of media organisations who have jointly written to the government saying that the proposed gag is unsupported by law and will put Victoria at odds with mainland Australia as an outlier jurisdiction. I stand with Grace and Nina and with all survivors, victims and their families, and I urge the Victorian government to reconsider. We will keep fighting for our voices to be heard. Let us speak. Remember our names. We have earned that right. House adjourned at 19 : 58 NOTICES 81 NOTICES

Tuesday, 10 November 2020

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Vamvakinou) took the chair at 12:15.

BILLS 84 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021 84

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021

Consideration in Detail 84 Health Portfolio 84 Consideration in Detail 95 16:00 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It's my great pleasure to speak on the appropriation bills, which form part of this year's budget. The budget is driving the delivery of nation-building infrastructure projects right across the nation. It's a budget which maps out the road of economic recovery from the COVID-19 recession, a budget which will create jobs and provide certainty for businesses over the long term and a budget which truly reflects the infrastructure needs of Australia and Australians now and into the future. For the information of the chamber, I propose that, during debate today, ministers will hear a number of questions from members on both sides of the chamber before responding to questions. This will ensure that interested members can take part in the debate, and I acknowledge the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure, and the member for Lindsay, who is, no doubt, interested in Penrith and Western Sydney and the outcomes we're achieving for those areas. During budget week, I had the privilege of delivering the first-ever statement to parliament on regional outcomes in this year's budget. I made it clear that this budget works to generate jobs, generate exports and ensure the already strong regions of Australia continue to thrive. We're working to repair our economy, recover from the pandemic and grow regional Australia. Regional Australia will grow us out of and lead us out of the pandemic downturn. A key element in this growth is the government's all-time record $110 billion transport infrastructure program, which will play out in every corner of Australia, from the regions to the suburbs and CBDs. These are not numbers on a piece of paper; delivery is visible everywhere. Already more than 600 major Australian government funded projects are underway, supporting thousands of jobs right across the country. To get Australians back to work and back in business, the 2020-21 budget includes new funding for projects and initiatives under this expanded program, which will support an extra 30,000 direct and indirect jobs over the construction lives of projects. This new funding includes $2 billion under a new Road Safety Program. This program will incentivise state and territory governments, rewarding those which deliver their projects on time and on budget. This program is in addition to our existing half-a-billion dollar targeted road safety upgrades program. The 2020-21 budget will include a further $1 billion for the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, on top of the initial $500 million we announced for the program earlier this year. Combined, these two programs will support 10,000 jobs. Together with what we've announced since the start of the crisis, we have committed $14 billion in new and accelerated infrastructure projects. The pandemic has hit Australia everywhere. We as a nation have managed the virus well, particularly when you compare our response and what has happened in this nation with other countries in Europe, Asia and the Americas. Every region needs support, which is why this budget includes additional funding for critical transport infrastructure projects in every state and territory, including but not limited to an additional $490.6 million for the Coffs Harbour bypass in New South Wales, $292 million for the Barwon Heads Road upgrade in Victoria, $750 million for stage 1 of the Commera Connector in Queensland, an extra $80 million for the Wheatbelt Secondary Freight Network in Western Australia, $136 million to progress stage 2 of the Main South Road duplication in South Australia, $65 million for the Tasman Bridge upgrade in Tasmania, $46.6 million for national network highway upgrades in the Northern Territory and $87.5 million for the Molonglo River bridge in the Australian Capital Territory. However, our investment pipeline and our infrastructure pipeline aren't just driving road investment. There's considerable investment in rail as well. It's in full swing. To name just a few rail projects across the country which feature in this budget, there's the Melbourne-to-Brisbane Inland Rail; stage 2 of the Warrnambool rail line upgrade; $320 million in stage 3 of the Shepparton rail line upgrade; and the long-overdue Melbourne Airport rail link. We're investing $1.8 billion to build the Sydney Metro to Western Sydney Airport project, which will connect western Sydney's growing population and economy to the Sydney CBD, and there's another $200 million for the very popular Building Better Regions Fund. BBRF drives regional development. It drives jobs and it certainly helps the regional communities. It has in the past and it is now, and it's certainly going to in the future as we recover from COVID-19. What we want to see is local outcomes and local workers on local sites building local infrastructure, and that's what this government is delivering. 16:05 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for giving an introduction to what's in this year's budget for infrastructure, transport and regional development. I want to start with a project that is part of the broad appropriation of the department: Western Sydney International Airport and the acquisition that the government made of the Leppington Triangle. The Australian National Audit Office report into the processes leading to the acquisition and the price paid per hectare by the Morrison government for this piece of land was pretty scathing. In fact, the ANAO stated very clearly that it fell short of ethical standards, with public servants meeting with landowners in coffee shops, and it failed to ensure proper probity measures were followed. It's a very serious audit report. I would like to start with a simple question about which minister was the responsible minister at the time and which minister is willing to accept responsibility for this acquisition. The purchase itself was completed on 31 July 2018. The major brief into the decision was in January 2018. Minister Tudge, I understand that you were the Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population when this purchase was completed. Do you take any responsibility for this acquisition? Minister McCormack, can you confirm that on 31 July 2018, when the purchase of the Leppington Triangle was finalised, you were the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, as well as being the responsible cabinet minister for this project? Do you take responsibility for this purchase? I understand that Minister Fletcher was the minister in January 2018. Given that one of the briefs that the ANAO refers to, which basically outlined to the government what the acquisition strategy was and that it was finalised, was in January, was signed off by Minister Fletcher and CCed to then Minister Joyce, can either of the ministers at the table confirm that they were the responsible minister? I've never seen such duck-shoving, frankly, as on this project. Somewhere along the line, one of the ministers here has to stand up and say, 'I was the minister responsible for this decision and I signed off on it,' and we haven't seen that at all so far. We've had the Deputy Prime Minister, of course, describe this acquisition as a bargain and a good deal. Have you changed your mind yet at all? Were you surprised to learn that the AFP are actively now investigating? Minister Tudge, were you surprised that they are investigating? Minister McCormack, as minister for infrastructure, you are responsible for billions of dollars of government infrastructure spending, with projects from Western Sydney Airport to Inland Rail, and countless smaller projects across the country. Many of these projects involve very sensitive negotiations with landholders regarding road placement, access, the location of intermodal hubs, the placement of rail lines and the rezoning of lands. Do you have confidence that your department has behaved ethically in all other interactions of this type, including in projects like Inland Rail? Are you aware of any similar overinflated purchases in any other projects that you are responsible for? If you were aware of them, would you spot the problem and do something to fix it? Or would you, as has happened in this case, tick off millions of dollars of taxpayer funding for a grossly inflated piece of land? At Senate estimates last month we heard revelations that the Department of Infrastructure had budgeted in the order of $30 million for the purchase of Leppington Triangle before the valuation strategy or the acquisition process was in place. Minister, what kind of acquisition strategy or process begins with the final price and then works backwards from there? Is this the normal approach of your office and your department? When the decision was taken, who took the decision to take compulsory acquisition off the table? We'd like to hear the minister answer that question. When the scandal was publicly revealed by the Australian National Audit Office, the minister's response was to allow the Department of Infrastructure to hold another investigation into themselves. This is despite previous departmental investigations clearing the deal of any wrongdoing and the department failing to comply with the ANAO investigation. (Time expired) 16:10 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I will make a few remarks in relation to what is in the budget, particularly with regard to my portfolio responsibility, and, if time allows, I will briefly address the Leppington issue. I might start by referencing the population settings. Our population settings in the budget are often quite unremarkable. But, in this year's budget, they were actually remarkable, because we were forecasting for this financial year and next financial year to have the slowest population growth since World War I. That has largely resulted because net overseas migration has come to a grinding halt since we closed the borders in March. We are forecasting for this financial year, for the first time in 75 years, to actually have a negative net overseas migration, and that will continue next year—before it picks up again in years three and four. They are very important estimates in the budget context because obviously our population growth, largely driven by international migration, is a very significant economic driver for Australia. It has been since Europeans arrived on these shores. As members would be aware, we are going through the process of carefully but safely starting to reopen those borders so that we can, firstly, get the Australians back who want to come home and, secondly, also get those skilled people and other migrants back into the country to continue to support our economic growth, cultural growth and social growth. Let me touch briefly on the infrastructure side—complementing the Deputy Prime Minister's comments earlier. In some respects, one of the few silver linings of having a very slow population growth over the next couple of years is that it gives us the opportunity, particularly in our large capital cities, to catch up on what many in the big cities would say would be a backlog of desperately needed infrastructure to be built. We are certainly contributing our share in terms of doing this, because in this budget we added a further $9.7 billion—bringing our total expenditure over the 10 years to $110 billion, which is just an extraordinary amount of money given that it was only $50 billion when we first came to government. Importantly, this additional money, $9.7 billion, is nearly all in this year and next year for projects which can get going almost immediately—certainly over the next 18 months—because the objective of these projects is not only to build critically needed infrastructure but also to support jobs. It will support 30,000 jobs in the process. The Deputy Prime Minister and I worked very closely with state and territory government leaders to determine the parameters of which projects would be supported, knowing that they could assure us that those projects could get going quickly. In addition, we have got $1.5 billion going towards local councils. Local councils can get projects going quite quickly using local contractors and local businesses, and that means local jobs in every community across Australia. Madam Deputy Speaker, in my last minute allow me to address the final part of my portfolio responsibilities, the cities side. In this budget, we announced the Perth City Deal, which is just another of the city deals that we have announced. It's one which we've worked very closely with the McGowan government on, particularly over the last 12 months, and its central design is to try to revitalise the CBD of Perth and make it more vibrant, safer, a greater cultural hub, a students' hub and a place for people to live, work and play. We've made a significant contribution to that city deal. It will be delivered over the next five to 10 years and, I think, will transform the Perth CBD. So it is a very significant budget, across population, across infrastructure and across the cities part of my portfolio. I'm happy to come back to the Leppington issue in future considerations. 16:15 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Just continuing on with Leppington—I didn't quite finish my questions there—in particular the issue is around how the minister has allowed the department to, in essence, investigate itself during this process. We haven't seen the department or the minister undertake a fully independent investigation. The code-of-conduct investigations the department is undertaking are very limited in scope and have excluded significant events and activities that have occurred in this matter. Significantly, they have excluded activities including the briefing to Minister Fletcher in January 2018. That is not being looked at in the code-of-conduct investigations. In fact, as we understand it, the officer who is involved in that has been excluded from the code-of-conduct investigations because of that. They have excluded decisions that were made around the Northern Road alignment. Again, I would say that that is a complete failure of an investigative process if that is the case. Minister, can you undertake to inform yourself of the breadth or the lack of breadth of each of those investigations—there are six separate investigations that I understand the department is undertaking, but in particular the code-of-conduct investigations—and undertake to ensure that they are broader in scope than they currently are and that any reports of those investigations, in the interests of transparency and to make sure that this does not happen again, will be made public? Particularly I want to draw attention to the critical flaws within the department's chosen route for the Northern Road alignment. We had global aviation planning firm Landrum & Brown finding serious issues with the proposed Northern Road alignment and labelling it a no-go. The department of infrastructure went ahead regardless of that, despite possible impacts on a future second runway for the airport. Minister, is it correct that the placement of this road may impact future development of the airport? How can Australians have confidence in the way major projects are delivered under this government if this is the kind of behaviour that goes on? Turning to the infrastructure part of the portfolio and some of the comments of the minister, Minister Tudge, we have sought for the government to table the jobs multiplier that it is using in the claims it is making around the jobs of infrastructure. There are multiple numbers of jobs multipliers around, and we'd be very keen to see, given what we saw with some of the government's claims around its JobMaker program, exactly what multiplier the government is using when it makes the claim, as Minister Tudge just did, that 30,000 jobs will be created as a result. The budget papers did, as the minister outlined, contain a number of road projects, and I want to go to a few of these. The minister, in the New South Wales package, and in the budget night media release, identified additional funding for the Bolivia Hill upgrade on the New England Highway as one of the budget highlights. Can the minister confirm that the project was in fact funded under the previous Labor government in 2012 and that, as we understand it, it is under construction and almost finished now? Can you confirm that the funding you announced in the budget is not going towards completing work that's already been done or that is already underway but is in fact going to an expansion or a new stage of the Bolivia Hill project? Another highlight was an additional $119.1 million for the Bruce Highway Caloundra to Sunshine motorway and an additional $37 million for the Bruce Highway Rockhampton northern access upgrade. Can the minister confirm that this is additional funding and that it will not go towards delivering the already scoped project but is in fact a new part of the project? If it's not then you need to be able to say very clearly why these budget cost blowouts have occurred in these projects and be up-front about them being cost blowouts rather than your committing to brand-new projects or brand-new parts or stages of those roads. 16:21 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I'd like to address issues around local government as part of my portfolio responsibility. As we all know, this year has been a particularly difficult time right across Australia with the coronavirus pandemic. As the federal government has done in the past with regard to drought or bushfires, we have partnered with local government to enable the federal stimulus to get into each and every community. Local government are a very effective partner for the federal government. Through the local roads and community infrastructure fund, which is now $1½ billion, we are seeing projects being rolled out right across the country. Since only May this year, 2,335 projects have been approved. Over $187 million has already been paid to local governments. That was the idea of this proposal. It was to get the money out the door and into projects that were going to employ local people, provide employment in communities that were doing it particularly tough, but also leave behind legacy infrastructure projects that would serve those communities well beyond the current pandemic. As well as that, this year has seen the highest number of federal assistance grants that the Commonwealth has ever paid to local government, with $2.6 billion going to local government. On top of that, a $1.3 billion prepayment was made in May, which will obviously help councils with the extra cash flow that they need. With regard to the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, I've been on the road and I've managed to see some great projects on the north coast, in Cowper and Page. I've seen some great ones in Calare, in the minister's electorate as well. But I'd like to— An honourable member interjecting— Mr COULTON HWN That's right—a very important road out of Blayney that will be funded under this program. But I'd like to give a shout-out to one of the councils in my electorate, Brewarrina council, which have used their money to fund road safety measures, including rest stops and improved access for heavy vehicles on the Goodooga Road. What's interesting about Brewarrina council is that 85 per cent of Brewarrina's population is Indigenous and 85 per cent of Brewarrina council's workforce are local Aboriginal people. Local people from Goodooga are constructing roads and infrastructure through the program. It follows on from the great work that they did up at Goodooga on their bore baths, which was funded under the Drought Communities Program. The sector has been very pleased with the government's response. The president of the Australian Local Government Association, David O'Loughlin, commended the Treasurer's announcement of a further billion-dollar investment in local roads and community infrastructure. Mr O'Loughlin is quoted as saying: We said that financing shovel-ready projects in local government areas would help ward off recession by stimulating businesses and creating jobs across the country, delivering long-term benefits to the nation in the process. And: The financing of infrastructure projects in local government areas will create jobs, provide support for local businesses, and provide new hope to local communities that have done it tough for nine months or more … I endorse those comments. As a former mayor, I'm very proud of the Australian local government sector, the 537 councils across Australia that have really stepped up not only in the efficient way that they're delivering this $1½ billion in stimulus but in the innovative ways that they've supported their communities through the pandemic by redeploying some underutilised staff to deliver meals on wheels in the initial days when a lot of those programs were at risk because of health concerns for the elderly volunteers. This government is committed to supporting local government. We're very pleased with the fact that local government have done their bit to deliver the stimulus. 16:26 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government for his update to the chamber. I want to ask him some questions about local government and, in particular, how it interacts with some of the bushfire affected communities. A couple of months ago I told the parliament the story of Paul Parker, the firefighter from Nelligen who was on all of our TVs in January giving the Prime Minister a mouthful. I mentioned that at the local pub in Nelligen, the Steampacket Hotel, the publican had been getting people ringing in from all across the country offering to put money on the bar for Paul Parker. They called it the ultimate pub test. People were angry that the government had been so slow to act to help bushfire affected communities. I got an email from Paul on the weekend about what's still happening in that local community—and I'll get back to that in a moment. A lot of people on the South Coast of New South Wales, people like Paul, felt abandoned in the bushfires and still feel abandoned now. It's almost 12 months since the fires came through. The bush is growing back. Many of us who have driven through that area in New South Wales would know that's true. But the local community still feel like the government's response is too slow, and in some cases nothing at all. In the budget there's $100 million for a regional recovery fund to help rebuild parts of Australia that were hardest hit by bushfires, drought and COVID. It applies to 10 areas that the government has selected. In that list of 10 areas there's no mention of the South Coast of New South Wales, even though, by any estimate, it was one part of the country that was hardest hit by the bushfires. More of it was burnt than in almost any other part of the country. Certainly more houses were destroyed on the South Coast of New South Wales than in any other part of the country. My first question is: how is this possible? It might be a question that the Deputy Prime Minister can help address as well. How did the South Coast miss out on this funding? How is it that they weren't one of those 10 areas selected? A place hit harder by the bushfires, hit by drought and hit by COVID. Think about the farmers down there. Think about the tourism industry up and down the South Coast. How is it that that local community didn't benefit from that fund? The people on the South Coast need our help, particularly those people who had their homes burnt down, and there are hundreds of them. I was in Cobargo a couple of weeks ago with Kristy McBain. I met with some of the people who've had their houses burnt down. They're trying to rebuild and they're caught in a quagmire of red tape, whether it's local government red tape, state government red tape or federal government red tape. They don't give a stuff what it is, to be honest; they just want the red tape cut. I met a bloke named Graeme. Here's a story for us all to contemplate. He's building a granny flat on the property where his house burnt down. He has built the granny flat there so that he can live in it while he's building his house. He's been told by the council that when he builds the house he has to demolish the granny flat. The council says, 'Sorry, but that's a state government rule.' That just doesn't make sense. I met another woman who had her house burnt down. She has been told by the council that she can't rebuild at all. She has a small insurance payout. She can't afford to build anywhere else. She can't afford any other solution than to rebuild where she is. I mentioned Paul Parker and the email he sent me on the weekend. He's doing okay. He's been able to rebuild the part of his house that was damaged by the fires, but not all of his mates in Nelligen are in the same situation. He told me about a bloke called Ronny, one of his mates, whose house burnt down. I spoke to Ronny yesterday. He wants to rebuild his house on a different part of his property to where the original house burnt down in the bushfires, but he's been told by the council and by the RFS that he can't do that, because, looking on a map, building in another area looks more dangerous. According to Ronny, he wants to build the new house further away from the bush and closer to a neighbouring property, which is just an open horse paddock, but no-one has been to the property to look at it to see whether that makes sense. They've just said it's a bigger flame zone and he can't build there. My second question to the minister is: what can you do, working with local councils, to help sort out problems for people, like Graeme and like Ronny, who are caught in this quagmire of red tape? The third point I want to emphasise here is that a lot of these people are going to miss out on the $25,000 HomeBuilder grant too, because they can't sign a contract by Christmas. Is there anything that the government can do, maybe working with the housing minister, to get an extension for them so that the 3,000 people who had their homes burnt down and are caught in this mess don't miss out on the 25 grand that will help them to rebuild? 16:31 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I would like to say a few words about decentralisation today, but, before I do, I also want to make it very clear that recovering from bushfire is a long and hard process, and I think all members recognise how difficult it is. I was in Clarence and Dargan last week, talking to victims of the bushfire who had lost their homes. It is a long, hard road; there can be no doubt about it. In many respects, the recovery is harder than dealing with the actual emergency when it occurs. I think all MPs are united in wanting to make sure that we keep that recovery process going and that we get the help to where it's needed as soon as possible. We on this side of the House love decentralisation. In country Australia, we can't get enough of it. It's so important to the growth and prosperity of country Australia. This budget delivers a historic amount of investment to the regions, recognising the strategic importance of the regions and the enormous contribution that they make to this nation. Through COVID-19, we've seen a real upsurge of interest in the regions—people wanting to move to the regions. In years gone by we called them tree changers or sea changers, but now there's a new term for them: they're called VESPAs. Bernard Salt coined that term in The Australian. It stands for 'virus escapees seeking provincial Australia'. Our regional communities are full of VESPAs at the moment. The member for Parkes, here, has VESPAs all over Dubbo, Warialda and all sorts of places. We need to keep supporting this upsurge of interest in regional Australia, because I think it has opened a lot of eyes to the possibilities of what lies beyond the Great Dividing Range, or the 'sandstone curtain', as we call it. This budget has revitalised the decentralisation agenda. We have a long and successful history of decentralisation on this side of the House. Since 2013, we've overseen the relocation of 1,700 Australian Public Service jobs. The growth of the regionally based Australian Public Service workforce has increased from 12 to 14 per cent, which is very positive, and we're building on this commitment to relocate jobs and services to our regional communities. We're also working hand in hand with the private sector. It can't all be public sector decentralisation; we want private decentralisation at well. This budget delivers $41 million in a decentralisation research and development policy package, which will drive closer research collaboration between businesses and research organisations in priority regional industries. The package includes two programs—the $35 million Securing Raw Materials program, which will support businesses relocating to regional Australia with investments into research and development to secure raw material inputs. We know COVID has shown us that we need to be securing that supply chain and making sure that it's absolutely bulletproof. There was also $6 million for the Regional Cooperative Research Project, or RCRP, program that will fund short-term research projects led by industry that will deliver commercial outcomes and create jobs for important regional industries. Under the Securing Raw Materials program recipients would receive up to $5 million of matched funding over the 2020-21 and 2021-22 financial years to invest in research activities linked to the development of innovative, locally sourced raw material supplies. The companies that could engage with this program could be a food processing company investigating the growth methods that maximise yield with reduced reliance on imported fertilisers or other agrichemicals. It could be a seafood producer investigating possible uses of unwanted byproducts from fish farming, such as seaweed. It could be an advanced manufacturer in the defence sector. There are many different possibilities. What we're saying to those organisations is that if you move to the country and you want to invest in the country and develop country Australia, then we are with you, because it can't all be public sector decentralisation. Last week I held a decentralisation summit involving peak business and industry bodies, not only the peak business bodies but the universities as well. It's important to get them on board, the Group of Eight and also the regional universities. We are going to revitalise the decentralisation agenda on this side of the House. 16:36 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I have some questions on what we on this side call regionalisation, smart regionalisation, and in particular the Regional Partnerships program and a number of the other regional programs. But first I will go back to the infrastructure part of the portfolio. I was highlighting the project of Bolivia Hill and the announcements around the Bruce Highway. I could pick a number of other projects. It appears from the information that's been on the public record, certainly, in relation to those projects that some of the announcements that the government is claiming as part of its infrastructure spend are in fact because of delays and cost blowouts. I think it is very important that the government acknowledge that that is occurring in some of these projects. So I ask the minister: how many of the budget announcements for infrastructure are due to cost blowouts and delay, as opposed to new projects and expanding stages? The previous budgets of this government are important to look at and to some extent are indicative of what we hope we don't get from this budget. I want to highlight some of that. In each of the previous budgets we've had pretty significant underspends. We've had an underspend of $1.2 billion per year on average. In fact last financial year the underspend was $1.7 billion. Taking across the previous budgets it is just under $7 billion of money that has not got out the door, which the government promised would get out the door. Whilst we accept that these are complex projects and they do take time, it does seem on a number of them that perhaps more effort could have been made to try and ensure that they were on budget and on time. Just one program—the minister responsible for it is has to leave—is the Urban Congestion Fund, which was announced not this budget, not last budget, but in the 2018 budget. It was underspent by $572 million last year alone, with only $148 million of the promised $720 million actually getting out the door. Of $207 million promised under the Urban Congestion Fund for projects in New South Wales, the government spent only $4.5 million. Given that these projects are smaller projects and the government has quite rightly said that they are about getting people in work today, that is somewhat disappointing. The minister, who has just left the chamber, in January told Channel Nine News that by January 2020 70 projects would be under construction and at least 28 would be completed. As at October, work had begun on only 28 projects. I ask: is the government on track to meet the promise that the minister made in January that 70 projects would be under construction and 28 completed? In November last year the minister posted a Twitter video at the site of Portrush and Magill roads in Adelaide, appearing with men in hard hats and spruiking the work that was underway—despite the fact the video was actually filmed at the wrong intersection, unfortunately. I do want to know from the minister what work on that project is actually underway today. I note that last year's financial budget outcome revealed that no money had been spent through the Urban Congestion Fund in South Australia, and this was a project in South Australia. How could it have been possible that work was underway if no money was actually going out the door? At Senate estimates, the secretary of the department of infrastructure stated: The other challenge we've had in the estimates this year is that there were optimistic expenditure forecasts in the current year for the [Urban Congestion Fund] program … After seeing some of the delays in that, how can Australians have confidence that the announcements that are in this budget are going to be any different than in previous budgets? I do briefly want to talk about some of the COVID stimulus spending. At CEDA, the Prime Minister committed $1.5 billion of additional spending to create jobs and to help Australia's recovery. Can the minister confirm that this $1.5 billion was in fact less than the $1.7 billion that the government had underspent on infrastructure projects delivered in the last financial year? And can the minister also confirm that of the 15 priority projects announced at CEDA, none were located north of Brisbane in Queensland? At CEDA, the Prime Minister said a billion would be allocated to priority projects which are shovel ready— (Time expired) 16:41 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor Since 2013 the Australian government has committed more than $15.4 billion for infrastructure in Western Australia. In WA, vast distances between major centres make quality road infrastructure a high priority for the movement of commodities and people around our great state. The Morrison government is serious about road safety, and it is demonstrating this through increased investment in infrastructure and effective monitoring of interventions. In the 2020-21 budget, the Australian government announced $1.1 billion towards a joint $1.8 billion investment with the WA government in infrastructure projects, including $16 million towards the Goldfields Highway to construct and seal priority sections, commencing early in 2021. The budget also saw $9.6 million in additional funding for the upgrades to the Coolgardie Esperance Highway at Emu Rocks, bringing the total Commonwealth investment in that project to $41.6 million. This funding will deliver road infrastructure and support WA regional communities as they recover from the financial effects of the coronavirus pandemic. Funding for the Coolgardie Esperance Highway will ensure people in our community get home sooner and safer, whilst delivering more jobs locally. In 2020, Australians have become acutely aware of the central role the Western Australian economy plays in our national economic output and overall financial stability. Moving agriculture and mining products efficiently from inner WA communities to the major ports for export is vital, and I'm pleased to say the Morrison government has recognised this by accelerating an $82 million investment for the Wheatbelt Secondary Freight Network, a crucial road network supporting key freight supply chains as well as tourism in the region. The Wheatbelt Secondary Freight Network comprises some 4,400 kilometres of local government managed roads that connect with state and national highways to provide access for heavy vehicles into the WA Wheatbelt. These roads form part of a whole network approach in improving freight productivity in the regions, and enabling vital agriculture commodities to access domestic and international markets via the key WA ports. Upgrades to the network will be determined based on key areas connecting to state and national roads and rail networks. The Wheatbelt Secondary Freight Network also links WA's key agricultural and mining centres to six ports and two livestock centres, as well as grain receival sites. This federal investment will see the construction of more overtaking lanes, upgrades to roads and bridges, shoulder road sealing and road train assembly parking bays. Investing in the Wheatbelt Secondary Freight Network is delivering to communities our commitment to improve road safety, freight efficiency and connectivity for agricultural and mining regions to transport hubs. On 21 June this year, the Australian government announced $176 million to deliver a joint $223 million in shovel-ready infrastructure projects and safety upgrades with the WA government. This stimulus funding is on top of the $868 million infrastructure investment boost in WA, including $817 million in accelerated funding for projects in WA announced in November 2019. The $175 million Albany Ring Road was one such project. It will deliver significantly improved road safety and efficiency across the Great Southern Region. Construction of the Albany Ring Road is now officially underway, unlocking up to 1,000 local jobs and creating flow-on economic benefits for Western Australia's south-west. This is the largest infrastructure road project ever to be delivered in the Great Southern Region. Safe, uninterrupted access to the Port of Albany will provide certainty for current port users and an incentive for future investments. The project will also significantly improve traffic flow on the existing road network by reducing the number of heavy vehicles on the Albany Highway, the South Coast Highway and Chester Pass Road and notably reduce the interaction of heavy-haulage trucks with pedestrians and school crossings. This project will relieve congestion for the freight industry and enhance safety outcomes for locals and the tourist industry. This government has continued and will continue to deliver on road infrastructure and safety measures through major projects such as those I've outlined today as well as continuous investment programs such as the Urban Congestion Fund, the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative and the new road safety program. All Australians, whether for business or pleasure, should have access to safe, reliable and efficient road networks. I therefore ask the minister to expand further on what great things we are achieving in the space of building infrastructure to save Australian lives and make our economy prosper into the future. 16:46 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Just in continuation on the issue around CEDA, the Prime Minister said: … $1 billion will be allocated to priority projects which are shovel-ready, and being smaller projects they’re ready to go. In October, it was revealed that, of 87 projects announced, all but three were still in planning. Would the minister agree that this, for what was supposed to be economic stimulus, is too slow? I'm not sure what definitions the Prime Minister is using for 'ready to go' and 'shovel ready' but they certainly aren't ones that would be commonly understood by most people. Is the minister aware of anymore projects through the scheme that have actually gotten underway? I will just move very quickly to regions, as I understand that there may be some divisions happening. I do echo the questions that my colleague has asked around Regional Partnerships, which are the 10 regions that have been chosen by the government. It does seem passing strange that, when the regions that are meant to be targeted are those that have been specifically affected by drought and bushfire, the two regions that two Labor members hold have been left out of this program. I think that is, unfortunately, really indicative of the way in which this government has been approaching regional funding for quite a long period of time. I particularly want to mention the Community Development Grants Program. We accept that, in the election grants fund that the government has, the election is the selection process and that there is some due diligence that is done after that. But I do want to highlight that in the budget papers, according to table 2.3.1 in the department's budget statement, the government intends to increase expenditure on the Community Development Grants Program to $270 million in 2021-22 and $318 million in 2022-23. Can the minister confirm that in 2016-17, the budget for this program was $66 million? We also see—which is very unusual, I would have to say—that the government, outside of an election period, is adding substantially to this program. The budget papers talk about three projects. One is the $23 million new Rockhampton Stadium in Victoria Park. This is a program and there is no application process. The government just says, 'Here, we have this money for you.' This is the project where we saw Pauline Hanson of the One Nation Party standing up with a big $23 million cheque saying that she was funding the Rockhampton Stadium. Then there are the Regional Indoor Aquatic and Leisure Centre at Mount Barker and the Goolwa Sports Precinct in South Australia, neither of which have been through an election process for selection and neither of which, as we understand it, has actually had a business case or had due diligence done on them. I ask the minister: do you think this is at all appropriate? Can the minister assure us that, in the next round of the Building Better Regions Fund, round 5, which we understand is to be opened shortly, there will be greater consideration or more equitable consideration given to the seats that Labor members hold? I also want to highlight, in particular, a few of the issues that we've seen across the Drought Communities Program. Again, there's been some criticism about the lack of transparency and the lack of the way in which that funding has been allocate across the community, and, again, I ask the minister: can he assure this place that regional funding will be done on a more equitable basis the next time around? I want to highlight again the government's Regional Deals program, three of which are underway. I think there are many communities—in fact, I don't think my colleague would have a local government council in regional Australia not coming to him saying, 'We've worked really hard and we've put together a regional deal. We'd like to know how you access some of the funding for that.' Can the government confirm that there is no process for that to actually happen and that there's no clarity around what constitutes a regional deal or how that would occur? We talked a bit about decentralisation or, as we say, regionalisation. Has the government actually considered that, if it just put back all of the Public Service jobs from the Medicare offices and Veterans' Affairs into regional communities, it would boost jobs substantially in our regions? (Time expired) 16:51 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert I am very thankful for the opportunity to take part in this afternoon's consideration in detail, and I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for being here today to talk about the almost $110 billion in infrastructure spending over the next 10 years that we have put in place. As the Treasurer has said, this is about creating jobs, jobs and more jobs. This infrastructure spend is going to deliver 30,000 new jobs from new projects, building on the 100,000 jobs from existing projects either under construction or in planning nationwide. But today I want to focus on water infrastructure. We all know that, without water, we cannot grow as a nation. Without water, our farmers cannot provide the food and fibre that we need to keep food on the table and provide the exports that our economy relies on. That's why it's so great to see in this budget that we're getting on with the job of building major new water infrastructure for our nation, both for the current generation and for many generations to come. In this budget there's $2 billion worth of grant funding under the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund, which brings our total investment to $3.5 billion. I want to particularly highlight some of the work that is going on in my part of the world in North Queensland. North Queenslanders are extremely concerned about water security. It would definitely make the top five issues that people are most concerned about when I meet them at market stalls or doorknocking, or when they just come to the office to say hi. This makes sense, because people want to know that, when they go to the supermarket, local produce will be on the shelves every time. They want to know that there still will be livelihoods for our farmers and those living on the land. So I'm very glad to see continuing support for major water infrastructure projects in North Queensland. There are two projects being managed by the North Queensland Water Infrastructure Authority, and I know the Deputy Prime Minister is working to get more staff and members located and based in North Queensland, where the authority will be doing its work. These two projects are the Hughenden irrigation scheme, for which we've provides $180 million, and Hells Gates dam, whose business case we've funded. But we're already getting on with one of the major components of the Hells Gates dam, and that is the Big Rocks weir, to which we've committed $30 million. Big Rocks weir may seem like a relatively small project, but I'm pretty excited about it because not only is it just a couple of hundred kilometres away from Townsville; it will have a significant flow-on effect in my region and will be exporting through our port. This is going to provide 10,000 megalitres of water for local farms in Charters Towers and create more than 200 construction and agricultural jobs. This is exactly the kind of water infrastructure injection we need right now. Just before the last state election, the Queensland government committed the remaining $30 million needed for the construction of the weir. Unfortunately, they had a condition that they wanted yet another business case. I just want to let the Queensland government know that we do not want to play politics with a second business case after the business case has already been done by Townsville Enterprise and has already found the project is viable. They will be held to account, by not only me but the people of North Queensland, because this is a much needed project with the complete support of our community. Big Rocks Weir has the potential to be up and running in just a couple of years, and that's why governments of all persuasions and all levels need to get out of the way and let this fantastic project progress. As I said, this is part of the broader Hells Gate scheme and the business case will be finished around the end of this year. What we know already is that it has the potential to create 50,000 hectares of irrigated agriculture and pumped hydro with eight hours of storage. That is fantastic for the region. There is a lot of work being done, but there is a lot of work to do. My question to the minister is: how will the government continue to ensure that we have the water infrastructure that we need both now and into the future? 16:55 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I want to turn to the components of the budget that go to aviation funding. Aviation is an essential industry in a big country like ours and with a populated nation like ours, and it will be absolutely essential to our economic recovery. We've been very critical of the government's lack of a plan for aviation and the piecemeal approach that the government has taken in relation to the crisis in aviation. In particular, I want to take the minister through some of the decisions the government has made in relation to aviation. What we are seeing are announcements, almost on a weekly basis, of substantial job losses. We had lots of people in the aviation sector stood down and lots of people in the aviation sector completely unable to access any government support, particularly from JobKeeper. Whole families are involved in this industry. They live in suburbs largely around our major airports and it's been the centre of employment for a very long period of time for many of these people. Even the skilled workers we have in regional airports, because the airports are owned by local councils, were not able to access JobKeeper. Regional councils have said they've been absolutely bleeding money out of these airports, and councils have been trying to ensure that they keep them going, but they are losing really skilled workers each day. When Virgin entered administration on 21 April, the minister said: Our objective is to help keep as many employees as possible in their jobs, a second major domestic airline in the sky, prices down and competition maintained so our economy recovers strongly on the other side of the coronavirus pandemic. Does maintaining a second major domestic airline remain the government's objective? And is that airline Virgin or is it another airline? Appearing on ABC's Four Corners in August, the CEO of Virgin Australia revealed that there is zero doubt that the reborn airline will fly to fewer places. It was later revealed that those regions losing routes would include Uluru, Tamworth, Port Macquarie, Albury, Hervey Bay, Cloncurry and Mildura. Would the minister agree that fewer routes will mean higher fares and fewer services to regional communities, costing jobs across the country? Recently we received some worrying reports regarding the future of Virgin Australia, with the current CEO to leave the corporation in November, this month, and suggestions that the airline will emerge far smaller than before, offering less competition to Qantas and supporting fewer Australian jobs. The minister has repeatedly suggested that a market-led solution would resolve this issue. Well, the market has decided on fewer jobs, fewer routes and less competition. Would you agree with that assessment? At the same time, we have seen thousands of jobs lost at Qantas, with the airline preferring to now outsource rather than maintain their own workforce, partly because the government has put no conditions at all on the millions of dollars that are going to these companies to ensure that we don't add to the insecurity of work in this nation, yet the government has turned a blind eye to Qantas in fact increasing and adding to substantial job insecurity in this nation—the very thing that we have struggled through during this pandemic. The government could have put conditions on JobKeeper and some of the other aviation support measures that it has put in place. Why didn't it do that? In 2018 the government allowed Qantas catering workers to be outsourced to dnata. It gave permission for that to occur, and yet these 5½ thousand workers were denied government support. They were put on stand-down and were all set to receive JobKeeper, yet the government then changed the regulations and made sure that the regulations were very clear that these workers would not be supported. Minister, the government excluded dnata workers because of the nationality of their employer. Can you confirm that every cent of JobKeeper would have gone into the hands of Australian workers rather than the companies that were employing them? Of course, not everyone in aviation missed out. Certain airlines and owners of private jets did receive support from the government. Can the minister confirm, as I asked him to in question time, that the program has subsidised the luxury private jets of Crown casino, Clive Palmer's Mineralogy and Leppington Pastoral Company? (Time expired) 17:01 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls It is something that doesn't often get reported, but every dollar that we spend on infrastructure actually finds its way to a family or to a business, and so we should be incredibly proud of the infrastructure spend that we have made with this government as to how much that is directly helping our local families and local businesses. We have announced over $385 million in regional initiatives such as the $200 million round 5 of the Building Better Regions Fund. This will take our commitment with this fund to well over $1 billion. Of the $200 million for the upcoming round, we're going to have $100 million allocated specifically to the tourism sector, which has obviously borne the brunt of COVID-19 with the restrictions that have been put on it. Under our $500 million Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program that was announced in May, $420 million has already been approved across 2,300 projects, and $190 million has already been paid to councils. There are councils in my electorate who are very clear to tell us that, if you want to get a project done quickly, if you want to get a project on the road and get the excavators moving, engaging the councils is the best way of doing that. In my electorate of Nicholls, five councils—Campaspe, Greater Shepparton, Mitchell, Moira and Strathbogie—have collectively received around $20 million. They are already getting those projects up and going. In the National Party, we all understand that how the regions are going is often a sign of the strength of Australia. Right now regional Australia is set to drive the recovery as we come out of the coronavirus restrictions and setbacks. I firmly believe that this government is backing regional Australia all the way. We have the $1 billion COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Fund, designed to support various sectors, different communities and industries that have borne the brunt of COVID-19. The support already committed through the relief and recovery fund includes assistance for the tourism and transport sectors, relief for fishers and artists, support for ag shows and financial counselling for eligible small businesses. The previous speaker spoke about the aviation sector and the support that we have put in there. Obviously it has been severely struck down by the COVID-19 pandemic. We are supporting this industry through this current crisis so that it will be in a position to transition at the end of these restrictions and aid the recovery. Australia's aviation industry is facing unprecedented and likely sustained periods of lower aviation demand than it ever has previously. We have committed more than $1.31 billion to support aviation so far. We have given support to maintain maximum air services across Australia, including 400 return flights to more than 120 different locations, of which more than 110 are regional or remote. We've also put in $120 million, which has been paid to airlines, to support critical connections on Australia's major routes. Over $30 million has been paid to airlines to ensure central regional air networks can be maintained. Over $70 million has been paid back to industry through security charges and fuel excise rebates to provide industry relief from these government charges. Over $67 million has been paid to small or regional air operators in direct cash flow support. There has been $669 million to keep international supply chains open and to assist high-value perishables and the transport of that produce overseas that would normally go in the undercarriage of passenger planes. We've had quite a few businesses in Victoria that have been the beneficiaries of this project, and certainly there are one or two in my electorate that are very appreciative of the work the government has done in this area. We need to build consumer confidence in aviation as the restrictions ease. The Australian Airports Association and Airlines for Australia and New Zealand have developed a protocol for domestic air travel in consultation with Commonwealth agencies and the broader industries. I want to ask the minister if he can explain how these initiatives and others will assist regional Australia in its recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. 17:06 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin The portfolios we are discussing now, and this part of the budget that we are examining now, are incredibly important. They are so important to our short-term recovery, particularly when it comes to getting jobs up and running, as I know my colleague the shadow minister for housing will have touched upon and is passionate about, and indeed my colleague the member for Ballarat has touched upon in her contributions. But these portfolios in this budget and in the previous budgets under this government sum up the government. There has been a relentless focus on announcements and a total failure to prioritise the delivery we need. That has mattered across the life of the government, but now it matters more than ever. I guess the thing we have to reflect upon is that this is the good bit when it comes to the government, because as we've seen in Senate estimates recently it's not just a failure to deliver when it comes to infrastructure that has characterised this government. It has been much, much worse than that, as we've seen most obviously in terms of the Leppington Triangle, where we've seen a 10-times overspend, which stands in stark contrast to the massive underinvestment in the communities that surround that project. Western Sydney is not getting a real city deal. When I think about my portfolio responsibilities—and I acknowledge that the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure has been here, and I'm sure the Deputy Prime Minister can take on board the questions I direct to him—this is incredibly important. If we're serious about getting our recovery right, we've got to get our approach to cities policy and urban infrastructure right. That simply isn't happening. These budget papers sadly demonstrate it. I hope that the minister can reflect on that and give us some better answers, particularly to the millions of Australians in outer suburban Australia who rely on a national government that takes the suburbs seriously, that looks at where people have been losing jobs through this recession and that looks at what we can do about it—again, in the short term by getting stimulus right, but also by shaping our cities to reflect the new realities. That's about making sure that we actually get our CBDs functioning, which isn't just about the Treasurer telling people to get back on the train and into the office; it's about thinking about how those regional economies are going to work. It's also about looking at the opportunities that exist right now to boost suburban and outer suburban retail and service sectors, where small-scale infrastructure projects—real city deals, the examples of which we are seeing right around the world—could be making an extraordinary difference to boost consumption, to build better neighbourhoods and to keep people working in terms that are their terms. It's about changing some of the issues. The government talks a lot about congestion busting. This is a way that we can bust congestion other than that in advertising agencies. I should acknowledge that the one area where the government has overachieved—we've talked often, the member for Ballarat and I, on many occasions about the consistent record of underspending by the government in infrastructure, but they've never let the advertising industry down, particularly when it comes to the Urban Congestion Fund, where in the first year they managed to spend more on advertising than on so-called congestion busting projects. I guess maybe a focus for the next budget, Deputy Prime Minister, might be looking at the particular challenges of congestion and getting into and out of those advertising agencies that the government appears to be so fond of! The government should instead be focused on some of the real challenges to congestion busting. I'm thinking particularly of the commuter car parks. I've seen an evolution of this project. I was pleased to see that there are at least one or two of them located in places other than government-held marginal seats. There was one indeed, in the initial proposal, in my electorate, in South Morang, but it seems to have mysteriously disappeared, which is very odd. Perhaps it's because the government didn't speak to anyone about this proposal—that they just thought it was the end of the train line. It had of course been extended by the Andrews Labor government, which is a government that takes the provision of urban infrastructure seriously. Again, South Morang has been wiped off the map, according to this government's agenda, but I can assure the Deputy Prime Minister that it still exists and that my constituents there would like more support to get out of congestion. This comes back to some other issues. I note that the member for Nicholls talked about the voices of local government. Why have the voices of local government been cut out of the national cabinet? That comes to the heart of the question I want to ask: why are all the city deals running late? Why are the city deals for Melbourne—both of them—and the one for Brisbane yet to appear on anything other than a press release? There has been no progress whatsoever, and there is no vision from this government to involve those communities, through local government, in planning their future. 17:11 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I'm going to work methodically through the questions that I have been asked. When I complete my contribution, I know that the member for Ballarat wants to ask some more, and then I'll endeavour to wrap up with the rest of the answers. Firstly I want to address the Leppington Triangle land situation. The government and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications are taking this matter very seriously. I want to assure the shadow minister of that. There is no question of ministerial involvement in this transaction. The report goes to the actions of the department more than two years ago. The department has agreed to all recommendations in the report and has already taken swift action to address identified shortcomings in the processes and importantly in the decision-making. The department has launched three separate investigations and inquiries into the response to the findings of the Australian National Audit Office: an investigation under the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct into the matters of staff conduct raised by the ANAO, an independent audit of the conduct of the Leppington transaction to identify any further areas of improvement or lessons learnt, and an independent review of the Western Sydney Unit's systems, processes, culture and capabilities and the unit's systemic engagement with the department's governance structures and enabling divisions. On 16 October, an AFP investigation into issues identified in the ANAO report was made public and reported in the media. As these processes are ongoing, it would be inappropriate—and I'm sure the shadow minister would concur—to make further comment. I just want to say that the approval of the purchase was undertaken by departmental officials, and that is consistent with the delegations under the Lands Acquisition Act 1989. As I said, the AFP is also investigating the issues identified in the ANAO report. I'll now talk about the two Bruce Highway projects that the shadow minister raised. We have the Bruce Highway Rockhampton northern access upgrade, with $29.6 million of additional funding provided in the 2020-21 budget. The Australian government funding profile for this project is $126.4 million. The shadow minister also referred to the Caloundra to Sunshine motorway aspect of the Bruce Highway, with $95.2 million of additional funding provided in the 2020-21 budget, taking the Australian government funding total to $745.6 million. That's a lot of jobs. That's a huge number of jobs for Queensland. I look forward to working with the Queensland minister going forward. It might be noted, in the spirit of bipartisanship, that I had a long conversation with Mark Bailey to that end on the day after the recent Queensland election. I'm willing to work with ministers, from any political persuasion, from state and territory governments to get delivery done. The shadow minister also asked about claimed underspends and about claimed stalling of certain projects. The shadow minister would know that state and territory governments do the contracting and tendering and essentially run the delivery and the construction of these projects. But I'm happy, as I said before, to work with any state and territory ministers—and they've been working in a good spirit of cooperation, and that's why we've been able to have that national transport freight code to get those trucks through state border closures which have impeded business activities in so many areas, particularly regional areas, during COVID-19. The shadow minister also raised a point about the Bolivia Hill upgrade. The Australian government funding of $98 million includes $43 million of new money, additional funding, in the 2020-21 budget. This involves the construction of a 320-metre-long bridge, as part of a 2.1-kilometre realignment and widening of the New England Highway. Speaking of the New England Highway, I know how much people are looking forward to that Singleton bypass. I know how much the member for Hunter—such a shame that he's no longer on the frontbench of Labor—will be looking forward to that project, delivered under a Liberal-Nationals government. It probably wouldn't have happened under those opposite, but it is being delivered by this government. (Time expired) A division having been called in the House— Sitting suspended 17:16 to 17:29 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 198084 The Federation Chamber will consider the Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts segment of the Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications portfolio in accordance with the agreed order of consideration. 17:29 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I'm pleased to rise to speak about the government's programs and measures in relation to the Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts portfolio. It has been a very, very busy time, and many of our initiatives are reflected in this year's budget, including the commitment we have made to invest $4.5 billion in the next stage of upgrades to the National Broadband Network. That includes $700 million to establish 240 business fibre zones covering 700,000 premises with access to CBD pricing. That means that for business fibre zones in regional areas—85 of the 240 are in regional areas—those will deliver wholesale price reductions of up to 67 per cent. Some 700,000 business premises are covered by that. Indeed, some 99 per cent of Australian businesses will be able to order an enterprise ethernet connection to no up-front billed cost. This is very important—enterprise ethernet up to one gigabit per second; symmetrical, business grade, business level, service level agreements, and a premium business service. We're also investing some $3.5 billion to allow eight million premises around the country by 2023 to be able to order a speed of up to one gigabit per second. That includes $2.9 billion to take fibre deeper into the fibre-to-the-node network. That will allow some two million premises which today are served by fibre to the node, including almost one million in regional areas, to order speeds of up to 1 gigabit per second by 2023. We are also committing $400 million to upgrade the HFC network, allowing all 2.5 million residences in the HFC footprint to order gigabit speeds from December 2021. I emphasise the point that the hybrid fibre coaxial network is able to be upgraded to offer this very substantial increase in speed. This is the very same network that the previous Labor government was proposing to completely scrap—completely junk a network which at that point was 10-15 years old, very modern technology and very much capable of being upgraded. Labor's proposal was to junk it, to scrap it. This is one of the many ways in which we have been much more capital effective. We are also contributing $100 million to a speed uplift program for the 1.5 million homes served by fibre to the kerb. That will give these homes access to gigabit speeds, through the enablement of what is called G.fast capability, by 2023. What we've done here is we've extended the NBN's capabilities in a capital efficient fashion. It's the next stage of growth in the NBN. But there are many other things that we're doing in the Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts portfolio. We're committing significant funding to support Australian screen content. This year's budget includes $30 million over two years for Screen Australia to support Australian film and television drama, children's and documentary productions, and also $3 million to Screen Australia to cultivate quality Australian screen writing and script development. There's $20 million over two years for the Australian Children's Television Foundation to increase support for the development, production and distribution of quality Australian children's screen content. We're also standardising the producer offset to 30 per cent for producers of Australian film and television. We're removing the outdated distinction between cinema and television in a world where streaming video on demand is completely disrupting the global market for content and creating new opportunities for Australian producers. Our changes to the funding system are designed to support Australian screen producers to go to where the market is. There is a big opportunity with the streaming video on demand services around the world, and we're supporting Australian producers to better seize that opportunity. We are working to keep Australians safe online, building on our world-leading eSafety Commissioner. In this year's budget we've committed $39.5 million in additional funding for the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman-Grant, and her office to continue their very important work in protecting Australians against harms online. We're providing funding to increase the take-up of 5G and particularly to trial different uses of 5G across different industry contexts. That is $29.2 million. There is a range of other funding in the arts sector—hopefully I will have time to talk about that at more length—but right now I might focus on $22.9 million over one year for eight national cultural institutions. 17:34 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro My question is to the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts. My electorate of Eden-Monaro has some of the worst mobile and broadcast black spots, including ABC black spots. You don't have to drive far from this place to experience these dangerous and frustrating black spots. We saw during last year's devastating bushfires that reliable coverage can make all the difference in a crisis. That is why I'm committed to improving mobile coverage across Eden-Monaro, with a particular focus on community black spots and transport corridors; the installation of power back-up for broadcasting transmission facilities, so they work for longer during natural disasters; providing essential facilities and providers across our region with satellite phones, power generators and satellite NBN so they can stay connected during emergencies; and improving broadcast coverage across Eden-Monaro, with a focus on ABC local radio black spots in areas of high bushfire risk. Communities across Eden-Monaro shouldn't have to wait any longer for this to happen. Back in September I wrote to the minister about the loss of the SBS signal in the town of Bermagui. Overnight, more than 1,500 people lost access to SBS and NITV without any warning. The company maintaining the transmission site was doing so for free and couldn't afford to keep footing the bill. As a result of this government's inaction, the broadcasters have been forced to pay an extra $600,000 per year to run these transmission sites. How many programs, services or jobs will the ABC and SBS need to cut to fill this $600,000 hole? This is simply not good enough, and regional Australians deserve better from this government. It is shameful that the minister is cutting ABC funding and refusing ABC proposals for enhanced service provision in regional Australia. The Morrison government rejected an ABC proposal to invest tens of millions of dollars in regional services and emergency broadcasting capabilities. By refusing to reverse the $83.7 million worth of cuts to the ABC, the government has short-changed regional Australia when it comes to vital news and emergency broadcasting services. These revelations expose the utter hypocrisy of the Morrison government when it comes to regional Australia and keeping Australians safe. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, several government sources have confirmed that Mr Fletcher did not reply to the letter, nor did he discuss the proposal with the ABC or his National Party colleagues, who have constantly raised concerns over the future of regional media outlets following a spate of natural disasters, including last summer's fires. It beggars belief that The Nationals did not know about these proposals. Regional media is in crisis and has been pushed to the brink of market failure on the seven-year watch of this inept Liberal-National government. In June last year, the ACCC delivered a report to government which warned that news deserts are emerging in Australia and that public broadcasters are not adequately resourced to fill the breach. Since then, the devastating closure of hundreds of regional and community newspapers means there is an increasing and urgent need for ABC news gathering. What's more, evidence to the bushfire royal commission made it clear that ABC local radio broadcast network resilience is an area of need which the government has neglected. This government makes a lot of saying that the ABC doesn't do enough for regional Australia, even as it cuts ABC funding. ABC emergency coverage saved lives during the summer bushfires, and staff came off leave to ensure Australians were kept informed. This year, over 200 dedicated ABC staff faced the sack during a recession and a pandemic, as a result of the Liberal-National government's cuts. Minister, when will the government act to make these vital improvements to regional communication? When will the government improve mobile coverage across Eden-Monaro; ensure the ABC and SBS are funded to maintain regional transmission services, previously maintained by a private company for free; ensure broadcast transmission sites in regional Australia are hardened to ensure resilience during bushfire; reverse its short-sighted and dangerous cuts to the ABC; and support local news and emergency broadcasting in regional Australia, including in my seat of Eden-Monaro? 17:38 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I would like to speak on regional communications and the proposals and projects that are in the budget under that portfolio. In March last year, the government announced $220 million in the Stronger Regional Digital Connectivity Package. That is a comprehensive response to the telecommunications review of 2018. In reference to the previous member's questions, I will touch on some of them but I will let my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts also address some of them. Because the member is new, she might not know the history in this place and might know that there was not a mobile phone black spot program until 2013 and that, since that time, we've funded just over 1,200 base stations. The latest round, announced in April last year, has funded 182 base stations, and those base stations that have been funded under the Mobile Black Spot Program have fielded 44,000 triple 0 calls. That's just the towers that were funded under this program. I understand the traumatic time the member and her community had; I was speaking to her during that time. The minister might want to go further, but we've actually identified the issue with telecommunications and bushfires, and that's why we've got the $37 million program to harden up bushfire-prone areas for mobile coverage. It has identified that communication during fires is an issue. It's not just mobile coverage but landlines, largely because electricity generation goes out. Of the black spot towers we've funded, 883 are on air now; they are switched on—100 since the beginning of this year. Since the fires, we've switched on towers in bushfire located areas at Wyndham and Cathcart in south-east New South Wales, Megalong Valley and Macdonald Valley in the Blue Mountains, and Berringama and Manorina in eastern Victoria. In the next couple of weeks, we will be calling for applications for round 5 of the black spot program. Round 5 will be different. We are looking at more innovative models to get into harder-to-fit areas. I'm sure the member's electorate has that topography, with lower population and difficult topography. Round 5 will improve coverage in national disaster prone areas along transport corridors. We're trialling new technologies so that we can actually go that extra mile in harder-to-fit areas. The Regional Connectivity Program, in conjunction with the extra $30 million in the budget, is now an $83 million program. The Regional Connectivity Program is looking at innovative ways to deliver data and voice into regional areas, partnering with local communities, local government, telecommunication providers and business. We are in the process; those applications are open. We did extend it, I think, to 17 November. Next week that will come to a close and we will be assessing those projects. We understand that the black spot program has done a wonderful job, but we need to show innovation to get into harder-to-reach areas. The other thing that we are funding is the Digital Technologies Hub. As someone who lives in a regional area, I know that a lot of the problem is that a lot of the people do not know what is out there to help them. The National Farmers Federation was successful in the tender to deliver the tech hub over three years. People can ring up. They can email. They can get sensible advice from someone who knows what they're talking about to help them overcome some of the telecommunications issues that they have. I think that's something that's following on from the great work that Better Internet for Rural, Regional and Remote Australia have done over the years. Finally, there is the Alternative Voice Services Trials Program. Some of the technology is coming to the end of its life of servicing more remote areas. We've funded some trials to look at what might be the next form of technology to replace those radio loops and other places in harder-to-fit areas. 17:43 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I'd like to ask the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts about the dire situation facing the arts and music communities across Australia. These sectors have been absolutely smashed in the onslaught of COVID-19. Shows were cancelled. Venues were shut. Live audiences evaporated overnight and income streams stopped dead. To add to that painful scenario, a huge number of artists, musicians, writers, dancers and road crews were ineligible for the JobKeeper wage subsidies. Labor called for an emergency support package back in March, but for more than 100 days you insisted there was no problem. On 25 June, you finally relented and announced a $250 million emergency arts package, and on 11 October, some three months later, you told the ABC that this money was already flowing. But we found out in Senate estimates that this is absolutely untrue. Not a single dollar has reached struggling artists and musicians. This is hurting the arts sector in my community of Newcastle. I acknowledge that, while the federal government has been missing in action, some great work has been done locally. In particular, I want to give a shout-out to the state member for Newcastle, Tim Crakanthorp, and the City of Newcastle for the terrific job they're doing in supporting musicians and the live music venues to restore a vibrant, sustainable live music scene following the pandemic. There are some fantastic initiatives helping to build momentum to get the activities back online. The Olive Tree Market, Makers and Traders of Newcastle, Independent Galleries, Newcastle FAD Sessions, the Newcastle Museum and the Newcastle Art Gallery have all done a superb job in creating a COVID-safe alternative pathway for the arts community to continue their practices and reach audiences. So, despite the many blows that have been dealt, artists have continued to entertain us, offer us hope, and foster connections and community. Minister, why did you falsely tell the media that the emergency arts funding had been delivered? When will the artists and musicians in Newcastle see any of the support you promised and they so desperately need? Is this just another example of a Liberal government announcement with no follow-through? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 198084 I believe that, by agreement, the member for Newcastle will give the remainder of her time to the member for Fremantle. Is that correct? Ms Claydon 248181 Correct. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 198084 I give the call to the member for Fremantle. 17:46 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I would also like the minister to explain and justify the government's approach to the arts and creative sector—its apparent vendetta against the arts and creative sector. It's been part of their heroes-and-villains approach throughout their government. For some reason, the coalition don't value the arts. They don't regard creative industries as real businesses and they don't regard artists as real workers, never mind the fact that the sector employs 645,000 Australians and generates $111 billion annually; never mind the fact that arts and creative industries were among the hardest hit by the pandemic. Instead, under this government, workers were designed out of the JobSeeker program. There's been no effective targeted support. Even the artists the government used in media events have gone empty-handed, which is remarkable. It does tell you something: even in the cases where the government have made announcements like the Location Incentive scheme, they cannot bring themselves to talk about the people who actually work in that sector. They focus on electricians and carpenters, which are important tradespeople and they are important jobs, but would it kill the government, the Prime Minister and the minister to actually mention filmmakers, screenwriters, producers, stunt people and actors? Would it kill them to mention the people who actually work in this industry? Can these workers not be spoken about for any reason? There is only enduring antipathy from the government to those workers. The minister should know that creative industries ought to be a foundation block in the broad task of building new jobs and even new export opportunities in the future, and yet the government treat the businesses and the workers in the sector with disregard and neglect. They've run down the Australia Council. They've relentlessly cut our public broadcasters. They were elected on a promise by the Prime Minister not to cut the ABC, and they've done that at every term. They've doubled the cost of studying arts and humanities and they've comprehensively ignored the specific needs of the arts and creative industries in their pandemic response. Minister, why is the government going out of its way to make life harder for creative industry workers, Australian storytellers and songwriters, filmmakers and artists, when they've been acutely affected through the pandemic and, really, they should be a key focus of our COVID-19 recovery? 17:48 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson As someone with a longstanding interest in this portfolio, I'm really pleased to see the Morrison government's commitment to strengthening our economy, creating jobs and supporting our households and communities through the investment in Australia's communications sector that we see in this budget. The National Broadband Network is providing broadband to millions of Australian households and business, including in my electorate of Robinson, where NBN connectivity has enabled productivity gains that allow us to keep pace with the world. I want to take a moment to talk about further investment in the NBN through the rollout of business fibre zones, as well as regional telecommunications through the Regional Connectivity Program, which will see more businesses and households able to access reliable and fast broadband. Two hundred and forty business fibre zones will be set up across Australia, providing 90 per cent of businesses with access to business-grade fibre at no upfront build cost, a $70 million investment over the next three years which will involve the establishment of 85 business fibre zones in regional centres, including, importantly, two in my electorate of Robertson. Businesses in these business fibre zones will also be eligible for CBD-equivalent wholesale pricing, meaning businesses outside of major cities can access wholesale discounts of up to 67 per cent on their broadband. This will go a long way to eliminating the divide between metropolitan and regional areas in terms of broadband connectivity costs, as well as incentivising businesses to either move to or start in regional Australia, and I certainly hope we do see more businesses established on the Central Coast. This rollout will allow business to have access to the NBN's highest-quality business-grade service, with businesses provided a choice of symmetrical speeds from 10 megabits per second to close to one gigabit per second. Under this program, businesses located in suburbs like Erina, Gosford, Kincumber, Kariong, Niagara Park, West Gosford and Woy Woy will be able to request a business-grade broadband service at no upfront build cost, through their retailer. I know this rollout has been broadly welcomed by chambers of commerce and business operators operating on the Central Coast. I have spoken in the House before about many business owners, including Rod Dever, who has welcomed the policy from the Erina/Gosford & Coastal Chamber of Commerce, as one that he sees as rectifying the connectivity issues experienced by businesses in the region. There will also be an opportunity for local governments and other organisations to work with NBN Co to explore future areas to become business fibre zones, through a $50 million facilitation fund. Another initiative that I'm really pleased to see and that I know will benefit the Central Coast community is the new Regional Connectivity Program, which is aimed at improving broadband connectivity in areas outside the NBN fixed-line footprint, complementing the highly successful Mobile Black Spot Program. This $83 million program uses a bespoke place based approach to target investment in areas which are priorities of local regional communities and maximises the economic opportunities, which means that suburbs in my electorate of Robertson, from Somersby to Kulnura, from Gunderman to Mangrove Mountain, are eligible for funding under this program. I know there has been significant interest in this from local communities, industries and state governments from across Australia seeking to apply for funding and to come up with projects which will suit their community needs. I understand that the deadline for applications for this has been extended by a couple of weeks, until 17 November 2020. I would be interested in hearing more about this program from the minister and also the business fibre zones and the Regional Connectivity Program, which of course build on the support delivered by the government earlier this year to help the Australian communications, cybersecurity and the arts sectors through the COVID-19 pandemic, which includes $33 million to Screen Australia to support Australian local film and television content, $5 million in additional funding towards the Public Interest News Gathering program, around $40 million in new funding to the eSafety Commissioner and $23 million to eight arts portfolio agencies impacted by the pandemic. These vital investments in communications infrastructure across the country will improve connectivity and increase the reliability of our communications network. We know that communications infrastructure, of course, does play a critical role in regional and rural Australia, including across the Central Coast. I'm really pleased to see what the government is doing in this regard. Could the minister please further elaborate on the benefits that some of the initiatives that I've outlined will bring, particularly to regional and rural communities across Australia? 17:53 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway My question is to the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts. Last September in this place, in reference to the terrorist atrocity committed by an Australian citizen in Christchurch and warnings about the rise of right-wing extremism, online hate speech and racism in Australia, I asked the minister what steps he had taken, including in consultation with the Attorney-General and other relevant ministers, to address the issue of online racism in Australia. I asked the minister if he would ensure that Australians, including Australians of Muslim faith, are kept safe online, by amending the e-safety act or by driving the adoption of an EU-style code of conduct for countering illegal hate speech online. The minister responded by saying: … I make the point that we are committed to introducing a new online safety act … More recently, and in response to the circulation of a graphic suicide video on social media, including on TikTok and Facebook, once again the minister spruiked the forthcoming online safety act that does not yet exist. Minister, if you are so committed to introducing a new online safety act to keep Australians safe, why have you failed to introduce a new online safety act over a year later, and when is it coming? 17:54 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Let me begin with the member for Eden-Monaro, who asked questions about mobile coverage. She informed the House of her commitment to reliable coverage. The government shares that commitment, and we welcome Labor's latter-day conversion to this cause—a cause in which they showed zero interest over their six years in government. Thanks to the Mobile Black Spot Program, which the Liberal-National government delivered and which is now being very capably administered by my friend and colleague the Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government, I can advise the House that to date 34 base stations have been funded in Eden-Monaro, of which 21 have been delivered in Anglers Reach, Araluen, Avonside, Adelong, Bodalla, Central Tilba, Delegate, Mannus, Nerriga, Nethercote, Numeralla, Tomboye, Towamba, Barragga Bay, Wee Jasper, Tathra, Forbes Creek, Muzzlewood trail, Rosewood and Yass River. I make the point that each one of these mobile base stations that have been completed provides connectivity to local residents. It gives them greater assurance of safety in the case of a road accident, a natural disaster or a farm accident, and of course it allows people to stay in touch and do business. How many of these would have been delivered if the matter had been left to the Australian Labor Party? The answer is zero. So I welcome the member for Eden-Monaro's latter-day conversion to this cause. It's a cause that our government has been very serious about since 2013, and we say to all who want to get on the train with us: you are very welcome. I was also asked about SBS coverage in Bermagui. The member is right to identify that there was an issue in relation to the loss of an SBS signal in Bermagui linked to matters to do with a company called RBAH and whether SBS and ABC would make commitments to support maintenance costs. I'm pleased to say that the SBS signal is back on the air in Bermagui. That's because our government pursued the matter with SBS and ABC and indicated to them that we expect those organisations to pay their fair share towards the cost of maintenance for these transmission facilities. The member is relatively new. She appears not to have had the chance to look at the numbers in relation to ABC funding, so I remind her that in 2018-19 the ABC received $1,045 million, in 2019-20, $1,062 million, the following year, $1,065 million, and the following year, $1,070 million. So it is not right to say that ABC funding is dropping. ABC funding is increasing— Mr Josh Wilson interjecting— Mr FLETCHER L6B I hear the member for Fremantle interjecting. If you'd care to look at what happened to the CPI in 2019-20, you will find that the CPI went down, so the increase in real terms was even bigger than the increase in nominal terms. While I'm on the case for the member for Fremantle, the member for Fremantle ran a ludicrous claim that in some way the government do not understand or accept the importance of the arts as a sector of our economy. On the contrary, we have announced almost $800 million in funding for the arts in addition to $750 million in business-as-usual funding, including $400 million in the location incentive. This is already attracting substantial international productions to Australia such as Young Rock, Joe Exotic, and Irreverent—all to film in Queensland. That's a thousand jobs in Queensland, and there will be jobs around Australia. We recently announced that Liam Neeson is coming to Australia to film a production, again supported through the location incentive. Of course we have committed funding of $50 million under the Temporary Interruption Fund. The member for Newcastle, I think, incorrectly said that no money had flowed. In fact, that money has been allocated, and the consequence is that productions are already occurring. Film and television productions are already occurring. Some 20 have received commitments. Around eight are already in production. That's Australians in film and television hard at work. Again, I welcome the member's reminder to the House of the economic importance of the arts sector. Our government is very committed to that. That's why we have committed such a very substantial amount of funding to the arts sector. We will continue to support that sector, as we have throughout this COVID pandemic. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Consideration in Detail 112 18:00 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack It's a pleasure to be here today. The primary job of our government is to keep Australians safe, and the Morrison government is committed to doing just that. That's why we're building a stronger defence industry and investing in Australia's defence capability over the next decade. We are ensuring that the men and women of the Australian Defence Force have the capability they need to be able to keep Australians safe. At the same time, we're creating many, many jobs and backing Australian businesses to deliver this essential capability. Last month the Treasurer announced the Morrison government's economic road to recovery, with the most significant business incentives ever delivered by any Australian government. The benefits for small, medium and large businesses in defence industry are unprecedented. We are kickstarting the engine of the Australian economy so that we can create more jobs. The Morrison government is now investing $575 billion over the next decade in the Defence portfolio. This is an historic and ambitious plan that we have chosen to embark on, even in the face of the challenges caused by COVID-19. Our defence budget for the next decade is about supporting the strengthening of our Defence Force and our defence industry, and as our strategic environment changes we need to adapt. Out of the $575 billion spend, we will be investing $270 billion in our defence capability. This investment allows us to deliver the capabilities our men and women in uniform deserve. In our defence budget over the next decade we'll be investing $7 billion in space capabilities. This will allow us to invest in upgrades and support to existing and future satellite communication systems that will be under sovereign Australian control. This will transform the way that the ADF operates in space across the joint force. We will also be investing $15 billion in information and cybercapability. This will enhance our defensive and offensive cybercapabilities. This will ensure that we have the ability to develop these capabilities on operations so that defence can deter and respond to cyberthreats. To encourage and support Aussie ingenuity we will also invest just under $1 billion on the Defence Innovation Hub and more than $1 billion on the Next Generation Technologies Fund. We need this investment in emerging technologies so that we can ensure defence will have the capability it needs to address its future threats. We will continue to invest in our Naval Shipbuilding Plan. We are building our future ships right here in Australia, creating 15,000 Australian jobs right across the country. The investment is here, the opportunities are here and we are transforming the way that we do business with industry. We are on the right track and we are delivering the budget certainty that defence and industry need for the future. To keep the wheels of defence industry turning, since 23 March 2020 Defence has paid almost 300,000 invoices, valued at $22 million. Of this, more than $16 billion has been paid early. We know that these early payments are flowing through to Australian small businesses. As a response to the global pandemic, we're rolling out $1 billion in defence recovery initiatives to keep the defence industry strong on the road ahead. In addition to this, we're releasing $870 million of estate works to the market to bolster defence industry recovery. We're doing this to back those local tradies and local suppliers to do the work on our defence forces. As I'm sure you will appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker Gillespie, this is particularly important in the regions. We are placing small business front and centre of defence decision-making. The important work of our Defence Force can only succeed with the help of the thousands of Australians and Australian businesses in our defence industry. Why? Because we know small business is the backbone of our economy. By backing small business, we are investing in local jobs, jobs that are crucial in keeping the wheels of industry turning. There are some 15,000 businesses and almost 70,000 Australians employed in our defence industry, and this number is growing. We are very proud of the Morrison government's investment of $270 billion in our defence capability. 18:05 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio My questions concern this government's addiction to playing politics with Australia's defence and national security. There's an awful lot of talk about future capability, but there's very little delivery of present reality. For some time now it has been Labor's view that Australia is confronting the most difficult set of strategic circumstances since the Second World War, and it would appear that the government agrees with this. The 2020 Defence strategic update makes clear that Australia faces an increasingly uncertain strategic environment, and yet, when one examines what the government is actually doing in terms of responding to these challenges, when one looks at the capability acquisitions that turn important words into hard reality, what one sees is seven years of politically motivated decisions and mismanagement by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. Nowhere is this more obvious than in respect of our future submarines. As the defence minister rightly said, 'Our submarine capability underpins Australia's credibility and influence as a modern military power.' That observation is exactly right, and yet on every metric the government has mismanaged this acquisition. Take the time frame: the Abbott government said the future submarines were needed by the mid-2020s, and now the first one won't be operational until 2035, a decade later than was originally promised. Such is the government's laserlike focus on this project, the defence minister herself was a decade out in naming the date on which the last of the 12 future submarines would come into operation, and in the interim the government has still not made a decision about the location of full-cycle docking and the life-of-type-extension work on the Collins class submarine, work that is essential to avoiding a capability gap. This is despite the minister promising that an announcement would be made by the end of 2019, and now the minister won't even commit to that decision being made before the next election. When we look at local content, we again see more broken promises. Prior to the 2016 federal election, the government loudly proclaimed that there would be a 90 per cent Australian build in relation to the submarines. After the election, they couldn't retreat from that claim fast enough, saying that there would instead be a 60 per cent local build, and, when it came to putting their money where their mouth is, they failed to include any minimum content requirement in the strategic partnership agreement in respect of the future submarines. Now they want credit for a commitment that 60 per cent of the value of Naval Group's contract will be spent locally. This is a commitment that counts language training, conferences and hotels as local content, a commitment they announced over eight months ago and are yet to successfully negotiate into the strategic partnership agreement. When it comes to the question of cost, for years this government has said that this is a $50 billion project. It was not until late last year that this sleight of hand was fully exposed, and what we learnt in recent weeks was that the government chose to hide a $30 billion increase for three years because it was an inconvenient truth—a wicked attempt to hide from the public and the parliament the inconvenient fact of a cost increase that has climbed by nearly $40 billion to a total acquisition cost of nearly $90 billion, an 80 per cent increase over the original amount. They've done the same thing with the future frigates, hiding a $10 billion blowout for two years while issuing press releases with costs they knew were wrong. That's the regard this lot have for taxpayers' money and the truth: $30 billion here, $10 billion there and no truth anywhere. And because of this government's mismanagement and failure to be upfront, there is now a crisis of confidence in the Future Submarine project—a direct result of seven years of putting their political interests ahead of the national interest. We now have a wicked problem, which is that the first of the future submarines is 15 years away, the last is 34 years away, and yet this is the single most important acquisition in respect of shaping our strategic circumstances going forward. When you look at each of the metrics—when you look at time, when you look at Australian industry content and when you look at cost—this project is going in the wrong direction in every respect. What this country needs is for this government to stand up and actually explain to the Australian people how this critical capability is going to be put on target, and how this is going to occur. But what we hear from this mob is absolutely nothing. They are making our country less safe. 18:10 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin I'm pleased to have the opportunity to raise some issues with the Minister for Defence Industry with regard to the Australian government's commitment to and investment in the defence industry. I particularly note that I'm asking this question on the eve of Remembrance Day, and I take this opportunity to pay my respects and give thanks to all defence personnel, past and present, for their service and contribution to our country. As the minister knows, my electorate is home to the SAS at the Campbell Barracks in Swanbourne, and many of their families live in the nearby Seaward Village area and play a vital role in our local community. The Irwin Barracks in Karrakatta, home of the 13th Brigade Army Reserves formation of the Australian Army, is also a part of my electorate. And I note, just for a little bit of history, that the Royal Agricultural Society's showgrounds in Claremont were the proving ground and training base for the 10th Australian Light Horse Regiment, which served in the Great War, from Gallipoli to Damascus, from 1915 to 1919. Of course, WA is also home to many other facilities for the Defence Force, with Army, RAAF and Navy facilities, and today WA is home to close to 7,800 defence personnel, including permanent ADF and Reserve members and Australian Public Service employees. This number is forecast to grow over the coming years. Our state of WA plays a vital role in ensuring that this government can fulfil its primary job of keeping Australians safe. But, to do that, we also need to make sure that the men and women of the Australian Defence Force have the capabilities they need to keep Australians safe. This includes comprehensive skills and training, efficient and modern equipment, and advanced technology, which encompasses intelligence and space capability. To that end, I just want to spend a little moment highlighting a company in my electorate, a company called Chironix. This company, which was founded by Daniel Milford, is at the forefront of rapid deployment and management of autonomous robots and digital wearables. This company is playing an important role in the defence and resources sector by optimising and integrating new software into existing technologies, allowing them to work more effectively. An example of the work they are doing is a project called Project Simpson, which is being done with the US Office of Naval Research, and it's to develop and demonstrate a technology that will significantly improve outcomes for casualties in the field. Project Simpson is named in honour of the Anzac stretcher-bearer Jack Simpson, and will integrate three cutting-edge technologies that will allow a single medic to provide a casualty with lifesaving treatment, monitor key vital signs hands-free, and evacuate the casualty to a field hospital. An all-terrain ground vehicle will be programmed to autonomously navigate the patient to safety—the modern-day Simpson's donkey. This will be integrated with a vital signs monitor that will display key information to the attending through a Glass for Enterprise heads-up display unit, while emergency treatment will be delivered through an automated critical care system. Now, I know that Chironix is not the only company or enterprise in WA that is working in the defence sector, but, to me, the forward thinking and innovation shown by Daniel and the team at Chironix highlight what we are capable of here in Australia. We have the brains, we have the talent, but we need to support and encourage it. Minister, I'm aware that the policies for investment in the 2020 Defence Strategic Update and 2020 Force Structure Plan will make the ADF more capable for a wide range of scenarios Australia will face in the future. I'm also aware that the Australian government is committed to building a stronger defence industry, and investing $270 billion in Australia's defence capability over the next decade. But I want to know how we are going to support our local brains, our local talent and our local people—our non-defence people—to be involved in this and benefit from this. So my question to the minister is: can you please outline how the Morrison government's unprecedented investment in the defence industry is driving innovation and creating Australian jobs, including and especially in my home state of Western Australia? 18:15 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland Since the coalition came to office we've had 24 different ministers across the defence portfolio. This record of ministerial instability is having real impacts on Australia's national security. It is a record of a lack of leadership and broken promises when it comes to the delivery of major defence projects. What is the result of this incompetence? On the latest data, there are 31 major defence projects running a total of 83 years late. Let me repeat that: 31 major defence projects running a total of 83 years late. These are new weapons, vehicles, aircraft, ships and equipment that the Australian Defence Force personnel need to do their jobs. For example, the $3.8 billion MRH-90 helicopters are running more than seven years late in achieving final operational capability. And last month we learnt that the MRH-90s can't fire their weapons at the same time as troops are roping in or out of the cabins, which is a serious problem in a helicopter which is supposed to be used by Special Forces—all because the Howard government botched this project at the outset and because the current defence minister failed to get back on track. And it's not just the MRH-90s. The $1.4 billion project to acquire 10 new battlefield airlift aircraft is running three years late. It has been revealed that these battlefield airlifters would not be able to fly into battlefields. Just think about that: this government is spending $1.5 billion on battlefield airlift aircraft that can't even fly into battlefields. The $5.4 billion project to acquire 12 P-8 Poseidon Maritime Patrol aircraft is running two years late—which has implications for defence and border protection operations—and the $1.1 billion upgrade to the Jindalee Operational Radar Network is running 18 months late. This is a key early-warning capability for the ADF. The first responsibility of any Australian government is to protect the security of our people. That requires a well equipped Defence Force with the resources it needs to defend Australia and advance our national interests. From the opposition's point of view, there will be a bipartisan approach to the fundamentals of defence policy, but we will always hold the government to account for its performance and accountable for the mismanagement of defence projects, which make it is harder for Australian soldiers, sailors and air crews to do their jobs. The latest budget papers show not only mismanagement but also broken promises by this government when it comes to investing in defence equipment. Defence's PBS shows that the Morrison government spent nearly $6.7 billion less than it promised on new defence equipment since 2016. Let me repeat that: a $6.7 billion cut. And $5.7 billion of the $6.7 billion shortfall is in major capital investments, such as the JSF, the future frigates and offshore patrol vessels. These are key projects that are missing out on funding that was promised by the Morrison government in the 2016 defence paper. The government likes to boast about its defence investments but the reality falls way short of the rhetoric: 31 projects running a total of 83 years late; and investment in defence projects $6.7 billion less than promised; and consistent underperformance on sustainment, where Navy availability is 14 per cent lower, RAAF availability is 21 per cent lower, and helicopter availability at 26 per cent lower in terms of hours. This is all typical of a Prime Minister who cares more about marketing than delivery and who is always there for the photo op but never there for the follow-up. But they are nowhere to be seen when it comes to spending what they promised in delivering defence projects on time and in line with the capabilities needed by Australian Defence Force personnel. So my question to the minister is: why has this government underspent its promised defence capital budget by $6.7 billion since 2016-17? What Defence projects have been, delayed, scaled back or cancelled due to these broken promises? To the Minister for Defence Industry specifically: at this consideration in detail last year she said that her job was to deliver projects on budget, on spec and on time. So given this appalling performance, will the minister resign? Or will she just let the Prime Minister sack her in the reshuffle later this year? Will she just let the Prime Minister do the work when he reshuffles in a month's time? Will the Prime Minister do the job for her, or will she have the honour to honour her commitment from last year, when she said her job was to deliver projects on spec, on time and on budget? She has clearly failed. She should resign. Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 Members are reminded to show a bit of decorum. An honourable member interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 Both sides have to speak. It goes both ways. 18:20 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I'm happy to add to update the House on the vital contribution defence is making to the stability and security of the Indo-Pacific region and congratulate the work of my colleague the Minister for Defence Industry on the capability work that she is doing to ensure we have that capability ready to defend our region. She is doing a fantastic job. We announced our Pacific Step-up in 2018. It has been regarded by the world as one of the most important step-ups in Australian history. It's at the epicentre of an increasingly complex and contested geostrategic environment. Two years later we face a post-COVID world that is poorer, more perilous and more contested than we could have foreseen two years ago. Our region has been hit hard by the economic impacts. I can attest to that form the conversations I've had in our region.. The geostrategic circumstances in our region are getting more challenging. not less. That's why we're investing in a capable and potent defence force. A strong, capable, properly funded defence force is critical to Australia's security and prosperity. The Morrison Government, members opposite will be pleased to know, has delivered on our commitment to grow the defence budget to two per cent of GDP. It needed to be restored from record lows under the previous governments. The figures—if the member for Shortland wanted to hear them, but he has stepped out—are that this government is investing $575 billion in defence over 10 years, a record spend for an Australian government, $270 billion of which is capability acquisition. That is $270 billion in capability. The 2020 Defence Strategic Update builds on the Pacific Step-up, of course—it has been a great success and has been received well in the sector—by focusing defence on our immediate region. The priorities of Australia are our immediate region. The Pacific Step-up and the strategic update put us in a stronger position to support our Pacific neighbours and our South-East Asian partners throughout the pandemic. The Morrison Government is delivering support that is COVID-safe and recovery focused. I am pleased to say that our personnel are working side by side with their counterparts throughout the Pacific Islands and in the region. During the height of the pandemic, when many were leaving the Pacific, I've made the point that Australia made the important decision to remain and assist and help out our Pacific family. It has been well received. The transformation of Fiji's Blackrock facilities is a great example of how we are getting on with the job in a COVID-safe way during the pandemic. We're also working in Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu on regional projects that are defence based. These projects are expected to create around 350 jobs in PNG, 555 in Fiji and 178 jobs in Vanuatu, with more to come. Never have these jobs been more needed than at this time. We're investing an additional $124 million for security infrastructure, including for border and patrol boat outposts for the Solomon Islands. I've seen the economic and security benefits that our defence engagement has made for island communities in the Pacific. It is essential to security for our region. A centrepiece of Australia's defence engagement in the South Pacific is of course the Pacific Maritime Security Program, a program which the Minister for Defence Industry is very familiar with. Under this $2 billion program, Australia is replacing our existing Guardian class patrol boats with the 21 Pacific patrol boats—new, larger, capable vessels supported by integrated aerial surveillance. Over the last two months we have worked with our partners and friends in COVID-free countries Palau and Tonga to hand over the new Guardian class patrol boats in Perth on 18 September and 30 October. I'm grateful to the member for Durack, who was able to assist with the handovers during the internal restrictions. We've safely brought their crews to Australia; we've taken them through the intensive training that they required; and we've been able to ensure that those crews have returned in country and those boats have continued to operate, fighting the good fight against illegal fishing, securing territorial waters and making sure that we have a secure and safe region. The Guardian class patrol boats are a great success story for Australia's growing defence industry, supporting about 400 direct and indirect Australian jobs. The Morrison government understands we will need to bring together all our efforts to support the Pacific and help them recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and that is what I am doing. Sitting across multiple portfolios, bringing defence international development into a cohesive strategic initiative has of course—it's something I will speak about tomorrow in more detail. Our partnerships for recovery and our country specific plans, tied in with our defence cooperation programs and other defence programs, have made a big difference at this critical time. Our efforts have been well received by our Pacific family. It's in our national interests to keep investing and building security and stability in our region. I endorse this appropriation. 18:25 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt This government is AWOL on developing and supporting Australian industry capability through its major defence projects. They've completely torpedoed our Australian industry overall. This government has failed to implement, or indeed articulate, strong, measurable, enforceable Australian industry capability requirements in its major defence project contracts. The more the Australian government supports our defence industry the better that industry can grow its export markets, its support for our Defence Force, and the better off our Defence Force is. So far there has been a lack of enforceability of any contractual requirements imposed on prime defence contractors and suppliers to ensure that they meet their Australian industry capability planned commitments, nor has there been any real effort to ensure that this work actually contributes to the development of our sovereign defence industry capability. It's up to the federal government to implement contractual requirements that compel defence primes to do the work here in Australia, to work with our local companies, to do it now, to build our smaller businesses in defence into being medium-sized businesses, to help support those medium-sized businesses to become Australian primes. The lack of such requirements is significantly impacting on our local industry. I just came from a video conference with local industry this afternoon about these very issues. All of this is at a time when local jobs are desperately needed. We are denying our nation capability development that we dearly need. It's not good enough to see these contracts continually sent offshore to offshore suppliers already engaged by primes, without local consideration of local companies, or where it's just a fig leaf—companies are spoken to, but never given the actual contracts. When this government does bow to pressure though, to say that it will implement specific requirements, we find that it starts counting French language classes, security guards, travel agents as part of its Australian industry capability requirement. That's not a capability. What happened to spending that money on locally produced batteries, on making sure that the switchboards are being made here in Australia? No, we're not seeing that from this government. We need a plan from this government, not just another press release. Strategically it makes sense for defence build, sustainment, maintenance and repair work to be occurring here in Australia for our Defence Force, and to do that as much as possible, as well as to support our friends and allies here in Australia that're operating in our region. But this government is still on light duties. They're claiming that they're working on it, that they're getting the job done. This mob have been in government for seven years. We have the skills here in Australia. We have a willing labour force. We've got the facilities to create an Australian defence industry and develop greater sovereign capability, but this subpar government is failing to deliver. They are about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. They're happy with a headline but it's without any delivery. Australian businesses must be factored in to defence projects' supply chains from the very beginning—in the design phase. The longer we let this go on the more at risk Australian businesses, jobs and skills become, which are all fundamental to supporting our Defence Force and our national interest. Why won't this government follow Labor's lead and implement measurable, enforceable, audited and transparent Australian industry capability requirements in all of its major defence project contracts? 18:29 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay The minister will be really pleased to know that, because of her hard work in defence industry, in the heart of an industrial area in Penrith there is a manufacturer building some of the most advanced electrical components of the Army's Boxer reconnaissance vehicles. The tactical edge servers being produced by GPC Electronics in Jamisontown are a key part of the battle space communications systems that keep our Defence Force safe when they're in the field. Australian-made, and particularly Australian-made in Lindsay, means high quality, ensuring our Defence Force has the best capability. It also means creating local jobs. The LAND 400 Phase 2 project of these vehicles is creating 1,400 jobs across Australia. For GPC Electronics, this contract has opened the door for new possibilities in our national defence industry and they're looking forward to expanding their contribution using their high-quality products and capability in advanced electronics. Robert and the team at GPC told me how getting their start with the Boxer vehicles is a critical step to becoming a key part of the defence industry. By investing in Australian manufacturers, we are creating more local jobs. We are building our sovereign capability and making sure our Defence Force has the high-quality capability that it needs to secure our future. Over the next decade, the Morrison government will invest $270 billion in Australia's capability to build a strong, resilient and sustainable defence industry. Our Defence Export Strategy means our local businesses will be at the forefront to access and explore global opportunities. Australia's reputation for high-quality products is world renowned. In western Sydney, we have a unique opportunity to explore new global markets. Our unprecedented investment in western Sydney is supporting emerging industries in advanced manufacturing, defence and space to showcase their quality to the world. Western Sydney International Airport and the Aerotropolis precinct will open the door for businesses in our community to scale up, take advantage of global opportunities and, most importantly, create local jobs. The airport will be the link for local defence manufacturers to expand their horizons, and the Morrison government's support will help them unlock their potential and take hold of these wonderful emerging opportunities. Right down the road, on Northern Road, our very own Orchard Hills defence base was awarded $95 million for enhancing the Navy's guided weapons system and delivering new jobs. This project directly supports the work of the Australian Defence Force across our country. Under their Local Industry Capability Plan, the contractor has a local participation target of 95 per cent. That means 95 per cent to local industry within 50 kays. Out of the total of 54 subcontract packages, one has already been let, and that means 34 per cent of the total contract value is already out there. We're delivering programs that will provide $1.3 billion of support for Australian small businesses by helping them develop, integrate and commercialise new capabilities. Just like supporting our Orchard Hills defence base, we're also backing local businesses so they're at the cutting-edge of innovation and industry to create, as I said, the jobs of the future. The Next Generation Technologies Fund also supports connection and engagement across international science and technology networks, such as the United States Office of Naval Research. Western Sydney University, in my electorate of Lindsay, have been awarded a Global-X grant from the US Office of Naval Research to develop world-first technology, event-based sensing in the underwater environment. This technology will be deployed to the International Space Station in November next year, so the potential of western Sydney truly is out of this world! By pursuing its application in defence, the technology being developed at Western Sydney University's own Penrith campus—Penrith again the centre of manufacturing in our defence industry—will provide Australia's military and its allies with the capability edge that they need across the Indo-Pacific. Our strategy puts western Sydney at the centre of our national defence industry. We're delivering the support for local jobs to allow our businesses to do what they do best. We want them to be deeply involved in all aspects—design, construction, management and sustainment activities—so we have mandated that tenders must demonstrate how they will maximise Australian industry capability over the life of a product. The Morrison government will continue to deliver the support our local businesses, our advanced manufacturers and our defence manufacturers need to bring all this together, strengthen our sovereign capability, drive our economic recovery and create more local jobs. Can the minister please outline how this investment in defence is opening opportunities for these industries and for local jobs? 18:34 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Earlier in the discussion on this debate today, the Assistant Minister for Defence indicated that he was somehow concerned about Labor's positioning around the financing of these defence projects. I think it's very important that the government understands the nature of these concerns properly. It's very important that he understands the nature of these concerns properly. When the government fails to deliver on the projects that it says it's committed to, it's our Defence Force that misses out on capability when it needs it. As we heard in Senate estimates only a few weeks ago, the multi-role helicopter that the Liberal government is supposed to have delivered doesn't do any of the things that it's supposed to do. We've got a helicopter that's supposed to be able to provide cover fire for troops entering or leaving the helicopter, but it can't do that at the same time that they're entering or leaving the helicopter. The thing is, even though this government has tried to get that right three times, has tried to get the cargo hook to work and has tried to get the winch to work, the New Zealand version of exactly the same helicopter has all of these things working. This is literally a failure of the government when there's a worked example of how these projects could already be working. But it comes back to the way this government approaches the role that it does. When we were in consideration in detail in the last budget I asked the Minister for Defence Industry, 'Where is the online update to the IIP?' The IIP says that there are supposed to be online available updates on the progress and changes to the IIP so that industry is aware of where government is going with changes to projects and changes in time frames so that they can be ready to supply government and defence, be able to tool up and be able to get the contracts that we all agree we want to see more Australian businesses getting. The minister said at the time, 'Oh, it is there.' That was her response. But it's not there. It's not online. In fact, the government has specifically said that, despite the fact that it committed to that in 2016, it now wouldn't be doing it at all. In my engagements with industry, on a regular basis they complain: there's a lack of engagement by defence about what's coming up in terms of projects. There's a lack of engagement by defence in terms of what capability local industry can supply to our defence forces in Australia. There is a lack of engagement because defence has effectively outsourced most of its work when it comes to capability acquisition and sustainment. It's pretty evident now that there's no capability in the capability branch of our Defence Force. There are now more contractors working for defence than there are people working for defence. Contractors in defence are the second-biggest force in the Australian Defence Force. It is ridiculous what has happened under this government. They've outsourced all responsibility. The net effect is that not only are we now wasting all of this money outsourcing the responsibility of the Defence Force and making sure we get good capability, that we sustain that capability and that we maximise the involvement of Australian industry in doing it; we are not providing the benefit that we should be seeing. We're not realising that. But we're seeing delays, we're seeing cost blowouts and we're seeing capability reduced in order to meet the budget outcomes that the government has set, because it would otherwise have huge cost blowouts on delivering its capability. This is a failure of government. The government is failing to deliver on all of the projects that the member for Shortland outlined before. We have a defence minister who can't actually state within a decade when our future submarines will be fully available to our nation. That is a critical capability for the future defence of our nation. It is highly problematic and concerning if the minister doesn't know when they're going to be capable and ready. She committed to a 60 per cent spend after the government had originally said it would be a 90 per cent Australian spend. It came down to a 60 per cent spend, then it turns out that the 60 per cent spend wasn't even the Australian government's idea; it was the French defence minister's idea to put the 60 per cent in. I'm sure they were very happy with it, because it turns out you can include Australian security guards, French language classes and travel agents being engaged by Naval so that they can fly backwards and forwards to France as part of this project. That's not developing capability. Ms Price 249308 Yes, it is. Mr KEOGH 249147 Travel agents are not a capability, Minister, for our Defence Force! For you to claim that travel agents, security agents and French language lessons are part of our defence capability shows the sham that you and your administration are when it comes to defence and supporting our Defence Force. 18:39 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack First of all, I thank my colleagues the member for Curtin and the member for Lindsay for their questions and their strong passion for the Australian defence industry. I also thank Minister Hawke, who is no longer with us, for his contribution. There is no question that the Morrison government will continue to deliver on our unprecedented $270 billion investment in our defence capabilities. I'm not sure I'll be dealing with any questions from those opposite, because they couldn't even find enough content and enough material to actually fill the time. So I don't know that I'll be giving that much respect. Our spend is creating jobs and opportunities for businesses right across Australia, in the cities and in the regions. Out of our 2024 structure plan, $3 billion has been committed to defence innovation, science and technology, including more than $1 billion in the Next Generation Technologies Fund and $800 million which is committed to the Defence Innovation Hub. In addition to this, as part of the $1 billion COVID-19 Economic Recovery Plan, our government has provided a $32 million boost to the Defence Innovation Hub over the next two years. This will provide greater support to Australian businesses who are developing state-of-the-art technologies for our ADF, as we heard from the member for Curtin. The benefits of our government's investment in the defence industry, to contribute to defence innovation, are already visible, with the Defence Innovation Hub recording a record number of contracts in 2019-20, a 30 per cent increase on the previous year, with contracts valued at $105 million, with 83 per cent of those contracts awarded to small and medium-sized businesses, resulting in upwards of 600 new jobs. In my home state of Western Australia, our government has invested close to $8 million in Defence Innovation Hub contracts with Western Australian businesses, including L3 Oceania, from Fremantle, who are developing an underwater acoustic sensor that could provide significant benefits to Navy, and Techventure Investments, from the seat of Pearce, who are developing a new type of ammunition for weapons carried by members of the Australian Defence Force. In addition to this, Defence has also invested upwards of $4 million, through the Next Generation Technologies Fund, in science and technology research activities in Western Australian universities and research networks, including Curtin University, UWA and Edith Cowan University. In New South Wales our government continues to open new and exciting opportunities for the local tradies, with our commitment to invest over $10 billion over the coming decade into the redevelopment of defence facilities, including the redevelopment of the Garden Island Defence Precinct, the modernisation of the Headquarters Joint Operations Command at Bungendore, and the redevelopment and upgrade of some of our key bases, including HMAS Waterhen, HMAS Watson, HMAS Penguin and Holsworthy Barracks, amongst others. In the regions, which I know are important to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as they are to me—and I know they are very important to the member for Paterson as well—we will back those regional jobs with redevelopment of the regional sites. I should also include the member for Barker. He's pretty keen on regional jobs as well. Those regional sites that we'll be developing include HMAS Albatross, HMAS Creswell, Blamey Barracks Kapooka, Singleton barracks, RAAF Base Williamtown, which I know is of great importance and is in the heart of the member for Paterson's electorate, and Twofold Bay at Eden. Also, through our government's Local Industry Capability Plan initiative, we will ensure local suppliers, local contractors and tradies, have the opportunity to secure more of this work, creating more jobs for local communities in New South Wales. It is particularly important to recognise, during COVID, that the small tradies have had opportunities that they never got before. The big end of town, the big contractors, had no choice but to give the smaller tradie who lives around the corner, or the baker who lives up the road, an opportunity, and this has been an incredible boost for many, many parts of regional Australia. I will just comment briefly on the contribution by those opposite. It occurs to me, and, I think, to everybody here, that there is this inconvenient truth for Labor—that the Morrison government has got this commitment of $270 billion in our defence capability, and we are delivering. Regardless of the rubbish that has come out of their mouths today, our government is delivering, and I'm very proud to be the defence industry minister who is delivering on that. I will finish on: we have a significant order book. Those opposite—what was the expression, member for Barker? Mr Pasin 240756 Didn't give a shit. Ms PRICE 249308 'Didn't give a shit'. Thank you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 That's a bit unparliamentary, but anyhow. The Federation Chamber will now consider the Veterans' Affairs and defence personnel segments of the Defence portfolio, in accordance with agreed order of consideration. I give the call to the member for Blair. 18:45 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Labor acknowledge, Minister, that there are some positive initiatives in the budget, and I said that in my response to your statement in parliament, and we welcome the expansion with open arms. We recognise the fact that much of what you have done in terms of the expansion in relation to mental health issues came about after I wrote you a letter in relation to this issue, asking for—as the RSLs have asked for—additional assistance in relation to the coronavirus issues and the consequences of that that have been experienced. One of the things about the budget that I'm disappointed with is that the government has failed to increase the DVA fees for allied health workers—physiotherapists, occupational therapists and the like. I understood that there had been assurances given to ESOs and to individuals. We on this side of the chamber even heard from some of your colleagues in relation to that, but it wasn't in the budget. One of the things that I found very disappointing, Minister, was the fact that those particular aspects of the physical health of veterans were left off. Occupational therapists and physiotherapists are very important. One of the other issues that we found disturbing in relation to the department was the evidence given in Senate estimates just last week that 80 per cent of claims are taking four to five weeks to allocate and that, alarmingly, it is taking up to 300 days to allocate some initial liability claims. Minister, you boast about the fact that there is an increase in clients at DVA. We applaud the fact that there is greater contact with veterans who may be in major cities or regional towns et cetera, but surely, in view of the fact that there was a program where you were undertaking to increase client contact, you would have expected the department to have been prepared for this. But it looks like the government hasn't done that at all, Minister. Why is that? In Senate estimates, the DVA revealed that 42 per cent of your workforce has been outsourced through labour hire companies as a result of the government's arbitrary cap on the number of public servants. Minister, would you agree that what you are doing is effectively privatising, outsourcing and labour hiring? Some of the multinational companies that were referred to by your officials in Senate estimates are some of the biggest labour hire companies in the world. The government seems to be losing corporate knowledge and historical context, in terms of the capacity of public servants who are at the coalface of frontline services, and getting in people who may or may not have any experience in delivering frontline services. Minister, are you asking the government to lift the arbitrary cap, and are you going to stop privatising and outsourcing and labour hiring in the department? This is an ongoing problem. We've asked this question again and again during Senate estimates, and each Senate estimates we get the same response from the departmental officials. It's invariably the case that the department is above 40 per cent in terms of labour hire 'employees' in the department. This is a significant problem. The feedback that Labor has been getting from the veterans community, the ESOs and individual veterans is that this is a problem in your department, and you're not fixing it. This problem has been alluded to in reports. The Productivity Commission report that was released by your government on 2 July 2019 talked about the fact that the whole system was difficult to navigate, out of date and convoluted. It's not going to get any better while you have labour hiring and outsourcing and you don't have experienced, committed full-time public servants at the frontline of service delivery. Minister, I ask that you do something about this. What is your response in relation to that? Do you have any plans to lift the arbitrary cap? What are you going to do about this? Are you going to take up the recommendations of the Productivity Commission report? I will deal with that issue, Minister, in the time remaining. That report came out on 2 July 2019. You've responded to 25 of the 69 recommendations. Why is it taking you so long to respond? And when are you going to respond positively in relation to it? Why did it take you so long, despite the fact that I asked you questions in question time and we've asked you questions repeatedly in relation to this issue, to rule out changes to the gold card? That created so much uncertainty in the veterans community, so much anxiety and so much confusion. Minister, why couldn't you rule that out straightaway? When are you going to respond to the Productivity Commission report in a timely and fulsome way to give certainty to the veteran community? 18:50 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon I rise today to ask the minister for veterans affairs one question. It's very personal to me and my family, not only my personal family, but my military family. I served for 20 years in the Australian regular Army, culminating in my position as a sergeant major of the Defence Force School of Signals electronic warfare school in Cabarlah. I've taken those soldiers off the bus as civilians and I've trained them to be soldiers at Kapooka, at the Royal Military College and at a number of training institutions throughout the Australian Army. So I know soldiering. I also understand the toll that soldiering has on our Defence personnel. I understand the commitment that our soldiers, our sailors and our airmen have to the defence of our nation and its interests. I salute that today on the eve of the 11th day of the 11th month. But to bring this back: after 20 years of service, I can remember my last day in the military, where I stood on a parade ground in front of 300 soldiers that I respected. I knew them like my own family. I knew their families, I knew their aspirations, I knew their dreams. To leave that family that was the Army after 20 years service is an incredible transformation. That's what I want to cover today, Minister. It is that important issue that we have for our Defence personnel in transitioning from the big family that we have as the military, transitioning into their new life. We need to stand by them as they transition through that process to a new life. We need to give them a new purpose, a new family, a new way of life, connect them to the civilian world. We need to articulate the skills and knowledge that they have built up, that we've inculcated in them in that 20 years of service. We need to inculcate that into the civilian job. We need to articulate that into the civilian job so that they can best make that transition and find their way, find their purpose and have a new life. Minister, I also welcome your assistance and I want to recognise that today, particularly in the great state of Tasmania after I went and saw you early in my tenure here when I was concerned about no-one listening to our veterans in Tasmania. Often government provides a fix, if you like, to try and help our veterans. Often we tell them what they want, rather than asking them what they need. So I welcome the community consultative process that you've been able to fund, Minister, in Tasmania, which is going to be conducted by the University of Tasmania, and I look forward to the recommendations that will come from that and will ultimately help our veterans transition. I think also that our businesses will play an important part in the way our veterans transcend their move from Defence into civilian life. I would also like feedback from you about how we best integrate our businesses into employing our veterans. I want to make the statement very clearly today that employing a veteran is incredibly good for your business. The loyalty, the honesty, the mission focus, planning process, personnel management, prioritisation of tasks—if a veteran sees a problem in front of him or her, they immediately identify the fault, identify the pathway, get around the problem and continue the mission. It's that same mission focus that can be advantageous once we start moving into the civilian world. So I would like to hear more on that. Finally, my main question is on transition and the Joint Transition Authority that the government has funded with $17.7 million to help our veterans transition from the big military life into civilians. I'd like to know how this is going to play out and exactly what this means to our veterans on the ground. Ultimately, are we going to stand by them as they make this transition? Are we going to support them into their new way of life? I think this is important. Once they make that transition successfully, I think we will see a decline in the amount of injuries and claims under the Veterans' Entitlement Act. Minister, if you wouldn't mind answering those questions, on behalf of the veteran community, I would greatly appreciate it. Ms SWANSON 264170 I'm here this evening to question and challenge the Minister for Defence Personnel in relation to the government's commitment to the Australian people. The 2016 Defence white paper stated that in the 10 years to 2026 it would recruit and train Australia's future force. That was indeed an admirable goal. That future force is meant to complement the unprecedented investment in defence capability of $270 billion to 2025-26. There is no disputing that, with Australia's vast coastline to be patrolled and protected and with the increased pressure on our reservists to assist civilian emergency agencies, we need to increase the number of Defence Force personnel. We have absolutely no argument with that. But my overriding question to the minister is: how is that 10-year goal going? We do have concerns. Despite the government's insisting that its recruit targets are being met and will be met by 2026, the percentage of government spending on personnel, according to the updated figures in the 2020 Force structure plan, will fall from 37 per cent of its overall budget to 26 per cent. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute questions how sustainable this will be long term, given the size and quantity of new platforms in production and the anticipated expansion of the workforce in order to operate and maintain the new capability. I would actually like to add to what ASPI has said there. It's not only the size and quantity of new platforms but the complexity of these platforms. I've just come from a briefing on the Land 400. These are environments and systems that we're finding in capabilities now. It's well beyond someone being trained to do something. It is operating within this completely new and complex ecosystem that we need to have people trained up to do—and very quickly, I might add. How does Defence plan to increase its workforce yet reduce its spend on personnel, Minister? While ASPI's research indicates Defence is averaging 90 per cent of its recruitment targets and separation rates are stable at around 9.3 per cent, Defence's own annual report reveals that defence personnel numbers have remained static over the four years since the publication of the 2016 white paper, and herein lies the rub. We're almost halfway there—time flies by—but we're not almost halfway there in terms of those recruitment numbers, and it is a real concern. We're putting the money in, and that's a good thing, but without the well-trained people on the ground to utilise this newfound capability, our defences will not be as strong as they should be. The ASPI report also points out that defence will require more boots on the ground not only to operate newly purchased equipment but to carry out the critical maintenance. This is one of the questions that we were talking about earlier. This is about sustainment and maintenance over the life of these assets. Given this government's propensity for making big announcements, with paltry attention paid to the critical detail, one must really question the capability of the government to deliver, especially given the sheer scope of this announced spending. It is a lot of money. In comparison to its failed implementation in other areas, such as housing grants and disaster relief, to name but two, the percentage of full-time personnel as a percentage of Australia's population has declined over time, and this trend is set to continue. This is a real worry. How do we attract the best and brightest to our military? We've got to get these people in, and the government is failing on this. You can have all the money in the world for the Gucci kit but, if you've got no-one to use it, you're all at sea with, literally, not a canoe to paddle—or maybe the HMAS Perth laid up at Henderson with too few sailors to be able to get the thing in the water and operational. This is actually an issue. The guys in the back row are laughing about this, but it's a serious problem. We need the sailors to get the ship in the water. I find it difficult to reconcile this result when Australia has such a proud tradition in respect of our current and former service men and women. The Anzac tradition has experienced a revitalisation in recent years, and more Australians recognise the sacrifices made. But the problem is that more Australians aren't being attracted to serve. And what's this government doing about it? You can have all the Gucci kit, but you've got to have people to run it. This doesn't appear to be the case. My question to the minister is: what is your plan to get more boots on the ground and more people in the Defence Force? 19:00 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert I'm thankful for the opportunity take part in this consideration in detail this evening on a portfolio that is extremely close to my heart. I'd like to start by acknowledging the member for Braddon, as well as some good mates of mine, whom I served with in the battalion, for coming here today to listen to this. As a veteran myself, with a lived experience of mental ill health and navigating the DVA system, I understand just how difficult and taxing it can be to transition out of the armed forces. This is such an important issue. Every person who has served our nation in uniform, particularly those deployed on operations, has made sacrifices so that we can enjoy the freedom we have today. But, unfortunately, we can often be found lacking when it comes to looking after those who looked after us. There is a perception among some parts of our society that veterans are somehow broken—that we have done everything that we can to achieve in our life in defence and now we have nothing left to contribute. This is far from the case. We must change the record. We need to rewrite the script and let everyone know that not all veterans are broken and that having meaningful engagement and meaningful employment can lead to positive outcomes and positive mental health and well-being. I myself wouldn't standing here today if that weren't true. In my short time as a member for parliament, it has been very pleasing to be part of the government that is working hard to put supports in place for veterans and, in my view, beginning the long and hard task of righting decades against our veterans. Let me be clear: this has only just started. There is so much work to be done. But, in this budget, I think we've seen some very positive announcements which will go a long way to making a difference in this area. We have mental health care available 24/7 for any veteran who has served a single full-time day in the Australian Defence Force. We have immediate income support for veterans with compensation claims for mental health conditions caused by their service. Open Arms has a peer and community adviser program, which connects veterans and their families who have struggled with their mental health. This peer support is so crucial. It connects people who have lived experience so that they can provide helpful advice and information to those who are struggling. We have more than 7,000 volunteers trained to provide mental health first aid, through the partnership with ex-service organisations, and we've supported psychiatric assistance dogs for eligible veterans with post-traumatic stress. I've seen firsthand the positive impact these dogs can have on people. Only recently, I had the privilege and honour of recognising a local volunteer, Gail Whiteside, who gives up her time to train these dogs to help veterans. At this presentation, there would have been around a dozen dogs and their owners who have been through the training under Gail Whiteside's direction. We've seen firsthand how these dogs are supporting people, and any feedback around that needs to be passed on to the department to ensure that the program is done correctly, is maintained well and continues to help our veterans. These dogs will change lives and save lives. Recently, we announced the appointment of Gwen Cherne as the Veteran Family Advocate. Gwen Cherne is a fantastic and remarkable person. She comes with an experience like very few others. Her partner was a still-serving commando when he died by suicide. Her stepson is Tom Cafe, and he's serving in 3rd Battalion in Townsville. I like the appointment of Gwen to this position because anyone who knows her knows that she won't be told by government what to do, she'll be telling government. So can the minister please advise what steps the government is taking to improve the mental health and wellbeing of Australia's veteran community, and, in particular, what investments have been made in the most recent budget? There is so much we can do for our veterans, so much we can do together on both sides of the House to support our men and women who put on the uniform every day. And so, this close to Remembrance Day, all I want to say is come together, work together, because it's the people like these guys who keep us here. We're here to support them. Thank you. 19:05 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair On 2 April 2019, the Prime Minister wrote a letter, on behalf of the government, to the president of the TPI Federation—you were the Minister for Veterans Affairs then as well, Minister. The letter said: 'The TPI Federation makes a compelling case in relation to the relative value of the above general rate component of the special rate of disability pension. The fact that TPI veterans are not able to earn an income as a result of their service to our nation means their loss of income during what would have been their working life should be appropriately recognised and replaced.' Would you say, Minister, that the Prime Minister's letter, on behalf of the government, raised expectations of an increase to the above general rate of the SRDP, or TPI payment, to provide some tax adjusted compensation or income replacement? Minister, the government failed to release or respond to a review, which was prepared by David Tune AO PSM, for more than a year. The government received it on 30 August 2019, and finally responded in this budget. It released a report on 8 October. The government failed to increase the TPI payment, and only increased rent assistance for some TPI pensioners. TPI veterans said they were disgusted that only about 20 per cent of them would receive any assistance and that the rest of them would miss out. Given the Prime Minister's statement, why did Mr Tune and the government ignore the TPI Federation's contention that the above general rate component of the SRDP should be increased to restore fair and equitable economic loss? Compensation on the TPI payment represents only 62 per cent of the gross minimum wage. I understand, Minister, that you said, 'In principle, a step up is required.' These are your words from when you spoke at the TPI Federation's 2018 annual congress: 'In principle, a step up is required.' Can you confirm that's correct? If accurate, how would this reconcile with the findings of the review in relation to what happened, and the budget outcome accordingly? The TPI Federation say they weren't consulted on the recommendations of the report, such as the abolition of the Defence Force income support allowance. Can you confirm this? Do you know what, if any, consultation Mr Tune undertook with the TPI veterans or stakeholders? Do you accept that the long delay, from the time the government got the report back in August 2019 to the time it responded, has caused anxiety, uncertainty and frustration for TPI veterans, including the TPI Federation? Why did it take so long for the government to do this? Why did you have that report for that long, having promised it before the election, having said there was a compelling case in the Prime Minister's letter, having you say a step up was required? Why did you take so long to respond, and why did you do that the way you did it? In addition to that, Minister, it's the case that, during Senate estimates, departmental officials agreed with questioning from the Labor opposition that, effectively, the government raised the expectations of the TPI Federation and TPI veterans around the country that something of a significant nature would be done to improve their situation. But, Minister, during Senate estimates it was revealed that not 20 per cent but 10 per cent of TPI veterans would actually receive anything as a result of the government's budgetary changes. In addition to that, departmental officials revealed that none of this money, additional support, would start flowing until late 2022 because there were eligibility issues which needed to be established. Why has it taken so long to release the report? Why did you raise expectations? Why did you dash those expectations? Why, when the department knew a report was coming and sitting in the Prime Minister's office, did the department do nothing to work out the eligibility issues of those people in the context of the budget? The department knew what was in the budget, the department knew what it was getting and yet you, Minister, and your department did nothing. Why was that? Why did you fail TPI veterans? 19:11 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I would like to thank all the members who have spoken for their interest in our veterans, our serving Australian Defence Force personnel and their families. When a young Australian joins the Australian Defence Force, they swear an oath to serve our nation. The flipside of that is obviously the unspoken contract that we enter into as civilians. We have obligations on behalf of a grateful nation to make sure that they are supported during their service but also to make sure that they are well-equipped and that their families are well looked after during that service. And, when they transition, if they need help, we also have obligations as a grateful nation to make sure it is provided. The Veterans Covenant sums this up with the words: 'For what they have done, this we will do.' It is not just government, though; it is also the Department of Veterans Affairs itself—the department provides more than $11 billion per year—and it's also the ex-service community, and in partnership with the business community and industry more broadly. When we think of our veteran community, we are tempted to think of older males, maybe World War II veterans with mobility issues, struggling to get through the later years of their life. But the reality is that there is far greater diversity in the veteran community than that. They are younger and they have experience with more recent conflicts or peacekeeping or humanitarian aid and assistance programs. So they have different needs, and the Department of Veterans Affairs has had to become more innovative and recognise—and the Australian Defence Force itself has had to recognise—the different needs of our serving members and their transition requirements. The member for Pearce touched on this when he said that the toll that military service can take on an individual is something the government needs to be very conscious of. We are conscious of it, and I want to thank the member for his contribution in that regard. We do need to make sure that their transition—that critical point when someone moves from a position where they have had a lot of support structures about them and where they have had that sense of purpose and that sense of mission and the focus they get form that—is successful. We have to find ways to ensure that, when they transition, it is successful. The Joint Transition Authority, which the member talked about, is a critical change in the way we are approaching this issue. He also touched on something which I think is very important, and that was that we have to tell the positive story of the skills these men and women possess when they leave. We have to tell that positive story, because perceptions actually matter. We have to make the business community, industry, government and organisations understand that hiring a veteran is good for their business or their industry. It is about making sure that they understand that these people had a career—the average career is about seven years—and that those skills are transferrable to a new way of life. I thank the member for Pearce for his comments in that regard. The member for Herbert made similar comments when he talked about his lived experience and that of his mates who were in the gallery before. He mentioned that we need to rewrite the script, and I want to encourage the member for Herbert to continue rewriting that script and telling that positive story. We agree and those opposite agree that there is more to be done, but I also would contended that, if we tell the positive story of military service and the positive story of our veterans, we will achieve far greater in this place than if we are continually fighting amongst ourselves—and I congratulate the shadow minister for largely being quite partisan in his approach to the issues that we face in our veteran community. Progress has been made, and I want to thank my ministerial team—a couple of whom are here today—for the work they do to support our veterans. I also want to thank Lyz Cosson at DVA and her team for the work they do to try to be responsive to the needs of our veteran community. The shadow minister raised some legitimate issues, which I will endeavour to cover in the short amount of time I have. One he mentioned in particular, the allied health fees issue, is an ongoing issue. We are working with the department to come up with a new approach to reach a position where our fees are more in keeping with the fees in the market. There is no question that in the areas like national disability insurance and other areas the fees that are being made available for those clients have outpriced the veteran community. It's something I'm acutely aware of. I'm also acutely aware of the time taken to process. In many ways I'd argue the Department of Veterans' Affairs has become something of a victim of its own success. The work it's done in transition has encouraged more veterans to come forward. The work we've done with the Veteran Card, the veterans' covenant and other initiatives has brought more veterans forward, because they've seen a better experience for their colleagues. More have come forward and we're dealing with more clients, more veterans, than ever before. Additional resources were provided in this year's budget to try and address some of that 'time taken to process' issue, but I think there's going to be more work required in that regard. Some of the other specific questions I'll have to respond to in writing, and I thank the members for their contributions. I would make one final point and offer this commitment to our veterans, to our serving members: we will listen you. We will try to understand what you're saying to us. We will make changes where we can. We will keep our side of that contract, on behalf of a grateful nation, to make sure you are well looked after during your service and after your service. 'For what they have done, this we will do' is a contract that we will keep in this place. I thank the House. Proposed expenditure agreed to. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. ADJOURNMENT 125 ADJOURNMENT Broadband 125 19:17 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I don't want to start off this speech that I'm giving here tonight with the quote, 'We told you so'—and I'm talking about the NBN. We told the government back in the 43rd parliament—we told the government in the 44th parliament and in the 45th—and we're still telling them, that the option that they chose for NBN Co was the wrong one. What we've seen this year is the government do a complete backflip and go to the option that Labor proposed way back in 2013 and that was the fibre option. We know that the NBN Co is borrowing millions more than what was envisaged to begin with to construct the NBN. They have constructed an infrastructure network that basically isn't serving the community. It's not doing what it was meant to do. Had they used fibre from the start we would be in a position now where people would be getting the connectivity that Australia deserves. As I said: we told you so. We said it. It was our option in 2013 and again in the 2016 election. We are still saying it. What has happened after $51 billion, the purchase of 50,000 kilometres of new copper and a decade of ridiculing fibre—because that's what this government did. They ridiculed our option of fibre—which they've just done a backflip on and have gone to. They have backflipped and they're now listening and installing fibre. They are listening to what we said in 2013. They've arrived back at Labor's original proposal. This was our proposal in 2013. They ridiculed it. We all remember the then Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, and Malcolm Turnbull doing that virtual sales pitch on, I think, Sky News. You could see the awkward moment too, because Mr Abbott had just knocked off Mr Turnbull not that long ago, so it must have been very awkward for the former Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull. He would have known that Mr Abbott's option was wrong. We said it back then: do it once and do it properly. Do it right and do it with fibre. I have many constituents, as I imagine all of us do, that ring my electorate office to tell me about the problems that they are facing with connecting to the NBN Co. One of my constituents is Elizabeth of North Adelaide. She is a 90-year-old woman. For a close to a year and a half, she has faced one problem after another with her NBN connection. It is not only Elizabeth. We get calls every single day about NBN connectivity. Since July this year, Elizabeth has been living in an independent unit. She relies on her landline to operate her personal alarm and, since moving into the new apartment, Elizabeth has been contacted repeatedly by NBN service operators and NBN contractors. This has been disruptive and very unsettling to her as she lives alone. They contact her via text messages. Every time a text message has arrived, Elizabeth has been obliging and has waited patiently for the NBN service operators to arrive on the prescribed day and no-one has appeared at the designated time. Elizabeth's son contacted my electorate office, at his wit's end after trying unsuccessfully to resolve these ongoing issues. Finally, after further repeated calls, an NBN technician did go to Elizabeth's place to switch her connection from ADSL to NBN, in early November. This, of course, disconnected my constituent's telephone and internet. Let's not forget: this is a 90-year-old woman who lives alone and relies on a personal alarm in case of an emergency. Elizabeth's son tried everything to resolve this problem but couldn't resolve it. After two hours on the phone with the service provider, trying to configure the router, they were unsuccessful and needed to call an NBN technician yet again. This led to visit No. 10, but the technician also failed to solve the problem and another technician had to be called out for visit No. 11. After 11 visits and countless calls and hours on the phone, the final technician discovered—wait for this—that the block of units in which Elizabeth lives cannot be connected to the NBN yet. So, after traumatising this woman for weeks on end, they told her it couldn't be connected. How can it be that this wasn't identified by NBN or any of their technicians over 11 visits? Elizabeth has been harassed with text messages and calls, she has made herself available for calls and repeated visits and has had her phone and internet disconnected. She was told there was a deadline for her to be connected to the NBN, only to discover that her property isn't even able to be connected. Elizabeth is now left without either the internet or the home phone. I've written to the minister on my constituent's behalf, asking for an explanation and a resolution of this matter because it is simply not acceptable. Elizabeth is not the only one. We have many constituents exactly like Elizabeth who contact us. The NBN is one of the most important pieces of technology infrastructure our country has ever seen, and it has been botched up by successive Liberal governments in this place since 2013. I don't blame the people who work for NBN or the technicians who carry out the work. They, like all of us, have to make do with a substandard rollout. I blame this government. They've turned the NBN into a shambles and it's about time they fixed it. The NBN program that we had put out as a government in 2013 was for fibre to the node for every household in Australia to provide better connectivity and faster downloading. We argued at the time that it was the way to go. This government argued and ridiculed us continuously. They decided to go with the copper program, which obviously hasn't worked. It is not working, and our nation deserves a better internet service and better connectivity. Health Star Rating System 126 19:23 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I rise to speak on an issue that is affecting two industries that are critically important to the Australian horticultural sector and to my electorate of Mallee, namely, the citrus and dried fruits industries. The issue relates to the Health Star Rating System that is seen on many products in Australia and is intended to guide consumers to make healthier choices. What I thought was a relatively simple and inconspicuous rating system has turned out to be a complex calculator that has the potential to impact the bottom line of producers across Australia and my electorate of Mallee. The Health Star Rating System was implemented as a voluntary labelling program in 2014, following agreement by the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation. The membership of the forum consists of representatives from the Commonwealth government and each Australian state and territory government, as well as representatives from the government of New Zealand. Recently a five-year review of the system was completed, which proposed several changes. The most significant of them has been to strongly penalise total sugars in foods and beverages. For example, under the changes to the system, fresh orange juice with no added sugar will lose its current five-star rating, which it has held since the system was implemented in 2014, and will now receive a rating as low as two stars, which will be similar to soft drinks such as diet cola. This is because the algorithm that underpins the system focuses on sugar content alone and does not consider essential nutrients such as vitamin C, potassium, folate, magnesium or antioxidants, which of course are in fresh orange juice. The logic underpinning these changes is that consumers should be encouraged to drink water as much as possible. This simply isn't a common-sense approach to everyday consumption. Many people will not drink solely water, so, when consumers are faced with a choice in a supermarket aisle, the health star rating system should guide them to a healthy orange juice instead of an unhealthy diet cola. I've spoken to both Citrus Australia and the Australian Beverages Council, who are concerned that the proposed changes will have an immediate and detrimental effect on industry. What we need to remember is that fresh fruit juice currently contributes $736 million to the Australian economy. Dried Fruits Australia have expressed similar concerns to me relating to dried grapes. Under the changes to the system, fresh grapes will receive the maximum star rating of five, while sultanas, for example, will be rated much lower. Again, this is due to the way in which the new guidelines treat total sugars. Australian dried grapes contain no added sugar and are known for their fibre content as well as being high in potassium, magnesium and iron. A great deal of research has been and continues to be applied to the health benefits of consuming dried grapes. With 95 per cent of Australian dried grapes produced in the tri-state region of north-west Victoria, south-west New South Wales and the Riverland of South Australia, it is critically important to my electorate that this issue is addressed so that Australian consumers continue to understand that dried grapes are a naturally healthy product. Moderation should be an issue for the consumer, not the government. The changes to the health star rating by the ministerial forum will have a detrimental impact on the Australian horticultural industry and will disproportionately affect regional economies that are heavily reliant on these industries. The Commonwealth government, represented by Minister Colbeck and Minister Littleproud, displayed its support for our horticultural industries at the last meeting of the ministerial forum, in July. The ministers called for a policy override to ensure that fresh fruit and vegetable juices receive an automatic four-star rating. Unfortunately this resolution was not carried by the forum. I've written to every minister involved in the forum, to support a call by a number of peak industry bodies to reconsider this policy position for an automatic four-star rating for fresh juice at the upcoming meeting of the forum at the end of November. I've also asked the forum to give further consideration to how these changes will affect dried grapes. What started out as an innocent idea to guide consumers towards healthier options has morphed into an unmanageable beast that is threatening regional industries and communities. I hope that forum ministers will approach the upcoming forum with common sense and with regional communities in mind. COVID-19: Income Support Payments 127 19:28 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Spence The nation has certainly been on a roller-coaster ride since the coronavirus pandemic hit the world and the nation. We're all fixated, I think, on the negative things, but there have been some positive things, and I want to give the government a bit of a pat on the back, because they came out with the JobSeeker coronavirus supplement and lifted JobSeeker by $550 a fortnight. What that did was lift 425,000 people out of poverty in this country. Think about that. You would think about that every single government speaker would come into this room and brag about such an achievement, because it is an achievement. Unfortunately they can't quite bring themselves to do it, so what we've had is a roller-coaster back the other way. What we've seen is the government walking away from what has been an historic achievement, I think. I've seen the effects in my own electorate. I'm certain other members, including particularly those members in regional areas, have seen the effective elimination of poverty—real poverty as we've known it—in this country. Instead, what we've seen is a set of Christmas cuts. Think about that. They halved it to $250,000. What that did was shunt 42,000 South Australians, including some 3,000 children, back into poverty. They undid the good work that they had achieved. We saw a further cut this week, just today in fact, down to $150 a fortnight, with the uncertainty continuing not just until Christmas but into March. You've got to wonder what is going on in the government's head. They had a situation where they had eliminated poverty. They had pumped money into the local economies at a very important time. We now know, because the government tell us every question time, that the COVID-19 recession has not finished. We know that wages are flat. We know that international tourism has gone. We've seen that in South Australia. We know that universities and local economies have been devastated by the absence of international students. We've seen so much of what we've come to believe is the modern economy disintegrate before our eyes. Here was a real chance at a significant achievement, of lifting a whole group of people out of poverty and injecting money into local communities, particularly communities like Elizabeth and Salisbury, which have always done it tough, having been on the 'bleeding edge' of economic reform. It hasn't been just 10 years of economic reform, but 30 years of economic reform, as tariffs have come down and we've internationalised our economy. That's had a brutal effect on places like Elizabeth and Salisbury. Our economies have been far more affected than others, and the gains have gone elsewhere. That might be good for the country, but it's certainly been very tough for locals. We had a situation where, in the face of a recession and a worldwide pandemic, the government did the right thing in lifting the JobSeeker payment and lifting many people out of poverty—and not just in my electorate. Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien, no doubt you've seen the effects across regional Australia as well. I've been told anecdotally that many of the charities aren't seeing their usual clientele anymore. A different set of people are attending. I've been told by police officers that they've seen crime go down. I know, because I've been in the local shops, the local pubs and the local businesses, that it has had a real and lasting effect on our local economies. I ask the government to consider the transformative moment that they might have had if they had just looked at this as an achievement, rather than something to get away from, rather than something to cut, rather than something to free themselves of. It's not too late for the Prime Minister and the government to grasp this opportunity and to look at the JobSeeker payment as an economic mechanism. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:34