
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2020-11-11</date>
    <parliament.no>46</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>4</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" background="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;"></span>
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 11 November 2020</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Tony Smith</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 23 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 30 November 2020 and the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business and the consideration of bills introduced 9 November 2020</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 10 November 2020.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 10 November 2020, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 30 November 2020, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1   Mr Wilkie: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2020</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 10 November 2020.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2   Mr Hill: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Migration Amendment (Common Sense Partner Visa) Bill 2020</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 10 November 2020.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3   Mr T. R. Wilson: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Tuesday 1 December 2020 is World AIDS Day, an annual day to acknowledge those we have lost to AIDS related conditions and those who are living with HIV;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the theme for World AIDS Day 2020 is 'Now More Than Ever';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) stigma associated with HIV acts as a barrier to treatment and prevention;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) action is needed to address rising HIV transmission among First Nations, trans and gender diverse people, and other emerging high-risk population groups;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) gay and bisexual men continue to bear the burden of Australia's HIV epidemic and ongoing health education and awareness among this population group is needed; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) further bipartisan political action and leadership is required to meet our national target of ending HIV transmission in Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises and acknowledges the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) journey that people have made through their diagnosis, treatment and experiences of living with HIV;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) tremendous efforts of peer educators, healthcare professionals, researchers and scientists in developing treatment and prevention regimes that have improved the lives of people living with HIV and prevented a generalised epidemic in Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) success of a bipartisan approach in Australia's health response; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) tireless community advocates, civil society organisations and support groups that actively tackle stigma associated with HIV.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 10 November 2020.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—45</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr T. R. Wilson—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4   Mr Shorten: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that during the earliest onset of the coronavirus pandemic, many Australian families found themselves unexpectedly in need of government support; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) pays its deepest gratitude and thanks to all the women and men of Services Australia for their efforts in supporting their fellow Australians during this time of crisis.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 1</inline><inline font-style="italic">3 May 2020.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—35</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Shorten—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1   Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020 (<inline font-style="italic">Mr Perrett</inline>)<inline font-style="italic">:</inline> Second reading—Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from</inline><inline font-style="italic">26</inline><inline font-style="italic">October</inline><inline font-style="italic">2020</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">All Members—5 minutes. each.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1   Mr Hill: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the importance of the Auditor-General, who is responsible for auditing Commonwealth entities and reporting to the Parliament, providing crucial accountability and transparency regarding Government administration, and scrutiny of the expenditure of public monies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that as an independent officer of the Parliament with responsibilities under the <inline font-style="italic">Auditor-General Act 1997</inline>, the Auditor-General reports not to a minister, but directly to the Parliament via the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) that unlike similar entities such as the Parliamentary Budget Office, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) sits within the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, and the Prime Minister is responsible for administering the legislation and presenting budget bids for the ANAO, which is also subject to directions from the Minister for Finance as an entity under the <inline font-style="italic">Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013</inline>; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the potential conflicts inherent in these arrangements, given the Auditor-General exists to scrutinise the performance and actions of the executive;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) declares that independent scrutiny of Government spending to get maximum value for every taxpayer dollar is more important now than ever, given:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government is racking up one trillion dollars in debt;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Australia's budget deficit is now at a record high; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Government spending has blown out to the highest percentage of gross domestic product since 1970, the earliest year that records are available in the budget papers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the ANAO's budget has been in structural deficit for years because of this Government's cuts, recording unsustainable operating losses of $3.1 million in 2018-19 and $4.8 million in 2019‑20;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Auditor-General wrote to the Prime Minister prior to the 2020-21 Budget requesting $6.3 million in new funding so he could continue to undertake his role, related to the accumulated budget pressures and COVID-19 cost pressures; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) without new funding the Auditor-General is forced to reduce his program of performance audits which is projected to fall rapidly below the longstanding target of 48 performance audits per annum to around 38 per annum;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) condemns the Government for its ongoing efforts to hide rorts, waste and corruption from scrutiny and avoid accountability by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) taking revenge on the Auditor-General and making further cuts to the ANAO's budget and staffing, with a $1.28 million cut to revenue, a reduction in resources of $14 million in 2020-21 and a reduction in the average staffing level allocation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) failing for years to introduce a National Integrity Commission; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) immediately reverse its cuts to the ANAO's budget and provide the Auditor-General with the funds he has requested, by having the Minister for Finance provide an immediate advance, and making a commitment to boost funding over the forward estimates in the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) apologise for the Prime Minister's failure to protect and support the independent Auditor‑General, as the Prime Minister has proven that he cannot be trusted to protect the integrity of the office;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) consider introducing legislation to remove the ANAO from the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio and establish the ANAO as a parliamentary department, cementing the Auditor‑General as a truly independent officer of the Parliament; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) stop stalling and introduce legislation to establish a National Integrity Commission.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 22 October 2020.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—30</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Hill—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2   Mr Simmonds: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the developments worldwide on vaccines for COVID-19;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that the Government has announced a $1.7 billion agreement for two of the most promising COVID-19 vaccines, namely the University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine and the University of Queensland/CSL vaccine;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that under the agreement, the Commonwealth has secured 84.8 million doses which will be almost entirely manufactured in Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that the Government is contributing significantly to COVID-19 vaccine, treatment, research and development work in Australia and around the world with an investment of $362 million.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 26 October 2020.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—40</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Simmonds—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3   Mr Thistlethwaite: To move—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that 1 December 2020 is National Water Safety Day where we highlight the importance of staying safe and acting responsibly around water;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020 some 248 people lost their lives to drowning across Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) that Royal Lifesaving estimates in its annual drowning report that an additional 504 people experienced a non-fatal drowning incident;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the drowning report indicates the total number of drowning deaths over the past year decreased by 8 per cent on the previous year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) people aged 25 to 34 years accounted for 17 per cent of the total number of drowning deaths, the most of any age group; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) despite still being the leading location for drowning, deaths in rivers and creeks decreased by 32 per cent, compared with the 10-year average;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) drowning and accidents in the water can be avoided if people act responsibly and follow the basic water safety rules:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) always swim between the red and yellow flags at the beach and obey the instructions of lifesavers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) alcohol and swimming or boating don't mix;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) don't swim at unpatrolled beaches;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) don't swim alone; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) never take your eye off children around water; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that too many avoidable drownings occur when rock fishing and rock fishers should:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) stay alert to the weather conditions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) learn how to swim;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) choose the safest possible location;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) wear the right gear;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) never fish alone; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) always wear a lifejacket; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) encourages:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) all Australians to learn how to swim from a qualified instructor before they enter the water on their own; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) people who use our waterways regularly to take the opportunity to learn rescue techniques and resuscitation from organisations like Surf Life Saving Australia by joining your local surf club.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 9 November 2020.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—30</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Thistlethwaite—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4   Mr Leeser: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) NAIDOC Week celebrations will be held across Australia from 8 to 15 November 2020 to celebrate the history, culture and achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) NAIDOC Week is celebrated not only in Indigenous communities, but by Australians from all walks of life—the week is a great opportunity to participate in a range of activities and to support your local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Government is supporting NAIDOC Week through a local grants round, with $1.4 million available to support local communities to host events and other activities during the week; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) commends the work of the Indigenous organisations in postponing NAIDOC Week events and organising COVID-safe functions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 26 October 2020.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—30</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Leeser—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5   Mr Giles: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it has been seven years since New Zealand offered hope to those refugees in Papua New Guinea and Nauru to resettle them in New Zealand; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) more than 65,000 Australians have signed a petition organised by Amnesty International Australia with Craig Foster and Sonny Bill Williams urging the Government to accept the New Zealand Government's generous offer to resettle those refugees; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to accept the New Zealand offer to resettle refugees.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 10 November 2020.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Giles—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices—continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6   Ms T. M. Butler: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the koala is an iconic Australian species;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Queensland, New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory koala populations have been listed as vulnerable under national environment law;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) vast numbers of koalas were killed in last summer's national bushfire crisis, including an estimated third of the New South Wales population;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) in the wake of the fires the koala is being considered for up-listing (an increased threatened listing status);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) habitat loss is among the most significant threats to koalas;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the Government is years overdue in making a Threatened Species Recovery Plan for the koala, which was initially due by 2015; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) the National Koala Conservation Strategy ran until 2014 and has yet to be replaced by this Government; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) therefore calls on the Government to prevent further habitat loss through yet-to-commence development in areas in which the koala is listed as vulnerable, pending the completion of the formal assessment for up listing, the making of a Threatened Species Recovery Plan, and the making of a new National Koala Conservation Strategy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 9 November 2020.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—35</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Ms T. M. Butler—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7   Mr Young: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the enormous success the scouting and guiding movement has had around the world in promoting personal development programs for children and young adults from 5 to 25 years old; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that the world scouting movement was founded by Lord Baden-Powell in 1907;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that scouting is one of the most popular programs worldwide for personal development with over 500 million people going through the scouts and guides;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that in 2007 the scouting movement celebrated its 100th anniversary since its founding; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) congratulates Scouts Australia, Girl Guides Australia and the World Organization of the Scout Movement for continuing to provide an outlet for children to channel their desire for adventure, education and fun, and for providing ongoing assistance around our communities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 21 October 2020.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—50</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Young—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8   Dr Haines: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) agrees that effective politics requires constructive debate and consensus building on policy challenges and roadblocks that, if left unresolved, undermine the national interest;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) commends the Menzies-Calwell club for facilitating consensus-driven, cross-parliamentary policy discussions that do not regress into ineffectual, politically polarised rhetoric;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) reaffirms that establishing a robust federal integrity commission during this parliament well before the next election is essential to arresting the declining public trust in institutions and restoring Australians' faith in the democratic system;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) notes that, according to the Beechworth Principles and the motion agreed to by the Senate on 9 November 2020, a federal integrity commission must have:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) broad jurisdiction to investigate corrupt conduct within the public sector;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) common rules for all public officials;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) strong investigative powers and procedural fairness safeguards;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) an ability to hold public hearings when in the public interest;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) direct avenues for public referrals and an ability to commence investigations independently based on those referrals;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) strong whistleblower protections;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) adequate and secure funding to be able to fulfil its purpose; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) oversight by a multi-party parliamentary committee, including of the appointment of commissioners, and an independent parliamentary inspector to ensure accountability to the people; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) encourages Members of Parliament to debate the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020 and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Standards Bill 2020 as a robust consensus package that all parliamentarians can engage with, in good faith, as a non-aligned private member's bill that answers the strong call from the Australian public for a robust federal integrity commission.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 10 November 2020.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—30</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Dr Haines—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9   Dr Webster: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that metropolitan and regional Victorians continue to face significant limitations to their freedoms due to COVID-19 restrictions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the epidemiological data in Victoria is now at a point where many health experts consider it safe to reopen in a COVID-safe manner; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the initial lockdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic were intended to build capacity in the health system, and the Victorian health system has done this;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) commiserates with business owners that have been forced to shut their doors;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) notes that many businesses will not survive continued lockdowns;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) calls on the Victorian Government to give Victorians their freedom back;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) further recognises the undue pain and distress facing regional communities around the nation due to ongoing state border restrictions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) further acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) border communities are unique in their interdependency; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) regional and border communities are experiencing some of the most severe disruptions in the country, with impacts on healthcare, education, access to supplies, and the agriculture workforce;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) further notes that seven out of eight states, through the National Cabinet, have agreed to seek a sustainable model for border restrictions by December 2020;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) calls on state governments to open their borders to allow for the free movement of Australians; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) acknowledges that the continued lockdowns and border restrictions will continue to cause significant mental health, wellbeing, and economic issues, particularly in Victoria, but also in other affected parts of the nation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 26 October 2020.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—40</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Dr Webster—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10   Mr Perrett: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) prior to the passage of the <inline font-style="italic">Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987</inline> the houses of the Australian Parliament had the power to expel a senator, or member of the House of Representatives;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the expulsion of a member of this House is the most drastic of sanctions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) on 11 November 1920, the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie, Hugh Mahon, was expelled from this House; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) that the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie is the only member to have ever been expelled from this House;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie, Hugh Mahon, was expelled:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) by a motion brought on hastily and with limited time for debate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) by a vote of the House on party lines; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) without the due process and procedural fairness that such an important issue deserves; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it was unjust on the limited evidence for the institution to which Hugh Mahon had been democratically elected to reverse the decision of his constituents;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the expulsion of the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie, Hugh Mahon, was therefore a misuse of the power then invested in the House; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) for a century the Mahon family has endured this injustice and it is time that the Parliament revisit the matter of the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie, Hugh Mahon's, expulsion.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 26 October 2020.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Perrett—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Next Member speaking—5 minutes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3. The committee determined that the following referral of bills to a committee be made—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy:</para></quote>
<list>Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2020.</list>
<list>Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020.</list>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11 November 2020</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>7</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) on Wednesday, 11 November 2020, the House suspend from 10am to 12.15 pm to enable Members to attend Remembrance Day services; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) on the resumption of the sitting, any division called for between 12.15 pm and 2 pm shall be deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance, and then will proceed in accordance with standing order 133.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>8</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" background="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core">
            <a href="r6609" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration of Senate Message</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the amendments be considered immediately.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In supporting the motion moved by the minister I'd simply indicate, for the convenience of the House, that if this is carried and we're then dealing with a motion on the House's reaction to the message then we will have a number of speakers. But, given the resolution that's just been unanimously carried, we'll make sure this debate is put to the vote before 10 o'clock, when the House is suspended.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments be considered immediately.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the amendments be disagreed to.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last night Labor, along with many of the crossbench, voted to support amendments to the Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020. The fact is that there are currently 937,000 people unemployed in this country and more than 1½ million who are underemployed. Since the beginning of the pandemic, about 200,000 people have simply given up looking for work. So we supported the bill last night. It's important to recognise that this bill will see payments not commence until February, so the government has time to really think these issues through. They need to think it through because they've got some measures wrong. Unless the government supports the amendments, particularly about displaced workers, then what we could see is someone over the age of 35—they happen to be 37 or they happen to be 40—displaced, sacked from their work, replaced by a labour hire company or replaced by a younger person because the company will have an incentive to do that because they will get a financial incentive of either $200 or $100.</para>
<para>We put forward practical amendments on this legislation, as we have done consistently on all of the measures that have been put forward through this parliament. We have voted for every package and we voted for this last night. But I say to the government: if this legislation is seriously about additional employment rather than about replacing existing workers, they have to support this amendment. If they are at all fair dinkum about additional work, they have to support this amendment. This amendment was supported—I've got to say, it's not always that you have Labor, the Greens political party, One Nation, South Australian Independent Rex Patrick and others all voting in the one direction. When you've got the Greens party and One Nation voting together, it might give you pause for thought. The fact is that Labor will not tolerate a circumstance whereby workers who are aged over 35 get done over as a result of legislation passed by this parliament.</para>
<para>What we know about recessions past is that when recessions occur we quite often see older workers displaced, never to work again. We've seen that too many times in the past. It's totally unacceptable that we have legislation presented that would allow that to happen because of the recession. But this is something different; this is about this government, this parliament, providing an incentive to sack older workers and have them replaced. Surely that's unacceptable. The Senate agreed to this amendment, so it should be the case that the government just think about it.</para>
<para>How many times have we seen this government have to move amendments to its own legislation, including on legislation related to the response to the pandemic and the recession, because it got the detail wrong? Well, they've got the detail wrong. I don't believe that the minister here at the table thinks that it's fair that a 37-year-old should get the sack and be replaced by someone younger because there's an incentive in the legislation to do so. If they say it just can't happen, then they should just accept the amendment—that's the point here—if they are at all fair dinkum.</para>
<para>The legislation is called JobMaker. <inline font-style="italic">(Extension of time granted)</inline></para>
<para>It is supposed to be about creating new jobs. Labor is for new jobs. What we're not for is sacking older workers. It's as simple as that. I say to the minister and to the government: this isn't a political issue; this is about job security. Without Labor's amendments that we are supporting here along with the crossbenches, the legislation will take away the livelihoods of Australians who are fortunate to have jobs during this recession. It is a threat. It is a threat to working families. Job security is absolutely critical yet this legislation creates job insecurity.</para>
<para>We know that many older workers are precisely the people who are supporting children and teenagers to go through school. The average age of a first-time mother has now reached above the age of 30. So when we are talking about the people impacted by this legislation we are talking about working families who are doing it tough—and that's why we should fix this.</para>
<para>The government's draft rules are out for consultation until 27 November. Payments from the scheme don't flow until February next year, so they have time to fix it. We're not holding anything up here. What we're doing is trying to fix it in the interests of working families. The government should support these amendments, just as the Senate did overwhelmingly last night.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>These amendments must be supported because they will stop people getting sacked and they will stop people losing hours of work. The Greens moved these amendments together with Labor and they were supported by a majority of the Senate. We had to do it, because the government bowled up a very thin bill that contained absolutely no protections for workers in this country. That's because the government fundamentally doesn't understand how government intervention can create jobs. The government should be using their purse strings to directly invest in job-creating, nation-building projects in this country. But they're not. Their mentality is 'we'll write blank cheques for big corporations and hope that some of it trickles down'. The Greens know that that doesn't work.</para>
<para>When the government comes along and says, 'Nonetheless, we are going to insist on our plan to just give billions of dollars to corporations and hope for the best,' then we are entitled to say, 'Where are the protections to ensure that this just doesn't make insecure work even worse?' The government's bill, unamended, would allow an employer to sack someone who's got a decent wage and decent hours of work and then put on two people at the minimum wage in low-hours jobs. That is not good for anyone. It is not good for the people who get sacked, it is not good for the people who might have their hours of work reduced and it is not good for the young people who will then be thrown into a world of insecure work.</para>
<para>This protection does no more than what the Prime Minister said on radio was already prohibited by the bill. So if the government agrees with what the Prime Minister has been saying publicly—namely, that you can't sack someone or reduce their hours of work to take advantage of this credit—then they should support this amendment that the Greens moved in the Senate. It is really, really simple.</para>
<para>The Greens tried to fix the bill in the Senate in a number of other ways. We tried to stop money being given over to corporations that engage in wage theft; unfortunately, that wasn't successful. We tried to stop billions of dollars being given to corporations that are profitable and paying dividends, because the Greens believe that public money shouldn't be going to companies that are already profitable to part-pay some of their wages bill. What is the case for that? If a company is paying dividends, why should the public be asked to then assist in paying its wages bill? We weren't successful on that. But we were successful, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, in getting a whole range of people from across the political spectrum to support a really straightforward amendment to enshrine a really basic protection in this bill. Let's just be really clear about the amendment that we're voting on and what it does: it says that an employer cannot cut an existing employee's hours of work and it cannot sack someone who's already got a job in order to put someone on to take advantage of this credit.</para>
<para>That should be completely unobjectionable. What is astounding is that the government didn't even bother to get up and speak to explain why the amendments were wrong. The government cannot find any fault with these amendments. It is going to rely on the brute force of numbers to try to stare the Senate down. I say to the government: we've got a lot of concerns with this bill because in many respects it is just corporate welfare dressed up as job creation, but, when you have a majority of the Senate across the political spectrum standing united to say the path to job creation is not to sack other workers first so you can take advantage of a government subsidy, the government should listen. If the government here can't even be bothered to offer one speech in defence of its unamended bill, then it should accept the amendment. The Greens were very proud to move this amendment to enshrine some minimal protection in what was an otherwise weak bill, but the fact that it has been supported across the political spectrum should send a very clear message to the government.</para>
<para>If the government can't even be bothered to get up and defend its unamended bill, then it should accept this amendment. It should here, today, allow this amendment to be incorporated into the bill to enshrine at least some minimal protection to people who may, as a result of the government's negligence, stand to lose their jobs.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We need to see safeguards for existing workers in this country. We don't expect the government to come to that view very quickly—it's not in their DNA to think about security of employment in this country—but we have brought this to the attention of the government in the debate that happened last night in the Senate to ensure that we safeguard existing employees in order that they are not displaced, potentially dismissed or, indeed, have their hours reduced by rogue employers who might seek to game the system. Most employers would seek to do the right thing with a wage subsidy program, but there will always be those employers that will seek to use this improperly, and therefore it is absolutely critical that we have safeguards in place in order to protect those workers currently working.</para>
<para>We are currently faced with the worst recession since the Great Depression. We have soaring unemployment, we have workers lining up in unemployment queues around this country and we have a government initiating a scheme that does not protect existing workers. We say to them that they must accept this amendment because, without this amendment, those workers currently employed cannot be assured, going into Christmas, that they'll have a job. It's as simple as that. We say to the government, as the Labor leader has said, that we support the initiatives. We're not big fans of this initiative because it is too small. It will provide support for workers, but we say the scale of it will not provide enough opportunities for workers. But nonetheless we support it because, if enacted properly, there will be additional jobs in the labour market. There will be workers unemployed now who will find themselves in employment before Christmas and beyond. Whilst the scale of it is too small to deal with this deep recession, we say to the government we support it as we have supported other initiatives by this government.</para>
<para>But what we cannot understand is why, when the government has a decision to make to either side with employees currently working or side with rogue employers who might want to game the system, they choose to side with those employers who would seek to game the system and treat their own workforce shabbily. Why would any government in their right mind, who want to add additional jobs to the labour market, support the capacity for employers to sack workers and replace them with other workers that are subsidised? Why would Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister of this country, allow a scheme to be used in such a manner that workers, who are heading into Christmas, might find themselves sacked or have their hours reduced because they have not safeguarded them in using this scheme? Frankly, it beggars belief that the government would allow a scheme to be set up to displace workers that are currently employed.</para>
<para>What we've sought to do from the beginning is to work constructively with the government in the face of a global pandemic and the worst recession we've had since the Great Depression. That's what we've sought to do. In fact, in March this year, eight months ago, we said to the government: why would you not want to consider a wage subsidy? To which the Prime Minister said at the time: 'We do not need a wage subsidy.' Well, it was only two weeks later—having closed the parliament for nearly six months—that we reconvened the parliament and the government introduced the suggestion that was proffered by Labor to have a wage subsidy. And, if we hadn't done that and if they hadn't taken up that suggestion at that time, millions of Australian workers would have lost their jobs. I know they like to take credit, if you listen to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, but eight months ago, when we put a suggestion about a wage subsidy in good faith to the government, to the Prime Minister and to the Treasurer, they dismissed it.</para>
<para>We are now putting another suggestion to the government and to the Prime Minister, and it is this: you've got a very modest scheme, but it will provide extra jobs for people, and we applaud that; it's too small in its scale to respond to the problems we have, but we still support it in principle and in practice because it will lead to jobs for young people, people aged 35 and under. We support that. But do not allow loopholes to exist that allow rogue employers to displace or sack their workers. Why would you want to have a scheme that doesn't serve its own purpose—which is to add to the labour market and to increase employment by companies and businesses across the country?</para>
<para>The only conclusion we can draw if the government do not support this amendment is that they have absolutely no regard for employment security in this country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The amendment that we are fighting for today is about one thing and one thing only: whether or not the government's legislation will encourage employers to sack their workers. That's all that we're on about today. It's about whether or not people will have the opportunity to sack their workers in order to qualify for the government's hiring credit.</para>
<para>At a time when there are already a million unemployed in this country, with another 160,000 people expected to join the unemployment queues; at a time when the labour market wasn't real flash even before COVID-19 showed up; at a time when we're in the deepest, most damaging recession for almost a century; and at a time when we are in the teeth of a full-blown jobs crisis, the government's priority here is to oppose a sensible amendment that is all about whether or not employers can sack their workers to qualify for this hiring credit. If they think that it should be easier for employers to sack their workers during this recession, they should come to that dispatch box and just say so. They should have the courage to say that that's what they're all about.</para>
<para>We've had concerns about this hiring credit all along. We've said that we are prepared to support it but we're worried about the 928,000 unemployed Australians over 35 years old who've been deliberately excluded. We've been worried about the capacity for employers to sack workers. We've been worried about the fact that they announced this would be 450,000 additional jobs but we know from Treasury and estimates it's more like 45,000 additional jobs. We want to help those opposite get this right. They've got form when it comes to getting some of these labour market programs wrong. Restart for over 50s has been a diabolical failure from go to whoa. We want to help them get it right. The government have the time to get this right; the payments do not even flow until February. They'll pretend that whatever we do here and in the Senate is somehow preventing money from getting out in the community. That is absolute rubbish. The payments don't flow until February in any case. They've got the time to get it right. They've got an opportunity here to do something, for once, to stand up for Australian workers.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll be brief in my remarks to make sure that we have the division commence before 10 o'clock. What's in front of us now is a scheme that both sides of politics voted for in the House of Representatives. So, when we hear those opposite saying—as I can predict they will in a minute—that somehow this is about whether or not the program happens: in the House of Reps, both sides have already voted for the program to occur. In the Senate, after these amendments went through, both sides of politics, including the government, voted for the bill in its amended form—so the government's already voted for the bill, including these amendments, in the Senate. They've already done that. Today, the only question in front of us is whether or not the amendments should be part of the bill. That is the only question in front of us, and it will be the only question in front of the Senate as well.</para>
<para>And what do those amendments mean? Here's what they mean for workers—and who are these workers? A lot of them are people with families. They're all people who've been ineligible for JobKeeper. If you're a worker, maybe in your late 30s, early 40s, and you've made it all the way through the pandemic without a wage subsidy—you've turned up for work during the pandemic without any additional support from the government—now the government is changing the rules so that other workers will be cheaper than you. All we're saying is those workers shouldn't have their hours cut or lose their jobs as a result. And the government are wanting to argue, 'No, you need to keep that flexibility in the act.' This has a real impact on working families, on older workers, as we head into Christmas.</para>
<para>The government right now is making a deliberate decision to keep a loophole in the act to take away job security as we head into Christmas. The government is making a deliberate decision by how they are about to vote to make sure that, as we head into Christmas, workers who have had no support during this pandemic and have simply turned up for work every day are going to be allowed to face either losing their job altogether or having their hours cut, because other workers are cheaper. If you believe that loophole should be there, if you believe that job security should be lost, then vote with the government when the bells ring. But if you believe that those workers who have made it all the way through this pandemic should not have their job security put at risk, then you need to vote no.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [10:01]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>53</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allen, K</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KL</name>
                  <name>Archer, BK</name>
                  <name>Bell, AM</name>
                  <name>Chester, D</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, PJ</name>
                  <name>Connelly, V</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M</name>
                  <name>Drum, DK (teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, PC</name>
                  <name>Entsch, WG</name>
                  <name>Falinski, JG</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                  <name>Flint, NJ</name>
                  <name>Frydenberg, JA</name>
                  <name>Gee, AR</name>
                  <name>Hammond, CM</name>
                  <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                  <name>Hunt, GA</name>
                  <name>Joyce, BT</name>
                  <name>Kelly, C</name>
                  <name>Laming, A</name>
                  <name>Ley, SP</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D</name>
                  <name>Liu, G</name>
                  <name>Martin, FB</name>
                  <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                  <name>Morrison, SJ</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, T</name>
                  <name>O'Dowd, KD</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A</name>
                  <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                  <name>Porter, CC</name>
                  <name>Price, ML</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, RE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, SR</name>
                  <name>Sharma, DN</name>
                  <name>Simmonds, J</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, MS</name>
                  <name>Taylor, AJ</name>
                  <name>Tehan, DT</name>
                  <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                  <name>van Manen, AJ</name>
                  <name>Vasta, RX</name>
                  <name>Wallace, AB</name>
                  <name>Webster, AE</name>
                  <name>Wicks, LE</name>
                  <name>Wilson, RJ</name>
                  <name>Wilson, TR</name>
                  <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                  <name>Young, T</name>
                  <name>Zimmerman, T</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>51</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, AN</name>
                  <name>Bandt, AP</name>
                  <name>Bird, SL</name>
                  <name>Bowen, CE</name>
                  <name>Burke, AS</name>
                  <name>Burney, LJ</name>
                  <name>Burns, J</name>
                  <name>Butler, MC</name>
                  <name>Butler, TM</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, JE</name>
                  <name>Chesters, LM</name>
                  <name>Clare, JD</name>
                  <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                  <name>Coker, EA</name>
                  <name>Collins, JM</name>
                  <name>Conroy, PM</name>
                  <name>Dick, MD</name>
                  <name>Elliot, MJ</name>
                  <name>Freelander, MR (teller)</name>
                  <name>Giles, AJ</name>
                  <name>Haines, H</name>
                  <name>Husic, EN</name>
                  <name>Jones, SP</name>
                  <name>Katter, RC</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G</name>
                  <name>Keogh, MJ</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P</name>
                  <name>Marles, RD</name>
                  <name>McBride, EM</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, BK</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, RG</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D</name>
                  <name>Murphy, PJ</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, BPJ</name>
                  <name>Owens, JA</name>
                  <name>Perrett, GD</name>
                  <name>Phillips, FE</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, TJ</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, AL</name>
                  <name>Rowland, MA</name>
                  <name>Ryan, JC (teller)</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, RCC</name>
                  <name>Smith, DPB</name>
                  <name>Stanley, AM</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z</name>
                  <name>Swanson, MJ</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, KL</name>
                  <name>Watts, TG</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, AD</name>
                  <name>Wilson, JH</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>22</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Alexander, JG</name>
                  <name>Aly, A</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KJ</name>
                  <name>Byrne, AM</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, RE</name>
                  <name>Champion, ND</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, MA</name>
                  <name>Christensen, GR</name>
                  <name>Fitzgibbon, JA</name>
                  <name>Coleman, DB</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S</name>
                  <name>Evans, TM</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                  <name>Gosling, LJ</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, IR</name>
                  <name>Hayes, CP</name>
                  <name>Hastie, AW</name>
                  <name>Hill, JC</name>
                  <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                  <name>King, CF</name>
                  <name>Howarth, LR</name>
                  <name>King, MMH</name>
                  <name>Irons, SJ</name>
                  <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                  <name>Landry, ML</name>
                  <name>McBain, KL</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J</name>
                  <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                  <name>Marino, NB</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, CE</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, MI</name>
                  <name>Payne, AE</name>
                  <name>Morton, B</name>
                  <name>Snowdon, WE</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, LS</name>
                  <name>Templeman, SR</name>
                  <name>Pearce, GB</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, MJ</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                  <name>Wood, JP</name>
                  <name>Wells, A</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendments, and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the reasons be adopted.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Proceedings suspended from 10:04 to 12:15</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Consumer Law—Country of Origin Representations) Bill 2020, Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" background="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core">
            <p>
              <a href="s1265" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Consumer Law—Country of Origin Representations) Bill 2020</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="s1260" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Assent</title>
            <page.no>14</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Export Control Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" background="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core">
            <a href="r6624" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Export Control Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>14</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>14</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Australia is one of the top 10 agricultural exporting countries in the world, exporting around two-thirds of our agricultural production each year.</para>
<para>Strengthening the competitiveness and productivity of Australia's agriculture sector is a key commitment of this government.</para>
<para>We want our agricultural industries to be able to capitalise on the opportunities that flow from growth in our region and globally, and we want to support the National Farmers Federation goal to grow Australian agriculture to $100 billion by 2030.</para>
<para>To help us achieve this, we need to ensure we have appropriate regulatory settings to enable exports to grow and in turn to help drive productivity and increase returns at the farm gate.</para>
<para>This bill will build upon the reforms introduced by the Export Control Act 2020 (the act) that streamline and consolidate existing export controls and commence on 28 March 2021.</para>
<para>This bill provides for several minor amendments to the Export Control Act to ensure a smooth transition and implementation of the new export control framework for exporters. These amendments will enable appropriate rules to be made to support the act.</para>
<para>The bill will clarify the application of the fit and proper person test to alterations or variations requested by occupiers of registered establishments, and enable the rules to prescribe circumstances where the secretary may approve or refuse to approve a notice of intention to export a consignment of prescribed goods.</para>
<para>The bill will provide the secretary with the power to prescribe requirements in the rules for deciding whether to issue an export permit.</para>
<para>The bill will enable the rules to modify how certain provisions apply to reviewable decisions for tariff rate quotas. It will enable the rules to apply matters contained in instruments to assist in calculating tariff rate quotas.</para>
<para>While these amendments may appear to be relatively minor in nature, they will enable the government to ensure the necessary regulatory settings are in place to support Australian farmers to gain and maintain reliable access to overseas markets. This means increased profitability and certainty to enable further investment in their properties and people.</para>
<para>For the Australian economy, it means more jobs, more exports and higher incomes in a competitive and profitable agricultural sector.</para>
<para>For Australians, it means stronger regional communities and a more prosperous and productive Australia.</para>
<para>The bill is just one of the initiatives that the government is progressing to modernise the systems that underpin our very valuable agricultural exports. This is a crucial step that supports the Australian agricultural sector as it continues to grow and respond to the coronavirus pandemic.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Refunds of Charges and Other Measures) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" background="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core">
            <a href="r6622" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Refunds of Charges and Other Measures) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>14</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>15</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Today I introduce the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Refunds of Charges and Other Measures) Bill 2020 which amends the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000(the ESOS Act). The bill reflects the Morrison government's commitment to support the international education sector by cutting red tape to open new market opportunities for education providers, while expanding the study options available for international students.</para>
<para>In 2019, international education contributed $40 billion to our economy and supported around 250,000 jobs.</para>
<para>Border measures introduced to control COVID-19 have meant some students have been unable to return to Australia to resume their studies after travelling home for holidays and Chinese New Year and new students have been unable to come to Australia to begin their studies.</para>
<para>If we are to support the recovery of this important industry, our fourth largest export, we must continue to be one of the most sought-after study destinations in the world. We must respond to student demand and adapt the regulatory environment to help education providers to deliver new products.</para>
<para>This bill builds on measures the Morrison government has already put in place to support the international education sector, including significant regulatory and fee relief.</para>
<para>The government has asked the education regulators, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency and the Australian Skills Quality Authority, to offer maximum flexibility to providers so they can respond to students' circumstances and needs. This has allowed providers to introduce flexible tuition options and deliver operations online where necessary, helping to minimise disruption to international students' education.</para>
<para>The bill complements the government's budget commitment to 50,000 additional places for short courses providing Australians with the opportunity to retrain or upskill during the COVID-19 pandemic.</para>
<para>This bill will enable education providers to provide access to a wide range of supplementary courses, including short duration courses and microcredentials for overseas students, increasing the attractiveness of Australia as a study destination. It will create opportunities for Australian education providers to expand their business and boost the availability of skilled workers as our economy recovers. This bill clarifies the intention of the ESOS Act by aligning the definition of 'course' with the established regulatory frameworks in place for formal education qualifications in Australia and provides a mechanism for the minister to include or exempt courses where appropriate to reduce the regulatory burden on education providers, while maintaining our strong student protections.</para>
<para>This bill forms part of the Morrison government's deregulation agenda, and will cut red tape to save over $2 million annually for the international education industry.</para>
<para>The bill will clarify and improve the regulation of courses and allow charges collected under the ESOS Act to be refunded in special circumstances.</para>
<para>The ESOS Act provides important protections for students. It ensures rigorous standards are applied to any course delivered to international students, above the existing strong domestic regulations. It protects international students' investment in an Australian education and upholds the integrity of the visa system. These requirements will remain. Overseas students will continue to receive these protections, including consumer protection provided through Australia's unique Tuition Protection Service, for their substantive course of study.</para>
<para>However, these extensive requirements need not apply to some short-duration courses that are low cost and supplementary to a student's main course of study. For example, students seeking to work or do further training in the hospitality, construction, retail and healthcare sectors require specific qualifications, including first aid and barista courses, responsible service of alcohol, hygienic food preparation, infection control and construction white cards.</para>
<para>This bill will also provide a mechanism to act quickly to support the international education sector in times of emergency or extreme financial stress in the sector. If an event similar to the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic happens in the future, provisions in this bill will support education providers by allowing refunds of the charges they pay for registration on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students to deliver courses to international students.</para>
<para>As part of the Higher Education Relief Package announced on 12 April 2020, the government has already provided more than $10.9 million in regulatory fee relief to the education and training providers to help them adapt and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.</para>
<para>This has helped providers to invest in retaining staff or reshaping their offerings to suit the current environment.</para>
<para>Part 1 of the bill amends the ESOS Act to allow for Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students, or CRICOS, charges paid by providers to be refunded in special circumstances from 1 July 2021.</para>
<para>These provisions will enable the provision of rapid and sector-wide support to CRICOS providers in special circumstances, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Generally, such circumstances would be characterised by unexpected events or situations, across the sector, creating undesirable or anomalous outcomes that could be improved or remedied by refunds of charges. The refund power would be at the discretion of the secretary and exercised on behalf of the Commonwealth. It will not apply to administrative errors, like returning overpayments, as that power already exists. Similarly, this amendment will not exempt providers from the charges, as there are existing provisions under theEducation Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Regulations 2011that exempt new and existing providers from the requirement to pay CRICOS charges.</para>
<para>Part 2 of the bill amends the ESOS Act to refine the definition of 'course', which was outdated and too broad.</para>
<para>The new definition more explicitly aligns ESOS with the established regulatory frameworks in place for formal education qualifications in Australia. Vocational education and training courses, higher education courses, school courses, ELICOS, and foundation programs will remain in the scope of ESOS. The changes mean that all other courses which do not align to domestic, state or territory quality education frameworks will not be included within the scope of ESOS.</para>
<para>A further provision enables the minister responsible for international education to make a disallowable legislative instrument to include and exempt certain courses from the ESOS Act requirements. This will allow the minister to add or remove exempt courses as needed, in response to emerging issues in the sector, while ensuring appropriate parliamentary oversight. The purpose of these amendments is to make it easier for overseas students to study courses that are supplementary to their main course of study.</para>
<para>International students will not be able to apply for student visas based solely on these courses but can take them alongside their main course of study.</para>
<para>The new arrangements enabled by this bill create opportunities for education providers to enter a global market in an emerging form of education, opening new markets and potential business opportunities. It will provide assurance to students that they can choose to study a supplementary course that complements their primary field of study, reflects their personal interests or improves their employability while in Australia These arrangements ensure that the government can act swiftly to refund CRICOS charges in special circumstances, should this be required.</para>
<para>In summary, the measures in this bill will reduce red tape, simplify the regulatory environment and create flexibility to respond to special circumstances with regulatory relief.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 5) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" background="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core">
            <a href="r6625" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 5) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 5) Bill 2020 builds on the government's broader support to Australian businesses and taxpayers and also implements an important diplomatic commitment to New Zealand.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to introduce a new legislative instrument making power into the income tax laws to make eligible state and territory coronavirus business grants free from income tax. As announced by the Prime Minister on 18 September 2020, this tax treatment will be extended to the Victorian government's coronavirus business grants announced on 13 September 2020.</para>
<para>Other states and territories will be able to apply for the same tax treatment where they have grant programs focussed on supporting small and medium businesses facing similarly exceptional circumstances.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 to the bill will improve the operation of the Trans-Tasman retirement savings portability arrangement established between Australia and New Zealand by allowing the ATO to transfer the unclaimed super of New Zealand residents directly to KiwiSaver funds.</para>
<para>This is a significant improvement to how the scheme operates for New Zealanders that have super in Australia. Prior to this amendment, New Zealanders with unclaimed super were unable to receive their superannuation directly from the ATO. Instead, they were required to open an Australian super account before requesting their super be transferred to their KiwiSaver account in New Zealand. Now, with these changes, New Zealanders will be able to apply directly to the ATO and have their fund transferred to their retirement savings account without further administrative burden.</para>
<para>This change also removes a source of unnecessary cost from the Australian super system by taking the burden off Australian funds to play the intermediary role in transferring these funds to New Zealand.</para>
<para>Finally, schedule 3 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to include Neighbourhood Watch Australasia Limited on the list of deductible gift recipients. Deductible gift recipient status allows members of the public to receive income tax deductions for the donations they make to this organisation</para>
<para>Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020, Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" background="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core">
            <p>
              <a href="r6596" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r6595" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>17</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before the debate is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering 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. 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. The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Foreign relations has always been one of the most complex and delicate aspects of public and political life. Even before the internet and the advent of jet travel, understanding the interests of 200 nations and working to integrate and align them with our own across trade, defence, culture, science and technology, has always been an awesome and sometimes unenviable task. Today it is getting exponentially more complicated. The internet has made instant global communications commonplace and created millions of links between Australians and their counterparts in every nation. Most recently, we've begun to see regional governments around the world, including our very own states and territories, and even our local councils, building their own links and entering into arrangements with foreign governments directly. Many of these are welcome, and many of them benefit Australians. However, they raise important questions of consistency and oversight. We need to ensure that these arrangements are in keeping with our national interest.</para>
<para>The Australia’s Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 will address that issue and ensure that we can all have confidence that our understandings with foreign governments will be a force for good in our community. In Australia, such arrangements are becoming increasingly common as states and territories look to pursue their own interests and priorities overseas. New South Wales has a memorandum of understanding with Israel's Ministry of Energy over the use of water resources. It has another with the government of Japan regarding material science and a third with the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on the subject of their activities in outer space—of all things!</para>
<para>Others raise more concerns. My own state of Queensland, in 2016, signed a memorandum of understanding with the US Navy regarding the supply of biofuels. Though the US is our most important military ally, we surely cannot allow a situation where state and territory governments can enter into supply arrangements with any foreign armed forces without proper Commonwealth oversight. Perhaps almost as worrying, the Queensland government has since the early 1990s regularly renewed a memorandum of understanding with Papua New Guinea which covers a wide range of areas of cooperation across business, governance and health. Though Papua New Guinea is also a very important regional partner, this arrangement comes disturbingly close to constituting a separate ongoing foreign policy towards PNG on the part of the state of Queensland.</para>
<para>Most concerning of all is the Daniel Andrews Victorian Labor government's memorandum of understanding with the National Development and Reform Commission of the People's Republic of China. Signed in October 2018, this MOU sets up a path to investment by China in infrastructure in Victoria under the controversial Belt and Road initiative. This initiative is one of the most strategically significant foreign policy actions currently pursued in our region by a foreign power. It has been the subject of considerable concern throughout the international community. As the Lowy Institute's report <inline font-style="italic">Understanding China's Belt and Road Initiative</inline>, among many others, describes, elements of this initiative meet obvious but understated national security and foreign policy aims for the Chinese Communist Party. These include priorities like providing alternative access routes for China's fuel supplies, delivering access to potential future military ports, and increasing China's economic influence over other nations in our region. Yet the Victorian government was able to sign up to pursue funding under this initiative without any substantive consultation with the Commonwealth government. Worse, the Commonwealth and the Victorian public have no visibility of any flow-on contracts arising from the implementation of this agreement. They have no ability to assess whether these contracts are in Australia's national interests because of the shroud of secrecy which covers this clandestine agreement.</para>
<para>More widely, at this stage the Commonwealth does not even know how many arrangements of this type have been entered into by state and territory governments, let alone what those agreements might hold. The government's research suggests that more than 130 arrangements have been entered into by states and territories with more than 30 countries. Yet, since there has to date been no formal obligation on the part of these governments to inform the Commonwealth when such an arrangement is made, this parliament's ability to have oversight over external affairs has been severely and seriously compromised.</para>
<para>Some would argue that this is not a problem and would question why we are so concerned about it. However, though we cannot know the intent of any particular agreement, we do know that there are overseas actors right now who are seeking to have influence contrary to our national interests over processes and outcomes throughout the Western world. Recent attempts to spread misinformation and shape the outcome of US elections on the part of state-sponsored Russian actors are indeed well documented. Concerning evidence summarised in the Australian Strategic Policy Institute report <inline font-style="italic">Hunting the phoenix</inline> has shown that the Chinese Communist Party has used seemingly innocuous talent recruitment programs in covert attempts to acquire technology from a wide range of Western democracies, including Australia. These high-profile cases are certainly not the only examples. They are far from the only foreign governments engaged in activities of this kind.</para>
<para>All countries around the world seek to protect their national security and promote their national interests. Where this can be done through commercial or other arrangements with an Australian state or territory, no doubt some other countries would pursue such an opportunity. In many cases this will be of mutual benefit, will be consistent with our nation's foreign policy and will be of little to no concern. However, the problem at present is that those states and territories which are entering into these agreements are not fully equipped to identify which arrangements are benign and beneficial and which are not.</para>
<para>Our state and territory governments do not have full access to the resources of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. They do not have experienced teams of diplomats embedded in nations across the world. They do not have full access to the information provided by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service or the Australian Signals Directorate or the intelligence shared by our Five Eyes partners. When the Prime Minister, the foreign minister and the cabinet make decisions about our foreign policy and what arrangements with other countries are consistent with our national interest, they do so with the benefit of all of that information. They do it on the basis of the decades of experience provided by DFAT officials at home and overseas. As the world becomes smaller and more interconnected, and relationships between nations more complex, this input only becomes more critical. With the best will in the world, states and territories simply do not have access to the breadth and depth of expertise and information they need to make these appropriate and informed decisions. Ultimately, this practical truth proceeds from an important foundational principle.</para>
<para>Section 51 of the Australian Constitution reserves the power to legislate on external affairs to this Australian parliament. The High Court has repeatedly upheld the principle that it is the Commonwealth government that has the power to set and administer our foreign policy. There is a very good reason for this. Like any organisation or group of people, while Australians have our internal debates and robustly disagree amongst ourselves when it comes to interacting with external parties, we must speak with one voice on the world stage. Our interests as Australians do not always align with the interests of other nations. Tough negotiation and robust interactions are occasionally necessary even as friendship and cooperation exists. In that situation, it would be highly damaging for all Australians if a foreign actor believed that there were other powerful institutions in this country that would undermine our position of strength and help them achieve their objectives. Once again, as the world becomes more interconnected and the links between governments, corporations and public institutions at all levels grow, this ability to speak with one voice is more important now than it ever has been.</para>
<para>The Morrison government has been very alive to this emerging challenge and has put in place a comprehensive program of legislation to militate against it. This bill is one of the cornerstones of that effort.</para>
<para>The bill recognises that different arrangements have a different scope and potential impact, depending on the levels of government involved. It separates arrangements into two tiers. In the first tier are those arrangements entered into between Australian state and territory governments themselves and foreign national governments, which are likely to be of the greatest scope and impact. In the second tier are arrangements of a usually more limited scope such as those entered into by state and territory governments with regional governments overseas or those negotiated by individual Australian regional councils and also public universities. This bill would apply different requirements on the two tiers of arrangements. For the first tier, of core foreign arrangements, state and territory entities would be required to attain the foreign minister's approval before entering into any formal negotiations or signing an agreement. For the lesser, non-core foreign arrangements, the state or territory entity has only to inform the foreign minister before entering into the arrangement and to give the minister the opportunity to prohibit its formalisation.</para>
<para>However, importantly, the minister would retain the power to cancel any existing or future arrangement entered into by a state or territory entity whenever he or she became aware that it was no longer in the national interest. The minister's declaration would make the arrangement invalid and unenforceable or require its amendment as necessary. This is a critically important part of the bill.</para>
<para>Foreign policy and the national interest are fast-moving and ceaselessly changing. They are shaped by the changing needs and will of the Australian people. They respond to the actions of more than 200 other nations and seven billion individuals around the globe. What is in this nation's best interests today may not be tomorrow, and the minister must always have the ability to respond appropriately. This power will be reinforced by schedule 1 of the bill, which requires state and territory entities to inform the minister of all pre-existing arrangements so that they can be properly assessed against our national interest today. Ultimately, the details of such arrangements would be placed on a public register for all Australians to see. It is difficult to argue against that transparency.</para>
<para>This bill will bring our country's arrangements with foreign governments out of the shadows. It will ensure that Australians can have confidence that their elected governments are speaking with one voice and protecting their national interest together. Just as importantly, it will give our state and territory governments the tools that they need to go out and make safe arrangements that will benefit the Australians that they represent. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I commence my remarks by noting that today is Remembrance Day, and I express my gratitude to all those Australian men and women who, over the years, have served within our defence forces and particularly remember those who lost their lives in doing so.</para>
<para>Foreign influence is a very serious matter. It's a problem across the world. Too many countries, often through corrupt governments, are influenced by other countries. That's why I support government efforts to prevent any form of foreign influence that undermines Australia's national interest. So I support the intent of this legislation, the Australia’s Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020. However, the legislation is poorly drafted. The drafting leaves too many unanswered questions. It creates too many uncertainties and therefore the bill will become extremely difficult, in my opinion, to administer. That is why I speak in support of the amendments moved by Labor.</para>
<para>It is also clear from listening to government speakers that the prime target of this legislation is China. Foreign policy is always complex, particularly given the globalised world we live in and the multinational operations of big business. Disentangling business interests from government responsibilities has become near impossible. It becomes even more complex when the legislation seeks to control the activities of other levels of government and our universities. There is little doubt in my mind that questions about the constitutional overreach of this legislation will arise. I note that the previous speaker referred to section 51 of the Constitution. Again, with all matters relating to the Constitution, usually we know where we stand when they have been tested in the courts.</para>
<para>Most Australian state and local governments already have established links with overseas countries, including trade agreements, research collaborations, sister-city partnerships, sporting exchanges, student exchanges between public schools and even high commissions in different countries, and so on. Any attempts to interfere with those relationships will very likely cause both tension and disagreement between the Commonwealth and the other levels of government, which immediately raises the question: who was consulted prior to the drafting of this legislation? Were all the state, territory and local governments consulted and, if so, what was their response—or were they simply advised that this legislation was being presented to parliament? Were the universities and high schools who host international students or engage in annual student exchange programs consulted about this legislation, and how will it affect them? We simply don't know.</para>
<para>There is too much vagueness about this legislation, with interpretation and decision-making ultimately left to the foreign minister of the day. The reality is, when responsibility is left with an individual member of government, that individual member of government will change over the years. That creates, again, a level of uncertainty about legislation. The most secure way of having certainty into the future is that the legislation be very clear so that decisions are not left with any one individual. Such as approach leaves too much uncertainty and creates too much risk, the end result being lengthy and costly legal disputes—risks that can become very costly for Australia as a nation and for individual households and businesses.</para>
<para>Right now, too many Australian industry sectors are facing a crisis because of the uncertainty relating to trade with China. Australian exporters of wine, seafood, sugar, timber, coal, copper, barley and perhaps other products of which China is a major buyer now face that uncertainty. Those Australian industry sectors have been left stranded because of this government's deteriorating relationship with China. Whilst government members come into this place and take a tough stance against China, Australian farmers, miners, winemakers and fishers become sacrificial lambs. Whilst Australia has left itself exposed by its overreliance on China, it was only a few years ago that this government—which now backpedals—was promoting more trade with China. Nor is finding new markets for Australian exports, as the trade minister and other government members advocate, that simple a matter. It takes years to establish those markets. In the meantime, the products that are sitting on wharves both here and in China will obviously perish and be of no use.</para>
<para>I also note that this legislation includes arrangements between the universities. It is common practice for universities throughout the world to collaborate on projects, particularly on research projects—just as we are currently seeing with the COVID-19 vaccine. That collaboration is written into agreements and contracts, all of which may be subject to this legislation. International cooperation is also important to Australian universities because international students are a major source of income for them. International education, which is made up mostly of university students, is worth nearly $40 billion annually to the Australian economy. I understand that it's the fourth-largest export of our country, with over half a million international students coming here every year. We have seen the impact of COVID-19 on international border closures and the impact that has had on the university sector right across our country. In South Australia, international students are worth around $2 billion a year to the economy—for our state, that's a significant amount of money. So if we're going to jeopardise that even further with legislation then we need to think very carefully as to whether the legislation is properly structured and makes absolutely clear what is and is not allowed.</para>
<para>Now we're reading reports that China is also discouraging students from studying in Australia because of the deteriorating relationship—again, adding further to the economic woes of our country and the university sector. That is why foreign relations and foreign policy must always be handled sensitively. Yet this legislation does not adequately define either foreign relations or foreign policy. What do those two terms mean? Again, that is subjective and, ultimately, will rest with the government of the day and, in particular, the minister of the day. Indeed, the term 'national interest', which this legislation seeks to protect, is itself a matter of interpretation and a matter of opinion. We can all argue about what is in the national interest from a different perspective, and one person's perspective might very well be different from that of another. That's why the legislation should have been a lot clearer and Labor has moved amendments to it—to try to provide some clarity and certainty and, therefore, protect the national interest in a way which everybody understands. This legislation doesn't do that.</para>
<para>The legislation also fails to provide matters of procedural fairness, merits review and judicial review. I note that this is not the first piece of legislation that has come into this place where procedural fairness, judicial review and merits review are not included by this government. It seems to be becoming a trend of this government to do that. That begs the question: is it because this government doesn't want any accountability or oversight of the legislation that it brings into this place and, therefore, of its own governance? The omission of judicial review, procedural fairness and merits review goes to the heart of ensuring the integrity of all laws that come into this place and certainly this particular legislation.</para>
<para>The bill—and I note the comments of the minister in the second reading speech—provides that state and territory entities will require approval from the Minister for Foreign Affairs before commencing negotiations or entering into a core arrangement with another country. Does that mean state, territory or local governments, or even universities, can't even begin to have a discussion with another party in another country without first getting the approval of the minister? If it does, that will simply obstruct what could be agreements and partnerships that are in our national interest.</para>
<para>I also note that the bill empowers the foreign minister to review any existing or prospective arrangement involving state, territory and local government entities, including the universities. Again, the previous speaker quite rightly pointed to the many agreements that are already in place. Will they all be subject to this scrutiny, and does that mean some of them will have to be withdrawn? Who's going to carry out that work, and at what cost will it be done? This legislation, in my view, has been very poorly thought through.</para>
<para>I will finish on this matter, because again a number of government speakers have come into this place and criticised the actions of some of the state governments with respect to the arrangements and agreements that they have entered into with other countries, particularly with China. I make it clear that it was on this government's watch and under the Country Liberal Party's leadership in the Northern Territory that the Port of Darwin was leased for 99 years. It was leased to the Landbridge Group for $506 million—effectively $5 million a year. It was on this government's watch that that happened. So, whilst members opposite come in and criticise state governments for the arrangements that they have entered into, perhaps they should look carefully at their own decisions with respect to that, because that decision was, in my view, one of the most foolish decisions ever made within this country. It was criticised, quite rightly, not only by a number of people in this country who have, I believe, a fair degree of security expertise but by other governments as well. Yet it happened on this government's watch.</para>
<para>I close by making this very strong point: Labor opposes not the intent of this bill but the way it has been drafted. If we want to ensure that the national interest is protected, the best way we can do that is not to allow it to be subjected to the whims of the minister of the day but to draft legislation that makes it absolutely clear how the national interest is going to be protected so that that can be abided by not only by the federal government but by each of the state, territory and local governments and the university sectors who will be subject to this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FALINSKI</name>
    <name.id>G86</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The instability of our region remains one of the greatest challenges this country is facing. It affects our trade, our economy, the ability of Australian companies to expand internationally and the global flow of capital. Complacency is not an option when it comes to our foreign policy. Whilst it may seem far removed from the lives of working Australians, the reality is that that could not be further from the truth. If we are to maintain our close ties and friendships with nations across the world and continue to enjoy the benefits of fruitful trade agreements, we must have a smarter foreign policy process. This is necessary as we seek to safeguard our interests and support global prosperity, particularly in the wake of the pandemic.</para>
<para>We are a small country compared to many of our regional neighbours, and if we are to be heard we must speak with one voice. It is a strength of our democratic process that we engage in rigorous debate and allow for dissenting voices. However, we must also recognise that there is a time for unity and solidarity when it comes to our engagement on the world stage. In Australia, we take open markets for granted. Most nations cannot. We take a free press as the assumed status quo. Most nations do not.</para>
<para>We must therefore recognise that, when it comes to supporting not only aspirational Australians but international trade and freedom, we cannot cut corners. We are part of this smarter foreign policy agenda. We must create a streamlined process where the best interests of Australians in all states and territories are looked after. This means not having contradictory memorandums of understanding coming out of different parts of Australia. It means ensuring that the academic integrity and high standards of our educational system are safeguarded. It means countries throughout the world know Australia as that light on a hill, supporting democracy, freedom and enterprise. This bill, the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020, will ensure that these ideals which are at the core of Australia are upheld and protected both here and around the world.</para>
<para>The changing nature of the power structures shaping the international environment requires states and territories to be working closely with the Commonwealth government. The relative peace and stability that have underpinned Australia's prosperity can no longer be taken for granted. As a nation, we are increasingly being required to forge our own path and take leadership both in our region and in connection with specific issues. We are a young country, but there are many that are younger and more fragile and require strong leadership in times of uncertainty. Playing domestic politics on the world stage is a sure way to diminish our global effectiveness and strain important strategic relationships. The proposed legislation creates a streamlined process to resolve this issue. Australians are best served when we are able to represent ourselves with clarity concerning international agreements. It means not allowing ourselves to be vulnerable to the divide-and-conquer tactics which some nations employ to pursue their own agendas.</para>
<para>The process that this legislation creates is long overdue. It was assumed for many decades, and by successive leaders, that Australia's foreign policy was the exclusive domain of the Commonwealth government, which had the resources, personnel, information and skills to make the right decision for all Australians. It is unfortunate that some state and local governments have made the choice to go beyond their jurisdictions, knowing full well that they do not have the relevant departmental personnel to make these decisions. Australian voters do not go to the ballot box thinking their councillors or state members will be directing the foreign policy of the entire nation, and nor should they. Yet many have gone beyond their elected responsibilities and failed to provide even a modicum of transparency.</para>
<para>Engaging in foreign policy should not be something that is done on an ad hoc basis by elected members without support from the relevant department or consultation with key stakeholders. Democracy is not about taking unilateral action or attempting to run a proxy foreign policy that serves the vested interests of a minority. The Commonwealth government was elected by the people of Australia to represent their interests as a whole. The proposed legislation not only reflects the appropriate roles of government within Australia but reinforces those responsibilities outlined in our Constitution. The economic stability of our nation is built on friendly relations with our neighbours. We rely on trade and enjoy close ties to much of the rest of the world. It is a testament to the successful foreign policy we have engaged in to date and our high standing internationally. If we want to continue to enjoy the benefits of strong international ties, we cannot afford to mix messages or allow contradictory agreements to be signed.</para>
<para>This legislation creates a reliable framework for engaging with the rest of the world at a time when we need to be supporting jobs, growth and investment. Bills such as this support international confidence in our nation and help Australian businesses plan for the future. This is an important aspect of economic recovery and building integrity into our systems at all levels of government. This bill instils consistency in how we deal with foreign governments. It ensures that our national interests come first and that no special international groups or ideological cliques have the ability to pursue an agenda at odds with what is best for Australians. This bill is not about intruding into states and territories or trying to tell local governments how to operate. It is ensuring that in our dealings with foreign governments our national interest and values are reflected, putting freedom and fairness at the heart of what we do. This bill does not affect engagement with corporations. This is a government that supports entrepreneurship and innovation, which are the foundation of our nation's economic prosperity and that of many other countries.</para>
<para>This legislation requires that due diligence is given to international arrangements as an effective mechanism to support Australian interests globally. As part of this process, we are requiring the states, territories and local governments to complete a stocktake of international agreements that they are currently engaged in so that a review of these agreements can take place. A public register of these agreements will be created to ensure that there is a high level of transparency, and any arrangements with foreign governments are open for the debate that makes this country strong. If it is found that some of the agreements are not in the best interests of all Australians, the Commonwealth government retains the power to rescind the agreement or, if necessary, obtain an injunction in the Federal Court or the High Court to enforce that decision.</para>
<para>One of the telltale signs that this legislation is long overdue is that the Commonwealth has little to no oversight of many of the international agreements that the states, territories and councils have signed, despite the fact that ultimate responsibility for foreign policy resides with the Commonwealth. Were relations with other countries to become a political football, it would seriously undermine both our international credibility but also our capacity to represent and defend the interests of Australians abroad. The instability of our region makes this simply dangerous. It cannot benefit Australia in any way. The place for debate around foreign policy rests within the federal government. This legislation is targeted, with much of the normal business that is conducted being completely unaffected. As a government that supports free enterprise and innovation, we have focused this legislation to create an environment which is conducive to business seeking to act fairly.</para>
<para>Foreign policy requires a long-term vision for our strategic interests, which should not be dependent on state, territory or council interests. International relations remains one of the most challenging areas in our region, contained due to a number of hotspots which are the source of global tension. It is precisely the delicate nature of these flashpoints and the way in which other nations are operating that require us to take a long-term view of our strategic interests. In support of peace and stability, we cannot allow the internal debates around our foreign policy agenda to be played out on the international stage. Parliament is the chamber for debate, and responsibility for foreign policy clearly rests with the Commonwealth government, who takes a national view, representing the interests of all Australians regardless of which state, territory or local government area that they come from.</para>
<para>As part of the implementation of this legislation, engaging with key stakeholders is taking place. This is especially the case with universities who we understand may be uniquely affected by this bill. Over the long term, the increased cooperation will enable the full resources of the federal government to inform decision-making by states, territories, local governments and other organisations. Ultimately, this benefits working Australians by creating healthy and transparent systems that impact how we do business both here and around the globe. For these reasons, I recommend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In summing up, I thank those who have spoken on the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 for their contributions to this debate; it's an important topic. This bill reflects the government's commitment to ensuring that when Australia speaks on the world stage, we speak with one voice. And the bill appropriately reflects the Commonwealth's critical role in leading and managing Australia's foreign relations. It is the Commonwealth government that is responsible for foreign policy, and only the Commonwealth has the necessarily expertise and experience to manage Australia's foreign relations. Importantly, the Commonwealth's power in respect of foreign affairs is founded in the Constitution, and that has always been the case. But under current processes there is no requirement for states and territories to consult with the Commonwealth on arrangements with foreign governments. This is a gap which must be remedied and, I believe, has the support of the Australian people.</para>
<para>This bill establishes a process that will protect our national interest and ensure the consistency of our foreign policy. The government recognises the important contributions that states, territories, local government and universities make to Australia's international engagement. We want this to continue. This bill is not about restricting international engagement. It is not about interfering in the states' and territories' business. Put simply, it is all about due diligence. The Commonwealth must have an oversight of all arrangements concluded at all levels of government in Australia with foreign countries. If an arrangement would be inconsistent with Australia's foreign policy or adverse to our foreign relations, then it should not proceed. It is the Commonwealth's role to make these adjustments and these judgements. We want states and territories, local governments and universities to have confidence when they negotiate or enter arrangements that they are acting consistently with Australia's broader foreign policy. This is exactly what this bill provides. It will give states and territories the support they need to undertake effective, appropriate and informed international engagement. The government looks forward to working with all stakeholders to implement the legislation.</para>
<para>The consequential bill, the Australia’s Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020, reflects the government's commitment to protecting and promoting Australia's national interests. In an increasingly complex global environment, it is critical that the Commonwealth and the states and territories speak with one voice, and this proposed legislation will ensure that at all levels of government Australia takes a consistent approach to engagement with foreign governments. The consequential bill's amendments to the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 and to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 will help support a strong and consistent framework, ensuring arrangements between state and territory governments and foreign governments and related entities do not adversely affect Australia's foreign relations and are not inconsistent with our foreign policy. This is not about excessive intrusion into states' and territories' business; instead, these changes ensure that we are giving the appropriate due diligence to all our international arrangements to ensure they are consistent with Australia's national interests and values, and the Australian people expect nothing less.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>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. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" background="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core">
            <a href="r6595" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>24</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>24</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" background="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core">
            <a href="r6431" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>24</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 and set out the position of the opposition on this bill. It is significant legislation which amends a number of Commonwealth acts, including the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Surveillance Devices Act 2004. This bill, which has taken some time to make its way into this place, would implement a second phase of reforms arising from recommendations of the report on the statutory review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and associated rules and regulations, which were tabled in the parliament on 29 April 2016. Again, this is consistent with a broader pattern under this government of there being some delay in dealing with very significant matters, and, of course, the matters this bill responds to are extremely significant. That said, I acknowledge and we acknowledge that this is a bill that is fundamentally designed to improve Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing laws, and this is an objective—and, indeed, a bill—which Labor supports. But we do call on the Morrison government to take anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing laws more seriously and to deal with these matters more expeditiously.</para>
<para>The basis for these changes rests in very large part in the work of the Financial Action Task Force which is an intergovernmental body established by the then G7 back in 1989 and of which Australia has been a member since 1990. From that time, the recommendations of the task force have set international benchmarks for measures that respond to money laundering and terrorist financing. These were revised in 2012. While these are not binding under international law, they are supported by very significant global institutions: the G20, the United Nations, the World Bank and the IMF. This is positive globalism—a very important cooperative framework which operates via a system of evaluations and the provision of incentives so that these recommendations can be given full effect to by a state party such as Australia. It was a mutual evaluation report of this nature in 2015 which identified deficiencies in Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing provisions. This bill will address some of the deficiencies identified in that report. However—and it is crucial that members note this—this bill does not address all of these deficiencies. Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing regulatory framework will remain non-compliant or only partly compliant with many of the recommendations made by the Financial Action Task Force in its 2015 mutual evaluation report.</para>
<para>There is more to be done. That is the responsibility not only of this government but of all members, and that is the contribution that Labor will be making in support of the provisions contained within the bill.</para>
<para>The bill contains a wide range of measures to address money laundering and terrorism financing risks. The aims are: to expand the circumstances in which reporting entities may rely on customer identification and verification procedures undertaken by a third party; to reform cross-border reporting requirements so that, in addition to travellers declaring $10,000 or more of physical currency, travellers will now also have to declare bearer negotiable instruments, such as travellers cheques, at the border where the combined amount of physical currency and bearer negotiable instruments is $10,000 or more; to strengthen protections on correspondent banking by prohibiting financial institutions from entering into a correspondent banking relationship with another financial institution that permits its accounts to be used by a shell bank and by requiring banks to conduct due diligence assessments before entering and during all correspondent banking relationships; to simplify secrecy provisions to make clearer the prohibitions on tipping off in order to permit reporting entities to share suspicious matter reports and related information with external auditors and foreign members of corporate and designated business groups; to provide a simplified and flexible framework for the use and disclosure of financial intelligence to better support combating money laundering, terrorism financing and other serious crimes; to create a single reporting requirement for the cross-border movement of monetary instruments; and to address barriers to the successful prosecution of money laundering offences by clarifying that the existence of one Commonwealth constitutional connector is sufficient to establish an instrument of crime offence and deeming money or property provided by undercover law enforcement as part of a controlled operation to be the proceeds of crime for the purpose of prosecution.</para>
<para>I note also that the bill would make it an offence for someone to falsely claim that they have received a police award. Obviously it's disappointing that there needs to be such a provision, but this is a provision that Labor strongly supports.</para>
<para>Of course, money laundering and terrorism financing are not just problems for Australia. They are global problems that require effective global engagement and cooperation. They threaten Australia's national security and the integrity of Australia's financial system. That's why Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing frameworks must continue to evolve to keep pace with evolving challenges. Otherwise, Australia will become a weak link in the global financial system and a soft touch for organised crime around the world seeking to launder its proceeds.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, since 2013 this government has repeatedly missed deadlines in its own anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing timetable. Such was the government's failure to implement reports according to its own schedule that the world's watchdog, the Financial Action Task Force, expressed serious concerns about the regulatory framework in this country. The Financial Action Task Force's 2015 mutual evaluation report made clear that Australia is an attractive destination for foreign proceeds of crime, particularly corruption related proceeds flowing into real estate. This is troubling to read, at the very least. It is even more troubling when we reflect that this was a report handed down in 2015—five years ago.</para>
<para>So, while Labor welcomes efforts by the government to belatedly strengthen our anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing laws, this latest legislation comes more than four years after the then Minister for Justice tabled the report on the statutory review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and associated rules and regulations, which first called for these changes in March 2016. Yet, much more than four years later, this legislation that is before the House right now fails to implement many of those 2016 recommendations.</para>
<para>The fact is that the Morrison government has dropped the ball on this critical national security issue. Other jurisdictions have moved ahead of Australia, with much stronger anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing protections. This means that there are growing risks to Australia—and they should concern every Australian—including this government's failures to fully implement either the Financial Action Task Force or the statutory review's recommendations. Accordingly, I will be moving a second reading amendment to this bill—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>25</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia Post</title>
          <page.no>25</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Armstrong Creek is in the heart of my electorate. While it was only gazetted in 2012, it is a rapidly growing community. At the 2016 census, Armstrong Creek had a population of 4,247. Today, only four years later, it's home to over 15,000 people. That's about the population of Broken Hill in New South Wales, or a little bigger than Sale in Victoria, but when it comes to post offices the people of Armstrong Creek have been forgotten. Let's contrast. Sale has four post offices and 13 postboxes. Broken Hill has four post offices and 25 postboxes. But Armstrong Creek has no post offices and only one postbox to meet the needs of more than 15,000 residents—and they're frustrated. They're fed up with the federal government's poor performance when it comes to postal services. Resident Julie Cree said: 'This is a real failure and it's made even worse with COVID because so many people are now buying products online. We are waiting in long queues at the Grovedale post office or outside the Waurn Ponds post office.' While tradies have managed to build thousands of homes across Corangamite over the past seven years, Australia Post can't even deliver a post office for a community that is set to grow to 50,000 people by 2040. To the people of Armstrong Creek: I hear your frustration and I urge Australia Post to establish a post office in Armstrong Creek now.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Abbott, Sergeant Francis 'Frank' Arthur</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McINTOSH</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sergeant Francis 'Frank' Arthur Abbott was born in Penrith on 29 January 1893. Frank, his parents and his three brothers lived on Jamison Road. Frank was a storeman until he established his own grocery business. He left the business in the hands of his brother Joseph when he enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force in 1915. While in the trenches of the Somme, Frank wrote to his mother, Mary Ann, describing the fear and exhilaration of life on the front line. Frank was nominated for the Distinguished Conduct Medal for conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty when his commanding officer and platoon sergeant were wounded in action at the Somme. On 31 August 1918, Frank was killed in action in Bouchavesnes-Bergen. His place of rest is unknown, but Frank is commemorated on the Villers-Bretonneux Memorial in France as well as on four honour rolls in his home town of Penrith. Today, Remembrance Day, we commemorate the loss of Australians from all wars, conflicts and peacekeeping operations and we remember the sacrifice and service of those who have served and those who continue to serve our country. Lest we forget.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-MonaroEden-Monaro manage the rise and fall of the bushfire recovery process, they are committed to sharing their learnings with the wider Australian community. Insurance has long been one of the challenges those impacted by natural disasters have faced, and the Insurance Council of Australia has played a positive role in that space. With the first anniversary of last summer's flames almost here, I'm being approached by businesses big and small, from Kosciuszko to the Sapphire Coast to the Snowy valleys, who simply can't insure into the future because either the cost is prohibitive or insurance companies simply aren't willing to take on the risk and offer a policy. Some residents are also struggling to find insurance again for their family home. This is a worrying trend and has the potential to undermine the confidence and investment needed to drive jobs and renewal. One ski operator I met with suggested it might be time to bring back the Government Insurance Office to help businesses and residents get back on track.</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As people and businesses right across the mighty</para>
<para>The bushfire royal commission outlined 80 recommendations to make our nations better prepared for such emergencies. Had the recommendations of the 240 previous disaster inquiries been adopted, the insurance sector might have more confidence in our future. Longer bushfire seasons and rising sea levels are the headline when it comes to climate change. These details are now being felt. The time for action is long overdue in terms of both natural disaster preparedness and climate action. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Travel Industry</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Noosa is a fantastic place to have a holiday, but travel agents in Noosa and the broader Wide Bay have been devastated by the border closures and by flight, cruise and tour cancellations caused by COVID-19. Travel agents' businesses rely on selling flights, cruises and accommodation to generate the commissions they need to operate, but COVID-19 has been catastrophic, completely changing how travel agents do business. With nothing to sell, they don't have money coming through the door. Instead, travel agents are processing refunds and credits and not earning the money they need to make a living and pay staff and other overheads. I recently met with Shane and Carolyn Nelson, Melinda Gregor, Natalie Cherry and Clare Leak, who explained the damaging impact of COVID-19 on their businesses. The travel industry was the first to be hit by the pandemic and will be the last to recover, so there is a clear case for special assistance to be provided to the industry, which is made up of mum-and-dad operators, small businesses and franchise owners. I have written to the minister for tourism and am looking forward to his response.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Greenway Electorate: Diwali</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to wish everyone celebrating this year a very happy Diwali. The Festival of Lights will be very different this year due to COVID-19. The pandemic has curtailed the ability of many to hold the large outdoor festivals that we've come to enjoy and ceremonies within places of worship. But it will be celebrated nonetheless. By its very nature, this is the time when we reflect on our many blessings and we look forward with hope and optimism to the year ahead.</para>
<para>I am very fortunate in my electorate of Greenway to represent people of many different backgrounds and faiths who will celebrate Diwali, including those of Hindu, Sikh, and Jain faiths. We have seen around the electorate of Greenway construction commencing on a number of places of worship, including the Shakti temple in Old Toongabbie and the Jain temple in Toongabbie, for which marble is already being prepared in India. It is wonderful that the Diwali Christmas lights competition is being held across my electorate. And even people who don't join in celebrating Diwali as a religious occasion do like to participate and leave the lights up until Christmas. So let's remember the deep meaning of Diwali: a fresh start and new beginnings.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Remembrance Day</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today marks Remembrance Day. We commemorate 11 November 1918, when the guns fell silent on those blood-soaked battlefields of the Great War. Over 330,000 Australians fought in that war and over 60,000 died. Many of them, just like you and me, were everyday Australians. One of them happened to be a great-uncle of mine, Private William O'Brien, otherwise known as 'Dinkum' to his mates. It was on a Sunday after 7.30 pm under heavy artillery fire that William was hit by a piece of shrapnel from an exploding shell, hitting his hand, his arm and his head. Two hours later he was dead. His mother, my great-grandmother, received news of William's death by telegram on what should have been his 21st birthday, such is the tragedy of war. Whether it be the Anzacs or anyone who has fought for this nation, their legacy is not in the physical symbols of remembrance, as important as they are; rather, their legacy lies in the freedom we enjoy and the virtues we seek to embody. Lest we forget.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Income Support Payments</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor calls on the Morrison government to do its job, which is to support Australians doing it tough. We call on this government to maintain the $250 per fortnight JobSeeker coronavirus supplement. We call on the government to permanently raise the rate of JobSeeker and Newstart. We call on this government to have some decency towards vulnerable Australians who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own. There will be 1.8 million Australians relying on unemployment support payments over the Christmas season. As the chief executive of the Australian Council of Social Service, Dr Cassandra Goldie, put it, there are a lot of things that are out of the government's control, but the one thing they have control over is ensuring that everyone has enough to cover the basic costs of living.</para>
<para>I've heard from my own constituents. Some are forced to skip meals to make do. And what is this government's response? They ignored Labor's calls for a permanent increase to the JobSeeker/Newstart rate, and then they announced instead that, come this December, they're going to be cutting the supplement by $100 a fortnight. People looking for work or struggling to support their families on JobSeeker don't need cuts. Australians need a government that will support them during the tough times, not cuts. Australians need a Labor government with a plan for jobs—a Labor government with a vision for a fairer future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Trade with China</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'DOWD</name>
    <name.id>139441</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In December 2015, the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, or ChAFTA, was signed. Over the last six months, the Chinese government has imposed restrictions and disruptions on a range of Australian products. A third of Australian agricultural products—meat, grain, citrus, wine, seafood and other products—go to China.</para>
<para>In my electorate, 2PH Farms, owned by Craig and Bindi Pressler, have major concerns, as they export citrus and grapes. Nearly half of Queensland's $74 million of citrus exports is produced by this family operation.</para>
<para>Also concerning to me is that, on 24 May, 170,000 tonnes of coal left the port of Gladstone in my state of Queensland, and the shipment has been idling in the North China Sea since 13 June. Health and wellbeing concerns are held for the 23 Indian sailors who have been stranded on the ship for the last five months.</para>
<para>China's market is vital to all Australian produce, to mining and to gas exports. Tensions with China are a major concern to our producers. The consequences of this are nothing short of catastrophic for the Australian economy and employment. Exporters need assurances for future planning and viability and to ensure their products have a market.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliament House: Flags, NAIDOC Week</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Always was, always will be—the land on which we meet today is that of the Ngunawal and Ngambri people, and the land I'm from is that of the Whadjuk people of the great Noongar nation of south-western Australia. As we celebrate NAIDOC Week this week, we reflect that this always was and always will be the land of our First Nations peoples, who have occupied and cared for this continent for over 65,000 years. As Australians, we are all spiritually and culturally connected to this country—some of us, for generations; some of us, maybe for only some months. But all of us as Australians are now sharing in this long and continuous cultural heritage.</para>
<para>Last week, I visited the Goodstart early learning centre in Canning Vale, as part of their NAIDOC Week celebrations and to discuss reconciliation. When we have done something wrong to our friends, it's important that we say sorry so that we can all be friends again. The kids agreed that, when we've done something wrong, we need to say sorry and that we need to accept everyone for who they are. That means accepting each other for our differences and our similarities and valuing the contributions we all make. I told them that this is all part of reconciliation.</para>
<para>So why is it that, in this NAIDOC Week, in this, our nation's parliament—the place where 'Sorry' was said on behalf of all Australians—we're still not able to recognise all Australians through displaying all of Australia's national flags, including the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags?</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hill, Mr Alexander</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to congratulate the two-time rowing world champion and Olympic silver medallist Alexander Hill on being recognised by the District Council of Loxton Waikerie. On Monday, Alexander was present when the Mayor of Loxton Waikerie, in Alexander's honour, announced the name of a new street, Alexander Hill Drive.</para>
<para>Some of Alexander Hill's achievements include winning gold in the men's four at the 2011 junior world championships; taking two silver medals in the 2012 and 2013 under-23 world championships; and, of course, taking the silver medal at the 2016 Rio Olympic Games in the men's four. For the first time in 26 years, he won, in the men's four, for Australia at the 2017 world championships, and, in 2018, he was named in the 2018 male crew of the year by World Rowing. I should note that this list is just a snippet of his achievements.</para>
<para>He joins a long list of sporting champions from Loxton. Alexander comes from a strong pedigree. His grandfather was a premiership player with the Hawthorn Football Club in 1961. Alexander, I want to tell you that not only are your parents, Peter and Michelle, incredibly proud of you; the community of Loxton is incredibly proud of you, and your nation is proud of you. I hope very much that that sign will one day read 'Olympic Gold Medallist'.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dobell Electorate: Roads</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBRIDE</name>
    <name.id>248353</name.id>
    <electorate>Dobell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Central Coast is growing and our region is being left behind by this government. Being overlooked is bad enough, but for locals in my electorate it gets worse. In the government's so-called Central Coast Roads Package, announced before the last election, 94 per cent of funding was directed towards the neighbouring Liberal held seat of Robertson. According to a breakdown of the funding, a single street in Saratoga, in the Robertson electorate, received more funding than the entire northern end of the coast. Worse, of the promised $26.7 million to be spent in 2019, only $4.5 million made it out the door in the middle of a pandemic. Why is the federal road funding skewed towards Robertson, and why is the government so behind in these critical road projects? Recently the government announced an extra $16.7 million as part of this package for upgrades to a road in Woy Woy. I welcome road funding for the Central Coast—of course I do. People, families and businesses need to get around the coast and to get home safely. But Dobell deserves its fair share. Locals in my electorate deserve better from the government.</para>
<para>So, again, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development: where is the local roads funding for Dobell? The government needs to be upfront about what road projects will be funded and start clearing the backlog of roadworks on the north of the Central Coast. It's clear that funding allocations of Urban Congestion Fund projects are decisions of the federal government and aren't conducted through a competitive grants process, and our community deserves its fair share. I look forward to the Deputy Prime Minister's response, as does everyone on the coast. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Camp Quality</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I want to share with the House the insights of Maddi Penton, a 22-year-old preservice teacher living on the north-west coast of Tasmania. Here's what Maddi wrote to me about childhood cancer and the important work that Camp Quality does:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Childhood Cancer is a topic no-one wants to talk about and something you don't really take into consideration until you, or someone you know, is affected by it. What people don't realise is that cancer is the largest killer of children in Australia. Every week, 3 children die from the disease.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Camp Quality helps thousands of children over the country, whether they're diagnosed with cancer themselves or someone close to them, such as a parent or a sibling. Coronavirus has been tough for the kids and tough for the families who benefit from Camp Quality. While the camps are slowly returning, these children need our support now more than ever.</para></quote>
<para>I'd say that Maddi has hit the nail on the head. I want to thank her, and I sincerely thank all Camp Quality's tireless volunteers for the vital work they do for our kids. Camp Quality exists because of the generosity of many Australians, and I want to encourage every Australian out there who can to donate to this wonderful organisation in the time that they need it most.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>JobKeeper Payment</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In March, retail billionaire Solomon Lew reportedly cried as he spoke to the Treasurer, urging him to create JobKeeper. His firm, Premier Investments, temporarily closed stores such as Just Jeans and Portmans, receiving around $45 million in JobKeeper payments from the taxpayer. Six months later, Premier Investments announced profits 29 per cent higher than last year and paid shareholders a $57 million dividend. As the largest shareholder, Lew himself received more than $20 million. A policy designed to help battlers ended up benefiting a billionaire.</para>
<para>Premier Investments also paid its CEO a $2 million bonus. They're not alone. Healthia got $8 million in JobKeeper and paid over $100,000 in bonuses. Integral Diagnostics got $5 million in JobKeeper and paid over $200,000 in bonuses. Carsales got $5 million in JobKeeper and paid over $400,000 in bonuses. Capitol Health got $5 million in JobKeeper and paid over $700,000 in bonuses.</para>
<para>Yesterday in the Senate, Labor moved to prevent firms getting JobKeeper from paying bonuses. The coalition voted against it. That puts them at odds with the Business Council of Australia and with the tax office. As Second Commissioner Jeremy Hirschhorn recently warned, paying bonuses out of JobKeeper would be seen as 'exploiting the spirit of the measures'. With a million unemployed, why is the Morrison government shovelling cash to millionaires? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Remembrance Day</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAMSEY</name>
    <name.id>HWS</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This morning I had the great privilege of attending the memorial service for Remembrance Day at the Australian War Memorial. I congratulate all of those that had anything to do with organising or performing on the day. It was a very memorable service, indeed, and in great taste. Each time I go to Anzac Day, Remembrance Day or Vietnam Veterans' Day and we call through those numbers of people who went to fight for this nation, for our values—the numbers of those who were maimed, who were casualties; and then the numbers of those who forfeited their lives at these battles—it is a time for great reflection, and we should pause to remember this day and those other days every year. But, while I contemplate that, I also contemplate those that are serving the nation today. Last night, I had the opportunity to sit down and share a meal with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The conversation turned to Remembrance Day and what we owe those veterans that are coming back today and how in the past perhaps we haven't done as well—in fact, I'm sure we haven't done as well as we should have. He is determined to reach out to everyone, to find them all, to find everyone we can and keep them in our sights for the rest of their time. This afternoon, I will meet with him over a family that lost a son after eight years—returned from Afghanistan and gave up the fight earlier this year.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Remembrance Day, Lalor Electorate: Diwali</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Remembrance Day, it is my pleasure to rise in this chamber to recall all of those who served Australia, particularly in the Great War—World War I—when we lost so many. We had such a high price to pay at home for those losses not just of those who were lost on the battlefield and never returned but also those who came back different people and who struggled to rejoin their families and continue a life that they'd left. I recall those who served with a reminder to myself that, in my community today, at our cenotaph, there will be wreaths laid to remember them today, as will be done in Victoria, under subdued circumstances, as you can imagine. So, as a wreath is laid today to acknowledge the federal seat of Lalor and all of the residents of Lalor, we all want to remember Remembrance Day. It will be subdued. There will be few people in attendance. But I know that, across the rest of the week and across the weekend, those who venture into our main street, Watton Street, will stop and nod and think about Remembrance Day.</para>
<para>I also want to wish a happy Diwali to everyone across the City of Wyndham, to all of those celebrating and to all of those who are going to light up their homes for our city of lights festival.</para>
<para>I also want to say very good luck to everybody doing their VCE exams at home.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Diwali</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHARMA</name>
    <name.id>274506</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I extend my Diwali greetings to all of the Indian community in Australia and associate myself with the messages of those members opposite. I'm part of the Australian-Indian community. My father migrated here in the late 1970s, and he is from a Hindu family in Uttar Pradesh. When we first moved to Australia and lived in Sydney, we were, at the time, the only Sharmas in the <inline font-style="italic">White Pages</inline>phone book. If you now look up Sharma in the <inline font-style="italic">White Pages</inline>—if it still exists physically—there are many. The Indian story in Australia has been a great success story for migrants. There are now almost 660,000 people born in India living in Australia, and they're our third largest migrant group. Hindi and Punjabi are both now in our top 10 languages spoken in Australia. And, as I think many members here would know, the Indians have been a very successful migrant community; they're industrious, they're hardworking, they're honest, they're good taxpayers, they're passionate about education and opportunities for their children, and they like cricket. But, most importantly, they're good neighbours and good citizens and subscribe to the values that all of us in Australia hold dear. So, on this festival of Diwali, which is all about a fresh start and new beginnings, let's give thanks for all that we hold dear and let's help spread joy and light in the year ahead. I extend my best wishes to the Indian community for Diwali 2020.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Income Support Payments</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today as we meet in this House there are between 300,000 and 600,000 Australians who are without work for the very first time in their working lives. They have joined the queue of Centrelink, never before having had that experience, and we have to ask the question: what is the government doing about it? The government is undoing the effort that it put in earlier—even though had it to be grudgingly dragged into that effort—by proposing that the COVID supplement be cut even further. It defies logic when we know that those people who earn the least spend the majority of what they get. Innocent workers, through absolutely no fault of their own, have lost their work. People who never imagined they'd have to attend Centrelink have suddenly been forced to do so. Just a few short months ago, they were queuing outside my office in Sturgeon Street, Raymond Terrace. It was a heartbreaking and really difficult moment for many people in my community, and I just want to know: why does this government seek to continually vilify these people? The Prime Minister says, 'Get back to work.' Prime Minister, where are the jobs? There are no jobs for these people. Today, if you are over 35—which by anyone's measure is not a ripe old age; it's young—there are no jobs and you are going to be again disadvantaged by your own— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Remembrance Day</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SIMMONDS</name>
    <name.id>282983</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This morning, I and other members gathered at the Australian War Memorial to remember those who have sacrificed their lives for the freedoms that Australian enjoy today. Our electorate of Ryan is home to the Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera, and this morning at the Australian War Memorial we heard from Dan Keighran, who was awarded the VC while part of 6RAR, based at Enoggera. He was part of what remains a large Defence and veteran community in the Ryan electorate.</para>
<para>I recognise that this day can weigh heavily on the hearts of our local veterans, our current service men and women, their families and their friends. On Remembrance Day, I would usually be among them, attending a service held by one of our local RSLs. I pay tribute to the members of the Kenmore-Moggill RSL, the Toowong RSL, the Gaythorne RSL, The Gap RSL and the Bardon RSL for the moving services that they held this morning in the Ryan electorate.</para>
<para>I would also like to highlight a fantastic local business that has gone above and beyond today to support our defence community. Deanna, the owner of Enoggera Flowers, has donated all the profits from her sales today to Legacy Australia. At a time when businesses are doing it tough because of the COVID-19 recession, Deanna has shown immense generosity, and I would like to thank her on behalf of our community.</para>
<para>I join our community in coming together today to reflect on the enormous sacrifices of our veterans and their families. We cannot thank them enough for the sacrifices they have made to protect our families and our country. Lest we forget.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>JobMaker Hiring Credit</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The thing that young people know is that, if you've got a job, it's a lot easier to get another one, and the thing that older workers know is that, if you lose your job, it's a lot, lot harder to get another job. For 950,000 Australians who are over the age of 35, it's about to get a lot, lot harder. I'm referring, of course, to the government's latest plan, which is going to pit older workers against younger workers. Now, don't get us wrong; we think it's great that younger workers are going to get a shot at a job. But where are the protections for older workers? You do not have to be Einstein to understand that, if you give businesses a few hundred extra dollars to employ one group of younger workers, it's going to be a disincentive against older workers. Even the member for Hughes could work that out. But those opposite simply refuse to acknowledge that there's a problem here. What a kick in the guts for those middle-aged workers who are struggling to put food on their tables and a roof over their heads! It's pretty clear that, if those opposite spent as much time working on the details as they do on the marketing and the spin, this problem would not exist. It's time to give the older workers of Australia the fair go they deserve.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Blackburn, Mr Arthur Seaforth, VC, CMG, CBE</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Conscious of time, I would like to take the opportunity on Remembrance Day to pay tribute to Victoria Cross winner Arthur Seaforth Blackburn, who in fact is a former member for Sturt, though not in this chamber; he served in the South Australian House of Assembly as the member for Sturt. His son-in-law, the Hon. Jim Forbes, served in this chamber as the member for Barker. Arthur Seaforth Blackburn was awarded the Victoria Cross for his service on the Western Front in Pozieres, France. He received his award from King George V himself at Buckingham Palace later that year. He also served in the Second World War, and he was a prisoner of war there. He was a great Australian hero, one of the many whom we remember on this Remembrance Day. Lest we forget.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for member's statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>31</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>JobMaker Hiring Credit</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The government's original hiring credit bill allowed employers to sack existing workers over the age of 35 and replace them with cheaper, subsidised workers. Why won't the Prime Minister protect the jobs of existing workers?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition is not true—it's not correct. The JobMaker hiring credit is about getting Australians who have been out of work back into work. It's a program that is designed to get Australians who have been most heavily impacted by the COVID-19 recession—which has particularly been younger people, who have been disproportionately impacted of all those in the labour force—back into work at a cost of some $4 billion. That's to put 450,000 supported jobs back into the workforce. It is only available for additional jobs; you cannot reduce your current workforce. And there is the double-barrelled additionality criteria, which has the protection of both headcount from the reference date of 30 September and the payroll of the business. Hours can't be reduced and people can't be let off and rehired under these arrangements.</para>
<para>It is important to have these protections in place. That's what the government foreshadowed, and we're ensuring these protections are in place. There are also the protections under existing industrial relations laws, and the integrity measures that are available cannot reclassify workers from contractors to employees to receive the hiring credit.</para>
<para>This is an important program. It's a very important program and we've built the protections into place. It's not a program for people to play politics with in this place; it's a program for the Labor Party to get on board with and to support getting young people back into jobs in the middle of a COVID-19 recession.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Regional Australia: Employment</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please explain to the House how the Morrison government is backing regional Australia's industries, businesses and workers so that our regions become even stronger communities, with more jobs and opportunities—particularly as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and recession?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Fisher for his question, and I thank the many members in this place from rural and regional parts of the country. There are a lot more of them on this side, and I thank all of them, though, for the great work they've been doing through the course of the COVID-19 recession and the COVID-19 pandemic.</para>
<para>But the comeback is underway, there's no doubt about that. Confidence is rebuilding in our economy; figures released today show that it is at a seven-year high—a seven-year high! That shows that Australians are getting their confidence back as we emerge from the COVID-19 recession. One hundred and eighteen thousand jobs in rural and regional areas are already back out of a total of 433,000 jobs that have come back so far, and we look forward to that continuing.</para>
<para>But all Australians now know that this government has had their back and stood by them through the course of the COVID-19 recession with the extensive and unprecedented measures that we have put in place to support Australians during their most difficult time. Australians in rural and regional areas have always known that about our government, and they saw it in the $5 billion in support we gave to rural and regional areas of this country on the drought. That doesn't even include the $5 billion drought fund; that is on top of that $5 billion worth of support. As those terrible floods hit North Queensland and devastated those communities and wiped out generations of herds, the North Queensland Livestock Industry Recovery Agency was on the ground quickly, supported by the Australian defence forces. In the Black Summer bushfires, $1.2 billion has already been committed and spent out of a $2 billion fund that was announced early in January this year to ensure that the recovery can continue.</para>
<para>What rural and regional Australia know about our government is that we understand, we appreciate and we value what they value and the way of life they wish to live in rural and regional Australia. Do you know what that means? It means valuing the industries that they depend on for their livelihoods: agriculture, resources, smelting, forestry, tourism and hospitality. All of these industries are vital to their future, and we know the support they need to sustain them, whether it's in the energy sector or more broadly. It means building the infrastructure they need—as the minister for communications reminded the House, 883 base stations for mobiles with 1,229 in total to be delivered—and providing the $2 billion road safety fund has that come through this year's budget.</para>
<para>Rural and regional Australia know that this government has their back. The Labor Party have turned their back on rural and regional Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>JobMaker Program</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the fact that after the hiring credit amendments, protecting job security, were supported by every single non-government senator, the government voted for the bill in the Senate in its amended form. Today the Prime Minister has changed his position, preventing the timely passage of the bill. Why is the Prime Minister so determined to protect a loophole that attacks job security?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The JobMaker hiring credit will create jobs and support some 450,000 jobs. The question for the Labor Party is: what have they got against the creation of new jobs? The member for Rankin knows all too well that there are a number of protections in this legislation, including protections about additionality, in terms of both payroll and head count. There are also protections with the Fair Work Act, and there are also protections against contrived schemes. The member for Rankin may also be aware that the unemployment rate today for people aged 15 to 34 is 10.2 per cent. This compares with an unemployment rate of 4.7 per cent for those aged 35 to 44 and an overall unemployment rate across the country of 6.9 per cent. I never thought I'd see a Labor Party pitting young workers against old workers. What we are focused on is getting younger people to work, because we understand the experience of Australia in previous recessions, when it took a long time to get those from the unemployment queue into work and it took even longer to get younger people from the unemployment queue into work. The JobMaker hiring credit, together with the other measures in our budget, will create nearly one million new jobs. Our focus is on creating jobs, more jobs and even more jobs, and the JobMaker hiring credit is determined to do exactly that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Regional Australia</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'DOWD</name>
    <name.id>139441</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please inform the House of how the Morrison-McCormack government is supporting the jobs and livelihoods of regional Australia through the delivery of a strong, COVID-19 economic recovery plan?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A good question from a good member! I thank the member for Flynn for his question. The regional member understands the importance, the need and the significance of the government's investment in infrastructure, particularly in water projects in our regions. We know that the best way to enable our regions to lead the country's COVID-19 recovery is through investment.</para>
<para>We are investing in water security. In the budget we allocated another $2 billion under the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund, taking the total to $3½ billion. In the past year alone we have finished five major projects: Sunraysia Modernisation Project 2, South West Loddon Rural Water Supply Project, Coolanie Water Scheme, McLaren Vale Treated Water Storage and Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme. Charleston Dam, in northern Queensland, is near completion. A further 10 water projects are contracted and underway. We have signed the bilateral funding agreement with the Queensland government which will see works begin on a number of water projects in that state, one of which is Rookwood Weir, which I know is going to really benefit the electorates of Flynn and Capricornia.</para>
<para>I'm asked about a plan and policies for regional Australia. I want to read from an important keynote speech, spruiking ideas for our regions, delivered in my home town, Wagga Wagga, the largest regional city in New South Wales:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… if you're a coal miner hearing the talk about winding back coal production—or you're a regional business whose trade is tied to the economic activity generated by mining—why would you trust that change won't be disproportionately shouldered by you.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That when the applause and pats on the back for championing this policy subside, you're the one wondering how you'll pay the mortgage or keep the doors of your business open?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I haven't looked recently at the stats detailing the path from coal miner to yoga instructor.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">People affected by change don't trust they will be looked after by those championing change.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Until we deal with this, we'll be stuck in the same track we've been stuck in for a while.</para></quote>
<para>Who might have said that? Would it have been the member for Hunter? Would it have been the member for Isaacs? No, he would have yelled out, 'You're a disgrace!' It wasn't either of those two. It certainly wasn't the opposition leader, because he says one thing to the miners in Mackay and another to the baristas in Balmain. It might have been the member for Flynn, but it wasn't him, even though he's got 21 coal mines in his electorate which will benefit from the water security—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Deputy Prime Minister, this question did not ask for alternatives.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It asked about regional policies and plans. Certainly coal mines are—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I'll let you all in on a little secret: it was the new shadow minister for resources, the member for Chifley himself. That's who said that. He said one thing then; I wonder what he's going to say in the future.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>JobMaker Hiring Credit</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the fact that yesterday the government voted for the hiring credit in its amended form. Why did the Prime Minister this morning change the government's position and oppose Labor's amendments which protect existing workers from being sacked and being replaced by cheaper workers?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We don't support Labor's amendments because Labor has delayed the certainty for business that is required through the JobMaker hiring credit to help support 450,000 jobs. I explained to the members opposite that we have seen in previous recessions that it has taken a long time to get people from the unemployment queue back into work. Indeed, in the 1990s recession it took 10 years to get the unemployment rate back below six per cent from where it started before the recession. For younger people, it took a full 15 years to get the unemployment rate back to where it was before the recession. We understand that young people have been hit hard in this crisis. The unemployment rate today for those aged 15 to 34 is 10.2 per cent. This compares with an unemployment rate of 4.7 per cent for those aged 35.</para>
<para>This whole program is designed to get people who have been on JobSeeker, who have been unemployed, into work with a minimum of 20 hours a week. The government is providing that economic support to that employer to tip the balance in favour of a new hire. So if you are 16 to 29, you're taken on by an employer and you do a minimum of 20 hours a week, the government will provide that employer with $200 a week. And if you're aged 30 to 35 and you're taken on for a minimum of 20 hours a week, the government will provide that employer with $100 per week. This is a vitally important program, and it's part of a series of initiatives from this government designed to support the creation of more jobs across the Australian economy.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia Post</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the minister for communications. Minister, we're counting down the sleeps until Christmas, but Australia Post is obviously in disarray. Indeed, constituents regularly report bills arriving after due dates, medical reminders turning up after appointments and Centrelink letters not being delivered until after deadlines for responding. These foul-ups are especially problematic for people with a disability, older Australians and people on low incomes, who simply can't afford to pay for Express Post, have their Centrelink cut due to delays or be hit with unexpected credit card charges. Minister, what are you doing about this, and, with Christmas only six weeks away, do you guarantee that our gifts will arrive on time?</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">Ms Burney interjecting—</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Barton is warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do thank the member for his question. He's right to say that Christmas is peak time for Australia Post. It comes on top of a peak in parcel volumes driven by the extraordinary growth in demand for e-commerce over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. If you look at the figures for September, parcel volumes are up 59 per cent on the same month last year. Letter volumes are down eight per cent, continuing the longstanding trend where letter volumes are declining and parcel volumes are growing. When we overlay the trend in the growth of parcels with the normal Christmas peak, we expect parcel volumes for the peak week of Christmas this year for Australia Post to be up 35 per cent on Christmas last year. So it's very important that we prepare for this growth in parcels.</para>
<para>One of the things that we've done is provide temporary regulatory relief so some 2,000 staff can be moved from letters, where the volumes are declining, to parcels, where the volumes are increasing. Those staff can be redeployed to where the need is greatest. But that is not all we're doing. I'm asked: how are we preparing for the Christmas rush? Australia Post is recruiting over 5,000 additional staff across the country. There are 18 dedicated air freighters with increased flight frequency, including the first A321 freighter, which has 70 per cent more capacity than the existing 737-300 freighters. Australia Post expects to go live with its new Melbourne west processing site on 16 November; there are expected to be 3,000 more vehicles on the road this year than last year, reaching a total of 18,000 vehicles; and Australia Post is establishing 30 pop-up retail sites around the country.</para>
<para>So we've done our part as a government in providing regulatory relief so that Australia Post can redeploy resources to where they're needed. Was that measure supported by the other side of the House? No. There was no interest and no understanding. If those opposite had had their way, Australians would be waiting longer to get their parcels. We've introduced the necessary regulatory relief; Australia Post is taking the necessary operational steps. There's a big peak coming at Christmas, and Australia Post is preparing very hard to meet the needs of Australians. We need a good Christmas at the end of a tough year. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Economy</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
    <electorate>O'Connor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please outline to the House how the Morrison government's unprecedented economic support to meet the challenge of the COVID-19 recession is helping families and businesses in my electorate of O'Connor and throughout regional and rural Australia more broadly? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge the member for O'Connor's experience as a farmer before he came to this place. I don't know what those opposite have against farmers. Talking about regional and rural Australia, we're supporting farmers in O'Connor and across the country. The member for O'Connor understands how we are now seeing the Australian economy recover from its biggest single shock in more than a century. Some 446,000 jobs have been created over the last 12 months. Yesterday we saw consumer confidence increase for the 10th straight week. Australia's AAA credit rating has been reaffirmed and just last week we heard the governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia say that we were on the right track with the economic response.</para>
<para>I can also inform the House that consumer sentiment had its biggest single jump in a budget month, when in October it increased by 11.9 per cent. This was the biggest single jump in consumer sentiment since the series began back in 1974. And today we got this month's consumer sentiment number and again it is up—up for a third straight month. We have seen consumer sentiment recover from a downturn at its fastest rate on record, twice as fast as consumer sentiment recovered after the GFC and more than three times as fast as consumer sentiment recovered after the eighties and nineties recession. One of the reasons for that is that the Morrison government has been supporting the economy with significant programs and projects—like JobKeeper, with $70 billion already out the door, supporting more than 5,000 businesses in the seat of O'Connor; the cashflow boost, with $32 billion out the door, supporting more than 6,000 businesses in the seat of O'Connor; and the two payments of $750 to millions of pensioners across the country, including more than 9,000 pensioners in the seat of O'Connor.</para>
<para>In this year's budget we had other measures to support regional and rural Australia—like $2 billion to help our farmers recover from drought; $350 million to support regional tourism and another round of the Building Better Regions program; $317 million to help our exporters access markets and build on the 80,000 tonnes of exports that we have already supported; and $2 billion to support new funding for the new water grid, for dams, weirs and pipelines. This government continues to support jobs across regional and rural Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>JobMaker Hiring Credit</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Why won't the Prime Minister support Labor's amendments to the hiring credit scheme to ensure that a 37-year-old won't get sacked for someone younger and cheaper? Why is the Prime Minister undermining job security for workers aged over 35? Isn't the middle of a recession the very worst time to be attacking job security?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This government has done more than any other government in a time like this to ensure that Australians have been able to have job security during the period of the worst recession we've seen since the Great Depression. We have committed $101 billion to JobKeeper so Australians can have job security, with $70 billion out the door. And with this initiative there is some $4 billion to get people off the unemployment queues, off unemployment benefits, and into jobs.</para>
<para>What the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward in this place is simply untrue and is seeking to create fear in a pandemic. It is irresponsible and it is reckless. This Leader of the Opposition will stoop to any level to try and bring about—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, Mr Speaker; it goes to relevance. The question was about the government's hiring credit scheme, the amendments that were carried in the Senate and voted for by the government but opposed here in the House, and the difference it will make to job security for those over the age of 35, who could lose their job and be replaced.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Burney interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Barton will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He's just done it again. We opposed the amendments in the Senate. We opposed the amendments when they were put in the Senate. That is another untruth which is being put forward by those opposite for the simple purpose of seeking to exploit fear and concern in the community in the middle of a pandemic. This Leader of the Opposition is so desperate, leading a party so divided, that he will use the fears and concerns of Australians in a pandemic to butter up support on his own backbench. I'll ask the minister to add further to my answer to address the matter also raised.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As well as putting fear into the community it sends precisely the wrong message and describes something as potentially lawful which is absolutely unlawful. If any employer tried to do what the Leader of the Opposition has said that they might be able to do—which they cannot do; that is sending absolutely the wrong message. The reason for that is that all of the usual protections under the Fair Work Act apply—protections from unfair dismissal. They're very, very important protections. Any kind of breach of those carries significant civil penalties of up to $13,320 for an individual and $66,000 for a body corporate. It is absolutely unlawful to dismiss someone without a valid reason for dismissal. What was described by the Leader of the Opposition would never be a valid reason.</para>
<para>What he's doing, precisely, is sending the absolute wrong message about what is lawful and what is not lawful. It would be absolutely unlawful, and every employer who is listening would get the wrong message from the Leader of the Opposition. The correct message from this government, as well as all of the protections that the Treasurer has described, is that this has the general protections in the Fair Work Act, and it would be absolutely unlawful under the Fair Work Act for anything like what the Leader of the Opposition has described to occur. He should never suggest otherwise.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Agriculture</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DRUM</name>
    <name.id>56430</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison-McCormack government is backing regional communities by expanding trade opportunities through its Ag2030 plan which is key to helping agriculture become a $100 billion industry by 2030? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In this year's budget we released our Ag2030 plan to support agriculture's ambitious goal of $100 billion by 2030. It is a seven-pillar plan, and one of the key pillars is trade. To put it simply, we are a nation of 25 million people. We produce enough food for 75 million. If we don't engage with the world, if we don't trade with the world, then we don't need the farmers and the regional communities that are there to support them. We have 14 free trade agreements presently in place, and this government has been at the fore of putting them there—China, Japan and Korea. There's also the TPP-11, the $13.2 trillion marketplace of which those opposite said, 'Don't bother about it; it's all too hard.' We stuck the course and we got it done. We've also just put in place a free trade agreement with Indonesia—260 million-plus people on our doorstep are prepared to trade with us—and we're working through with the EU and the UK.</para>
<para>We put cold, hard cash into this in this budget. Over $300 million is going to streamline our trade platforms to make it simpler and easier for our exporters to trade with the world to make a quid. That's an important investment in them and regional communities. We're complementing that now by taking agricultural counsellors from 16 to 22. These are men and women that are in our high commissions and embassies working at the government-to-government level, making sure they get rid of the technical barriers, making it easier for us to trade with other nations.</para>
<para>We have also made a significant investment in protecting brand Australia, with $873 million announced in this budget for biosecurity, protecting us from the pests and weeds that can come in and cost billions of dollars worth of impacts to the agricultural sector . We're also supporting and making sure that we have got the regulatory framework and protecting brand Australia about what's going out. When we see that there's a problem, we address it. We address it and we back Australia. A perfect example of that is the live export industry. In 2018 there was a problem. We didn't undertake a kneejerk, reckless reaction like those opposite did in 2011 and shut the industry down; we backed ourselves and we reformed it. In fact, it didn't cause diplomatic tensions with our neighbours and it didn't cost the Australian taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars that they are now up for because of the reckless action of the agriculture minister in 2011. A Federal Court found that.</para>
<para>Australian taxpayers are paying for the reckless actions taken by those opposite without an understanding of agriculture. Those opposite want to phase out the live export of sheep. But we've got a bigger problem, now, with the new shadow agriculture minister: he doesn't want to do just sheep; he wants to do the lot: he wants to get rid of it all. Live export trade is beyond exemption indeed. That says to us that he wants to shut down a $2 billion industry—10,000 regional jobs. That is going to destroy regional communities. Live export will continue. It is a global commodity worth $12 billion. We should do it better than anybody—and we do. We should back ourselves, but they are turning their back on regional Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>JobMaker Hiring Credit</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the fact that the hiring credit will not be paid to employers until February next year. Why won't the Prime Minister support Labor's fix to its legislation so that existing workers don't get sacked or have their hours cut?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Once again, as I have already said in response to these questions from the opposition—and as the Treasurer has and as the Minister for Industrial Relations has—what the Labor Party is suggesting is simply not true. What the Labor Party has done for so many months now is come into this place, pretend to be supporting the important measures that this government has brought forward to support Australians through the crisis and at the same time seek to have an each-way bet on every single one of them. They seek to both oppose them and support them. Do you know what that means? It means that when you really need the support of people, you cannot count on Labor. You just can't count on them, because you know they will always put their political interests first, to have a bet each way, which is the mode of operation of the Leader of the Opposition. He is the biggest each-way bet in politics.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy: Gas</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison-McCormack government's gas led recovery will back our regional communities as we come out of COVID-19? And is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Mallee for her question. As a regional member, she knows how important affordable, reliable energy is for regional areas and the important role gas plays in delivering affordable, reliable energy for regional Australia and for all Australians. Of course, she knows that gas plays many roles. It cooks our food. It delivers hot water. It heats our homes. But its roles go well beyond that, because with record levels of investment in renewables in this country it's providing firming for solar and wind, and it also supports the 850,000 Australians who work in manufacturing by providing a feedstock for fertiliser for our farmers as well as plastics for our health workers. And a gas fired recovery is central to this government's approach to recovery from COVID-19.</para>
<para>We're strengthening the gas market to make sure Australian gas is working for all Australians. That's why we're supporting projects like the Santos project at Narrabri. That's why we're supporting the development of the Beetaloo Basin in the Top End, where we see one of the most prospective gas basins in the world. Unlocking those supplies will help to put downward pressure on longer-term prices. Tomorrow the minister for resources and I will lead a round table of gas suppliers and customers to develop the sector's first industry led code of conduct. The code will ensure fair and effective engagement between suppliers and users during contract negotiations. And the winners will be Australian households and businesses.</para>
<para>Sadly, not everyone in this place understands or accepts the important role that gas plays in our economy. But the member for Hunter does. He believes it so strongly that he's been forced to move to the backbench. In fact, he's not even here today; I think they've kept him out. He knows that the Labor Party has been walking away from hardworking Australians. He has had enough of the cheesecloth brigade, as he calls them, in the modern Labor Party, who are prepared to walk away from blue-collar workers. And we hear that he's not alone; there's a substantial number within who are very much emboldened.</para>
<para>The divisions on that side are growing deeper by the day. They're paralysed by division and indecision as we get on with the job of delivering affordable and reliable energy to all Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>JobMaker Hiring Credit</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Elizabeth, from Diamond Creek, is a single mother in her 40s who says that she's never been unemployed until now. One job ad she found stated that candidates under 30 were preferred so the employer could receive the hiring credit. Why is this government leaving women like Elizabeth behind?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think it should be noted that under the Fair Work Act—and there shouldn't be advertisements like that—the general protections provisions offer protection to employees who are targeted in any way based on a protected attribute, such as their age. As I noted, there are very serious penalties for anyone who takes adverse action against those employees.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the Leader of the Opposition seeking leave to table a document?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I am, Mr Speaker. At the invitation of a number of the frontbench members opposite, including the Assistant Treasurer, it's the job ad and the website on which it is available.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is leave granted?</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You asked for it!</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting —</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on both sides! The member for Barker has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Industry</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government's record investment in defence industry is backing regional Australia by creating local business and employment opportunities?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate>Durack</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Barker for his question and I thank him for his interest and passion in the defence industries in Australia. He knows as well as everyone on this side does just how important defence industry is to regional South Australia and, more importantly, to regional Australia. The Morrison government is investing an historic $270 billion in our defence capability. As a proud regional Western Australian, I'm particularly proud of our investment and spend in regional areas of Australia. That is backing regional jobs and backing those regional businesses.</para>
<para>Recently the Prime Minister and I announced that we will invest $1 billion in a boost to defence industry as a result of the COVID recovery package. This package will support around 4,000 Australian jobs right across Australia. As part of that package we're investing $300 million in our national estate's work program. That will focus on regional areas but, particularly, those bushfire affected regions, like Jervis Bay and Eden, and also places like RAAF Base East Sale.</para>
<para>This means that those local tradies in the region, many of whom would have been doing it tough as a result of the bushfires, can have a job or, indeed, if it is their own business they can grow their business. In essence, it actually gets them back on their feet, so we're very proud of that investment. In the member for Capricornia's electorate we're expanding the Shoalwater Bay Training Area in Central Queensland, with some 44 companies already having received a total of $93 million worth of contracts for the design and construct of the Shoalwater Bay Training Area. In addition to that, we have some 27 subcontractor packages ready to go. They're planned to be released to industry over the next six months, which, of course, is going to create even more opportunities in regional Queensland. And in more good news for Queensland, we're also going to create a new training area for our ADF near Greenvale in Northern Queensland, with a managing contractor announced recently.</para>
<para>Since April our government has paid over $451 million to Australian SMEs which support our defence bases, including many SMEs in regional Australia, with almost $50 million being paid to Aussie SMEs in the Top End, in the Northern Territory, to support our bases. This $50 million has been providing support to 116 separate SMEs, so it is supporting those individual businesses and creating jobs.</para>
<para>I would like to take this opportunity to thank those almost 1,400 Aussie businesses that are engaged to support our bases right across our country, which are supporting some 7,000 jobs. Please know that we appreciate your important contribution to our defence capabilities.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>JobMaker Hiring Credit</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Adam from Lethbridge Park is a 40-year-old Dnata worker who was deliberately excluded from JobKeeper. He was put on minimal hours this year and is looking for a new job. Because he is 35, Adam is locked out of the hiring credit. Adam asks: if there are only incentive programs for employing up-to-35s and over-50s, where does that leave me? Why is the Prime Minister leaving Australians like Adam behind?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A range of measures, including cashflow allowances, were provided to businesses right across the board to support them during this difficult period, which has enabled them to not only keep employees in place but to put more on. In this year's budget, we have introduced the loss carry-back measure, which helps all workers, right across businesses that have been most affected. They can carry back losses from this year to previous years where they have paid tax, which will enable those businesses to put people on and to grow our economy.</para>
<para>Around half of the jobs that had been lost through this terrible COVID-19 recession have already come back into the economy. In addition to that, consumer confidence has now reached a seven-year high, rebounding back from the terrible lows that we saw as we moved through the worst parts of the COVID-19 recession. That confidence is necessary. For someone who lost a job at the company referred to or at any other place, all of those companies, all of those workers, will be supported by an economy that is growing again in confidence, an economy that is being supported by the strong economic policies that are seeing businesses open again and seeing employees coming back into those businesses.</para>
<para>This Friday the national cabinet will meet again and we will keep our focus on opening up Australia by the end of this year. I can tell you, one of the things that will help the aviation industry more than anything else is to see those domestic borders come down in this country where it is safe to do so, so that we can safely open again and we can remain open. That will do more for tourism and hospitality jobs, for aviation jobs all around this country than almost any other thing I can imagine, because of the extensive level of supports that this government has put into the economy. What we're hearing from the Labor Party today is the classic each-way bet. Those opposite say they support the measures we have put in place in the pandemic, but they do not. They're talking out of both sides of their mouth.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have concluded my answer, Mr Speaker.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mining Industry</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HAMMOND</name>
    <name.id>80072</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government is continuing to back our regional communities through its national leadership in the resources sector and how this will support the jobs of resource workers across the country? And is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for the call, Mr Speaker. I thank the honourable member for the question.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You don't have to thank me. I don't have a choice in the matter; you have been asked a question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was being polite, as always.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The honourable member comes from Western Australia, one of those great resource states continuing to drive our economy. In fact, iron ore is the first Australian export, with $100 billion in exports last financial year. That is a big driver of jobs, a big driver of the economy, a big driver of Western Australia. This is just a fantastic opportunity to get up and support the resources sector, because I'm asked about national leadership and what's needed. What's needed is that we should be loud and proud in our support of the resources sector, loud and proud in support of those workers who are out there every single day delivering what is required, delivering what is needed and making tough decisions. Many have been away from their families for many months. They have been away for a long time. They are using Zoom, they are Facetiming and doing all those things to keep in contact with their families, and we should continue to support them because of the important role they have in delivering for our economy and for jobs in this country.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Perrett interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Moreton.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's a fantastic interjection from the member for Moreton—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, it's not.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There are 247,000 Australians directly employed, a million Australians directly or indirectly employed, who all need our support. I'm asked about alternative approaches. We saw an alternative approach yesterday. We saw an alternative approach which has resulted in the member for Hunter, aka General Custer, as I described him in this place some weeks ago—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, the minister will withdraw. You have to refer to members by their correct titles.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw. The alternative approach has been to replace the member for Hunter with the member for Chifley. I welcome the member for Chifley to the shadow portfolio, but I thought I should do some research and see what it is that made the member for Chifley tick with regards to the resources sector. Now, what did we find? What is it that we think is one of the greatest achievements of the member for Chifley? I'm assuming he considers it a greatest achievement; he said he was very proud to be part of it. He was very proud to be part of a government that introduced a carbon tax, something that would destroy regional Australia and all the jobs in the resources sector and electricity generation. In 2018 the member said, 'it doesn't make economic sense any more to have coal-fired power'. I would say to the member: there are an awful lot of people out there employed in the coal-fired sector. They are delivering cheap, affordable, reliable energy into regional Australia. They are driving heavy industry. They are ensuring we keep an aluminium sector and a manufacturing sector. And they're out working hard, and we should be out there supporting them. So I say to the member for Chifley: be loud and proud about the resources sector. Hopefully you won't be overrun by the left flank like the member for Hunter—overrun by your own individuals in your own party. And I thank the member for Hunter for the association that we've had over recent months in his role as the shadow minister.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>JobMaker Hiring Credit</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Mark from my electorate is 40 years old. Because he is over 35, Mark is locked out of the hiring credit, and he believes it will only make it harder for workers in their 40s to get a job. What does the Prime Minister say to Mark, who describes this as 'a kick in the guts'?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our message to Mark, as our message to all Australians is, is this government is supporting the Australian economy with $507 billion of support, the equivalent of 26 per cent of GDP, both balance-sheet support and direct fiscal support. When it comes to the JobMaker hiring credit, our focus has been about getting younger people who have been unemployed into work, because we looked at previous recessions and we saw that in the 1990s it took a full decade to get the unemployment rate back below six per cent, from where it started, but for younger people it took 15 years to get the unemployment rate back below where it started. Today, you've got an unemployment rate for those aged 15 to 34 that is more than double the unemployment rate for those aged 35 to 44. So we have worked with Treasury on a program to support getting younger people who have been out of work into work. And in this budget there are many other measures that support economic activity right across the economy—tax cuts for more than 11½ million people, including in the honourable member's electorate: 66,000 members of her electorate are getting a tax cut, thanks to the policies from those on this side of the House.</para>
<para>And I say to the member for Corangamite more than 6,000 businesses in her electorate are able to access JobKeeper, another measure that has been introduced by members on this side of the House. So whether it's the tax cuts, whether it's the expanded instant asset write-off, whether it's the loss carry-back measure, whether it's the support for apprentices with a 50 per cent wage subsidy, whether it's also our JobTrainer program with 340,000 training places, or whether it's the infrastructure program that is now $110 billion that's supporting constituents in the member's own electorate as well as right across the country, it's doing one thing: helping to create more jobs.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Higher Education</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ARCHER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is backing Australians in our regions to get jobs by helping them receive a university education?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I just can't let this opportunity go without mentioning the member for Corio's tie. He's looking magnificent, and one for Stan—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will resume his seat.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Alright—just briefly!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's one for Stan the Statistician from <inline font-style="italic">The Coodabeen Champions</inline>. The two members in the Labor Party shadow ministry now both barrack for Richmond. There's only two of them, but they now both barrack for Richmond, and that's wonderful to see!</para>
<para>I thank the member for Bass for her question, and I know she's passionate when it comes to regional higher education. I know she supported the $400 million that we put into regional higher education. It means that we're providing more university places—30,000 next year—and the highest growth rate goes to those universities from regional Australia. There are $5,000 scholarships for students from outer regional and remote areas to help pay relocation costs—that's $5,000 to enable students to afford to go to university. There's $500 million, including for universities to fund programs that support regional Indigenous and low-SES students. We want to make sure that all students, especially those from regional and rural areas, can go to university. There's $21 million for an additional eight regional university centres. As we know, these have been incredibly popular. Twenty-five centres have already been announced and are either up and running or in planning, and now we've got an additional eight which will be put in place. There's $48.8 million to fund research collaboration between regional universities, industry and other higher education partners. So we're providing specific research funding for regional universities so that they can make sure that they get that investment that those universities in the capital cities get.</para>
<para>So we are delivering for regional higher education. We've also established the Regional Education Commissioner, who will make sure that, over time, the policies that we're putting in place will benefit those regional students and those regional universities. And we did all this supported by every single member on this side of the House.</para>
<para>Now, what did those opposite do? They opposed our $400 million investment into regional higher education. They opposed it. They didn't stand with those regional members on this side.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Plibersek interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Sydney! You were warned at Old Parliament House!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They opposed our $400 million investment into regional higher education. We stand for regional higher education on this side. What those opposite need to do is get more— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>JobMaker Hiring Credit</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Felicity from Geelong worked in admin at Deakin University for nearly 25 years and she's 55 years old. She was made redundant in September, after the government deliberately excluded university workers from receiving JobKeeper. Felicity is locked out of the hiring credit because of her age, and she isn't eligible for mature worker subsidies yet. Why is the Prime Minister leaving women like Felicity behind?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the shadow minister for her question, because this government stood by our universities throughout this pandemic.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We did. They came to us with their No. 1 priority, and that was for us to guarantee the funding that they had this year, and that's what we did—we guaranteed that funding of $18 billion. And then they said to us that the sector had been hit hard because international students couldn't come here because of the pandemic, and they said: 'We want support for research, because, with international students not there, we need support to make up for that.' So what did we do in this year's budget? The highest single payment ever by a government into research for higher education—$1 billion. We guaranteed $18 billion for the sector. In this budget we provide $1 billion for research.</para>
<para>This has been a difficult year for those in the university sector; this has been a difficult year for those in higher education. But we have worked tirelessly with the sector. I have met with them I would think every single week to hear about their concerns and what we need to do about it. And we're not going to stop here. We know that we need to do more to commercialise and translate research, so we're working with the sector to make sure that will be a priority for us. We are putting in place more places for students. Next year there will be 30,000 more places for students in higher education. We've invested significantly in short courses. That was one of the things we did. On Easter Sunday—and I remember it incredibly well—we announced that we were going to introduce short courses for the higher education sector. This is a serious reform in the sector. Already we have seen upwards of 15,000 students take advantage of their short courses, getting the skills they need so that, as we come out of the pandemic, as the comeback continues, they will be able to find jobs. And in the budget we have again invested in short courses because we want to make sure students, including mature-age students, can reskill—students who can be 35, 45 or 55. Mature-age workers are using those short courses so that they can get the jobs that will be there as we come out of this pandemic. We stood by our higher education sector and we will continue to— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rural and Regional Services: Health</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the . Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison-McCormack government is continuing to back our regional communities through the provision of critical health services that they rely on?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COULTON</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
    <electorate>Parkes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank the member for Cowper for his question. While I'm on my feet, I'd also like to thank him for hosting me in his electorate a few weeks ago, where I was able to meet with many of the highly qualified specialists who deliver services in his community. But the highlight of my visit was a visit to the Werin Aboriginal Corporation Medical Centre, which is a model that we should be emulating—a multidisciplinary team of GPs, allied health and community health. They even have a Men's Shed at the back to supply mental health support for older men in the community.</para>
<para>Regional Australia is doing incredibly well at the moment. We've hit a purple patch. Despite a very rocky start to the year, with fires, floods and finally the pandemic, there's a lot of interest in regional Australia—not only for the hundreds of jobs that are available now but also as a destination for tourists to visit. One of the reasons is the way we have approached COVID-19 in regional Australia. Despite some infections, it has been incredibly successful. Respiratory clinics have been rolled out to enable people to be checked. We had the extra surge workforce and the retrieval for the Flying Doctor Service. But the real success for regional Australia has been telehealth. There has been a lot of talk about telehealth. In the Modified Monash Model areas 2 to 7, there have been 9.4 million telehealth consultations—and that's just the start. Just last week, with Minister Hazzard from the New South Wales government, we launched a trial in telestroke so that people in regional Australia can get the absolute best advice in those vital seconds and minutes after someone has a stroke.</para>
<para>But there is more to do. In the budget, we committed $1.2 billion to the small regional hospitals that are so important to deliver that health care. Also, we are looking at more innovative models. We funded those in the budget for places like Canowindra in the member for Calare's electorate, where Dr Bullock has brought in a multidisciplinary team to really service that town and the villages around it. This is bringing medical trials out to the regions, so not only are those people getting the benefits of being part of life-saving trials but our medical workforce are getting to take part in research.</para>
<para>As the rollout of a vaccine for COVID-19 is looking more and more likely in the New Year, this government will be making sure that regional Australians, some of our most vulnerable communities, will be at the forefront of receiving that life-saving and life-protecting vaccine. This government is committed to regional Australia and to the health of regional Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>JobMaker Hiring Credit</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Mark, from Carrum Downs, is 56 years old. He recently lost his job. He says his job provided nearly half of his family's income and that they have exhausted their savings. Mark is cut out of the hiring credit because of his age, and he won't be eligible for mature worker subsidies until next year. Why is the Prime Minister leaving people like Mark behind?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll ask the Treasurer to add to my answer. Whether it's Mark or anyone else in this country, so many Australians have been hit hard by the COVID-19 recession this year. That is why this government has delivered unprecedented levels of fiscal support into the economy, to ensure that the entire economy can support more jobs coming back as quickly as possible.</para>
<para>Already we have seen almost half of the jobs lost come back into the economy, and we're going to see more because today's confidence figures, which back up yesterday's confidence figures, and last month's, are showing that the Australian comeback has begun. And that's good news for Mark, because as the Australian comeback continues, as businesses continue to grow stronger, as businesses open again and as employees come back into those businesses and come off the JobSeeker payment and go into paid work then Australians will benefit from that.</para>
<para>Some 26 per cent of our economy has been invested, both directly through the federal government and also through the actions of the Reserve Bank, to ensure that our economy has been supported to help people like Mark and anyone else in this country in a way that has never been done in this country before. And next year we look forward with great hope, because not only has there been this significant investment and response from an economic point of view to support our economy and see that the jobs come back but we've invested $18½ billion in the health response that underwrites that economy in a COVID-19 pandemic recession.</para>
<para>The news that we have seen on the vaccination success in these trials is incredibly encouraging. This Friday, the vaccination policy that has been developed by the government will also be noted by the national cabinet and also the actions that would need to be taken by states and territories to see that vaccination able to be disseminated. Australia is in the front row when it comes to the development and delivery of vaccines.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Those opposite wonder why I refer to this. It's because the vaccine and the health strategy are critical to Australia's economic growth, comeback and success. We're leaving no stone unturned in ensuring the greatest Australian comeback that this country has seen since the Great Depression. This government has stood up at this time and, as we've said throughout the course of questions today, we've particularly stood up for Australians in rural and regional areas.</para>
<para>We haven't turned our backs on rural and regional Australia in the way that the Labor Party have, shunting regional members out of their shadow cabinet for simply daring to speak up for regional Australia—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, the Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Higgins.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Vaccines</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALLEN</name>
    <name.id>282986</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health. Could the minister please update the House on progress in securing and delivering safe and effective vaccines to all Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUNT</name>
    <name.id>00AMV</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Higgins for her continued interest in the vaccine program, because it does matter for all Australians. This morning I had the privilege of visiting the Therapeutic Goods Administration and, along with the head of the TGA, Professor John Skerritt, I was able to inform Australians that two of the four vaccines which Australia has secured have already been placed on the provisional approval pathway.</para>
<para>What does this mean? It means they're being given an expedited process to approval but subject to the most rigorous safety assessments, I believe, in the world. The reason this is important is that whilst Australia, on the latest advice I have from the national incidence centre, has contained its community transmission to six cases in seven days—less than one case a day—the world is seeing over 500,000 cases a day, on average, and sadly we've seen 9,000 lives lost in the past 24 hours. So, globally the challenge is enormous. Whilst our containment practices are working, we know that we cannot be safe until we have a vaccine that will protect Australians not just from the disease in Australia but also from the disease at the global level.</para>
<para>This week we have seen the commencement of manufacturing of a vaccine in Australia by CSL. We've seen the very important news that one of the vaccines that we've secured, the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, is making extremely positive progress. We're still cautious, but the progress is very heartening. Today we've been able to announce that two of the four vaccines are already on the provisional pathway. For the other two vaccines it is expected that there will be an application to be on that pathway. As Professor Skerritt said, that means we are in a position where potentially by the end of January there may be approvals for rollout and delivery commencing in March.</para>
<para>Our goal, our intention and our expectation is to ensure that every Australian who seeks to be vaccinated will be vaccinated during the course of 2021. That is immensely important for jobs, for livelihoods and, above all else, for lives and security around Australia. At the same time, we've been able to secure 134.8 million vaccine units directly through these purchasing programs and another 25.5 million units through the COVAX facility. That means we have enough vaccine, through future purchasing, for three times the Australian population. So, we're investing, and we're preparing to save and protect Australian lives.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Income Support Payments</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Brian from Lugarno is 54 and had worked for Dnata for more than a decade before being stood down on minimal hours earlier this year. Like thousands of other Dnata workers, he was excluded from JobKeeper, and because of his age he's blocked from the hiring credit. Why has this Prime Minister made life harder for Australians like Brian during the worst recession in nearly a century?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Werriwa for her question. Her message, like the message from those on this side of the House, is that the government has provided an unprecedented level of economic support to help Australians get through this crisis by effectively building a bridge to the other side. If you look at where effective unemployment was in this country, you see that it got as high as 15 per cent, and today it's down to 9.4 per cent. We have seen 446,000 jobs being created in the past four months. Consumer confidence has been up for 10 weeks straight as of yesterday. Consumer sentiment today is up for the third consecutive month. Our AAA credit rating has been reaffirmed. And we heard from the Reserve Bank of Australia that the government is on the right track. If you look at our performance as a nation, both on the health side and on the economic side, we have outperformed nearly every other country in the world.</para>
<para>We understand that there are still many Australians who are doing it tough. That's why we put in this budget a series of economic measures that will continue to support the Australian economy. That's why we are helping the private sector to make more investments, because that, again, will increase economic activity—with the expanded instant asset write-off, with the loss carry back measure and with tax cuts for more than 11½ million Australians, with indeed more than 71,000 of those in the honourable member's own electorate. And we've extended the JobKeeper payment for another six months, out to the end of March, again supporting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a point of order on direct relevance. In the case of Brian from Lugarno, who's just been spoken about, he works at Dnata; he's ineligible for JobKeeper. The government's commitment to JobKeeper cannot be relevant. It cannot be relevant to his situation. He's been deliberately excluded from it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call the Treasurer, I say to the Manager of Opposition Business that the Treasurer has been able to range widely up until this point because of the final sentence of the question, which was very general, about why the government is making it difficult. That's why he's been able to range widely. But, specifically on this point, I think he's gone as far as he's able to go.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I'm simply making the point that the unprecedented level of economic support is helping to create more jobs and helping to get more people back into work, including in the member's own electorate. This government will continue to have Australians' back and just yesterday made another announcement about additional support for the JobSeeker payment at a cost of $3.2 billion. We will do what it takes to support Australians getting back into work and getting to the other side of this once-in-a-century pandemic.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Remembrance Day</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONNELLY</name>
    <name.id>282984</name.id>
    <electorate>Stirling</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel. Will the Minister inform the House on the importance of Remembrance Day and of commemorating the service and the sacrifice of all of those who have died in wars, in conflict and on peacekeeping operations?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Stirling for his question. I begin by recognising all members in this chamber on both sides of the House who've served in uniform. For the men and women at home today who are veterans or current serving members of the Australian Defence Force, can I say to you all quite simply: thank you for your service, and thank you to your families for assisting you in that service. Throughout our nation's history, two million Australians have put on the uniform of the Navy or the Army or the Airforce and been prepared to place themselves in harm's way to help those who can't necessarily help themselves, And, sadly, 102,000 have lost their lives, whether it's been in wars, in other forms of conflict or on peacekeeping missions. All of them were loved. All of them were missed dearly.</para>
<para>Remembrance Day was called Armistice Day at the outset, on 11 November 1918, when the guns fell silent on the Western Front. We changed the name to Remembrance Day after World War II to ensure that all serving members, all veterans and all of the fallen could be remembered. It is a date for us all to pause and to reflect, and for us to give thanks to all service men and women: to thank them for their courage, for their service and for their sacrifice. They earned the freedoms that we all enjoy here today. I think we as members of parliament commit ourselves, on this day of all days, to secure a lasting peace in their honour. Like our men and women in uniform, we must never give up in that pursuit.</para>
<para>This year has challenged Australians like none in my lifetime, and probably none in many of the members' lifetimes, with the drought, the floods, the bushfires and the coronavirus. Australians have never given up, but their resilience has been tested, and that test has been passed with the assistance of our Australian Defence Force members. Today at the National Ceremony at the Australian War Memorial, we were honoured to hear from Daniel Keighran VC, and he spoke about resilience. In his speech, Dan said: 'The events of 2020 have challenged us all. Like war, they have sharpened our focus onto what is important—family, friends and loved ones. Australia truly is the lucky country, and, even in the most challenging of times, there is nowhere else I'd want to be. We are a nation built on the foundation of mateship, rolling up our sleeves, helping our neighbours and doing it with a smile the best we can.' And Dan continued: 'In the darkest days, there is always a glimmer of light found in the mateship, comradeship and loyalty that is, at its very core, the essence of what it means to be Australian.' I want to thank Dan for those great words from a truly great Australian.</para>
<para>Remembrance Day is about hope. Remembrance Day is about respect. Remembrance Day is about a grateful nation keeping our commitment to our serving men and women. We will remember them.</para>
<para>Lest we forget.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, on indulgence.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I associate the Australian Labor Party with the fine words that we've just heard from the minister. It's 102 years since the guns fell silent on the Western Front in the war that was meant to end all wars. Three hundred and thirty thousand Australians enlisted in that war, 60,000 of whom were killed. It's an extraordinary price that was paid from our country, which at that time had a population of just four million. It's an almost unimaginable sacrifice.</para>
<para>But, more than a century down the track, we are left with just a small clue to what that sacrifice felt like in the fact that you cannot visit in our country today a city or a town of more than a couple of hundred people without finding in it a memorial to those who served and died in the First World War. When you look at those memorials really closely, you can almost feel the aching need that people had to put those memorials in place. This wasn't jingoism or populism. This was just pain. It was solemn pain. For the families and the friends of those loved ones, the voice of their loved ones was given expression by Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We are the Dead. Short days ago</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Loved and were loved, and now we lie</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In Flanders fields</para></quote>
<para>That this experience happened in the first 20 years of the federation of our country meant that, from the very earliest moment, we were imbued with a deep sense of reverence and gratitude to those who have served in the Australian Defence Force, and today is the day, as the minister said, that we give thanks to all of those who have worn and continue to wear our nation's uniform—in particular, in respect of the 102,000 Australians who have given their lives in the service of our nation. At the dawn and in the morning, we will remember them.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Morrison</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, on that note, which unites all members of this House, I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>44</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER</title>
        <page.no>44</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Questions in Writing</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate>Shortland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, in accordance with standing order 105(b) I ask that you write to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to seek reasons for the delay in answering questions in writing Nos 421, 422, 423 and 428. Questions Nos 421, 422 and 423 were placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper </inline>on 24 August 2020. Question No. 428 was placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline> on 27 August 2020.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Shortland and I will so write this afternoon.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>44</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Gorton proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Government's failure to provide economic and employment security to workers during the worst recession since the Great Depression.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We certainly are facing some very significant economic challenges in this country. From the outset, when the global pandemic hit, Labor has been seeking to work with the government to provide the best response to the economic challenges ahead, and not just the economic challenges but the health challenges ahead. If you look at the way in which we've presented suggestions and ideas to the government to make sure that they get the policies and the support right, I think it's fair to say, by way of contrast, that we have acted as a responsible opposition, which is very different from the way in which those opposite responded during the time of the global financial crisis. At all times our suggestions, our proposals, our ideas that come to this place and are put to the government are put in good faith. It was only eight months ago, in the face of the pandemic, that we were suggesting the government entertain the idea of introducing a wage subsidy as other countries were doing to support their economies, support their businesses and support their workforce.</para>
<para>It's really important to remember the initial response by the Prime Minister to the question that they should be considering a wage subsidy, because the answer to that question eight months ago was that there was no need for a wage subsidy. Then the government closed the parliament, and it was to be closed for just over five months. I'm assuming they returned to their electorates and saw the very long queues outside Centrelink offices as thousands upon thousands of workers were losing their jobs. Then we reconvened the parliament and, we're happy to say—we welcomed it—the government changed its mind and accepted the proposition that a wage subsidy was absolutely critical to save our economy, to save thousands upon thousands of businesses and to support millions of jobs. And we say to the government that they did the right thing there. It might have been afterthought, but we were putting that proposition in good faith, and the government accepted that.</para>
<para>Today, unfortunately, again a suggestion by the Labor leader to the Prime Minister and to the government that we make sure that we safeguard workers in the hiring credit initiative was not accepted. Then again, I guess I could imagine that, given that they failed to accept the initial proposition in March, it may take longer for the government to understand that if you're going to introduce a scheme that's to add additional jobs to the labour market then you must prevent loopholes to allow rogue employers to displace, dismiss or reduce hours of their existing workforce. That's all we're seeking to do today and that's why we implore the government to take seriously the suggestions made by federal Labor, because all along we have been seeking to work constructively with the government to look after workers.</para>
<para>Let's remember the position we are in. We are in a recession for the first time in 30 years. Most Australians in the workforce don't remember the recession in the early 1990s. And so many Australians never recovered in that recession. As a result of losing their job, they did not find their way back into the workforce. That is why it is so important that, when we decide to deploy taxpayers' money to look after businesses and to look after workers, we safeguard the interests of those workers. If we can stop them being disconnected—that is, losing their jobs—then it's much more likely that they will get through the recession in a way that will be much more beneficial to them and their families. There is no doubt: once you are retrenched, it is much harder to find work and, if you do find work, it's much harder to find permanent, full-time work: So the government should take seriously what we're putting.</para>
<para>We have nearly one million Australians who are currently unemployed. There are 1.5 million additional Australians who are underemployed. We're getting close to 20 per cent of the labour market that's underutilised. 'Underutilised'—what an economics term. For all of those 2.5 million Australians, what it means is they are struggling to make ends meet. Each one of those in that 2.5 million underemployed or unemployed are struggling to pay the bills. They're struggling to look after their families. It might be a single mum who's lost her job and who now cannot pay the rent. It's as simple as that. It may well be a family that is trying to pay the mortgage or to pay the rent and to look after their kids in the face of great economic challenges. There is just one case after another. In fact, we heard today, in question time, about a series of people—these are not abstract terms. There were Felicity, Elizabeth, Adam, Mark and others who are not going to get sufficient support from this government.</para>
<para>The government puts to us, 'Well, what do you think we should do instead?' We said, 'Firstly, you should have a wage subsidy.' They belatedly introduced that in the form of JobKeeper. It wasn't broad enough to protect everyone; in fact, it excluded a million workers. But certainly it did protect a lot of workers and it protected and supported a lot of businesses. It was brought in late, it was too narrow and now it's being cut too soon and abolished too early. That's what should be in place. When the Treasurer or the Prime Minister stand up and says, 'We're looking after young workers,' well, frankly, they should've maintained JobKeeper for longer, which would have provided support for workers of all ages in the time of the Morrison recession. We could have ensured that we extended that initiative for longer and made sure that those workers and those businesses would be protected.</para>
<para>The problem with the scheme that's being introduced, apart from obviously not providing safeguards to workers, is that many businesses will not be provided support through hiring credits. To meet the test to receive a cent under the JobMaker hiring credit scheme, they have to add to the headcount in their workforce. They cannot be provided with any JobKeeper support at the same time. Many businesses that are struggling to recover from the close-downs that occurred for legitimate health reasons will have JobKeeper ripped away, so they will have no support there. And now they're supposed to not only maintain the workers that were subsidised by JobKeeper but also find extra money to add to their headcount in order to get one extra cent from the government. That will mean that many, many businesses that have not fully recovered will not be getting any support under the hiring credit.</para>
<para>Let's remember the Treasurer's exaggerations and boasts about the scale of this initiative. On every occasion that the Treasurer gets up in this place he pretends that there will be 450,000 jobs created by the JobMaker hiring credit scheme, which is completely and utterly untrue. Treasury belled the cat during estimates and confirmed there would be, at best, 45,000 additional jobs in the labour market as a result of that scheme—10 per cent of what the Treasurer is suggesting in this place. He stands up and, in an absolutely arrogant manner, suggests something that is completely fanciful and untrue. He should not continue to do that when it's been made very clear by his department that there will not be such support.</para>
<para>We say to the government again that there are amendments that should be debated. The bill has gone back to the Senate, and no doubt debates will ensue on the amendments. We say to the government that we support the scheme. It is modest. It isn't as big as it should be. It's not as big as the Treasurer says it is, but it's still something Labor will support. But, in supporting this scheme, we want to make sure that the workers who currently have jobs are not going to be exposed to dismissal or losing their hours of work, to be replaced by subsidised workers. If the government don't think that will happen, then there would be no reason for them to not support that amendment. The amendment just provides that safeguard. And why would a government not want to support those safeguards in order to ensure there have to be additional employees in a time of the worst recession since the Great Depression?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One thing I agree with the member for Gorton on, and as mentioned earlier in question time, is that Australians, indeed the whole globe, have had an exceptionally challenging year on many levels. I was at the War Memorial today for Remembrance Day, and in the address given there it was mentioned that this time last year, in many parts of Australia, we'd had the debilitating effects of drought and the debilitating effects of the fires, and in some cases, including in my region, we went from a drought to floods. These have been very challenging times, indeed. Then, obviously, a month or two after they went away, we had the onset of a global pandemic, which has been very challenging for many Australians.</para>
<para>We might not all agree on what all the solutions have been, but I think we all in this chamber certainly understand that Australians were very concerned with the onset of the epidemic, were very worried, and had, in many cases, fear about what the future held for them—their jobs, their livelihoods, their businesses, their health. As a government, obviously, in many ways, we've done everything we can. If you look at the statistics internationally, Australia, relative to many other countries in the world, on the health front, we've done very well, albeit there have been some tragic deaths and illnesses.</para>
<para>If you look at the fall in GDP, we went into recession in the second quarter of this year. But compared to many other recessions worldwide, ours has been more shallow, which is great, but we've had more people lose their jobs. Every job loss in this country is a tragedy, but we have done a lot as a government to help try and protect those jobs, businesses, and people's health. Deputy Speaker, I'm sure you would be aware of it, but there has been an unprecedented $507 billion in economic support for people's jobs and people's businesses in this country, including $250-odd billion of it direct.</para>
<para>What does that direct support look like? It looks like the JobKeeper program at $10 billion a month, just for that program alone. It was initially announced as going to go through to September; obviously, we are always trying to be optimistic. Then later on in the year we could see that this pandemic was going to go longer, that there would not be a cure, that businesses would not necessarily be able to open up and, through no fault of their own, many businesses had to remain closed for longer and that put people's job security at risk. Just that one program is a $10 billion-a month-program, a lot of government support. We use the word 'unprecedented', but there has been unprecedented economic support by this government for people's businesses and people's jobs.</para>
<para>Our economy contracted by seven per cent in the June quarter whereas the contractions for comparable countries were: New Zealand, 12 per cent; Canada, 11 per cent; France, over 13 per cent; United Kingdom, nearly 20 per cent. A lot of Australia's success, obviously, was the result of the economic stimulus that we provided. Every job lost has been a tragedy, but our unemployment rate is officially at 6.9 per cent. Again, countries like Spain have a rate of 16 per cent. Canada, Sweden, Italy, just to name a few, are countries that have higher unemployment rates.</para>
<para>I do want to go to what was a bit of a theme at question time—the JobMaker hiring credit. As you would know, Deputy Speaker, this is a subsidy. As the Treasurer said a number of times, if you look historically at any recession in this country, the people who get hit hardest, the people who get hit more than any other sector, are the young, our youth. This program is unashamedly targeted at them. The Treasurer has provided many statistics of how 10 years after the recession that hit the nineties, the unemployment rate for youth was higher and it stayed higher for longer. The JobMaker program is unashamedly targeted at them, with $200 a week if you hire someone between the ages of 16 and 29, and $100 a week for someone aged between 30 and 35.</para>
<para>I want to go through some of the claims that the opposition made earlier today in question time. An employer cannot sack someone and then employ someone in that age group to replace them so they can take advantage of the situation. Through the Fair Work Act and through many other things, that just can't happen. It is only available for additional jobs. You cannot reduce your current workforce and then get someone in. There is no double-barrel disability criteria. It protects both the headcount and the payroll of the business. Hours can't be reduced. That claim just simply isn't true. In every recession, and this one as well, the young are hit hardest, so it is unashamedly targeted towards them.</para>
<para>Besides the JobMaker program, the government has unashamedly targeted apprenticeships, again, at young people. There will be 100,000 new apprenticeships through a $1.2 billion boost in an apprenticeship commencement wage subsidy. If you put on an apprentice, the government will pay a very healthy percentage of the salary of the apprentice in early years. Why are we doing this? We are doing this exactly because of what this topic is about. We are doing this to protect people's jobs and we are doing this to encourage the private sector because we will get out of this. We will grow our way out of this not because of the government; we will grow our way out of this and we will get unemployment back to where it was if the private sector is incentivised to employ people and to grow. Eight out of 10 jobs are in the private sector. Ninety per cent of the spending proposals that we have in the budget will hit the ground within the next two years. The vulnerability of people's businesses and the vulnerability of people's jobs is right now. So we have unashamedly targeted and given a lot of incentives to the private sector to employ people and to employ them now.</para>
<para>I want to go a bit more broadly to people's jobs, their livelihoods and their business and touch on a few of the things that we did in the budget. We gave tax cuts to 11½ million people. Again, that was unashamedly targeted to happen right now. In fact, it was backdated. We want Australians to have more money in their own pocket. That's going to facilitate stimulus to the economy. We unashamedly brought these tax cuts forward because we need them to hit now. The JobMaker hiring credit of 200 bucks is unashamedly targeted at young people because they are the ones that are the hardest hit.</para>
<para>There is the incentive for business to invest, with the instant asset write-off. I remember when this was introduced about four or five years ago, and I think at the time it was for businesses with a turnover of up to $20,000, which was quite low. I remember people in my community, especially small business, saying, 'This is a bonanza—people are starting to come in and order things because of that incentive.' We've obviously put that on steroids, and I think it's one of the great things in the budget, because what we want, unashamedly, is for the private sector to have the confidence to invest. I think the instant asset write-off was one of the highlights of the budget. Small businesses and, in fact, large businesses in my community were thrilled to see that change. The loss carryback changes are a real incentive and a real help for small business.</para>
<para>But it went beyond that. There was also direct stimulus spending from the government into certain sectors. We had a $2 billion investment in R&D. Also announced in the budget was the $1.3 billion Modern Manufacturing Initiative, targeting six areas. The other thing that COVID has done is show us that we want and need to be a more self-reliant country. We produce a lot and we manufacture a lot, but we can always do better. The six areas we're targeting are defence, space, medicine, food, resources technology, and recycling and clean energy. The minister sitting behind me is a great minister in the defence area, and a lot of this is going to be about local procurement and producing local jobs.</para>
<para>Deputy Speaker O'Brien, I know that you are also a regional MP. The regions have had their own challenges throughout the COVID pandemic. In the budget there was a $350 million tourism package. Tourism has been very deeply affected throughout the pandemic. Deputy Speaker, the programs that you and I love—the BBRF, the regional roads programs and the regional bridge programs—were all funded again, and we are looking for projects that are shovel-ready. This isn't about an idea for something you might do in three or four years time. If you have a project ready to go now, let's do it, because we want shovels in the ground and jobs on the ground.</para>
<para>Beyond all that—and it is often missed, because there was so much in the budget—we are putting record amounts of money and resources into aged care, schools and hospitals, with across-the-board assistance. There was $1.9 billion for supporting lower-emissions and renewable technologies. There was extra money for the environment as well, particularly to address plastics in the oceans.</para>
<para>We do face great challenges. People's livelihoods and jobs are at great risk and very vulnerable due to the global pandemic. I am proud to be a part of this government, which has given record support for local jobs.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You can tell that the government hadn't thought this through when their only defence from the member for Page, who we just heard, or from the Treasurer during question time is to say: 'It must be okay, because we're spending a lot of money. It must be okay, because we're spending all this money, so how could anyone complain?' Well, if you're spending enough money to hurtle us towards a trillion dollars of debt and you're still leaving this many people behind, you're probably not spending a lot of it that smartly, and that's what became clear today, because, when we raised the problem with how they've designed the hiring credit, the arguments that came from the government were just breathtakingly weird.</para>
<para>First of all, let's just remember the order of what happened. When the amendments were first put, the government opposed them in the Senate. Then, when they had to deal with the bill as a whole in its amended form, they voted for it. So yesterday every member of the government, even though the bill wasn't in exactly the form that they'd thought of, was willing to vote yes for this legislation. Overnight, the Prime Minister has decided, 'Well, we can't agree to something that was someone else's idea,' even though most of the items on that list from the previous speaker were suggestions from Labor or previous policies that Labor had that the government abolished and then brought back. Overnight, the Prime Minister decided that the Senate must have made a mistake when they voted for the bill in the amended form and the government had to change its position.</para>
<para>They've ended up wanting to deny something that is obviously true: workers who get a wage subsidy will be preferred over workers who do not. Of course that's going to happen. Of course it's going to happen that workers who get a wage subsidy will receive a preference over those who do not. The concept from the Minister for Industrial Relations is, 'Well, they can just notify a dispute with the Fair Work Commission; that'll fix it.' Do they have any understanding of how the real world of rostering works? This isn't only if people are dismissed; it's also if they have their hours cut. Do they actually think that, in the real world, when someone gets their hours cut because the employer is favouring new people who get the wage subsidy, every worker's going to say, 'Well, I'm not going to stand for that, and I'll notify a dispute with the commission'? Among those who are in unions, some will, but a whole lot, even of those who are in trade unions, will think: 'Look, I'd rather not cause a problem. I don't want to rock the boat. They'll come at me another way.'</para>
<para>If you set the incentives this way, the outcomes will follow. Businesses will act commercially rationally. If you tell them, 'The best thing for your business, the way to reduce your wages bill, is to shift your roster in favour of people who are cheaper,' then they will do it, working against new employees who are over 35 and against anyone who is in the existing workforce. Some of those people themselves will be under 35, but of course they'll be competing with people who get the wage subsidy. This can be fixed. This is fixable. It's not the only problem that the government has with the way it's designed this program, but I'll tell you: it's a big one; it's a really big one.</para>
<para>The people who have been spoken about are real. We heard from the member for Sydney, the shadow minister for education, about the example of Felicity, an admin worker at a university. What chance does she have on the next job when the other people she's competing with all get a wage subsidy and she doesn't, having been deliberately excluded by this government from JobKeeper? Brian, a dnata worker who I had a long conversation with and whose real-life experience I listened to, lives in the seat of Banks, in Lugarno. What did the government have to say in response to his case? They went through a whole lot of other examples and said, 'Oh, well, we're spending a whole lot of money.' These people are real, the damage that is going to be inflicted is real, and as we head into Christmas this government is allowing an attack on job security to occur by the direct design of this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHARMA</name>
    <name.id>274506</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome the opportunity to discuss the government's various policy measures to support workers during what has been a global economic shock. Undoubtedly the biggest threat to face the world and Australia this year has been the emergence of COVID-19, the global pandemic. It has threatened the lives and livelihoods of people everywhere. In terms of its impact on health, there have been over 51 million cases worldwide. In a normal year, malaria would kill 600,000 people, HIV/AIDS would kill 950,000 people, and over 800,000 people would lose their lives to suicide. This year so far—there are still a few months to go—COVID-19 has caused the loss of 1.25 million lives.</para>
<para>The economic shock of COVID-19 has been equally profound. It has been the biggest economic shock to hit the globe since the Second World War. The IMF expects the global economy to contract by around 4.4 per cent over 2020, and the major economies are all set to contract—the US economy by between four per cent and five per cent, Japan's by five per cent, the Euro area by around eight per cent, the UK economy by 10 per cent and Canada's by around six per cent. In fact, the only major economy that's forecast to grow through 2020 is China's.</para>
<para>In Australia, rightly, we have prioritised the protection of health. Our death rate is only 33 per million—every death nonetheless a tragedy here in Australia. In France the death rate is around 14 times that, in the United States it is 17 times that and in the United Kingdom it is 18 times that. Our early border restrictions helped stop the entry of the virus. Our testing regime is one of the best in the world. Other measures, like social distancing, investments in testing and contact tracing regimes, ICU capacity, ventilators and personal protective equipment have all played a big part. In total the health response has been more than $18½ billion. The <inline font-style="italic">Medical Journal of Australia</inline> published in September that they expected that more than 16,000 people would have died in Australia if our outbreak had been as widespread as it has been in the United Kingdom.</para>
<para>This is the important point: by protecting our health, we have helped to cushion the economic blow of the virus. The 2020-21 budget contains a number of other measures to help cushion the blow, to accelerate the recovery and to rebuild our economy more in the future. It builds on previous support measures announced before the budget, such as JobKeeper, JobSeeker, cashflow relief for small business and early access to superannuation. All up, these measures—both those in the budget and those beforehand—amount to some $507 billion in government fiscal support since the onset of the pandemic, one of the biggest fiscal stimuluses ever delivered by a federal government.</para>
<para>This is having an impact. Of the 1.3 million Australians who lost their jobs or had their hours reduced to zero in April, over half are now back at work. In the last four months we have seen 446,000 jobs created. Consumer confidence is up. This month, consumer sentiment lifted by 2½ per cent to 107.7, which means that the index is now at the highest level since November 2013. The 'time to buy a dwelling' index, an indication of confidence in the housing market, jumped eight per cent, making it the highest reading since November 2013. Whilst the Australian economy is expected or forecast to contract by 3.75 per cent in calendar year 2020, it is forecast to recover in 2021 and grow by 4.25 per cent. Unemployment is expected to peak at around eight per cent in December and then begin to come down. These are sobering figures, but it is estimated that without direct government support unemployment would have reached 12 percentage points and stayed there for considerably longer.</para>
<para>We have been able to do all this because we entered this crisis in a strong fiscal position, having restored the budget to balance. Even with this additional spending, our net debt-to-GDP ratio will remain low by world standards. We have had our AAA credit rating reaffirmed. We will manage this debt burden by restoring jobs, by growing the economy and by positioning Australia for future industries.</para>
<para>The budget has important measures to support household income, bringing forward stage 2 the of our income tax relief and increasing the low-income tax offset. The budget's also helping job creation, with a new JobMaker hiring credit to encourage businesses to hire younger Australians. I know those opposite have made a point about this, but I would just point out that the unemployment rate for those aged 15 to 34 is considerably higher than the national average. At the moment it is 10.2 per cent, whereas for those aged 35to 54 the unemployment rate is 4.7 per cent, and the national unemployment rate is 6.9 per cent. So these young people aged 15 to 34 are particularly worthy and deserving of support. As past recessions tell us, if we don't help these young people find a job, we are looking at, potentially, a generation of lost opportunities.</para>
<para>I know it's still tough out there for many Australians. These are tough economic times, but there are not many other places you'd rather be than in Australia. We will continue to look after Australians, provide support to the economy and help get Australians back to work.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When you comb through the spin and the smug self-satisfaction and all of the slogans that we hear from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer during question time, one thing becomes abundantly crystal clear: those opposite don't have the faintest understanding of what this recession means for real people in real communities. They just can't grasp that recessions are about whether or not the people of this country can put food on the table and school shoes on their kids' feet, whether or not they can pay the rent or pay off the mortgage, and whether or not their kids get the opportunities that a First World, first-rate country like ours promises to provide. That means recessions are about jobs. And for a million Australians, for 2½ million people who are looking for work or looking for more work, for 160,000 people who are expected to join the unemployment queues between now and the end of the year, for everyone worried about losing their jobs or being asked to work many fewer hours, this is a jobs crisis. For the local people spoken about in this House today, this is a jobs crisis. This is a job's crisis for Elizabeth from Diamond Creek in the member for Jagajaga's electorate; for Mark from Carrum Downs in the member for Dunkley's electorate; for Adam from Lethbridge Park in the member for Chifley's electorate; for Mark and Felicity in Geelong; and for Brian from Lugarno. For all of these Australians who want do the right thing and provide for the people they love, this is a full-blown jobs crisis.</para>
<para>If only those opposite stood up for workers as our members have today in question time, if only they understood and acted on the legitimate anxiety that exists in all of our neighbourhoods right around Australia, and if only they grasped that, in a recession as deep and damaging as this one, this House's first responsibility is to ensure that nobody is left out and left behind by government. Our responsibility is to try and step in and to provide some job security, while the private sector is not yet galloping as we'd like it to, and ensure that we don't sacrifice people to this recession by allowing this spike in unemployment to solidify and to concentrate in communities like mine and many others, and to cascade down through the generations. But that's precisely what this government is inviting by getting JobKeeper wrong by cutting it while unemployment's rising; by getting JobSeeker wrong by cutting it before the economy is ready; and now by getting JobMaker hiring credits wrong as well.</para>
<para>It says everything that you need to know about those opposite that they are digging in now to prevent us ensuring that employers don't sack workers over 35 in order to replace them with younger and cheaper workers. They didn't dig in on pandemic leave and they didn't dig in on all these things that would have been crucial during this pandemic, but they'll dig in to make sure that there is an incentive to sack workers and they won't step in to prevent that happening. As the member for Gorton said in his contribution, all along we've tried to be open minded about hiring credits for younger workers. We've tried to be constructive. We've tried to help the government get it right. We've been conscious all along that, on earlier occasions—the Restart Program for workers who are over 50, for example—they've got some of these labour market programs horribly wrong, and we genuinely want to prevent that happening. The Restart Program was horribly undersubscribed, and people were out of work three months after they participated in the scheme. We want to avoid that.</para>
<para>We've said all along that we've got at least three concerns with this. We've said that more like 45,000 workers will be supported rather than the 450,000 the Treasurer wrongly claimed again today. We've said that 928,000 workers on unemployment benefits over 35 are excluded from this program, while not getting the tax cuts and having JobKeeper cut—all of these things at once. And we haven't been convinced that enough has been done to prevent the sacking of those workers who are over 35 years old. What the government's refusal to accept those sensible amendments that we have moved really means is that this is no longer an accidental consequence of this legislation; this is a deliberate consequence of this legislation. No spin or marketing can obscure that fact or this fact: that this government mouths focus group platitudes about job security while the decisions that they take actually undermine job security. They say again and again that this government has people's back. Today they say to the workers who are over 35 in this country that they are going to stab them in the back with this refusal to support our amendments. We will fight for those workers, their family and their jobs. We are the party of those who work, those who want to work and those who are left out and left behind in this recession.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FALINSKI</name>
    <name.id>G86</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a matter of regret that the shadow Treasurer believes that we are somehow being smug or not humble about what is occurring in Australia today, because the fact of the matter is that there are members of the community I represent who are worse off today than they've ever been. They're not that way because of anything that this parliament did; they are that way because of a global pandemic. All of us, I think, come to this place with members of our community who are now struggling—as the shadow Treasurer points out—to put food on the table, to pay the mortgage and to ensure that their kids are looked after when they go to school and that none of them are disadvantaged in the way that sometimes children can be when their parents' income has been cut. This parliament has done much to try and ensure that those in communities like mine and, undoubtedly, those in the communities of all members in this chamber have been looked after during this pandemic.</para>
<para>It is unfortunate; it is more than unfortunate. It is a place where we are: when you compare this pandemic in its economic effect to that of the global financial crisis, it is 45 times worse. It is not something that any of us in this chamber have ever witnessed. Indeed, you need to go back to one of the two world wars to come up with a similar economic downturn to what we are experiencing today. None of us, I think, were prepared for this to come out this year the way that it has. But this government had three very key strategic purposes when it became apparent how great this virus and its spread throughout the world would be.</para>
<para>The first strategic purpose we had was to keep Australians safe. I know that there are some people who try to say that this is a choice between the health outcome and the economic outcome. The data is pretty clear—and, in fact, it makes a lot of sense; you don't have to think that long—that the health outcome and the economic outcome are absolutely and completely entwined. If you have a situation where there are people dying, then it will have a material impact on the economic wellbeing of your community. But it was always the strategic purpose of this government to ensure that all Australians—regardless of where they come from; regardless of who represents them—were kept safe. As the member for Wentworth pointed out, there are 16,000 fewer deaths in Australia than there are in other parts of the world due to the actions that this parliament took to ensure the health and safety of Australians. That is not something that this government takes credit for; that is something that all of us in this place should take credit for. It is something that has made a material difference to the lives of people, who are still alive today because of decisions that we took.</para>
<para>The second purpose that we had was to get people through this pandemic, in an economic and welfare sense. This parliament voted on record levels of support for all Australians, regardless of where they came from. It's over $200 billion in JobSeeker, JobMaker, JobKeeper—to universities and R&Ds. The third strategic purpose of this government is to actually get back to the job of this parliament, which is to create economic hope and opportunity for all Australians. To that effect, we brought down a budget which those opposite voted for three days later. We brought a budget into this House, and, in record time, it was approved. It was about ensuring that the core things, the core foundations, of our economy were improved and were there for all Australians at the end of this, whether it was in education funding, whether it was record funding in aged care and health, whether it was changing our research and development grants scheme and our intellectual property framework to ensure that Australian businesses could take a risk and innovate and know that that would be rewarded, or whether it was bringing forward tax cuts to incentivise people to have a go. It's not a radical idea that if you want to drive the economic prosperity of a nation, you need to do so by getting people to take a risk. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll begin today by saying that it is good to be able to be back in this chamber and talking in this chamber. But, while I've been participating remotely in debate in this place, it's been clear to me that this government has had very little idea about what is actually going on in our communities during this pandemic and this recession. All of the families in our communities are facing vastly different circumstances: the people who have lost their jobs, the people who are getting less work than they used to and the people who have picked up caring responsibilities in a way they never have before. Their lives have changed. All we hear from this government in this place is smug, self-satisfied rhetoric about how they've done all they can and people have got it better it than others and they should just be happy with that.</para>
<para>That's just not the reality of what's going on out there. Even during the height of this pandemic, this government was already leaving people behind. I'm speaking of people like the chef at one of my RSLs who was left wondering how he was going to support his family through this pandemic because being from New Zealand made him ineligible for JobKeeper. Then there are the hundreds and hundreds of workers at La Trobe University who have been ineligible for JobKeeper throughout this crisis, and I was amazed to hear the relevant minister talk in question time about how this government had stood up for universities when they deliberately changed the legislation to exclude them from JobKeeper. And, of course, there are the childcare workers who were cut off from JobKeeper at the time when, in my electorate, centres were shutting down. I cannot tell you how many distressed childcare workers and their families I heard from who were told: 'There's no money and there are no shifts. You'll have to just tough it out.' That was the response from this government at the height of the pandemic.</para>
<para>Now we have a job creation scheme which actually leaves workers at risk. I've been contacted by unemployed workers in my electorate who are already worried about what this scheme means for them. If they're not eligible for this scheme, what's left to them? As I said in question time, they've already seen the job ads that specify criteria that preferably make employees eligible for the JobMaker hiring credit scheme. What a disincentive to apply for work. What a disincentive to try and get back out there in this tough job market when, in fact, you are seeing ads that say, 'We'd prefer you not to even apply'.</para>
<para>I raised this today during question time. The Prime Minister wouldn't look at me when I raised it. He wouldn't answer my question. In fact, the Attorney-General gave me some rhetoric which doesn't seem to stand up, because we know from evidence from the relevant Senate inquiry that Treasury itself said that exemptions in the Age Discrimination Act could protect employers who tell older workers not to apply for jobs they intend to create with JobMaker. So we know that workers who have been made unemployed through no fault of their own during this pandemic and during this recession are often the people finding it hardest to re-enter the workforce. Now we know that this government is making it more difficult for them to stay in the workforce. They're putting more people at risk of losing their jobs and of losing hours because of a poorly designed scheme.</para>
<para>As we've heard from my fellow members today, Labor has always supported wage subsidies in times of economic difficulty. But, given that we've got nearly one million Australians unemployed and the government itself is predicting a further 160,000 by Christmas, it just makes absolutely no sense that this government will not adopt Labor's sensible amendments to put in place protections for existing workers. Failing to have these protections won't create new jobs. It won't help those people in my electorate who are looking for work. It won't help those people in my electorate who are feeling stressed about what Christmas might hold for them, about how the rest of the year and into next year will pan out for their family. But it will risk existing jobs. So all we are asking is that there's a safeguard for existing workers. If the government is so confident that this scheme is a job maker and not a job taker, surely they can support existing employees. Surely they can see the reality of what is happening in our community—how people are suffering and the fear they're feeling—and respond appropriately. This shouldn't be about politics. It shouldn't be about you taking a stand; it should be about you doing the right thing.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LIU</name>
    <name.id>282918</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to say that the MPI today, proposed by the member for Gorton, suggesting that the Morrison government is not providing outstanding economic and employment security to Australians is a testament to the pointlessly obstructionist and damaging nature of the Labor Party. The Morrison government continues to back all Australians throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. We demonstrated our support before the budget with programs like JobKeeper, designed to keep businesses and their employees linked even if the business could not remain open, and we've continued to show our support for Australian workers with the latest budget. One of the principles that I wholeheartedly support is lowering taxes. My colleagues and I, unlike the Labor Party, understand that Australian workers are in the best position to know how to spend their money, so we are putting that money back into their pockets. The coalition government is lowering taxes by more than $50 billion over the forward estimates, including $9 billion in 2020-21 and $32 billion in 2021-22. This is estimated to create 100,000 new jobs for Australians in Australia by the end of 2021-22. And 11.9 million Australians will also experience lower personal income taxes compared with their 2017-18 tax settings. This means they will have more money in their back pocket, which they can spend however they like.</para>
<para>The Morrison government's support for Australian workers doesn't stop there. Getting Australians back into jobs is a priority of the government, something the Treasurer made very clear on budget night. Now, it's possible that members of the Labor Party didn't get the chance to hear the Treasurer of Australia announce how this government is focused on getting all Australians back into the workforce, so I will remind them. The Morrison government has designed the $4 billion JobMaker hiring credit, which will provide businesses with an incentive to take on additional employees. This will support around 450,000 positions. This government is focused on lifting Australians up by supporting education and training as well. This means investing $1.2 billion through the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage subsidy. Estimates suggest this will support 100,000 new Australian apprentices and trainees. On par with blue-collar training, this government emphasises investing in higher education to support those Australians who want to upskill and take the next step up in their careers. In doing so, we have invested $252 million over two years to support the delivery of 50,000 higher-education short courses in areas including teaching, health, IT, science and agriculture. We are also supporting the delivery of 30,000 additional university places in 2021, which means that more Australians will be able to get a university degree.</para>
<para>The Morrison government is working for all Australians. We've supported Australian workers through what will be remembered as one of the toughest times in modern history, and we will continue to support Australians long after COVID-19. This government will always back Australians. We will create jobs. We will lower taxes, and that's what the coalition government, the Morrison government, will do for all Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The speakers from the government side have demonstrated why this matter of public importance is so important. They demonstrated that the government doesn't actually understand the economic reality of what is happening because of the pandemic. We all accept that there's been a pandemic. It is now the responsibility of this government to help address the economic fallout of that pandemic, and they're failing.</para>
<para>All of the programs that they've been putting forward are little and quite often too late, and they will not deliver the reform that backs up their rhetoric. Take, for example, the one that we're talking about today. The government boasts that it's going to create 450,000 jobs. Wrong! At Senate estimates, their own Treasury, their own department, revealed that it may create 45,000 jobs. And what we are now learning, through the work of the opposition and through many of the unions speaking out, is that many of those jobs could be existing jobs. There's a real problem in our labour market with labour hire—something this government has continued to ignore for the years that they've been in government. There's a real problem in our labour market with casualisation—another issue that this government continues to ignore. These are the workers most at risk of being stood down and losing their jobs and being replaced by these cheaper, subsidised workers. But the government says there's no problem.</para>
<para>I can't believe we had an IR minister stand up and say, 'That's okay. If any worker's stood down unfairly because of this measure, they can take out an unfair dismissal claim.' How can you do that if you're a casual worker? Fair Work won't even hear the case—it's thrown out. We have an IR minister that doesn't even understand how IR works in this country. It's rhetoric from this government, trying to suggest that they're creating jobs when they're not. They're doing it on the cheap. It's all about the election announcement. It's all about the photo op. It's all about pretending that you are doing something when you are not.</para>
<para>This government has form on wage subsidies. We know that their programs do not work, and we have seen that time and time again for the last seven years. There was the PaTH program—an absolute disaster! It created $4-an-hour internships for McDonald's—for big chains. It did not create genuine jobs. All it did was to say that the new generation of workers coming through could be subsidised. This government gave taxpayers' dollars that could have created real job opportunities to big multinationals. Are we surprised? No. But when we put forward changes in this legislation that could stop the rorts, that could help put in safeguards, they ignore it and say that we're playing politics.</para>
<para>It's not just the PaTH program. There's the Restart program for older workers, the ParentsNext program—and the list continues. This government is shocking when it comes to their employment programs. They simply do not understand how a labour market works. And it is such a dangerous time for them to not understand that, because right now is the time for governments to invest—to invest in people and in businesses and to make sure that the safeguards are there so nobody is left behind.</para>
<para>Maybe they think that 35 is old. I look at their benches and I think, 'Well, how could they? There are not too many young people on there. There are not too many Gen Ys. How is it that they've thrown all of their kids' generation under a bus? Why are they doing that?'</para>
<para>Another group that has been largely left behind is women. It's women who were the casual workers who were stood down, who lost their hours. Some have been re-engaged. But what the government also won't tell you when they boast about all the jobs created is that they're not full-time jobs the workers are coming back to; they're casual jobs; they're part-time jobs; they're insecure jobs. There are nowhere near the hours that there used to be. But maybe it's because of the lack of women on their side that they're not hearing that.</para>
<para>This is the most insular government we've had in a long time. They are so disconnected from reality. Talk about the Canberra bubble! I just wish they'd get out there and talk to real workers and find out what's going on.</para>
<para>Their cuts to JobKeeper are having an impact. People are now trying to survive on a lower rate of JobKeeper. I have a chef in my electorate who was forced to quit his job because of the cuts to JobKeeper and is now working at Hazeldene's chicken factory because he can get full-time work there. His business that he was working in is only back to four days a week of operation. They are slowly rebuilding after the pandemic. But this government, rather than being there to support them to get through to the other side, is cutting back subsidies.</para>
<para>This is a government that is out of touch with Australian workers. It is out of touch with Australian businesses. And it is out of touch with what is needed right now. We need economic leadership, not economic politics, not economic photo ops. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has been catastrophic—no doubt at all. The statistics are sobering, and on the ground in my region the impact on businesses and families across the north-west, the West Coast and King Island has often been heartbreaking. When the crisis first hit, the Morrison government was there for all Australians and provided the programs needed to cushion the blow. The response to the COVID-19 pandemic was swift, effective and centred around a comprehensive targeted strategy. Whether it was JobKeeper, JobSeeker or the $750 cash payment to householders and the cash flow boost, the government provided the lifeline that many businesses and individuals needed to keep them afloat when the pandemic first struck.</para>
<para>You'll often hear about these initiatives mentioned in simple dollar terms; however, in my region, the north-west, the West Coast and King Island, they have a very human face. I will pick up on what the member for Bendigo said, relating that to real people on the ground. I will tell you about real people on the ground. Here are a few examples. A bloke in Flowerdale named Dean Edwards runs a trucking operation. He has utilised the instant asset write-off to purchase a new B-double stock grate with a 55½ tonne capacity, 26m long. And a B-double has 34 tyres, which means those tyres come from local businesses, are fitted by local people with local jobs. They fill the trucks with local diesel, they stop at local shops and locals serve them. All of this in this circular economy provides business confidence and fallout into that business community.</para>
<para>Leigh Elphinstone from Sisters Creek has utilised the same program to purchase a brand new twin-row spud digger to harvest his potatoes, doubling his output efficiency and improving his bottom line. John De Bruyn, who operates one of the biggest transport companies in Tasmania, has now been able to bring his vehicle procurement program a full year forward. Not only will this provide an immediate capital injection into the local community, into those local dealers with the infrastructure to build those trailers for those particular vehicles, but it will provide him and those drivers with increased efficiencies. His drivers frequently traverse some of the most rugged roads on our West Coast of Tasmania.</para>
<para>These programs have done their job. Owning a couple of businesses myself, I understand that business confidence is most important. If one business loses its confidence then that spill-down effect, that trickle effect that I talked about earlier won't happen. Business confidence is important. That's why I'm pleased to announce that the NAB Survey for the 2020 quarter has confirmed that Tasmania is once again bucking the national trend, with our business confidence above the national average. Tasmania continues to be ranked first in the nation for business conditions, more than 20 points higher than the national average. This is great news for the north-west, the West Coast and King Island. It puts us in a strong position as we recover from the impacts of COVID-19, as we rebuild our economy through good local and small businesses.</para>
<para>The survey also indicated that Tasmania was one of two states to see positive business confidence. The Deloitte Access Economics business outlook report for the September quarter confirms that the government's strategies are working in Tasmania. Businesses are confident and they're wanting to move forward: They're not listening to the rhetoric about what's behind them. They're ready to move forward and confront the new challenges. The report indicated that, despite the pandemic, Tasmania's economy is forecast to grow strongly. Importantly, Tasmanians are starting to spend again, to the point that retail trade has bounced back to above pre-COVID levels.</para>
<para>On the jobs front, nearly 16,000 jobs have returned to the state since the height of the pandemic impact in May. These statistics are facts and are testament to the effective work of the government, both at a federal and state level in Tasmania. These are not examples of failure. This is nothing short of an economic and employment success story in the face of a one-in-100-year pandemic. But it is now time to move to the next phase. It is now time to shift the focus from crisis management to recovery, to supercharge job creation, to stimulate the economy that drives investment and to provide direct assistance to families to encourage them to spend in a circular economy. This government is providing our region with a range of programs and opportunities that support them, that stand by them, that recognise that our small businesses are the engine room of our economy because that's where the jobs are, and we'll be right there beside our great small business community.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The discussion has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>54</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" background="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core">
            <a href="r6596" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>54</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [16:24]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>57</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allen, K</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KL</name>
                  <name>Archer, BK</name>
                  <name>Bell, AM</name>
                  <name>Chester, D</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, PJ</name>
                  <name>Connelly, V</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M</name>
                  <name>Drum, DK (teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, PC</name>
                  <name>Entsch, WG</name>
                  <name>Falinski, JG</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                  <name>Flint, NJ</name>
                  <name>Frydenberg, JA</name>
                  <name>Gee, AR</name>
                  <name>Haines, H</name>
                  <name>Hammond, CM</name>
                  <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                  <name>Hunt, GA</name>
                  <name>Joyce, BT</name>
                  <name>Katter, RC</name>
                  <name>Kelly, C</name>
                  <name>Laming, A</name>
                  <name>Ley, SP</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D</name>
                  <name>Liu, G</name>
                  <name>Martin, FB</name>
                  <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                  <name>Morrison, SJ</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, T</name>
                  <name>O'Dowd, KD</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A</name>
                  <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                  <name>Porter, CC</name>
                  <name>Price, ML</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, RE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, SR</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, RCC</name>
                  <name>Sharma, DN</name>
                  <name>Simmonds, J</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, MS</name>
                  <name>Taylor, AJ</name>
                  <name>Tehan, DT</name>
                  <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                  <name>van Manen, AJ</name>
                  <name>Vasta, RX</name>
                  <name>Wallace, AB</name>
                  <name>Webster, AE</name>
                  <name>Wicks, LE</name>
                  <name>Wilson, RJ</name>
                  <name>Wilson, TR</name>
                  <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                  <name>Young, T</name>
                  <name>Zimmerman, T</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>44</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bandt, AP</name>
                  <name>Bird, SL</name>
                  <name>Bowen, CE</name>
                  <name>Burke, AS</name>
                  <name>Burns, J</name>
                  <name>Butler, MC</name>
                  <name>Butler, TM</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, JE</name>
                  <name>Chesters, LM</name>
                  <name>Clare, JD</name>
                  <name>Coker, EA</name>
                  <name>Collins, JM</name>
                  <name>Conroy, PM</name>
                  <name>Dick, MD</name>
                  <name>Elliot, MJ</name>
                  <name>Freelander, MR (teller)</name>
                  <name>Giles, AJ</name>
                  <name>Husic, EN</name>
                  <name>Jones, SP</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G</name>
                  <name>Keogh, MJ</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P</name>
                  <name>Marles, RD</name>
                  <name>McBride, EM</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, RG</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D</name>
                  <name>Murphy, PJ</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, BPJ</name>
                  <name>Owens, JA</name>
                  <name>Perrett, GD</name>
                  <name>Phillips, FE</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, TJ</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, AL</name>
                  <name>Rowland, MA</name>
                  <name>Ryan, JC</name>
                  <name>Shorten, WR</name>
                  <name>Smith, DPB</name>
                  <name>Stanley, AM (teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, MJ</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, KL</name>
                  <name>Watts, TG</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, AD</name>
                  <name>Wilson, JH</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>22</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Alexander, JG</name>
                  <name>Albanese, AN</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KJ</name>
                  <name>Aly, A</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, RE</name>
                  <name>Burney, LJ</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S</name>
                  <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                  <name>Christensen, GR</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, MA</name>
                  <name>Coleman, DB</name>
                  <name>Fitzgibbon, JA</name>
                  <name>Evans, TM</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, IR</name>
                  <name>Gosling, LJ</name>
                  <name>Hastie, AW</name>
                  <name>Hayes, CP</name>
                  <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                  <name>Hill, JC</name>
                  <name>Howarth, LR</name>
                  <name>King, CF</name>
                  <name>Irons, SJ</name>
                  <name>King, MMH</name>
                  <name>Landry, ML</name>
                  <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J</name>
                  <name>McBain, KL</name>
                  <name>Marino, NB</name>
                  <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, MI</name>
                  <name>Payne, AE</name>
                  <name>Morton, B</name>
                  <name>Snowdon, WE</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, LS</name>
                  <name>Templeman, SR</name>
                  <name>Pearce, GB</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, MJ</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                  <name>Wood, JP</name>
                  <name>Wells, A</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Original question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>56</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bill be agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
    <electorate>Wright</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments on sheets QT131 and QH130 as circulated together.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move government amendments on sheets QT131 and QH130 as circulated together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 4, page 6 (after line 12), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">gives effect to</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">governing documents</inline> of a university: see subsection 8(4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 8, page 10, omit subsection (2), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1) (i) (ii), a university does not have institutional autonomy if, and only if, a foreign government (whether or not the government of the country, or part of the country, in which the university is located) is in a position to exercise substantial control over the university.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a foreign government is in a position to exercise substantial control over a university if, and only if, one or more of the following paragraphs are satisfied:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a majority of the members of the university's governing body are required, by a law or the university's governing documents, to be members or part of (however described) the political party that forms the foreign government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) education provided or research conducted at the university is required, by a law or the university's governing documents, to adhere to, or be in service of, political principles or political doctrines of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the foreign government; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the political party that forms the foreign government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the university's academic staff are required, by a law or the university's governing documents, to adhere to, or be in service of, political principles or political doctrines referred to in paragraph (b) in their teaching, research, discussions, publications or public commentary.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The <inline font-style="italic">governing documents</inline> of a university are the constitution, rules or other official documents by which the university is constituted or according to which the university operates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 69 (after line 22), after clause 63, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">63A Review of operation of Act</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of this Act to be commenced as soon as possible after the third anniversary of the commencement of Parts 2 and 3.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The reference to this Act includes the rules (see the definition of this Act in section 4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The review must include:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) whether it is necessary or desirable to do anything to improve the operation of this Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the effectiveness of this Act in meeting the object of this Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) whether this Act should be amended to implement review recommendations; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) whether a further review of this Act should be undertaken, and if so, when.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The persons undertaking the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.</para></quote>
<para>The Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 allows the Minister for Foreign Affairs to assess whether arrangements between state or territory entities and foreign entities are consistent with Australian foreign policy and do not adversely affect Australian foreign relations. The bill as introduced delegates the rules for definition of foreign universities that lack institutional autonomy to be made clear by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. As recommended by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, the amendments remove the rule-making power and insert within the bill the circumstances in which foreign universities will be taken not to have full institutional autonomy. The amendments on QT131 provide that a university located in a foreign country is taken not to have institutional autonomy if a foreign government is in a position to exercise substantial control over that university. Substantial control will exist where a majority of the university governing bodies are required by law or governing documents to be a member of the political party that forms foreign government; the university's activities are required to adhere to the political doctrines of a foreign country, or the academic staff are required to be adherents of the political doctrines of a foreign country.</para>
<para>Consistent with the purpose of the bill to protect and manage Australia's foreign relations, the amendments are intended to capture those arrangements between state and territory entities and foreign universities that are more likely to impact Australian foreign relations or foreign policies by virtue of the universities being substantially controlled by a foreign government. The consequence of a university not having institutional autonomy is that a state or territory entity must notify the minister of any arrangement with the university. The minister may make a declaration prohibiting a state or territory entity from negotiating or entering that arrangement if it is inconsistent with Australian foreign policy or adversely affects Australian foreign relations.</para>
<para>The amendment on sheet QH130 will also require a review of the operation of the legislation to be conducted after the act has been in operation for three years. This review will ensure that the scheme established by the bill continues to be effective and responsive to Australia's foreign policy interests and will provide an opportunity to consider whether amendments are required, including those recommended by the committee.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to indicate that the opposition will be supporting the government amendment that has been circulated on sheet QH130 and the government amendment that has been circulated on sheet QT131. We've made clear from the outset that the opposition supports the objectives of the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 and that it is very preferable that Australia speaks with one voice in respect of foreign and strategic policy, that we speak with one voice internationally. We've also made clear, though, that we believe this bill has been hastily brought to the parliament, is sloppy as a result and is fundamentally here because back in August the Prime Minister put his political interest above the national interest in terms of getting the detail of this bill right. It was announced in haste before it was ready and before many of the entities that relate to this bill were consulted.</para>
<para>As a consequence and as was highlighted by the Senate committee inquiry in our second reading amendment, the bill is flawed. We still believe that the time is now for the Morrison government to give much further consideration to this bill before it passes this parliament, and we invite the government to work with us in a bipartisan way to advance our shared national interest. If the government refuses to do this, though, the opposition will seek to amend this bill, focusing on the flaws which have been identified through the Senate committee process. The amendment before the House, though, recognises the necessity of this legislation being reviewed three years after it commences. Whilst the opposition would prefer that a review occur sooner, we welcome the Morrison government's recognition that such a review is an essential element of the legislation. Accordingly, we will support the government amendment that has been circulated on sheet QH130.</para>
<para>In respect of the amendments circulated on sheet QT131, this provides clarity around the definition of institutional autonomy as it relates to a university. In the bill, as it was written a first time, the definition of institutional autonomy was left to the minister to determine under the rules. This was not an acceptable situation for such a significant concept. Indeed, the Law Council of Australia said, 'Given the critical nature of this definition, the Law Council's position is that the primary legislation should clearly provide such criteria.' Professor George Williams concurred with this assessment, stating that it is 'somewhat inexplicable that this term of significance has not been defined in the legislation'.</para>
<para>I note that the reliance in the bill on rules that have not yet been seen by anyone was the subject of further adverse reflection by the Senate committee inquiry into this bill. Even the majority report of the Senate committee, including government senators, recommended that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade consult with stakeholders on the proposed rules and that the rules be released publicly before the consideration of the bills by the parliament. So, whilst the opposition has further concerns about the operation of the bill in respect of the universities, we do accept that this specific amendment does improve the bill as it stands. Therefore, the opposition will support the government amendment that has been circulated on sheet QT131. These are small measures that do improve the bill, but, fundamentally, this bill needs a lot more improvement. It's not ready to be brought before this parliament, and we will seek to amend this bill further in the other place, if the government doesn't take up the invitation that we're giving to actually take some time to work through this bill in detail and advance a common position in the national interest.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill, as amended, agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>57</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
    <electorate>Wright</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020, Biosecurity Amendment (Traveller Declarations and Other Measures) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" background="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core">
            <p>
              <a href="r6611" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r6568" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Biosecurity Amendment (Traveller Declarations and Other Measures) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from Senate</title>
            <page.no>58</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>58</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Library Committee</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>58</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker has received advice from the Opposition Whip nominating Mr DPB Smith to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library in place of Mr Burns.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
    <electorate>Wright</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That Mr Burns be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library and that, in his place, Mr D. P. B. Smith be appointed a member of the committee.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>58</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAMING</name>
    <name.id>E0H</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, I present the committee's report, titled <inline font-style="italic">Education in remote and complex environments</inline>, incorporating a dissenting report, together with the minutes of the proceedings.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAMING</name>
    <name.id>E0H</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Education in remote and complex environments was the topic of our inquiry: meeting the needs of students in regional, remote and rural communities and those in complex circumstances. We recognise that, amongst Australians, we see lower educational attainment in both school and tertiary education for those living in remote areas, and that a range of factors contribute to both a child's education journey and their ultimate education achievement.</para>
<para>The committee was mindful that significant work has already been done by both the Halsey and Napthine reviews, and we wanted to work on 14 recommendations to take forward from there. These covered areas including a nationally consistent minimum standard for access to secondary school education, regardless of geographic location; providing greater opportunities for families and communities to have more say in how schools apply the Australian curriculum; ensuring that education is available to young people with a disability in remote and rural locations, and that it remains inclusive; that mental health services are improved; that quality early education is improved; and that up to 30 hours a week of subsidised early education and care is available for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. The recommendations also cover supporting early learning programs through distance education and ensuring surety of funding, in particular for mobile early childhood education services and for wraparound models of early intervention. There is a recommendation for adult literacy campaigns in communities where English literacy levels are low and a recommendation for improving access to support for English as an additional language or dialect and access to bilingual education, particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. The report also recommends supporting the development and professionalisation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workforce; establishing trauma-informed cultural induction and training programs for educators who work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students; and enhancing the integration of Australia's vocational education and training with the higher education sector.</para>
<para>On behalf of our committee, we want to really thank not only those who made rich and varied written submissions to our inquiry and those who participated in our limited public hearing program but also those who were enthusiastic in inviting us to participate in more regional visits, some of which were not possible because of COVID-19 conditions.</para>
<para>The pandemic has significantly disrupted education of Australian students in 2020, with a huge strain on the capacity of education systems, on schools and teachers, to deliver education in complex environments and outside of classrooms. This shift to online learning disadvantaged many, and particularly those from vulnerable families in their early years of schooling, and it really did expose a digital divide between families who have access to high-quality internet services and internet-enabled devices and those who don't. The harsh reality was, even where schools were prepared to cater for families with vulnerable children or essential workers and their children, many simply didn't turn up. While online education has the potential to bridge these gaps, it's really shown to be no substitute for in-classroom teaching. Many issues still need to be worked through, and that will be one of the great learnings of COVID—enhanced online pedagogy and teacher training. Jurisdictions are encouraged nationwide to prioritise the safe delivery of in-school teaching and home based learning, and to closely follow public health advice when deciding on many of these matters, including what attendance at school activities is possible, and, particularly, levels of parental engagement and access to school facilities and venues.</para>
<para>I'd like to thank my co-chair, the member for Bendigo, the committee, and the dedicated secretariat, led by John White and Julia Morris, who assisted us through the COVID period to deliver this report.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a few statements in relation to the report. It was difficult during the COVID period —as many members of committees would acknowledge—to be able to conduct an inquiry and then, in fact, to have a report to table. At the outset, I do want to acknowledge the hard work done by so many to see the report that is before us today. In particular, I want to thank the secretariat for their efforts in pulling the report together. It's a comprehensive report. I also want to thank the many organisations and individuals who contributed, the many people who made submissions and the witnesses who attended the roundtables that we had in relation to this topic.</para>
<para>What we learnt, again, is that this is an issue that people really care about. The educational achievements of regional, rural and remote students continue to be lower than those of their metropolitan peers and have been so for many years. Despite this fact being well known and well researched, as our investigations show, little has been achieved to reverse this trend. We are still seeing the same outcomes.</para>
<para>For the most part, the <inline font-style="italic">E</inline><inline font-style="italic">ducation in </inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline><inline font-style="italic">emote and </inline><inline font-style="italic">c</inline><inline font-style="italic">omplex </inline><inline font-style="italic">e</inline><inline font-style="italic">nvironments</inline> report is balanced and reflects the evidence the committee received. However, the Labor members of the committee did feel that some of the recommendations lacked the urgency that many of the members on the committee felt the recommendations needed to reflect the evidence that was received. In our view, the evidence presented to the committee clearly indicates that the current government's 2014 decision to cut school funding associated with the former Labor government's Better Schools Plan funding model was the wrong decision, as it had a disproportionate impact on regional, remote and rural schools. This was highlighted in the evidence presented. One clear statistic that demonstrated this is that, by 2023, schools in the Northern Territory will be funded at 21 per cent less than the schooling resource standard. This is the government's own work. Yet these are the schools where the Indigenous population in the NT sits at 44 per cent. So, if you cut school funding in the way the government has, you directly impact the very schools that we're seeking to support. As the chair has said, the pandemic has exacerbated existing fault lines in the Australian education system and will impact students from rural, regional and remote communities more than their counterparts in metro, and particularly inner metro, areas. That is why we really do seek that the government take the recommendations of this report seriously and act sooner.</para>
<para>One other area I wish to highlight is early childhood education. The Labor members of the committee argued that access to education in ECEC should be universal—like primary school or secondary school—and currently it is not. The educational and developmental benefits of ECEC are indisputable; the science is in. Yet many families, including those in regional, rural and remote Australia, face significant barriers in accessing affordable ECEC. That is why we seek to highlight, in our additional comments, the areas that were not included or focused on in the report. Cost was a barrier talked about in much of the evidence. The cost of delivering ECEC in the regions was an issue, and the cost of attending these services was an issue. We believe that this needed to be a stronger focus in the recommendations.</para>
<para>Another area that was identified by the evidence presented to the committee was that low pay is a barrier to recruitment and retention of highly skilled, predominantly female, workers. Again we're presented with this issue—the fact that pay is a contributing factor towards why we're not attracting the highly skilled workers we need. It's a genuine barrier, and we need to have a plan as part of the workforce strategy. In our comments, we strongly urge the government to play a proactive role in supporting the sector's ability to increase wages in the workforce, as a workforce development strategy, to help combat recruitment and retention challenges.</para>
<para>The final area that I wish to highlight, because I know other members of the committee wish to speak now and in the Federation Chamber, is higher education. The university sector was unanimous in their criticism of the government and its lack of support for the sector during the COVID-19 crisis. Whilst they acknowledged that the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020 would help, they argued the additional places were not being rolled out fast enough to meet the demand; nor would it address the dire financial situation that universities are in. The universities that were a part of the roundtable did, on many occasions, talk about the impact of not having measures like JobKeeper to help keep their staff. One of the key recommendations that the universities would like to see this government move on quickly is the uncapping of university places for regional universities. This would ensure that all regional students would have access to a university place, if they choose to study. This was a key recommendation of the Napthine review. If the government and the Minister for Education were serious about implementing the recommendations of their own Napthine review, they would move to immediately implement this recommendation, which would see more university places for our regional universities and encourage more regional students to study.</para>
<para>We would also like to encourage the government to consider the funding models for university, as highlighted by the evidence presented to the committee. We acknowledge that this is a complex area, but lots of research has been done, and we're in the place now where it is about action. We strongly encourage the government to take on board the recommendations in the report, as well as the additional comments, to help move us forward to ensure that every student, regardless of where they live, has access to a quality education. It appears to be the one thing that is universal, the acknowledgement that we want to do something about this complex area.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAMING</name>
    <name.id>E0H</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House take note of the report.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>60</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAMING</name>
    <name.id>E0H</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>60</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" background="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core">
            <a href="r6431" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>60</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in continuation of my remarks on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. Just before the debate was interrupted earlier today, I was in the process of introducing a second reading amendment. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that Australia has still not implemented all of the recommendations from the 2016 report on the statutory review of the <inline font-style="italic">Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006</inline> and associated rules and regulations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) further notes that other international jurisdictions are already moving ahead of Australia with stronger anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing protections; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to ensure Australia is not regarded a soft-touch for money launderers or terrorism financiers".</para></quote>
<para>I now want to talk about the consideration of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee in respect of this bill. Labor was successful in referring the bill to that committee on 14 November 2019—again showing the lack of haste the government has shown in dealing with the important measures that are the subject of this bill. Labor senators, in their consideration, demonstrated a concern that much of the important detail appears to remain in the explanatory memorandum to the bill and is not reflected in the terms of the legislation itself. I share these concerns. Of course these are not concerns that are confined to this piece of legislation; this government has a habit of leaving important terms in subordinate legislation or not sufficiently prescribing terms that should be in substantive legislation.</para>
<para>With regard to some of the most significant details referred to in the explanatory memorandum, Labor senators noted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Proposed Section 37A allows for a reporting entity to enter into a written agreement with 'another person' but does not appear to stipulate that this person is either a reporting entity or otherwise subject to appropriate AML/CTF regulation and supervision. This stipulation exists only in the Explanatory Memorandum and we submit should ideally be reflected in the legislation—</para></quote>
<para>The substantive legislation, that is. They go on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Proposed Section 37A allows for two entities to enter into a CDD Arrangement that allows for a second entity to rely on the customer identification procedure undertaken by the first entity. Proposed Subsection 37A(2)(d) requires that the second entity obtain information from the first entity regarding the identity of the customer but does not impose any requirements or restrictions as to the currency of that information. If the intention is to impose such a restriction, such as a timeframe for how old that information can be, we submit that this should be reflected in the legislation.</para></quote>
<para>That is a very reasonable request, given the subject matter of this legislation.</para>
<para>As for concerns raised by industry, both the Australian Financial Markets Association and the Financial Services Council have raised concerns that there are some definitional deficiencies in the current bill which need to be addressed. The Financial Markets Association said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Firstly, given that the proposed Rule will relate to opening an account, we request that the term "opening an account" be specifically defined in the AML/CTF Act to ensure consistency of approach across reporting entities. There is some ambiguity as to when an account is actually opened, such that a designated service is provided.</para></quote>
<para>The Financial Services Council stated in their submission:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We note that the amended section 32 under the Bill does not materially change the current obligations to carry out an Applicable Customer Identification Procedure (ACIP) prior to the provision of a designated service. However, it is suggested that the term "opening an account" needs to be specifically defined in the AML/CTF Act to ensure consistency of approach by all reporting entities. Also, in this regard, the FSC notes that AUSTRAC intends to issue Rules under section 33 to stipulate special circumstances where a designated service can be provided prior to ACIP being completed. Similarly, it is suggested that such Rule changes need to be made carefully to ensure consistency of approach overall, including with Section 32.</para></quote>
<para>Labor senators noted these outstanding definitional deficiencies 'could undermine Australia's anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing laws in the future'. Labor senators also noted that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills had reviewed the legislation and requested the minister's advice as to why it is proposed to use offence-specific defences which reverse the evidential burden of proof in this instance. While the scrutiny committee accepted the minister's explanation, the minister also undertook to table an addendum to the bill's explanatory memorandum to include further information about the use of offence-specific defences in response to these comments. As I understand it now—exactly a year after that time—the Minister for Home Affairs is yet to table this addendum, again demonstrating a lack of attention to detail and to the seriousness of the matters this bill, which has bipartisan support, is intended to address.</para>
<para>In concluding my remarks, I want to touch on recent money-laundering scandals involving Crown and Westpac. In November last year, AUSTRAC launched Federal Court action accusing Westpac of breaching AML-CTF laws more than 23 million times, including by allowing a dozen customers to transfer money to the Philippines in a way that is consistent with child exploitation. The current system meant that there was no action taken against Westpac until it had breached the anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing laws 23 million times. I repeat: 23 million times. How can that be adequate? How can it be adequate that we have taken so long to substantively respond to this? Westpac later admitted that it took the bank six years to identify as a risk the client known as 'customer 1', who made 625 transactions worth $136,000 in a manner consistent with guidance on transactions that could indicate child exploitation. It's disgusting and unacceptable. I'm sure all members and senators would agree.</para>
<para>With respect to Crown casino, the chairperson, Helen Coonan, submitted that the casino had facilitated laundering. The ongoing NSW Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority inquiry into Crown casino has revealed shocking noncompliance with money-laundering laws by Australian casinos and junket operators. Yet AUSTRAC, the regulator, gave these casino and junket operations its tick of approval only three years ago. Since then tens of billions of dollars have poured into Australia through such channels.</para>
<para>It is deeply worrying that we have needed a New South Wales government licencing authority to bring systemic breaches of money-laundering laws to light, given the profound responsibility of the Morrison government to protect all Australians from money launderers and the funders of terrorism. It demonstrates that the protections and oversight in this area need to be beefed up and enhanced, and this needs to be done expeditiously with due attention to detail—things that have not been in evidence.</para>
<para>Labor is supporting the passage of this bill through the House of Representatives. I proposed, on behalf of the opposition, in the second reading amendment, some suggestions to improve the bill because Labor understands the importance of strong, robust, anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism laws. We are concerned that the Morrison government has been too slow to act in this area—and too slow to act on the advice of the intergovernmental body which has done such important work—and that this could have contributed to some of the shocking and unacceptable revelations of money laundering, including at Westpac and Crown. Above all, we do not want Australia to become a soft touch for money launderers and those involved in terrorism financing.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Leigh</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Scullin 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.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE (</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>) ( ): I rise in support of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. Money laundering is a serious business in Australia. It's an illegal business. Some people talk about it being a victimless crime, but, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Where money laundering is committed, taxes aren't paid on that money, and, more often than not, the concept of money laundering arises because, as the name suggests, they are trying to clean ill-gotten gains. The ill-gotten gains are derived from criminal offences, often from organised crime, which, as I'll talk about shortly, could be anything from illegal gambling to paedophilia and child molestation groups and the evil that they peddle on the internet.</para>
<para>Money laundering is a very, very significant problem worldwide. The United Nations estimates that the amount of money that is laundered around the world is somewhere between two and five per cent of the world's GDP—that is, somewhere between US$800 billion and US$2 trillion a year. One of our pre-eminent regulators in this space is AUSTRAC. It's AUSTRAC's responsibility to identify criminals involved in money laundering, involved in offences such as tax fraud, drug trafficking, tobacco smuggling, people smuggling and scams such as the now infamous Nigerian loan scams. Money laundering comes under many different guises. Money laundering is achieved certainly not just in Australia but around the world. It's often achieved through casinos, through pubs and clubs, and through banks. We know that, as a result of the banking royal commission, Justice Kenneth Hayne made 76 recommendations to clean up the banking, superannuation and financial industries. We know that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia was fined $700 million for 53,700 breaches of anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism finance laws. Not to be outdone, Westpac was recently fined for 23 million breaches of the anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism finance laws involving $11 billion in transactions. These included transactions linked to child exploitation and resulted in a $1.3 billion fine. Tabcorp, at a much smaller end of the spectrum, was recently fined $45 million—it's not exactly a small fine, but it's not $1.3 billion—for failing to report suspicious behaviour to regulators over more than five years.</para>
<para>Around 2017, in my electorate on the Sunshine Coast, the Sunshine Coast Council made a public announcement that they were considering building a casino on the Sunshine Coast. That was not going to happen on my watch, and I vociferously fought against it, as did many people on the Sunshine Coast. The Sunshine Coast is a family friendly environment. It's where many people in this place and, in fact, from all over Australia go to holiday because of its family friendly environment. When we let you back in—and when we let those Victorians back in—why would we, as a community, give up our biggest natural advantage, that differentiates ourselves from places like Brisbane and the Gold Coast?</para>
<para>But council was hell-bent on building a casino, and I and a number of community leaders fought against it during that time. I'm very proud to say that that is now dead—d-e-a-d—as a dodo. And I will hold Premier Palaszczuk to her commitment to me that she will never allow a licence for a casino on the Sunshine Coast, to her credit. On a number of occasions during that public campaign, I was asked, 'What's wrong with a casino?' People would say, 'A casino would be great for the Sunshine Coast.' Well, apart from hollowing out the local economy, my biggest concern was the attraction it would have to organised crime and money laundering on the Sunshine Coast, something that is not what you would call prevalent on the Sunshine Coast today.</para>
<para>In relation to anybody needing any further evidence as to why we should never have a casino on the Sunshine Coast, I want to speak about the inquiry currently going on in New South Wales in relation to Crown casino. I want to preface this by saying that the inquiry is ongoing. There have been no final determinations, although the counsel assisting has certainly made recommendations. The counsel assisting has certainly recommended that Crown casino is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence for the Barangaroo casino in Sydney. Why is that relevant? Well, the counsel assisting, Adam Bell, told the inquiry that Crown was not suitable to hold a licence. He said that, ultimately, it was harmful to the public interest for Crown to do so. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In summary, we submit that the evidence presented to this inquiry demonstrates that the licensee is not a suitable person to continue to give effect to the licence and that Crown Resorts is not a suitable person to be a close associate of the licensee.</para></quote>
<para>In the course of the hearings, the inquiry heard allegations Crown encouraged staff to continue to work in China, despite warnings from Beijing that it was cracking down on foreign casino agents. We've seen stories on <inline font-style="italic">60 Minutes</inline> and in the newspapers—these are allegations—about wholesale money laundering being undertaken in their casinos. In Melbourne, people have been turning up to casinos with large duffel bags of cash. They have been walking in, getting chips, having a bet and then cashing those chips back in and walking out. The money is cleaned and goes back out. It's legitimised. And that money is often the result of ill-gotten gains. We have to do better. We have to do more. Think about the evils that are being perpetrated by these organised crime gangs on our children, on our communities. That's why I am so very pleased to see this bill come before the House.</para>
<para>This problem is not just confined to casinos. One former Clubs New South Wales anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism-finance compliance auditor claims that between $65 billion and $75 billion is laundered through clubs and pubs just in New South Wales each year. These are legitimate clubs—RSLs, sports clubs and bowls clubs—but the crime gangs are using legitimate clubs and pubs to wash this money. We need to do more than we have been doing in the past, and that is why this bill today is so very important.</para>
<para>This bill contains a range of measures to strengthen Australia's capability to address money-laundering and terrorism-financing risks and generate regulatory efficiencies, including amendments to expand the circumstances in which reporting entities may rely on customer identification and verification procedures undertaken by a third party; to explicitly prohibit reporting entities from providing a designated service if customer identification procedures cannot be performed; to strengthen protections on correspondent banking by prohibiting financial institutions from entering into a correspondent banking relationship with another financial institution that permits its accounts to be used by a shell bank and by requiring banks to conduct due diligence before entering, and during, all correspondent banking relationships; and to expand exceptions to the prohibition on tipping off, to permit reporting entities to share suspicious matter reports and related information with external auditors and foreign members of corporate and designated business groups. It will also provide a simplified and flexible framework for the use and disclosure of financial intelligence to better support combating money laundering, terrorism financing and other serious crimes. It'll create a single reporting requirement for the cross-border movement of monetary instruments, and it will also address barriers to the successful prosecution of money-laundering offences by clarifying that the existence of one Commonwealth constitutional connector is sufficient to establish an instrument of crime offence, and by deeming money or property provided by undercover law enforcement as part of a controlled operation to be the proceeds of crime for the purposes of prosecution.</para>
<para>The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act requires reporting entities to identify and verify their customers through customer due diligence procedures, which represents a major component of the compliance costs. The bill will provide reporting entities with further options to rely on customer due diligence procedures undertaken by a third party. These options could reduce the time involved in identifying each customer by 66 per cent and the costs of verifying each customer by 80 per cent. This reform alone is expected to deliver significantly reduced compliance costs and an estimated regulatory saving of $3.1 billion over 10 years. So this is good news. Aside from reducing the risks of the evils that come from it, it's going to reduce compliance costs, and I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I couldn't disagree with anything that the previous speaker said, but I want to turn some pretty substantive or serious remarks to what's not in the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. The reality is that, despite the government's tough talk on crime and terror and its noble objectives in this area, our anti-money-laundering regime and counter-terrorism-financing legislation are embarrassingly weak and we're falling even further behind the rest of the world. The government's in its eighth year. It has had seven years to address these issues and make a real difference, but still it has failed to include critical intermediaries known to be part of the money-laundering enterprise, such as real estate agents, accountants and lawyers, in the regime. These intermediaries are identified as high risk in the government's own risk assessments by the regulators, including in the national threat assessment. So the bottom line is: despite the fine words of government speakers, the bill gets about a two out of 10 in terms of what's actually needed. It doesn't bring us into line with the global standards.</para>
<para>Australia's inadequate regime allows corruption to flourish, and it's no surprise that, in their eighth year, the government are still not taking integrity and corruption seriously in the private sector, given their own shameful record on integrity. There's still no legislation for the National Integrity Commission in this House—still. Sports rorts, dodgy land deals, designer watches, cuts to the Auditor-General's budget—that's what they do in the public sector. So it's no surprise that they won't put this regime over real estate agents and other critical property-sector intermediaries.</para>
<para>I'll make the point that the context is important. This stuff is technical and complicated, but it matters in the real world, because right now there are two million children dying of acute malnutrition in Yemen, kids being trafficked and exploited for financial gain in places like South-East Asia and arms dealers selling weapons to small militias in the Horn of Africa, the profits of which will end up in offshore bank accounts. So what might this have to do with money-laundering and counterterrorism financing bills and debates here in Australia? Well, global conflict, political violence, sophisticated criminal syndicates and the institutions that facilitate and smoke-screen their transactions are the underlying and complex elements creating the need for this legislation. It's all interconnected, and it manifests well beyond our borders. It's not just someone else's problem. The laws that we make here, the barriers that we put in place, impact everyone in the global community, and we have to remember that context when we debate what is, in many ways, dry legislation, and to recognise the human cost, because we all lose when these crimes are left in darkness.</para>
<para>The reality is: this happens in our own backyard. There are some industries and individuals, I would say, who are unwittingly caught up in this process. I'd call out some of the smaller money transfer or money remittance businesses that are so critical for so many people in my electorate for sending money home to loved ones and trying to get around the higher fees that the big banks pay, and some of those have been inadvertently caught up in supporting criminal enterprises. But I also think that we've seen anti-competitive behaviour by the banks, using these anti-money-laundering laws as a way of shutting down competitors who are undercutting, and that's a balance that AUSTRAC and the competition regulator need to have a look at.</para>
<para>But it's true that money laundering and the financing of terrorism are also systematically facilitated and entrenched. Transparency International reports that trillions of dollars in suspected dirty money has been laundered through the global financial system over the last 20 years and more than $200 million flowed directly through Australia's banks. Criminal syndicates and arms dealers are benefiting from untold human suffering.</para>
<para>If all that human cost isn't alarming enough, Transparency International's global corruption rankings place Australia now at 12th position. Since this government was elected, we've slid eight points, from being the fourth least corrupt country in the world to the 12th. We have to ask why. There are many factors which are said to contribute to this fall in the rankings, including the decline in the perception of a robust rule of law, with the attempted prosecution of whistleblowers and journalists and secret trials becoming more common. But key to Australia's falling corruption ranking was also the perception that institutions and political representatives were lacking independence and oversight. The government's behaviour this year has certainly reinforced that concern. The failure to introduce a national integrity commission feeds into these surveys and the perceptions which then drive our further fall down the global rankings.</para>
<para>Political violence and the threat of terrorism also remain enduring and pressing issues for Australia, but we're not alone in this. These are problems that cross borders, due more now to internet based criminal activity, trafficking, military intervention, foreign interference and increasingly sophisticated terrorism networks. These aren't just petty thugs. They're transnational political actors who are also using the loopholes in the system, which the government's legislation still does not address, to profit from human destruction for political reasons. They trade in misery and death, for political reasons.</para>
<para>It's in that context that Australia's commitment to the prevention and criminalisation of money laundering—and stronger laws to stamp out the financing of terrorism—has never been more vital. It's not just a legal necessity; it's an ethical imperative. But our actions will be effective only if we work globally, implementing agreed global standards with other countries. Disgracefully, it's clear that we're becoming the weakest link in the global chain of protection. The international money-laundering and counterterrorism financing framework, FATF, provides the agreed framework for our obligations. It's not sexy stuff. It's not interesting stuff. It's incredibly detailed and dense, but it really matters.</para>
<para>Recent exposes—which the previous speaker, the member for Fisher, spoke about—have uncovered money laundering throughout the Australian banking industry. There was Westpac's $1.3 billion fine for its breaches of money-laundering laws and failure to stop child exploitation, with massive funds filtered by the gambling industry remaining concealed. AUSTRAC's recently announced investigation into Crown casino for its potential noncompliance with the anti-money-laundering laws and involvement in illegal offshore activities should concern everyone. Only recently the Crown Resorts chairwoman fronted the New South Wales Independent Liquor & Gaming Authority's inquiry into Crown casino and conceded that its Melbourne casino facilitated money laundering.</para>
<para>Whilst this bill implements some reforms arising from the 2016 report into Australia's regime—that's four years ago—it only amends a few of the deficiencies identified by the FATF. It still does not address all of the identified problems. The most recent 2018 compliance report notes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… 14 Recommendations remain non-compliant or partially compliant.</para></quote>
<para>In supporting this bill, as I hope everyone in the House will do, we should be very clear eyed that this bill only addresses a few of those issues and that Australia, once we pass this legislation, will still not comply with those international standards. We become the weak link in the global chain, which means we become a more attractive place for dodgy money to come to. Further changes are urgently needed.</para>
<para>The most important concern for the House, as the second reading amendment touches on, is not what the bill does but what it does not do. The primary concern, the huge outstanding weakness in Australia's regime, is the key non-financial businesses and the professional sectors and intermediaries that remain outside the remit of Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing legislation. Real estate agents, accountants and lawyers are still not covered. Of course the vast majority—and we need to say this—of real estate agents, accountants and lawyers are not dodgy and do the right thing. But it is clear by AUSTRAC's own work and advice to the government—this is not some socialist opposition plot over here because we don't like real estate agents!—that there are people in these industries doing the wrong thing. People in these industries are helping to facilitate money laundering and terrorism financing, and the government is not doing enough to stop it. A good government, in its eighth year, would be out there talking to the industry about how to combat this problem and how to get the regulations right to stop money laundering and terrorism financing in these industries while protecting the good operators in the industry and their good reputation. The bill, again, fails to extend the regime to these sectors, who, inadvertently or deliberately, become gatekeepers for money laundering. The gap was highlighted years ago by the FATF and in a subsequent report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. The security analysts keep telling the government, 'This is a weakness; this is a problem,' but they don't do anything.</para>
<para>I spoke before on similar legislation two or three years ago—still, nothing has happened. Other members have raised this issue—nothing has happened. You do have to wonder whether the real estate agents have something over the government, don't you? In 2018 they successfully lobbied the government to be exempt from regulations that would have ensured that they would have to report any suspect transfer of money, including offshore transfers. It doesn't sound that unreasonable, does it—that a real estate agent would have a positive obligation to report suspected dodgy transfers of money to the regulator? But they lobbied the government and the government said to their real estate mates: 'Yeah, no worries. We'll let you off that. Don't worry about that. We won't put that obligation on you.' Seriously, it's their eighth year of government.</para>
<para>I might add, the work was done under the Rudd government. The work was done. The legislation and the stuff was ready. They'd done the consultation. They'd worked with the accounting bodies and the real estate industry. It was put on hold, quite sensibly, in about 2009 because of the GFC. The government lost office and then nothing. They've had the work there for eight years and nothing has happened. It's well established that these professions are being used to filter and funnel money and facilitate criminal enterprises. The cases are extensive.</para>
<para>AUSTRAC estimated that suspicious transactions in the real estate sector amounted to approximately $1 billion from China in the 2016 financial year. There were $3.36 billion worth of suspicious transactions in 2015-16. AUSTRAC's 2015 strategic analysis brief, five years ago, recognised that the use of real estate for money laundering is a well-established method in Australia. It filters down to the community, of course, by inflating property prices in certain suburbs, making it harder for Australians in those suburbs to bid against the dodgy money that's coming in, and the problem's real. One AUSTRAC case study report outlines a terrorism financing syndicate that used fundraising procurement procedures to purchase real estate and deposit the funds into bank accounts under the guise of expenses relating to the administration of a charitable organisation, and the money was then used to fund extremist activity.</para>
<para>So, if it's clear from the government's own advice from their regulators, from the independent security experts that the use of accountants, lawyers and real estate agents in these syndicates is not new, why won't the government act? Who are they trying to protect? If the government's serious and their fine words mean something about addressing money laundering and the financing of terrorist organisations then they have to include the gatekeeper professions in their regime.</para>
<para>They've been looking at this stuff for the past few years in America. Even in President Trump's America, their regulators have been doing trials in certain states and discovered, 'Goodness me: when you put these regulations on for positive reporting you find more dodgy, suspect transactions and money laundering going on.' In other jurisdictions they've taken more steps than us to fill that gap. We should be ashamed of that. When the government came to office we were the fourth least corrupt country in the world on Transparency International's rankings, and we've fallen to eighth. That's a fall of one spot per year. If this government gets another term we'll probably be at 11 or 12, and down we'll go, to 12 or 15; we'll just keep going.</para>
<para>It's not that hard. We say we're a global citizen, we say we want world's-best regulation, we say we're serious about that stuff, we go to the international meetings and we sign up to the codes. But what that means is that the government actually has to do the work, bring the legislation into the House and implement the rules. There's no point saying you'll do it if you don't actually do it. There's no point having the spin and the marketing and saying, 'Oh yeah, we're stopping money laundering' if you don't actually do the hard work of drafting the legislation and delivering. It is another example of spin and marketing but no actual delivery.</para>
<para>The world of money laundering and financing of terrorism is certainly dependent on the darker side of humanity, and those involved are enmeshed in greed, the perpetration of exploitation and sometimes the most horrific cruelty in the form of child sex trafficking. We owe it to those in Australia and across the world who are the most vulnerable to ensure that everything that can be done is actually done. That means shining a light onto places that we would prefer did not exist and ensuring that the web of the law catches not just the small flies but also those very skilled transnational actors who know how to avoid the net—and they will see and they know about the weaknesses in our regime. Eight years, and we still don't cover real estate agents and all the intermediaries in the property sector—eight years. It's not that hard.</para>
<para>If the government allows these gaps to remain, they're harming our national security, as they keep being advised by their own regulators, by the security experts. They're weakening the global protections and doing the wrong thing by countries that are actually implementing the standards, and they risk even greater injustice to the most vulnerable in society, here and across the world. So, the bill's minor steps are welcome. They've been well outlined. I won't go through them. But I do note the concern of stakeholders such as the Australian Financial Markets Association and the Financial Services Council that the government cut short the opportunities for consultation and clarification before this bill was introduced to the parliament. They fear that, as we've seen with so much of the government's legislation—even stuff that the opposition in principle supports, around foreign interference—the actual drafting is sloppy; it's not done effectively. And the independent experts say that there are definitional deficiencies in the bill that can undermine its effectiveness.</para>
<para>So, even though the government is doing far too little far too late, there are concerns that it's actually not being properly done. I urge the government: take this seriously. Bring back some legislation. It was drafted by the previous, Labor, government. Bring back some legislation to bring real estate agents, property sector intermediaries, accountants and lawyers into this regime and show that you're serious about stopping money laundering.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've waited a long time to speak on this legislation, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019—a very long time. It seems that it isn't one of the priorities for this government and it keeps getting put off. But it does come at a timely moment, because just today I finished writing a book chapter on counterterrorism financing in which I argued that our counterterrorism financing and anti-money-laundering legislation needs to be stronger in order to capture cyber-enabled serious and organised crime transnationally as well as cyber-enabled terrorism.</para>
<para>In 2016, I believe it was, a terrorist organisation based in Indonesia managed to raise US$600,000 utilising cybercrime and money-laundering provisions in order to carry out a terrorist attack before they were stopped. So the importance of this legislation cannot be understated. And its because of the importance of this legislation that Labor supports this bill in the House. But I think it's also equally important that I, like the member for Bruce, point out some of the deficiencies of this legislation; it certainly does not go far enough.</para>
<para>The bill implements a second phase of reforms that arise from the recommendations of the report on the statutory review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and associated rules and regulations that were tabled in parliament on 29 April 2016. That's more than four years ago now. As I said, I've been waiting a long time to speak on this bill. It has taken four years to implement legislation—importantly, legislation that does not capture all of the recommendations of that report that was tabled in April 2016. That's a really sad indictment on this government. We know that, during COVID, criminal syndicates, criminal organisations and transnational terrorist organisations have ramped up their efforts in other ways, in novel ways. So we need to be sure that our system is not exploitable, that they don't exploit any vulnerabilities in our system. This legislation was needed in its current form but also in a more comprehensive form four years ago. We've been waiting four years for this.</para>
<para>The bill also addresses some of the deficiencies identified by the Financial Action Task Force in its mutual evaluation report on Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing regime. Those deficiencies were identified in 2015. It has taken five years since those deficiencies were identified for the government to act on it. As the member for Bruce said, this bill does not address all of the necessary deficiencies. While it goes some way towards hardening our anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing regime, it does not do everything that it should do to ensure that Australia is not seen as an easy target for criminal syndicates and transnational terrorist organisations who would use our systems to raise funds for criminal activities, to launder money that has been garnered through criminal activities or to raise funds to carry out a terrorist attack.</para>
<para>Labor successfully referred this legislation to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. It's important to note that Labor senators from that committee recommended that the government note and consider several concerns that were raised by industry. Let me go through some of those concerns. The Australian Financial Markets Association, in their submission, stated that opportunities for consultation and clarification were cut short by the government entering into caretaker mode and with the introduction of the bill into parliament. They waited five years to introduce the bill, they have known about deficiencies in the system for five years—and I've been waiting to speak on this bill for at least six months—and then they cut the consultation period short. Both the Australian Financial Markets Association and the Financial Services Council expressed concern about the term 'opening an account', which is included in the bill. They said it should be specifically defined in the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act to ensure consistency of approach across reporting entities, as they believe there is some ambiguity as to when an account is actually opened. Labor senators also noted that a vast amount of detail for the bill lies in the explanatory memorandum, and noted concerns raised by the AMFA that some elements of the explanatory memorandum need to be placed in legislation—in other words, it's a sloppily written bill. These points were raised by people who took the time to write a submission to the Senate inquiry, but none of those points have been taken up in this current iteration of the bill we have before us.</para>
<para>The importance of this bill and of a comprehensive framework for strengthening our anti-money-laundering and CT financing laws cannot be underestimated. We need to ensure, as I said earlier, that Australia is not seen as an easy target and an easy place to do business for those who would seek to launder money garnered through criminal activities or raise funds in order to carry out a terrorist attack. In February 2020, February of this year, the Financial Secrecy Index declared that Australia is a nation—get this—that continues to host 'significant quantities of illicit funds from outside the country'. Australia has been named and shamed as a country that's an easy target for money launderers and criminal activity.</para>
<para>The Financial Secrecy Index also states that Australia needs to do more to counter money laundering. We need to do more, more than what's in this bill. We need to fully implement the recommendations that were made more than four years ago. That's what we need to do. We need to listen to the experts. The government needs to listen to its own agency when it's told that this bill has serious deficiencies that are still going to leave Australia vulnerable to money-laundering and terrorism financing.</para>
<para>The world's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing watchdog, the Financial Action Task Force, has expressed serious concerns about Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing regulatory framework and has expressed concerns about this government's failure to implement the reforms according to its own timetable. I have spoken about this in the four years or five years it has taken. The FATF, the Financial Action Task Force, placed Australia on an enhanced follow-up remediation program in 2015. Five years ago we were warned. Five years ago Australia was told it needs to do better by an international watchdog in this space. The FATF undertook a major evaluation of Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing framework, and it found major noncompliance with international best practice in a number of areas. This is not just a matter that leaves Australia and Australians vulnerable; we have an obligation to the rest of the world to do as much as we can to ensure that criminal syndicates and terrorist organisations who operate transnationally do not use and exploit Australian systems for their means. The FATF's 2015 mutual evaluation report made clear that Australia is an 'attractive destination'—an attractive destination—not for tourism but for 'foreign proceeds of crime, particularly corruption related proceeds, flowing into real estate'.</para>
<para>Australia has been listed as a major money-laundering country by none other than the United States. Now we've all seen <inline font-style="italic">Ozark</inline>—well, some of us have. Money laundering isn't some fun family adventure. It is actually serious business. This legislation and particularly the shortcomings in this legislation have serious consequences. The shortcomings in this legislation far outweigh the minor gaps that the legislation closes. In the past few months, we've seen some very-high-profile money-laundering cases: the Commonwealth Bank, Westpac, Crown casino and other casino operators. But the government has been slow to act. I don't think anyone can argue that four years and five years waiting on legislation based on reports that very clearly stated and very clearly outlined where the deficiencies were is acceptable. That is not acceptable.</para>
<para>Since 2013, the government have repeatedly missed deadlines in their own anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing reform timetable, and I find it quite extraordinary for the government to walk around crowing about how tough they are on security, like they're the protectors of the universe. I half expect half of them to walk in here with their undies on the outside, sometimes, the way they go on about national security. Of course national security should be one of our priorities—</para>
<para>An honourable member: 'Captain Underpants' was Senator Conroy!</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take the member's interjection. It was something about 'Captain Underpants'. But, either way, you cannot be a government that talks strongly about national security and not follow it up with action, particularly when that action is really quite simple. It's really as simple as implementing a number of recommendations to close gaps and address deficiencies that you have been aware of for five years.</para>
<para>Other countries have strengthened their defences against the proceeds of criminal and corrupt business practices. But, in Australia, our door is left wide open. Serious and sustained breaches of FATF standards and obligations can result in jurisdictions being greylisted or blacklisted, increase the cost of doing international business and restrict access to international finance. So, if you don't want to listen to the national security argument, listen to the economic argument. There are ripple effects to not addressing the deficiencies in this legislation.</para>
<para>An ongoing NSW Independent Liquor & Gaming Authority inquiry into Crown casino, as I mentioned earlier, revealed some shocking noncompliance with money-laundering laws by several Australian casinos and junket operators. And, as I mentioned earlier, we had the case with Commonwealth Bank and Westpac—can you believe it? They breached the anti-money-laundering counterterrorism financing laws an astounding 23 million times. I can understand one mistake, but 23 million mistakes? I think it's very, very hard to argue that our laws are sufficient when a bank can overlook 23 million breaches of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act. The government's own regulator, AUSTRAC, gave risky casino operations its tick of approval only three years ago, so they continue to operate under this government.</para>
<para>Those who spoke before me spoke at length about the implications of not strengthening this act, and I stand to reiterate that point here today. This government has an opportunity to do more in this space. They have an opportunity to walk the walk, so to speak, on national and international security. You cannot claim to be tough on national security and allow a law like this to continue. You cannot possibly be tough on national security and allow this to continue.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When most of us hear the phrase 'anti-money laundering', we think of something that is very dry and complex. We think of financial sector payment systems, of arcane banking standards and of big data. It is true that anti-money laundering is a very complicated area and is becoming increasingly technical and complex. But, as previous speakers have indicated, what is also true of money laundering is that it is a growing problem. It is growing in scale and it is growing in terms of the threat that it poses right across our sector, with very disturbing real-world consequences. That's why it's so concerning that we see a bill today, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, that is, frankly, too little too late. It's a bill which doesn't address major issues which other countries have dealt with, which have grown over recent years and which this government said that it would deal with years and years ago.</para>
<para>Crime is as old as society, and, of course, dealing with the proceeds of crime is as old as crime itself. We're used to thinking of anti-money laundering, of dealing with the proceeds of crime, as perhaps dealing with stolen goods or bags full of cash. But what we see with money laundering is a crime that has a number of characteristics that are important to note here at the outset. Firstly, with money laundering, we're seeing crime on a scale that is becoming almost unimaginable. We are now seeing money laundering in tranches, through our banking sector, through our real estate sector and right across our economy, that are in the billions of dollars and the millions of transactions. Not only that, but in money laundering we are seeing activities that are changing in their nature and their scale at such a rapid pace that it is absolutely critical that our regulatory system and our regulators keep up with that change.</para>
<para>We are also seeing in money laundering activities that cross the gamut of technical sophistication. In some areas of money laundering we are seeing brown paper bags full of money, but of course, at the other end of the scale, we see the most sophisticated actors that exist in society. We see transnational actors, as earlier speakers have noted—very well-financed transnational actors using multimillion-dollar schemes and multimillion-dollar technology to try to evade regulation. So we're seeing activities that are of such a breadth of technology and complexity that it is extremely difficult for regulators to use a one-size-fits-all approach. Regulation, of course, is also complicated by the fact that, in the anti-money-laundering regulatory space, we see the need to use both proactive and reactive approaches. We have a regulatory system that is also very complicated because the regulators themselves are using a very different range of techniques. In some areas of anti-money laundering, they rely upon reporting from actors in the system. In other areas, they actively look for money-laundering activity. So that again adds to the complexity and the challenges.</para>
<para>In money laundering, we also see a problem that is international in nature, which of course adds to the complexity because we are now dealing with multiple jurisdictions with their own legal systems. One of the challenges that this raises is that it's not just the strength of any particular jurisdiction's regime—the pros and cons of the regulatory approach adopted in any particular regime—that matters; it's the relativities between jurisdictions that matter, particularly in areas where we're talking about transnational money-laundering outfits that are looking to move money across many jurisdictions. So what we see is that it's the relative strength of jurisdictions that matters. Finally, it matters that money laundering is applying in many sectors and has real-world consequences such as affecting housing affordability, facilitating child exploitation and facilitating terrorism.</para>
<para>All of these features mean that the regulatory system that deals with money laundering needs to be constantly updated so that we don't become the weakest link in the world, which is what we are seeing Australia become, particularly among advanced economies. It also means that it's increasingly important that we update the regulatory regime, because the consequences of failing to have a fit-for-purpose scheme are so dire.</para>
<para>Let's have a look at what's occurred over recent years. The government have repeatedly missed deadlines in their own AML/CTF reform timetable. Let's go back to the member for Stirling in September 2016, the then Minister for Justice, who said that the Turnbull government—which seems like a very distant memory now—would be closely consulting with industry on regulation models for tranche 2 entities. When asked for comment in 2017 about how the process of implementing tranche 2 was coming along, Michael Keenan's office responded:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A cost/benefit analysis of extending AML/CTF regulation to certain non-financial business (lawyers, conveyancers, accountants, real estate agents, trust and company service providers and high-value dealers) is well progressed and will be completed by July this year.</para></quote>
<para>That was over three years ago. Back then the government were saying, 'It's about to happen', and years and years later we're presented with a bill that says nothing about tranche 2. According to the previous member for Higgins, who was then Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, the tranche 2 cost-benefit analysis was completed in 2017 and is being considered by the government. Well, it's an extremely lengthy and detailed consideration!</para>
<para>We see a bill that contains elements which we will support, but there are important issues which have been highlighted by the Financial Action Task Force, which have been highlighted by the OECD, and which have been highlighted by the IMF. These issues are growing, if anything, in importance. There are multibillion dollar problems in real estate and multibillion dollar problems that we're seeing across multiple banks—and what we see is a bill that doesn't even address these issues at all.</para>
<para>Let's look at the Financial Action Task Force and its assessment of Australia's progress over recent years. The Financial Action Task Force placed Australia on an enhanced follow-up remediation program in 2015, following a major evaluation of Australia's AML/CTF framework which found major non-compliance with international best practice in a number of areas. The Financial Action Task Force sets global standards and promotes effective implementation of legal, regulatory and operational measures for combating money laundering, terrorist financing and other related threats. As the member for Cowan said, if this government wants to talk big on how it deals with terrorism, it's simply not good enough for it to—over multiple years—in effect, ignore what the international agency of repute in this area is saying. This mutual evaluation report made clear—and other speakers have quoted this, but it's worth repeating—that Australia 'is an attractive destination for foreign proceeds of crime, particularly corruption related proceeds flowing into real estate'. We have seen this issue persist and, if anything, grow—although by how much who would know, given the current regime. Many other independent and international reviews have supported these criticisms of Australia's regime.</para>
<para>In November 2018, the FATF released their third enhanced follow-up report, and it said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">However, 14 Recommendations remain non-compliant or partially compliant.</para></quote>
<para>So this remains an area where activity is far, far too slow. And, again, we go back more than three years to statements by previous ministers of this government who were saying that reform was around the corner. Clearly, this is an area where even those opposite, I don't imagine, are going to claim that COVID is to blame. This is simply an area where this government has dropped the ball for far too long, which isn't some arcane area of the financial system; this is an area of failure in regulation which is leading to billions and billions of dollars flowing inappropriately in the financial sector. It's leading to billions of dollars of transactions in the real estate sector potentially flowing inappropriately—but, again, who would know?—and having consequences for housing affordability. And, as I mentioned earlier, it's having real consequences in areas such as human trafficking, child exploitation, and terrorism. So it's absolutely imperative that this government adopts a broader reform agenda that deals with the material issues that have been raised by the Financial Action Task Force.</para>
<para>Let's go to the IMF: in 2019, the International Monetary Fund recommended that Australia do more. The IMF said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… Australia’s real estate sector, which is very attractive to foreign investors, is at significant risk for money laundering …</para></quote>
<para>The IMF also said that Australia should immediately:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Take appropriate steps to address the risk that the proceeds of foreign bribery could be laundered through the Australian real-estate sector.</para></quote>
<para>Let's look at another reputable international agency, the OECD. The 2017 report of the OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions found major weaknesses in Australia's regime. The OECD said: 'Recent high-profile money laundering cases have pointed to weaknesses in Australia's AML/CTF regime.' The OECD went on to say: 'The coverage of the AML/CTF regime should expand swiftly to include all non-financial and business professionals, starting with those identified to present higher money-laundering and terrorism-financing risks. This would include real estate agents, lawyers, and trust and company service providers.'</para>
<para>We have the FATF, we have the OECD and we have the IMF. All of these agencies are saying the same thing, and they're not saying these things yesterday, or a month ago; they said these things three, four or five years ago. And we had government ministers three, four or five years ago agreeing with this, committing to addressing it, and saying that their response is around the corner. Well, it was clearly not around the corner—it's still not here.</para>
<para>Let's look at what's happening in our society right now. Let's look at what's happening at Crown, and, as a previous speaker indicated, it's taking a New South Wales inquiry to uncover a lot of this. The New South Wales Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority inquiry is exposing massive and systemic breaches of AML/CTF legislation. In 2017, an AUSTRAC report said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Casinos are broadly aware of and comply with their AML/CTF obligations regarding casino junkets.</para></quote>
<para>That report also said there was a:</para>
<para>broad understanding of and compliance with AML/CTF requirements in relation to junkets …</para>
<para>I wonder if they've changed their assessment. But it's not only that particular failure. What does it say about this government's approach to regulation in this area overall? It's clearly an area of regulation where we need a more comprehensive approach and we need a strengthening.</para>
<para>Westpac has been fined over $1.3 billion. Let's look at the fact that Westpac was involved in 23 million transactions which involved AML/CTF breaches. Let's look at the fact that CBA has been involved in major breaches. Again, what does this say about our system? What does it say when we have major systemic breach after major systemic breach? No-one is saying that in a large, complicated system like ours there'll be zero breaches. But when we have multiple international agencies saying Australia is falling behind comparable economies; and when we have multiple international agencies—the FATF, the OECD, the IMF—saying Australia is an attractive destination and there are large gaping holes in Australia's regulatory system, should we be surprised that these kinds of incidents occur? And should we be worried about more of those kinds of situations occurring under our noses and us not knowing about it, if we're not fixing up the regulatory arrangements?</para>
<para>Fundamentally, this is another bill that this government has put forward which is very narrow in ambition and, in achieving even that ambition, is sloppy. AFMA and the Financial Services Council have pointed out a number of drafting errors, but to me that isn't the major deficiency here. The major deficiency is that, after three and a half years, this government appears to have indefinitely put on hold major reforms which this parliament should be considering. They've been promising these reforms. They've been saying they're around the corner—well, they're not around the corner. And what we're seeing in the financial services sector, in the real estate sector, and in money that is flowing into and out of this country, with dire consequences, is that those reforms are needed more than ever.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Money laundering is an area of regulation where the government has a very strong game when it comes to rhetoric, but the delivery is incredibly weak, and it begs the question why. The member for Fraser has gone through that in some detail, outlining delay after delay after delay with little explanation as to why.</para>
<para>This bill, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, takes us only a little further down the track. Money laundering is not a victimless crime. That's why we need to take it seriously. Money laundering is an enabler for global crime organisations and some of the most horrific crimes imaginable. It facilitates modern slavery, where young women are forced into prostitution and smuggled into illegal brothels around the world. It allows children to be sexually exploited for profit. It means that gun runners can fuel civil wars in failed states and drug barons can live in mansions built on the misery of addicts, including those here in Australia. Terrorists use it to fund secretly planned attacks.</para>
<para>We cannot allow our country to be used as an environment where these crimes flourish, and we cannot allow our financial institutions to provide safe harbour for international syndicates that perpetrate them. We owe that much, at least, to the victims of these crimes and of the potential crimes to come. Such is the sophistication and international reach of the perpetrators that denying them the profit they so ruthlessly pursue is our only real defence. Australians are not okay with these abhorrent crimes. So, we need money-laundering laws that tell the world we're doing our bit to stop them. That should be reason enough to strengthen these laws, but there are other reasons as well. We know from the experience of other countries that once serious organised crime gains a foothold in a jurisdiction it's extremely difficult to eradicate. Prevention is the best cure, and that starts with laws that are serious to the task.</para>
<para>Money laundering also has a corrosive effect on our financial system. More than ever, Australia is a services economy. Our thriving financial services industry in particular is a job creation powerhouse and a sector that has provided a secure future for workers across the income scale. That success has, yes, been built on the hard work of those who toil within it, but it has also been built on confidence and trust in our financial system that stems from the rule of law and strong regulators. That reputation has been hard won over many decades but can be lost in an instant. Make no mistake: organised criminals are targeting Australian financial institutions as a way to launder profits from their illegal activities. This is why the penalties should be strong.</para>
<para>Look no further than the record $1.3 billion fine handed out to Westpac earlier this year for failing no less than 23 million times to support suspicious financial transactions worth $11 billion. Most concerningly, around 3,000 of these transactions are highly likely to have involved payment from paedophiles to offshore criminals for horrific sexual crimes against children. In addition, Westpac failed to assess risks or keep proper records involving suspicious transactions with high-risk jurisdictions, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq and Ukraine. Westpac's shareholders have a right to expect better standards of corporate governance than this. They, along with Westpac's customers and the public at large, deserve nothing but the highest level of vigilance when it comes to safeguarding the bank from involvement in serious criminal activity.</para>
<para>That's why Labor supports this bill but says it doesn't go nearly far enough. We welcome the expansion of reporting requirements, including the collection of customer identification and verification data. We welcome increasing the protections that will be placed on cross-border banking and the simplification of suspicious-matter reporting processes. And we support making it easier for law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute instances of money laundering. These changes will go some way to allowing Australia to show the world, and investors here at home, that we're determined to maintain a properly governed and properly regulated financial system. But we are still lagging far behind the rest of the world. There is more that can and should be done to enhance that message—that Australia is serious about cracking down on money laundering.</para>
<para>Take, for example, the New South Wales Crown casino inquiry. Here, too, we have seen shocking evidence of blatant money laundering from foreign organised-crime syndicates, much of it caught on video. It's clear that Crown casino has allowed itself to become a site for this sort of activity, as the company's chair, Helen Coonan, admitted to the New South Wales inquiry. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It may have been ineptitude or a lack of attention, I don't think it was deliberately turning a blind eye …</para></quote>
<para>That is still an open question. It's the kindest possible interpretation of what the inquiry has uncovered.</para>
<para>Let's remind ourselves of that infamous video of a blue cooler bag stuffed full of wads of cash—wads of cash being dumped on a cashier's table in exchange for chips. Let's remember that the gentleman in possession of the blue cooler bag was associated with the infamous Suncity junket operator, with known links to organised crime and with whom Crown was in a formal business arrangement. Let's not forget that Crown operated two bank accounts, Southbank Investments and Riverbank Investments, which appear to have facilitated suspicious transactions for some casino patrons. And what did Crown do about the numerous red flags raised by such activities? Nothing—absolutely nothing. No wonder that the counsel assisting the inquiry, Mr Adam Bell Senior Counsel, has already said that he thinks that Crown is not a fit person to hold a licence to operate Barangaroo casino.</para>
<para>Helen Coonan has been on the Crown board for nine years. Helen Coonan is also the chair of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, where she serves at the pleasure of the government. Her position in that role is clearly untenable, and the government must act to remove her. The Crown casino abject failure of corporate governance in relation to money laundering demands no less.</para>
<para>One of the underpinnings of the strong regulatory environment which the bill before us seeks to strengthen is the concept of continuous reporting. In fact, it is a cornerstone of corporate regulation and financial systems regulation in this country. It lies at the core of our system to ensure that wrongdoing is detected and acted upon. It requires corporates to self-report suspicious activity. It requires that proper records be kept and that relevant regulators be informed when those records indicate that something could be going amiss. How, then, can the government allow Helen Coonan to hold the chair at one of those regulators? How can she credibly enforce regulations when, in her own words, she sat on the board, and, in fact, was the chair of the very board that failed to put in place the right governance arrangements and showed, at a very minimum, ineptitude and inattention in basic matters of corporate governance?</para>
<para>Westpac's shareholders paid a very high price—a record fine—for the bank's record-breaking transgressions of money-laundering laws. They rightly demanded, and got, the resignation of the CEO and then the early retirement of its chairman. Crown shareholders may end up making similar demands of Helen Coonan; that's a matter for them. But the board of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority is different. It is accountable to the Australian people through the Australian government, and, for that reason, the government cannot sit on its hands and allow her to remain as the chair of AFCA.</para>
<para>AFCA is the banking ombudsman. It is the financial advice ombudsman. It is the insurance industry ombudsman. That means it's the regulator of last resort for Australians who are in dispute with a financial services provider. It must maintain a spotless reputation for governance or risk losing the confidence of those it seeks to serve. Helen Coonan's reputation may already be tainted by the money-laundering issues at Crown. AUSTRAC, which successfully prosecuted Westpac, has now launched an investigation into Crown over money-laundering claims. The board, which she chairs, has demonstrably failed in its basic continuous disclosure obligations and other governance requirements. That the government seeks to crack down further on money laundering is welcome. That it simultaneously allows its Liberal mate to remain at the head of a major financial regulator despite Crown's unfortunate history with money laundering can only undermine public confidence.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Morrison government are big on the rhetoric when it comes to talking about keeping Australians safe and acting to combat terrorism, but they're not big on taking action when it comes to updating Australia's laws to ensure that we have the most stringent and strongest anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing rules and regulations. Although this Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 does implement the second phase of reforms arising from the recommendations of the report on the statutory review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act and its associated rules and regulations, it doesn't go far enough. It will also address some of the deficiencies identified by the Financial Action Task Force in its mutual evaluation report on Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing regime in 2015.</para>
<para>We don't oppose this legislation. We believe it is a step in the right direction, but it simply doesn't go far enough because it ignores some of the recommendations of those reviews that I just mentioned. We on this side do call on the Morrison government to take anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing seriously because we have seen instances in Australia over recent times of people getting away with quite horrific, large-scale cases of alleged money laundering.</para>
<para>AUSTRAC announced it was launching an investigation into allegations of money laundering associated with high rollers at Crown casinos. It comes on the back of the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority in New South Wales recently concluding an investigation into anti-money-laundering practices at Crown casino, where many of the directors admitted in evidence that the practices that they had in place were sloppy at best. We've seen instances in the banking sector, with CBA and a record corporate fine for hundreds of thousands of instances of money laundering, and more recently Westpac. The risk of money laundering and terrorism financing remains significant. Money laundering and terrorism financing are not problems just for Australia; they are global problems which threaten Australia's national security and the integrity of Australia's financial system.</para>
<para>The Morrison government has dropped the ball on this crucial national security issue, while other jurisdictions have moved ahead of Australia, with much stronger AML/CTF protections, meaning that there's a growing risk to Australia from this government's failures to implement either the FTAF or the statutory review recommendations. There's a risk that Australia becomes a honey pot for these activities because of the slow nature of our reaction to some of these reports. This government's even been slow to start on bringing Australia's AML/CTF laws up to scratch. It has also failed to properly enforce existing laws, with no action taken against Westpac until it breached the law 23 million times. It highlights why Labor was completely justified in calling for numerous years for a royal commission to be established into banking and financial services, which was opposed 26 times in this place and the other place by the government. The last thing any country wants is to become a soft touch for money launderers and terrorism financers. That's why Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing framework must continue to evolve, otherwise Australia will become a weak link in the global financial system and a soft touch for organised criminals around the world seeking to launder the proceeds of crime.</para>
<para>Since 2013 the coalition has repeatedly missed deadlines in its own anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing reform timetable. While we welcome the efforts by the government to belatedly strengthen our anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing laws, the latest legislation comes more than four years after the then Minister for Justice tabled the report on the statutory review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and associated rules and regulations, which first called for these changes in March 2016. That's four years ago. Still, more than four years later, the legislation fails to implement many of those 2016 recommendations.</para>
<para>The world's AML/CTF watchdog, the Financial Action Task Force, has expressed serious concerns about Australia's regulatory framework and this government's failure to implement the reforms according to its own timetable. The Financial Action Taskforce 2015 mutual evaluation report made it clear that Australia is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… an attractive destination for foreign proceeds—</para></quote>
<para>of crime—</para>
<quote><para class="block">particularly corruption-related proceeds flowing into real estate …</para></quote>
<para>That's the view of the international body entrusted with the role of keeping a check on these illicit activities throughout the world. It's their view that Australia is an attractive destination because of this government's tardiness in implementing many of the recommendation reforms.</para>
<para>The failure to extend reporting obligations to real estate agents, to lawyers and accountants has left a huge hole in our anti-money-laundering defences and it means Australia is out of step with the likes of Great Britain and New Zealand, which have already taken action in their property sectors to curb money laundering. Reportable transactions in Australia which intersect with the regulated sector, banks and other financial institutions, provide authorities with some visibility of potential money laundering through real estate, and yet real estate agents and other professionals linked to the property market are still not subject to the provisions of the AML/CTF regime. For example, there's no obligation for real estate agents to report any suspicious activities associated with money laundering. AUSTRAC identified in 2015-16 that there was $1 billion of suspect funds flowing from China alone into our housing market, yet the government fails to act on that recommendation to close that loophole.</para>
<para>If the housing market is being used to launder funds, it creates a market where people are prepared to pay more for houses than they're worth, putting upward pressure on prices and creating more issues of housing affordability. The one issue that we know has been a serious one for this country, particularly for younger generations of Australians, has been the heat in the housing market. If there is evidence that people are artificially inflating prices to launder money, that's simply unacceptable and it's something that the government needs to act on. While other countries have strengthened their defences against the proceeds of criminal and corrupt businesses in this particular industry, in real estate, the government's left the door open for illicit capital to flood into Australia. Serious and sustained breaches of the FATF standards and obligations can result in jurisdictions being greylisted or blacklisted, increasing the cost of doing international business and restricting access to international finance. This is an issue that the government needs to take seriously. It's not a by-issue of being strong on terrorism. It's not a secondary issue of being strong on terrorism. Financing for money laundering and for terrorism acts is a serious issues. They're how the acts begin. They're how the acts are financed, and the Morrison government must take anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism laws seriously. It must take seriously the recommendations of both of those reviews which ask the government to look at closing those loopholes, particularly around the real estate and legal professions, so that we don't have this honey pot in Australia anymore. Getting these crucial laws right is too important to get wrong.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to thank my colleagues for their contributions to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, including the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Transnational and organised crime costs the Australian community up to $47.4 billion each year. This represents a significant threat not only to our community's safety but also to our national security. The Morrison-McCormack government is committed to combating these threats.</para>
<para>This bill will provide law enforcement with vital new tools while also reducing regulatory costs on industry. The bill will also implement key recommendations of the 2016 statutory review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act. It will ensure that our law enforcement, intelligence agencies and revenue protection agencies have appropriate and timely access to valuable financial intelligence. The bill will also help these agencies to protect the Australian community in the global fight against organised crime. The bill will criminalise the act of dishonestly taking credit for receiving police awards, ensuring that the bravery and heroism of our police forces can be appropriately honoured. I hereby table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum in response to the comments raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Scullin 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.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>73</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" background="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core">
            <a href="r6580" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>74</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020, introduced with the Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020 and the Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020, amends the Radiocommunications Act 1992 to modernise the policy and regulatory framework for spectrum management in Australia. It is intended to address significant changes to the technological landscape since 1992, to add flexibility, remove unnecessary prescription and legislative barriers and improve processes and help the framework remain fit for purpose in a rapidly changing environment.</para>
<para>Labor acknowledges the high value of spectrum in Australia and understands that a suite of technologies are set to revolutionise the digital economy. Globally, it is recognised that technological innovation and market and service convergence is placing increasing pressure on spectrum management in terms of its complexity, cost and responsiveness. The spectrum review identified the need to update the law to address the truly dynamic and evolving communications landscape.</para>
<para>Australia's spectrum policy and management framework was drafted 30 years ago, and while the framework has served us well, a good fifth of that time has been spent reviewing and reforming it. Labor welcomes these proposals to modernise the framework. Labor supports this bill. Labor notes the pragmatic approach adopted by stakeholders and their general desire to secure some practical, sensible reform. We too adopt this pragmatic stance on the progress that has finally been made. We acknowledge the significant efforts that have gone into spectrum review and reform by the department, the Australian Communications and Media Authority and industry in particular. Equally, Labor acknowledges stakeholder fatigue on this years-long reform process.</para>
<para>Labor won't stand in the way of regulatory updates that, to a large extent, play catch up with the regulator and streamline processes that, years ago, were identified as cumbersome. But we do note that, after so many years, this government has failed to achieve all the recommendations of the spectrum review. After such a significant investment of time and resources by government and industry, this government has proved incapable of implementing reform to address issues that, years ago, they said warranted that reform.</para>
<para>I want to turn to the issue of delay. The bill is the output of a complex and protracted spectrum review and reform process, which commenced over six years ago. According to the government's own timetable for implementation, this reform is well overdue. The bill now before parliament was introduced over three years after the original mid-2017 indicative timetable for passage of the new legislation. The delay means the ACMA has conducted spectrum auctions without the benefit of the streamlined approach, which was identified as a key area in need of reform some time ago.</para>
<para>It's ironic that a bill to clarify the minister's policy role in spectrum management has suffered setback and delay as a result of a lack of policy coherence and clarity from the minister. On many issues this government seems incapable of formulating coherent policy or adhering to it. Spectrum reform has been no exception. Australia has experienced seven years of this government's influence on communications policy. Over this period the contribution of ICT to Australian GDP relative to OECD nations has declined. Furthermore, Australia ranks second last among OECD countries for relative size of the technology sector and its contribution to the economy. We've seen the rollout of 4G and early 5G deployment, and yet there is still no sign of a comprehensive 5G deployment strategy for Australia or an AI strategy. There is nothing which shows ambition or substance when it comes to the potential of this sector in supporting productivity and inclusive economic growth and nothing about remaining competitive in the region and globally. What we have seen is a government that lacks a coherent agenda and as a consequence doesn't appear to be in command of the few processes it has commenced.</para>
<para>The innovation agenda turned out to be little more than a slogan. The sole outcome of the USO review was to produce a new three-letter acronym. The Digital Transformation Office became the Digital Transformation Agency, just as the Children's eSafety Commissioner became just the eSafety Commissioner. And then there's spectrum reform. In May 2014 the then Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, asked the department of communications and the ACMA to undertake a review of spectrum management. The terms of reference went beyond point-in-time streamlining and deregulation in an attempt to craft a more flexible framework suited to the challenges of a complex and rapidly-changing communications environment.</para>
<para>In May 2015 the government released the report of the review. The report found there were substantial deficiencies with Australia's 20-year-old spectrum management regime, which was described as slow, rigid and administratively cumbersome. In August 2015 the minister, in a joint release with the then parliamentary secretary to the minister, announced the government's agreement to implement the recommendations of the review with an indicative timetable of mid-2017 for the new framework. It was all going to be done and dusted in around two years.</para>
<para>In May 2017 an exposure draft for a 2017 bill was released for consultation by then communications minister Senator Mitch Fifield. At the time, Labor welcomed progress on the significant and complex reforms but also noted with caution that the overarching policy intent on key matters was yet to be articulated. The consultation was conducted in the absence of draft ministerial policy statements as fundamental as the single licensing system, including licence issues and conditions and renewal rights, for example. This meant the exercise was challenged by chicken and egg style absurdity. Ultimately the biggest reform of spectrum policy and its management framework in a generation ground to a halt.</para>
<para>Some time later, in June 2019, the current minister for communications indicated that he would not restart the stalled spectrum reform process until he was satisfied that the proposed new regime would provide superior benefits to the system it was to replace. So, four years after starting the reform process, the new minister was back at square one asking basic questions such as: What benefits will the proposed reforms deliver? Is wholesale or incremental reform necessary? That is, he had to reconsider the decision he had made in August 2015.</para>
<para>One would assume that the government had a well-considered view on such questions before deciding to commit years of significant public sector and industry resources to a wholesale reform process. The point is that the stalled work program is emblematic of a government without a coherent sense of what it is trying to achieve. For all their rhetoric about the need for efficiency and certainty for industry, they've been unable to deliver on it throughout this process.</para>
<para>In late June 2020 the exposure draft of the 2020 bill was released for a short three-week consultation period. Finally, in August 2020, the introduction of the bills into parliament was met with industry press <inline font-style="italic">CommsDay</inline> reporting a departmental insider describing the spectrum review and reform process as 'the Canberra version of Hollywood development hell'. Indeed! Ultimately the project wasn't abandoned, but it certainly hasn't been fully realised either.</para>
<para>I want to return to reforms not achieved and there being no certainty. Spectrum reform is yet another example of this Liberal-National government failing to do what it says it will do. Not only is the bill before the parliament over three years late; it doesn't address all the recommendations of the spectrum review. A number of issues that were identified for reform are not being progressed at this time. The bills do not integrate the management of broadcasting spectrum or create a single licensing system, for example. The department explained why, stating that the consultation which had occurred in 2017 indicated significant concerns about the approach that was being proposed in terms of the complexity, the transition costs for stakeholders and the number of issues that the department and the government then needed to work through in terms of considering where to in light of the views expressed during that consultation process.</para>
<para>The department provided more information about the transition costs associated with a single licensing system on notice:</para>
<quote><para class="block">After considering the responses to the 2017 consultation process, as well as views received through subsequent additional stakeholder engagement, the Department undertook further work to identify a possible transition pathway to a single licensing system.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The transition to a single licensing system would involve the transitioning of over 167,000 apparatus licences (with over 60 licensing options) to the new system. The transition of spectrum licences would have, in effect, required two regimes to operate in parallel for an extended period, likely to be in the order of six years, with complex arrangements necessary to manage the transition from a spectrum licence to the single licensing system to protect the rights of licensees. Maintaining this two-regime approach for a number of years would have introduced inefficiencies during the transition period, requiring the resources of spectrum users and ACMA to be dedicated to supporting the transition, and maintenance of two sets of systems and processes for an extended period.</para></quote>
<para>In relation to the management of broadcasting spectrum, the department explained that one of the things the 2017 consultation process drew out was the complexity and potential changes to the broadcast spectrum arrangements, so the government made a decision to focus on priority reforms that will achieve quicker benefits to spectrum users.</para>
<para>In terms of when future changes to broadcast spectrum arrangements may be addressed, the department said it would be a matter for government in light of broader broadcast policy and media objectives. The government has not outlined how or when these things may be addressed in future, beyond a general business-as-usual commitment to continuous reform. At inquiry, the department was asked whether it will undertake ongoing cycles of review and targeted legislative reform and whether there is a plan for that to happen. The department advised:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I think we would regard that as almost our business-as-usual approach in terms of ongoing responsibility for administration of the legislation and regular check-ins with stakeholders. There isn't a specific process mapped out for reform by another deadline at this stage.</para></quote>
<para>So the government provided no certainty or predictability around its ongoing reform agenda in this area. In the meantime, there will be a focus on implementing the proposed reforms.</para>
<para>Turning now to the proposed reforms that do address the recommendations of the spectrum review, it is instructive to consider how substantial they actually are. The bill amends the Radiocommunications Act 1992 to clarify the object of the act. But while the legislative objects may have been simplified, the complexity of spectrum management remains. Meanwhile, the changes to the object give rise to a degree of uncertainty for the public broadcasters, the ABC and the SBS, which they outlined in their submissions and at the inquiry into the bill. As the ABC states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There are conceptual and practical benefits in clarifying the overarching object of the Act and streamlining the aims that sit beneath it. It is also important that the aims reference both the commercial and non-commercial uses of spectrum.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As currently drafted, the use of spectrum by public broadcasters is not explicitly recognised as one of the vital non-commercial uses of spectrum; proposed new paragraph 3(b)(ii) currently references only "defence purposes, national security purposes and other noncommercial purposes (including public safety and community purposes)". In the ABC's view, the stated "other non-commercial" uses of spectrum in the legislation is not sufficiently broad.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The ABC submits that, to underline the importance of public broadcasting, the new Object section of the Act should explicitly include the term "national broadcasting purposes" as one of the non-commercial uses of spectrum … This is particularly important given that the Object section is a key interpretive provision of the Act and will be used as a reference point for future ACMA spectrum decisions, including application of the proposed new "public interest test" when considering the renewal of licences for periods of 10 years or more. In the alternative, at a minimum, the ABC submits that the term "public services" should be added to the stated noncommercial uses of spectrum.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the absence of this type of amendment to the Object of the Act, there is potential for future spectrum decisions to place too little weight on public broadcasters' use of spectrum vis-a-vis commercial uses in instances where these uses may be in direct conflict.</para></quote>
<para>The government's responses as to why this was not addressed were not altogether persuasive.</para>
<para>Another change is that the bill requires the ACMA to prepare an annual work program covering a minimum five-year period to support transparency—a good idea. The thing is, the ACMA has been doing this for over a decade already, with the publication of its five-year spectrum outlook, or FYSO, since 2009. The bill merely plays slow catch-up in this regard.</para>
<para>The bill also updates the system for equipment regulation to better reflect modern spectrum needs and supply chains. Device supply systems and equipment regulation will be streamlined, and the ACMA will be empowered to provide new exemptions in appropriate circumstances to facilitate testing, development and manufacturing of otherwise controlled devices. Again, the updated equipment arrangements also reflect much of what the ACMA has been already doing—something the department and industry both acknowledge.</para>
<para>On compliance and enforcement, the introduction of a modernised compliance and enforcement regime with more graduated enforcement mechanisms for breaches of the framework gives the ACMA a greater range of options beyond the institution of criminal proceedings. Again, it is not groundbreaking stuff. This aligns the framework with the general and established trend of empowering regulators with graduated compliance and enforcement options, something the regulator has been focused on for some time, including in other areas of its remit.</para>
<para>The bill also amends the act to provide for the minister to issue ministerial policy statements, which the ACMA must have regard to in exercising its spectrum management. The roles of the minister and the ACMA are clarified. The minister will have less involvement in day-to-day spectrum management decisions that are properly the responsibility of the regulator and will have the power to issue ministerial policy statements to guide the ACMA in its spectrum management functions. Spectrum allocation and reallocation processes have been streamlined. The ACMA will have greater flexibility to develop fit-for-purpose allocation arrangements in order to bring spectrum to market within shorter time frames where this is appropriate. This fixes some known issues such as the need for bespoke solutions to shortcomings in the system. However, it does not address the growing need for the ACMA to be able to defragment spectrum at the end of 20-year spectrum licences to ensure the most efficient use of spectrum while minimising the cost and disruption to government and other operators of having to clear spectrum—an issue that I'll return to shortly. The flexibility and regulatory barriers between licence types have been improved. The maximum licence term for both apparatus licences and spectrum licences will be extended to 20 years, with fewer regulatory barriers and more flexibility in the allocation process, and clearer processes governing renewal of licences.</para>
<para>I want to turn to the efficient use of public resources and, in particular, community television. Labor is concerned that, for all its rhetoric about efficient use of the spectrum and the benefits of reform, this government is unable to walk the talk. For example, this government wants community television broadcasters to move off air to an online-only model of delivery, despite there being no planned alternative use for the spectrum they now occupy. The minister's mishandling of the relatively straightforward matter of the extension of community television broadcasting licences—which the minister left until the eleventh hour in June 2020 and plans to end in June 2021—demonstrates an inability to govern with predictability in the public interest.</para>
<para>The benefits of community TV are many. Australia has one of the most concentrated media markets in the world, and community TV provides much-needed diversity and localism. At a time when newsrooms are closing, community TV supports local news and provides a training ground for emerging journalists and screen practitioners, including in partnership with universities. At a time when social cohesion, national culture and identity should be fostered, community TV provides a platform for local multicultural, sporting and arts events as well as small business. At a time when social distancing makes participation in religious services difficult, community TV provides accessibility, particularly to elderly citizens without internet access.</para>
<para>Community television has been serving Australian audiences for 25 years, but the Morrison government wants to boot Channel 31 Melbourne and Geelong and Channel 44 Adelaide off air. This minister's disregard for the valuable use of spectrum by community television broadcasters underscores the need for clear legislation and clear roles as between the minister and the ACMA. Labor appreciates the importance of getting spectrum reform right and the cost and complexity of failing to strike the right balance between flexibility and certainty when it comes to spectrum management. That is why Labor is concerned that this government has missed an important opportunity to ensure sufficient flexibility for the ACMA or the government to defragment spectrum licensed holdings where existing configurations represent a very wasteful use of spectrum. Where the use of spectrum is wasteful, it can result in costly and disruptive refarming exercises.</para>
<para>According to submission 181 by Professor Jock Given and Mr Giles Tanner to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts' inquiry into the deployment, adoption and application of 5G in Australia, this issue is growing even bigger in future as technical standards evolve. Giles Tanner is a senior research fellow at Swinburne University of Technology. Until December 2018, he was the head of the ACMA's division responsible for radio frequency spectrum management. Jock Given is Professor of Media and Communications at Swinburne University of Technology and chief investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project, 'Spectrum after scarcity: rethinking radiofrequency management'. Their submission examined the shortcomings of the Radio Communications Act 1992 that may hinder deployment of 5G and other advanced technologies, and made legislative reform recommendations designed to overcome them.</para>
<para>Around the world, including in Australia, governments place a high priority on work to make additional spectrum available for 5G and other advanced wireless broadband technologies. As it turns out, the bill addresses the recommendation that the ACMA should have greater flexibility to create and issue new spectrum licences, including wider recourse to administrative rather than price based allocation where appropriate. However, the bill does not address recommendation 3:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The ACMA’s power to re-issue spectrum licences in the public interest and the Minister’s power to make class of services determinations should be reviewed so as not to compromise the regulator’s freedom to optimise the efficient configuration of a band or bands following licence expiry. For example, the ACMA could be empowered, with sufficient warning and following proper consultation, to offer a different licence, of equivalent or greater utility, if to do so would maximise the overall public benefit obtained from the band or bands in question.</para></quote>
<para>The current system critically relies on markets to do this. The high-grade fully tradeable nature of spectrum licences means licensees can negotiate some of these changes themselves. And when they don't hold all the spectrum that is required, which is also going to be an increasingly common scenario in future, the new law will allow the ACMA to simply directly allocate spectrum licences to a person, meaning that, between them, carriers and the ACMA have a lot of discretion to negotiate for more efficient configuration of existing spectrum licensed bands. The trouble is that everyone has to agree, and it often doesn't suit carriers to agree on the most efficient overall configuration of a band.</para>
<para>As we move from a norm of 15-year to 20-year spectrum licences, the very long tenure proposed for spectrum licences, combined with administrative renewal, does call into question what the government's reserve powers might be to push markets to utilise spectrum efficiently, at least as licence renewal time approaches.</para>
<para>At the hearing on this bill, Labor asked the ACMA if the proposed bill helps it deal with rapid change, the speed of evolution, and the efficient use of bands in relation to defragmentation. An ACMA official confirmed that yes, the process changes that are enabled by the bill allow the ACMA to do this through consultation with industry, whereas in the past they had to make multiple steps through the minister. There is greater freedom in process, to do things faster, where appropriate. When asked whether it would be useful to have the power and flexibility to solve issues by defrag of spectrum, the ACMA official said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The ability to defragment either at the end of a licence term or, if possible, through agreement in the middle of a licence term does improve the spectrum efficiency and therefore could potentially decrease the pressure on finding additional spectrum to be made available. So I think the answer is: potentially, yes, in the circumstances, it could help.</para></quote>
<para>It is anticipated that this issue will have to be revisited in future. Of course, it isn't just inflexible spectrum management processes that are costly. Policy and regulatory reform is costly to industry and to government. Government resources applied over a number of years are significant and involve many stakeholders, as was advised by the government and the ACMA in answers to questions on notice to the Senate Standing Committee on the Environment and Communications.</para>
<para>In conclusion, Labor supports reform to modernise the spectrum management framework to assist government and industry, given the high value of spectrum and the rapid pace of technological change. The benefits of the bill include reduced regulatory barriers, more-efficient spectrum management processes, and more-proportionate compliance and enforcement options. Labor acknowledges industry stakeholders who have participated in multiple round tables, meetings and consultations and made many submissions at considerable time and cost, and the public servants who have been working to settle the reforms in this complex area for years.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the Senate scrutiny of this package in the public interest. This scrutiny has prompted the minister to provide advice on a range of matters, including the use of computerised decision making by the ACMA; whether ministerial policy statements should be legislative instruments; whether the regulation of equipment should be left to delegated legislation; and whether the ACMA should be able to exempt people from the compliance provisions in the act by legislative instrument. The committee also asked that further information be included in an addendum to the explanatory memorandum, which I understand will be tabled by the minister.</para>
<para>In closing, I emphasise the importance of getting spectrum reform right, given the far-reaching consequences of the changes, and the government's inconsistency on the policy scope and delay in the delivery of these reforms. Labor supports this bill and emphasises that getting spectrum reform right is not a set-and-forget task. It is imperative that the government develop a clear reform agenda as the experience of operating under the new framework informs future reforms. As Chris Althaus, the CEO of AMTA, said to the committee inquiry on the bill:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If there were a lesson to be learned from this whole process—and this is really important from our point of view—it is that, with such a dynamic environment , government needs to stay more attuned to the incremental changes that could be applied to the new act in the next licence period, for example. So there's been a lesson learned, I think: we all need to stay attuned to change and adapt. That's becoming more and more important, given not only the complexity of the spectrum environment but also its fundamental importance, as we've seen during COVID, to how we live our lives. We've got to get it to an optimal level at every step, and, if we need to do that through incremental change, so be it.</para></quote>
<para>To that end, I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the economic value of electromagnetic spectrum in Australia has been estimated at $177 billion over 15 years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) the rapid evolution of technology and markets is placing increasing demands on spectrum management;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) the cost and complexity of failing to strike the right balance between flexibility and certainty in spectrum management;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) the work of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights on the proposed reforms; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) that the proposed reforms do not address all of the recommendations of the 2015 Spectrum Review report and were introduced over three years after the Government’s own timetable for implementation".</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>203092</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burns</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>203092</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Greenway has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. 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. I understand it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020 and the Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020. There being no objection, the chair will allow that course to be followed.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to first of all thank the member for Greenway for giving a fine second reading amendment speech but also for her constant commitment to community radio and television. The member for Greenway and I have had many conversations over the last few months about some of the stresses that community media organisations have felt because of the mismanagement of the frequencies by this government. These are not big media organisations; these are community organisations that are crucial to the multicultural fabric of different corners of our communities. The member for Greenway understands this deeply and properly and has been a champion for those small local organisations, especially in my electorate, of which I will talk a little bit later in this contribution. I just want to note on record that the member for Greenway has been a champion for those local organisations and it has been much appreciated.</para>
<para>This bill, the Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020, is a bit overdue, but it is a bill whose importance we on this side of the House understand. Obviously, with the frequencies changing and the technology changing over time, so must the governance arrangements for them. I'm going to focus my remarks more heavily today on the organisations that this bill affects—organisations that, as I previously mentioned, have really gone through a difficult time because of the way in which this government has not prioritised the community media landscape and has not prioritised TV, radio and other forms of community media.</para>
<para>Community broadcasting does a few things. First of all, community broadcasting can be the connection for communities, especially multicultural communities. In my electorate of McNamara, we have a number of big public housing buildings where there are many apartments. A number of the people who live there are migrants who came to this country with nothing and have made this their home. English is not their first language, and often they watch programming in their first language on community television, on channel 31. Every time I go and visit my friends who are public housing tenants, I walk out with a sense of pride and a sense of community and togetherness that they have been able to foster after being welcomed in Australia. I am proud of our public housing community. They watch community television. They watch television that's not in English. They watch television that makes them feel at home, and we need to support them. That's what community media organisations are all about. They're about supporting different communities—not trying to appeal to a large group of people but trying to appeal to a group of people who don't otherwise get programs that are relevant and purpose built for their community.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">Sputnik TV</inline> is one of those great local programs. It is a Russian broadcasting program that has been around for over 20 years. I remember when my friend Gregory, who is one of the producers of <inline font-style="italic">Sputnik TV</inline>, called me in a panic when Channel 31 was set to be shut down by this government. This is a guy who has dedicated literally decades of his life to try and put on television—not to make money off it but to try and give his community a voice and a sense of home and belonging in my electorate. This government made Gregory and others like him go, unnecessarily, through a really anxious period, when the uncertainty around community television and community broadcasting was heightened. Instead of managing and supporting local community television, local community organisations like <inline font-style="italic">Sputnik TV</inline> and people like Gregory—who is a wonderful person—the government dragged these community organisations along, didn't commit to anything and then told them, at the eleventh hour, that community TV was going to be removed in Melbourne. That was devastating for programs like <inline font-style="italic">Sputnik TV</inline> and <inline font-style="italic">The Shtick</inline>. I note the presence in the chamber of the member for Gellibrand, who appeared with me on a recent episode of <inline font-style="italic">The Shtick</inline>. It was one of the highest-rating episodes of <inline font-style="italic">The Shtick</inline>.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Watts interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As the member for Gellibrand likes to remind me, he brought the magic that day. The issue that the member for Gellibrand and I appeared in relation to was this unfortunate stress that the government had placed on community TV organisations. My friend Henry, who is the producer, the star, the director and the driving force behind it, has documented Jewish life in Melbourne for over 600 episodes and has done it in his living room. He has never received a cent of any government support over that whole period—over hundreds and hundreds of episodes. He has driven this project that enriches community life and enriches the uniqueness of our multicultural community and our multicultural life.</para>
<para>Yet this government didn't understand that you can't just drag these organisations along and not provide some certainty. In fact, the government told these organisations that Channel 31 in Melbourne didn't have a future. Channel 31 is not a commercial moneymaker. It's there to enrich Melburnians lives and to give people who are from all different corners of the globe a voice and a platform that they should have. This government dragged programs like <inline font-style="italic">The Shtick</inline> and like <inline font-style="italic">Sputnik TV</inline> to the absolute breaking point. They were told they didn't have a future. That was devastating. It was hard to accept. Thankfully, because of the pushing and stressing of people on this side of the House, the government did, at the very, very last moment, reverse their decision to shut down Channel 31—after they had announced it was going to be closed—and extended it for one year. But that's not good enough. The fight isn't over. The government shouldn't just postpone Channel 31's demise; the government should make sure that there is no demise of Channel 31 and other community TV programs and community television platforms. It is not enough to reform some of the governance arrangements. The government actually needs to make sure we're supporting the different corners of our community and the different voices who need a platform in our community.</para>
<para>It's not just TV. I know that you, Deputy Speaker Zimmerman, are a big fan of community radio. And I, as a younger, budding politician, cut my teeth on community radio. The first radio interview I ever did was on J-AIR, on a Tuesday night at 8 o'clock. I sent my mum a text saying, 'Mum, listen, I'm going to be on the radio,' and the frequency was so bad that she didn't even get the frequency at home! But it was a great example. J-AIR was the radio station I was on, and I'll actually acknowledge the member for Goldstein who, in this place, moved a motion urging the government to give J-AIR a frequency and a permanent home on the radio frequencies, and, thankfully, the government has done that. So I acknowledge the member for Goldstein's work in that. He pushed that.</para>
<para>Community radio has been a home and a place where people have learnt their craft, and it has produced stars. One of those stars lives in my electorate: John Safran, who is an identity in St Kilda. He cut his teeth on community radio. He was also briefly on community TV, on Channel 31, and then on SRA-FM and SYN, as it was known then, before he became too famous. And now he is living the high life! But I take this moment to acknowledge John and his commitment to community television and community radio in our electorate.</para>
<para>I will also take this moment to acknowledge one other great radio station—a great local radio station—in JOY FM. JOY FM is the voice of the LGBTIQ community in Melbourne. It is a brilliant organisation that gives voice to people and to a community. It is all about being proud and embracing LGBTIQ life in Melbourne. I'm absolutely delighted to say that, in my electorate, in St Kilda, the Pride Centre is being built. It is going to do wonderful things in Fitzroy Street in St Kilda, as it's going to be a hub of community life. But it is also going to be the home of JOY radio, and I look forward to being interviewed in the new studio in St Kilda when that project is finished. I give a shout out to my friends Macca and Tass, who are the Saturday morning presenters on <inline font-style="italic">Saturday Magazine</inline>. Macca likes to remind me that it is the highest-rating podcast of all the JOY FM shows; so, if it's not, you can take that up with Macca!</para>
<para>But, in all seriousness, community radio and community television are not about the big bucks. They're not about big corporations. They're about people who turn up and try and add a sense of home to our communities and a sense of culture and vibrancy to Melbourne life. These last few months in Melbourne have been some of the most challenging that I think any Victorian has had to go through. It is so wonderful to be able to come back and to know that the great state of Victoria is in a much better place than it was a few months ago. But, in those times of quietness and loneliness and of people being isolated, that sense of community and togetherness is something that needs to be rebuilt, and the way in which people can gather and connect with other people is not through programs that may appeal to everyone; it's through programs that have a uniqueness and celebrate the different parts of multicultural Australia, the different parts of community life in Australia and the different individuals that live in this wonderful country.</para>
<para>I would echo the comments made by the member for Greenway that Labor does support this bill. We do support the updating of arrangements for regulations around radio communications. But it is not good enough to set these regulations and to forget about the people who rely on them—to forget about the small local organisations that we are all so proud of and that we love attending as local MPs and as people who celebrate our local communities. So I would conclude by saying that this bill is important not in order to forget the people but in order to remind us of the work we need to do to support our wonderful local community organisations—the wonderful people who give up their time, not for glory but for others and for the very fabric that makes Melbourne a wonderful multicultural community, makes Victoria a wonderful multicultural state and makes Australia a wonderful multicultural country.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WATTS</name>
    <name.id>193430</name.id>
    <electorate>Gellibrand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to start my comments on this long-awaited bill before the House tonight, the Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020, by acknowledging the contribution of the member for Macnamara and providing a shout-out to that outstanding community television show that he referred to earlier, <inline font-style="italic">The Shtick</inline>—an institution of the Melbourne Jewish community that I've had the privilege to appear on. As the member for Macnamara pointed out, it's a salient reminder to us that, in any debate about communications policy or technology policy, the reason we're really here relates to what these technologies, these infrastructures, can do to enable human-to-human interaction and to enable the communities we all serve here today.</para>
<para>As I was saying, I'm delighted to be able to speak on this long-awaited bill. Spectrum policy is a real passion of mine. It's the geekiest part of communications policy. It's where the pointiest heads of economics get together with the pointiest heads of physics and the pointiest heads of network engineering, and they all make something so impossibly complex but so incredibly important to our modern society. In a previous life I had the privilege of working on spectrum policy in the commercial sector, and I can tell you that the combinatorial clock spectrum auction model is an outstanding conversational topic for any situation; I recommend it to all members in the chamber for first dates! It goes really well—some really engaging material.</para>
<para>Spectrum policy is complex, but it's consequential; it's crucial. Radiofrequency radcoms spectrum management is like land title management for a new settlement. With the rapid pace of change in the communications sector you could think of radcoms spectrum management as being like a land title system during a gold rush: rapidly changing and asking: 'How do we establish the rules of conduct in a land grab? What are the rules of the road so that the radcoms spectrum used by a microwave doesn't interfere with your television reception and doesn't stop you from being able to watch <inline font-style="italic">The Shtick</inline> on community television in Melbourne? What are the rules of the road to make sure that your garage door opener doesn't interfere with your wi-fi router or that Telstra's 5G mobile network doesn't interfere with Optus's 5G network?'</para>
<para>We don't want radcoms spectrum management to be like a 21st century Deadwood, with device manufacturers operating like modern-day Al Swearengens. In that gold-rush, no-rules, winner-takes-all scenario, you really want to have government setting the rules of the road. It's not a free-for-all in Australia. For some time now, we've had rules to grant exclusive licences to some and to provide rules for management of shared spectrum spaces for others. But the current framework is nearly 30 years old, and we can always manage spectrum more efficiently. New technologies enable new uses and new ways of sharing and utilising spectrum. So we do need the regulatory framework for spectrum management to evolve with the times to incorporate these new potential uses, and that's what the bill before the House is about.</para>
<para>The bill before the House is a response to these changes in the technological landscape and seeks to modernise the policy and regulatory framework by adding flexibility and offering regulatory streamlining and efficiency. It goes to a range of aspects of spectrum management. The objects of the act are clarified, and the respective roles of the minister and the ACMA in spectrum management are clarified. There are changes streamlining the allocation and reallocation processes for spectrum management of licence types, equipment supply regulation, and compliance and enforcement.</para>
<para>As I said earlier, Labor broadly supports these changes because they are the result of very significant consultation with stakeholders in the sector. I, and Labor, want to acknowledge the industry stakeholders that have participated in many round tables, meetings, consultations and rounds of submissions at considerable time and cost. I also want to recognise the public servants and the employees at the regulators who have been working to settle the reforms in this complex area for years—in fact, for many years. By this stage, the Morrison government's habit of being there for the photo op, but not being there for the follow-up, is well-established. Ironically for a bill about streamlining and increasing the efficiency of regulation, the process of bringing this bill to the House today has been utterly shambolic. It's a shambolic policymaking process that we have seen across the communications portfolio since this minister took on the job, but this bill does stand out for the dithering and squibbing of big decisions over time. The communications portfolio is supposed to be where you find the cutting-edge technology. But the infrastructure that gets the most work in the current communication minister's office are the bookshelves heaving with neglected and ignored regulatory reviews, waiting for a government response and action. They're slower than the 14.4 kilobits-per-second fax modem that I begged my father to connect in 1995. There's perhaps no better example of this dithering and slow movement in policymaking than the bill before the House.</para>
<para>This is a bill whose genesis can be traced to the Turnbull era. No, not the Turnbull prime ministership, but the former member for Wentworth's stint as communications minister in 2014. Malcolm Turnbull, as communications minister, initiated the review process that is the source for the reforms in this bill before the House in May 2014. The then Department of Communications and the ACMA handed the product of this spectrum review to the minister in March 2015. The government agreed to all of the recommendations of this report and set itself an ambitious timetable to implement the recommendations over the next two years—an ambitious implementation target that they then proceeded to miss by three years. In the time that we have spent waiting for the report and the response to the spectrum review to be implemented by this government, we've seen three prime ministers. We've seen Malcolm Turnbull moved on from being the communications minister to become the Prime Minister, to then being deposed as the Prime Minister, to resigning from the parliament altogether. We've seen the entirety of the rise and fall of Donald Trump as US president while this bill inched its way through the bureaucracy of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments. Well, almost. We're nearly there.</para>
<para>The government department that undertook the original review, jointly with the ACMA, the Department of Communications, is no more. It's been absorbed into the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications. Political careers have started and ended. Bureaucracies have risen and fallen in the time that it has taken this bill to reach this chamber. And this in one of the fastest moving areas of policy that we confront as legislators. There are real-world consequences for this laggard action. Spectrum auctions are being conducted without the benefit of the streamlining and efficiencies to the regulatory framework outlined in this bill. It's no way to make policy. But it's the policy process—and I use the term fairly loosely—that we've come to expect from this government, particularly in the communications portfolio.</para>
<para>We saw another extraordinary example of the shambolic policymaking process in communications policy in this country earlier this week with the passage of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio and Other Measures) Bill that the minister took through this chamber, finally. It wasn't the contents of that bill that were extraordinary; the bill represented relatively minor, though desperately needed, regulatory relief for regional media outlets. Labor was happy to support those measures and to facilitate the expeditious passage of that bill through the parliament. However, what was extraordinary was the process that preceded that bill's passage through this House. The fact that the bill was necessary at all was extraordinary. In September 2017, Malcolm Turnbull released a series of changes to media laws addressing the very issues dealt with by the broadcasting services amendment bill which he described as 'a new era for Australia's media'. He boasted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The government is strengthening Australia's media industry, enhancing media diversity and securing local journalism jobs, particularly in regional areas.</para></quote>
<para>Unfortunately, this new era for Australia's media, particularly in regional areas, lasted only three years. Less than three years later, the explanatory memorandum for the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio and Other Measures) Bill 2020 stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Department is of the view that broadcasters' difficulties in meeting content requirements can be taken to be an early warning sign of market failure.</para></quote>
<para><inline font-style="italic">The Australian Financial Review</inline> summed it up with the headline, 'Regional TV on the verge of market failure'—market failures that would limit regional Australians' access to Australian content and entirely unaddressed by the new era of regulation proclaimed by the Turnbull reforms of three years earlier. In the face of that market failure, however, the government dithered and then tinkered around the regulatory edges, proposing a bill that represented much-needed but modest regulatory relief for regional operators.</para>
<para>What followed the drafting of this bill—which was of modest regulatory relief, uncontroversial, and neither challenged nor impeded by the opposition—was one of the most bizarre parliamentary processes that any bill has seen in this House for quite some time. First we saw a crazy rush—a headlong crash-through. The bill was brought on for debate just days after it was introduced, in the June sitting. It was such a rush that the government guillotined debate on the previous bill without allowing a single opposition speaker, in an extraordinary trashing of parliamentary convention, bringing the bill to debate at a headlong speed. You might conclude there was a speedy passage through the House. It was not to be. Despite the rush, the government then proceeded to do nothing. The bill was listed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline> for debate in the next five consecutive sittings, and nothing happened. Those of us on this side of the House who are interested in these things were left watching, sitting day after sitting day, wondering: 'When will the bill get its day in the sun? Will it be this sitting week or the next?' It was quite bizarre. More significantly, industry stakeholders who were relying on this regulatory relief were also left waiting and wondering. Just as stakeholders in the radcom spectrum bill currently before the House have been left waiting and wondering for years and years.</para>
<para>Stakeholders for the broadcasting services amendment were kept waiting until this week—five months after the chaotic introduction of the bill into this House. I'm sure even the minister's own department was incredibly frustrated at being left wondering just when they would be able to get to work on implementing the bill. We know that those opposite feel that, once the photo-op is done, once the media release is released, once the doorstop is held, it's job done. They're not there for the follow-up; they're not there for the implementation. We have seen time and time again that this government are simply not interested in getting the detail right. This bill before us in the House has been more than five years in the making. It's gone to the bottom of the to-do pile of multiple communication ministers in the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government—a really crowded place to be. And, when they finally did get around to doing it, the bill was hurriedly introduced. This is a government that talks the talk on spectrum reform but doesn't walk the walk. We find, when we get into the detail, that the government hasn't dotted their i's and crossed their t's. They haven't listened to the expert on what this reform could be, and should be, with a bit of extra gumption.</para>
<para>I want to particularly highlight the missed opportunity in the area of 5G that the member for Greenway has highlighted in the second reading amendment before the House. As the member for Greenway has noted, Labor appreciates the need to get spectrum reform right. We understand the costs and complexity of failing to strike the right balance between flexibility and certainty when it comes to spectrum management. The missed opportunity to get 5G right in this bill has been particularly concerning. My colleague, the member for Greenway, noted that this was addressed by Professor Jock Given and Mr Giles Tanner—who are quite august figures in this policy space—in their submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts' inquiry into the deployment, adoption and application of 5G in Australia. These guys are the experts. They highlighted the shortcomings in the bill that is before the House and the effects that this missed opportunity might have on the rollout of 5G. The rollout of 5G matters—particularly given the way the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has bungled the NBN. Given and Tanner made this recommendation:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The ACMA's power to re-issue spectrum licences in the public interest and the Minister's power to make class of services determinations should be reviewed …</para></quote>
<para>So the fact that this bill doesn't address that recommendation is particularly concerning.</para>
<para>Labor understands the importance of getting spectrum reform right. Its value to the Australian economy is estimated at $177 billion over 15 years. It underpins many of the areas of ICT policy that are so crucial to so much of our internet-connected economy today. We know it's a complex area of policy, and failing to strike the right balance between flexibility and certainty on spectrum management is costly. It's an unseen cost, it's an inefficiency in the background of our day-to-day economy, but it's there and we all pay the price. The lack of follow-through from the government on the broadcasting services bill has left regional media in crisis and has deepened the underlying trends that that bill had purported to address. That's why it's disappointing that the government has failed to be across the detail. The work has been done everywhere but in the bill. The industry deserves better—a more expeditious, more streamlined and more efficient communications policymaking process—and all Australians deserve better. A future Albanese government will deliver that for the benefit of all Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to support the Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020. Australia's radiofrequency spectrum is a critical national resource and it needs a robust and flexible regulatory framework to respond to our evolving communication industries. Our spectrum is estimated to be worth $177 billion over the next 15 years, with ACMA managing more than 170,000 radio communication licences. This legislation is the result of an extensive and exhaustive review—a process that began back in 2014. From this developed a targeted set of amendments which will add flexibility and provide greater certainty.</para>
<para>I'd like to touch on a few of the issues that were raised in the Senate committee inquiry—firstly, the concern that the ABC and the SBS, with their special status as national broadcasters, are not explicitly recognised as vital non-commercial users of the spectrum in the objects of the act. I think this is a flaw. This omission leads to their concerns about how their role as public broadcasters is prioritised by ACMA in the public interest test for the assessment of licence applications and renewals. In light of the budget cuts to our national broadcasters and the intense government scrutiny of the ABC in recent times, I believe it is reasonable for our public broadcasters to seek reassurance that they won't be made to jump any additional hurdles under the new public interest test for long-term licence applications. The ABC and the SBS hold a unique position in Australian society and in our democracy. They should be identified as priority users of our spectrum.</para>
<para>Centre Alliance also maintains that the ABC and the SBS should be adequately funded. The ABC has experienced a 30 per cent fall in funding in real terms since the mid-1980s. Imagine what resources the ABC would have now if they'd received that 8c per day per head of population. In addition to dealing with having less income, the management of the ABC also have to face inquiries into the ABC's charter, its competitive neutrality, its rural services and its scrutiny of government. There is absolutely no question in my mind that, for years, we have seen a war on the ABC by this government. This war has to stop.</para>
<para>Australians are also deeply unhappy about the level of advertising on the SBS. The SBS needs advertising income to support its programming. The ABC and the SBS need at least equal-share access to the spectrum, if not priority access, so they can continue to reach their key audiences in new and innovative ways as technology and viewer tastes evolve. Many people have been emailing me saying they don't want to see so many ads on the SBS. They don't want to see gambling ads on the SBS. But it continues to happen because the SBS needs to receive that revenue in order to operate. I would urge the government to reconsider this matter with respect to the SBS. Viewers don't want to see advertising. In particular, they don't want to see gambling advertising. I would urge the government to better support the SBS so that it doesn't need to have so much advertising.</para>
<para>Another issue raised in submissions to the committee inquiry was that community television should be allowed to continue free to air for the public. There has been a push by this government for the policy, since 2014, that community television would transition to the internet. And yet, there's no real reason for that. There's no real need for that. It doesn't cost the government money. It provides such joy to so many people in my community. They get to watch free-to-air local church services and they get to watch local exercise programs. Community television is just that: it is all about community. I have a fantastic community television station in South Australia. It's Channel 44. It's very well loved. During the COVID pandemic, it actually increased in viewers by 27 per cent—that is, up to 57,000 viewers. As I said, local church services, for people who couldn't attend church, were on for people to watch, still feel part of the community and participate in that church service.</para>
<para>Despite COVID, Channel 44 is creating new television shows. Just recently, Tracey Tito has worked with Channel 44 to create her own fishing show called <inline font-style="italic">Just a girl</inline>. It's about all women on a fishing boat. They're going out catching in South Australian waters. It's a fantastic show that I really love. I've been out on Tracey's boat, and I'm looking forward to potentially being in one of the episodes in future months, when the weather is good. I love my fishing, as I think everyone in this place knows. This is just another example of the great work that Channel 44 does, so I would say to the minister: 'Be a hero in this place. Be a hero for our community, and actually provide the certainty so they're not begging, cap in hand, year after year, for the continuation of the community television broadcast licence.' The licence is not intended to be used for any other purpose for the next five years, so, why not provide that level of certainty to community television and to our broader community. I think it's incredibly valuable, very well needed, and that's what we're all about in this place: supporting our community.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Radio frequency spectrum is a vital resource which underpins many aspects of Australia's digital economy, such as the operation of fixed and mobile wireless communication networks. It is essential that spectrum is effectively managed so that it can be made available for innovations, such as supporting the rollout of 5G in Australia.</para>
<para>With markets and technology having changed markedly since the current legislative framework took effect, there's clear need to update that framework. Spectrum not being allocated quickly and easily imposes unnecessary costs on both industry and government. It slows the pace of innovation being driven by emerging technology and the enthusiasm of the sector to make better and more creative use of the spectrum. The amendments covered by the bills focus on priority reforms identified through the recommendations of the government's spectrum review and the outcomes of further consultation processes undertaken in 2017 and in recent months. The proposed changes provide a framework that allow the regulator and market to innovate and adapt in line with changing circumstances. Key recommendations include clarifying the object of the act, and the roles of the minister and the ACMA; streamlining the spectrum allocation and reallocation processes; improving flexibility and reducing regulatory barriers between licence types, better reflecting modern spectrum needs and supply chains; and introducing a modernisation compliance and enforcement regime. These bills are designed to add flexibility to the legislative framework, remove unnecessary prescription on legislative barriers and streamline processes. In the passage of this bill, we can ensure the spectrum management framework is suitable for our rapidly changing environment. I express my thanks to all honourable members for their contribution to this debate on these bills. The passage of these bills will modernise the management of spectrum and radio communications in Australia.</para>
<para>In addition, I extend my thanks to all stakeholders who contributed to the development of the bills during public consultation. The feedback received from stakeholder submissions assisted in refining the reforms so that they can deliver the intended benefits to the many diverse users of spectrum in Australia. Finally, I wish to thank the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for their inquiry into the reforms, which recommended that the bills be passed.</para>
<para>I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum in response to the comments raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. In summary, these bills provide a clear reform pathway to modernise our spectrum management framework. The bills will modernise the management of spectrum in Australia and allow industry to better adapt to future innovations, including the rollout of future generation wireless technology. I commend the bills to the House.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>84</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing Affordability</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a Victorian, I come to this place after almost five months of not being here. In that time, Victoria has been under immense pressure, and Victorians have done something absolutely remarkable. In fact, Victorians have done something that has been the envy of the world—that is, turn around a second wave. But, in that second wave, Victorians were instructed to stay at home. Victorians were instructed to only leave their house for certain reasons, and they complied. In fact, when the number of cases in Victoria was rising so quickly, Victorians even had a curfew.</para>
<para>But, as all members know, you cannot stay at home if you don't have one, you cannot stay at home if your home is not a safe place to live, you cannot stay at home if you've got insecure or casual work and you cannot stay at home if your living arrangement is temporary or insecure. This pandemic has highlighted yet again the need for housing and the need for a more comprehensive approach to housing and homelessness, not just at the extreme end of the spectrum, where people are rough sleeping, but well before then, where people experience insecure work, where people experience rental stress, and where the affordability of homes and a safe place to live is disintegrating in Australia.</para>
<para>This pandemic was an opportunity; it was an opportunity for the government to take something that has been in the too-hard basket for too long and to actually come forward with a serious plan not just to tackle homelessness but also to tackle housing affordability in this country. Added to that, the coronavirus highlighted the need for housing, the coronavirus gave us the explicit instruction that we all need to stay home, and the coronavirus brought forward an economic downturn that we have not seen in decades. This coronavirus has brought forward economic hardship that requires intervention in order to get this economy going again.</para>
<para>Throughout history, the very policy that has brought economies out of downturns and out of recessions has always been a serious housing reform. Historically, after the Great Depression, FDR invested in social housing and invested in people having more secure homes. After World War II, the Curtin and Chifley Labor governments proudly brought forward a massive plan and program of investment in housing. Most recently, after the global financial crisis, the Rudd government made huge investments in social housing. Investing in housing is investing in our economy, it is investing in our people, and it is giving people the certainty and the structure to rebuild their lives. But housing affordability has been creeping up on Australians, and this government has not taken it seriously and it has remained in the too-hard basket.</para>
<para>We need a proper and comprehensive plan to tackle the housing crisis in this country, and the only thing the government has actually bowled up has been the HomeBuilder program. Building houses is not just about those who are living in them; it is also about those who build them. Construction jobs, especially in Victoria, are looking grim. The Master Builders Association has highlighted the downturn and the slowdown in residential construction especially, and it was happening well before the pandemic.</para>
<para>The government's answer to the housing and construction crisis was to put forward a small program that was very specifically targeted at already large-scale renovations; it is subsidising large-scale renovations. The take-up of that program has been very, very small. It has not been enough to turn around the construction industry and it is yet another example of the government doing some good things. The government does do some good things. The housing financial corporation is a good thing. There have been some affordable houses built by this government. But some good things on the side is not a replacement for a proper policy and strategy to tackle the housing and homelessness crisis in this country. Doing some stuff is not the same as having a comprehensive policy, and that is typical of this government. They do stuff but they don't actually tackle issues. On their watch, housing is becoming more and more of a crisis in this country. The coronavirus presents us with an opportunity to fix it, but this government has not done enough.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Moncrieff Electorate: Economy</title>
          <page.no>85</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would say to the member opposite that the Property Council on the Gold Coast informed me that the HomeBuilder program is in fact having quite a large impact on the Gold Coast, a 40 per cent increase.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Wallace interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will just say to the member for Fisher that the member for Moncrieff has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Speaker. I would also say to those across the other side that everyone in this place and in Australia knows and understands the impact that the coronavirus has had in our communities. Of course it is dependent on the location and the industry, but the nature of the impact can be very different from region to region.</para>
<para>The Morrison government has successfully cushioned the blow of the pandemic and has created momentum for recovery through the 2020-21 budget. Many of the most important government measures, like JobKeeper, are available broadly to industries and businesses across the country. The Morrison government has delivered $101 billion in JobKeeper, and that includes to 10,400 businesses in Moncrieff, which are only open because of JobKeeper—out of 32,111 small businesses in Moncrieff, about a third of all businesses, as of the last census. So it is a very important measure that is keeping the Gold Coast going at the moment. Businesses like the Kurrawa Surf Club, which we were speaking of earlier today in the Federation Chamber, and Temple of Spices at Mermaid Beach, have graduated from the JobKeeper program and are now standing on their own feet—breaking even, but standing on their own feet.</para>
<para>Other measures, such as the cash flow boost payment of $100,000 and the instant asset write-off, have assisted businesses in my region. Largely due to the border lockdown measures of the Queensland government, tourism and international education have all been pretty much smashed up in my electorate. But there are some industries that have unique circumstances and warrant tailored responses, like the aviation sector, for example. The government has been very nimble in delivering industry-specific measures within the limits of the urgency required by the crisis situation. Some of those measures have included $95 million for exhibiting zoos and aquariums across the Gold Coast. We have seen $50 million for events rebates and $10 million for regional tourism in my region. We have also seen a local jobs plan for the Gold Coast, with $780,000 for employment facilitators for my region and 24 other regions across the country.</para>
<para>But as the economy recovers and borders reopen, which is key for the Gold Coast and for Moncrieff, the Morrison government is adjusting measures that cushion the blow. We are implementing new measures to support Australia's economic recovery. So it is timely we examine which sectors need extra attention at this time. Since the pandemic hit, I've been working with tourism stakeholders across the Gold Coast. Recently I have met a few times with a number of travel agents from my electorate, represented by the Australian Federation of Travel Agents, AFTA, who requested my support to advocate for additional government assistance tailored to the industry, which is in a dire situation. I gave them my word at that meeting that I would make representations to the government to assist travel agents. It is important to note that many of those travel agents have been supported by programs such as JobKeeper and the cash flow boost, and they told me how it is going. Importantly, very many of them are women over the age of 60.</para>
<para>Travel agents in Moncrieff and in other electorates around Australia are requesting that the government deliver industry-specific support. Along with a great number of my parliamentary colleagues I have been advocating to the government that it give serious consideration to this matter. Typical travel agent commission structures have been made particularly vulnerable to the pandemic's impact because they've experienced dramatic falls in revenue, combined with obligations to refund commissions and deposits they've already received and no income for the near future—so they're in a very, very tricky situation. I support the government's careful consideration of industry-specific support measures for travel agents. You might think the travel agents are the man in the middle and perhaps doomed to future irrelevance—that could be one view—but, actually, the industry pre-COVID had five years of consecutive growth, and 70 per cent of all bookings were made through travel agents. As we all work together to deliver the best support for all Australians, we should, where practical, deliver industry-specific measures, where the evidence makes it clear it's appropriate, temporary and effective.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Remembrance Day, Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program</title>
          <page.no>86</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As you know, Mr Speaker, today marks the 102nd anniversary of the end of World War I, what we now call Remembrance Day. If I hadn't been in parliament today I would have been commemorating this day at the Semaphore Angel. On this day we pause to remember those who died or suffered for Australia's cause in all wars, conflicts and peacekeeping operations. At the end of the First World War, a war more devastating and deadly than anyone could comprehend, our nation made a promise: we will remember them; lest we forget. On this day we as a nation remember and honour all those who have served and suffered and, particularly, those who have died in Australia's name. We stand in silence for the young Australians who lost their lives, 62,000 in the First World War alone. We remember the wounded, the ones who came home scarred by trauma, and those for whom the guns never fell silent. We honour equally every generation of Australian service men and women, people who have dedicated their lives to the defence of our country and the cause of peace.</para>
<para>I had the honour recently of presenting World War II veterans in my electorate at the Wesley House and the Philip Kennedy Centre nursing homes with commemorative medallions and certificates that marked 75 years since the end of World War II. They were wonderful events. Each veteran shared with me stories of their experience and their dedication as soldiers to do their bit in that titanic fight against fascism for freedom and democracy. They expressed to me that to be part of the Australian and, in some cases, Allied forces was a very deep honour and that, no matter what would happen, they were committed to putting their country first. These men I met, and, indeed, all World War II veterans, men and women, around Australia, are a unique generation, what the Americans call the greatest generation. We are forever in their debt. Remembrance Day is a key event in every calendar year. It's our time to remember and to recognise the strength, adversity and resilience of a generation that delivered so much to us. Lest we forget.</para>
<para>It seems almost every day there's another story about some dodgy deal or a new way that the Liberals have taken the Australian public for a ride. It was the sports rorts affair, though, which most clearly showed us that under the Morrison government public funds are increasingly becoming party-political funds—funds where the coalition believes that taxpayer money is their personal bank account to further their own political careers. The Australian National Audit Office report on the sports rorts program released in January made two major findings. Firstly, that grants were made by the then sports minister, Bridget McKenzie, without evident legal capacity; and, secondly, that grants were influenced by the applicants' electorate locations. The Prime Minister himself then added a third issue by claiming that neither he nor his office were involved in selecting successful applicants, when evidence very clearly showed that they were major players in the process.</para>
<para>Within my electorate of Hindmarsh in South Australia, the Woodville-West Torrens Eagles female football players were directly affected by this rort. The club's pitch for $495,000 for female change rooms was overlooked and rejected by the government under the controversial sports grants program, despite being deemed worthy by Sport Australia. The girls, the women and the community at Woodville-West Torrens footy club deserved to be treated on an equal playing field and not to have their grant rejected simply because the suburb of Ottoway, where they wanted to build the change rooms, is not in a Liberal electorate.</para>
<para>These rorts are why Australians continue to lose trust in politics and exactly why a robust federal national integrity commission is so important. Despite all of this, the Morrison government for so long declared that an anticorruption commission was not a priority. But, after being dragged kicking and screaming, they have now proposed a weak, secretive and compromised model, clearly designed to allow the government to pretend that it's acting to address corruption while ensuring it could never be held accountable for its multiple scandals, including sports rorts. The Labor Party stands for integrity and transparency in government, and we have absolutely no tolerance for corruption.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fisher Electorate: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>87</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No-one could deny that public transport on the Sunshine Coast is in a parlous state. Thanks to decades of neglect from successive Queensland Labor state governments, we have infrequent buses that don't go where they're needed, a single-track rail line—the same single track that was laid in the 1890s—that misses our major population centres by nearly 20 kilometres, and an expensive coastal corridor of reserved land that has been nothing but a nature strip since the turn of this century.</para>
<para>Sunshine Coast Council recently published their solution, a so-called mass transit plan, which is in truth only a $1.5 billion proposal for light rail on the Sunshine Coast. Council's light rail would run from Caloundra along Nicklin Way through Kawana and then along Alexandra Parade, finishing after 22 kilometres in Maroochydore. It could not be more inappropriate for my community. Anyone who drives on Nicklin Way or Alexandra Parade in my electorate knows that these roads are already at more than capacity, and not only at peak hour. Light rail would take a lane from each of these roads and leave them as nothing but car parks. It would not even reduce the number of cars on the roads. Our community is not like a capital city. It is dispersed across a wide area, and no-one, even with light rail, will be able to get everywhere they need to go without a private car. For those who live along the route, it would be a nightmare. Council's glossy consultation materials carefully hide the heavy fixed power lines, the crawling traffic and the screeching metal tracks.</para>
<para>In their report to council which informed this project, PricewaterhouseCoopers actually examined three options for mass transit. These included dedicated bus lanes and another option for electric trackless trams like those now being introduced elsewhere with great success. However, the light rail option had one advantage in council's criteria which set it apart from the rest: it had a far bigger impact on what councils call urban transformation. Light rail for the Sunshine Coast is not a public transport plan; it is a high-density development plan. The proposal would include rezoning an area of 400 metres on either side of the track for most of its length from Caloundra to Maroochydore to allow the construction of apartment blocks. This 400-metre zone reaches all the way to the beach along much of the proposed route. It covers an area which more than 11,000 families have chosen to call home, specifically because of the low-density living that they have now. If council's light rail is allowed to go ahead, those 11,000 families would very quickly find themselves joined by 40,000 more—up to 100,000 people squeezed into a wall of tiny apartments and townhouses along a narrow coastal strip. There is another city in South-East Queensland like that, and most people on the Sunshine Coast moved to our community because they didn't want to be there; they wanted to be on the Sunshine Coast.</para>
<para>I want to congratulate Tracey Goodwin-McDonald and Kate Harvey of the Sunshine Coast Mass Transit Action Group for raising public awareness of this important local issue, and I want to thank my friend the state LNP member for Kawana, Jarrod Bleijie, for his support of this group. I've long been advocating for a true public transport solution on the Sunshine Coast that would make a real difference.</para>
<para>We need to bring heavy rail up from Beerwah along the CAMCOS corridor to Caloundra, Kawana and, eventually, Maroochydore. The CAMCOS corridor was secured for this purpose and paid for some 20 years ago. It would require no resumptions of land. Infrastructure is already being built around the future stations. It would provide public transport for the same sections of the community as light rail, but with a key difference. Heavy rail would be connected to the North Coast rail line to Brisbane. Residents could use it not only to move around our community but to travel to Brisbane, taking cars off the Bruce Highway and the major coastal roads that connect to it. This is the public transport solution that will significantly improve quality of life for the people on the Sunshine Coast, and I intend to deliver it. I've had a number of meetings already with the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister for urban infrastructure about this project, and I won't stop fighting until I get it. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Remembrance Day, Griffith Electorate: NAIDOC Week, Dismissal of the Whitlam Government</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>248006</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In 1997, Governor-General Sir William Deane issued a proclamation formally declaring that 11 November would be known and observed as Remembrance Day and urging all Australians to observe one minute's silence at 11 am to remember the sacrifice of those who died or otherwise suffered in Australia's cause in wars and warlike conflicts. Today, the nation paused to remember those who have been lost. If I were at home in my electorate, I would have commemorated today with one or more of our local RSL sub-branches, and I'm happy to say that my staff were able to ably represent me in my absence at a number of ceremonies that occurred. I say to all of the members of those sub-branches, to all who have served who live in our local communities and to their families: thank you. We will remember them. Lest we forget.</para>
<para>NAIDOC Week is being held this week. It was postponed this year because of COVID. It's usually held in July. This year's theme is Always Was, Always Will Be. NAIDOC Week acknowledges that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were Australia's first explorers, first navigators, first engineers, first farmers, first botanists, first scientists, first diplomats, first astronomers and first artists.</para>
<para>In my electorate, there were a number of events occurring within the constraints of COVID. The Princess Alexandra Hospital is opening a new yarning circle, which I'd hoped to attend the opening of, but it'll be a great facility for Indigenous patients and staff and for reconciliation. I was able to drop in last week and deliver some lovely new Australian, Aboriginal, and Torres Strait Islander flags for the ceremony. One of Australia's best radio stations, 98.9 For The Best Country Brisbane Indigenous Media Association, is based in my electorate. For NAIDOC Week, they held a special outside broadcast at Bunyapa Park, a park secured for the community by my friend the former local councillor Helen Abrahams. I wish I could've been there for the event. Bunyapa Park is a wonderful park that I was fortunate to attend the opening of. Uncle Desmond Sandy gave a beautiful welcome to country at that time.</para>
<para>For NAIDOC Week, the event with 98.9 featured a welcome to country and cultural events. Bunyapa Park is also the site of the beautiful memorial mural for the late Uncle Sam Watson by Warraba Weatherall and the equally beautiful flag and flowers mural on the steps by Neta-Rie Mabo. Let me also acknowledge, while I mention her, that Neta-Rie has been selected by the West End Community Association as the lead artist for the 'Breaking the Boundary' mural in People's Park in West End, which I was proud to fund with a Stronger Communities grant. Sadly, the big NAIDOC family fun day at Musgrave Park could not go ahead in my electorate this year because of COVID. I know people have really missed this event this year. It's a really fantastic day that usually brings a lot of people together for music, cultural performances, stalls and celebrations. I am pleased, though, that landmarks in my electorate, including the Kurilpa Bridge, the Story Bridge, the Victoria Bridge and the Queensland Performing Arts Centre, are being lit up in the colours of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags to celebrate the week.</para>
<para>It has been a difficult year for local Aboriginal communities, and I want to acknowledge that they have spoken out on two very important matters: first, the international Black Lives Matter movement and the calls to stop black deaths in custody here in Australia. Second, I want to thank local Aboriginal communities for the solidarity that they've shown with refugees who have sought Australia's help and are currently in limbo in a hotel in Kangaroo Point, where they've been detained for many months. Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders have been at the forefront of social justice movements that go well beyond their own communities, and this tradition has continued in Kangaroo Point.</para>
<para>Finally, let me say something about today's anniversary of the Dismissal. Today marks the 45th anniversary of the dismissal of the Whitlam government. Gough Whitlam and Labor created the foundations for a fairer and more prosperous Australia. They were opposed by the Liberals and Nationals at almost every turn. Might I say, in respect of my portfolio, the Whitlam Labor government introduced Australia's first national environmental legislation. They ratified the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international significance, a convention that underpins part of our environment law today, among other international environmental agreements. They ratified the World Heritage Convention, giving the national government the power it needed, via the foreign affairs power, to protect World Heritage areas when the other jurisdictions failed to do so. It was this power that later allowed the Hawke Labor government to prevent the Tasmanian government from damming the Franklin river. It was the Whitlam Labor government that legislated to allow the Commonwealth to protect the Great Barrier Reef. It was this legislation that was used to prevent the Bjelke-Petersen National Party government's plan to allow drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. The Whitlam Labor government also created the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.</para>
<para>Labor builds prosperity and equality. Unfortunately, those opposite try to tear them down and leave Australians behind.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Child Abuse, Law Enforcement: Operation Arkstone</title>
          <page.no>89</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Prior to coming into this place, I spent 12 years as a police officer in the New South Wales Police Force, for five of which I was a detective. I saw many things during that time but none so evil, depraved and abhorrent as child sexual assault and child-abuse material. It is the only thing that still haunts me today. There is nothing more important than working to protect our innocent, vulnerable children.</para>
<para>So today, I commend our dedicated law enforcement specialists who have worked tirelessly on Operation Arkstone. The achievements of Arkstone have been broadly publicised in the media today as a large-scale Australian Federal Police led investigation which identified 46 child victims across Australia and exposed a network of child sex offenders. Arkstone has been one of the most significant child protection investigations by the AFP to date, due to the scale of the offending and its reach across Australia—although I do not intend to go through the facts in this place, save to say that those who did not engage in direct contact with victims but accessed the online material are as evil and depraved as those inflicting the torture on these helpless children. I commend the dedication of our officers who worked tirelessly to bring these criminals to justice and to try and rid our society of these heinous crimes. If found guilty, in the absence of capital punishment in this country, these monsters should be locked up for life and the key thrown away.</para>
<para>I would like to acknowledge the major body of work that the home affairs minister has been doing to improve our legislation and to better keep our Australian children safe. Legislation passed last year included the introduction of Carly's law, which targets online predators who use the internet to prepare or plan to sexually abuse children. Carly's law makes it a crime to plan to harm a child under 16 and targets predators who misrepresent their age.</para>
<para>In June this year, this government passed the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill into law. This new act will set new mandatory minimum jail terms. The legislation creates a new maximum life penalty for the most serious Commonwealth offences and a presumption against bail to help keep offenders in custody while they face trial. This legislation also creates further offences for grooming third parties, creating additional aggravating sentencing factors to apply to certain child sex offences, including the age and maturity of the victim and the number of people involved in the commission of the offence. It increases maximum penalties across the spectrum of Commonwealth child sex offenders, including up to life imprisonment for the most serious offences and presumptions in favour of cumulative sentences and actual imprisonment, also ensuring that sex offenders, upon release from custody, are adequately supervised. Importantly, it prevents the courts from discounting sentences on the basis of good character where this was used to facilitate the crime. It is a sad fact of our modern society that sexual abuse and exploitation of children has become more global, more prevalent and more extreme due to the dark web. The number of child abuse material files downloaded on the dark web has risen dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a 163 per cent average increase in the number of files downloaded from April to June of this year compared with the same period last year. I don't understand how, in a time when we're spending billions on cures for cancers, viruses and medical advancement, the world allows this evil pandemic to creep into our society. We have an obligation to our children to protect them, so I urge all the mums and dads and the caregivers to talk to your kids, check their devices and educate yourself. If you think something is suspicious or not right, listen to your instincts because they're usually right. As a father, I'd rather make an apology to someone I have offended than make an apology to my child for not acting.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:01</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>89</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" background="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 11 November 2020</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Vasta)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 11:49.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>91</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021</title>
          <page.no>91</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" background="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core">
            <a href="r6603" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>91</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The measures to be considered today in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-21 for the Social Services portfolio extend and target initiatives to improve the lives of individuals and families across Australia. As part of our economic recovery plan and in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we are continuing to provide an unprecedented level of economic support to Australians to assist them through the pandemic, and we remain committed to delivering the essential services that all Australians depend on. The 2021 budget delivers a range of initiatives to support Australia's economic recovery, including extending and further targeting temporary measures specifically aimed at improving the wellbeing of individuals and families across our nation. Furthermore, $84½ million is being committed over three years from 1 July next year to extend critical frontline parenting and financial support programs. In March, the economy—and in particular the labour market—effectively closed down overnight without warning. Clearly, it's much more difficult to find a job when the economy is functionally shut down. Given that it was the disruption in the labour market that prompted the temporary change in the social security system, including the introduction of the coronavirus supplement, it is entirely reasonable that decisions around these measures into the future are informed by these same indicators.</para>
<para>From the start of the pandemic, the government has spent close to $15½ billion on the coronavirus supplement, which is an extraordinary amount of taxpayers' money. We are providing two additional economic support payments of $250 to eligible Australians. These payments will benefit 5.1 million Australians who are in receipt of the age pension, the disability support pension, the carer payment, veterans payments and concession cards. The payments will be made progressively from the 30th of this month and 1 March 2021 to provide additional support to age pensioners and other recipients in the lead-up to Christmas and in the first quarter of next year. When combined with the first two $750 economic support payments earlier this year, $12 billion in additional assistance is being delivered to households. That's $2,000 per recipient above and beyond their regular payments. We've also extended temporary enhanced support to the social security system until 31 December to support Australians as economic confidence and momentum builds. Helping Australians gain and maintain meaningful employment remains a clear priority for the government, which is why we've implemented measures to incentivise re-entry into the workforce. The government is also providing $90.3 million over three years to revise the paid parental leave work test. This will support parents who have a connection to the workforce but have lost their jobs or are working reduced hours because of the current pandemic. The revised paid parental leave work test will allow about 9,000 mothers whose work was interrupted by the pandemic to regain eligibility for paid parental leave. A further 3½ thousand people will be eligible for dad and partner pay.</para>
<para>Another important measure is securing support for community sector workers who would otherwise be disadvantaged when the social and community sector supplement payment, the SACS payment, ceases next July. The government will provide $132.6 million over four years to deliver ongoing funding for frontline social services employing these workers. This new ongoing fund will support more than 460 organisations under about 720 grant agreements, which in 2019-20 delivered services to around a million people across Australia. These programs include Commonwealth financial counselling services, the national debt hotline, family relationship services, specialised family violence services, and the Reconnect program for youth facing homelessness. The measure will also support the more than 500,000 people who work for these vital services which support vulnerable children and families in areas of entrenched socioeconomic disadvantage and, of course, people with disability. This measure forms part of the Women's Economic Security Statement because it secures the pay of thousands of Australians working in the social and community sector, and we all know that around 84 per cent of these are women. The budget measures mean that there'll be no reduction in the jobs and essential services previously supplemented by SACS.</para>
<para>I urge the support of the House for Appropriation Bill (No. 1) to make available the funding for these important measures.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This budget is a missed opportunity for structural reform—not that you'd expect anything much from this mob. They're too busy with their spin and marketing and announcements to get on with the serious business of governing. Most importantly, for this debate, they've left millions of vulnerable Australians without the support that they need in the worst economic crisis for over a hundred years. Let's be very clear on the context for this budget. When the government handed down the budget, there were 1.3 million Australians receiving unemployment benefits of some sort. The government's projection in their own budget, just a few weeks ago, was that, by Christmas, there'd be 1.5 million Australians receiving unemployment benefits, yet only two weeks ago, at Senate estimates, it was eventually dragged out of them and they finally had to admit that, by Christmas, 1.8 million Australians will receive unemployment benefits. The government project that unemployment will surge and we'll have 300,000 more Australians receiving unemployment benefits by Christmas. That's the context. In 2024, in four years from now, on the government's own admission two weeks ago at Senate estimates, there will be more people receiving unemployment benefits than before the recession. So don't believe the spin and marketing. Australians should not believe the spin and marketing. They were telling us two weeks ago: 'The recession's almost over. We reckon we're going to get positive growth. It's almost over. Everything's just tickety-boo.' Try telling that to the 1.8 million Australians who, by Christmas, are expected to be on unemployment benefits.</para>
<para>With that context, what does the government's budget do? It bakes in a cut to JobSeeker to $40 a day. It bakes in the cut. That's what is in the budget that the minister, sitting over there, is recommending that the House approve. Unbelievably, only yesterday, we heard the minister trumpet the JobSeeker supplement. It started at $550, then they cut it to $250. Then, only yesterday, as unemployment is projected to surge to 1.8 million people, they cut unemployment benefits by another $100 a fortnight. They panicked, of course, as the recession took hold and thought, 'Well, it's okay for people in Labor electorates and a few poor people'—who they reckon don't vote for them—'to try and live on $40 a day, but, goodness me, we won't let middle-class Australia discover that,' so they put the supplement in. But now they're winding it back, right at the very time when people need support.</para>
<para>I ask the minister: why are you cutting JobSeeker payments while unemployment is surging? Why will you not do the decent thing and give certainty to vulnerable Australians on what the future rate is going to be after March next year? Why won't you announce a permanent increase to the rate of JobSeeker, given you've had to admit through this recession that people cannot live on $40 a day? And how many jobs are going to be lost because of these cuts?</para>
<para>This is personal for me. The people I represent are in the most disadvantaged council in the whole of Melbourne. It's the most disadvantaged area. Unemployment is about double the metropolitan average. We have far higher rates of people in casual and insecure work who don't have JobKeeper. Indeed, tens of thousands of people in my electrode get nothing from the government because they're temporary migrants who've lost their job, through no fault of their own. They're queuing up at the small local charities for emergency relief funding. I ask the minister: why will you not directly fund those local charities that are doing such important work so people don't starve? It's all very well to say, 'We handed out $200 million to our favourite big four charities.' That is not landing on the ground in my electorate. Why will you not fund the small local charities that at least make sure people in my community don't starve?</para>
<para>The government went to the election with not one single election commitment for the most disadvantaged council in the whole of Melbourne—not one dollar. You were too busy rorting every fund you could get your grubby little hands on down the road in the marginal seats, tipping out $100 million as sports rorts, handing out money to all your mates and sticking your mates on boards, but there's not one dollar for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in the city of Melbourne—nothing. So, I ask the minister: in the latest round of family violence grants, which the minister dutifully announced, why did my electorate get nothing, when South-East Melbourne has the highest rate of family violence anywhere in Victoria? Why did we get nothing and all the other mysterious projects—probably run by your mates as well—got all the money? I ask the minister: why? I'd love to hear an answer to that.</para>
<para>The big lie right at the heart of this budget is that there's a jobs plan. Minister: 'JobKeeper' and 'JobSeeker' and 'JobMaker' and 'JobTrainer'—saying 'job' a lot is not a plan to create jobs. It's marketing spin. We had the debate last time. We heard about 'MateKeeper'. We may as well just rename the Liberal Party 'JobTrainer', because that's basically what it is: training mates to get jobs from the government. But the big lie at the heart of the budget is that there's a jobs plan. There are not enough jobs, and saying 'job' a lot is not going to change that fact.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LANDRY</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm delighted to speak today on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021 for the social services portfolio that will extend and deliver a range of important measures that will improve the lives of individuals and families all across Australia. In 2020, our nation has been tested like never before, and that's why the Morrison government is continuing to provide enormous levels of economic support to help Australians get through the coronavirus pandemic. They can be assured that we remain absolutely committed to delivering the essential services they depend on.</para>
<para>Throughout this crisis our government has acted swiftly and efficiently to address the challenges of COVID-19, and we will continue to work with individuals and households every step of the way to respond to the evolving challenges presented by this virus. This bill includes several measures that will strengthen support for Australian families. This is all on top of the existing $250 million each year that the Morrison government already invests in delivering parenting and early intervention programs across the nation. We know that helping families across Australia will go hand in hand with our economic recovery, and that's what this bill is all about. One of the measures in this piece of legislation includes more than $40 million over three years to secure frontline parenting services, which will provide targeted support for our most disadvantaged families. This will provide in-home parenting programs, including in regional and remote areas; specialist services for newly arrived migrants; mobile toy and parenting resources; therapeutic preschools; peer support; and playgroup services that last year were accessed by more than 50,000 families. The additional money will provide continued support for particular cohorts such as at-risk young parents or families with complex needs, which we hope will prevent problems such as family breakdowns, child neglect, family violence, substance abuse and mental illness and help with transitioning into school.</para>
<para>Tackling the horror of domestic violence remains an absolute priority of the Morrison government, which is why we are investing record amounts of funding to address it. I'm very pleased that under this appropriation bill we have secured ongoing funding for 1800RESPECT, our national helpline that does such a wonderful job supporting women impacted by domestic violence. Unfortunately, demand for 1800RESPECT has grown rapidly since it first started operating in 2010. At the time, it was estimated that the service would receive 20,000 calls each year. Right now, they are receiving around 6,000 calls every single week. 1800RESPECT remains a valued counselling service and has been a bedrock of support for women over the past decade. But we also recognise that there is a need to promote this kind of assistance across our communities through national advertising campaigns such as Help is Here. That's why we are taking action through this bill by extending the Help is Here campaign over the summer holiday period, to ensure that anyone affected by domestic violence can access the support they need when they need it.</para>
<para>Among the other measures to support ongoing programs in this appropriation bill there is also $44 million in extra funding over three years for the Financial Wellbeing and Capability activity. This activity offers no- and low-interest loans, microfinance support, financial advice and counselling for problem gamblers and their families. Among the many microfinance programs we are supporting is the No Interest Loan Scheme, which has helped hundreds of thousands of Australians since it was established in 1981. No-interest loans are crucially important because they provide people with access to ready cash for simple but essential things like a fridge or a bed, they help families respond to a crisis and they offer a safe and stable avenue for financial support. That is a positive alternative to high-cost payday lenders. The No Interest Loan Scheme continues to do a tremendous job. To provide an idea of its popularity: in my home state of Queensland, more than 5,200 people accessed this scheme last year. More broadly, financial wellbeing activities are giving a helping hand to more than 60,000 Australians each year to make better choices about their finances, develop financial literacy and access more affordable financial products.</para>
<para>I'm absolutely confident that the measures in this bill will help Australians emerge out of this pandemic stronger than ever before. They can be sure that if they're doing it tough the Morrison government has their back. On that note, I would now like to ask the minister: how will the funding for programs like 1800RESPECT help ensure that Australians continue to access this crucial support over the phone?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pensioners in my electorate are struggling. They are struggling because of the neglect of this government. There is no doubt that pensioners have had a very difficult year. Many of them are at serious risk from the virus, and they've had to take precautions accordingly. In taking those precautions, they've had greater expenses. Has that been recognised by this government? It has not. For this government to drop the ball when it comes to the pension is just adding insult to injury in what has been a really, really difficult year.</para>
<para>Of course, we know the government has form when it comes to neglecting pensioners. It was Labor that called the government out on its disgraceful and disrespectful pension freeze in August—the first time in two decades that we were looking at not having a pension increase. What a disgrace. What a way to treat older Australians. What a way to show that you do not respect them, that you do not understand their needs—for the first time in more than two decades to threaten a pension freeze. Labor called the government out on that, and I'm pleased that it acted, but it has not gone far enough. We know that, when the government was initially caught out on its pension freeze, it actually tried to condescendingly explain that CPI had gone down in the recession. Well, that was of little comfort to all of these pensioners who are experiencing for themselves the increased costs they're facing during this pandemic and the lack of support and lack of respect they're getting from this government for what's going on in their lives and the expenses they're incurring, with the way this government is treating the pension.</para>
<para>This form on the pension extends to how the government is treating deeming rates. The government continues to short-change pensioners by maintaining unreasonably and unrealistically inflated pension deeming rates. Many people may not know much about deeming rates, but to pensioners these are very, very important. In this time, when pensioners are facing increased costs, increased stress, the lack of action from this government on deeming rates is an insult. How is it that, when the Reserve Bank's cash rate is at an all-time low of 0.1 per cent, the upper pension deeming rate is still at 2.25 per cent? Since the Liberals and Nationals have been in government, the cash rate has been cut 10 times, falling 240 basis points, yet the age pension upper deeming rate has only been adjusted four times. I say it again: this is an insult to pensioners. It really sums up how this government treats them and the lack of understanding of the reality of their lives.</para>
<para>Since the Prime Minister and the Treasurer took office, the cash rate has been cut six times, yet the age pension upper deeming rate has only been adjusted twice. I know that pensioners are worried about this, because they're telling me so. Pensioners should not be being forced into risky investments just because this government is refusing to take action on deeming rates. They should not be lying awake at night thinking about where they are going to get their money from and whether they need to switch to a riskier investment because this minister won't take action on deeming rates. Pensioners should be able to keep their modest savings safe. They should have the reassurance that they can do that and they should not be penalised for doing so.</para>
<para>This is from Shane, who is a pensioner in my electorate who wrote to tell me how abandoned he feels by this government: 'We have us the pensioners who worked, held jobs, worked long hours to help make this country, and our government has forgotten us, because we've outlived our usefulness. They forget we have gas bills, electricity bills. Most are living below the poverty line. We can't afford decent food, which in turn doesn't help with illness.' Shane asked me: 'Can you tell me why we're treated like we're all an inconvenience? At the moment, meat in most places is double the price, but we have money for half or less of this. It's just one example of how COVID has affected everyone. So why are we worthless?' He concluded by saying: 'I'm saying this for all pensioners.'</para>
<para>I ask the minister: can you explain why you're forcing older Australians to skip meals and struggle to pay their bills because you won't adjust the age pension deeming rate? How can the minister justify only adjusting the deeming rate four times, when the cash rate has been cut 10 times? When can pensioners expect this situation to change and the minister to act to adjust deeming rates to reflect the reality of their situation? When will this minister show pensioners respect?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>(   I speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021 for the Social Services portfolio. I would like to touch on two measures that are particularly important to me. The Morrison-McCormack government is committed to ensuring that women have the flexibility to balance their caring and work responsibilities without disadvantage. Sadly, through no fault of their own, expectant mothers, like so many Australians, have faced job losses due to the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic. The Commonwealth government is providing $130 million to support new parents whose employment was interrupted by coronavirus by introducing a concessional paid parental leave work test period for a limited time.</para>
<para>Under the normal rules parents must have worked 10 out of the 13 months prior to the birth of their child to qualify for the paid parental leave. The paid parental leave is being temporarily extended to allow parents who have worked 10 months out of the 20 months prior to birth, taking into account the possible loss of work during the COVID-19 pandemic. This extension acknowledges how the coalition government values family and parenting.</para>
<para>This measure enables about 12,800 new parents to access parental leave pay, and dad and partner pay, who would otherwise fail the work test due to the loss of employment or reduction of work hours. As a social worker working with young disadvantaged mothers, experience has shown me that the first 1,000 days is the most vulnerable of times. Support is essential, and that is why I am focused on making sure we, as a government, are doing all we can for young families.</para>
<para>We understand that many families rely on paid parental leave when planning for their new baby, and the government does not want families to miss out because of the devastating and unpredictable impacts of this pandemic. The Morrison-McCormack government understands the long-term importance of families having the flexibility to spend time with their new child without financial stress. This measure will support families during what should be a happy time for all parents and is in line with the government's core values of supporting all Australians who want to work.</para>
<para>The Commonwealth government is also dedicated to reducing the financial, social and personal impacts on families who have to endure the tragedy of the loss of a child. This is a heartbreaking circumstance for any parent to walk through. It is a grief which is often disenfranchised, difficult to share and evidenced by silence. That is why I'm so pleased that we have committed $7.6 million to expand access to bereavement payments for parents who suffer the heartbreak of a stillborn child or where their child passes away before their first birthday.</para>
<para>From 1 January 2021, all eligible families who suffer a stillbirth will receive $3,606 regardless of whether this is their first or subsequent stillbirth. I understand that no amount of money could ever compensate for the grief of losing a child, but these new measures will minimise the financial impact of this unspeakable loss. I hope that addressing the inconsistencies in this payment goes some way to acknowledge the trauma these parents experience and supports them as they move forward with their lives.</para>
<para>These changes work alongside the other measures in this bill to improve the wellbeing of Australian families. I ask the minister: how does this measure build on the flexibility and the changes we have made to paid parental leave earlier this year to benefit dads and partners?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBRIDE</name>
    <name.id>248353</name.id>
    <electorate>Dobell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This year has been tough. Australians have faced the Black Summer of bushfires, floods and of course the virus. It's often said we're all in this together when we're not. This virus has exposed fault lines in society, and the most vulnerable Australians are falling through the cracks—Australians most at risk, struggling before the virus and not helped by the government's response.</para>
<para>Through COVID-19, unpaid carers of children with disability, frail elderly parents or partners with chronic and complex health problems have taken on more responsibility as formal support falls away and wait times grow. Carers are ordinary people, people like you and me, helping someone they love. As my mum says, 'You don't sign up to be a carer. You do it, because you love them.' They're fearful of this virus and its risks to their loved ones, particularly frail elderly parents. They're struggling to pay the bills as costs climb and they're forced to cut their hours or leave work altogether because of their growing caring responsibilities.</para>
<para>It's estimated there are close to 906,000 primary carers providing an average of almost 35 hours of care per week. That's almost a million Australians providing 35 hours of care per week. The value of that informal care across Australia is estimated to be close to $78 billion. That is the replacement value of that care they're providing. Yet, at the same time, the government's financial support for carers is only a tiny fraction of this amount. It's no surprise then that so many carers I've heard from feel invisible and overlooked by the government. They don't do this because they're seeking recognition or acknowledgement, but they do need to be treated with dignity and respect and be given the proper support to provide care to their loved ones.</para>
<para>In the lead-up to the budget, I heard from carers and advocacy groups across Australia about the impact of COVID-19. The feedback was worrying. Carers were expressing their concerns at the toll taken on their physical health, mental health and financial wellbeing throughout COVID. Most carers across Australia are women, many of them are in their 50s and most of them have their own health or financial problems to deal with on top of their caring responsibilities. This has been borne out in a survey of carers, which ran from April to July, conducted by Carers NSW. It backs up these views. It found nearly half of the respondents were experiencing a high or very high level of psychological distress, and one in three felt highly socially isolated. Caring is a lonely responsibility; it leaves people isolated, cut off from friends and family and other support, especially during COVID.</para>
<para>One in three carers said they never get time out from their caring responsibilities, ever—it's 24/7; it's around the clock, whether it's for a child with a disability, a frail elderly parent or someone with a major mental health problem who is at risk—and only half of the respondents have enough time to keep on top of their other responsibilities. My friend Bev is a carer who is looking after her husband Steve, who has young onset Alzheimer's. He's awake through the night, and needs constant reassurance and support to know that he's safe and that he's okay at home.</para>
<para>Critically, the Carers NSW survey found many carers are experiencing difficulty getting information. Worryingly, up to one in three carers had found it difficult to get information about services or to organise services to support the person they care for. It's hard enough outside of COVID, but in the middle of a global pandemic it has become even worse for carers trying to access the critical practical support they need each day.</para>
<para>This survey result goes to the heart of the government's measures: one in four carers reported spending more money than they made in the last 12 months. That many carers are going backwards financially is disturbing. The small amount of additional support provided to carers in the budget—two payments of $250, spread over six months—isn't enough. Many carer payment recipients are of working age and rely on part-time work to support themselves, and, as I've said, they've lost work due to increased caring responsibilities and the economic downturn.</para>
<para>Minister, my question to you is, given the toll on carers, will the government provide additional financial support to carer payment recipients as a matter of urgency; address the shortages in respite care for carers desperate for a break; consider ways to reduce barriers to carers accessing help through the carer gateway, which was intended to enhance, not hinder, support; and consider performance targets for the gateway that focus on quality and carer satisfaction, not just the number of people accessing the gateway? Minister, in the middle of a recession and a global pandemic, carers and those living with a disability deserve better from you and this government. They feel invisible and overlooked. They deserve compassion and consideration. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Morrison government has provided funding to continue the cashless debit card as an ongoing measure in existing sites. Extending the cashless debit card permanently in the existing sites responds to calls from community leaders, and allows for greater certainty for participants, services and their communities. The draft ANU evaluation of the cashless debit card has found consistent and clear evidence that alcohol consumption has reduced since the introduction of the cashless debit card in the trial sites. The cashless debit card has been helping to reduce gambling, with positive impacts, especially in the context of family and broader social life. The cashless debit card was reported to make things better for those who were probably the most vulnerable and who needed it most.</para>
<para>This measure also provides a further 12-month extension of place-based income management. Transition of income management participants in the Northern Territory and Cape York region to the cashless debit card is expected to commence in early 2021. The cashless debit card helps participants with their budgeting to ensure money is spent on essential goods such as food and housing. It offers flexibility for participants and better technology than the BasicsCard, with significantly lower ongoing operational costs than income management.</para>
<para>The government is committed to delivering positive outcomes for vulnerable people, families and communities and provides certainty to participants and support services. Providing certainty about the future of this measure allows long-term outcomes to be assessed. This is why the government committed funds across two years to 30 June 2022 for cashless debit card technology solutions and enhancements, improving the experience and opportunities for participants, businesses and financial institutions. The Morrison government is a government driven by a desire to see real changes to Australian families and the health and wellbeing of communities, families and children. If we do nothing then nothing changes. The cashless debit card supports the government's commitment to an effective and fair welfare system and aims to reduce harm in communities where high levels of alcohol and drug misuse and gambling coexist with high levels of welfare dependence.</para>
<para>I would also like to reaffirm the strong position the government has taken to meet the needs of victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. We understand that we cannot undo the trauma inflicted upon people, but we are absolutely committed to continuously improving the Redress Scheme to make sure it operates in the best interests of the survivors. That is why this appropriation bill provides $104.6 million over four years to redress support services and independent decision-makers. This funding will help make technical changes to reduce red tape, speed up processing times and streamline the process. On top of this, funding was provided earlier this year to increase the capabilities of independent decision-makers to process applications, and we saw many applications processed and offers finalised in a short period of time, thanks to those changes.</para>
<para>On 1 July this year, six institutions were named as having failed to declare their intention to join the scheme. Since then, two of these have joined. Reprehensibly, Lakes Entrance Pony Club, Jehovah's Witnesses, Fairbridge and Kenja still blatantly refuse to join the Redress Scheme, and I understand that, for victims of child sexual abuse, this is very upsetting. The Morrison government has zero tolerance for this and, consequently, these organisations are now ineligible for Commonwealth funding. The Prime Minister has reaffirmed the commitment to ensure all organisations that do not join will have their charity status removed. We will continue to work with these four institutions and all others that have given their intent to join the scheme.</para>
<para>How does this cashless debit card budget measure provide certainty to income support recipients in existing sites?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have four questions to put to the minister representing Minister Ruston. My first question is: how many jobs will be lost when the government prematurely cuts unemployment support? My second question is: why is the government short-changing pensioners by refusing to adjust the age pension deeming rates? I think the member for Jagajaga put that question to you. The third question to the minister is: why won't the government join Labor in delivering support for disability support pensioners and carers to cope with additional health costs during the pandemic?</para>
<para>The next question is: will the government consider working with Labor to get the scheme working for survivors? That's to do with redress. I would also ask, having listened to the last speaker: will the government agree to become the funder of last resort or not? That would seem to me to be an obvious thing, having listened to the member for Petrie talking for some time about the institutions that have refused to join.</para>
<para>I will take a few moments to touch on some of these areas. The government expects that 1.8 million Australians will be on unemployment support by the end of the year—that's the government's figures, not our figures. That's 300 more than what the government expected. Just this week, despite how it's dressed up, there has been a reduction in the coronavirus supplement to people on JobSeeker, with, I grant you, an extension to the end of March. But the other thing that we've consistently called for, as has everyone from the BCA through to ACOSS, is a permanent increase to the JobSeeker rate. That still has not been delivered by the government.</para>
<para>In terms of the age pension, you know as well as I do that it is more expensive for people on the age pension during the pandemic. Yet there was no consideration given to adjusting the deeming rates and a late consideration, by the Prime Minister's own admission, to give two $250 payments to pensioners. Of course, that is welcome. But, as previous members have said, that it is simply not enough. The government has gone harder by patronising pensioners with the explanation that the CPI has not grown in terms of the deeming rates. The Reserve Bank cash rate, as you well know, Minister, is at an all time low at 0.1 per cent—unprecedented Australian history—and yet the upper deeming rate is still 2.25 per cent. How is that fair? Why won't the government adjust the deeming rate to be in line with the cash rate of the Reserve Bank?</para>
<para>The other point that I'd like to make is about disability and carers—and my colleague has outlined a very important question to you in relation to carers. The pandemic saw people with disability forced to purchase more expensive groceries and essentials. They experienced increased costs of private transport as they attempted to avoid public transport. Last week, Labor moved very reasonable and modest amendments in the parliament, as you know, Minister—in fact, I moved them myself—that would allow the government flexibility to address this. We're willing to work with the government on these issues. This is not a contested space.</para>
<para>Finally, in relation to redress, we know that, as at September 2020, the scheme had only made 3,498 payments when there are identified 60,000 people that are eligible for this scheme. There is an absolute slowness in processing applications. My question is: why won't the government introduce an early release scheme similar to the one in Scotland?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm cognisant that there is only a minute left in the debate, and I'm sure you'll pull me up when the time arrives. I thank all members for their contributions. There were a number of questions. In terms of deeming rates, as the House would know, from 1 May the deeming rates were adjusted. This benefited around 565,000 age pensioners, who are expected to receive an additional $313, on average, over the course of the year. The deeming rate reduction—down to 0.25 per cent and, of course, the upper rate down to 2.25 per cent—has ensured that the rates remains responsive to the returns available from investments. Under the new deeming rate single pensioners can have around $253,000 in financial investments and still receive the maximum rate for age pensions provided they have no other income or assessable assets.</para>
<para>In terms of carers, the government recently introduced the single biggest reform in more than a decade to provide unprecedented support to Australia's carers. The Carer Gateway is an information service providing practical information and advice to help carers navigate the system of support services. It provides tailored services within the carer's local areas, including support planning, targeted financial support packages, peer support, information, advice and access to emergency and short-term respite.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, you can go the full five minutes.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just cognisant that we have NDIS next, and the member for Maribyrnong is itching at the bit.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If I could clarify for the House, it's not a hard 12.30, so if the minister wants to take his full five minutes he is able to do so.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm more than happy to. In terms of other questions asked, the member for Capricornia asked a question about 1800RESPECT, which is delivered by Medibank. It is a national telephone and online counselling and support service for people affected by domestic, family and sexual violence and their family and friends. The free service operates 24/7 and provides intake, crisis response, triage, information, referral, general counselling and specialist counselling services to users across Australia. It answers on average 6,000 contacts a week, which is superb. We that know there is increased demand. That's why the government has for first time funded 1800RESPECT on an ongoing basis through the budget. It has also allocated $5.9 million out of the $150 million domestic violence support package to 1800RESPECT to meet potential increases in demand. This continued funding ensures that the service can be responsive, noting that coronavirus has changed the way that people engage with this service. We also know that people fleeing violence at home can find it difficult to reach out through traditional services; hence, 1800RESPECT can be contacted over the phone or through a 24-hour online chat function. This means that more people know that a service is out there to help them and that more people can seek support from the service.</para>
<para>With regard to questions from the minister to my left regarding the cashless debit card budget, we have provided certainty through the budget process for cashless debit card participants by continuing it as an ongoing measure in existing sites as well as in the Northern Territory and Cape York, Queensland, following the transition to income management in those regions. The continuation of the cashless debit card in established sites is a direct response to calls from community leaders asking that we deliver certainty to their communities by making the program an ongoing program. It will sustain the positive impacts and effectiveness of the cashless debit card, and it signals the government's commitment to the future of the cashless debit card with financial institutions. The bottom line is that the cashless debit card is working. The call-out by the community leaders for us to extend it is demonstrative of that. Leaders in these communities are seeing positive results and are supportive of the program. Many participants are reporting the positive impact that the cashless debit card has had on themselves and their families.</para>
<para>A question was also asked about paid parental leave and benefits to dads and partners. Earlier this year the government passed legislation to provide new mums with increased flexibility and new fathers more access to the paid parental leave entitlement. Previously new mums were required to take the full 18 weeks as a block in the first year after their baby was born. Under the change, only 12 weeks must be taken in the first year, and the remaining six weeks can be used flexibly at any time within two years of the birth or adoption in blocks as small as one day at a time. It also allows mums to transfer those six weeks to their partner if they wish. This is important, especially with changing social norms around sharing care for children and encouraging blokes to take parental leave. We know all families are not the same—and that's great—so I'm looking forward to seeing the results of these changes.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. The Federation Chamber will now consider the National Disability Insurance Scheme and government services segments of the Social Services portfolio, in accordance with the agreed order of consideration. I give the call to the minister.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Morrison government is absolutely committed to delivering the essential services Australians rely on. Our very strong fiscal position has ensured we're able to reinforce the safety net and continue to ensure Australians have access to services. This has never been more important than now as we make it through the unprecedented times of the crisis. This budget makes the investments needed to strengthen the delivery of core government services for future generations. Building on the work done to date through the establishment of Services Australia, we are investing in modern technology across the full gamut of service delivery. As the House knows, this government is absolutely committed to improving the NDIS and ensuring it's fully funded, demand driven and available for generations to come.</para>
<para>In terms of Services Australia, the government continues to focus on streamlining and modernising the Australian welfare service delivery system to ensure Services Australia has the agility to support the needs of all Australians. We've made significant improvements to how Services Australia interacts with Australians. Australians can now obtain a customer reference number and apply for JobSeeker all online through myGov, as well as many other transactions, meaning core wait times have drastically reduced to just, as I said in the House yesterday, 67 seconds on the social services and welfare phone line. Compare that to the final year of Labor, at 90 minutes—90 minutes compared to 67 seconds. Australians can now more than ever access services on their terms at a time that suits them.</para>
<para>In the 2021 budget, the Morrison government allocated $539.6 million to complete the fourth stage of the seven-year build of the Welfare Payment Infrastructure Transformation program. Each business day our welfare system delivers over $500 million in welfare payments, and has almost 2.7 million interactions with customers. The fourth phase will see the build of modern payment and decision-making platforms, including a new entitlement calculation engine, which will enable faster claims processing for the community, ensuring far greater accuracy of payments and, when combined with Single Touch Payroll, will reduce the reporting burden for individuals and businesses dealing with government.</para>
<para>In terms of the NDIS, we've always made the point that it's demand driven and fully funded. To reflect a demand for the NDIS into the future, the government has announced a further $3.9 billion to the NDIS. We're investing $798.8 million in the National Disability Insurance Agency and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission over the forward estimates to support the continued implementation of a mature and effective NDIS. The extra funding will ensure that all Australians eligible for the NDIS will have access to the supports they need today, tomorrow and into the future. The government's also investing in the disability support, aged-care and veterans care sectors to support the growing demand for services and, indeed, provide sustainable jobs for Australians. As part of the 2020 budget, the government's investing $32.3 million in the care and support workforce to improve the sector by encouraging flexibility and introducing new ways to attract, train and retain workers. These measures will also support economic recovery, competition and create much-needed jobs, especially for workers that may find themselves displaced.</para>
<para>We have substantially delivered on the NDIS plan, driving significant changes to performance so that participants receive the supports they need. The latest NDIS quarterly report, for the end of September 2020, was released today. It shows extraordinary improvements in performance. There are now 412,000 participants in the world-leading NDIS, and a staggering 193,000 are receiving supports for the very first time. This is a great thing for our country and something I think we'd all applaud. One hundred per cent of access decisions are made within the 21-day time frame, compared to 74 per cent a year ago, with average wait times to make an access decision just 11 days and seven days for zero to six. Ninety-two per cent of first plans are approved for participants aged seven and over within the time frame, compared to 73 per cent a year ago. Ninety-eight per cent of first plans are approved for participants aged zero to six, compared to 71 per cent a year ago. Overall, the wait time for a plan was 52 days in September on average, compared to 133 days when I took over last year. The average wait time for a plan for a child is just 34 days.</para>
<para>Let me conclude with some points on our data and digital work. There is $256.6 million as part of our digital business package to develop the digital equivalent of a 100-point ID check through digital identity. Over 1.7 million Australians and 1.2 million businesses are already using digital identity to access 70 government services. The government is delivering strongly on its promises. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a question through you, Deputy Speaker Bird, to the minister. Traditionally, consideration is like a kabuki play, where we each go for our ceremonial five minutes; we say the government's bad and the government then takes five minutes saying it's good—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Robert interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Unless the minister has had a Damascene conversion!</para>
<para>What I was going the say to the minister is: if we skip the five minutes of ritual government bashing and instead just ask very direct and short questions, will the minister, in the same spirit, not chew up five minutes with recited government whatever, so we can have a decent discussion?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take that as a clarification of the process. There's not actually a standing order to allow that to occur, so I'll take that as a contribution at this point, and the minister can respond now or later, as he chooses.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm more than happy to respond on a case-by-case basis in the spirit which the member for Maribyrnong has outlined.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALLEN</name>
    <name.id>282986</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Could I please clarify what that means for other speakers in this morning's session.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The procedure will be the same. There's no change to procedure. It's just an informal indication between the shadow minister and the minister that, rather than having five minutes, their intention is to have questions and answers much more flowing. We will still go in the order that the procedures require and according to the time frames that people are allocated. I give the call to the member for Maribyrnong.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The specific questions I have go to the topic of the independent assessment rollout. Why did the government publish a request for tender for IA in March, before the pilot program established to test its impacts was due to be finished, in June? Why is the NDIA proceeding with the tender even though the pilot was abandoned due to COVID-19? Why is the government now proceeding with the tender even though the sample size is 0.0029 per cent of all NDIA participants? Further, how much of the $799 million budget measure to support the NDIA's continued implementation of a mature and effective NDIS will go towards independent assessment? The average plan size is around $100,000. Does that therefore mean that some participants are already going to be found ineligible?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First, I note that the House accepted the Productivity Commission recommendations in 2011 when the NDIS was legislated. I'll read from page 327 of the PC report. It says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In order to promote independent outcomes, assessors should be drawn from an approved pool of allied health professionals. Assessors should also be independent of the person being assessed to reduce the potential for 'sympathy' bias. This means that health professionals — GPs and others — with past treatment and support responsibilities for the person, would not undertake assessments.</para></quote>
<para>Indeed, John Walsh, who is arguably the grandfather of the NDIS, especially in his role in shaping the Productivity Commission report, was recently quoted as saying, 'If I had a magic wand, I would have done assessments right at the start.'</para>
<para>Independent assessments were always part of the NDIS. The first independent assessment pilot took place from November 2018 to April 2019, to better understand and assess the impact of disability for people seeking support from the NDIS. In November last year, the government's NDIS plan was announced, including reference to independent assessments, and an expanded second pilot then commenced 12 months ago. However, it was cut short because of the pandemic—in fact it was postponed in March. Knowing full well we would continue it, on 25 June a public tender to establish a panel closed, and responses are currently being evaluated. In August I announced the government's response to the Tune review, and on 23 October the second pilot, which was temporarily halted, recommenced. It will involve up to 4,000 participants to further develop the process around planning decisions.</para>
<para>So we have continued our deliberate, consistent approach. We have informed the market as to what we're doing. We can walk and chew gum, frankly, in terms of the independent assessments, having done one pilot and commenced a second. Building on the recommendations of the PC committee as to the time to roll out the independent assessments, based on the results of the trial, we will then have our providers fully in place to do that. That is ostensibly the basis of where we're coming from.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question relates to the government using taxpayer funds to win cases over the NDIS clients who have to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Dr Larry Laikind is a blind human rights lawyer and is being forced to live an unsafe and desperate life because the NDIA is trying to arbitrarily control who gets what support under the scheme. My question is, specifically: why has the private lawyer spend surged? And why have AAT appeals against NDIA decisions increased by 48 per cent in the last year and 700 per cent since 2016?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member. Is the minister seeking to take a few questions? There is no change to procedure. If you want to answer a few questions at the end, that's fine. The chair recognises the member for Higgins is on her feet and seeks the call. I give the call to the member for Higgins.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALLEN</name>
    <name.id>282986</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The National Disability Insurance Scheme is one of the greatest social policies constructed and now delivered in this country's history. I would like to acknowledge the bipartisan commitment to the NDIS and congratulate the parliament for its support of the scheme that helps people with disabilities live their lives to the fullest. I would like to acknowledge the member for Maribyrnong and his commitment over the history of this very important scheme. But, of course, with any new and innovative scheme, there are adjustments that need to be made to ensure it works properly. I rise today to speak on two improvements the Morrison government has made to the NDIS, including for the 1,545 NDIS participants in my electorate of Higgins.</para>
<para>In November 2019, Minister Robert announced the government's plan to construct a runway to deliver the world-leading NDIS for an estimated 500,000 participants—an incredible number of participants to get on board the scheme in an effective and efficient way. These participants are from very diverse backgrounds. The September 2020 NDIS quarterly report has recently shown that 37 per cent of new participants this quarter were children aged from zero to six years. As a paediatrician, I really welcome this. An additional 8,639 children in the Early Childhood Early Intervention gateway are receiving their initial support. Nine per cent of participants in the quarter identified as Indigenous, and this is compared to 6.4 per cent in previous quarters combined. Ten per cent of the new active participants in this quarter were culturally and linguistically diverse, and this compares to 9.2 per cent in the previous quarter.</para>
<para>At the last election, the Morrison government made a commitment to implement a participant service guarantee which sets out clear time frames for key NDIS processes. The guarantee establishes new time frames for the NDIA to make decisions about access, plan approvals and plan reviews to provide clarity and certainty to participants, their families and carers. Ensuring timeliness of service delivery for such an unprecedented and large number of government recipients is a challenge that the minister set himself, and he's already delivering on this challenge. Building on this momentum, in August 2020 the government released its response to the Tune review of the NDIS Act. Significant improvements have been made to reduce wait times—and we heard about that in the previous speech, by the minister himself—and bring people with disability, particularly children, into the scheme quicker so they can get the crucial disability supports they need.</para>
<para>This year has been an extraordinary year in so many ways. The COVID pandemic has delivered an unprecedented dual crisis—not just a health crisis but also an economic one. Despite the twin crisis, the government has remained committed to fully funding the NDIS and ensuring that people with disability remain safe and continue to receive service throughout the COVID pandemic. In March 2020, Minister Robert acted quickly to provide assistance to NDIS participants and providers through COVID to ensure the viability of this program. This included a one-month advance payment for NDIS providers, which saw $666 million of advanced payments made to 5,161 eligible NDIS providers to provide immediate cashflow relief. Despite the pandemic, the amount paid each quarter for NDIS continues to increase. It's up to $5.4 billion this quarter, in September, compared to $5 billion in June 2020 and $4.3 billion in the March quarter. The government also announced a range of temporary measures to support NDIS participants during the pandemic, to ensure continued access. Importantly, there are currently zero reported cases of COVID in the NDIS sector, across both participants and workers. This is something to be celebrated and a testament to the commitment of the disability sector to ensure both workers and those they serve are kept safe.</para>
<para>While legislating the participant service guarantee has been delayed to July 2021, due to the coronavirus pandemic, the NDIA have commenced implementation administratively from July 2020. I'd also like to recognise that we are introducing independent assessments in 2021, to ensure we have new and existing participants receiving, in a fair and consistent way, flexibility and greater choice. My question to the minister is: can the minister explain how the introduction of independent assessments as part of the government's NDIS reform agenda will help create equity and consistency for participants?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Why has the government spent $13 million on AAT appeals? Why have AAT appeals in the NDIS increased by 48 per cent in the last year and 700 per cent since 2016?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 30 September this year the number of AAT applications represented 0.4 per cent of the total number of participants. As a percentage, it's exactly the same as last year—0.4 per cent. Whilst the total number has increased over the last few years, the growth has aligned with the growth in the number of participants in the scheme. The total number of AAT applications increased from 1,220 in 2018-19 to 1,780 in 2019-20, again largely in line with the growth of the NDIS. Of the 4,319 cases received by the NDIA since scheme inception, 3,356 have resolved prior to a contested hearing, 890 remain open and 73 went on to receive a substantial decision of the AAT. Of cases resolved, 65 per cent were resolved by agreement, 33 per cent were withdrawn by the applicant or dismissed, and two per cent were resolved by a contested hearing.</para>
<para>With respect to the first question the member asked, as a general rule we don't comment on AAT cases. However, if information is brought into the public domain and it needs further clarification, we'll do so, and I believe the case the member has made has been brought into the public domain, not in here but outside. Accordingly, a letter to the editor was sent from Mr Martin Hoffman, the CEO of the NDIA. I'll read part of that: 'Mr Lawrence Laikind submitted an AAT request to review a decision regarding home modifications to his property. He is represented by a senior counsel and junior counsel. The proposed work to Mr Laikind's backyard included a request for a personal boat pontoon, extensions to a pool deck, related landscaping and the rebuilding of a retaining wall. The estimated cost of this work was more than $200,000. This request was denied, on the basis that Mr Laikind's request did not meet the criteria under section 34 of the NDIS Act and therefore is not reasonable and necessary support to be funded by the taxpayer. The NDIA is committed to ensuring participants receive their reasonable and necessary disability related supports and that the scheme remains equitable and sustainable for all participants now and into the future.'</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia has had some 27,000 confirmed cases of COVID, but only 17 have been uniquely detected by the DTA's COVIDSafe app. This record has been rightly criticised by medical and tech experts, as well as by senior state government figures of all political persuasions. Despite this, your government has said there are no plans underway to vary it in any major way. In fact, there are no plans at all to look at the Apple-Google API, which would greatly improve the bluetooth functionality and effectiveness. So the questions that need to be asked and need to be answered are: Have you or your ministerial colleagues instructed the DTA to lessen the 15-minute exposure setting so the app may detect more COVID contacts and be more effective in the fight against COVID? If not, why not?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I just remind members that you're not actually asking questions of me but of the minister, so, if we could just avoid the 'you' usage, that would be helpful. I'm sure the minister understood the question was to him.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to speak today about the extraordinary contributions of Services Australia, firstly, in response to the Black Summer bushfires and then throughout the COVID pandemic. I'd like to begin by thanking each and every person at the forefront of the Australian government's response to these crises, providing support to millions of Australians during a period of uncertainty, upheaval and indeed hardship.</para>
<para>At the outset of 2020, Australia was facing a natural disaster on a scale rarely experienced as bushfires raged right across our great country. The Black Summer bushfires tragically took loved ones, destroyed homes, ravaged our wildlife and brought trauma to so many.</para>
<para>If these events taught us anything, it's that Australians expect and deserve national leadership, and effective coordination and timely action, when responding to a crisis or a natural disaster. Recognising this, the Morrison government acted swiftly, establishing the National Bushfire Recovery Agency and allocating $2 billion to ensure that communities devastated by the fires get the support they need as they recover and working closely with states and territory governments. Services Australia played a vital role in the delivery of financial and non-financial assistance to individuals, to families and to communities to get them back on their feet as soon as possible.</para>
<para>Assisted by the Australian Defence Force, Services Australia deployed mobile service teams and mobile service centres to more than 200 communities affected by the Black Summer bushfires. Equipped with portable technology, these teams provided a visible on-the-ground government presence in otherwise inaccessible locations, working side by side with other state and federal agencies to rapidly deliver support to affected communities. Services Australia's staff worked tirelessly, keeping service centres open in affected communities and the Australian government emergency information line operating seven days a week.</para>
<para>On the Australian government emergency information line, Services Australia answered more than 350,000 calls—most within seconds. They processed more than 200,000 claims for disaster assistance and delivered over $288 million in critical financial support.</para>
<para>Just as the rains brought reprieve from the choking smoke and raging fires for so many Australians, the nation's resolve was about to be tested as never before as the COVID-19 pandemic emerged. Australians reached out in record numbers for support. People queued outside Centrelink and logged into myGov in numbers never before seen. Again, the coalition government responded swiftly and decisively temporarily expanding eligibility to income support, waiving waiting periods, pausing mutual obligations, reducing means testing and evidentiary requirements—all to accelerate access to payments for people in need. The government also delivered an economic lifeline to millions through the economic support payments and coronavirus supplement.</para>
<para>Services Australia, once again, found themselves at the forefront of the government's response, delivering more than $9 billion through the economic support payments to some seven million low-income Australians, including pensioners, other social security and veteran income support recipients and eligible concession card holders.</para>
<para>More than $15.5 billion in the coronavirus supplement has been paid to new and existing eligible income support recipients in addition to their usual payment. In the face of unprecedented demand, Services Australia surged thousands of extra staff, redeploying people from within the agency across the public service and from service delivery partners, answering calls and processing claims for people seeking urgent financial support.</para>
<para>I commend the Prime Minister for his vision of government service delivery for Australians and recognise how critical this has been in successfully navigating the extraordinary circumstances that we've faced as a nation this year. I also want to recognise the minister's hard work to make this ambition-vision a reality and ask that he provide an update on the transformation of government services, including how this prepared Services Australia to respond to the Black Summer bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Moving to the Robertson review into the circumstances relating to the death of Ann-Marie Smith, when will the government respond specifically to Mr Robertson's specific recommendations? Further, why has the government, despite announcing $93 million, only got six new investigators on the ground? Finally, why are people with disability forced to wait up to 504 days for a complaint to be resolved when often their lives depend on quality care?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In terms of the Robertson review, Justice Robertson was asked to provide an assurance that the activities of the quality and safeguard regulator were appropriate in the circumstances. His report came back to say that they were, and the government has accepted the response to the terms of reference that he was asked to look at.</para>
<para>In answer to the Second Deputy Speaker's question regarding the COVIDSafe app, the COVIDSafe app has now been used in anger across New South Wales over 540 times to find over 540 contacts that the traditional method of contact tracing would not be able to find.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, from 17 July to early August, Victorians were not using the COVIDSafe app at all, even though they had over 6,000 positive contacts. Now they are using it. It is embedded into their processes, but, at the time, they were, frankly, using pen and paper for contact tracing. They've now got Salesforce on board, in terms of a proper digital approach, and they've got the COVIDSafe app embedded in their systems, but, at the time of their highest spike in infections, they were not using it at all. That's uncomfortable for the Victorians opposite, who are great supporters of Premier Andrews, but they are the facts and they are not in dispute.</para>
<para>Proposed expenditure agreed to.</para>
<para>Pr oceedings suspended from 13:02 to 16 : 00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>103</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a pleasure to be back here for consideration in detail in 2020. There is a large amount of funding across the Attorney-General's and Industrial Relations portfolio in the 2020-21 budget. We've announced funding of $212.7 million over four years for new measures in my two portfolios. Obviously, very many of them are working in response to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on both individuals and businesses. By way of a short summary of those matters, we have $35.3 million over two years to the A-G's department to continue the Fair Entitlements Guarantee program, which everyone knows is an important safety net for workers, ensuring that entitlements are paid if an individual loses their job to a liquidation or bankruptcy. This particular funding will provide for new temporary staff to process the FEG claims. Obviously we've been receiving an increase in those throughout the pandemic. They will be brought in on an as-necessary meeting-demand basis to ensure that Australian workers can access their FEG entitlements quickly and accurately when they are eligible.</para>
<para>We are also providing additional funding of $5.1 million over two years to the Fair Work Commission to deal with matters arising under the temporary JobKeeper provisions in the Fair Work Act and to resolve the increased volume of unfair dismissals and general protection matters arising as a result of the pandemic. I note that that funding builds on the $46.3 million over three years for the workplace regulator, the Fair Work Ombudsman, that was announced in the July Economic and Fiscal Update. That was obviously meant to deal with the demands of COVID-19. We are also providing $87.3 million to maintain funding for family law services, which are critically important at this time; $2.5 million in additional funding to the federal family law courts to establish a specialised COVID-19 list, which manages the sharp increase in urgent applications; and additional funding of $4.8 million to the Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties Scheme, which protects victims of family violence in family law proceedings.</para>
<para>We're also providing $2.5 million towards the creation of the new federal family violence orders. Those orders will allow victims of family violence to obtain a criminally enforceable federal family violence order in the Family Court. There is also an additional $35.7 million over four years to the Federal Circuit Court to enable the court to assist with the timely resolution of both migration and family law matters. That will provide the court with three additional judges to hear immigration matters, one additional family law division judge as well as five additional family law registrars and increased base funding for the court. Those registrars will serve a very important role on the court. To ensure the courts continue to run effectively in regional areas, the government will also provide $7.7 million to address the safety and security of court users in the Rockhampton and in the Launceston Federal Circuit Court buildings and provide $2.5 million for a new case management system for the Family Court of Western Australia.</para>
<para>Additionally, the government will provide $10.6 million over two years to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to continue the vocational education and training FEE-HELP redress measures in the 2021 and 2022 years to help students who have debts under the loan scheme due to the inappropriate conduct of their private VET providers. There is $7.6 million for the AAT to enable the Immigration Assessment Authority to continue its role of reviewing and fast-tracking decisions; $1.6 million to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to ensure that it can effectively oversee the use of the new Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act by law enforcement agencies; and $9.9 million to expand the jurisdiction of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, ACLEI, to cover four new agencies—the ATO, ASIC, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. That funding was drawn from the 2019 Commonwealth Integrity Commission budget measure. As I have stated in the other chamber, ACLEI will form part of the new Commonwealth Integrity Commission. It will expand its jurisdiction. That is a very important and necessary first step to the government's model for the new Commonwealth Integrity Commission. There is also an additional $0.7 million provided to ACLEI to enable it to continue its oversight of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre and prescribed parts of the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment.</para>
<para>Thank you for the opportunity to make that brief summary. I look forward to questions.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My questions to the Minister for Industrial Relations relate to the industrial relations working group and any processes and legislation that may arise from that. From the moment that this government was elected, despite not mentioning it during the election campaign and seeking a mandate for it, the Prime Minister has been rabbiting on about industrial relations reform. In a speech to the Western Australian Chamber of Commence in June last year, the Prime Minister talked about unleashing the so-called 'animal spirits' in the economy and trying to find 'impediments to shared gains for employers and employees'. To anyone who is familiar with a Liberal government, when they start talking about these things it is code for one thing, and that is a tax on the rights of the workers and their pay and conditions—and it is usually backed by some employer groups that are keen on ideological lists of reforms.</para>
<para>In that same speech the Prime Minister announced the Porter review. This was a review with no terms of reference, no start date and no reporting date—in other words, no transparency and integrity. Up until the time that it was discarded a year later, the Porter review consisted of or achieved a series of discussion papers drafted by the minister's department in consultation with unknown sources, but certainly not in consultation with any workers or their representatives. The only other action that he took was to dust off a couple of failed pieces of legislation, the Ensuring Integrity Bill and the worker benefit bill. Both of these bills have one aim, and that is to attack the rights of workers in the workplace.</para>
<para>The government says it is all about ensuring integrity for unions, that we are going to smarten up the union movement. But the one thing that they forget is that the average union member in Australia at the moment is typically a female, working in the public sector in a service profession—much like my wife, who is a nurse that works in a public hospital and is a member of the New South Wales Nurses Federation. Those bills were about making it harder for workers like that to get representation in their workplaces and to join unions. So you are making it harder for teachers, for early childhood educators, for public servants and for hospitality and retail workers. These are the workers in Australia that this government was attacking with those two pieces of legislation.</para>
<para>We all know that they have form when it comes to the rights of workers in those industries. We saw what they did with WorkChoices, where people were forced onto individual contracts so that they took home less pay to their families each week. We know that this government supported the cutting of penalty rates. Workers in the hospitality and retail industries take home less pay to their families each week because of this government's support for cuts to penalty rates.</para>
<para>They often go around saying how they support coalminers and that they are all about the coal industry. What are they doing with the WorkPac case that is before the High Court at the moment? The government have actively intervened in that case to try and stop coal workers being able to work on a permanent basis and get access to family leave, to sick leave and to holiday leave, which other workers working beside them actively get. No, they want to make sure that those workers are classified as casuals in a contracting-out sham. The government have intervened against those coal workers. Yet, they have the hide to come into this place and say that they are all about supporting coal workers. It is an absolute disgrace.</para>
<para>It should have been a lesson for the minister when those pieces of legislation failed the first time. But the minister tried again. He rammed a slightly amended version of the bill through the House of Representatives without allowing the shadow minister or other MPs the opportunity to speak on it. And then COVID hit, presenting many challenges for employers whose businesses have been shut down. When Labor suggested a wage subsidy, the government initially resisted, but eventually they got there and they adopted Labor's proposal for a subsidy. So we've got JobKeeper and JobKeeper flexibility provisions that employers, amongst other things, can use to reduce conditions. Then we have had a series of other calls for the industrial working group process to work through some of these issues.</para>
<para>There's been a total lack of support for issues that really are at the heart of what is going on in the labour movement—lack of wages growth, low productivity and low business investment. It is all about trying to cut pay and conditions for workers. So my question to the minister is: can he guarantee that no worker will be worse off as a result of the outcomes of either Porter review or the working group process?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I might just directly respond to that. I thank the member for his input. It is very true to say that the working-group process that you've mentioned was not something that was part of an election agenda. Neither were JobKeeper or a range of things which were consequent upon the pandemic, which we obviously didn't anticipate. The working-group process is very much a response to the pandemic. You asked for a guarantee that no worker would be worse off from anything that occurs through the working-group process. It's certainly designed to effect increases in employment and job growth and, in that respect, to put longer-term upward pressure on wages growth. We have had 150 hours of consultative, cooperative meetings between representatives of the union movement, who have been quite excellent in their contribution, and peak bodies representing the employers. I've not sat through all of those 150 hours, but I have sat through many of those meetings, a great number of those 150 hours.</para>
<para>How does that dovetail into the bills that you mentioned, such as the ensuring integrity bill and the workers entitlement fund bill? I might relay a story to you. During the height of the pandemic, when I think everyone in this chamber, as well as the union movement and every business owner in Australia, was shocked to see upwards of 400,000 people become unemployed in a very, very short period of time, I picked up the phone and did something that I hadn't anticipated happening in this term of government, and I rang the senior leadership of the CFMMEU and spoke to them directly. The essential substance of those phone calls was the concern around keeping construction open and acting—as it always has done with mining in Australia—as a natural stabiliser to downswings in broader employment. The importance of keeping construction open appeared to me, as the Minister for Industrial Relations, and to the government to supersede every other single priority. In those conversations, we discussed the prospect of the ensuring integrity bill no longer being pursued and being withdrawn from parliament if we could work on a cooperative basis to ensure the maximum ability for construction to stay operational during the pandemic. That wasn't just a matter of cooperation between the federal government and the CFMMEU and the MBA. We will all recall that there was a fateful 48 hours when it looked quite possible that, rather than having a blacklist system during the peak lockdown, where we would nominate the things that needed to be closed and assume that everything else was open, we were going to have a white-out system that assumed everything was closed, including construction. The senior leadership of the CFMMEU, in their efforts with us, in their efforts with state governments, in their efforts to make their workplaces COVID safe, did a massive positive service to this country in playing a significant role in keeping construction going even during the height of the lockdowns. So I praise the leadership of the CFMMEU for that, and the MBA and others. In my observation, that was one of several critical occurrences during the pandemic.</para>
<para>The lesson that we took from that was that, if we could do things like that in direct cooperation with the CFMMEU, if we could design a JobKeeper system by enlisting the assistance and consultation of the ACTU, and those cooperative outcomes and processes saved jobs, then it might just be possible to engage in cooperative processes to create jobs and grow jobs as we try and grind our way out of the worst economic shock that we've had in essentially 100 years, since the Great Depression. The working-group process acknowledges that the ensuring integrity bill has been removed from this parliament, as a matter of goodwill and good faith. Member, we have been discussing issues such as those that you've raised, issues that arise because of the decision in the WorkPac matter, which, yes, we have intervened on, issues around wages growth. I will deal with two of those issues that you've raised directly. In the Workpac case, one way or the other, there has to be a settled position at either the common law or in statute as to what the definition of a casual worker is. Without being overly critical of the previous Labor government that designed the Fair Work Act, because it is proving a very sensitive process to try and work out how you precisely would design a casual worker— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've long been advocating for a Commonwealth integrity commission and was pleased to see that the funding allocated to the integrity commission from last year's budget remains. To the Attorney-General: I was also pleased that the average staffing levels to that commission stand at 76 people this year, according to the budget papers, and that is in addition to the 88 people that the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity already maintains. In last year's budget, I accepted there were 39 people allocated, because the budget papers said that the Commonwealth integrity commission would be established by 1 January 2020. Of course, it wasn't, and it still hasn't been. In fact, under the current government plans, it won't be until March next year at the earliest, in light of the extensive consultation phase announced. An average staffing level of 76 over the course of the financial year is a pretty big workforce to come on board between March and 30 June. While I welcome the commitment, it's difficult to see how these 76 people will be employed, given the government has just announced a six-month consultation process on an exposure draft that it first put out nearly two years ago and has not incorporated any of the feedback received since. I would like to use the opportunity to ask the Attorney-General for more detail on the proposed consultation process to better understand how those 76 people will be gainfully employed in that effort.</para>
<para>I would also like to ask the Attorney-General for a clearer picture of the time line, from the conclusion of the consultation process to the setting up of the integrity commission. The consultation conducted to date has been ineffective. I call on the government to accelerate that consultation time line and immediately incorporate provisions to enable public hearings, have greater avenues for referrals for whistleblowers and broaden the definition of 'corrupt conduct'. While consultation is necessary, this time line will delay the implementation of a Commonwealth integrity commission. The proposed model is very similar to the model that was already proposed back in 2018 and was widely condemned as not being strong enough.</para>
<para>I continue to support the member for Indi's bill, presented to parliament last month, in relation to the establishment of an Australian federal integrity commission. That bill has been through significant consultation and has support from a wide variety of judges and experts in integrity, as well as the Australian Federal Police Association, which is more than there appears to be for the Attorney-General's current draft legislation. The Australian federal integrity commission is significantly stronger than the model proposed by the government and addresses the concerns outlined. The government model presents two commissions: one for the public sector and another for law enforcement. The government model embeds a double standard, where parliamentarians and other public servants are held to a lower level of scrutiny than law enforcement officials. Law enforcement officials have a lower threshold for corruption and a different definition and may be exposed through a public hearing, while parliamentarians and public servants would not be.</para>
<para>Some of the key concerns with the proposed legislation include the lack of public hearings for the public sector integrity division, meaning that only the law enforcement integrity division would have the power to have public hearings. Parliamentarians and other public servants would not appear publicly. The definition of 'corruption' differs, depending on whether it is conducted by law enforcement or parliamentarians. 'Corruption' should be defined consistently and fairly, a broad definition of 'corrupt conduct' should apply, greater avenues for referral need to be permitted, and protections for whistleblowers need to be created to generate true public accountability and transparency. In the current definition and the referral pathways, this body would not be able to investigate recent events, such as sports rorts, the Leppington land sale or forgery of documents. The definition restricts the commission from investigating unless there is a reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence. This sets a very different standard to the public expectation and will preclude investigation into very important incidents. Attorney-General, will you reflect on the feedback and amend the model proposed?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHARMA</name>
    <name.id>274506</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to take this opportunity to ask the Attorney-General how the government is taking action to support the hardworking men and women of Australia, particularly when it comes to the sudden and severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Clearly, Australians have experienced a year like no other in 2020. The once-in-a-century pandemic that is COVID-19 has had a profound impact on our health system, on our community and on our economy. Whilst we are fortunate to be in Australia, there is no doubt that the hundreds of thousands of Australians who saw their hours at work dwindle down to zero—</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 16 : 20 to 16:30</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHARMA</name>
    <name.id>274506</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying, there is no doubt that the hundreds of thousands of Australians who saw their hours at work dwindle down to zero and the many more who lost their jobs completely have been doing it tough, with women and young people in particular hit hard. As a government it's incumbent upon us to help regrow the jobs and hours of work that have been lost as a result of COVID-19. We must get Australians back on their feet and regrow our economy, and the government's 2020-21 budget is our plan to do exactly that. It's an economic recovery plan for Australia, a plan to create jobs, to rebuild the economy and to secure Australia's future.</para>
<para>I'm proud to say that employees are central to the government's plan with a multitude of new and continuing measures focusing on individuals and on households, because Australians deserve to know that the government has their backs. This includes when it comes to ensuring that Australians understand their rights and entitlements in the workplace, particularly where there have been changes made to their workplace as a result of the impacts of COVID-19—following things such as the temporary amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 by the government or variations to modern awards by the Fair Work Commission. This includes providing an efficient and effective dispute resolution forum in the Fair Work Commission to dispute unfair dismissals and issues with the landmark JobKeeper program.It includes critical employee support frameworks, like the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme for those workers who, regrettably, lose their entitlements due to their employer's liquidation. In these circumstances fast and effective processing of claims is vital.</para>
<para>We have also seen, in recent months, that some employers are continuing to fail to adhere to their basic obligations to pay their employees. Whilst there is no doubt that there are many underlying drivers in these circumstances, it's vital that key regulators, like the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Australian Building and Construction Commission, are on hand to ensure mistakes are rectified and, where appropriate, that compliance and enforcement action is taken.</para>
<para>Can the Attorney-General please outline how the government has continued to ensure that the workplace regulator, the Fair Work Ombudsman, can provide employees with assistance on understanding their rights and entitlements under various employment laws? Can the Attorney-General also advise how the government is ensuring the independent workplace tribunal, the Fair Work Commission, is being funded to provide a fast and efficient avenue for employees to dispute workplace issues, including those arising from the COVID-19 pandemic? Can the Attorney-General also confirm that the government is ensuring the availability of safety net supports, available to employees through the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme? Finally, can the Attorney outline how our key regulatory agencies in the industrial relations portfolio, the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Australian Building and Construction Commission in particular, are continuing to protect the hard earned wages of Australians?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've got some general questions for the Attorney-General around the establishment of a national anti-corruption commission. The first of those would be whether it's correct that the Morrison government is terrified of an independent anti-corruption commission being established, because the government is terrified of the Australian people discovering what it has been up to behind closed doors? I have a further question as to whether or not the Attorney-General has been doing all he can to delay the establishment of a national anti-corruption commission, because he and the Morrison government are terrified of the many, many scandals that've occurred on this government's watch being investigated by such an independent body? And I don't just mean the scandals that we know about from the work of the independent Auditor-General and the work of investigative journalists.</para>
<para>I'd ask why it is that the Morrison government has been slipping and sliding around on the issue of establishing a national integrity commission, trying to avoid making any real commitments, despite having committed to establishing such a body in December of 2018, almost two years ago, and also, despite having said at that time, on 13 December 2018—in a press conference, in fact, conducted by the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, and by the Attorney-General—that they had been working on establishing a national anticorruption commission since January of 2018, almost three years ago? Now that the government has been dragged, kicking and screaming, to admit that a national anticorruption commission is needed, and has at last, years late, released draft legislation for such a body, can the Attorney-General explain why the model he has proposed has been excoriated by virtually every integrity expert and legal authority in the country as a sham that fails virtually every test for an effective integrity commission?</para>
<para>You would think, given that there is now an integrity commission in every state and in both territories, it might have been possible for the government to come up with a model that actually learned the lessons from those integrity commissions that have been established in the six states and the two territories. Can the Attorney-General explain why it has taken him almost three years to produce a model for a national anticorruption commission that the Centre for Public Integrity has examined closely and concludes, in these terms:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Christian Porter's proposal would be the weakest watchdog in the country …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">They're setting that bar so high for investigations that they wouldn't be able to investigate 'sports rorts' or the Western Sydney airport deal …</para></quote>
<para>Can the Attorney-General explain why it has taken him almost three years to produce the model for a national anticorruption commission about which Stephen Charles QC, one of the more eminent lawyers of our country, a former judge of the Victorian Court of Appeal and one of Australia's leading anticorruption experts, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's an attempt to protect ministers, politicians and senior public servants from investigations into serious corruption.</para></quote>
<para>Can the Attorney-General explain why it has taken him almost three years to produce the model for a national anticorruption commission that former counsel assisting the New South Wales ICAC Geoffrey Watson SC has described as a body 'designed to cover up corruption, not expose it'?</para>
<para>Does the Attorney-General agree with Anthony Whealy QC, former judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court, who has examined the government's model closely and concluded:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's a crying shame the government will not give this body an effective way to control corruption in the public service and the Parliament …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The real reason for that is they are afraid of it and how it might affect them.</para></quote>
<para>Does the Attorney-General agree with David Harper AM QC, former judge of the Victorian Court of Appeal, who has examined the government's model closely and concluded:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The draft legislation released today falls well short of what is required for an effective anti-corruption commission. The model proposed by the Government will fail to ensure corruption is stamped out at the Federal level. A toothless watchdog that fails to hold politicians to account risks further eroding confidence in our political and democratic processes.</para></quote>
<para>Can the Attorney-General explain his comments claiming that his proposed sham of an integrity commission would be 'more powerful than a royal commission', when it would not have power to investigate conduct that does not constitute a criminal offence and would not have the power to conduct public hearings, as every royal commission since Federation has had? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his contribution. The member for Isaacs has provided a contribution and asked a series of questions with respect to the government's model for a Commonwealth integrity commission, as did the member for Warringah. The member for Warringah's questions were a little bit more sober and measured, so I might deal with those first. They went to the issue of average staffing levels, and obviously the member for Warringah noted that this present budget, which we're dealing with at the moment, sets out an ASL of 76 for the Commonwealth integrity commission this financial year. She put the reasonable question on whether or not that will likely be achieved before the end of the financial year.</para>
<para>The best answer to that is that much will depend on the extent to which we can secure a passage through parliament for the legislation. There's sufficient time at the end of the consultation period to achieve that, but of course that is a matter that's very substantially out of the government's hands, insofar as we will need support in the Senate for that bill. It's obviously also the case that there are 38 ASL in this budget which go directly to ACLEI, which will establish the first stage of the development of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission, which is the expansion of ACLEI's jurisdiction, which I noted earlier.</para>
<para>With respect to the member for Isaacs's contribution, very little of which I think was particularly fair, perhaps one good example as to why we have designed the model in the way that we have goes directly to the lack of support for this model from Geoffrey Watson QC. Mr Watson was actually involved in an ICAC matter that, in my observation, illustrates the reason why we have been cautious with our model. Mr Watson is obviously not a supporter of the model that we have put forward, because it's obviously too cautious in his view and too protective of individual rights.</para>
<para>Geoffrey Watson was a former ICAC counsel assisting, and I think the issue that I'm about to raise gives a great illustration of why sober, temperate and cautious approaches, even inside a very, very powerful investigative body like this, are warranted. The former New South Wales police minister Mike Gallacher was forced from office after counsel assisting at the Independent Commission Against Corruption, Geoffrey Watson SC, made accusations of corruption that were found to be totally unwarranted. This is the same Mr Watson, referred to by the member for Isaacs, who doesn't support our model. He made those accusations by way of questioning. The assessment of Mr Watson's conduct from the ICAC's independent inspector, Bruce McClintock SC, indeed triggered the eventual clearing of Mr Gallacher's name.</para>
<para>There was no evidence presented to support the allegation that Mr Gallacher was corrupt. There was no finding of corruption against Mr Gallacher. Mr Gallacher's career was, in effect, destroyed by the line of questioning from Mr Watson. Those issues related to an incident in September 2014, when Mr Watson was questioning businessman Darren Williams at a public hearing about his relationship with Mr Gallacher and he asked Mr Williams if the two men had 'hatched a corrupt scheme to make donations to the Liberal Party'. When that was denied, Mr Watson, counsel assisting, said to Mr Williams, the witness, 'Well, can I tell you by the end of this you're going to regret having given that answer.' That questioning of a witness asserted a question as evidence. Indeed, the question effectively became treated as the conclusion and destroyed this individual's career. That was quite wrong, and it illustrates all of the problems that we are trying to avoid by having a cautious approach to public hearings on the public sector side of the model that we've developed.</para>
<para>That line of questioning prompted a warning in parliament that Mr Watson's unwarranted corruption allegation, which led to Mr Gallagher's exclusion from his own party of choice and his resignation from parliament, amounted to 'an attack on the entire democratic fabric of the state'. So I must say that Mr Watson's objections to our model tell me that the model's probably about right, because that cowboy behaviour that you had from Mr Watson in that hearing destroyed a career without due process, without any fairness and without any of the protections that all of us have enjoyed in this country for many years.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have some questions about the review of the model WHS laws and the lack of follow-up or action from the Commonwealth government in progressing the implementation of the 34 recommendations. This year, 2020, has been a year when workplace health and safety guidance has never been more important. We've seen through the pandemic the very high importance of PPE, personal protective equipment, particularly for people working in the healthcare sector. Some of the outbreaks have been as a result of insufficient PPE, particularly for people working in aged-care facilities and some other health facilities. The crisis has thrown a spotlight on many areas where the Morrison government has simply dropped the ball or failed to deliver on its announcements. The lack of progress on the implementation of the review released nearly two years ago is a case in point. We all know that these laws are reviewed every five years. The 2018 review, by Marie Boland, made a number of recommendations, most notably recommendations relating to psychosocial hazards and physiological health.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>203092</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The question is that the proposed expenditure for the Attorney-General's portfolio be agreed to.</para>
<para>Proposed expenditure agreed to.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>109</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Travel Industry, Werriwa Electorate: Community Services, NAIDOC Week</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to raise the plight of travel agents in my community. I was contacted by Connie from Casula Travel Services in late May. Connie's travel business has been operating successfully since September 1990—that's 30 years—but due to border closures and no international flights Connie's income has all but ceased. She was hoping that the budget might've brought some good news, as it did for other industries hit hard by COVID, but there's nothing in this budget for her business. While executives and shareholders benefit from JobKeeper, small businesses like Casula Travel Services have been forgotten. I wrote to the Treasurer about Connie's plight and that of other travel agents in my electorate back in May. I'm still awaiting a response. Connie deserves better. Aviation workers deserve better. The government needs to find a solution and do it now.</para>
<para>Just as libraries are places where you go to borrow a book, the local leisure centre is no longer just the pools. They are important public spaces and community hubs. Nutrition courses, health advice, creches, physical rehab and community events are all part and parcel of today's modern recreation centre. As the research becomes ever more conclusive on the link between our physical and mental health, our individual health and the health of our communities, leisure and recreation centres are becoming community hubs with wellbeing at their core. I recently had the pleasure of visiting three such centres in my region owned by Liverpool City Council and operated by Belgravia Leisure: the Whitlam Leisure Centre in Liverpool, Michael Wenden Aquatic Leisure Centre in Miller and the Michael Clarke Recreation Centre at Carnes Hill. They each have a range of facilities, programs and staff that cater to the different demographics and respective community needs. I'd like to thank Gordon and Scott from Belgravia, who took the time to show me around and speak about some of the important programs they are running and supporting. One such program they are supporting is a local Indigenous men's group. Without doubt, the highlight of the tour was being invited to sit with this group, who were meeting at the time I was there. The group meets on a weekly basis to share their highs and lows. It was an honour and a privilege to join them. Thank you to Merv and the rest of the group for allowing me to share some of my stories with you.</para>
<para>I also note that this week is NAIDOC Week. Originally scheduled for earlier this year, like so many other things NAIDOC has been impacted by COVID-19. I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the Indigenous people and organisations who live and work in Werriwa—in particular, Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council. I'd like to give my thanks to both the board of this organisation and their CEO, Melissa Williams, because they were such gracious hosts when I visited them. Keep up the good work. I note that this always was and always will be Aboriginal land.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Moncrieff Electorate: National Seniors Australia, Budget</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just last week I was in my electorate and enjoyed a beautiful, sunny Gold Coast morning with the Broadbeach branch of National Seniors Australia at the exceptional Kurrawa Surf Club. All of the seniors took great interest in how the Morrison government is strengthening Australia's economy and, of course, what we're doing around COVID-19 and how we're responding as a government, not only for its relevance to their own retirement and their positioning but also with great concern for their children and their grandchildren. A special thank you to everyone for their very warm welcome. As many people do when you're out in the community, they referred to my maiden speech. In fact, they played a short clip of Don Burrows, who I spoke of just a few weeks ago in this chamber. They played a clip of him up on the screen, which was very poignant of them to do, and I enjoyed it immensely.</para>
<para>I would like to thank Jenny Johnston; Matt Johnston, who was such a friendly fellow; Glen Ireland; Ingrid Milbourn; Chris Opat; Lawrence Opat; John Chirio; Jenny Dan; Sue Docherty; and Pam Vince, for their absolutely exceptional friendly welcome to the member for Moncrieff. I can't thank the Broadbeach National Seniors enough for the wonderful COVIDSafe pack that they presented me with, including a toilet roll for Canberra—I'm not sure how that fits in!—gloves and a mask for the plane, which I wore on the way down to Canberra. I thank them for that very much. It's important that they're aware of how the government is supporting them. We discussed some of the issues at the meeting. The budget has funded an additional 23,000 home-care packages, with $1.6 billion in measures, and an extra $3.9 billion to the NDIS, which they were very interested in hearing about. Seniors in Moncrieff are also very glad to see the government investing in skills and training, to protect and create jobs for their children and their grandchildren, and the JobKeeper measures with which we are assisting 10,400 small businesses in Moncrieff, who are the backbone of our economy there. And nearly 15,000 jobseekers in Moncrieff alone are now being paid JobSeeker and the coronavirus supplement, which they were very grateful for.</para>
<para>I once again thank the National Seniors Broadbeach branch for your continued support. I also thank all the seniors in Moncrieff for the great contributions that you continue to make to the community through meetings like the ones at the Kurrawa Surf Club and the many other surf clubs in Moncrieff. I have nine surf clubs in Moncrieff, Deputy Speaker. I wonder if I've got enough time to name them all. Let me just walk down the beach for you: North Burleigh Surf Life Saving Club, Nobby's Beach Surf Club, Mermaid Beach Surf Club, Broadbeach Surf Life Saving Club, BMD Northcliffe Surf Club, Surfers Paradise Surf Life Saving Club—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>203092</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Moncrieff was being a bit ambitious!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>South Metropolitan Perth: Public Transport</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The immediate South Metro region of Perth, including my community, has benefited from Labor's commitment to rail transport over a long period of time. Labor saved the Fremantle line from closure in the 1980s. Labor had the vision and the resolution to deliver the Mandurah line in the early 2000s. Now Labor will deliver additional rail capacity into Fremantle to remove the existing conflict between freight and passenger rail, which will enable a greater proportion of freight on rail into Fremantle port and fewer trucks on our roads. WA Labor has also committed to seeing trains built in Western Australia through the METRONET Railcar Program, which means new manufacturing jobs.</para>
<para>But there is a need to deliver second-tier public transport involving light rail or trackless trams that run east-west in the South Metro region. I'm glad the government is putting funds into the business case for a project of that kind in Scarborough, but we need some of the same support in Fremantle, Cockburn, Melville and Murdoch. I know the member for Tangney shares my view that the South Metro part of Perth we represent needs to be properly supported and not always regarded as second cab off the rank to suburbs in the north. We share an interest in seeing a dedicated public transport corridor developed between Fremantle and Murdoch. Each end of that link has an equivalent strategic heft. Each features a train station as part of the existing hard rail network. Each features a major hospital which is vital both for health services and as a centre for employment. And each features a university—Notre Dame in Fremantle and Murdoch University alongside the Fiona Stanley Hospital, forming the Murdoch Health and Knowledge Precinct. Connecting these two ends of the barbell is a no-brainer. The South Street corridor presents the perfect alignment for running high-quality second-tier public transport.</para>
<para>I applaud the work of the South West Group, on behalf of the six member councils, to develop up a compelling proof of concept. I hope the federal government can extend its view south of the river and provide support for the further development of this plan. I look forward to working to advance the project with the broader community, local governments, the WA government and, I hope, the federal government, in partnership with the member for Tangney. I know in the past some have suggested that the member for Tangney is not interested in any transport projects whatsoever, other than the discredited and comprehensively rejected Roe 8 project. I really find that hard to believe. I know the member for Tangney. He's a sensible person and he wants projects that deliver for the community he represents. I know he puts great store in respecting democratic outcomes. In the past he has called on Labor to respect this government's mandate, and there is no clearer mandate in all of Western Australia than the mandate to move on from the harmful and wasteful folly of Roe 8. It's absolutely time to get on with better east-west public transport links that will give people cheaper, lower-carbon transport options and will catalyse urban revitalisation along the way in my electorate of Fremantle and for the benefit of people in the electorate of Tangney. It's long overdue. I hope that the government can follow what it's done in the north part of Perth and give us some of the same treatment in the south.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Regional Australia: Manufacturing</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE (</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>) ( ): During the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, Taree was a major manufacturing hub, with Bonds and Hot Tuna making clothes, Goninan making trains, Peerless processing milk, and Stevacraft, Britax and Viison Kitchens all manufacturing there. Today, amongst those, we've got Stevacraft, Jamestrong, Speedflow, Bayview, aluminium processing and all the best and latest boat building. In the post-COVID recovery, this government has a plan to reinvigorate Australian manufacturing across many industries. Now is the time for Taree to welcome back Australian manufacturing. With our $1.3 billion Modern Manufacturing Initiative, coupled with our JobMaker hiring credit and funding of highly subsidised apprentices and cheaper training programs, it's an opportune time for businesses to look at re-establishing in Taree and in regional Australia. Unemployment levels for adults and youth are above the state average in the Manning and the Mid-Coast region, and we need to bring back manufacturing.</para>
<para>Everyone has to realise that we can have every will in the world, every program for training and every sort of cash boost for businesses, but manufacturing has embedded in it, like everything in the modern industrial world, oodles and oodles of electricity. Water to a farm and growing crops is like electricity to modern manufacturing. This whole building, the whole modern industrial world has energy embedded in it. We are working to address this. We are striving, with policies, to make electricity cheaper and more reliable for industry.</para>
<para>We employ about 860,000 people in manufacturing. COVID has decimated some of the other non-manufacturing centres. We realise that we're good at manufacturing and processing food. All our raw materials could be processed here, rather than sending raw ores overseas. The $1.3 modern manufacturing plan will target six national manufacturing areas: food and beverage manufacturing—and we have one of the biggest coastal abattoirs, in Wingham, and we have Bayview Foods, who are putting frozen foods on everyone's table; medical products; recycling; clean energy; defence industry and space. We have a lot of defence contractors in this region, and this plan will help them as well.</para>
<para>The JobMaker platform is delivering outcomes. As we recover from COVID, it is really time for us to focus on the essential—and that is cheap, reliable energy—so manufacturing can thrive.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mayo Electorate: Exports</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>South Australia's exports to China in 2019-20 were worth $3 billion. South Australian wine exports make up over a third of that sum, with local wine exports in China growing from $330 million in 2014 to $1.2 billion in 2019. My electorate is home to several of South Australia's wine regions—Adelaide Hills, McLaren Vale, Currency Creek, Southern Fleurieu, Langhorne Creek and Kangaroo Island. We produce award-winning wines in Mayo—I would say that we produce the best. We have extraordinary cellar doors showcasing our South Australia produce and the industry are major employers in the region. Unsurprisingly, the risk of Chinese tariffs is of significant concern to my constituents, especially in light of the situation facing winemakers where Chinese tariffs on US wine have gone from 14 per cent up to 106 per cent today.</para>
<para>Sadly, the trade risks extend to our other primary producers in Mayo, including seafood and wheat, and right across the horticultural industry. That said, one cherry grower that I spoke to today is optimistic about the future and is eager to take advantage of new and emerging markets, but stressed that, without further government assistance, South Australian producers are likely to miss out. For example, there is currently a weekly International Freight Assistance Mechanism Flight, generally known as IFAM flights, from Australia to Korea. Should trade disruptions continue, exporters say that the demand for Australian fruit is high enough to warrant at least three flights a week. Meanwhile Vietnam and potentially Thailand are emerging as lucrative markets for stone fruit, but at present there are no IFAM flights available for exporters.</para>
<para>I'm calling on both the South Australian government and the federal government to consider what steps they can take to support our primary producers and our winemakers to diversity their exports and to be able to offset the economic consequences of potential export bans with China. We can't just sit and wait and hope that things will be okay. I know that many of the growers in my electorate have put their hands in their own pockets and spent considerable sums of money going over to Vietnam, Korea and Thailand, building new relationships, and I think it really is time for the state government in South Australia and the federal government to be supporting our growers to diversify the markets that we export to. We want our growers to be able to export our produce. It helps Australia's bottom line. But we really do need a helping hand at this time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cowper Electorate: Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today is certainly a day for quiet reflection. We of course observed Remembrance Day at 11.00 am, taking the time to honour and thank the more than 102,000 Australian men and women who've lost their lives over the past century serving our country in wars and peacekeeping missions. But, as you know all too well, Deputy Speaker Gillespie, there has been another reason for reflection in our electorates over the past week.</para>
<para>Last Saturday, 8 November, marked one year since our Black Summer bushfires. It was a horrific windy day that saw 17 emergency-level fires burning across New South Wales grow to 94 blazes in a single day. Some of those fires were in my electorate: Brill Brill and Coombes Gap, west of Port Macquarie; Carrai East, west of Kempsey; Kian Road, west of Macksville; and Bees Nest, west of Dorrigo. Sadly, that night, the Carrai East fire claimed the life of 58-year-old Willawarrin resident Barry Parsons. Over the next few days, fires ravaged through tens of thousands of hectares of bush and grassland, and many residents fled their homes for evacuation centres, with little more than the shirts on their backs and their pets. In total, 156 homes in my electorate alone were lost, with a further 53 damaged, and 353 outbuildings were destroyed, with a further 117 damaged.</para>
<para>I would like to again thank the Rural Fire Service volunteers, not only from my electorate but from across the nation, as well as volunteers from New Zealand and the United States, who bravely put their lives on the line to save ours. I remember travelling to Willawarrin and Bellbrook just after the road reopened and seeing the blackened and scorched earth all the way up to the back door of farmhouse after farmhouse after farmhouse, each property saved by the heroics of the RFS volunteers. I'd also like to thank all of those who spent countless hours at emergency centres and those who cooked food, donated goods or simply provided emotional support. I thank all five local councils, charity organisations like Lions Club and Rotary, and many, many others. In particular, I'd like to recognise Charles Sturt University, who at their own expense provided over 3,000 individual accommodation nights to interstate RFS volunteers.</para>
<para>I was extremely proud of my electorate and the way they responded to such adversity. Their courage was commendable, as was their sense of community, and I thank them for it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>United States Presidential Election</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WATTS</name>
    <name.id>193430</name.id>
    <electorate>Gellibrand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to rise today to offer my congratulations to President-elect Joe Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris on winning the 2020 US presidential election. As Joe Biden said in his acceptance speech, 'America is at its best when it is a beacon for the globe, when it leads not by the example of its power but by the power of its example.' Joe Biden's election win is a powerful example to the world of how we must put jobs at the heart of our response to climate change. Joe Biden took the most ambitious climate change policy we've seen in the US to the American people, and it was endorsed at the 2020 election. It was not just a target for zero emissions by 2050, but zero emissions from the electricity sector by 2035 through massive investment in clean energy. They didn't campaign on stopping things; they campaigned on creating things, using government leadership to create 10 million clean-economy jobs—not only investing in clean-energy infrastructure but also investing in state-level, low-carbon manufacturing strategies to help manufacturers grow in a clean economy; investing in research and development needed to create middleclass jobs in new clean-economy industries; investing in the education and training needed to enable people to make the most of these opportunities. Election day was a resounding endorsement of their strategy—a five-million-vote lead in the popular vote. People recognise the clear and present threat climate change poses to our planet and they want to see action. They have seen the devastating impacts of climate change, just as we have here, from superstorms to the deadly California wildfires.</para>
<para>This is not about conservative politics against aggressive politics; it's about leadership. Around the world, governments, including conservative ones, are acknowledging the need to take strong action on climate change and they are acting. In fact, the United Kingdom, a great friend of Australia, is a leader in this field. The Johnson conservative government has committed to net zero emissions by 2050 and has cemented it in law. The European Union, India, Japan, China and South Korea have also committed to net zero emissions targets in the future. They all now have a stronger commitment to reaching net zero emissions than the Australian government. They are offering science, while the Morrison government denies it. They're offering hope, while the Morrison government pedals fear. While the Morrison government plays politics of fear on climate change, the world's largest superpower and Australia's three biggest importers of coal are leaving us behind. The Morrison government is isolated on climate change internationally. Our friends are urging us to take bold action on climate change and our best customers have given notice.</para>
<para>While the Morrison government lags behind, an Albanese Labor government would take strong action on climate change. We have a clear target to tackle climate change—net zero carbon emissions by 2050—and, in the budget reply, the federal Labor leader started to show how we will create jobs while achieving this target, launching our $20 billion Rewiring the Nation policy to upgrade our electricity transmission system for renewable energy and to create thousands of new jobs, particularly in regional areas along the way. Australia can be a renewable energy superpower, and the Australian public are looking to the people in this place to show the leadership necessary to get us there.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONNELLY</name>
    <name.id>282984</name.id>
    <electorate>Stirling</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to build on the previous member's passion for the environment and talk about an initiative this government is getting behind which will reduce congestion on the roads and be a cleaner, greener method of bulk transport. Part of the role of government is to look ahead at innovations that are available which change the nature of how we do business, make people's lives easier, save money and continue to deliver essential services. One of those critical areas is the provision of transport infrastructure. I'm very pleased that the Morrison government is delivering $84½ million in critical infrastructure improvements in my electorate of Stirling. Forty-five million dollars has been provided for a massive improvement to the Stirling bus station on Cedric Street; $17½ million has been provided over and above $65 million for the Stephenson Avenue extension project; and I'm pleased to be able to say that this list now includes $2 million in funding for a business case for a trackless tram between the main north-south Mitchell Freeway and Glendalough Station at the beautiful Scarborough Beach.</para>
<para>Part of the argument made by me, the neighbouring member for Curtin, Celia Hammond, and the City of Stirling in requesting funds has been that this is the only location in WA and, as I understand it, the nation, which is shovel-ready for this type of project. The city has done years of rezoning for the seven-kilometre route between the heavy rail line out to Scarborough Beach, at the famous foreshore, which now boasts a $100 million redevelopment. I would now like to acknowledge the City of Stirling and its visionary leadership under Mayor Mark Irwin, Deputy Mayor Bianca Sandri, and CEO, Stuart Jardine. In my term so far as the federal member for Stirling, it's been really encouraging and enjoyable to work with the City of Stirling to deliver and improve the lives of people in Stirling.</para>
<para>Trackless tram will add another fantastic improvement. Trackless tram is an innovative technology which seeks to be the best of both worlds, sitting somewhere on the spectrum between light rail and buses. With both heavy and light rail being incredibly expensive and disruptive to install, running into hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, trackless tram runs on painted lines and is electric-battery powered. That makes it much cheaper to install for potentially the same kind of benefit, compared to light rail and even more traditional track lines. To progress this initiative, the next step is to fund a business case. This will study the viability of this trackless-tram project. I'm very grateful to the urban infrastructure minister, Alan Tudge, for his vision and leadership in funding this innovative project which aims to deliver the right solution for Australia's future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>McMahon Electorate: State Planning</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Berejiklian Liberal government in New South Wales is treating the people of Horsley Park, Cecil Park and Mount Vernon with contempt. The new state planning instrument—the State Environmental Planning Policy (Western Sydney Aerotropolis) 2020—overrides council powers and removes the rights of residents retrospectively. I want to tell the people of Horsley Park, Cecil Park and Mount Vernon that I am on their side. While this is a state matter, I have been particularly disappointed to see the Liberal state member for Mulgoa inactive on this issue and in fact misleading the people of our community.</para>
<para>I am more than happy to criticise the Morrison government when they've done something wrong, as you might have noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker Gillespie. I am happy to give them a free character assessment. But I'm going to defend the Morrison government against the attack on them by the state member for Mulgoa, the Liberal member for Mulgoa. The member for Mulgoa has written to people who have raised this issue with her. She has said, 'I want to provide further clarity and important information on the changes.' Well, I'm afraid it doesn't provide much clarity. It provides disinformation, because the state member for Mulgoa goes on to say, 'The federal government has determined to restrict noise-sensitive development.' Well, I've got news for the member for Mulgoa, this is a decision of the state government, and the give-away is in the name: it's called the 'state' environmental planning policy. There's a big hint there. I will defend the Morrison government against this attack on them by the Liberal state member for Mulgoa, Tanya Davies. She should be going into the Premier's office and demanding that this document—this planning restriction—be ripped up. It should be rescinded. It has been done with no consultation with the people of Fairfield city, despite Ms Davies's claims to the contrary. There has been no consultation with the residents.</para>
<para>Now, everybody accepts that there shouldn't be high-rises under the flight path—although there are under the flight paths of other airports. This is not about that. Ms Davies has said, 'This will not apply to renovations, extensions or replacements of existing homes.' That's good news. You can redo your kitchen. That's great news. But the families who planned to subdivide to provide a future for their family are having their rights removed. I have been inundated by complaints from residents. I won't read them all out, but they are very angry at the way they've been treated by the Liberal government in New South Wales, and they have every right to be. I've started a petition to overturn this state environmental planning policy. It should be overturned. They should start again. They should start from scratch. They should give the people of Horsley Park their basic rights back to subdivide their five-acre lots down to 2½-acre lots. One for each child has been the plan for many families over decades. These people bought their farms 30 and 40 years ago, and since October this year their rights have been stripped away. Were they asked their opinion before it was done? They were not. The Berejiklian Liberal government should hang their heads in shame. The state member should hold her government to account, and she should stop blaming her federal colleagues.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Melbourne Airport Rail Link</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DRUM</name>
    <name.id>56430</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Right at the moment the federal government has $5 billion on table for the Melbourne Airport rail link project—a train service to be delivered from Melbourne CBD out to Tullamarine. This $5 billion is expected to be matched by the Victorian government. When this project was announced it was expected that the project would total around $10 billion. Whilst the project is predominantly about getting travellers to and from Melbourne Airport, it has the capacity to do much, much more. In fact, the Premier of Victoria said on 23 November 2017, when this was announced, 'This will be about a rail line connecting Melbourne to the airport, but it will also able to deliver a better, faster, more reliable regional rail service. It needs to be done properly.' I'm quoting the Premier word for word here. 'It can give Melbourne's booming west access to electrified metro rail services'—and we all know how much huge growth is occurring in Werribee, Melton and Sunbury—'Ultimately this means we can deliver real high-speed rail to regional Victoria.' Those were the Premier's words. 'This jumbled network of regional and metropolitan tram lines in Melbourne's west means that we can't deliver this properly.' This project was all about separating the Metro line from the regional lines and making this dream a reality. Beginning with Geelong and then to Ballarat, our plan will be to look at how we can deliver high-speed rail to connect all of Victoria. 'Imagine travelling from Geelong to Melbourne in under 40 minutes,' the Premier said. This is the kind of commitment a growing population needs.</para>
<para>Then on 16 October 2018, with regard to the Western Rail Plan, Minister Jacinta Allan spoke about how this plan will deliver the transformation of our state that it needs. She spoke about fast rail to Geelong and Ballarat, all a part of the Melbourne Airport Rail project. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's only Labor that will get on and deliver true fast rail to our regional centres and create thousands of new jobs in the process—</para></quote>
<para>doing all of this in amongst Melbourne Airport rail. Jacinta Allan went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Western Rail Plan is one of the vital projects our growing city and state needs …</para></quote>
<para>It's part of our suburban rail and road blitz.</para>
<para>On 16 October 2018, the government also said they would put:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… additional tracks between Sunshine and CBD, most likely through a new tunnel, which would also be used by airport-bound trains and integrated with the Airport Rail Link.</para></quote>
<para>So now we find out all of these statements are just lies. Premier Andrews and Jacinta Allan are going back on their word to build a rail system for all. They are simply not going to do it. They are going to damage the people in the west and they're going to damage the people in regional Victoria.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>JobSeeker Payment, NAIDOC Week</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm speaking up today for all the people in my electorate who are relying on JobSeeker whose needs have just been callously disregarded by this government and this Prime Minister. We now know that the government plans to cut the JobSeeker allowance and that the men and women relying on this payment will receive $100 less a fortnight.</para>
<para>This is devastating news for the 1.6 million people around the country who so desperately rely on the payment and it is devastating news for the 7,000 people in Jagajaga relying on JobSeeker to help them feed their families and pay their bills. That's an increase of more than 4,000 people in my electorate who are relying on JobSeeker since the start of this pandemic and just shows you how much this payment is still needed.</para>
<para>These people are out of work and looking for a job in a highly competitive market, and this is a time when they need more support and not less. People in my electorate have been telling me about the difficult juggling act they're trying to perform. They feel that any cuts in this payment are going to mean decisions around skipping a meal, maybe rationing medications or not being able to put petrol in their car. Cuts to the payment are not going to help these people find a job in an environment where so many people are unemployed and employers still don't feel confident about the future. Cuts to this payment are not going to help our local small businesses who need business and need support as they're re-emerging from lockdown. This government should extend the JobSeeker supplement at the current rate of $240 until March next year. It should also guarantee a permanent increase to the base rate of JobSeeker so that people can have some security going forward.</para>
<para>This week is NAIDOC Week, and I pay my respects to the traditional owners of the land, the Ngunnawal and the Ngambri people here. In this week of celebration I pay my respects to First Nations peoples across our country. I pay my respects to the traditional owners of the land of the electorate of Jagajaga, the Wurundjeri people.</para>
<para>The theme for this year's NAIDOC Week is: Always Was, Always Will Be. It goes to the heart of the unfinished business of this country. It's appropriate that, together with so many of my Labor colleagues, this week I recommit myself to the Uluru Statement from the Heart and all that it encompasses; a voice to this parliament, so that our First Nations people are heard and have the influence that they should have over their own destinies; and a treaty, a makarrata or truth-telling process, because there is so much that is still unsaid in this country. There is so much that we need to heal and we will be stronger for doing that work as a nation coming together, being honest about our past and giving Aboriginal people a genuine say in their future. I pay respects to the First Nations people who have occupied and cared for this continent for more than 65,000 years.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland State Election</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ENTSCH</name>
    <name.id>7K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise this afternoon to pay tribute to the local LNP candidates Sam Marino, Linda Cooper, Gerry Vallianos and Edward 'Nipper' Brown who contested the recent Queensland state elections in various seats across my electorate. Obviously the result wasn't one that they desired but it's not to say that they didn't give their all. All four ran very solid local campaigns but it just wasn't mean to be. As those here this afternoon would attest to, when you put your name forward for political office you are doing so because you want to make a difference for your community. Sam, Linda, Gerry and Nipper were no different. All four came from diverse backgrounds and all of them had positive things to offer in their respective communities.</para>
<para>What struck me about all four candidates was their leadership qualities and burning desire to serve their respective communities. Take Linda for example. She stepped down from her very safe regional councillor position to contest the election because she wanted to make a difference. The same for goes for Nipper, who for the past six years served the community at Mareeba Shire Council. He too wanted to make a difference. Sam and Gerry are successful and respected Cairns businessmen in their own rights, but outside of business hours they both hold leadership positions with local community organisations and dedicate a large amount of their time volunteering and serving in their local communities.</para>
<para>It is always easy to forget those who weren't successful in an election. I believe it's very important to acknowledge them, as it is to also acknowledge the eventual winners. Although they weren't successful this time around, I know that Sam, Linda, Gerry and Nipper will continue to serve their community, as they have done so before. There are communities right across Queensland, and Australia more generally, that have their own Sams, Lindas, Gerrys and Nippers all striving to make a positive difference in the community that they call home. Irrespective of what political party that you are aspiring to represent, I think it is very, very important to acknowledge that they put a hell of a lot on the line when they step out there to wear that badge and look to take on the role. In my view, one of the very best things that we can say about our country is that those people are prepared to get out there—not just sit on the sidelines and be critical—and give it a go. I say thank you to all of those candidates who have made an effort, whether they succeeded or not.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Calwell Electorate: Diwali</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a very large Indian community that has been settling in Calwell over the past number of years. It's a very vibrant community and it has chosen to settle in Melbourne's northern suburbs, bringing with it its skills, in particular its entrepreneurial skills, and aspirations. The Indian community are hard-working migrants with young families beginning new lives here in their new homeland. Like other migrants and refugees before them they are making their mark, especially in the expanding suburbs Craigieburn, Merrifield, Mickleham and Kalkallo.</para>
<para>I always look forward to joining them in all of their celebrations. Their most significant celebration is coming up this weekend, as my local community prepares to celebrate the annual festival of Diwali, which is a festival that marks the victory of good over evil. Diwali is a festival of lights, love and happiness, and it brings hope and lots of excitement into people's home and to their lives. It's a time when people decorate their homes with lights and flowers. It's a time for sharing and spending time with family, friends and neighbours.</para>
<para>This year it will be a celebration that will be very different, given the COVID pandemic and the restrictions that the pandemic has forced upon us all. Like all other events during this COVID period we be will celebrating Diwali in a COVID-safe manner this year. Our festivities will move to online platforms, enabling family and friends to meet online. Thankfully, however, homes will still be decorated with lights. The newly instituted online Diwali lighting competition will give everyone the opportunity to showcase the cultural traditions of Diwali, making for a visually spectacular neighbourhood show. The Diwali lights competition has been organised by the local Hume Diwali Mela, which is run by residents Raj Mann and Nikki Jain, and it's supported by the Hume City Council.</para>
<para>This has been a difficult year for everyone because of the COVID pandemic, and it has been especially hard for my local community with the restrictions and lockdowns placing lots of pressure on people's lives and their livelihoods. Many in my community have lost their jobs, their businesses have suffered, and we all, young and old, have felt the anguish and the strain on our mental health and wellbeing. It has been a devastating time. So to my local community, and in fact to everyone here as well, I say this Diwali let us give thanks for all we hold dear: our health, our family, our friends and the grace of God, which never ends. Happy Diwali 2020 to everyone.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Robertson, Mr Bruce, OAM</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FALINSKI</name>
    <name.id>G86</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to the member for Calwell. I join her in wishing the Indian community a happy Diwali as well.</para>
<para>Growing up on the northern beaches, I've witnessed the formidable work of our surf lifesaving clubs. Their volunteers form an integral part of the Mackellar constituency—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Thistlethwaite</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hear hear!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FALINSKI</name>
    <name.id>G86</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and also the constituency of Kingsford Smith—and their mission to save lives, create great Australians and build better communities could not be more fitting. Bruce Robertson, Australia oldest surf lifesaver, hung up his cap this year at the age of 87. He has served my electorate for almost eight decades through his work with the Mona Vale and Bilgola surf clubs. Bruce has tirelessly devoted himself to helping the community, and a few minutes of conversation with him are enough to determine that his dedication and charisma make him an outstanding role model for our younger lifesavers.</para>
<para>Wider Australian society has also benefited from Bruce's hard work and passion. He was previously chairman of Taronga Zoo and co-chair of the Royal Botanic Garden. In these roles, Bruce was responsible for developing Sydney's coastal walkways, expanding Dubbo zoo and raising $7 million for Taronga's rhinoceros compound and species-saving program. Mr Deputy Speaker Gillespie, I know of your great interest in zoos.</para>
<para>Bruce attended Rozelle Public School and North Sydney Boys High School. He was a messenger boy for the Air Raid Organisation at Roseville during World War II. During this time he also commenced surf lifesaving. At the age of 18 he attended the Royal Military College at Duntroon, and graduated four years later as a lieutenant, while also serving as flag-bearer for Bilgola Surf Life Saving Club. After resigning from his commission, Bruce worked in a number of jobs such as for James Hardie, the fibre cement manufacturers, as well as becoming a senior executive at Hardie Grant Books.</para>
<para>Remarkably, throughout his working and family life, Bruce managed to maintain his community involvement and status as a distinguished surf lifesaver. He rowed at Bilgola while helping to construct the Bilgola club house, as well as playing rugby for and serving as president of the Gordon Rugby Club. He also held a number of positions such as volunteer director and treasurer of Keep Australia Beautiful, a not-for-profit group committed to conserving Australia's natural beauty and tackling issues such as littering. In 2008 Bruce was made an Order of Australia member as part of the Queen's Birthday honours for service to the community, particularly through the Keep Australia Beautiful program.</para>
<para>Bruce Robertson is certainly an inspiring character. His motto—to give back to society as society gives to you—has made him an exemplar Australian and an exemplar member of the Mackellar community. We would all do well to learn from his inspiring example, and I am proud to commend Bruce for his efforts over the years.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A core Australian value is the value of community, of chipping in and doing your bit. The member for Mackellar has just mentioned surf lifesaving as the embodiment of that value of community here in Australia. I joined the surf lifesaving movement when I was 13 years old, my father before me was involved. He always said to me, 'You've got to chip in and do your bit.' When it comes to solving problems, it's inherent in Australians to do their bit as well, and we saw that during the bushfires last summer, when all Australians came together to help out during that difficult time.</para>
<para>But what's disappointing is that this government, the Morrison government, is not chipping in to do its bit to tackle the biggest crisis that the globe is facing: climate change. By failing to have a plan to reduce carbon emissions in Australia, this government is abandoning that great Australian tradition of community and of chipping in to do your bit. Unfortunately, under this government, carbon pollution had been increasing again before the COVID period, and that means that Australia is not doing its bit as other nations are.</para>
<para>With the election of Joe Biden as the United States President over the weekend, it has left the Morrison government stranded on the global stage when it comes to climate action. The President-elect is seeking to restore American leadership on climate change around the world. That's driven by a commitment to net zero emissions by 2050. Over the last couple of weeks we've seen Japan, China and South Korea also commit to net zero emissions by the middle of the century. The UK and the European Union, among others, were already there, and we recently saw the UK Prime Minister urging and encouraging the Australian Prime Minister and his government to do the same thing—to do the right thing by the international community and chip in and do Australia's bit. But, yet again, this government drops the ball when it comes to taking action. The global community moves on and the Morrison government remains stuck in its own swamp of climate change scepticism and denialism. The Morrison government refuses to adopt net zero emissions by 2050, even though over 60 per cent of Australia's trade is with countries that have adopted the target.</para>
<para>This government has had 22 different energy policies over the course of the last eight years. The Prime Minister continues to cling to Tony Abbott's old notions of fighting the future. Every state and territory in the country is committed to net zero because it's the right thing to do. It represents chipping in and doing your bit by the Australian community. With their antirenewables ideology, they've also shown that we'll end up with higher electricity prices and higher emissions into the future.</para>
<para>This week we saw the New South Wales Liberal government expose their colleagues by announcing plans for 12 gigawatts of renewable energy generation into the future. Every other government in this country and every other Australian is committed to chipping in and doing their bit. Why won't the Morrison government does their bit on climate change?</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wide Bay Electorate: Bushfire Response</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This time last year Australia was heading into one of the worst fire seasons in recent memory. The blazes had a deep and lasting impact socially, environmentally and economically. While it may have been over shadowed by the COVID-19 pandemic, bushfire recovery is very much still underway, and the Morrison government is committed to sticking with fire affected regions for the long haul. We're also supporting the development of world-first technologies that help detect and fight bushfires and put out the blazes before they can take hold, and Noosa, in Wide Bay, is leading the way with cutting-edge innovation.</para>
<para>I've announced $200,000 for the Peregian Digital Hub to deliver their world-first commercialisation program for promising bushfire resilience technologies. A total $100,000 of this is through the Morrison government's Incubator Support initiative's expert in residence program. This will help fund to FireTech Connect to bring together mentors, business partners and procurement experts to help more than 30 companies fast-track their solutions into commercialisation and deployment to protect regional communities in Australia and abroad from fire.</para>
<para>A $100,000 grant through the Regional Tourism Bushfire Recovery Grants program will help the start-ups put their technologies on the world stage, with a fire tech international conference planned for late 2021, showcasing state-of-the-art bushfire technology solutions to an international audience of local, state and federal emergency response agencies.</para>
<para>Noosa tech company Fireball International has received $500,000 through the Entrepreneurs' Program for an innovative new system that could detect bushfires in as little as three minutes, allowing for rapid response and control. This innovative technology will significantly reduce both the human and financial cost of bushfires such as those seen in Noosa and, on a greater scale, across Australia last summer.</para>
<para>I also acknowledge the great work of McDermott Aviation, which, together with Helitak, is at the forefront of aerial firefighting. Helitak at Noosa has received almost $500,000 to expand its capacity, providing a cheap, safe and efficient way to enable the Super Puma helicopters to be used in aerial firefighting. These technology solutions to fighting bushfires could have a significant economic and social benefit not only for Australia but globally. These projects will boost the region's technology sector and get innovative companies and visitors back to the Noosa area, strengthening our economy and creating local jobs.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gilmore Electorate: Rural Fire Service</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When a community has had a harrowing year, like our community on the New South Wales South Coast has, it isn't surprising that we notice more than ever those who are there for us. For our community, this year that has been all of our emergency services, but particularly the local Rural Fire Service brigades. They are our community's unsung heroes and we are very grateful for everything they have done for us. The Rural Fire Service is primarily a volunteer organisation. The brigades consist of members of our community who give up their own time to help and protect others. Heartbreakingly, many of them lost their own homes while they were out protecting others.</para>
<para>Since the bushfires, I have visited many local brigades. Last week, I added another two to that list, and I just want to share some of the reflections from those visits. On Wednesday, I visited the Malua Bay brigade. Malua Bay was one of the hardest hit areas of my electorate. In that suburb alone, 171 homes were destroyed or significantly damaged. The RFS shed itself was almost lost and several members' cars were burnt out while parked there while they were out on the firetruck. Members there wanted to share their thoughts with me on the royal commission, including their concerns that we have lost our ability to properly manage the land. Captain Ian and the team presented me with a beautiful book the brigade put together to commemorate their experiences, which I have proudly displayed in my Parliament House office. Thank you to Ian and Graeme for inviting me and to all the members who came to say hello.</para>
<para>On Friday, I visited another of the hardest-hit brigades, the Conjola RFS. In the suburbs of Conjola Park, Conjola and Lake Conjola alone, 203 homes were destroyed or significantly damaged—and the brigade's responsibilities stretch much further than that. The bushfire was so fierce there was little anyone could do to stop it. The brigade itself described it as a ferocious firestorm of the likes never seen before. The villages were cut off for eight days with no power and no communications. It was an overwhelming and traumatic experience for many of them. But, in some positive news, the brigade has had an influx of new members, including three new women. Thank you to Deputy Captain Geoff and all of the members who greeted me. It was my pleasure to hear your story. Both of these brigades are strong and resilient, but they want to see change so that they aren't ever put in that situation again. I stand with them. Once more, thank you to all of our Rural Fire Service workers and volunteers for everything you have done this year and always.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Disability Enterprises</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHRISTENSEN</name>
    <name.id>230485</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>More than 20,000 Australians with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities are currently working in Australian Disability Enterprises, or ADEs, such as the Endeavour Foundation. These ADEs are not-for-profit commercial operations set up specifically to provide a meaningful and positive employment experience for intellectually disabled people who choose to work. These jobs are tailored to accommodate each individual's capabilities and to maximise their job satisfaction. It gives them confidence, gives them independence, gives them pride, gives them a sense of accomplishment and gives them a regular social outlet.</para>
<para>Anyone who has ever taken the leap from education to employment will know how important the early working years are for building a person's self-worth as well as developing new skills. The workers are also paid. Not a minimum wage, but a wage based on competency under Fair Work's Supported Employment Services Award. Most of the individuals working in ADEs also receive a disability pension, but the supported wage system gives them the opportunity to earn and it furthers their sense of independence.</para>
<para>As mentioned, these ADEs are not for profit. If there's any surplus from their operations, it's simply used to enhance working facilities and the whole operation. Most people who hear about enterprises like the Endeavour Foundation and the great work they're doing think this is a win-win. But there are always some who can't see the positives beyond their own soapbox. Certain activist groups have been mounting legal challenges aimed at discontinuing the great work of these ADEs. They're alleging that those with intellectual disabilities are being exploited and want to see them paid the full national minimum wage or removed from specialised employment altogether. These allegations are totally absurd. These are Australians who have chosen to work in enterprises that are set up specifically for people with disabilities to have the opportunity to work. I've been to the workshop of the Endeavour Foundation in Mackay and I've met with people who work in that workshop. Some of them were in tears at the prospect of their workplace being shut down—and it is a very real prospect. If these enterprises are forced to pay minimum wage to all of their employees, regardless of competency, they will simply fall over. All eyes will then turn to the federal government to foot the bill, but I've got to tell you: we are in the midst of a pandemic which has put the government—or should I say the taxpayer—the best part of $1 trillion in debt. There is already significant government funding going into disability services through the NDIS. We do not have the luxury or the finances to cover further ongoing operational costs by forever subsidising employment for intellectually disabled Australians. The current formula works for employees. It works for ADEs. There's no reason to change it. These people deserve the opportunity to work and to be valued. Do not take that opportunity away from them.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Remembrance Day</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I was privileged to attend the Australian War Memorial's national Remembrance Day service, where my heart was literally bursting as my region was so ably represented. Firstly, Worimi man Leading Aircraftman Tarryn Roach played the didgeridoo for the ceremony. Then our very own local journalist Scott Bevan did a magnificent job as master of ceremonies. Well done to you both.</para>
<para>Remembrance Day is a special time for our country. It's a time for reflecting on our past and asking ourselves collectively what it means to be Australian and what sort of country we want to live in. The reason for its significance lies in the history of World War I, where 60,000 Australians perished and a further 156,000 were wounded. It was 102 years ago today that the Armistice was signed, and this day became known later as Remembrance Day. In that terrible conflict, our fledgling democracy, considered by many in Mother England as a colonial outpost, took its place in the wider world as a nation. But we paid a terrible price for that. Many soldiers were Indigenous. Many were immigrants. Many were first-generation Australians whose parents had come to Australia for a new life. They all united and fought for the future, and that future is you and me, us here today, 100-plus years on. We mark the day by wearing the red poppy, which was a common sight on the landscapes of World War I, particularly on the Western Front.</para>
<para>In my electorate, our links to Defence are very strong. I am just a couple of kilometres away, as the crow flies, from RAAF Base Williamtown, the leading jet fighter base for the F-35s here in Australia, and I am particularly proud of the work that is done there. I'd like to take this opportunity to pass on my respects to those who are serving or who have served, both living and deceased. Today our many RSL subbranches held ceremonies—with, by necessity, limited numbers—to pay their respects and give their unconditional support to those who risked their lives so that we can live our own as freely as we do. Of course, sending our forces into conflict should not be taken lightly, and the lessons of the past will help guide future decisions. Australia is a peace-loving country, and our aim to assist in fostering peace is one that is admirable. We want a more peaceful world. Take the example of our serving members who are always there to lend their considerable talents and energies to Aussies during drought, floods and fire. Thank you to those reservists who, whilst having a full workload, then go and help fellow Australians in need. That is indeed a wonderful feat as well, and I pay my respects to you too on this Remembrance Day.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>NAIDOC Week: Walker, Poppy Harry Mundine</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This week is NAIDOC Week, a time to celebrate the history and culture of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I would like to use this opportunity during NAIDOC Week to acknowledge a wonderful elder from my community, Poppy Harry Mundine Walker. Poppy Harry is a greatly respected senior elder. Born in 1940, he has spent his life sharing stories about his family history to ensure younger generations know and understand Aboriginal culture.</para>
<para>A few year ago he was involved in a film project that captured the stories and history of the Tabulam area. They created six DVDs to be used by schools as an educational resource. Harry has also been involved in workshops across Bundjalung country, with the aim of ensuring these stories are passed on to future generations. Importantly, he does great work at Tabulam Public School, teaching language and culture lessons and taking students on excursions. He is also an ordained Anglican Church minister and one of the founders of the Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress.</para>
<para>Poppy Harry has lived in Tabulam all his life with his wife Annabel. Their children, Steven, Marty, Tony, Donny, Vanessa and Janine, and his many grandchildren also live in the area. Poppy Harry has many brothers and sisters, including John, Bow, George, Gloria, Francis, Peter and Lewis. It is an extensive list.</para>
<para>Poppy Harry is also an extremely proud descendant of Harry Joseph Mundine. This is his great-great grandfather. Harry Joseph Mundine was born in 1860. He was an outstanding horseman and an outstanding athlete. Many people would know General Sir Henry George Chauvel. He was also born in Tabulam and was appointed to command the 1st Light Horse Brigade. Chauvel asked Harry to mentor his children, teaching them horsemanship and an understanding of Aboriginal and Christian beliefs. This was a highly symbolic position at the time. Harry is still known by many as one of the first people to recognise the value of reconciliation, and was a great example of how both cultures can work together successfully. Harry Mundine married Aboriginal Queen Ponjam, and it is through this line that the Walkers are descended. Their home was originally known as the 'big house' and was where many of the children were born.</para>
<para>Poppy Harry and Harry Mundine have incredible stories. It is wonderful to acknowledge them this week in this place for the community leaders that they were and are.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On this hallowed day of reflection and in NAIDOC Week, I would like to raise the service of our First Nations soldiers, Australians who throughout the First World War admirably fought for a nation that, sadly, refused to acknowledge their existence.</para>
<para>The division of Bean, which I represent, is named after Australia's great World War I historian Charles Bean. His legacy is profound and it reminds us that history matters. Indeed, in recent years, we have seen a commendable effort from the Australian War Memorial, an institution conceived by Bean, to cast a light on these untold stories. Last year, it was a privileged to be at the dedication of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sculpture For Our Country in the grounds of the memorial.</para>
<para>Revealing the true history of our nation and challenging a once accepted view of our war service is critical. Truth-telling across all parts of our story is critical. Over a thousand Indigenous Australians fought in the First World War. They came from a section of society with few rights, low wages and poor living conditions. Most Indigenous Australians could not vote and none were counted in the census. Many Indigenous Australians denied their Aboriginality and kinship to enlist, serve, fight, suffer and die for the nation that had taken so much from them.</para>
<para>I would like to mention some of these First Nations soldiers that served Australia—soldiers such as Private Richard Martin, who served with the 47th Infantry Battalion in France, was wounded three times, yet continued to fight on. In order to serve, Private Martin lied about his ancestry, claiming to be born in New Zealand—in truth, hailing from Queensland. Private Martin was finally killed in March 1918. Then there was Corporal Harry Thorpe. Born in Victoria, Thorpe enlisted and set sail from Melbourne in 1916 before joining up with the 7th Battalion in France. During operations near Ypres in 1917, Corporal Thorpe demonstrated conspicuous courage and leadership, being awarded the military medal and receiving a promotion.</para>
<para>They were men who endured the same hardship, chaos and tribulation as their fellow soldiers, yet for decades, as we revered the sacrifice of others, they remained banished to the shadows of history. Unfortunately, despite Indigenous Australians serving on equal terms, after the war, in areas such as education, employment and freedom, Aboriginal ex-service men and women found their discrimination remained or, indeed, had worsened during the war period. They fought shoulder-to-shoulder with their mates in the muddy trenches of Western Europe but, on return, were forced to have a beer apart in the local pub. I would like to acknowledge the work of Defence in recent times to rectify the decades of injustice, but we must remember these stories, not just on Remembrance Day but as part of NAIDOC Week.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Remembrance Day</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HAMMOND</name>
    <name.id>80072</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise today to mark Remembrance Day, to acknowledge the sacrifices and service of defence personnel around Australia, and to pay my respects to all those who have served or continue to serve. In my electorate of Curtin on Remembrance Day, students from Scotch College and St Hilda's converge at train stations and shopping centres to support our RSLs by selling poppies for the annual Poppy Appeal. Veterans and community members attend remembrance ceremonies across the electorate. There are countless stories of service and sacrifice of the people in our local communities, and it is important that, on a day like today, we hear these stories of our local people.</para>
<para>There are people like Pamela Burgoyne, who joined the Women's Royal Australian Naval Service in 1944 as a probationary telegraphist at HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Penguin</inline>. She was later stationed at HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Harman</inline>, in Canberra. Pamela's role was to intercept Morse code messages, which were then decoded for further action. Dennis Williams, now 93, volunteered to join the Royal Navy in Wales, aged just 17. He joined to avoid being conscripted into the coalmines. He served on the HMS <inline font-style="italic">Devonshire</inline>, which was stationed in Sydney. He still talks of his experience of seeing the devastation the atomic bombs wrought in Hiroshima when his service took him to Japan in 1946. Then there is Eileen Gillon. I want to share her story in her words: 'I decided I'd join the forces and I ended up at the Army at Swan Barracks, in Perth, in 1942. I did it on my own. I came home and I said, "I've joined the Army." I got no reaction. I don't think anybody cared. I was taught to drive. Not many girls drove in those days. I spent quite a lot of my childhood living in a tent and now I was living in a tent again with three other girls: Millie, Dulcie and Ivy. It was a bit cosy, but we didn't mind. I wore a khaki shirt with a khaki tie, and a skirt and a driver's cap. We had a great coat and boots called half-heavies, which weren't as heavy as the men's boots. We would shine them up for drills and inspections. If you weren't shipshape with your blanket turned in the right way, you copped it. We had to clean our own vehicles. We had to change tyres and do degreasing and cleaning. An officer would come along and run his gloved finger over them to check for specks of grease. Officers—they were young blokes with two pips on their shoulders who thought they were just it. We would march in our dress uniforms through the city of Perth to stir people up so that they would donate to the war cause. I made some great friends in the Army. That was the best thing.'</para>
<para>To those who have served and to those who continue to serve, I say thank you. To those who are no longer with us, lest we forget.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Disability Insurance Scheme</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak about concerns that many people have expressed to me with the government's proposal to introduce independent assessments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. My words today are addressed to, in particular, the 400,000 participants in the NDIS, their families and the tens of thousands of helpers, carers and allied health professionals. People with disabilities have asked me why they have to, yet again, explain their disability to someone else. They are concerned that the independent assessments are designed to cap payments, kick people off payments or lower people's packages. They are concerned that this will be a medical study, not a community social study. The government has not adequately consulted on this scheme. They promised two pilots, but they've only done one. Of the one that they did do, there were only 500 people, covering only certain disabilities, and only 142 of the 500 even submitted a survey response to how they found the program. And it was all volunteers. The second pilot has not been rolled out, despite the promises, and so, based on the responses of a hundred or so people who liked the independent assessments, 400,000 people now have to go through a period of great anxiety and uncertainty.</para>
<para>The concern which has been expressed to me by disability groups, advocates and participants is that an independent assessment process, a government appointed expert, will have a one-size-fits-all approach. It's been expressed to me that, if you have a neuropsychological condition, if you have an acquired brain injury or if you are on the autism spectrum, a one-off, one-hour interview can hardly get to the nature of the supports you need and shouldn't be treated as more important than those allied health professionals, treating specialists and people who've been working with these participants over many years.</para>
<para>There is also a concern that people from non-English speaking backgrounds will be disadvantaged. There is a concern that these independent assessments will favour white, middle-class, tertiary-educated advocates and that anyone else will have a much greater problem in making their case in that one hour. People with disability communicate in different ways, and there is a grave concern that this scheme will ignore all of the other evidence. People are concerned that there are thin markets, that they won't be able to assess these programs quickly and that it's insulting to the treating allied health professionals who are already looking after these people. We say to the government: hands off the NDIS. Don't rush this. You're causing more anxiety and grief than you need to by the way in which you're implementing this.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Water, Remembrance Day</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LANDRY</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to take this opportunity to speak about an important occurrence in Central Queensland. I'm pleased to speak about the significant progress on an important water project in the region, Rookwood Weir. I'm happy to report that Commonwealth funds are now able to start flowing for this important project, after its funding agreement was signed off between the Australian and Queensland governments. The contracting of Rookwood Weir has been a long time in the making. The Queensland government have downsized the total capacity of the weir by almost 29 per cent, taking water directly out of the allocation meant for agricultural use. Water is the lifeblood of regional communities, and the agriculture industry relies on it to survive. This fact remains lost on the state government, which is focused on the south-east corner of the state.</para>
<para>I hosted a rally last year in Rockhampton with landowners, graziers and farmers who were fed up with the Queensland government playing games with the total water capacity of the weir. Unfortunately, the Queensland government chose to ignore all of their voices and has proceeded with constructing a smaller weir. Even now it is still unknown what the total water capacity of Rookwood Weir is going to be. Farmers can't invest in water infrastructure and equipment on their own properties due to the uncertainty.</para>
<para>Central Queensland has the potential to become one of Australia's premier supply centres for a huge range of agricultural product and produce. The region is a natural choice for a diverse range of agriculture investments. Through the development of Rookwood Weir, along with other projects, like the Connors River Dam, the region can further the agriculture industry's position as a major food bowl to benefit Central Queensland and the rest of Australia. The signing of this agreement demonstrates the great progress made by the federal government. Our commitment to investing in nationally important water infrastructure is stronger than ever.</para>
<para>I also wish to take the opportunity now, on Remembrance Day, to pay tribute and acknowledge all service personnel, both past and present. Every one of us here today shares a great privilege. That privilege is that we get to live in a country of freedom and prosperity. However, it doesn't come free. Remembrance Day is a time for us, as a nation, to unite in a minute of reflection and solemn respect for those who served and died in wars, conflicts and peacekeeping operations. We pause to remember those who returned home, carrying with them the scars of their service, and the family members who cared for them. Many of these men and women went on to build this great nation through the 20th century. We pay particular attention to those currently serving in the Australian Defence Force and in peacekeeping operations. As a nation, we show our gratitude for the sacrifice of those who have bravely served and died. For a century we have remembered them, and we will ensure they are remembered still. Lest we forget.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Young Veterans</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the short time I have, I want, on Remembrance Day, to draw to the attention of my electorate an organisation called Young Veterans. I met recently with Matt to talk to him about his organisation and what they offer young veterans. I'd encourage any young veterans living in the electorate of Lalor to go to youngveterans.com.au and find yourself a way to connect.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for keeping it brief. In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>GRIEVANCE DEBATE</title>
        <page.no>122</page.no>
        <type>GRIEVANCE DEBATE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>NAIDOC Week, Energy</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This week is NAIDOC Week when we get to celebrate and recognise the history, culture and achievements of First Nations people. In 2020, NAIDOC Week is celebrating that this land always was and always will be Aboriginal land. We have a chance this year, this week, to celebrate the fact that we share this land with the oldest continuing culture on the face of the Earth—and that is something that every Australian should be very proud of. I want to thank the schools right across Rockingham and Kwinana in my electorate of Brand that are celebrating NAIDOC Week and wish them all the very best. They make so much effort in recognising the truth of Indigenous history in this country, and I commend them for their efforts during this NAIDOC Week.</para>
<para>On a busy Friday afternoon after the last parliamentary sitting week, BP announced that it was closing its Kwinana fuel refinery. This is devastating news for the 650 workers at BP, most of whom are set to lose their jobs. The fact that the Morrison government is allowing this to happen when good jobs are already scarce during this pandemic is frankly unbelievable. BP is cutting and running. It's not just an assault on local jobs; it's an assault on Australia's fuel security, with domestic refining capability set to be reduced by a full quarter because of this decision. This is a closure of the largest fuel refinery in the country. It will mean that my home state of WA—and your home state, Deputy Speaker Rick Wilson—will be completely reliant on imported refined fuel.</para>
<para>This Morrison government talks big on fuel security, but instead of supporting our local capability and local workers they are stockpiling crude oil in the United States, 15,000 kilometres away. In April the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction and the Prime Minister were all smiles when they bought two days worth of cheap fuel in the US—which, by the way, was described at the time by fuel security figures like retired air vice-marshal John Blackburn as an 'opportunistic marketing stunt'. As the former air vice-marshal said, 'You don't get improved domestic fuel security by buying oil and sticking it in America.' Marketing stunt or not, what does increased capacity around the world mean when we are losing our sovereign capability at home? Even with this extra two days worth, Australia is still dangerously under the 90-day mandate of our International Energy Agency obligations.</para>
<para>Just eight weeks ago, the Morrison government announced that it is boosting Australia's fuel security package, stating that, 'Maintaining a viable domestic refinery industry will support Australia's economic recovery from COVID-19.' The media release from the Prime Minister and the energy minister stated—and the detail is important:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Refineries play an important role in securing Australia’s fuel security and putting downward pressure on fuel prices for consumers. Modelling has shown that a domestic refinery capability is worth around $4.9 billion (over 10 years) in value to Australian consumers in the form of price suppression.</para></quote>
<para>It goes on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is committed to a sovereign on-shore refinery capacity despite the threat to the viability of the industry.</para></quote>
<para>But the government is not so committed to the refining capacity in Western Australia. Here we are eight weeks later with the imminent loss of 650 jobs in my electorate and no refining capacity for the state—whose industries, quite frankly, drive the national economy—and we get nothing but useless and meaningless platitudes from this government about fuel security and empty promises about supporting the refining industry.</para>
<para>The BP Kwinana refinery has been at the heart of the Kwinana industrial strip that has driven the economic growth of Western Australia since the fifties. It has provided fuel to Western Australia for 65 years—in fact it has provided the asphalt for the roads of Western Australia for nearly as long. BP is as much a part of the fabric of my community as the Garden Island naval base or the blue grain silos of CBH. Everyone in Rockingham has a connection to BP, and the town of Kwinana was literally born out of BP. My dad worked there for 30 years, and many of my old high school friends still work there. But after 65 years of refining fuel for aviation, agriculture, the largest naval base in the nation and the use of everyday Western Australians, BP has decided to cut and run, winding down operations at the Kwinana refinery from February with mass redundancies starting in April.</para>
<para>I will add another of BP's ways they are continuing to squib their responsibilities: BP has refused to pay for the changes to the white oil pipeline to the airport. They threatened to leave Western Australia many months ago, if they had to do what in fact they had agreed to do in a state agreement. Now BP have quit anyway and they will reap the profit of the pipeline work they refuse to pay for as they move to the cheaper import terminal model.</para>
<para>BP have failed 650 workers and their families and they have failed the local community. Multinationals like BP need to get a grip on themselves and realise the effect they have on local communities when they decide to cut and run, putting out baseless and meaningless excuses. These affect people. You can tell I'm emotional about this. It has been such a part of my family's life for so long. You can hardly believe it's happening. Without warning, workers got notice, some of them off shift, via text message: 'Contact your line manager.' That's their working future: these good jobs, well-paid jobs, hard jobs in dangerous environment are all going to be gone in less than six months. It's atrocious and a poor reflection on a multinational that once helped drive the state's economy.</para>
<para>There are countless small businesses across Rockingham and Kwinana with BP as their largest customer. They're already struggling because of COVID-19 and they might not survive this devastating loss. For example, Parkin Print in Rockingham, which my office uses quite a lot—and, quite frankly, I thought I was their biggest customer but it turns out BP is—are stalwarts of the business community in Brand and they've personally been in touch with me to let me know how devastated they are to lose BP as a customer and, like the workers of the BP itself, completely without warning. The flow-on effects to small businesses throughout Rockingham and Kwinana, and even stretching into Fremantle, cannot be understated.</para>
<para>This government needs to do better, and it really has to step up. Expressing disappointment, thoughts and prayers for the workers and hope that they find a better future isn't enough when we're talking about a sovereign fuel capability, when we're talking about 650 job losses that will affect 650 families right across my electorate. They need to step up, honour the promises they've made in the fuel security package and save Australia's biggest petrol refinery from the end of its days that BP has wrought upon it.</para>
<para>I call on the Prime Minister and the energy minister to deliver on their promise to help refineries through this pandemic and their ongoing viability issues, but mainly turn your attention swiftly to the troubles at BP because we won't have much time to fix this. I stand with the workers of BP, my friends at BP, the union delegates—the AWU and the AMWU have all been in touch—and their families. Again, I call on the Morrison government to stand up and save the BP Kwinana refinery.</para>
<para>I might in the couple of minutes remaining reminisce a little bit about BP as has been done on Perth radio. I said before my father worked there. Way back in the eighties they used to have family fairs on the big oval in front of BP—the kind of thing that doesn't happen anymore because of health and safety, which is fair enough. Let's face it: it's a whole lot of fuel that may explode at some point. It was a very family-oriented company. There were discounts for soft drinks and all sorts of things for the staff of the refinery and their kids. There was an extraordinary social club, and it was very much a part of my parents' life and therefore mine when I was a young girl growing up in Shoalwater Bay.</para>
<para>My parents have many friends that they have known through my dad working there for over 30 years and, I might add, as a shiftworker. Shiftworking, as people may know if they've done it themselves or have family members who do it, is disruptive to families. People have to be quiet when dad or mum's asleep, and families make sacrifices. The workers make sacrifices, working these long shifts and unsociable hours in dangerous workplaces so that they can give their families a good start and a good place in life.</para>
<para>That's the shame of what has happened these last few weeks. BP, without warning, have ripped that opportunity away from 650 families across Rockingham and Kwinana, and these workers live in Rockingham and Kwinana. They don't fly in and fly out. They can't magically change their lifestyles to that new way of work that people want them to do. So I just reflect on the sadness that we are experiencing in Kwinana and Rockingham at the loss of BP, and I think about the workers and their families in this really terrible time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Arts</title>
          <page.no>123</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALLEN</name>
    <name.id>282986</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Support for the arts is not only a cultural imperative; it's an economic one. Astonishingly, cultural and creative activity contributed $112 billion—that's 6.4 per cent—to the GDP of Australia's economy in the 2016-2017 financial year. But the value of the arts cannot be reduced to a dollar figure. It is the quality and significance of the creative work that is of importance. The arts stimulate our minds and our imaginations. The arts provide our everyday lives with moments of beauty. That is why, as a member of the House Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, I called for an inquiry into Australia's creative and cultural industries and institutions, including Indigenous, regional, rural and community based organisations.</para>
<para>The committee will consider the direct and indirect economic benefits and employment opportunities of creative and cultural industries and how to recognise, measure and grow them; the non-economic benefits that enhance community and social wellbeing and promote Australia's national identity and how to recognise, measure and grow them; the best mechanism for ensuring cooperation and delivery of policy between all three layers of government; the impact of COVID on the creative and cultural industries; and, lastly, avenues for increasing access to and opportunities for Australia's creative and cultural industries through innovation and the digital environment. It's such an important time to be doing this, and I'm delighted to say that the first witnesses for the inquiry commence on Friday.</para>
<para>Locally in Higgins, we are home to some of the best and brightest upcoming and established artists. There is the amazing Chapel Off Chapel venue in the heart of Prahran, which hosts independent productions of musicals, including cabaret performances which are not to be missed. We're also lucky to have many stunning commercial art galleries. Just last Friday I was delighted to be invited to a tour of the Menzies fine art gallery in South Yarra by founder Rodney Menzies. The collection is impressive to say the least, and includes two of my favourite artists, the legendary Brett Whiteley and the whimsical Del Kathryn Barton.</para>
<para>In Higgins, we're also proud hosts of the Melbourne Queer Film Festival, a showcase of the best and newest LGBTIQ+ cinema. This year, just days after I helped launch the festival in March, the COVID lockdown happened. However, I'm pleased to say that, like so many other businesses and going concerns, the festival pivoted online to finish the season. I think we would all agree we're very much looking forward to 2021 delivering a much brighter and less restricted year than 2020.</para>
<para>This is not the only arts entity that suffered through COVID. We know that the pandemic has had a devastating effect on this industry, and I've listened to heartbreaking stories from local artists, actors and musicians about how the lockdown has virtually shut down their livelihoods. I've been listening to many from across the sector. Recently I met with local constituent Simon Dickie, someone with more than 40 years experience in the arts and entertainment industry, about what can be done to fast-track our recovery plan and help the creative and cultural industries to thrive once again as COVID restrictions across Victoria and, indeed, across the country are now easing. For anyone who would like to contribute to plans we should have going forward, please go to the Parliament of Australia website and look up the communication and the arts committee page to submit your views to the inquiry.</para>
<para>As the member for Higgins, I've heard from local businesses in the live music and gig economy, particularly in our arts entertainment precinct in Prahran and South Yarra, who've been doing it really tough through the extended Victorian lockdown. Local hotels in my electorate, which are popular venues for live music, such as Rosstown Hotel in Carnegie, met with me for a roundtable discussion about the unique challenges they were facing and how I could help them in this important recovery phase. The hospitality industry is an important part of this scene, providing the venues and audiences hand in glove. That is why our government is investing in growing jobs post COVID. A key component of that is in the budget, and that includes the JobMaker plan which encompasses an array of support mechanisms which will most certainly benefit our cultural and creative industries to help get them back on their feet.</para>
<para>This includes establishing a $4 billion JobMaker Hiring Credit to provide incentive for businesses to take on additional employees aged 16 to 35. I know from my discussions with locals in Higgins who are in this age category that the hiring credit will mean that they now have a real opportunity to get into a job, and there is no better support a government can provide than a job. As a mother of four young adults I know how they and their peers are concerned about the job market in this very tight economic situation that we find ourselves in. I support this JobMaker Hiring Credit. I think it's going to make a difference for so many people as they enter into the workforce coming into the post COVID period.</para>
<para>The Morrison government is also providing an additional $1.2 billion through the boosting apprenticeships wage subsidy to support up to 100,000 new apprentices and trainees; establishing a $1 billion JobTrainer fund to support free or low-fee training places for Australians to access skills by retraining or upskilling, which is also an incredibly important measure; boosting investment in digital business plans to the tune of $800 million, which will be important to help improve productivity, jobs and income growth by enabling businesses to take advantage of digital technologies. I think there has been nothing more clear than the fact that we are in the middle of a digital revolution. As I often say, the paint is not yet dry on the digital revolution. We have seen this in full force through COVID. It has been great to see the innovation and pivoting that's going on. It does come at a cost to these businesses and it's important that we help them got to that next stage.</para>
<para>This funding complements the Morrison government's $250 million JobMaker plan for the creative economy and the $400 million boost to the location incentive over seven years initiative. Quite frankly, this funding will be a godsend for those businesses, as Victoria and Australia emerges from what I would describe as a very long, deep and dark winter.</para>
<para>Our government has a proud history of investment if the arts, in particular our iconic arts and museums institutions. We are providing $22.9 million in funding for eight arts portfolio agencies. This includes $2 million to the National Maritime Museum, $2.5 million to the National Film and Sound Archive and $5.4 million to our wonderful National Library of Australia. As someone on the parliamentary committee of the library, I am very, very proud of that investment. Books are fantastic—take note. This critical funding will help mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in their operations. I am also proud that we have committed $27 million to support Indigenous visual art centres, regional arts and, importantly, the live music and performance industry.</para>
<para>The arts is more than professional institutions. It is also just as much about community activities, and that is why I would like to make note of the inquiry which is going to look particularly at community activities and regional, rural and Indigenous activities, because these are very important and are sometimes overlooked aspects of our creative and cultural industries.</para>
<para>One of the local schools in my electorate—the King David School—is a recipient of a local school community fund grant from the Morrison government. I was proud to support this initiative and the construction of the beautiful Indigenous mural recognising our nation's first people. The artist for this mural explained that the artwork symbolises the deep connection we share on the value of community and being connected to our natural world, which so important in an inner-city electorate like Higgins. The arts weave into our lives each and every day, almost without us knowing it.</para>
<para>To conclude, this year has imposed an enormous impost on the arts. The restrictions imposed by COVID have been incredibly painful. This all leaves a big gap in the lives and hearts of our community. Our government understands that to have a thriving national economy, indeed for a deep sense of our national identity, we need to support our cultural and creative sectors to rebuild. To do this, we have announced more than $800 million in this year's budget of additional financial support to help those industries get back on their feet. But I would like to see a strategy going forward where all the investments across all the governments are actually hand in glove, so that there is a strategic initiative that the governments are partnering together to help get these industries back off their knees. We do this because we recognise the vital and important role of the arts in the lives of all Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Victoria: Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>125</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>After a shocker of a fire season last year, the next fire season is upon us. As I drove up to Canberra on Sunday I could see that the hills of the Indigo Valley are starting to dry off. A constituent who was out in Goughs Bay on Saturday told me that in the hot sun of the weekend the snakes were out around Lake Eildon. Summer is coming and with it the fire season. We know that last year the government ignored warnings of a looming disaster bushfire season, and we know what resulted. This year we must prepare better. The heavy rains we've had over winter and spring have meant that grasses are longer and denser than they have been in years. In fact it has been the most extraordinary spring we've had in decades. According to Adrian Gutsche from the CFA District 24, which covers Wodonga, Towong, Alpine and Indigo shires, the grass loads right now are between eight and 10 tonnes a hectare, double what we normally would expect. The long grasses in paddocks and by the sides of roads mean that the risk of grassfires will be much higher this year. People who experienced last year's bushfires in the Upper Murray, Corryong and Cudgewa have contacted me, concerned about what this means for them and their bushfire preparedness.</para>
<para>Yet COVID-19 has meant it is difficult for the CFA to do its usual preparations in the way that it normally would. The CFA is focused on doing community education in a COVID-safe way and preparing brigades for the season ahead. CFA Alpine commander Marc Owens is calling on people to get out onto their properties over the next few weeks to start slashing to reduce the risk of grassfires. Local groups, like the north-east regional resilience forum led by Paul Ryan, are working on building the long-term resilience of the region.</para>
<para>But in many cases these hard-working locals are not getting the support they need to properly prevent and prepare for bushfires. The final report of the bushfire royal commission two weeks ago found that Australia's disaster outlook is alarming. The 80 recommendations of the royal commission make it clear that Australia was not prepared for the Black Summer and is not prepared for the hotter summers that are to come. At least 19 people and organisations in my electorate of Indi made submissions to the commission. I thank them, and I thank every person in our region who helped respond to last summer's fires and those who are now leading up with their preparations and doing the work that we need for the recovery from last year's fires.</para>
<para>For these people and for all of us who lived through the bushfires of last summer many of the recommendations of the royal commission will come as little surprise. The royal commission recommends a huge boost to our firefighting capability, including a sovereign aerial firefighting force, investment in a domestic aerial firefighting industry, and a new national register of firefighting assets. The government has said it will take time to consider the full report of the royal commission, which of course in some ways is fair. But the fire season won't wait. I'm calling on the government to act quickly to make sure that our bushfire-prone communities are sufficiently prepared for this coming season. Here are four recommendations that the government should accept and action immediately: The royal commission recommendation 6.1 calls for the state and territory governments to assess the capacity and capability of fire and emergency services in light of the current and future risks. Recommendation 6.2 calls for a national register of fire and emergency services personnel and equipment.</para>
<para>These recommendation will be particularly important for people like Beechworth Fire Brigade chief Bruce Forrest, who for many months now has been raising the alarm that the Beechworth Fire Brigade does not have the equipment it needs to protect the town. The brigade has no vehicles that can access Beechworth Gorge, so if a fire broke out it would threaten half the town. The Beechworth brigade is calling for a raft of equipment upgrades, including an ultralight tanker, a pumper tanker, two light tankers and sheds. The Beechworth brigade's requirements would cost $2.1 million to protect the town of Beechworth. That's only slightly more than the government has spent in bushfire payments in Indigo Shire so far this year. It would be a sensible investment indeed, and it's a fraction of the $600 million the region lost in tourism in the first half of this year.</para>
<para>Last summer, in Bruce's words, 'The Beechworth brigade were brought to breaking point and going into the next season they still don't have this equipment. Part of the town is simply undefendable.' It's not acceptable that rural fire services should be denied the equipment they need to keep their communities safe and it's amazing that after the year we've just had that these services aren't getting every piece of kit they need.</para>
<para>Recommendation 17.1 calls for public availability of fuel-load management strategies. It calls for all managers of public lands to clearly convey and make available to the public their fuel-load management strategies and to report annually on the outcomes of those strategies. Requiring government agencies and others to report publicly and be accountable for their fuel-load management is a sensible idea. This would give reassurance to my constituents that they're not being forgotten about and that the wild oats beside the road in the Upper Murray will indeed be cut. The royal commission made clear that hazard reduction is not a silver bullet for addressing bushfires. However, it did find that clear information about government fuel-load management strategies can be difficult to obtain and this undermines public confidence and affects the broader public debate about this very polarising topic.</para>
<para>Information about fuel loads and fuel-load management should, according to the royal commission, be made more accessible. I would add that it not only undermines public confidence but leads to real anxiety in fire-prone communities. For instance, I know right now that some agencies, like Regional Roads Victoria, which is responsible for managing some roadside vegetation, is waiting to slash grass because, given the rain and the temperature, if they slashed now they'd be back in a few weeks to do it again. All of that costs the taxpayer. But everyday people in those communities don't actually know that there's a plan. All they see is the ever-growing grass and they have no reassurance that this bushfire hazard will indeed be managed. I get many, many constituent calls about issues such as this. Our communities, particularly in the Upper Murray, deserve the kind of clear and transparent year-round communication that the royal commission calls for.</para>
<para>Finally, recommendation 13.6 calls for the development of a single national app for all natural disasters. So many people in border communities like Walwa, Tintaldra and Towong were caught out last year because the Victorian fire warning app didn't contain any information about the massive fires burning so close to them right across the Murray River. If you go east of Mount Porcupine, the Murray River becomes very narrow. Fires jump over it like nothing, so having two separate warning systems and communications plans and emergency service response teams simply doesn't work for my border communities.</para>
<para>I understand the government will take its time to consider the royal commission, but the fire season won't wait and these are some simple interventions our communities are calling for right now. We need to support our CFAs with the equipment that they need. We need to ensure transparency on fuel management on public lands and we need to make sure that border communities are supported with a single communications system.</para>
<para>Last year the government did not prepare well enough for the fires, and we all saw the result. Here we are now on the brink of the next fire season and our communities are calling out for the support they need to reassure them and get them ready for the next fire season that's about to start. I'm calling on the government to make sure that the mistakes of last year are not repeated.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONNELLY</name>
    <name.id>282984</name.id>
    <electorate>Stirling</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Until this year, the phrase '2020' was heavily used but normally with respect to one's eyesight, sometimes referred to as perfect vision. Sometimes we even say that hindsight has 20/20 vision. The Morrison government's plans have been developed not by looking backwards but by looking forwards, and in some ways they have also been quite visionary. We've looked forward and predicted, as far as one can, what some of the key impacts of coronavirus may be and how we should mitigate them with targeted and time framed measures—measures which not only help to cushion the blow that coronavirus has and is continuing to deliver but also help us through the recovery phase to a better future. Indeed, leadership is not about looking into the rear-view mirror but about looking forward.</para>
<para>In 2020, through the coronavirus pandemic, we have seen forward-looking leadership from our Prime Minister, our Treasurer and our health minister in particular. It's quite disappointing that, by comparison, the Leader of the Opposition has acted and spoken at times in an immature manner during this health and economic crisis. This is a crisis where the world has been hit with a once-in-a-hundred-years pandemic. There have been 40 million cases worldwide, and climbing, 1.1 million dead, and 600 million jobs have been lost around the world, and the opposition leader's only substantive contribution is to attempt to name the recession after our Prime Minister—an objectively ridiculous accusation. If the Leader of the Opposition had been paying attention, he would have realised that the cause of the recession has, in fact, been something called COVID-19—an aggressive and quite terrible pandemic. That's where our focus has been: on dealing with the pandemic. If the Leader of the Opposition hasn't understood what has caused this pandemic, then I fear for his ability to constructively contribute to navigating our best future as we move through the recovery phase.</para>
<para>In stark and deep contrast, the Morrison government has taken things one step at a time, using the best of health advice and crisis management decision-making. Having some expertise in the latter field—and I can attest to the government's employment of sound crisis management principles—let me outline a few. Firstly, it's important to always identify and contain the threat. We saw this. Our government called the pandemic two weeks before the World Health Organization, getting us on the front foot. We then banned international travel from China, again buying us precious time and space. We also then progressively placed international travel bans from countries where they demonstrated a severe rise in cases. Secondly, it's important to establish clear leadership and effective communications. The PM, working with each of the state and territory leaders, established the national cabinet. This was an effective crisis management leadership taskforce. It helped achieve information sharing, decision-making and a coordinated response in many areas. Was it perfect? Of course it was not. I don't think any construct is, but, certainly the feedback in my community was one of great appreciation for that collaborative effort at the national and the state and territory level.</para>
<para>Next we saw the formulation and delivery of a response plan. The response plan included the $101 billion JobKeeper program. This was an economic lifeline to businesses right across the country, including 7,300 businesses in my electorate of Stirling. There was also a doubling of the social safety net, ensuring that, again in the case of Stirling, 10,000 people were supported through some of the most difficult times that we've faced recently. There was also an option provided for those who were eligible to have early access to their superannuation, if it suited their personal financial circumstances. Emergency income support payments were made to the most vulnerable, including 15,000 age pensioners, again in my electorate of Stirling, who were at the highest health risk in terms of COVID-19. Temporary cashflow payments of up to $100,000 were made available to around 4,700 small businesses in Stirling and others around the country to help pay the bills and keep connected with staff. Direct wage subsidies were provided to apprentices and trainees, who were just at the beginning of their career, to stop them effectively being kneecapped just as they were getting started in the workforce. And there were sector-specific and regional support packages to support more deeply impacted areas.</para>
<para>Now we have entered the recovery phase and our economic recovery plan includes measures such as the $25,000 grant to build a new or substantially renovate an existing home, under the HomeBuilder program, and JobTrainer, a partnership with state governments to provide additional training places at low or no cost in identified skills area. Significantly, the plan also includes JobMaker. This is a $74 billion plan for the future to restore Australia to its pre-pandemic success and build an even better and safer future, including through a JobMaker hiring credit, which is deliberately targeted to support young people, who were hardest hit by closures and lockdowns; temporary loss carry-backs to support business cash flow; and personal income tax cuts for 11 million Australians, including 101,900 people in my electorate of Stirling.</para>
<para>A $1.5 billion modernisation of Australian manufacturing is also underway. This will help us be competitive in a changed world. There are great success stories here already, like Alcolizer Technology in Balcatta, in my electorate of Stirling, who received a grant of $181,000 to contribute to a 22-fold increase in their production of units which are used for alcohol and drug testing and now for COVID testing. There is also a $1.9 billion plan to build new energy sources, reduce emissions and improve access to reliable energy, which we know is important in terms of being affordable for families and also, of course, for businesses. An expanded pipeline of major nation-building infrastructure now totals some $110 billion. This sees $45 million for the new Stirling Cedric Street bus interchange; $17.5 million on top of an original $65 million to complete the Stephenson Avenue extension project; and $10 million in local roads and projects to fund within the city of Stirling.</para>
<para>We have been able to respond with these targeted and time framed measures because, from the beginning, we had returned the budget to surplus for the first time in 11 years. By comparison, the plan that Labor took to the last election was to increase taxes. By how much? By $387 billion. So, as a comparative starting point, we can be thankful that the books were balanced. In Stirling and right around the country, across the nation, thankfully, people put their trust in the Morrison government, and we work hard every day to repay that trust—no more so than during coronavirus.</para>
<para>We're also keeping election promises, many of which contribute to economic stimulus throughout our electorates. For example, in my electorate, some of the election commitments included $4 million towards a new Surfing WA headquarters; $500,000 for a lighting tower project for the Coolbinia Bombers; upgrades to the Carine Cats Baseball Club, to the tune of $300,000—and the list really does go on. We've also looked at what new community based projects are also the right fit, one of which is a $6.3 million commitment to the Jewish Community Centre and the Perth Holocaust Museum. I congratulate also the state government, who have matched that funding, and the community who will raise another $2 million to provide a really world-class facility, which will help keep alive the understanding and the memory of what happened during that terrible period in our history, but also to support the vibrant Jewish community over there in Western Australia. There's also $1.3 million for the Carmel school, $132,000 for the Dianella school and $450,000 for St Andrews Grammar for some important security upgrades. The reason that I have been able to achieve some of these outcomes is because of the support of the Morrison government and the associated ministers. When I have knocked, the doors have been opened and their advisers have been helpful—and, ultimately, the people in Stirling are the ones who will benefit.</para>
<para>None of us in the government claim to have 20:20 vision. A few of us on this side and across the other side even wear glasses. So we certainly don't have perfection vision. But we have to deal with the circumstances as they present. It has been challenging during coronavirus. It will remain a challenging set of circumstances into the future through what will be, I'm sure, a lengthy recovery. But I can say that this government is absolutely committed to making the best decisions and the best investments we can to secure the future for all Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Macarthur Electorate: Shepherd Centre of Excellence, Macarthur Electorate: Koalas</title>
          <page.no>128</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to air a grievance, indeed. It's a grievance I've had with the coalition government, both at a state and federal level, for a number of years. I've worked in my electorate as a paediatrician for almost 40 years. I've cared for thousands and thousands of babies—</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That might be a slight exaggeration! Unfortunately, some of those children I care for are born with disabilities. One of the disabilities that used to be so tragic was that of profound hearing loss. When I first started my training as an paediatric registrar, the only treatment available for children with severe hearing loss was very powerful hearing aids, which weren't all that successful, and then to learn the Australian equivalent of sign language, Auslan. Thanks to the ability, foresight and hard work of a guy called Bruce Shepherd, we, in New South Wales and around Australia, developed the first early intervention programs in the world for children with severe, profound hearing loss on the basis of early intervention and early treatment. Professor Graeme Clark—you may remember his name—was the developer of the cochlear implant. He came from my electorate. He works in Melbourne now. He's in his 80s. He revolutionised the treatment of severe hearing loss in young children. Children are now having their treatment starting virtually at birth, and cochlear implants are being implanted earlier and earlier, sometimes at only a few weeks of age. With that early intervention, we now know that the outcomes for those children in terms of their speech, their learning and their development are normal. The whole process around early intervention is the gold standard in Australia.</para>
<para>The Shepherd Centre, named in honour of Bruce Shepherd—he passed away a couple of years ago—have a number of outreach clinics around New South Wales. They put a proposal some three or four years ago to the state and federal governments to develop a Shepherd centre of excellence in my electorate of Macarthur. They raised two-thirds of the money themselves. They bought a property. They requested from the state and federal governments only $2½ million to $3 million to build the centre. On every occasion, this government and the New South Wales state government have said no. Yet, my electorate is the fastest growing electorate in New South Wales. We have one of the highest birth rates and one of the highest number of children under 15. It is an absolute tragedy. It means that children born in my electorate have to travel long distances to start early intervention programs and receive early cochlear implants. They have to travel to the Shepherd Centre's main base in Newtown, which is in the centre of Sydney. This is a tragedy and something I don't understand: why the Prime Minister, the Minister for Health and this government will not allow funding for a Shepherd centre of excellence in my electorate.</para>
<para>What's so phenomenal about the project is that a Shepherd centre of excellence would provide services not just to those from my electorate of Macarthur but to those from surrounding areas—Minister Taylor's electorate of Hume, Stephen Jones's electorate in the Southern Highlands, and other surrounding electorates. It would provide a comprehensive early intervention program for many, many children around New South Wales. It's an absolute tragedy that it won't be funded by this government. I will keep pushing for it because I strongly believe that it would be a remarkable thing to have such world-class treatment in the electorate of Macarthur. I will keep pushing for it.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Approach the minister.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have approached the minister, and I've approached the Prime Minister. It makes sense for this project to be located in south-western Sydney because of the population growth and the birth rate. There is a rapid growth in young children requiring support. We are also getting better at keeping very small infants alive. Children with birth weights as small as 450 or 500 grams can now be resuscitated and survive. They do have an increased risk of disability, including hearing loss, but with early intervention they can do very, very well. It's critical that we get projects like this to these areas as soon as possible.</para>
<para>People who live in the inner city, in the wealthier suburbs of Sydney, can access these treatments very quickly. People who live in my electorate, many of whom are disadvantaged such as single parents and Indigenous children, who have an increased risk of hearing loss, need these treatments. It is a moral issue that the government should be funding these early intervention services in my electorate. It's an indictment of the government's ability to provide services in electorates other than marginal or liberal voting electorates, and it's a tragedy.</para>
<para>The government also says no all the time to my electorate, which has the only disease-free, chlamydia-free koala population in an urban environment in New South Wales. I've invited the Minister for the Environment to my electorate many times. She has refused to come. As we speak, koala habitat is being bulldozed to provide more urban sprawl on the outskirts of my electorate, yet we get nothing from this government. It is a real grievance of mine, just from the point of view of the generations that are coming through, that they won't be able to see koalas in an urban environment. At two of the schools in my electorate the children have to have blinds over the windows because they get distracted by the koalas in the trees outside the schools. What a wonderful thing to have. We are going to lose it unless this government does something in combination with the New South Wales government. The New South Wales state minister for the environment, Matt Kean—again, a Liberal Party member, unlike me, but a decent guy—has come out to my electorate and would cry out for federal funding to help protect the Macarthur koalas. But it hasn't happened. I keep writing, and I will continue to keep writing, but it hasn't happened.</para>
<para>We've seen rort after rort in areas like sport and council grants. It is absolutely astounding to me that Hornsby Shire Council was given $75 million to provide a park in their electorate. Hornsby is a very green electorate and has lots of green space. My electorate gets nothing in council grants to do similar things. On sports rorts, Eagle Vale rugby league football club doesn't have change rooms with toilets for boys or girls. We put in application after application for proper change rooms. We get nothing. I don't want to be nasty, I don't want to abuse people and I don't want to be in conflict with anyone, but it's increasingly apparent to me that this government only funds either electorates that have sitting Liberal-National members or electorates that are marginal. They will not fund the most disadvantaged electorates in my state, and my electorate is one of them. It's an evolving tragedy and it's only going to get worse.</para>
<para>We have more and more developers coming into the electorate. I'm sure you've all heard about the Leppington Triangle. That's part of my electorate. The government can give an extra $30 million to developers for way-overvalued land, yet they can't give $2½ million for my Shepherd Centre. I call it my Shepherd Centre; I'm quite biased about it. I have a vested interest in it. Jim Hungerford, the CEO of the Shepherd Centre, is a friend of mine. Many years ago when I was a young doctor, even though we were politically poles apart, I worked with Bruce Shepherd. It would delight me to have that opened. I don't want any glory from it. I don't even want to be there when it opens! But it should happen. I've tried to work with the government. I wrote to the PM as soon as the election was over. I'd written to the previous PM, the previous health minister and this health minister. My electorate just sees it as another slap in the face from a government that really is only worried about the politics and not worried about the people. It's inexcusable. I'm going to make sure that everyone in my community knows about it.</para>
<para>I think everyone would agree that I'm generally pretty easygoing. I embrace bipartisanship, and the members opposite know that. I have been treated very well by them, I admit, since I've come to this place. I have no personal animosity towards anyone in this place. But electorates like mine require adequate funding no matter who represents them. It's only fair. It's time for a change. It's time for a change in politics. I would have thought the COVID pandemic was a time for some real change in the way health issues in particular are funded—on need, not on political pressure and who you know. I will keep working towards that. That's my real grievance with the government. I'm grateful for people listening to me. This is not something that I want to make into a huge political issue; it's an issue of fairness and morality. I thank you.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment</title>
          <page.no>130</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ENTSCH</name>
    <name.id>7K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Not a day goes by that we don't interact with or use something made from plastic. It's absolutely everywhere. It has transformed industry and forever changed the way in which we conduct business and carry out our daily lives. The problem with plastics is that when we use them—too often fleetingly—they inevitably end up in the bin. The way we handle plastics is entirely linear. This take-make-dispose one-way path overwhelmingly leads to landfill and environmental leakage. It's true the Morrison government is making progress. We have made some significant investments in an effort to transform the industry and promote a more circular economy, and we have put waste firmly on the national agenda. But, even still, there are inherent issues with plastics that we need to grapple with, the most challenging of which is the untaxed negative externality of plastic waste. For those unfamiliar with the term 'untaxed negative externality', it is an interesting concept that economists throw around a fair bit, particularly when it comes to the environment, but it's easily understood through an example. Imagine for a moment that your neighbour pumps the outflow of his septic tank into your backyard and then expects that you should pay to clean up the mess. If you do but you then send your neighbour the bill, is it really a tax or is it just a means of putting the financial burden where it belongs?</para>
<para>With plastics, the untaxed negative externality is principally its pervasive nature and increasing presence in our environment, especially our oceans. We've all seen the horrific photos of deceased birds and aquatic life, where researchers cut open their stomachs and examine their intestinal tracts, finding them full to the brim with nothing but plastic litter. This tragic environmental consequence is simply not taken into consideration by black and white economics, and we are now learning that the harm of plastics goes beyond just the environment. Research indicates that microplastic fragments are now routinely making their way into our own diets. Some studies even suggest that we could be ingesting around 2,000 tiny pieces of plastic each week, equivalent to about a teaspoonful of plastic. This is being driven by the increasing amount of plastic waste entering our environment. Globally, each year, about eight million tonnes of plastic leaks into the ocean, which is equivalent to dumping the contents of one garbage truck into the ocean every minute.</para>
<para>Meanwhile, every year, the global production and volume of plastics continues on an upward trajectory. A record 359 million tonnes was produced worldwide in 2018. When even a fraction of this massive production enters our precious environment, particularly our marine environment, the timer starts, as the plastic begins to break down into smaller and smaller fragments. These macro and micro plastic particles are more easily ingested by wildlife at every level of the food chain, which in turn increases the likelihood that plastic inadvertently ends up on our plates. We know that there is huge ecological damage occurring as a result of the world's unabated consumption of plastic, but virtually none of the damage is priced into the plastic products that these large multinationals are producing. Nevertheless, a price is being paid, first and foremost by the environment and, secondly, through the expense incurred by the actions required to remove the sheer volume of plastic waste trashing the environment.</para>
<para>While we have a significant transformation underway with the waste management industry here in Australia, there are plenty more challenges to overcome in other regions. Developing nations typically have less capacity to manage these challenges and may have laxer environmental regulations or perhaps a lack of wherewithal to enforce them. We know that around 82 per cent of all ocean plastic leakages originate from nations within the Asia-Pacific region. But, before we rush in to chastise these nations, we must remember that they have long been the literal dumping ground for the world's unwanted waste and low-quality recycling material. In recent years, many of these nations have rightly refused to accept international waste exports. Their decisions have prompted a reckoning of waste across the globe. The Morrison government's waste export ban is a pivotal policy that acknowledges the futility of waste exports and rejects the worst of these kinds of linear economic models. As the Prime Minister has rightly said, it is our waste and it is our responsibility to deal with it.</para>
<para>How should we deal with this reckoning? First, let me start by applauding the minister, Minister Ley, Assistant Minister Evans and indeed the leadership of the Prime Minister on this issue. Under their stewardship we have made significant commitments and progress, increasing our own domestic waste management capacity, driving industry co-investment and revolutionising Australia's approach to waste. But we need to resolve the underlying economic challenges and the pricing disparity between recycled and virgin plastic material. In my recent report to Minister Ley earlier this year, I recommended that the minister consider exploring whether a virgin plastic tax or levy or market mechanism may help to address the negative externality from plastic waste and consider leveraging the revenue generated to assist the transition to a circular economy and improve the economic viability of recycled plastic material. While I agree that we should not aim to deploy taxation as a primary instrument in our efforts to resolve all of our challenges, it is clear in this instance that we need to take some significant steps to address the inherent economic challenges of the problems.</para>
<para>There are plenty of people who agree with my assessment. Earlier this week, I had a teleconference with Dr Andrew Forrest, the billionaire philanthropist and founder of the Minderoo Foundation. Twiggy and his team have been undertaking some important work attempting to find and a solution to the economic side of the plastic equation. There are well-researched estimates that indicate that plastic is costing the world somewhere above US$2.2 trillion per year in environmental and social damage. That is US$2.2 trillion in annual external costs of plastic pollution that is not captured in the production costs and has resulted in virgin plastic being so cheap and so devastating in our environment. While we want businesses to use recycled plastic material more, it requires more effort and more energy; it is more expensive; and typically the material is of worse quality or is perceived as such. The only real benefit from recycled plastic is the reduced environmental impact, but that value is not tangible to business and other economic rationalists. So on a purely economic basis you can understand completely why the status quo has resulted in little uptake of recycled material across the world. This is precisely why we should start pulling policy levers to internalise the true cost of virgin plastic.</para>
<para>At present there is an estimated 150 million tonnes of plastic in our marine environment. This staggering amount of waste is growing. It is predicted that by 2050 ocean plastic will surpass the total weight of fish in the world's oceans. If we are to pursue a pricing mechanism to resolve this crisis, we could redeploy the revenue generated to further assist the industry to adopt circular models and make significant strides in addressing the waste that is currently entering the environment. In addition, we could consider funding more equitable solutions for our regional and remote communities who are affected by the tyranny of distance. Too often it is the distance that makes circular waste solutions not viable for our regional communities, and they are often left with landfill as their only option. But there are opportunities in a community if we improve the recycling rates. We know that for every 10,000 tonnes of waste that is sent to landfill there are approximately direct 2.8 jobs, whereas there are 9.2 direct jobs for the same amount of waste that is recycled instead.</para>
<para>Unless we fully commit to tackling the underlying economic challenges, plastic waste will continue as a blight upon the environment, a lost opportunity, and another testament to the unenviable by-products of the human condition in our insatiable desire to consume.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>131</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021</title>
          <page.no>131</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" background="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core">
            <a href="r6603" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>131</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
    <electorate>Mitchell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome the opportunity to update the House on this expenditure and on the extensive efforts of the Morrison government responding to COVID-19 in our region, working with our Pacific family and our Indo-Pacific neighbours to achieve that shared recovery.</para>
<para>The 2020-21 budget provides $4 billion in official development assistance this year, with our development efforts focused on supporting a resilient, stable and prosperous Indo-Pacific. I'm proud that this includes $1.44 billion of ODA to be spent in the Pacific, which is a record amount for an Australian government. There is also $1 billion for South-East Asia. This is recognising our commitment to these two important regions.</para>
<para>The pandemic has had a serious economic impact on our region, and that's why the government has announced our supplementary two-year, $304.7 million COVID-19 recovery package, which will deliver critical temporary targeted economic and fiscal support to our Pacific partners and Timor Leste. This will help them maintain critical services in the region and protect the vulnerable people within these countries that are suffering under the pandemic.</para>
<para>We've pivoted, in this time, our development partnerships; we've redirected our redevelopment efforts to respond to the impacts of the pandemic on our regional partners, with a focus on maintaining health security, stability and stimulating economic recovery and activity. As part of our Partnerships for Recovery strategy, Minister Payne and I, in close consultation with our regional partners, released 27 country-specific COVID-19 development response plans. These provide a blueprint for support at country, regional and global levels. And it goes beyond ODA, drawing on all of the policy tools, including development, diplomatic, trade, immigration and security cooperation, for the first time capturing all of the whole-of-government effort.</para>
<para>There's no better example of the work we are doing in this region than our Pacific labour mobility programs. The government moved quickly to enable Pacific workers who were here in Australia when the pandemic struck to stay here and keep working. They were able to be redeployed and we ensured they moved successfully around Australia. I'm glad that during that time we didn't have a single case of COVID amongst that cohort, a very important benchmark. We've now recommenced recruitment under the Seasonal Worker Program and the Pacific Labour Scheme to keep vital remittances flowing to the Pacific while also filling critical workforce gaps in rural and regional Australia.</para>
<para>Since the onset of the pandemic, the Prime Minister, Minister Payne and I have been speaking regularly with our regional colleagues about how Australia can best contribute to the regional response as the impacts emerge. Australia has committed to procuring and delivering COVID-19 vaccines for the Pacific, Timor-Leste and South-East Asia. We've committed an additional $500 million, on top of the $23.2 million committed in the budget. That's $500 million for vaccinations in the Pacific and South-East Asia. This builds on the additional commitment of $80 million to Gavi COVAX Advanced Market Commitment, which will support access for eligible countries. This important commitment by Australia to ensure that our region receives vaccinations has been well received by our partners in the region.</para>
<para>We've reshaped our development program substantially, and Australia's immediate response included the $280 million Indo-Pacific Response and Recovery Package, which we announced in May—we moved fast to adapt to the situation—and between March and June we reworked about 400 of around 1,000 investments worth over $840 million to help regional partners manage immediate challenges posed by the pandemic. We've retained and mobilised over 100 critical aid and humanitarian advisers in our region, and our government has responded to more than 120 Pacific bilateral requests for assistance, delivering over 35 tonnes of humanitarian supplies, PPE, medical equipment and, importantly, 54,000 GeneXpert testing cartridges for COVID-19 to 13 Pacific Island countries and Timor-Leste.</para>
<para>We've deployed AUSMAT teams, we've ensured essential medical, food and testing supplies, and we've certainly provided support through the traditional tropical cyclone season as well—Tropical Cyclone Harold, notably, devastated Vanuatu, Fiji and Tonga. Australian support has enabled the government of Timor-Leste to establish independent testing capability. Increasingly we're integrating our climate change and disaster resilience into our development programs. Our COVID-19 response efforts pledged $500 million over five years to help Pacific nations invest in renewable energy and build climate and disaster resilience. How our region emerges from this crisis will influence our economic and strategic circumstances for decades to come. At this crucial time we're standing together as close and valued partners. We're here for the Pacific and Timor-Leste. We're going to get through this as a family. Australia will support our neighbours all the way.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate>Shortland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific and it relates to the aid program. Overseas development assistance is a key part of Australia's foreign policy. It's the way we support economic, social and human development. It's the way we help the poorest people in the world to climb out of destitution and despair. In a region where millions of people still live in extreme poverty it is also in Australia's national interest to strengthen our commitment to development. Development means greater prosperity, security and stability in our region.</para>
<para>The coronavirus pandemic makes the aid program more important than ever. Many countries in our region have poorly resourced health systems that have struggled to cope with the pandemic. Many countries in our region have also been hit hard by the economic fallout from COVID-19, particularly our Pacific neighbours who rely heavily on tourism. The World Bank has estimated that COVID-19 will push an extra 88 to 115 million people around the world into extreme poverty in 2020 alone. Extreme poverty means surviving on less than US$1 a day.</para>
<para>The pandemic has reversed 20 years of progress in global poverty reduction. That throws into stark relief the fact that this Liberal government has cut $11.8 billion from Australia's aid budget since it came to office in 2013—$11.8 billion in cuts. Those cuts have hurt some of the poorest people in the world and they've been contrary to Australia's national interests. The cuts have fallen heavily on countries in South-East Asia. The government has cut bilateral aid to Indonesia from $551.9 in 2014-15 to $255.7 million in 2021, a cut of 54 per cent. It has cut bilateral ODA for Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, the Philippines and Vietnam by 44 per cent since 2014-15.</para>
<para>I do acknowledge that the budget provided $304.7 million over two years to help Pacific countries to recover from the impacts of COVID-19. I also acknowledge the minister's announcement after the budget of $500 million over three years to support access to COVID-19 vaccines in the Pacific and South-East Asia. Labor welcomes these measures. These are good measures, but the truth is they are a drop in the ocean following the government's $11.8 billion in cuts. The extra $805 million for development assistance represents only one per cent of the budget's $71.3 billion in new payment measures—one per cent. The ministers have said this funding will be a temporary increase, rather than an ongoing increase, to the aid budget.</para>
<para>An important issue for the development program is the need to evaluate whether aid investments are achieving the desired outcome and represent value for money. Minister Payne and Minister Hawke have used the pandemic as cover to dismantle the aid performance framework. They've systemically removed key elements of the performance framework for ensuring that our $4 billion aid program is performing effectively. They have abolished the office of development effectiveness, the agency introduced by Alexander Downer to conduct rigorous and independent evaluations of aid projects. They have scrapped the performance of Australian aid report, the independently verified annual report card on the aid program which was introduced by Julie Bishop. They are no longer are publishing annual aid program performance reports, which report whether Australia, as a major country in regional aid programs, are meeting their performance benchmarks. They have even abandoned Julie Bishop's strategic target of ensuring 80 per cent of the Australia's aid investments address the gender equality issues—a curious decision by Minister Payne given since she is also the Minister for Women.</para>
<para>They government has not met the gender target in any year since it was set back in 2014. Instead of stepping up the focus on gender issues, these ministers responded by dropping the target. One can wonder whether that was the motivation to drop the target, the systematic underperformance and inability to hit the gender target. This dismantling of the performance framework has been carried out secretively with no public announcements and no consultation with stakeholders, all under the cloak of reshaping the ODA program in response to COVID-19. These changes represent a massive erosion of accountability and transparency.</para>
<para>Having cut the aid program by $11.8 billion, these ministers are now scrapping the key mechanisms which have ensured our aid dollars are spent effectively. Taxpayers can no longer be confident that the $4 billion aid program represents value for money and delivers real outcomes. My questions to the minister are: when will this government provide an ongoing boost to the aid budget? Why has the minister dismantled the entire aid performance framework? Why has the Pacific Step-up resulted in a step-down everywhere else?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As we on this side of the House know, Australia's exporters are vital to the ongoing success of our economy. This month we recorded our 33rd monthly trade surplus—it's quite an achievement. This is the result of the hard work of Australian farmers and Australian businesses, large and small, right across our country, complemented by unwavering support from those on this side of the House.</para>
<para>When COVID-19 disrupted global supply chains earlier this year, we swiftly stood up the International Freight Assistance Mechanism. This has helped over 7,000 flights depart Australia, carrying over $2.6 billion worth of high-quality, high-value Australian produce since March. It's supported over 155,000 jobs and provided an economic lifeline to thousands of Australia's highest value producers. The International Freight Assistance Mechanism will continue until the middle of next year, thanks to an extra $317.1 million announced in the budget.</para>
<para>We've also stepped up efforts to provide exporters the information they need to make the most of opportunities in Australia's free trade agreements, whether that be through the delivery of the 12-part digital seminar series during COVID-19 or the free trade advantage digital learning platform launched by Minister Birmingham last Monday.</para>
<para>This year we've also expanded our collection of free trade agreements to 14 agreements and counting, following the entry into force of the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement in July, and there's been great interest right across the economy and around the nation in this new agreement. Our FTAs now cover over 70 per cent of our nation's two-way trade. No. 15 is just around the corner with the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations, PACER Plus, due to enter into force on 13 December. This will herald a range of new trade and investment opportunities with our Pacific neighbours, and we won't stop there. Negotiations are continuing for FTAs with the European Union and also the United Kingdom, while the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership is on track to be signed by the end of this year.</para>
<para>This is all about maximising choice for Australian exporters. This has proven to be especially important in 2020, given the disruptions to supply chains caused by COVID-19 and the recent escalating trade tensions with China. We've been working closely with Australian industry to support their efforts to diversify their export markets. At the same time, we continue to stand firmly alongside industries that have been impacted by the disruption of trade to China.</para>
<para>China is our largest trading partner and is likely to remain so into the foreseeable future. However, the government is deeply concerned by the escalating nature of the disputes we are currently experiencing and the challenges it is causing Australian exporters, whether that be the tariffs on barley, import restrictions on meat, investigations into wine or the increased testing of our rock lobsters at Chinese ports. As each issue has arisen, the government has engaged extensively with Chinese officials to understand and seek its resolution. At the same time, we continue to provide every possible assistance that we can to impacted exporters to ensure they maintain the access they ought to have to the Chinese market—access that has been secured through partnerships our exporters have fostered over a long period of time through incredibly hard work.</para>
<para>The government will continue to engage extensively with China at every available level and stand ready to facilitate ministerial-level dialogue. We'll also continue to call upon China to conduct its trading relationship with Australia in a manner consistent with its obligations, whether through the WTO or CHAFTA and the market orientated principles that underpin WTO membership.</para>
<para>Commitments that China has made to us privately, as well as to the international community more publicly, need to be honoured and we, on this side of the House, will always pursue the policy settings that support our farmers and exporting businesses because they are critical in generating jobs and investment in our regions.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question on this appropriation expenditure is for Minister Representing the Minister for Trade. I will start, however, with some irrefutable facts. We all know that Australia is a trading nation. One in five jobs in this country depends on our international trade. It is the Australian government's job to encourage businesses to export their goods and services to the world and to support these businesses in doing so.</para>
<para>It is also the government's role to ensure diversification in trade and to go beyond the mere inking of free trade agreements in this effort. I note the minister's earlier comment of 'collections of FTAs'. It's like they get an FTA done and they then put their feet up and say, 'Job done; no more to do.' But the truth is that, to achieve genuine trade diversification, it takes years of work, decades, often requiring skilled diplomacy and even personal intervention by senior ministers and a prime minister. Previous governments, Labor and Liberal, have managed to achieve all of the above. But we stand here today where it is painfully clear that the Morrison government is failing to do the same. Minister, why does this government have no plan to address the serious concerns being raised by Australian businesses, big and small, about our trading relationship with China? Minister, why have you abandoned our exporters?</para>
<para>Australia has long enjoyed a mutually beneficial trading relationship with China, a relationship that has boosted our national income by hundreds of billions of dollars and created countless thousands of jobs. But much of that is now at risk, and this government has no idea what to do next. It is frozen into inaction. In recent months our grain growers, winemakers, meat processors, coal companies, cotton growers and lobster fishers have all experienced problems getting their goods into China. We have seen media reports in recent days that Chinese authorities are planning to halt imports of even more Australian products. Minister, why is the government ignoring exporters' appeals for leadership?</para>
<para>Many of these exporters have contacted my office and many are now starting to speak out about their concerns in the media. John Orr, director of Premium Grain, in Fremantle told the <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline> last week that he was 'appalled' and really quite angry at the government for its handling with this crisis—he didn't use the word 'quite'. The article went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">''The impact of that is going to destroy thousands of livelihoods and push our economy further into recession,'' Mr Orr said. ''The whole economy will suffer from their incompetence.''</para></quote>
<para>In <inline font-style="italic">The Financial Review</inline>, it was reported that the Seafood Trade Advisory Group urged the government to restore meaningful dialogue and communication with China in order to resolve the disruption to trade. Wines of WA Chief Executive Larry Jorgensen told <inline font-style="italic">The West Australian</inline> that he believed nothing more could be done at an industry or agency level. Rather, he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It has to be sorted out at the higher ranks of government, which is where the problem originated and where it should be addressed.</para></quote>
<para>David Olsen, the chairman of the Australia China Business Council told <inline font-style="italic">The Australian</inline> that he believed the government should use the business community to help find a circuit breaker. What an excellent idea.</para>
<para>A lobster fisher from my electorate of Brand emailed the other day to say that he's lost his entire market in China and, in his words, 'The future looks bleak.' Meanwhile <inline font-style="italic">Guardian Australia</inline> reported that, after Austrade officials held a phone hook-up with agricultural industry reps last Thursday, one of the attendees said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Quite frankly they didn’t tell us anything we didn’t know. They basically said the relationship with China is poor and it doesn’t look like any chance of that improving in the foreseeable future. The main thing was you need to look to diversify your markets.</para></quote>
<para>Minister, why on earth is the government abandoning Australian exporters and Australian jobs at this time of crisis? Minister, is this really the best the Morrison government can do to help Australian exporters? Minister, why is the government doing absolutely nothing to help exporters to achieve true and genuine diversification in this time of crisis?</para>
<para>The government has completely failed to uphold its bargain in this area. They talk a big game in diversification, yet do nothing. For example, as we have discovered in recent weeks at Senate estimates the government has implemented just one of the 20 priority recommendations contained in its 500-page India Economic Strategy, released more than two years ago. Minister, why has the government abandoned the Varghese India Economic Strategy? Why has the government not even bothered to appoint a dedicated trade minister to work on resolving this crisis? Right now we know that the 'minister for everything', the honourable Simon Birmingham, is entrusted with doing just about everything for the government. I think it's time that we had a really good look at that and perhaps appointed a minister for trade that could deal with this crisis. Minister, when will your government ever come up with a plan to support our exporters in this crisis? Do you think the best way to address this crisis is to put your head in the sand, pretend that nothing is really happening and just keep repeating the same old line, 'We're really concerned'? It's not helping. Minister, will this government do its job?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THOMPSON</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I really appreciate being able to contribute today and take part in this consideration in detail. I will take some time to highlight the work that we've been doing in the Pacific, particularly with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of course, the Pacific nations are extremely important partners and neighbours of ours, and it's our duty to be good neighbours. Being from Townsville, I live a lot closer to the Pacific than most. We are the largest garrison city and the 3rd Brigade at Lavarack Barracks has done a lot with the Pacific. A lot of members have deployed to Papua New Guinea and Fiji, helping and building the forces which, as the PM has said, now have the ability to take on bigger responsibilities and work hand-in-glove with the ADF towards regional stability and security. In fact, the PM gave a speech at Lavarack Barracks to the members of the 3rd Brigade a couple of years ago. I spent many years there as a soldier. In his speech, he spoke about how important our partnership is with the Pacific, because it is a part of the Pacific family. He said we need to make sure that the South-West Pacific is secure strategically, stable economically and sovereign politically, because a strong, stable region helps keep us more secure and enables our economies to grow and our peoples to prosper.</para>
<para>In that vein, this budget outlines a significant amount of spending which will be helping during this difficult time of COVID-19. This global pandemic has impacted the Pacific profoundly. Managing the social, economic and health impacts of COVID-19 is now the overriding challenge for the region. The region has done extraordinarily well in managing this crisis. I want to congratulate the Pacific governments, with the many nations in the Pacific still completely free of COVID-19. That is why I was proud to see the recent launch of our COVID-19 response plans. While working hard to keep our own health crisis under control and supporting our own people and our own economy, we haven't forgotten about our Pacific partners. We are very fortunate here in Australia to have been in a very strong budget position, which in many ways prepared us to weather the storm a bit better than many other nations. It wouldn't be right for us to just look after ourselves and not give any thought to the Pacific nations. Our COVID-19 response plans provide a pathway for the region out of this pandemic. These plans provide a detailed blueprint for the implementation of Partnerships for Recovery and have been tailored to reflect the unique COVID-19 context for each of our partners in the Pacific, Timor-Leste and South-East Asia. These plans build on the comprehensive package of support that we announced in the budget for the Pacific and Timor to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.</para>
<para>The package announced in this budget includes a record $1.44 billion to the Pacific, $1 billion to South-East Asia, and an additional $304.7 million in temporary support to the Pacific and Timor-Leste for recovery efforts from the impacts of COVID-19. We responded to more than 120 requests from our region for assistance in January. We are providing comprehensive assistance to the Pacific, including continuing to provide COVID-19 testing kits, PPE, critical care equipment, and other medical supplies to our region, including AUSMAT specialists to Papua New Guinea. There is funding for health authorities in PNG for health infrastructure and service delivery and frontline health workers to support in the provinces. And there is support for the Kiribati Women and Children Support Centre to provide ongoing service delivery during COVID-19, including establishing the Orange Door initiative, a shelter for women and children during lockdown periods. In addition, the government has announced a further government commitment of $23.3 million in support of the Pacific and South-East Asia market. My question to the minister is: how will we continue to ensure the Pacific is supported during the COVID-19 response?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call the member for Brand, I remind members that the debate is due to finish at 7.30 pm. If you want to leave a bit of time for the minister to respond, the ball's in your court.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question on this appropriation is for the Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment. Last month, Japan and South Korea adopted targets of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. China adopted its net zero by 2060 target in September. Not only has the United Kingdom already passed laws to ensure net zero carbon emissions by 2050; British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called our own Prime Minister last month to ask him to do the same. Together, these economies receive more than $310 billion in Australian exports annually. Minister, why won't the Morrison government commit to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 when all our main trading partners and major economies already have?</para>
<para>As we know, the Prime Minister isn't for turning. Even though we know he's a pragmatist and a shapeshifter, it appears he is hamstrung on net zero emissions. In fact, when pressed on Australia's increasing isolation on climate change policy among trading partners, the Prime Minister has boldly stated he is not concerned about our future exports. Minister, why aren't the Prime Minister and the Morrison government concerned about our future exports? Given such global instability due to the coronavirus pandemic and staring down the barrel of a global recession, Minister, shouldn't Australia be doing all it can to be a competitive trading partner on the world stage? Does the minister agree that our future exports won't be adversely affected by the rest of the world moving ahead with net zero emission targets and introducing carbon tariffs while Australia lags behind?</para>
<para>Minister, why won't the Morrison government commit to net zero emissions by 2050 when important peak bodies such as the National Farmers Federation, the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group have already committed to the target? Why won't the Morrison government commit to net zero by 2050 when resource and energy companies such as Woodside, BHP, BP, Rio Tinto and Santos—companies driving the economy and providing jobs for hundreds of thousands of Australians—have committed to a net zero emissions target by 2050?</para>
<para>Minister, why won't the Morrison government commit to net zero 2050 when other conservative governments have? Another question: has the Morrison government conducted modelling on the potential impact on Australia's projected trade wealth in response to these reports of carbon tariffs in international trade? Minister—I will leave time for an answer to these questions, even though I know I won't get any—again, given that global tariffs on carbon are likely to come in with the EU agreement and increasingly with the new Biden presidency in 2021, why is the Morrison government not concerned about our future exports?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to make a few comments in reply to some of those that have been made by those opposite. It is highly amusing that those on the other side of the aisle seek to raise issues of climate, especially when you have the member for Hunter, who has clearly been marginalised in his own party room. I was reading the <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline> today. There was a very disturbing report about a shadow cabinet meeting whereby the member for Isaacs apparently called the member for Hunter an idiot.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And then the member for Hunter called the member for Isaacs an idiot. Very unparliamentary. It was very disturbing to see the dysfunction and division on that side of the House.</para>
<para>I was very heartened to see the member for Hunter in, I think, today's <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline> dispensing advice to the Leader of the Opposition in the third person—basically saying the Leader of the Opposition should listen to the member for Hunter. We won't be lectured by those opposite on issues of climate, particularly when we bear in mind that their uncosted climate policies played a big role in the Australian electorate dispensing them and dispatching them during the last election. I think the Australian people see through the shenanigans on the other side. I think they see the dysfunction.</para>
<para>We as a nation have welcomed the fact that the United States is committed to the Paris Agreement under president-elect Biden. We've already committed to it. We have been deeply committed to that agreement since its signing in 2015, and we're on track to meet it. I think the Prime Minister has made it very clear in question time that you have to be honest with the Australian people about where these policies go. I think we saw during the last election the paucity of policy work that had gone into the Labor Party's climate policies. We've seen it writ large with the dysfunction, disharmony and discord within the ranks of the opposition, abusing each other in shadow cabinet meetings. Very, very sad to see.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It being 7.30, the debate is interrupted. The question is that the proposed expenditure for the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio be agreed to.</para>
<para>Proposed expenditure agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is adjourned. Resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:31</para>
<quote><para class="block"> </para></quote>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>