2020-11-12 46 1 4 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 12 November 2020

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30 made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020 1

Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020

Consideration of Senate Message 1 Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020 1

Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:32 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill implements the most significant reforms to Australia's insolvency framework in almost 30 years and is part of the government's economic recovery plan to keep businesses in business and Australians in jobs. The changes will help more Australian small businesses to restructure and increase their chance to survive the economic impact of the coronavirus. These reforms form part of the government's JobMaker plan to ensure Australia emerges from the pandemic with a stronger, more resilient and more competitive economy. As the economy continues to recover, it will be critical that distressed businesses have the necessary flexibility to either restructure or to wind down their operations in an orderly manner. The package of reforms features three key elements. Firstly, a new formal debt restructuring process for small businesses to provide a faster and less complex mechanism for financially distressed but viable firms to restructure their existing debts, increasing the chance of them surviving and contributing to economic and jobs growth. Unlike the current voluntary administration regime the new process adopts a 'debtor in possession' model where the small business owner will remain in control of their business, while a debt restructuring plan is developed and voted on by creditors. The plan will be developed by the business owner in conjunction with an independent small business restructuring practitioner. Safeguards are included to prevent the process from being used to facilitate corporate misconduct such as illegal phoenix activity. They include a bar on the same company or directors using the process more than once within a prescribed period and the provision of a broad power for the insolvency practitioner to stop the process. Additional mechanisms are also included as part of the restructuring process to ensure that creditor interests are represented and protected. The second part of the package is a new, simplified liquidation pathway for small businesses to allow faster and lower-cost liquidation, increasing returns for creditors and employees. Unfortunately, due to the impact of the coronavirus not every business will survive. Often in liquidation the costs of the liquidation can consume all or almost all of the remaining value of a company, leaving little return for creditors. The simplified liquidation process will retain the general framework of the existing liquidation process, with modifications to reduce time and cost. Thirdly, the bill introduces complementary measures to ensure the insolvency sector can respond effectively both in the short and long term to increased demand and to the needs of small business. The new insolvency processes will come into effect from 1 January 2021. This coincides with the ending of the government's temporary measures to support businesses to get through the coronavirus outbreak. The temporary measures had a positive impact on allowing businesses to survive, with around a 50 per cent decrease in the number of companies that have gone into external administration over the period from April to August 2020 (inclusive) compared to the same period the previous year. For businesses wanting to access the new restructuring process, a temporary mechanism will be put in place allowing a company to announce its intention to access the restructuring process. Upon this announcement the company will have access to the existing temporary insolvency relief for up to three months while it arranges to access the new process. Together, these measures will reform our insolvency system to reduce access costs for small business, reduce the time they spend during insolvency processes, ensure greater economic dynamism, and ultimately help more small businesses to survive. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to the bill and has approved it, as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020 2

Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020

First Reading 2 Second Reading 2 09:37 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. On 4 February 2019, the government released its response to the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. The royal commission made 76 recommendations, 54 of which were directed to the government. The government also made 18 additional commitments in its response to the royal commission. The Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020 continues to fulfil the government's commitment to implement the recommendations, with this bill implementing 21 of the commitments made by the government. Schedule 1 to the bill provides that certain provisions of financial services industry codes be made 'enforceable code provisions' where provisions within industry codes relate to specific commitments made by a code subscriber to the consumer. Provisions within industry codes that are broader in their nature and seek to make general, in-principle, commitments regarding industry practices will not form enforceable code provisions. The schedule also provides for the establishment of mandatory financial services industry codes. Schedule 2 to the bill will improve the protections for consumers with life insurance contracts by preventing insurers from inappropriately cancelling life insurance contracts on the basis of non-disclosure or misrepresentation unless the insurer can show it would not have entered into the contract. This schedule also replaces the existing duty of disclosure with a duty for consumers to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to an insurer. The new duty appropriately aligns with a layperson's knowledge of insurance. It removes the need for consumers to guess what the insurer may require to be disclosed. Schedule 3 to the bill implements the government's commitment to an industry-wide deferred sales model for add-on insurance products. The royal commission highlighted that some of these products often represent poor value for consumers and are sold using pressure-selling tactics. The schedule ensures consumers are given four days to consider their purchase of insurance policies with these characteristics. Recognising that immediate access to add-on insurance products may be required in some limited instances, this bill provides for regulations to exempt products from the deferred sales model. One such exemption will be provided to add-on travel insurance products. A commencement date of the later of 5 October 2021 or the day after royal assent has been provided to facilitate this process and to allow affected stakeholders to make the necessary system changes. Schedule 4 to the bill provides ASIC with the power to impose a cap on the commissions that can be paid for add-on insurance products sold by vehicle dealers to prevent inappropriate sales of add-on insurance. Schedule 5 to the bill prohibits the hawking of superannuation and insurance products. Consistent with the final report of the royal commission that 'no financial product should be hawked to retail clients', the new hawking rules apply to all financial products, including managed investment schemes and securities. A number of exceptions will be allowed where the risk to consumers is low. Schedule 6 to the bill will protect consumers by preventing organisations from calling themselves an 'insurer' unless they are a regulated insurer, and preventing anyone from selling a product as 'insurance' unless it is an insurance product. Schedule 7 to the bill will enhance consumer protections by making insurance claims handling a financial service. This will apply Australian financial services licensing requirements, such as general conduct obligations, to entities that handle and settle insurance claims, enabling ASIC to take regulatory action to prevent and address poor conduct and consumer outcomes. Schedule 8 to the bill will prohibit superannuation trustees from having a duty to act in the interests of another except those arising from its role as trustee. This will address the royal commission's concern that such duties could conflict with its duty to act in the best interests of their superannuation fund members. Schedule 9 to the bill amends the roles and responsibilities of the superannuation regulators, including by expanding ASIC's role as a consumer protection regulator. This schedule will also expand the Australian financial services licensing regime to cover all activities undertaken by superannuation trustees. This will ensure ASIC has access to its full suite of enforcement tools, and strengthen ASIC's ability to take enforcement action and ensure fair remediation of members. Importantly, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) will remain the regulator responsible for prudential regulation and member outcomes in superannuation, including licensing and supervision of trustees. Schedules 10 and 11 to the bill strengthen the existing breach reporting regime for Australian financial services licensees, and establish an equivalent breach reporting regime for Australian credit licensees. Strengthened breach reporting requirements will ensure more misconduct is reported, reports are provided in a timely manner, and strengthen ASIC's ability to take any necessary enforcement action. The schedules also amend the law to require both Australian financial services and credit licensees to investigate misconduct by financial advisers and mortgage brokers, and remediate clients who have suffered loss or damage as a result of that misconduct. This ensures that consumers are being promptly and effectively remediated where necessary. Further, the schedules amend the law to establish a protocol for reference-checking and information sharing about financial advisers and mortgage brokers to ensure they past misconduct is not hidden from their new employer. Schedule 12 to the bill puts in place a statutory obligation for ASIC and APRA to cooperate with each other, share information on request, and notify the other whenever either forms the belief that a breach in respect of which the other has enforcement responsibility has occurred. These changes will improve collaboration between ASIC and APRA and ensure enforcement and supervisory decisions are based on all available information. This schedule also further formalises ASIC's meeting procedures and aligns them with those in the APRA Act to reinforce the centrality of decision-making in ASIC, and improve governance. Finally, the Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations was consulted in relation to a number of the amendments and has provided approval as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Implementation of these reforms, as recommended by the royal commission, is a critical component of restoring trust and confidence in Australia's financial system. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Corporations (Fees) Amendment (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020 3

Corporations (Fees) Amendment (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 09:45 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill forms part of the implementation of the government's commitment to an industry-wide deferred sales model for all add-on insurance products. Under this legislation, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission will have the ability to charge a fee for applications made to exempt the four-day consumer consideration period for the purchase of insurance sold in addition to a related product. Finally, the Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to the amendments and has approved them as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020 4

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020

First Reading 4 Second Reading 4 09:46 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Morrison government is committed to supporting individuals, families and the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic by providing additional financial assistance to people who lose their jobs or who have reduced income. Through this gill we are extending temporary, enhanced financial support, through the coronavirus supplement and other temporary eligibility and access measures, for an additional three months from 1 January 2021. To date, our temporary measures have been successful in supporting Australians through economic shock and uncertainty, but we understand that challenging conditions continue. The government has committed unprecedented fiscal and economic support—totalling $507 billion, or around 26 per cent of GDP—in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The government is actively monitoring economic conditions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and is responding by continuing assistance for individuals and families. This bill responds to the continuing uncertainty around economic conditions in Australia by allowing the government to extend temporary financial support, through the coronavirus supplement and other temporary eligibility and access measures, mostly until 31 March 2021. The government is providing a safety net to those who need it most while maintaining incentives to work. Schedule 11 of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act 2020 included a power that allowed the minister to temporarily modify social security law to respond to circumstances relating to COVID-19 by making a disallowable legislative instrument. This broad power that allowed the minister to modify or vary any qualification or rate in social security law was critical in allowing the government to respond flexibly to emerging situations and apply changes that aided Services Australia in quickly addressing the large volume of claims received in March and April 2020. The minister's power to make these modifications will be automatically repealed on 31 December 2020 and instruments made under the modification power will no longer have any effect. This bill amends a number of existing provisions and introduces new provisions in social security law to enable the government to further extend support measures in the income support system beyond the end of 2020. The current powers in social security law that enable the minister to set the rate and duration of the coronavirus supplement will remain in place until 31 March 2021. The bill will enable related exemptions from waiting and preclusion periods to also remain in place until that date. This bill introduces a new time-limited instrument-making power, allowing the government to respond flexibly to any changes in circumstances which might arise as a result of COVID-19 in the first quarter of next year, while parliament may not be sitting. Importantly this is a more targeted temporary power that will only be available until 31 March 2021, and until 16 April 2021 for the nil-rate period. These powers will be used to extend temporary measures that are currently in place to enhance access and eligibility for income support payments. Together, these powers will enable the minister to determine: the rate of coronavirus supplement and the cohorts it is paid to the personal income test for recipients of JobSeeker payment (excluding single principal carer recipients) and youth allowance (other) the partner income test for JobSeeker payment recipients eligibility criteria for JobSeeker payment and youth allowance (other) the waiver of certain waiting periods the waiver of the 104-week qualifying residence period for parenting payment the period in which income support recipients can maintain eligibility for payment and retain their concession card while receiving a nil rate of payment due to employment income the period self-declarations could continue to be used for member of a couple assessments with a modified test for JobSeeker payment pension portability arrangements, and extensions to mobility allowance two- and 12-week grace periods. In addition, the bill permanently repeals provisions providing temporary exemptions to the liquid assets test waiting period, and assets tests. These exemptions were put in place as part of the initial package of coronavirus economic response measures in March 2020 and are no longer necessary, and have not been in effect since 25 September 2020. The bill also introduces a discretionary power under the social security and veterans' entitlements assets tests to extend the principal home temporary absence provisions. This provision is beneficial as it prevents the inclusion of the principal home in the assets test while a person is unable to return to Australia within the allowable absence period, due to circumstances beyond their control. Under current temporary arrangements in place until 28 March 2021, the Australian Taxation Office provides JobKeeper information to Services Australia for planning, policy development and compliance purposes. While the Australian Taxation Office will not provide any new JobKeeper data to Services Australia after 28 March 2021, the bill will clarify that, after 28 March 2021, Services Australia and the Department of Social Services will be able to continue to use the JobKeeper information provided on or before 28 March 2021. The government has announced it will use the new and modified instrument-making provisions to extend existing temporary and concessional arrangements in the social security system for an additional three months to 31 March 2021. These measures include: Extension of payment of the coronavirus supplement for an additional three months at a rate of $150 per fortnight Extending changes to the personal income test for recipients of JobSeeker payment (excluding single principal carer recipients) and youth allowance (other) to provide a $300 income-free area and a 60c taper Extending changes to the partner income test for JobSeeker payment recipients to taper at 27c in the dollar for income earned above the partner income-free area Extending expanded eligibility criteria for JobSeeker payment and youth allowance (other) to allow sole traders, the self-employed and permanent employees who have been stood down by their employers, people self-isolating because they or someone they are caring for is required to continue to be eligible for payment Extending the waiver of the ordinary waiting period, seasonal work preclusion period and newly arrived resident's waiting period Extending until 16 April 2021 the period in which income support recipients can maintain eligibility for payment and retain their concession card while receiving a nil rate of payment due to employment income Extending other minor policy changes, such as pension portability arrangements, currently implemented by legislative instruments under item 40A of schedule 11 to the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act 2020. The legislative framework in this bill will allow government to extend temporary measures in the income support system to provide additional support to Australians impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. The instrument-making power will deliver the policies at a cost of $3.2 billion to 2024-25. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020 5

Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020

Second Reading 5 09:55 The SPEAKER 00APG 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. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 6 09:56 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020 6

Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020

Second Reading 6 Third Reading 6 09:57 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020 6

Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020

Second Reading 6 Third Reading 6 09:58 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020 6

Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020

Second Reading 6 09:59 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I speak today on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020. I move the following amendment: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the Government has: (1) damaged the quality of Australia's world-class education system; (2) abandoned university workers during the pandemic; (3) cut billions in funding and made it harder and more expensive for students to go to university; and (4) done nothing that will help young people get into priority courses and jobs". This bill amends the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency Act 2011, the TEQSA Act, to clarify and streamline the regulatory framework of higher education providers. The amendments seek to give effect to recommendations made in the Coaldrake review of the higher education provider category standards. Emeritus Professor Peter Coaldrake AO completed the review in October 2019. The purpose of the Coaldrake review was to ensure that provider category standards in the national regulatory framework remain fit for purpose. The review made 10 recommendations to simplify and rebalance the current categories of higher education providers, including reducing the overall number of categories from six down to four. The amendments provided by this bill differ slightly from the recommendations of the Coaldrake review by adopting 'university colleges' as one of the category names rather than, as recommended by Coaldrake, 'institute of higher education'. Labor is concerned that the provisions in this bill do partly ignore Professor Coaldrake's recommendations, and we need to be sure that this change won't jeopardise the reputation of our excellent Australian universities. To that end, Labor has referred this bill to a Senate inquiry. The bill also allows a decision by TEQSA to refuse to change a provider's category to be reviewed and provides TEQSA with legislative authority to assume control of higher education student records in the unfortunate event that the provider ceases operation. The bill will ensure the protection of the word 'university' from use in internet domain names, by requiring the minister's consent before any such use. I will come back to this aspect of the bill a bit later in the speech, because it's slightly problematic. These amendments are welcome. They will be helpful in simplifying the provider categories of higher education providers. Currently the threshold standards 2015 determine what criteria are required for an institution to be registered in a provider category. The current threshold standards 2015 provide that institutions who register as Australian universities, Australian university colleges and Australian university of specialisation are currently required to undertake: … research that leads to the creation of new knowledge and original creative endeavour at least in those broad fields of study in which Masters Degrees (Research) and Doctoral Degrees (Research) are offered There are no requirements about the volume of research to be undertaken or the quality of the research to be undertaken. The Coaldrake review recommended: Along with teaching, the undertaking of research is, and should remain, a defining feature of what it means to be a university in Australia; a threshold benchmark of quality and quantity of research should be included in the Higher Education Provider Category Standards. This threshold benchmark for research quality should be augmented over time. The bill provides that TEQSA have regard to the quality of the research undertaken as part of its consideration of whether a provider meets the threshold standards in relation to the research requirement for the provider category that they have applied for. Labor will always welcome strengthening research requirements for our universities. In the city and in the bush, universities are pivotal in changing lives and uplifting communities, whether it be in the wonderful Griffith University at Nathan campus or Griffith University down in Logan campus—wherever it is—we know that universities change lives. We have world-class researchers at our universities. We should always be striving to enhance their efforts and increase their endeavours. I'm concerned that other changes made by the government, including recently passed legislation that will reduce the funding that universities have available for research, may impact on this otherwise welcome change. Again, Labor will await the findings of the Senate inquiry. I'm grateful the minister has responded relatively promptly to the recommendations in the Coaldrake review. This is a refreshing change for the Morrison government. They have not reacted so swiftly to the changing circumstances that smashed into the university sector this year. We know universities have been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, universities were one of the first sectors to be hit when international borders were closed, locking international students out. I remember clearly the guy who came up with the 'Where the bloody hell are you?' campaign turned around to international students and said, 'Go home'—incredible damage done to our brand. Obviously, the other factor is the projected revenue cut just from international students being locked out. It's about $16 billion— An honourable member interjecting— Mr PERRETT HVP He said, 'Go home.' I take that interjection. He actually said, 'Go home.' It's about $16 billion of cuts from international students, but the tail of the damage could linger longer and damage deeper for years to come. That's on top of the $2.2 billion in cuts that have already been made to university funding by the Liberal-National government. And now that the job-ready graduates bill is passed, universities can expect an additional funding cut of $1 billion a year. The government claims the job-ready graduates reform is to encourage students to study maths, science and engineering. That is a noble goal; I do admit that. But mark my words, the policy is not going to do that. In fact, I bet it will achieve the opposite. The reforms will actually incentivise universities to offer more humanities courses and fewer maths and science courses because they'll receive more funding for the non-priority courses, including humanities, than they will for the priority courses like maths and science. Currently, universities receive $28,958 resourcing to teach a science course. Under the new reforms, universities will only receive $24,200 resourcing for that same course. That's a cut of $4,758, irrespective of what's going on with the cuts delivered by international students not arriving. To make things even worse for universities this year, the Morrison government has deliberately blocked them from access to JobKeeper payments. Three times the Morrison government changed the rules to deliberately exclude universities from the $130 billion wage subsidy program. This government has absolutely neglected universities during this pandemic—this health and economic crisis. Not surprisingly, more than 12,000 jobs have been lost across the country already, and it's estimated that, by the end of the year, 21,000 university jobs will be lost. That's 21,000 households hit because of the neglect from the Morrison government. Just last week, Griffith University, who have a campus in my electorate of Moreton, announced they'd be cutting almost 300 university jobs. This Morrison government could have stopped the job losses—academics, tutors, admin staff, library staff catering staff, grounds staff, cleaners, security—but it didn't. All of those workers have families, and they're just trying to get through this challenging year, put food on the table and keep the roof over their heads. Instead, the Morrison government hasn't lifted a finger to help them. Sadly, regional universities are the ones that will be hit hardest. Regional universities support 14,000 jobs. Go beyond the cities, and see how that will play out. When Prime Minister Morrison attacks the bush, where are the voices of the Nationals, to stick up for their universities? Regional universities are huge employers in places like Cairns—a town that's actually doing it very tough because of tourism—Townsville, Rockhampton, Toowoomba, Wollongong, Armidale, Bathurst, Newcastle, Ballarat, Bendigo, Whyalla, Port Augusta, Launceston and Burnie. They are huge employers in those towns. These districts have had a horrendous year. Many of them have had to shut down campuses; they've had jobs cut. And that's often, in some places, coming on top of 12 months of fire, flood and drought—all those other things—as well as COVID-19. In May, we saw Central Queensland University—Queensland's largest regional university—announce that it would close three of its rural campuses, in places like Yeppoon, Biloela and Noosa. At the same time, Central Queensland University was forced to cut 182 jobs. Did we hear anything from the National Party? No—nothing. This not only affects the university staff and students; it has a wider impact on the nation. We know that seven in 10 regional university graduates take up work outside of metropolitan areas and that those universities and students reinvest more than $2 billion a year in those regional communities with university campuses. Once students put on the Akubra, seven out of 10 of them at a bush university will graduate and won't take that Akubra off. They'll stay in the bush. So the impact of these closures will be felt for many, many years. The incredibly talented researchers at our universities are doing remarkable work during this very difficult year. Researchers are working around the clock to find a vaccine, with some promising trials occurring right now. Just this week, the University of Queensland in Brisbane announced they've produced locally made coronavirus proteins in their state-of-the-art laboratory which are proving useful in a sophisticated new blood test for COVID-19. Our universities may end up saving humanity, but they can't rely on the Morrison government to protect their jobs. Education is actually our fourth-largest export industry. I saw the Prime Minister, in a former life, bring in a lump of coal, but he's never brought in a university degree and recognised our fourth-largest export industry. The Morrison government made a deliberate choice not to help universities during this crisis, and students are also going to be hit by the Job-ready Graduates reforms. These reforms are going to make it harder and more expensive for students to go to university. In fact, some students will be playing double for their degrees. The reforms are unlikely to create an incentive for students to study maths, science or engineering just because they may be slightly cheaper. Either students want to study maths, science and engineering or they don't. I don't think any educator would agree that students should be making their future study choices, something that will determine the rest of their life, based on the cost of the degree. Saddling students with a mountain of debt before they've even commenced their career could potentially create a disincentive to study at all. That can't be good for students or for our nation at a time when we need our best and brightest most. We know that by 2025 Australia will require another 3.8 million university qualifications. Australians need our universities to be skilling up students for jobs for the future. Universities need support, not constant cuts, and students need to be inspired to study the course of their choice without fear of the great burden of debt. The Morrison government has promised to fund 39,000 new university places by 2023, but the truth is they're cost-shifting university education to students by increasing student debt. Students overall will be paying an extra seven per cent of the total cost of their university courses because of decisions made by the Morrison government. That is in the context of the class of 2020, who are coming to the end of their school year right now—what an exceptionally difficult year! As politicians, we spend a lot of time with our graduating classes. This year has been incredible. They've not had the benefit of spending as much time with their peers due to COVID-19 restrictions, be it on sports or social activities. Many classes have had to be undertaken online, and that is not always ideal. It does suit some kids, but most have suffered because of it. The usual stresses of year 12 have been exacerbated by anxiety about a virus that has caused more than a million deaths so far across the globe. Families have been separated by travel restrictions, grandparents have been isolated, and then, to top it off, the Morrison government is making it harder and more expensive for this graduating class to go to university. What a gift! I understand the minister will be moving an amendment to his bill to ensure that the process around limiting the use of the word 'university' in internet domain names is possible in a practical sense. But Labor calls on the government to explain how this change will be enforced. We would expect regular checks to be made to ensure providers are not illegally representing themselves as universities through their domain names, because my understanding is that you automatically are given a domain name if no other entity has that domain name, so practically it will require oversight. We need to do all we can to protect the excellent reputation of Australian universities; we should not let people undermine that. Labor will not oppose this bill in the House today, but we have referred it to a Senate inquiry to better understand the impact that these changes will have on the sector, and we will await the report of that Senate inquiry. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the amendment seconded? Dr Chalmers 37998 It's seconded and I reserve my right to speak. 10:14 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins By investing in higher education, we are truly investing in Australia's future and that of our workforce. It means that we can ensure we have the skills not only for today but also for the future and working within our economy. And we all know that the world is pivoting in the 21st-century economy to a knowledge economy, so universities are now more important than ever. This bill, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020, will help futureproof Australia's higher education system by cutting red tape and simplifying regulation. The Morrison government wants to ensure we support school leavers, international students and those looking to obtain new skills or to reskill through higher education in Australia. Sadly, many have lost their jobs through COVID. Many will be seeking to reskill, and they need those tools to succeed in the area of future job growth. We all know that, when there is a recession, universities and higher education are countercyclical, and that is because people know that, in order to be competitive, they need to upskill. Pleasingly, Australia seems to be coming out of the COVID-19 recession faster than anticipated, and that is because of the great work by all Australians in keeping our country safe and following the guidelines of the states and territories with regard to COVID-safe approaches. The Morrison government knows the strength of higher education and has made a record investment of more than $18 billion in Australia's universities during 2020. I need to pick up on something that a member opposite said earlier. He said that we locked universities out of JobKeeper. This is misleading and is actually false. There is absolutely no doubt that universities can access JobKeeper if they then can show that they had a decrease of either 30 per cent or 50 per cent in turnover. The fact that they didn't access JobKeeper is evidence that they have managed to keep going through what has been a very difficult time, and some of that has been because they've continued to be significantly subsidised by the government. Under the recently announced Job-ready Graduates Package, the government's current funding of $18 billion a year will grow to $20 billion by 2024. We continue to back in universities. I know universities are always wanting more funding. I have been a university professor both here in Australia and in the United Kingdom. I know how difficult it is in the area of universities. That is because it's a very privileged position to be in a university, to be able, in the area of research in particular, to ask important questions that the community needs answering. As such, it can seem very difficult and very competitive for the sector. But, as a government, we support universities—not only the great work they're doing in teaching but also the wonderful work they're doing in research. There are already around 1.5 million students studying in Australian higher education, and the new arrangements under the Job-ready Graduates Package will create 100,000 new university places by 2030. In September the Morrison government also announced it will provide $326 million to deliver an additional 12,000 undergraduate Commonwealth supported places from 2021, just next year. This will provide additional support for students, in particular in regional and remote Australia. I would like to comment that this is incredibly important, because we know that students who spend time in regional and remote Australia often put down roots. They meet people that may become their future partner. They understand how rewarding it can be to work in small community towns. It's very important that we invest in and support our regional and remote communities so that families can support their children locally but also so that it encourages people from the cities to explore and seek new ways of having a great life in different parts of Australia. This bill amends the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011, colloquially known as the TEQSA Act, to implement the recommendations of the Coaldrake Review of the Higher Education Provider Category Standards. It will introduce a measure to preserve and protect the academic records of students whose higher education provider has ceased to exist. It also contains a small number of other measures intended to improve the regulation of Australia's higher education sector by strengthening the TEQSA Act's administration and the TEQSA's regulatory role. The review was completed in 2019 by Emeritus Professor Peter Coaldrake AO, who recommended amending the provider category standards to clarify and streamline the regulatory framework to ensure it is fit for purpose for all stakeholders, including students, the regulator, and current and future providers. The Morrison government has accepted all 10 of the Coaldrake review's recommendations. The key recommendation of the review was to both simplify and enhance the categorisation of higher education providers through a number of measures: firstly, reducing the number of domestic university categories from three down to a single category, called an 'Australian university'; secondly, reducing the number of overseas university categories from two down to one, with the definition 'overseas university'; and, thirdly, enhancing the categories for non-university providers by introducing a second category for those providers with a track record of the highest quality delivery and learning outcomes, called 'institute of higher education', and also a new category of provider to be called 'university college'. The university college category will introduce a mark of quality and better signal diversity and differentiation in the non-university sector. These signals are very important in the marketplace—I know this as both a university professor and a mother of four young adults who are entering the higher education sector as we speak. It will provide an opportunity for the highest quality providers to operate in regional and thinner markets without the burden imposed by the need to undertake research in the university categories. It will also offer an achievable and practical transitional pathway for institutions seeking to work towards university status. This is very important for the sector, as we encourage new providers and a free market to ensure that these categories are opening up diversity and providing new educational models as we go forward. Importantly, the changes to this act will provide a new pathway for the future establishment of greenfield universities. The university sector is changing—it's changing gradually, but it is changing—as it responds to the needs of students and the needs of society. As society changes, as it becomes more digitalised, as the economy changes, as we move to a knowledge and service provider economy in the 21st century, universities too need to pivot and provide market products that are fresh, innovative and good for the students who require them so that they are job-ready for the future. Should a state or territory government or significant Australian or overseas entity wish to establish a new university from scratch, the changes to this act will enable that. The new provider categories also clarify the obligation of institutions in both the Australian university and university college categories to be active participants in their communities and enhance the employability of graduates through civic leadership and engagement with employers and industry. I have to stress how important this is. Universities cannot just be ivory towers. The best universities are the ones that understand that giving a good education in the 21st century also includes providing civic leadership and engagement with future employers and potential industry partners because it gives an opportunity for students to prepare for their future, not just be spilled out into the workplace with no skills and no opportunities. Providing that when they are in the university environment is, I think, a very empowering obligation of these higher education providers. The new categories also clarify how the quality of research activity will be assessed in the Australian university category, giving more certainty to institutions about the expectations for research quality. As a medical research professor, I really do welcome these changes. It's so important that the universities' research is of the highest quality; we know that that drives university rankings. More importantly, nowadays, university research needs to have a target in making sure that it is relevant, that it's useful and that it's going to make a difference to the world. The amendments to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act in this bill are consequential to the amendments to the standards themselves, which will be remade through a new legislative instrument once this bill has been passed. The changes to the standards have been drafted by the Higher Education Standards Panel, as required by section 58 of the TEQSA Act. These amendments will present the threshold standards as a single unified framework instead of four distinct types of threshold standards. This will enable the structure of the threshold standards instrument to be simplified, making it clearer for providers, students and others to read and use. Other measures include reference to the new Australian Qualifications Framework qualification type of 'undergraduate certificate' in the definition of 'higher education award'. These measures will also allow TEQSA to extend the period of a provider's registration or course accreditation more than once, which will help TEQSA manage its regulatory workload better and provide low-risk providers with additional flexibility, including in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It will also allow a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision by TEQSA not to change a provider's category if this was requested. Finally, these changes will ensure protection of the word 'university' in Australian internet domain names in a similar way to existing provisions that protect the use of the word 'university' in company and business names. The Morrison government recognises the importance of research to Australia. I think all Australians, through the COVID pandemic, have become armchair epidemiologists. I welcome this. It's wonderful to be having conversations with people about things like sampling frames, prevalence, case indices and how to respond to the COVID crisis. I think we've all been glued to the press conferences by the Prime Minister, by the chief medical officer and by the states' and territories' premiers and state leaders or state ministers. It's very important the Australian public is on board with understanding the empowerment that science brings to our response to COVID and that, as an evidence base and an expert informed government, we've been listening to the power of science. The Australian community expects science to help deliver technology and innovation to provide a better life for all of us and to provide better products to the rest of the world, because that's what Australia is good at: being resilient, resourceful and smart. There is recognition that research is also fundamental to the role of universities and in sustaining Australia's reputation for world-class research. This is why the Minister for Education has worked closely with the university sector, through CEOs, forums and the Research Sustainability Working Group, chaired by Professor Deborah Terry, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland, to develop a plan to support this important sector, especially as international student income has taken a significant hit from COVID. I note the Minister for Education has also been working very closely with regard to the future for international students returning to Australia and supporting universities in this very important outcome. The Morrison government continues to invest in research infrastructure to support improved management. I'd particularly like to welcome a recent announcement made by the Minister for Education. In addition to investing a further $1 billion in research to the university sector, which I understand has been welcomed by the sector, there are further announcements that the Minister for Education has made recently. This includes looking at the use of Indigenous data collections. The government will provide $8.9 million to create a data network that will transform how Australia's social and cultural data is accessed, curated and analysed. The project will support the development of e-research platforms and tools for visualisation, transcription and entity recognition. This investment will improve the reliability and consistency of data for Indigenous Australians to better support evidence based Indigenous policymaking. This project will complement the additional $1 billion for university research in this year's budget and the $5.8 million to design a scheme to accelerate turning research into new products, job creation, productivity gains and economic growth. Our government recognises the strength of research. It recognises the strength of science. It recognises the strength of an evidence based approach. It's absolutely clear, looking internationally, how our COVID response has been informed by our scientists and by our researchers. The national-scale infrastructure investment will provide significant benefits for all Australians and drive the development of systems and tools for capturing new and emerging data. This funding will build on existing research infrastructure to enhance research in a broad range of fields and improve the capacity of researchers to access, preserve and disseminate quantitative and qualitative social science data sources. This investment is part of the 2020 national research investment plan, which provides almost $160 million for national research infrastructure projects. I know how important these infrastructure projects are to the university sector. Furthermore, with regard to this bill, Professor Coaldrake recommended that standards for Australian universities should include a quality benchmark of world standard research. This is incredibly important going forward. I have to say I know the member for Curtin has some comments to make about research standards in her speech, but it's important that Australian researchers hold themselves up to the highest standards. I think there's a lot more work that needs to be done with regard to global standards and global rankings of universities. The government will also ensure that research of national standings in fields specific to Australia— (Time expired) 10:29 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley This chamber, this parliament, is full of people whose lives have been enhanced by university degrees. It's full of people whose opportunities for work and for civic engagement have been enhanced by university degrees. Some people in this place are the first person in their families to ever attend university. My husband is not only the only person in his family to finish high school; he is the first person to attend university and is now a professor at Monash University. My father was a public school teacher and then the head of the School of Education at Charles Sturt University, dedicated to teaching teachers to teach. There are members of this chamber who have worked at universities. There are many, many people in this chamber whose work opportunities were enhanced because they studied degrees such as law degrees; they studied accounting, they studied administration, they studied economics—which I'll return to, but one might think that is a pretty important area of study when we're going through the largest recession in 100 years in this country—and they studied commerce. People in this chamber studied communications and, I suspect, marketing. And many, many people in this chamber studied humanities. We got the benefit of studying those subjects, which led to the diverse range of jobs and life experiences that we bring to this place and that enhance our ability to represent our communities. But, unfortunately, this government wants to pull up the drawbridge behind all of us and make it that much harder for people in our electorates to study those subjects, to reap those benefits and to have those opportunities in life. It might not seem like a lot to some of the members on the government benches to leave university with a degree and a debt of about $58,000. But I can tell you that, in my community, that makes going to university almost inconceivable. It doesn't matter that it doesn't have to be repaid immediately. It doesn't matter that their HECS scheme will mean it has to be repaid. What matters is that we are asking young people to leave university with nearly $60,000 worth of debt hanging over them, and we are doing so in an economy that is going to be struggling to recover from this recession for years to come. It is absolutely galling that members of this government—the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the front bench, which is full of people with university degrees—come into this chamber day after day and talk about the economic impacts of the COVID recession and what they're doing to help people find jobs and to help productivity increase and the economy increase—and at the same time they have done, one might think, everything they can to make it harder for universities to get through the pandemic and to make it harder for people who come from a background where $58,000 debt is inconceivable to get the benefits those members got when they went to university. And it's easy enough to disparage an arts degree, isn't it: 'That's basket weaving.' Do you know what people study when they study arts degrees, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker? They study philosophy, they study critical thinking and they study history—and we know what happens if you don't learn from your history. They study economics. Like me, they study psychology. They study social work. People that study humanities learn to think, learn to be critical and learn to be innovative. When we're talking about the future of work and being skills-ready, it is absolutely important and laudable that we get more people studying STEM. They wouldn't be a person in this chamber that isn't behind that. But when we talk about the future of work and STEM, and automation and the impact of technology, the jobs that aren't able to be automated will require people to be able to think innovatively, to be critical and to be imaginative. We will need people to work in the care economy and to have the skills to be able to look after others, and to think about better ways to look after others. And, while this government might not want people to be in universities thinking critically about policies, coming up with innovative ideas or applying ethics and philosophy to the decisions that are made in policy, that is an absolutely critical role for a civilised, forward-thinking, educated community. As I've said in speeches before, we are looking at driverless cars in our near future, as inconceivable as that might be to those of us who grew up with the Jetsons and thought it was a fairy tale. We're looking at driverless cars. Of course, it's scientists and engineers and digital specialists who are designing them. But do you know who is working out how to make driverless cars make the decisions that we make, subconsciously or unconsciously, about whether to drive up a kerb and hit a tree or keep driving and hit a person? It is ethicists, philosophers, thinkers—people who are in the humanities sections of universities. That's why the government's Job-ready Graduates Package is fundamentally flawed. As members have said before me, it's also flawed because we're looking at a university sector where there is a perverse incentive for universities, who have had billions and billions cut out of their funding, to now offer more places to those cheaper degrees than the ones the government thinks it wants people to study. The member for Higgins asserted that it is absolutely false that universities have been cut out of JobKeeper. I know that the member worked at a university, but if she were to go and talk to someone she would find that they are absolutely flabbergasted to hear that they were cut out of JobKeeper deliberately. Every time it seemed that universities would meet the thresholds to qualify for JobKeeper, what did this government do? It changed the thresholds. They've been cut out. Twelve-and-a-half thousand jobs across the university sector have been lost. Universities were one of the first sectors to be hit by the pandemic. Universities, which have been relying on foreign students in part because of a lack of proper funding, lost their foreign students and were hit hard. They tried to explain time and time again to this government that it wouldn't just be their direct employees that would be hit; it would also hit the local economic ecosphere around universities—the cleaners, the maintenance people, the cafes that would have to be shut down. An economic ecosphere builds up around a university. We know that in my electorate of Dunkley. We know that with Monash University Peninsula campus; it is part of our ecosphere and we feel the cuts. Before I finish, I want to pay tribute to two employees of Monash University Peninsula campus who, at the end of this year, will no longer be employees. Monash University, as we all know, has felt the financial impact of COVID-19. It has a funding shortfall of about $350 million because of that and has had to cut back. They didn't want to cut back in the areas of staffing—of course they didn't—but they've had to cut back in areas of student admin and engagement, research support and the library. Sadly, at Monash University, one of the decisions is that the office of Pro Vice-Chancellor (Major Campuses and Student Engagement) at Peninsula campus has been disestablished. I know that Monash University will continue its commitment to the Peninsula campus, and the advisory committee I am privileged to be on will continue to operate. But one of the consequences is that we are losing Melinda Cafarella and Michael Watchorn. Melinda and Michael have made an outstanding contribution to not just Monash University but also our community over many years. We owe them our gratitude and thanks. Melinda commenced at the university in 2006 and Michael in 2012. Together they have coordinated eight open days, welcoming in excess of 25,000 prospective students and their families through the gates. They have welcomed and oriented in excess of 11,383 new students in 18 intakes. Michael has worked very hard with the region's industry partners, schools and local government—and state and federal governments, I might also say—on countless projects and committees. They've overseen the planning, build and official opening of the Monash Peninsula Activity and Recreation Centre, Gillies Hall and the new student hub. Gillies Hall is an amazing example of an economical and sustainable building. They have overseen a targeted regional marketing campaign for the campus, establishing a campus social media presence; hosted countless conferences for local organisations; and run hundreds of seminars, staff engagement events and workshops for internal and external stakeholders. Michael arranged for Monash University to host my first ever Dunkley students environment day last year, where students from high schools across my electorate came and talked about sustainability and what we can do to make a more sustainable community, state and country, and I thank him again for that. They have also overseen numerous capital development projects to improve the campus amenity and student experience. They will be missed, and, on behalf of our community, I thank them for their leadership, for connecting the campus with the community and for giving the campus a profile. I commit to doing all that I can to carry on their work. Everyone, from both sides of this parliament, who gives a speech on universities talks about the importance of universities and research to our community, and I accept that everyone feels that genuinely. But it is not the words, in the end, that a government should be measured by. It's the impact; it's what actually happens. We know that, in the university sector, we have outstanding researchers, lecturers and administrators who were already working in highly casualised and insecure jobs. They were already working contract to contract. The idea of tenure has all but disappeared for many people. For some, that's fine. For some, a five-year contract is what they want, but, for many people working in the university sector, it's not what they want, and they certainly don't want rolling 12-month contracts. Just doorknocking across my electorate of Dunkley, I have come across many employees of universities, many of whom have been scientific researchers, whose biggest concern, which they've raised with me, is the insecurity of employment. Now, of course, they're faced with greater insecurity of employment because universities have been cut out of JobKeeper and because there have been over $2 billion worth of cuts before the extra billion dollars' worth of cuts with the job-ready legislation and because of the brutal impact of the lack of international students. So, while measures in this legislation are welcome, and while this government has made announcements about further funding for research, that's really a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be done. This is a government that was able to bring in legislation for an integrity unit for university students, to make sure they didn't cheat at exams during the COVID pandemic, but wasn't able to bring in an integrity commission to oversee politicians and public servants, because apparently they were too busy during the pandemic. This is a government that, when it needs to pick a fight about anything, from freedom of speech to the way in which students behave, turns to the university sector to demonise it. This is a government that is suggesting that the range of degrees in humanities, law, economics and commerce aren't worthy degrees as to job preparedness. The figures that we quote about jobs that are lost and funding that has been cut aren't figures; they're people. I've spoken before about Nicole in my electorate whose son is doing first year law this year and whose daughter will start law next year. She's going to graduate with double the debt of her brother. It's not fair. It's not right. And the government has time to fix it. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Before I call the member for Curtin, I just want to remind members of standing order 62 and ask them just to be cognisant of that, particularly when people are speaking. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. 10:44 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin Before I speak in favour of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020, I want to address comments that have been made over the preceding weeks about universities' access to JobKeeper. Statements that universities were excluded from JobKeeper are actually a misunderstanding, a misinterpretation of what actually transpired. Universities are eligible to apply for JobKeeper if they, like all other organisations, satisfy the turnover tests. If a university with a turnover of under $1 billion has lost 30 per cent or more of their turnover, they can apply for JobKeeper. If a university with a turnover of more than $1 billion suffers a 50 per cent turnover loss, they can apply for JobKeeper. Charities, if they have suffered a loss of 15 per cent, can apply for JobKeeper. Universities have been hit hard. At the present time, I don't think any university has actually applied for JobKeeper. To me, that is somewhat positive, because it means they haven't satisfied the 30 per cent turnover loss or the 50 per cent turnover loss. Universities are $100-million-plus businesses—some more than $1 billion. These are not small charities the likes of which satisfy the 15 per cent turnover test; they are multi-hundred-million-dollar organisations. They have boards. They have financial and accounting audit committees that advise them on investments and advise them on expenditure. They are big corporate entities, even though they're not for profit—big entities with access to experts and advice. They didn't need to be included within the definition of a charity. They are treated exactly like all other organisations of their size and with their capabilities. So, any statement that they were excluded from JobKeeper is actually a misconstruction of what actually happened and what is actually the case. That is not to say that universities are not hurting; they are hurting. I note that this particular bill, which I'm pleased to speak in favour of, proposes to amend the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act, and it's going to do this in a number of ways—first of all, to give effect to the government's decision to implement the recommendations arising from the review of the Higher Education Provider Category Standards, about which I will speak more in a moment. It's also going to give effect to an outstanding recommendation from the review of the impact of the TEQSA Act on the higher education sector, otherwise known as the impact review, which is effectively going to join four threshold standards into one single, unified framework, which will be clearer to read and to use. Finally, the bill is going to improve regulation of the Australian higher education sector through a small number of other measures, including ensuring that student records can be appropriately handled following a provider's ceasing to operate and that the term 'university' as it appears in Australian internet domain names is protected. Australia's higher education sector has established a reputation globally as an education leader. This position is supported by Australia's higher education quality assurance framework, which comprises a national regulatory body, known as TEQSA, and is underpinned by strong threshold standards and provider category standards. All higher education providers, including universities, must be registered with TEQSA in order to offer higher education courses in Australia. TEQSA was established in 2011 and became operational in 2012. It was a key part of the Bradley review undertaken in 2008 to ensure the quality of the Australian higher education sector and the education it delivers. TEQSA protects the quality of Australia's higher education through its assessment of compliance with the threshold standards. TEQSA is generally well regarded in the sector and internationally, and this was noted in the 2017 impact review, conducted by Deloitte. The provider category standards actually pre-date the Bradley review. They are based on the earlier national protocols for higher education, which were first adopted by state and territory governments in 2000 and updated in 2007. The national protocols were used by states and territories for the regulation and accreditation of higher education prior to the establishment of TEQSA in 2011. The purpose of the national protocols was to assure students and the community that higher education institutions in Australia met identified criteria and were subject to appropriate government regulation. The national protocols were designed to ensure consistent criteria and standards across Australia for the recognition of new universities, the operation of overseas higher education institutions in Australia and the accreditation of higher education courses to be offered by non-self-accrediting providers. Following the Bradley review and with the establishment of TEQSA came new threshold standards which were tabled in parliament in 2011. As noted before, these initial threshold standards were largely based on the national protocols and were put into four separate standards. The particular bill that is before us today is focusing on the Higher Education Provider Category Standards. The PCS, or provider category standards, define categories of higher education providers and requirements expected of them for registration by TEQSA. At present, prior to their being amended by this bill, there are six categories for all higher education providers: five for universities and one for other providers. The five university categories are Australian University, Australian University College, Australian University of Specialisation, Overseas University and Overseas University of Specialisation. In actual fact, there are 41 Australian universities, one Australian university of specialisation, two overseas universities, one university college, and zero overseas universities of specialisation. In the other category—the one category for all other providers, which is simply called 'higher education providers' and which is sometimes referred to as 'non-university higher education providers'—there are 135. They vary in size and discipline from very small niche providers to large providers with breadth of offerings. Providers in this category include: not-for-profit providers, including semiautonomous government bodies; for-profit providers; TAFE providers, where they offer higher education qualifications; faith based colleges; providers that specialise in one field of education; and predominantly online providers. Across all of these six categories, in 2019, there were 1.5 million students. Close to 1.4 million of them were enrolled in universities. The 2017-18 Commonwealth budget included a measure to undertake a review of the provider category standards to ensure that they support the Australian government goal for a diverse, high-quality higher education sector that meets the needs of students, employers, the sector and the wider community. In other words, the essential purpose of the review was to ensure that the names used to describe the variety of providers provided consumer protection to students and potential students, and the broader community. In October 2018, the Minister for Education appointed Professor Coaldrake to lead the review of the provider category standards. The Higher Education Standards Panel provided steering oversight. In December 2018, Professor Coaldrake released a discussion paper, and 67 public submissions were received. In October 2019, the Minister for Education released Professor Coaldrake's final report on the PCS review, and the Australian government released its response to the review in December 2019. In this response, the government accepted the aim of all 10 recommendations put forward by Professor Coaldrake and his committee. The 10 recommendations contained in the PCS review aim to simplify the provider category standards by removing underutilised categories, providing differentiation, supporting provider innovation and aspiration, and maintaining Australia's reputation for world-class higher education. What is being done through this bill involves reducing the overall number of higher education categories from six to four by merging and rationalising the university related categories from five to two and increasing from one to two the number of categories related to those higher education providers which are not universities. The amendments to provider category standards are designed to drive more diversity in higher education, responding to evolving workforce skills needs and driving belter collaboration in our research efforts, and it is essential that we have this diversity. It is also essential that we recognise the higher education sector has changed considerably in the last 20 years. Over the last 20 years, there's been almost a doubling of the amount of students of higher education in Australia, with an overwhelming majority of them studying at university. In 2000, fewer than 16 per cent of Australians aged 15 to 64 held at least a bachelor qualification. In 2018, that figure is more than 31 per cent. In 1988, when I was at university, there were only 400,000 domestic students at universities in Australia. Today, when my son is at university, there are now more than one million people studying at Australian universities. Yes, Australia's population increased in that time, but not to the extent that the rate of participation in higher education in Australia has. I am happy to support these changes and this bill because they will set up a PCS framework that will be fit for purpose and helpful to the sector as it seeks to equip students and communities for a changing future. 10:56 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank all members for their contributions to this debate. The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020 will amend the TEQSA Act 2011 to facilitate implementation of the recommendations of Emeritus Professor Coaldrake AO's review of the higher education provider category standards. It also makes a number of other amendments to the TEQSA Act and the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to simplify the structure of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015; guarantee higher education students will have future access to their student records, even if their institution ceases to operate; protect use of the word 'university' in Australian internet domain names; and confirm that higher education providers can use Indigenous student assistance grants to assist prospective and existing Indigenous students. The bill demonstrates the government's commitment to the needs of students, employers, higher education providers and the wider community through the creation of higher education standards that support a diverse, high-quality education sector and underpin the reputation and quality of our world-leading universities. Following further consultation with the domain name administrator for the dot.au domain space since the bill was introduced, the government will introduce an amendment to replace item 29 in the bill with a new version. This amendment is designed to better align some technical aspects of the provision to the highly automated process the domain administrator uses to manage domain name applications. While the application and approval process will remain exactly the same, the new version of item 29 will ensure the administrator can't technically breach the law if a domain name licence is issued through an automated process before the applicant has sought the minister's consent to include the word 'university' in the domain name. I would like to thank the Scrutiny of Bills Committee for its consideration of the bill and of the Minister for Education's response to its questions. I also thank the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for its deliberation. I commend the bill. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Moreton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

The House divided. [11:03]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 57 AYES Andrews, KL Bell, AM Chester, D Christensen, GR Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Haines, H Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Joyce, BT Kelly, C Laming, A Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Webster, AE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG Young, T 47 NOES Bandt, AP Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Freelander, MR (teller) Georganas, S Giles, AJ Husic, EN Jones, SP Keogh, MJ King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL Mitchell, RG Mulino, D Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Ryan, JC Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Thwaites, KL Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 21 PAIRS Alexander, JG Albanese, AN Allen, K Aly, A Andrews, KJ Bird, SL Archer, BK Byrne, AM Broadbent, RE Claydon, SC Buchholz, S Elliot, MJ Coleman, DB Fitzgibbon, JA Entsch, WG Gorman, P Evans, TM Gosling, LJ Hogan, KJ Hill, JC Howarth, LR Kearney, G Irons, SJ Khalil, P Landry, ML McBride, EM Marino, NB Mitchell, BK Morton, B Murphy, PJ O'Brien, LS O'Neil, CE O'Dowd, KD Owens, JA Wallace, AB Payne, AE Wicks, LE Rowland, MA Wood, JP Shorten, WR Zimmerman, T Wells, A

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

 Consideration in Detail 17 11:08 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (3), as circulated, together. Leave granted. Mr TAYLOR 231027 I move government amendments (1) to (3), as circulated, together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Schedule 1, item 29, page 14 (lines 3 to 25), omit the item, substitute: 29 After section 204 Insert: 204A Use of Australian domain names with the word " university " etc. (1) A person must not use a domain name: (a) with either:    (i) the word "university" in the domain name; or    (ii) a word or expression, that has the same or a similar meaning to the word "university" and that is determined in an instrument under subsection (3), in the domain name; and (b) where the domain name includes an Australian top‑level domain; unless there is an approval in force under subsection (4) in relation to the person's use of that domain name. Scope of prohibition (2) Subsection (1) applies in relation to a person's use of a domain name on or after the commencement of this section if: (a) the licence for the use of that domain name was issued on or after that commencement; and (b) no licence for the use of that domain name had been issued before that commencement to the licensee of the licence referred to in paragraph (a). List of words or expressions (3) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine words or expressions for the purposes of subparagraph (1) (a) (ii). Approval of use of domain names (4) The Minister may, in writing, approve a person's use of a specified domain name. The Minister may give an approval on the Minister's own initiative or on application. (5) The Minister must give a copy of the approval to: (a) the person; and (b) the licensor that issues licences for the use of a domain name to which paragraphs (1) (a) and (b) apply. (6) An approval under subsection (4) comes into force at the time it is given. (7) If a person makes an application for an approval and the Minister refuses to give the approval, the Minister must give written notice of the refusal and of the reasons for the refusal to: (a) the person; and (b) the licensor that issues licences for the use of a domain name to which paragraphs (1) (a) and (b) apply. (8) In deciding whether or not to give an approval under subsection (4), the Minister must have regard to: (a) whether the person is a registered higher education provider; and (b) the matters determined in an instrument under subsection (10). (9) Subsection (8) does not limit the matters to which the Minister may have regard. (10) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine matters for the purposes of paragraph (8) (b). Licence details to be given to the Minister (11) The Minister may, in writing, request the licensor that issues licences for the use of a domain name to which paragraphs (1) (a) and (b) apply to give the Minister the following details in relation to the period specified in the request: (a) the name of each person to whom such a licence has been issued; (b) the domain name covered by the licence; (c) contact details for the person to the extent known by the licensor. (12) The licensor must comply with a request under subsection (11). Delegation (13) The Minister may, in writing, delegate the Minister's functions and powers under this section (except subsections (3) and (10)) to an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department. Approval not a legislative instrument (14) An approval under subsection (4) is not a legislative instrument. (3) Schedule 1, item 30, page 15 (lines 29 to 31), omit subitem (7). Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 18 11:09 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020 19

Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020

Second Reading 19 11:10 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I rise to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House declines to give the bill a second reading and: (1)notes that: (a)thirteen years after the Howard Government's so-called Intervention in the Northern Territory, there is no evidence that compulsory, broad-based income management works; (b)the Minister decided to make the Cashless Debit Card trial permanent before reading the independent review by Adelaide University; and (c)this proposal is racially discriminatory, as approximately 68 per cent of the people impacted are First Nations Australians; and (2)calls on the Government to: (a)not roll out the Cashless Debit Card nationally; and (b)invest in evidence-based policies, job creation and services, rather than ideological policies like the Cashless Debit Card". Labor will not be supporting this bill. We will be opposing this bill. And I am very disappointed to see the government has brought this bill forward to debate in NAIDOC Week. It is absolutely insensitive—outrageous—that the government would think they are going to put this bill through this House in this week. It's also, to me, something that screams of the absence of the partnership approach that the government so much lauds itself on when it comes to working with Indigenous people. It says to me very clearly that this government are not interested in evidence and they will move without a clear evidence base in terms of policy development. It's become crystal clear to me that the example of the Prime Minister's much-lauded changes to Closing the Gap, the promised partnership approach, is not being followed. This bill screams of hypocrisy, it screams of insensitivity, it screams of racial discrimination, and it also screams absolutely that the government is not at all interested in the evidence base. I can wear something if it's evidence-based and if the evidence shows that it is truly working. But there is no evidence. And the government has brought this bill forward before the Adelaide University evaluation has been read by the minister—which I'll get to in a moment—and before it has been made public. I just cannot believe that the government's hypocrisy, the government's lack of care and the government's lack of respect is on full display this week of all weeks. This bill will make the cashless debit card permanent in the existing trial sites of Ceduna, East Kimberley, the Goldfields and Bundaberg-Hervey Bay. But, more than that, it will also permanently replace the BasicsCard with the cashless debit card in the whole of the Northern Territory. There has been no proper discussion. There has been no proper consultation. The government talks about 'information sessions across the Territory'—well, big deal! I will mention in my speech evidence from those information sessions of what people in the Northern Territory told the government in relation to the rollout of this card. People in the Northern Territory have long memories. They still remember the John Howard intervention in the Northern Territory—and this cashless debit card, in my view and in the view of many people in the Northern Territory, is an extension of that dreadful policy. And the member for Lingiari will highlight that in his contribution to this debate. This bill will also replace the BasicsCard with the cashless debit card in Cape York and extend income management in Cape York until 31 December 2021. It will make it easier for people to volunteer to be placed on the cashless debit card, and allow a person to remain on the cashless debit card when they move outside one of the prescribed areas. Labor has long stated very clearly that if people want to be on the card that is their right, and it is not up to Labor to stand in the way, but it has to be with full and informed consent. I can assure you that there has not been full and informed consent of any of these communities, as far as I can see, in terms of what the government is intending to do in relation to this card. The agenda is very clear. It is a continuation, in my view, of the disdain that this government holds in relation to people who need to rely on social security payments. It will enable the secretary to review and revoke cashless debit card exit provisions if the secretary believes a person who has exited the card is no longer reasonably and responsibly managing their affairs. The only reason that provision is there is Labor's amendments some time ago in the other place. There is no other reason that that provision is there. I suspect the government made a mistake in agreeing to those amendments at the time. Perhaps I'm wrong. But what we do know is that there is an absolute go-slow in the minister's office in terms of going through the administrative processes to give people permission to come off the card. This bill has finally exposed what many, including the Labor Party, have long suspected the government agenda to be. This is very important. The government's true agenda—and this is the first or the second step—is a permanent rollout of the card right across the country. Those National Party members who hold seats where there are a lot of people who rely on income support should be very worried about this legislation and looking at it very carefully. The cashless debit card was first proposed as a trial, but we now know that the government has never been interested in finding out whether the card works. We often hear the government talking about how it's reducing this and reducing that. I have no idea how the government can actually say that because there is no proper publicly available evidence in existence to back in those assertions. As I said, Labor is not in the business of standing between individuals and communities that want to voluntarily adopt this card. We've been very clear about that. But this is not voluntary and it is certainly not with people's consent. In Senate estimates, the minister admitted that she had not read the long-awaited review from the University of Adelaide before deciding to make the cashless debit card permanent. We still don't know whether the minister has read the evaluation. We still don't know whether or not the evaluation will be made public. But it is really a moot point, because this government has spent $2.5 million on this evaluation, and it may as well have been tabled and left on a dusty shelf when it comes to providing the advice and the evidence for what should happen now and into the future with the cashless debit card. They say: 'Don't worry about the evaluation. We'll just introduce these permanent arrangements anyhow.' On 6 October the government announced their intention to make the cashless debit card trials permanent in the budget. On 8 October, the government introduced legislation to make the trials permanent. But, on 29 October, Labor senator for the Northern Territory Senator McCarthy asked Senator Ruston, 'Minister, have you read the Adelaide report?' The minister replied, 'No'. This would have been many weeks after the minister and the government decided to make the cashless debit card permanent, so you tell me where the evidence base is. There is none. It is positive proof that the government had no intention at all of taking into account that $2.5 million study done by the University of Adelaide, which the government only did in the first place when under pressure from the crossbench as part of one of their previous extensions of the cashless debit card trial. Were it not for pressure from the crossbench, there'd be no evaluation anyhow. This comes after the Auditor-General found there was no evidence—the Auditor-General, mind you!—that the card works to reduce social harm, as claimed by the government. That's not Labor saying this. This is the Auditor-General saying this—never influenced, of course. We have an Adelaide university evaluation that the minister admitted she had not read, despite having introduced this permanency in the budget that the Treasurer brought down. We have that situation. We now have the Adelaide university evaluation, which may well not have been done and has only been done because the crossbench said to the minister, 'We want some evidence'. But big deal! It doesn't really matter what Adelaide university says when it comes to what the government's intentions are. The simple reality of this bill is that it is racially discriminatory. I will say that again: the simple reality of this bill is that it is racially discriminatory. The rollout of the cashless debit card as proposed by the government will disproportionately impact First Nations people—and I know that other speakers in this debate will refer to that—68 per cent of people who will be forced onto the cashless debit card are First Nations people; over 23,000 out of the 34,000 people impacted by this card will be First Nations people. If that is not racially discriminatory, tell me what is! As the member for Lingiari will expand on, 18,000 of those 23,000 people live in one part of this country: the Northern Territory. Labor is not opposed to income management in all circumstances. We've been clear about that. There are circumstances, such as where there are issues of child protection, domestic violence or dysfunction, where income management is appropriate. There's no argument about that. But the argument is about broad-based compulsory programs that catch and disempower the wrong people. I went to the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area, and I heard from several non-Aboriginal young women, single mums, who had been put on to the card without their consent. They are finding it so disempowering, so embarrassing, and their discussions with me left a powerful impact. Income management can be justified when targeted, as I said, in some circumstances. But indiscriminate, broad-based income management simply does not work. At a recent inquiry into another one of the government's cashless debit card bills, a number of witnesses told the hearing that one of the only credible pieces of evaluation of any form of income management is an evaluation that was completed about income management in the Northern Territory. That report found that compulsory income management usually does not bring about improvements, but that voluntary income management might. But it's not just the evaluation that says this. In a document presented to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Australian government wrote: … there are more positive results associated with people who volunteer— this is the Australian government!— as they have made a choice to change their behaviour and receive assistance, positive findings have been found for people who have been referred for Income Management by a social worker or a child protection officer. On one hand, you have the government saying something to the UN but, on the other hand, they are doing something very different in this chamber that is going to impact thousands upon thousands of people. I reiterate that the Australian government wrote that to the UN. Dr Elise Klein of the University of Melbourne told a Senate committee about this issue: If we … are serious about evidence based policymaking, we must stop the ongoing operations of the cashless debit card … or … make them entirely voluntary. There is a very real difference between someone who genuinely wants to be on the card and believes it's appropriate for their own circumstances and someone who is compelled to go on to the card and whose circumstances are completely incompatible with the card. When I visited the East Kimberley, I saw this absolutely. There was a woman, a middle-aged First Nations woman, who had a public service job in Perth. She went back to Broome to care for her mother and went on to a carer payment, and then had to go on to the cashless debit card, despite the fact that she has spent a good part of her career as a public servant. Tell me how that's reasonable. Tell me how that's fair. Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory, which includes the Central Land Council and the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the NT, said in one of their submissions on the card: The continuation of compulsory income management through the transfer to the CDC is being rushed forward despite the lack of any strong or positive evidence drawn from either the 2014 Social Policy Research Centre evaluation of New Income Management in the NT, the 2017 Orima Research evaluation of the Cashless Debit Card Trials in Ceduna, the Goldfields and East Kimberley (Western Australia). …   …   … Income management cannot provide a transition to employment in locations where few employment opportunities exist and those that exist are largely done by outsiders. Instead, for many Aboriginal residents of the NT, particularly those living remotely, compulsory income management is long term and, regardless of a person’s lifestyle and financial management capacity, almost impossible to get off. The 2014 independent evaluation of New Income Management conducted by the Social Policy Research Centre found that: 90.2% of those on income management in the Northern Territory were Indigenous and 76.8 of those were on compulsory income management. More than 60% of this group were on income management for more than 6 years. The Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation said in its submission: The ALPA Board of Directors are disappointed that the Government is moving forward and expanding this oppressive policy when there is no evidence demonstrating that it creates positive change for the people who will be subjected to it. There is no evidence that this leads to employment. And the rhetoric of the government, which is about employment or about creating jobs—in the face of that, they introduce this very bill that makes it almost impossible to actually get a job. Tell me how that works. Tell me, because I would like to know. The Anti-Poverty Network SA also told a story about a woman they had met in Ceduna who was on the card. She volunteered at a local craft shop and donated what she could. She used to be able to purchase things online, but, because of the card, can no longer do so. The network told the committee about this particular person: never drunk, never had drugs or anything like that. It's such an inhibitive way of life for her now. Why should anyone that has never engaged in binge drinking or taken illicit drugs be forced onto the card? And yet that was the rationale for the card. It's just mind-boggling that the government thinks that this is a good idea. It seems to me that the government is not interested in answers. This bill is just the beginning of the government's plan for the cashless debit card, as I said earlier. We know that there are those on the other side who have publicly called for the national rollout. We also know, from Senate estimates, that the government has established a technology working group with the big banks. That tells us something. That tells us something about the government's plan. The supermarkets and Australia Post look at how this can be rolled out through the payment system. So the four big banks have set up groups to roll this out, Australia Post has, and so have the supermarkets. That is evidence writ large of what the intentions are. We also know that this is what you do if you want a national rollout: you put technology working groups into those institutions. You work out how every card from every bank can have restrictions placed on it. That's not about choice; that's not about individual responsibility. It's just not. It is not the way you do business and stay true to what you are publicly saying. You work out how every card from every bank can have restrictions placed on it so the government can track and control what people on social security do with their money in pretty much every shop around the country. It's actually scary. It's actually scary that the government thinks it's a good idea to do this. It's not about empowering; it's not about jobs. It's not about giving people responsibility and supporting them to manage and grow that responsibility. It's not about enjoying personal decisions; it's about control. It is absolutely about control, so the government can track and control, as I said. I note that my colleague who has responsibility for this area has just taken over the chair. We already know that people on a disability support pension are on the cashless debit card. It is only a matter of time before more people are caught up in this new so-called system. In fact, pensioner groups are already worried about what this card could mean for them. We are talking about millions of people having restrictions placed on them and control placed on them and their spending being tracked and controlled. In their submission on this bill, the Combined Pensioners & Superannuants Association said members had contacted them about 'how very fearful they are' of being put compulsorily on this card. In conclusion, noting that an amendment has been circulated in my name, Labor will not be supporting this bill. It represents a cynical triumph of ideology over evidence, and the government's plans for a much bigger, broader rollout of social security quarantining have been laid bare in black and white. It is an insult that this is being shoved into this chamber during NAIDOC Week, because it's backward, it's racially discriminatory and it continues the scraps of the last vestiges of the dismal failure of what was the Howard's government so-called Northern Territory Intervention. The processes the government has taken in making this policy are a slap in the face to the Coalition of Peaks Aboriginal organisation. It makes a mockery of the government's new Closing the Gap partnership, an absolute mockery. It doesn't create jobs, it doesn't deliver clean water, it doesn't improve dilapidated remote housing and it doesn't help close the gap. I truly don't know why the government is doing this, except to blame and punish some of the most disenfranchised people in this nation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Is the amendment seconded? Ms McBride 248353 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 11:38 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I stand here today as one of the initiators of and an ongoing supporter of the cashless debit card trial in the Goldfields region of my electorate of O'Connor. I know I'm backed by Goldfields leaders and their communities when I offer my wholehearted support for the passage of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020. This government is providing certainty for cashless debit card participants and their communities by continuing the program as an ongoing measure. This will allow additional reforms and support measures to be built on top of those already in place to continue to improve the lives of participants and the utility of the card. And, while the current Community Affairs Legislation Committee report on this bill may reflect the views of more detractors than supporters, it's important for me to qualify that the vast majority of unsupportive submissions came from individuals and organisations that have no presence or experience on the Goldfields. It's notable also that, when the good senators of this committee last visited the Goldfields for a hearing in 2017, they were extended an open invitation to visit the trial site communities and see for themselves the difference, the positive difference, that this card is making. To my knowledge, not one of them took up the invitation. As I recall, senators never ventured further than the committee hearing room in the centre of the city of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. Had they walked the length of Hannan Street, they would have met shop attendants who had closed their doors during the middle of the day due to alcohol-fuelled violence in the street. And, had they travelled to the smaller communities, such as Laverton, Leonora and Coolgardie, they would have seen firsthand the social problems community leaders have been working for years to address and have finally been making headway since the introduction of the card. Instead, these elected leaders, Mayor Bowler of the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, shire president Patrick Hill of Laverton, shire president Peter Craig of Leonora, Mal Cullen of Coolgardie and Greg Dwyer of Menzies—all shire presidents—had their lived experience and evidence to the hearings discounted as anecdotal and had their advocacy for the communities that they love devalued. As I listen to the most recent Senate hearings, I was dismayed to hear the same senators casting the same doubt on evidence presented by those in support. People like Robyn Nolan, the president of the National Council of Women Australia, Shelley Cable, the Indigenous CEO of Generation One and Ian Trust of the Wunan Foundation all presented their lived experience in trial site communities before and after the introduction of the card. It was disheartening to hear the evidence they presented discounted once again as anecdotal, the factual material from independent evaluations labelled as flawed and quoted police data questioned. I stand here today to publicly thank those who've had the courage and strength of conviction to stand by their lived experience of the card in their communities. At this time, I'd like to provide a brief history of the introduction of the cashless debit card in the Goldfields, acknowledging some of the key supporters who made this trial possible. In late 2015, I was approached by respected Aboriginal elder Gay Harris when I visited Leonora for a school graduation. A teenage girl had taken her life just that morning, and the town was reeling after five suicides in short succession. Nanna Gay implored me to do something to address the social harm alcohol was wreaking on their community. Children were not safe in their own homes. The future of teens seemed hopeless. Alcohol-related violence and social disruption had become an accepted part of life. The situation was similar in Laverton. The shire president, Patrick Hill, added that gambling in public places was rife, with anything from $2,000 to $5,000 in the ring, yet kids were running around with no food or clothes. In Coolgardie, respected elder Betty Logan reported young children knocking on doors late at night begging for food while their parents were drunk and unaware of their whereabouts. Thanks to strong leadership and overwhelming community support, and following over 270 community consultations, the shires of Leonora, Laverton, Menzies and Coolgardie along with the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder rolled out the cashless debit card trial between March and May 2018. I can say unequivocally that this card has had a major impact on those communities. Children who were going hungry are now presenting at school fed—so much so that at least one primary school has recently terminated their school breakfast program due to a lack of demand. Parents have reported taking their kids to McDonald's for a birthday party for the first time ever. They're having money in their accounts go through direct debit to utilities and rent, and they've even been able to save money. Shop owners have seen people who they never knew lived in the town filling up their baskets with groceries and buying clothes and toys for their kids with the card. Support services have reported less demand for emergency relief food, clothing and accommodation vouchers. Public drunkenness and street gambling has diminished markedly—so much so that Jim Epis, the CEO of the Shire of Leonora, reported: … the Cashless Debit Card is doing wonders for the Leonora Community. It's so peaceful, even the dogs have stopped barking at night. But don't just take my word for it. The baseline data collection for the Goldfields trial site was conducted by Adelaide university in mid to late 2018, and their executive summary stated: Even though, at the time of the interviews, the card had only been implemented for a few months, a majority of respondents were of the opinion that early impacts were starting to be observed. These impacts primarily centred on alcohol and drug use and misuse, child welfare and well-being, spending and financial management … It concluded: The introduction of the CDC was predominantly found to be having a positive effect on the prevalence and severity of crime, family violence and anti-social behaviour within the Goldfields. That is the baseline evaluation, which has been released for some time. The baseline evaluation was released some time ago. I want to address some of the changes that this bill implements, and the first change is around exit applications. There is already a mechanism for a participant to exit the program if they can demonstrate reasonable and responsible management of their affairs. To date there have been 276 exit applications in the Goldfields; 87 have been approved, 137 have not been approved and 40 have been withdrawn. Enabling the minister to determine decision-making principles for the current exit criteria will improve clarity around the exit application process. A second change will be a review of exit and wellbeing exemptions. Wellbeing exemptions are granted where being activated on the cashless debit card could pose a serious risk to a person's mental, physical or emotional wellbeing. To date there have been 151 wellbeing applications in the Goldfields; 106 have been granted and 45 have been declined. Currently there is no capacity to review exit and wellbeing determinations to enable those whose circumstances have changed to be reactivated back onto the program. The passage of this bill will allow the review and possible revoking of exits and exemptions if it can be proven that a participant has ceased to be able to manage their affairs and/or where there may be a risk to their personal wellbeing or that of their dependants. A third change is the sharing of information with community bodies. This will help with the monitoring and supporting of participants who have exited the program to continue to manage their affairs independently. The fourth change is around voluntary participation in the program. The previously mentioned benefits of the cashless debit card mean that there should be no impediment to becoming a participant as a matter of choice. I have volunteered to have a card. I use it inside and outside the trial site, including here in Canberra, and it always works. While there are no plans for age pension recipients to be on the card, being able to elect to be a voluntary participant enables vulnerable seniors to be seen as the same as others in their community, which helps to protect them from elder abuse and from humbugging for their cash. Due to the transient nature of many Indigenous participants, I believe it's imperative that voluntary participants are able to remain on the card if they move out of a program area. Now that I've detailed the widespread benefits that would follow the passage of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020, I'd like to finish by referring back to the trial in my electorate, which I hope will soon become a permanent measure. The Goldfields has been an ideal trial site. Participants include anyone who is on a working-age welfare payment, whether they receive JobSeeker, youth allowance or parenting payment or are on the disability support pension or a carer's allowance. Over 50 per cent of trial participants are non-Indigenous, while slightly under 50 per cent are Indigenous. Detractors claim that this card is discriminatory, but I ask: how is that so, with such a mixed cohort? During the rollout phase, each of the five local government authorities committed to supporting their community members' transition onto the card. Local partner shopfronts provided staff who helped participants to activate their card and set up direct payments systems for rent, utilities and other bills. There was access to financial capability and wellbeing services. Those who believed that the trial was harmful to their wellbeing could apply for an exemption, and those who could prove their financial capability could exit the program. Yes, there were teething problems in the early days, and people leaned heavily on their community leaders for help—who delivered in spades. I made myself and my office available to assist wherever possible. Most issues were easily solved locally; others we took all the way to the minister's office. This led to a constant refining of the program to its current level of sophistication and utility, such that I can say with hand on heart that I've had only two card-related concerns come forward to my office in the past 12 months. People have accepted the card as a way of life, and coronavirus has shown us that society can function without cash. In fact, for many months earlier this year many shops said they wouldn't receive cash, so everybody was operating on a card. I will wrap up, due to time constraints, but I just want to reiterate my thanks to the community leaders across the Goldfields who have supported the trial introduction of the cashless debit card into their communities. I thank them for their patience and their persistence, as this is the third time we've come back to the parliament to have the legislation updated. I commend this bill wholeheartedly to the House. 11:49 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari I acknowledge the contribution of the member for O'Connor. It won't surprise him to know that I have a different view. I don't think anyone, including the member for Barton, who so eloquently outlined Labor's position—no-one in this place that I'm aware of—is saying that people who voluntarily want to go onto a cashless debit card shouldn't. That's not the point. I want to refer to a range of issues but also to clearly reinforce the messages of and to support the amendment that's been proposed by the member for Barton. This bill, the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020, makes an absolute mockery of things—and I am now referring particularly to my own electorate of Lingiari. In 2007, when the obnoxious Howard government intervened in the Northern Territory at the behest of Mal Brough, who was then the minister, and introduced the BasicsCard into the Northern Territory—imposed it on the Northern Territory—I opposed it then and I oppose it now. Nothing has changed from my point of view. It is also opposed by Aboriginal people across my electorate, and this bill makes an absolute mockery of the government's claims that it's working with Aboriginal communities. It is clearly not. And clearly it is not prepared to sit and listen. We've got all the palaver going on about the great changes to the way in which the coalition of peaks have entered into a partnership with the state premiers and territory first ministers and the Prime Minister around closing the gap. Well, this bill makes an absolute mockery of that. This is one time where we're supposed to think that the government is working hand in glove with Aboriginal people, sharing decision-making, consulting with people and allowing them appropriate input. Here is the evidence that it's not. We know, as the member for Barton pointed out so well, that 68 per cent of those impacted by this bill are First Nations people. How can a minister who has had a review undertaken at a cost of $2.5 million admit to a Senate inquiry, as the member for Barton has pointed out, that, prior to the introduction of this bill, she hadn't even read the review? She hadn't even read it. We don't know what's in it because we haven't seen it. We'd like to have a look at it. But what we do know is that there is no evidence that has thus far been produced to show the accuracy of the claims being made by the government about the way in which this particular card has had a positive benefit on any community across Australia. Firstly, in the brief time that I've got, I want to go to what is happening in the Northern Territory. The member for Barton referred to Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory and their calls on 8 October of this year around this card. They said: There is still no proof that compulsory income management works. In February this year the University of Queensland released a report on their review of four CDC trial sites. This was a review of the four sites that are being now made permanent. The overwhelming finding was "that compulsory income management is having a disabling rather than enabling effect on the lives of many social security recipients." Later in the same statement, APO NT say: The bill is a new Intervention. It will perpetuate the torment of our powerlessness. It denies our basic freedom to control our lives. It locks the many of us who live below the poverty line out of the cash economy and undermines our small businesses that rely on cash payments. What clearer evidence could you have of the dissatisfaction of Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory than these statements? They say: To the government, this is just a law change. But to us, it's about our everyday lives becoming even more of a struggle. We are sick of governments doing things to us rather than with us. I wonder what the minister who is responsible for Indigenous affairs in this government thinks about the way this bill has been handled and the consultation process that has taken place. Clearly, if we as a parliament are to believe what's being said to us, there's a view that we should have a voice to the parliament. What this bill demonstrates is that there's no intention by the government to actually listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—none at all. APO NT also say: This bill disregards our view— An honourable member interjecting— Mr SNOWDON IJ4 You're not listening to me, comrade, are you? This bill disregards our view and lived experiences and fundamentally undermines the collaborative spirit of the next phase of Closing the Gap. It symbolises why so many policies have failed our people and why things aren't getting better. I was conscious of the Intervention. I also have here a statement from the community of Milingimbi, who were very strong in expressing their collective disapproval and disdain at the prospect of having the cashless debit card imposed upon them and, in their words, 'taking away their rights'. It should be a matter of choice, not something which is imposed—the way that this bill is wanting impose it on the people of the Northern Territory. The member for Grey can talk about the people of Ceduna. But don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I've been in this place for over 30 years. Forty-two per cent of my electors are Aboriginal people. I am their voice in this parliament, and I know what they tell me. They are disgusted by the way they are being treated by this government—the lack of consultation, the lack of any right to be properly heard. As the member for Barton has said, if we had some evidence that this was all working, we might have a different view. The fact is that it's not working. Until we've seen this University of Adelaide mystery report, we don't know what it says. But what we do know is that there's been no good-quality or sufficient measurement of the effectiveness of the cashless debit card, either before it started or at its various trials. A report in 2011 by the Equality Rights Alliance cast doubt on the government's claim of broad support for income management among Aboriginal women. It collated the views of more than 180 Aboriginal women affected by income management. The findings were as follows. Habits didn't change—85 per cent of the women surveyed said they had not changed what they bought because of the BasicsCard. We were talking about the BasicsCard then, which we still have in the Northern Territory now. There were no savings—75 per cent of the women said it made no difference to their spending, 22 per cent of the women saved money with the card and two per cent said it cost them more to use it. Seventy four per cent said the card wasn't helpful and 85 per cent said income management 'showed no respect'—and that is what they still say. It was not safer—70 per cent of the women said they didn't feel safer as a result of the introduction of the card. In 2012, an independent evaluation of income management in the Northern Territory found no clear evidence of the value of the program, and there have been other reports subsequently. Last week at the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry we heard from a number of academics providing advice to the committee on their views and the studies they have done. Professor Tony Dreise said that the evidence does not stack up and does not show that the cashless debit card has had a positive effect. A very large amount of evidence shows that 13 years of new income management in the Northern Territory has had almost no positive impact. It's worth contemplating the views of these people who know a damn sight more about it than most people in this chamber. Dr Francis Markham said: The cashless debit card and related types of programs are the sorts of programs that you try and introduce when you're not willing to change those structural features of remote economies. There's a lot more that needs to be done in remote Australia. There's a lot more that needs to be done in my electorate of Lingiari to address disadvantage and expend the resources of this government to make people better off. I'd rather see the moneys that have been appropriated for this spent on housing, for example, on health services or roads and other infrastructure. It's very clear that there's no appetite on behalf of the government benches to actually sit and listen to the people I'm referring to, because, if they did sit and listen to the people I'm referring to, they would not be introducing this legislation today and making it apply uniformly across the Northern Territory as they want to do. Nevertheless, they go ahead. They say, 'Oh, yes, we sit and we listen and we talk to Aboriginal people.' It's very, very clear that they have no intention of doing that at all. When we contemplate this, we need to see it as a part of a pattern where over many years now—certainly since 2007—the coalition has made it their business to make life harder for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, because that's what has happened. They haven't listened. The outcomes which they would have hoped to achieve have not been achieved. School attendance has fallen. Health outcomes have got worse in many cases. Housing has got worse. And, of course, when we start to talk to people about what we really need to address disadvantage, when we start talking about employment services, they've got no appetite for listening. If they started to look at a comprehensive plan to bring people together and alleviate their poverty and disadvantage, they would do so in a holistic way, but they are not doing that. They pin their hopes on compulsorily quarantining people's income. As the member for Barton said, we're more than happy to support these proposals when people voluntarily submit to them. We are not happy to support and we will not support the compulsory and involuntary imposition of these schemes on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I certainly won't support it in my electorate. I never have and never will. When I go back to the Northern Territory and talk to the communities that I work for and have the responsibility of representing in this chamber—proudly—I am confident that I represent their views here accurately. I'm confident that, when I stand up here and say that people do not want to have this involuntarily imposed upon them, that is what they want. It is very clear that we've got a long way to go to convince this government about how to deal sensibly and properly with Aboriginal people, certainly in my electorate. I know that, in terms of the reviews which have been done, there's no evidence for the extension of this card permanently across the four sites. There are no evaluations that we've seen. Show us the evaluations. The minister says she's got this University of Adelaide report, and she had not even read it prior to introducing this legislation. Why would that be? Surely we should be brought into the confidence of the government who are so confident about what they're saying. They should show us the report. Have it peer reviewed. Let us see what it says. Let's understand what their arguments are based on. The fact is that there is no validity—or very little—to the arguments that they're putting. I absolutely respect the members opposite who talk about their communities and how people voluntarily submit to the card. But, unless they voluntarily submit to it, it shouldn't be imposed upon them. (Time expired) 12:05 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I support the original motion for the second reading of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020 but not the amendment. That will come as no surprise. I also recognise the member for Lingiari and his passionate commitment to Indigenous people and his electorate. He says he speaks for them. Equally, I am a passionate supporter of the people in my electorate, and I believe I absolutely speak for them. I certainly speak for the community around Ceduna when it comes to the issue of the cashless welfare card. It helps to have a little bit of history, I think, when we speak about the introduction of the card in Ceduna, the first place in Australia that had the cashless welfare card—not to be confused with the BasicsCard. I think the original impetus came out of a coroner's inquest over there, where we'd had six untimely deaths of Indigenous people sleeping rough, under the influence of alcohol, sleeping in the middle of the road, in poor health and with poor conditions—a whole lot of things. They were largely not residents of Ceduna but were among those who had come in from remote settlements. I remember speaking to the mayor, Allan Suter, at the time. He asked whether there was a possibility of bringing the BasicsCard to Ceduna, and I said, 'Well, we are going to have to find some community support to make ground in this area.' So began a long period of consultation with the various Indigenous communities in and around Ceduna but also with the non-Indigenous communities in Ceduna. Ceduna isn't an Indigenous town as such. It's got a higher population of Indigenous people than the average, of course, but largely it's a very normal town in many ways. By 'normal', I mean more reflective of the population mix in the rest of Australia. I can remember the previous mayor saying to me, 'We've built up a relationship now with our Indigenous communities that we never had before,' because, of course, they are not within the District Council of Ceduna area. They meet on a regular basis and discuss a whole lot of issues that are of common interest. That continues today, and I meet with these groups regularly. It is they who have asked for the permanent installation of the cashless welfare card in Ceduna. At the moment, we've had a 12-month-by-12-month-by-12-month renewal, and I've said all along that it's simply not sustainable for that to continue—to just keep pushing it out on a 12-month basis. Of course, when we get to the point of expiry, the community want it to continue. That's because they see the obvious benefits in it. As a young fellow said to me up there one day: 'Well, you can look at the stats and talk to this group and that group, but I tell you what: it just feels like a whole lot better place, a safer place, a place where there's more money spent on food'. In fact, they had to double the food supply at Oak Valley when the cashless welfare card was introduced. So there have been far better outcomes right across the board, and I receive very, very little criticism of the card. Most people say, 'You can't take it away.' In fact, that is what the Indigenous groups say to me. Let me point out that it is non-discriminatory; it does apply to the white population in Ceduna as it applies to the Indigenous population. I've had more complaints, I would have to say, over the time from the white population, but not many. It is normally serial complaints from a few individuals, and that's not really unusual with anything that government does, I'd have to say. So I and those communities are totally convinced of its value. They want to see it stay. I don't think that it displaces responsibility. I think the member for Snowdon—not the member for Snowdon; the member for Lingiari. Perhaps one day—or would that be Lord Snowdon? I don't know. He said: 'If they told us they wanted it, I'd back it'. Well, I'm telling you they do want it; they absolutely do want it. That is the story. This bringing in that it is a racially discriminatory card, one of the great values of Bundaberg using the card was that it is not seen as an Indigenous population. That's not in this current legislation because that's controlled under a slightly different piece of legislation. But the fact is it has gone into an area where we see high levels of disadvantage and people mismanaging their welfare income. It's a working-age welfare. I hear the shadow minister say, 'It's coming for your pension!' It's not coming for your pension; it's never been for age pensions. I reflect that when intellect and good reason fail, it is all too often we see people go for the scare tactic, and that's exactly what that is. Telling Australian age pensioners that they will go on the cashless debit card is nothing but scaremongering and it should be slapped down. It is certainly not on the government's agenda. Perhaps it's on the agenda of those on the other side of the chamber—I think not. Why would they even bring that up? This card has never been aimed at that part of Australia. It's aimed at those on working-age welfare. It's made a significant difference in behaviour, a significant difference to health outcomes and a significant difference to those very things that the coroner looked into in Ceduna going back—I am going to have a guess—to 2006, quite some time ago in this long journey. Like so many things we seem to see in Australia at the moment, we have all these experts giving their valuable advice from afar. There was a song once called Walk a Mile in My Shoes. For those who don't live in places like Ceduna, the Goldfields or the East Kimberley, I suggest they should spend more time on the ground there actually communicating with the locals and finding out what it is they want, because that's where I go. I go on the ground in Ceduna. I find out exactly what it is we want. I must say there are those who suggest somehow this card is some big imposition. At the moment the JobSeeker payments are slightly in excess of $800 a fortnight. I would suggest that if you are spending more than $160 in that fortnight on drugs, alcohol, and gambling, you're not managing your money well. It's not much good if you are spending more than 20 per cent of your income on drugs, alcohol and gambling to complain about the fact that you don't have enough money to spend on vegetables, that you don't have enough to spend on accommodation. That's what this card is about—ensuring that the money allocated to people goes for the reason it was allocated. If you are living a well-planned lifestyle where you're not spending more than 20 per cent of your income on drugs, alcohol and gambling, well, it won't even impact on you; it won't have one slight impact at all. I point out that the 80-20 split that we arrived at when we first brought in the cashless debit card was in agreement with the partners within the Ceduna community. They were the ones who set the ratio. It was suggested at one stage by government that it be 75-25. They insisted it be 80-20. That's how far back the consultations go. They were instrumental in setting up the parameters for the way the card works across Australia. I said to them at the time, 'Australia may well look back on this time when things changed, when the delivery of welfare in Australia actually reached a turning point.' It's hard to say if that is the case for the bulk of the population. The government at this stage has no plans to roll it out across the rest of the nation. I must say, as someone who had it operating in their electorate, I think it would be a good idea. I also say that I get approached by a number of communities who say, 'Can we get on the card?' These are not just communities within my electorate, either. They say, 'What have we got to do to get on the card? In fact, I know there are a number that have been trying to speak to the minister and see whether that's possible in the future, and I hope it is the case. I think if we have got communities who want to get on the card, we should allow this to happen. I do say to them, though, 'Don't even think about trying to get across the minister's threshold unless you've got broad community support back on your patch already.' If you come to the government and say, 'We've got the council on board, we've got the school board on board and we've got the Indigenous groups on board,' perhaps you've got a chance of convincing the minister. But, if you do not—we've never introduced a card at a place where it wasn't wanted. I think the amendments that are being proposed by this piece of legislation—and not just the amendment to make the three sites permanent; there are a number of adjustments around people being able to stay on it voluntarily and pensioners and all those kinds of things—are all very moderate changes and in response to the communities on the ground, so I find no fault at all with any of those particular amendments. The one thing I will get to: it has shown that things can go wrong. We've had a couple of incidents through the years where unrestricted money has come into the community. At one time, a payment out of the tax department came back to people, and in recent times we've of course seen the doubling of the JobSeeker payment. That happened in Ceduna just as it happened everywhere else. In Ceduna, unlike other places, it was still on the 80-20 split, but it did actually double the amount of money that was available for drugs, alcohol and gambling. Coming on top of that was access to superannuation, so people who had accumulated even a small amount of superannuation were able to access that as well. Coupled to that was the occurrence of remote community lockdown. People spent two, sometimes three, months back in community and didn't come into town. In that time, they didn't spend all of the extra money that was coming to them. They came into town, and things have got fairly untidy, I'd have to say. It's a little better now than it was, but I'm still receiving complaints from Ceduna saying that a lot of antisocial and self-harming behaviour has returned. Remember that this has come on the back of the more than doubling of the availability of the loose cash that is coming to people that are on working-age welfare. You don't need a university degree or an examination to work out what's going on there. It's as plain as the noses on our faces. More money, more antisocial behaviour, more drinking, more public drunkenness, more violence—that's what comes with the extra unrestrained cash. That is why the community of Ceduna is asking for the permanent instalment of this card, and I have nothing but admiration for those leaders of the communities—the individual communities right across the board—that have backed this program the whole way through. Let it be remembered that every one of them, including those on the Ceduna district council, has come up for re-election during the time that the card has been in place and they have supported the card. Largely, the people on those individual community councils and the Ceduna community council remain the same. They are re-endorsed and put back into their positions, just as I have been in the two elections that have run since we introduced the cashless welfare card. It is widely supported, it's doing a great amount of good and it should be continued. 12:19 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga This is an important debate in this House today, and I'm pleased to be standing here supporting the amendment moved by the member for Barton. Labor does not support this bill, the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020. Once again, it's necessary for me to speak out in this chamber against this government basing policies on ideology and not evidence. Once again this government is failing to heed the voices of First Nations people. Once again this government is making life harder for people in our community who already do it tougher than most. Once again this government is wasting money on an ideological crusade instead of investing in job creation and making our communities safer for all. Twelve years after the beginning of the Intervention in the Northern Territory, there is no evidence that compulsory broad based income management has worked to improve outcomes for First Nations people. Yet, as the member for Barton has already pointed out, during NAIDOC Week of all times, this government is pushing forward with an ideological crusade that discriminates against First Nations people. This bill will make the cashless debit card permanent in the existing trial sites of Ceduna, the East Kimberley, the Goldfields, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. It will permanently replace the BasicsCard with the cashless debit card in the Northern Territory. It replaces the BasicsCard with the cashless debit card in Cape York and extends income management in Cape York until 31 December 2021. It makes it easier for a person to volunteer to be placed on a cashless debit card and allows a person to remain on a cashless debit card when they move outside one of the prescribed areas. And it enables the secretary to review and revoke cashless debit card exit provisions if the secretary no longer believes that the person who exited the card is reasonably and responsibly managing their affairs. I was amazed to hear in Senate estimates just the other week the relevant minister admit that she had not read the long-awaited review by Adelaide University before she and this government decided to make the cashless debit card permanent. That says so much about this government's callous disregard for people's lives—that they could press ahead with this without paying attention to the facts, without paying attention to the evidence and without paying attention to what's actually going on. So, in a bid to help the minister and this government, let me outline what some of the relevant research has found. Researchers from four universities said in a report released in February this year that they'd uncovered an overwhelming number of negative experiences stemming from the card, ranging from feelings of stigma, shame and frustration, to practical issues such as cardholders simply not having enough cash for essential items. They said: Our research illustrates the empirical case for continuing with the current policy settings— on compulsory income management— is weak. Further: Our research is certainly not the first to suggest these set of policy measures require a fundamental rethink. What other evidence is out there? Well, as I said before, income management was introduced as part of the NT Intervention, and the evidence we have on the record from the final evaluation of the Intervention is that it did not meet its objectives. When looking at the cashless debit card trials, the Australian National Audit Office found, 'It is difficult to conclude whether there had been a reduction in social harm.' Further, the evaluations funded by the government have not shown that the card is achieving its objectives. The government-funded Orima evaluations and an evaluation by the University of Adelaide have been called into question by numerous academics because no baseline data was collected for a comparison. So that's all the evidence we've seen. That's the work this government has apparently put in to tell us that this will work. It doesn't show that. In fact, it shows the opposite. As I said, what this government is embarking on is an ideological, discriminatory crusade based on no evidence. It is having a discriminatory and really harmful effect on a lot of people's lives. To go into that further, I'd like to talk about some of the reported experiences of people who are living on this card. The university study I just mentioned found that people reported having not enough cash for essential items. People said that they had difficulty providing for their children and for other family members because the way this system works means they don't have enough cash to do that. That includes comments like, 'They impact what I can and can't do with my children, like take them out in the community,' and things like: 'School excursions are cash only. The fair and Christmas parade activities are predominantly cash only. I have four children, and 20 per cent doesn't get us that far.' So these families are feeling discriminated against in their own communities. Children are missing out in these communities. It's a program that's meant to be supporting families and children, but the evidence, the comments and the stories we have from people involved are that it's doing the exact opposite. People on the card reported not being able to do things like buy second-hand goods—buying things that may be cheaper second-hand, such as university textbooks, or maybe a new fridge. They can't access that because of the way the card works. Again, how ridiculous: in a situation where we're meant to be helping and supporting families who are struggling, we're making it harder for them to access this part of the economy. People reported difficulties paying rent and other bills. Again, in this research, survey respondents identified challenges in paying their rent, including rent to private landlords, and other bills because of glitches with payments by the cashless debit card. These circumstances were usually beyond the user's control, but of course they have implications for the management of their finances, their financial track records and the security of their housing. In separate reports community businesses and operators have spoken about people struggling to use the card in their businesses, so they're being locked out as well. When money could be being spent in the economy, supporting small businesses, people are being locked into big retail chains, where they can use the card. The simple reality of this bill is that it's racially discriminatory. The rollout of the cashless debit card as proposed by the government will disproportionately impact First Nations people. It's ridiculous to pretend otherwise: 68 per cent of the people who will be forced onto the cashless debit card are First Nations Australians. Over 23,000 of the 34,000 people impacted by this card will be Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people, and that includes more than 18,000 people in the Northern Territory. This is a failure of this government to work with First Nations people. We've heard from the recent Senate inquiry, from numerous other forums and from First Nations people and organisations speaking out against this bill and against the card. Just to make sure that some of those voices are heard in this place, I will quote from Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory. Theresa Roe, from that organisation, told the recent Senate inquiry that this program risks disempowering First Nations people. She said: We have experienced income management for the last 13 years and it has created more harm than good. Over this period poverty and unemployment has worsened … it has been a vehicle for disempowerment and continuing trauma and stigmatisation. Ms Roe said she was alarmed that the federal government planned to roll out the scheme across the NT and triple the number of people on the program. She said: The cashless welfare card has not even been adequately evaluated and yet the government wants to rush to legislate this. And all of this from a government that tells us it's actually taking a new approach to closing the gap, that it's listening and working with First Nations people. What an insult. What a case of saying one thing and doing another thing. Is it any wonder that First Nations people feel frustrated by what happens in this place? Is it any wonder that they don't feel that their voices are heard when there are policies like this which have such a fundamental impact on their lives, on their families' lives, on how they can conduct their business and on what they can buy and where they can buy it? And all of this happens with no regard to evidence, no regard to what First Nations people are telling this government. It is all based on ideology. As we've heard, Labor is not opposed to income management in all circumstances, but we are opposed to broad based compulsory programs that catch and disempower the wrong people. We know that income management can be justified when it's targeted, such as in child protection situations, but it should not be indiscriminate or broad-sweeping, which is what this government is proposing. Again, we know that in some communities there has been genuine consultation and people genuinely do want this card. But that's the exception, not the rule, and it's not what this bill does. In Cape York, the local community is applying income management based on individual circumstances, supporting families and monitoring outcomes. That's appropriate where the community supports that happening. I've talked a lot about evidence. We know that the very slim area where there is some evidence that this works—or may work—is when people are doing this program voluntarily rather than compulsorily. The evaluation of income management in the Northern Territory found that compulsory income management usually does not bring about improvements but voluntary income management might. Again, though, that's not what this bill does. This bill compulsory puts people who haven't been consulted adequately, who have said they don't want to be part of this, onto a card that is discriminatory, that affects how they care for their families and that there is actually no evidence to support. I have heard from the other side that we're just scaremongering when we talk about the fact that they may roll this out even further. That's nonsense. Some of their own members have been quoted in the media talking about how it should be rolled out further. So if this government isn't going to pay attention to the evidence of what's happened so far, there is a genuine worry that they could propose an even greater rollout with no evidence. Everything we have seen to date suggests that they're not doing this based on evidence; they're doing it based on ideology. We know from Senate estimates that the government has established a technology working group with the big banks, the supermarkets and Australia Post to look at how this could be rolled out through a payment system. That is what you do if you're thinking about a national rollout. People across the country should be concerned about what this might mean for their ability to control their money, to provide for their family, to do the things I was talking about—have excursions in their local community, buy goods in the second-hand markets, support local shops—and not be discriminated against based on no evidence. Based on current form, people should be very worried about what the government's next plans are. This bill represents a triumph of ideology over evidence. It's an insult to the people and communities it affects. It is an insult to our First Nations people—in NAIDOC Week, of all times. If the government are genuine about working with First Nations people, if some of the rhetoric they give this place is actually something that they're going to see through, they should look at the evidence. They should look at the evidence and read it before they propose bills in this place that relate to it. It's just sloppy. It's rude. It's discriminatory. This government pays so little attention to the reality of vulnerable people's lives. They pay so little attention to the reality of what it means to have a system that means you struggle to work out how you pay your rent and how you support your family. This is a backwards move; it's not a positive move. It doesn't create jobs. It doesn't provide any additional investments that might help people who receive welfare payments to understand finance better. It doesn't provide any additional support for them and their families in terms of how they work their lives. All it does is discriminate against them—and with no evidence. Being in this place, I have heard from the government about how it's taking a new approach to closing the gap. Apparently that's an approach based on working with Aboriginal people—hearing their voices and working with Aboriginal led and controlled services. That is not what this bill is and it is not what this bill does. This bill is an insult to all the people that the government says it's working with. The Coalition of Peaks have done so much work to put in place this new Closing the Gap framework, and the government is saying to them: 'None of that matters. The evidence doesn't matter. What you have told us doesn't matter. In fact, what matters is our ideological crusade here and what our backbench tells us.' This bill doesn't create jobs, it doesn't help communities, it doesn't build new houses, it doesn't close the gap. It's discriminatory. There's no evidence. It should not go ahead. 12:33 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020. I was lucky enough to grow up in a household with incredibly loving parents who would go without even the basic things just so that I could have access to things which, in hindsight, I didn't even need. With the benefit of hindsight, at the ripe old age of 43, I can say I had a sheltered upbringing that caused me to be somewhat naive in terms of my perspectives on life. Fast forward past a university qualification in the law and some time in a commercial law firm in Adelaide, all the way to a young lawyer returning—principally because of homesickness—to Mount Gambier and working in the criminal law. I've got to tell you that my naivety was immediately smashed. As a young practitioner in the criminal law, in the very same community that I'd grown up in—in that very loving and protected environment—I had occasion to be exposed to families with young children that were completely different to mine. There were young children who were incredibly vulnerable. Because of the parents' use and abuse of alcohol or other drugs or because of the parents' other predilections, including gambling, the very simple needs of those children were not being met. I am still scarred by those occasions when I had to sit with a very young child as I went through their parents' phone—while their parents, who I couldn't get out on bail, were in custody—ringing relatives in the hope that they would come and look after that young child. I was the young lawyer who would have to sit in a cell with a child who had committed a dishonesty offence at a supermarket and have them honestly break down to me and say that they committed that offence because they were hungry. That's why I say that my naivety was smashed at that point, and I became aware of a broader context of life where, unlike my parents, there were those in the community who weren't appropriately caring for their children and, indeed, weren't able to. I came into this place seven years ago alongside the members for Hinkler and Durack, and, of course, I have known the member for Grey for a very long time. I know them to be people who know their communities and are deeply connected to their communities in the way that I'd like to think I am, too. When I speak to them about the cashless debit card initiative, all of them tell me—and I see that in terms of their passionate advocacy—that nothing has done more to support a change in cultural attitudes and, indeed, outcomes for young people in their electorate than this. I know, in the case of the member for Grey—whom I'm particularly close to, given the geography of our respective seats—that this is something that he will campaign passionately for on every occasion. I think we need to accept that our nation has one of the most generous social safety nets in the world, but no level of social safety net can support a child in need if those with the financial resources courtesy of that safety net seek to use that money for things other than food and the necessities of life. I don't begrudge—and nor do those of my constituents that I speak to—the provision of support to Australians in need via that generous social safety net, but it is for the essentials of life. It's not to support a drug habit, it's not to support a gambling predilection and it's certainly not to support the kind of harm that the abuse of alcohol can deliver. So it stands to reason, doesn't it, that, if we create a mechanism whereby the overwhelming majority—80 per cent in this case—of that social safety net needs to be used on the necessities of life, then it's incongruous to argue that that doesn't lead to better outcomes for the children I was speaking of earlier. That's not to say that every child in a vulnerable situation everywhere in this country is vulnerable because their parents abuse alcohol or drugs or other things, but there is a significant cohort. Can I address the allegation from those opposite that this is in some way racially discriminatory. I'll just call it out: it's complete rubbish. This program applies equally to anyone in receipt of welfare in these geographical areas. So, if you want to call it discriminatory, call it discriminatory on the basis of geography. Don't call it out as discriminatory on the basis of race. That really is playing the race card, and it's wrong. I know that the member for Hinkler, the now Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia, would say that, and that's why the rollout of the program in his community was so, so important. As I said, my view on this policy is informed by my discussions with the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the communities in Durack. It's informed by the member for Grey, representing the community in Ceduna. It's informed by the minister for resources. It's also informed by the member for O'Connor, who is equally passionate about this issue. As to the member for Lingiari, who kept suggesting that there was no evidence, saying, 'Show me the evidence': I heard him say, 'I've never supported this proposal and I never will.' That doesn't sound like someone who's willing to accept the evidence and come to an evidence based decision. That sounds like someone who has a preconceived opinion of this particular approach and isn't going to move, and the same criticism may well be made of some on this side. But, as I say, my strong views in relation to this are informed by my background. I expect I've dealt with more drug addicts, gambling addicts and alcoholics than anyone else in this place, just because my profession, before I came to this place, brought me into close contact with these individuals, many of whom, I've got to say, by the time I had an engagement with them professionally, were just so keen to be rid of those vices and would have taken any assistance to get to a better and safer outcome for them. In addition to listening to the members I've mentioned who have that direct, close connection to communities who are subject to these trials and now will be subject to the will of this House—subject to this program, going forward—I just want to read some personal reflections from people impacted, because they say much more than I ever could. One says: 'Alcohol by far is the biggest issue in our community. Across all communities, it creates much more harm and social problems and financial and legal problems. Absolutely, alcohol has remained our primary drug of concern in our treatment services for the last four years. It has affected sales through the bottle shop because they can't use it at the pub, but they can use it at the deli so they are in there more and over at the supermarket, buying food instead of alcohol. It helps make the town a little better. They're not spending so much money on alcohol and they're actually looking after their kids.' Another says: 'The town seems quieter on Friday and Saturday nights in my neighbourhood, which is a hotbed for alcohol related issues. Less yahooing, less cop sirens, less bottle smashing, less arguments—these are things I'm observing in my neighbourhood, and my neighbourhood was considered the hotbed for that type of behaviour over the last 20 years and had a very notorious reputation for very unruly behaviour. I'd say that the general care, like the basic care of a child, I think, is better—food, shelter and clothing.' The shadow minister interjected before, saying, 'But what about job creation?' I've got to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, not everything we do in this place is about jobs. This is a welfare measure. This is about making sure the welfare dollars that are provided in support of Australians in need create an environment in which the necessities of life are attended to. I can't see anyone on the other side suggesting a different course. If someone wants to drink alcohol and wants to gamble—both things which are legal in this country, particularly, of course, for adults—then, under this system, there's no reason that they can't. But what we're doing is limiting their access to alcohol and gambling by limiting the amount of welfare payments that can be available in cash. I don't think that's a bad thing. And I don't think that that 80-20 split is unreasonable. We hear those opposite all the time telling people in this place—and outside it—that the welfare payments that are received by those in receipt of Newstart, now JobSeeker, are historically, and indeed even now, inadequate. I just find that position incongruous with their position on this issue. If it's inadequate, at 100 per cent, for the necessities of life, then surely you accept the concept that hypothecating 80 per cent of it for those necessities is reasonable. This is by no marker an easy measure; I appreciate that. But nor is sitting with a young child and going through their parents' phone trying to find someone to look after them tonight because workers at family and youth services don't work after five o'clock. Nor is it easy to sit down with a young person who's just been to Woolworths and stolen food and have a conversation with them about the law and explain to them why they're in the predicament they're in and their peers are at school and off to play sport this afternoon. None of this is easy, but it's right. It's right that young people are supported in families that are subject to the support of the Commonwealth via welfare payments. It's right that that support makes it to the breakfast table, not the bookie's bag; the breakfast table, not the bottle-o; the breakfast table, not the drug deal. I commend the bill in its original form to the House. I oppose the amendment and I ask those opposite to think about those children when they make statements in this place about the community not wanting this measure. 12:49 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I have spoken about the cashless welfare card in this place on a number of occasions. I have taken the time to visit the trial site of Ceduna, and, with my Centre Alliance colleague Stirling Griff, I have also met many participants, as well as organisations and the police, in the trial site at Hervey Bay. I think it's fair to say that there are mixed views across all four trial sites, particularly the two where I had meetings. This bill before us, the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020, seeks to make permanent the card in its current sites. It also seeks to transition people in the Northern Territory and in Queensland from the BasicsCard that they're on to the cashless debit card, and it intends to expand the card, as well as making it permanent, at any location across Australia at the minister's discretion. One thing that I will say is that this card has been targeted at working-age payments. I have received a lot of emails from really concerned pensioners, and there's a lot of myth out there, as there often is with pieces of legislation, that this potential piece of legislation, or indeed any piece of legislation around the cashless welfare card, would transition pensioners onto the cashless welfare card. That is fundamentally incorrect, from what has been presented to us. First of all, I think we need to look at the purpose of the cashless welfare card. In principle, it's designed to assist people to make positive choices with the spending of working-age Centrelink payments and to limit the amount of discretionary spending on alcohol and gambling. The card's divided so that 80 per cent of a Centrelink payment is put on the card, as well as any lump-sum payments, and 20 per cent of it is placed in a person's bank account. I think it's important that we acknowledge in this place that not everyone who is on a working-age Centrelink payment is spending money on alcohol or gambling. These isolated sites were chosen so that thorough research could be undertaken to determine whether the implementation of a cashless debit card had an overall positive or negative effect on the individual and, indeed, the community. The challenge before us today is that, despite the trials being established for some years now—albeit for a much shorter time in Hervey Bay—the University of Adelaide report that was to look at the efficacy of the card in Ceduna, the Goldfields and the Kimberley region hasn't been released. From memory, I think this report was expected to be released at least a year ago. So to make this card permanent in those four locations, as well as potentially anywhere else in Australia, is quite a significant step in the social services policy area, and we're doing this without seeing any evidence—certainly without the evidence that the government has paid for from the University of Adelaide. In the previous parliament, I was part of the Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence. The committee's chair, the member for Monash, noted in his foreword that 'causes of entrenched disadvantage are complex', and that is true. I would say that entrenched disadvantage cannot be remedied through a card alone. If we really want to address disadvantage, we need to work in the long term with the whole of the family and ensure that there are training and job opportunities there, as well as pathways for people who have various addictions to address them. That committee report was tabled in February 2019, and I ask the government: please, look at the recommendations, and let's implement some of the recommendations. The work of the committee was very good, and it should not just be filed away to gather dust. It was a good report. Without the release of the University of Adelaide report, in Centre Alliance's decision-making with respect to this bill we can only look at our own anecdotal evidence that we gathered at Ceduna and Hervey Bay. Ceduna was the first community that I visited. I visited it in December 2019 and met with a number of organisations and participants on the card, including the Ceduna day centre, the District Council of Ceduna and the Red Cross. I visited the town camp and the Sobering Up Unit, and of course I spoke with a number of residents who were on the card. The results in Ceduna that I could gather, I would say, were mixed. If you talk to the District Council of Ceduna, they say the card has been transformational in their community. They say that it's reduced public drunkenness and antisocial behaviour and has increased tourism in the area. These are really good points. The Ceduna day centre said there hasn't been a lot of difference and that people get around the card by buying goods at the local store and then trying to sell them off for cash to tourists or people who live in the town so that they can then buy alcohol. With respect to participants, I spoke to some who were in favour of the card, some who felt that their personal rights were impacted upon, and some who were ambivalent and said that the card had not really affected their day-to-day life choices. When the card was first introduced in Ceduna, there was a commitment to provide a range of social services for people, to address barriers to employment. To this day, Ceduna is still waiting for residential alcohol rehabilitation centres—any kind of service. All they have is a sobering-up unit. People go in there when they are very, very drunk. When they are able to leave, they just check themselves out. There are no rehabilitation services in Ceduna or indeed for several hours outside of Ceduna. Yesterday I checked on the TAFE website. For Ceduna, there is not one single course available. There is not a certificate I. There is not a white card. There is not a forklift licence. There is nothing. The community of Ceduna has been calling for residential rehab facilities for a long time. They are still waiting. If we are saying to people, 'The best chance of you gaining employment is to gain qualifications and to become job-ready', I think it's incumbent upon government—and in this case for the state government to work with the federal government—to ensure that there are courses available where the cards are located. For Ceduna it would be really quite simple. Look at what's there: tourism, hospitality. There's no availability for a person living in Ceduna to undertake a certificate I, II or III in care. Yet when I went into the local employment agency in Ceduna there were vacancies on the board for care attendants. How do you get to be a care attendant if you can't do the course? I visited the community of Hervey Bay with my colleague Senator Griff in November last year. I met with a number of organisations there, including the police. We held a roundtable with participants. I'm very grateful to everybody who gave their time. It must be quite exhausting in these trial sites to have members of parliament, as well as people who are undertaking research, constantly coming to ask questions about how the program is going. In Hervey Bay, police told us they were initially worried that there was going to be a rise in theft, particularly at outlets that sold alcohol. That wasn't seen. When I went to the Hinkler electorate the card was relatively new; I was there in November last year. COVID, unfortunately, has prevented me from returning there, but I would like to see how the card has developed in the area. I think it's fair to say that Queensland Police were keen for the card to continue. I met with members of St Vincent de Paul. I met with a number of other organisations. They, at the time, felt that the card should continue because more time was needed to bed it in and see whether it actually worked. I met with We Care 2. They provide emergency food relief. They have a supermarket with very low-cost food and they said there had been a significant increase in people purchasing food at the supermarket. You would think that is a very good outcome, but we just don't have the evidence that has been commissioned by government. So again I would urge the government to release that report. We did hear from participants who were concerned that the card had failed them in supermarkets. I understand that many of those teething issues have now been addressed. People were concerned initially that the card had the word 'Indue' on it. People felt that was discriminatory and they were anxious about having a card with 'Indue' on it. Again, I understand that 'Indue' has been removed and it's now a grey credit card just like many grey credit cards. But the great challenge we have is that the government has not presented the evidence. When you are looking at making something permanent, the parliament has a right to see the evidence for it. But we haven't seen that yet. Everyone wants to live in a society where people have every opportunity to transition from Centrelink welfare into employment, but we need to make sure that we are working with people to make that transition. That means ensuring there are education opportunities. That means ensuring there is access to rehabilitation. We don't have that for those places yet. I'll touch briefly on remote Aboriginal communities that are facing the transition from the BasicsCard to the CDC. The government hasn't done its homework here yet, and COVID has made it a challenge. But at this stage, without proper consultation—and also given the fact that remote communities do not have the internet connectivity you require to check the balance on your card—the government should not be moving people in the Northern Territory and in North Queensland over to the card. It should be a voluntary decision. Where does Centre Alliance sit? At this point in time, we will not be supporting this legislation. We would support a continued extension of the trial in the four trial sites. However, that really would be the government's last chance. The government needs to put in the rehabilitation facilities that it promised in Ceduna. It needs to have those in all four trial sites. It needs to provide comprehensive education opportunities. No person living in Ceduna who jumps on the local TAFE website should see not a single course available. There is no chance for them, without skills, to get into employment. That would be disheartening. If a person has an addiction, knowing they can't access services is just not fair. We need to ensure that those services are put in place in all four trial sites, if we want to ensure that we give every opportunity to a person who's living in any of those four sites. The government needs to invest in some longitudinal data. I would suggest the Hervey Bay region, seeing none of the research has been undertaken at that site. We need to look at whether this card is really working. We just don't know. It's a vibe at the moment; we just don't have the details. We need to know whether the card is reducing family violence and alcohol and substance misuse and doing what its goal is—supporting people to transition from welfare into employment. At this time, we don't have the evidence so we can't support this legislation. 13:03 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan I rise to support the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020. Good governments identify issues and take action to make our community stronger and safer and to support all Australians. That's what the bill before the House does. It is yet another example of the Morrison government taking action to find the best way to support our communities and, importantly, allow people to take control of their own decisions and make good choices for their families and for their communities. The government is committed to delivering positive outcomes to vulnerable people, families and communities and to providing certainty to participants through support services. We know that, where there are high levels of welfare dependence, there are also high levels of social harm. We know that, if no action is taken, we cannot expect things to change or for these communities and these families to find an improved and better way. That is why I support the government's ongoing commitment to the cashless debit card. 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. Importantly, the program is working. Minister Ruston has spoken often about the feedback on the ground that the government is getting—the positive stories—not just from participants but also, importantly, from first responders who are located in these communities and dealing with the inevitable outcomes that come from alcohol and drug misuse and gambling. Those who are on the front line are seeing the difference in the number of offences that are occurring, the severity of offences and, as the member for Barker spoke about so well, the opportunities and outlook for these families, particularly kids whose families are struggling with these issues. The card is even proving to be a way in which disadvantaged communities are facilitating proper budgeting to support themselves and their families. The cashless debit card encourages better choices and provides the tools with which to encourage greater financial control, positive decisions and, if at all possible, an end to that cycle of addiction. But don't take it from me. Members of the House can take it from people who are out there using the cashless debit card. One participant in the cashless debit card evaluation said: 'Because I was a bad drinker, sometimes I couldn't control how I spent my money and stuff, so I would waste it and then sober up and think, where's all my money gone? Now I find it good for me, because I still have that money there if I spend all my cash. I probably drink once a week.' Another participant said: 'Some people have been saving the money in their cashless debit card and purchasing bigger items. It's working. It's like a kitty, that savings. If they look at it like that, some of them, if they're not drinkers or they're not spending all their money in one go, it can be that kind of savings.' This is the kind of positive change that the program is helping people create. It is helping people to take control of their lives in a more practical and meaningful way. It is making a real and tangible difference to those Australians, to those Australian families and to those communities—who, quite frankly, are grappling with these kinds of issues and struggling financially as they do so. And that feedback from participants who are using the card isn't our only measure of success. Where this program has been taken up, the numbers speak for themselves. The trials in my home state of Queensland, in the regional communities of Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, show that youth unemployment dropped from 28 per cent in May 2018 to 18.1 per cent in May 2019. That is a drop of almost 10 per cent in a 12-month period. In fact, an ANU evaluation, in reference to the trial sites across the country, noted 'consistent and clear evidence that alcohol consumption has reduced since the introduction of the cashless debit card'. The evaluation also found: 'The cashless debit card is helping to reduce gambling, with positive impacts, especially in the context of family and broader social life.' We will of course continue as a government to listen to the feedback and monitor the rollout of the card and the value it presents to some of our most vulnerable individuals and communities. But we should all continue to be seeking to work towards the positive outcomes that we have already experienced as part of this trial. Look, you cannot guarantee that everybody will make positive choices. We know that, and we know that the hold of addiction can be incredibly strong. I say to Labor members opposite: Why not allow us to use every opportunity we can to help people take that control, take that path out of addiction and make positive changes and positive choices in their lives? Why don't we use every opportunity that we have to make that difference in these vulnerable communities, especially a difference like this one where there is such tangible evidence that it is achieving a difference for the better? Why would we suddenly put that back in our holster, not to be used again? Of course we wouldn't. If we're seeing results like that in terms of how the trial has been conducted, of course we want to see it continue. As we know, any welfare measure is ideally a temporary one and is also tied to other measures that help people achieve a job. The best form of welfare is a job, and this bill works in tandem with the other things that the Morrison government is doing to ensure that there are opportunities in these communities to get into full-time and gainful employment. We on this side the House know that a job isn't just a pay cheque for people. We know that it is an opportunity for their family; it is security and self-worth for the individual; and it is independence for these communities. The member for Mayo spoke on this just before, and, while I don't agree with everything she said in her speech, I will take her up on this point that she made. It is not the card alone that achieves change in these communities, and we know that; it is a suite of measures, including training and employment opportunities, that work as a whole to ensure that people can make positive choices for their families. We know that this government has a record of achieving just that. Prior to COVID, more than 1.5 million jobs had been created right across the country by this government. That is an extraordinary achievement. We promised that we would create jobs and we did it. We know how to do it and we will continue to do it. We will do it again as we climb out of the COVID-19 recession. No-one could have predicted the crisis that hit us with COVID-19, but the Morrison government's reaction has been strong, swift and effective in the form of implementing JobSeeker and JobKeeper. That has sent a strong message to all Australians that this government has their back through what are some of the toughest times that we've had during the year 2020, and we certainly do still have their back. The most important part of Australia's economic recovery is yet to come, and that is getting Australians back into jobs, getting them back into work and maintaining the work that they currently have. We saw, in the recent budget that the Treasurer presented, that that forms a key part of our economic recovery plan for Australia. I want to commend the work that the Prime Minister and the minister for small business, Michaelia Cash, are doing through the JobMaker program, preparing our labour market for the future by strengthening the education and training sector and the education and training opportunities for all Australians. Significant work has been done in this area. Perhaps that work is not as well recognised as we would have hoped—based on what we heard from the previous speaker, the member for Mayo—but significant work and effort have gone into making sure that, if people aren't in full-time employment at the moment because of COVID-19, they have the opportunity to spend that time strengthening their education and training. Just this week, Labor spent what time they have outside of their own internal problems—because that's taking up most of the Labor members' time, effort and energy—talking down the JobMaker hiring credit. That is a great shame. This program is providing a real incentive for businesses to hire young Australians to help them get back into the workforce. Yesterday in question time, we heard the Treasurer reiterate again that young Australians are incredibly hard hit by the COVID-19 recession. They have an unemployment rate double that of other age demographics. They need extra help. We know that youth unemployment, in particular, takes a long time to bounce back from a recession, and it needs particular focus and support. The JobMaker hiring credit will do that. In the same way that JobKeeper has been supporting 3.5 million workers to stay in a job, the JobMaker hiring credit will now support 450,000 younger workers to get back into employment and no longer be on that income support. We know we must take these steps to help young people in particular to access job opportunities and to reconnect them with the labour force as the economy recovers from the effects of the coronavirus. We do not want to condemn our young Australians—an entire generation of Australians—to long-term unemployment because they failed to get to that first rung on the employment ladder. We want to make sure that there is a particular focus on helping them achieve their goals and aspirations, because, after all, that is what our Australian community is all about. The fact that those Labor members opposite don't understand the importance of this measure only further demonstrates to Australians how out of touch the Labor members are and how it's only this government that has their backs and only this government that they can trust to focus on ensuring that there are job opportunities out there in the Australian market, for them to get back to work, so that, at the end of the day, they can provide the opportunities that they want for their families and see them prosper. To go back to the substantive legislation: we support this particular bill. It is a very important bill. We want to support these communities as they seek to make positive choices and to tackle, as a community, the scourge of drug and alcohol abuse and addiction which can hold some people so very strongly. We want to enable positive choices for these families. At the end of the day, it's these people in these communities who will work with the tools that are provided in this bill—in this case, the debit card—to provide positive change and positive choices for their families, and allow them to achieve their aspirations in the Australian community. 13:17 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I want to place on record a few brief remarks about the Greens' position on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020. When the bill goes to the Senate, Senator Rachel Siewert will put our position in more detail and at greater length. Very briefly, the Greens oppose this bill, and I stand here representing the party as the only party to consistently oppose the cashless debit card. Our opposition to it starts from a very basic proposition, which is that you don't lift people out of disadvantage or poverty by taking away their rights. It's astounding that this government, which depicts itself as the government of the freedom of the individual and of freedom of choice, is quite happy to say to millionaires that it wants to give them tax cuts because the money is theirs and never has been the government's and they should have total freedom as to how to spend it, and yet, when it comes to those on the lowest incomes, those in this government are prepared to chuck overboard their so-called principles about individual liberty and individual choice and instead impose, on whole ranges of people, a massive restriction on how individuals live their lives that they would never accept for themselves. After numerous attempts to extend the trials, year-on-year, the government's true intentions in this bill have finally been revealed. They are to make the cashless debit card trial sites—in the East Kimberley, the Goldfields, Ceduna and Bundaberg—permanent, and also to extend it to over 25,000 people in the Northern Territory, despite First Nations communities coming out against it. There's widespread opposition to this bill. In fact, only 10 per cent of the submissions to the Senate inquiry supported the bill. Making the cashless debit card permanent paves the way for the Commonwealth and the companies that profit from the card to advocate for broader implementation of the card across Australia. As I mentioned at the start, that's why, from the outset, we were the only party to say, 'No, this is a bad idea,' because it was never going to be about a trial for one particular community; it was always going to be something that the government wanted to do to extend control over how individuals behave and to remove freedoms and liberties from broad swathes of the population in ways that they would not be prepared to do to themselves. Briefly, I repeat that Senator Siewert and our other senators will go into more detail when the bill comes before the Senate. We consider that this government is, again, imposing policy on First Nations people who are going to be disproportionately impacted by the cashless debit card and that this bill is in direct opposition to the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. As Professor Altman has powerfully noted, even before the ink is properly dry on this unprecedented agreement—that is, between all governments and the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations—the Australian government, as the key signatory, is looking to unilaterally introduce laws that disempower rather than empower about 28,000 Indigenous Australians. This bill has not been developed in full and genuine partnership with First Nations peoples and does not have regard for self-determination. There's no evidence to support the card, and it is expensive and lacking in transparency. There are significant human rights concerns, and we consider—together with many others across this country—that this is a paternalistic, racist and punitive measure. It's driven by ideology, it ignores all the evidence and it flies in the face of the new National Agreement on Closing the Gap. The evidence demonstrates that compulsory income management does not work. It's not meeting its stated objectives and it's been extended here on the basis of flawed data and ideology. Compulsory income management in all its various forms should be abandoned and the resources invested in approaches that are therapeutic, individualised and genuinely supported by the community. Debate adjourned. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021 37

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021

Report from Federation Chamber 37 Third Reading 37 13:22 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2020-2021 37

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2020-2021

Report from Federation Chamber 37 Third Reading 37 13:24 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021 37

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021

Report from Federation Chamber 37 Third Reading 37 13:25 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020 38

Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020

Second Reading 38 13:26 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Barton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 13:26 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar It is a great pleasure to rise on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020, a bill that I support very strongly. The bill in its original form will make permanent the cashless debit card trials that have been carried out in Ceduna, East Kimberley, Bundaberg, Hervey Bay, the Northern Territory and Cape York. This will impact 25,000 people who are currently on income management and 12½ thousand people who are already benefitting from the cashless debit card. I strongly support this bill because it makes the lives of people from low-income environments and disadvantaged backgrounds better. It makes it possible for them to access the Australian dream. It makes the promise of this nation and of this parliament real for them and for us. This bill is not about saving money; it is about saving the lives of those people who have very little and have very few opportunities in our nation. The passage of this bill will say to all Australians that this parliament cares about you, believes in you and wants you to have the same opportunities and the same chances as the most prosperous in our nation. This parliament should consent to the view held by all liberals through all ages: each of us together can make a dent in the universe. It is the ideal of the boundless capacity that every person has, that every Australian is born with. It is encouraging, it is universal and it is empowering. It leaves us with hope and a zest for the future. The alternative from the aggressive Left is enslaving and divisive. It says that we have no control over our lives, that our challenges are caused by others, that our story is not part of a broader human one but a slice of an ever-smaller and smaller identity group—a disempowered slice. None of us should settle for that. This parliament should not foist it upon those who entrusted us with the job of enabling their dreams and aspirations. The best the regressive Left can offer Australians is a dull, adventureless journey from one entitlement to the next; a government-planned life; a country where everything is free but us. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 38 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Macquarie Electorate: NBN 38 13:30 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie The Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury got a dud deal on the NBN—$57 billion left us with a mishmash of technology, most of it substandard. Finally there was the dangling from the government of the promise for a FTTN upgrade to fibre to the premises, if you are prepared to pay. The Liberals should have realised seven years ago we needed fibre. It's faster, more reliable and it would have been more economical to do it once and do it right. I've launched a petition calling for a prioritising of the villages from Lawson to Mount Victoria and places like Grose Vale and Kurrajong Hills, across to McGraths Hill to Freemans Reach and Wilberforce to be overbuilt with fibre as soon as possible. Here is what people are telling me about their current experience. Carol, from Mt Victoria, says: 'Our internet speeds are ridiculously slow. We need fibre to the premises, not to the node up the road.' From Blackheath, Jack says, 'The internet has been unusable here for some time now with so many people working from home.' Julie says she goes days without the internet, and the technician admits it's all on the NBN side. Patricia from Wentworth Falls says her FTTN constantly drops out. How can anyone work? That is echoed by Karen in Wenty; she gets dropouts three times a day. Bernard in North Leura says it is constantly unreliable. Christine from Lawson says her fibre to the node is terrible—700 metres from the node and above-ground copper between. We need a fair deal for the mountains and Hawkesbury. (Time expired) COVID-19: Economy 39 13:31 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman Let's get this great nation back to work. It's been two weeks of no community transmission nationwide, two months since community transmission in Queensland, three months in Tasmania and seven months for the rest of the nation. We have Australians who need to come home from overseas. Tickets are available online for flights today at $2,800. Why am I saying that? Because I want them all back by Christmas. And why do I want them back by Christmas? Because I want skilled visas and international students coming in from next year. I want to see retail, tourism, travel and hospitality happening in a COVID-safe way, with $8 billion of tourism activity happening again. I want our hospitals putting their attention to abandoned waiting lists. We want cross-border emergency transfers approved by CHOs. We want tourists with fat wallets not being stopped at the borders but allowed to sit on the beach, stand on a stand-up paddleboard and enjoy what we have to offer. We need industrial-sized quarantine so we can have not 12 but 1,200 hotels welcoming international travel where it can be done safely. We need an army of hotel quarantine workers trained, for goodness sake. We need the opt-out option for Work for the Dole removed so we have low-skilled workers back at work in this great nation. But for one diabolical hotel quarantine failure, this great nation should have been back at work six months ago. The public health evidence should not be spurious and serving premiers. Deputy Speaker, get this great nation back to work. Diwali 39 13:33 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I would like to wish everybody celebrating this year are very happy Diwali. Diwali being celebrated this weekend is known as the festival of lights. It spiritually signifies the victory of light over darkness, knowledge over ignorance, good over evil, and hope over despair. Last weekend thousands of West Australians came together at Claremont Showgrounds to celebrate the bright and joyful festival of Diwali, an event I've enjoyed many times. This was likely to have been the biggest multicultural event in Western Australia this year, with more than 30,000 people attending across the weekend. It's a testament to the work of the McGowan West Australian Labor government and their fantastic management of the COVID crisis that such a large cultural community event was able to occur. By its very nature, this is a time when we reflect on our many blessings and look forward with hope and optimism to the year ahead. This year that carries a very special resonance. My community is home to a thriving Indian diaspora. Western Australia and all of Australia have a close relationship with our western neighbour across the ocean in India at many levels—through trade, education, cultural connection and cricket, all of which we can see in our wonderful community here in Australia. This annual festival is a great opportunity for everyone to learn more about our Indian cultures and be part of this magical global celebration. I wish everyone, no matter where you are from, a very happy Diwali as we celebrate this festival of light and the triumph of good over evil. Sewing for Charity Australia 39 13:34 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I was honoured last Friday to join with the team at Sewing for Charity Australia to celebrate their fifth birthday. From humble beginnings in the lounge room and garage of founder Cass Gell's house five years ago to now working from dedicated commercial premises in Beenleigh, Sewing for Charity Australia has grown from strength to strength. The charity now has a roster of over 3,000 volunteers and in five years has achieved so much. Since 2015, Sewing for Charity Australia has donated over 180,000 handmade items, including clothing, bags, toiletry kits, gifts, items for premmie babies, cancer care items, quilts, special needs items and much, much more. They are actively supported by over 280 organisations and hundreds of families around Australia, and they divert 25,000 kilos of textile waste from landfill to re-use and repurpose in items they make. They've also hosted classes and workshops for over 200 people at their headquarters, also known as the Sewing Lair, since opening there in June this year. Charities and community organisations such as these are the heart and soul of many of our communities right around the country, particularly in my electorate of Forde, and the Beenleigh community is extremely fortunate and grateful to be home to such a wonderful charity that is giving back so much in so many different ways. Eden-Monaro Electorate: Monaro Farming Systems 40 13:36 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro Monaro Farming Systems covers Cooma, Bombala, Nimmitabel and surrounds. The group is a progressive community of innovative, forward-thinking graziers and growers. MFS accounts for 60 to 70 per cent of the Monaro's agricultural output, wool, sheepmeat and beef. As a collective, they are developing new income streams and building on their environmental stewardship. When I was meeting with them recently, one farmer made the comment that the group has been cut off at the knees. For the last 10 years, federal Landcare funding has paid for an executive officer, enabling MFS to be a real powerhouse. MFS members have achieved a profitability increase of $10 per hectare per year through sustainable agricultural change, which equates to a direct value to the local region of more than $1 million. Being able to employ a paid executive officer to oversee admin, marketing, member support, and grant applications and acquittals has been central in achieving that result. The government's Smart Farms grant scheme has turned that work upside down, though, with a focus on short-term projects rather than long-term gains. MFS has been able to keep the payroll going in the short term, but the long-term security that has been so critical to the group's success is now missing. When is the government going to provide the long-term foundation our farmers need rather than going for short-term headline-grabbing projects? Jones, Mr Doug 40 13:37 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner With Remembrance Day, when we pay our respects to current and former defence personnel, having been marked yesterday, I would like to take a moment to share the loss of one of Bonner's Bayside veterans. It is with great sadness that I share the news of the passing of former Manly-Lota RSL Sub-Branch president and Vietnam War veteran Mr Doug Jones, who died aged 87. Doug served in Vietnam and was involved in the Manly-Lota RSL for many years before becoming president in 2016. I was very honoured and humbled to not only know Doug but work alongside him to deliver funding grants and positive outcomes for the Bayside veteran community. He contributed so much to the sub-branch, and tributes have flowed in following his passing. His peers described him as an articulate person who had helped the sub-branch develop procedures for all their major commemorative events, such as Anzac Day, Remembrance Day and Vietnam Veterans Day. His legacy and contribution will be remembered during each of these services for years to come. A Wynnum West local, Doug was a well-liked member of the Bayside community and was loved and appreciated by those who worked with him at the sub-branch. Survived by his wife, three children and grandchildren, Doug will be farewelled at a private funeral today. I would like to extend my deepest condolences to Doug's family. While his presence will be missed by the Bayside community, his service to our country and contribution to the Vietnam veterans community will always be remembered. Abetz, Senator Eric 40 13:39 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I regret having to stand here today to remind the House that no Australian should be singled out solely on the basis of their cultural background or heritage and have their loyalty publicly questioned by parliamentarians when they seek to participate in our democracy. I'm referring to the line of questioning during a committee hearing in which Senator Abetz demanded that three witnesses of Asian descent disavow the Chinese Communist Party. Senator Abetz's actions were not only corrosive to our social cohesion but also counterproductive to any fight against foreign interference at home or for human rights abroad. The deafening silence from coalition ministers is, frankly, disappointing. This is not a partisan issue. This is about sending a clear message to the world that Australia is a multicultural democracy where we have robust debate but everyone is afforded respect and courtesy. Australians recognise this, and that's why tens of thousands of people have signed a petition asking the Prime Minister to show some leadership to say that Senator Abetz's behaviour was not acceptable. We've had former Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull both stating on the record that it was unacceptable. When is this Prime Minister going to say so? This needs leadership. That is why I have also signed the letter organised by the Asian Australian Alliance asking for the minister and the Prime Minister to make a clear statement that Senator Abetz's behaviour is unacceptable. (Time expired) Australian Labor Party 40 13:41 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher This week the Cold War in the Labor Party has broken out into open kinetic conflict. The member for Hunter finally said what most Australians have known for a long time when he said: 'Labor has become defined by its climate change policies.' He said that working people know that 'Labor is in bed with the Greens', and he said tradies and workers these days are turning up to polling booths with Liberal-National party polling cards. It was about time someone on the opposition benches finally noticed. The Labor Party is an absolute shadow of its former self. It doesn't care about workers anymore. It cares about one thing and one thing only: pursuing an elitist, metropolitan campaign of ideological zealotry on climate change, no matter the cost to ordinary Australians and their jobs. Labor has lost faith with the workers. Labor has abandoned them, and the member for Hunter knows it. He's laid down the gauntlet. This morning he's calling for the member for Hindmarsh's head, but we all know where this is going. He's coming for the Leader of the Opposition—either that, or he's setting in place the opportunity for someone else to do so, like the member for Corio, perhaps. The knives are out, but it won't make any difference. Workers already know that there is only one side of politics in this country which stands up for them—and that's the Liberal-National coalition. Boyle, Mr William Robert 41 13:42 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi Today I rise to talk about five generations of one family, of war medals that were lost 80 years ago, and of the dedicated pursuit of this family to bring them home. Mr Robert Boyle enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force from 1915 to 1919 and was awarded the 1914-1915 Star, the British War Medal and the Victory Medal. In 1936, these medals were lost in a house fire. At the time, Mr Boyle was not able to pay for their replacement, so they were destined to be lost forever. In 1941, Robert re-enlisted as a gunner in the Second World War and received medals for his efforts. In July of this year Robert's grandson Alan made a request to the Department of Veterans' Affairs for the replacement of Robert's World War I medals, only to be told it was not possible. Alan consequently sought help from my office. With the sympathetic assistance of Minister Chester's office, the department was able to reconsider the decision and replace Mr Boyle's World War I and World War II medals. On the eve of Remembrance Day, I had the honour of meeting Robert's son and Alan's father, Bryan, along with Alan, Alan's son Colin and Alan's grandson Hayden—four generations of Boyle men who are proud and humbled by the return of Robert's medals. COVID-19: Health 41 13:43 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I rise to speak about a fundamental human right: health access. Outcomes for the people of Mallee continue to suffer due to ongoing border closures and the clear indifference of the South Australian government. Not only are Mallee people being denied access to South Australia for urgent medical reasons but also visiting medical officers are unable to travel to Victoria to service regional communities like Mildura and Nhill. Several practitioners would normally visit Mildura regularly, including surgeons, dentists, radiographers and ophthalmologists, but they have not visited the region for eight months because the South Australian government will not grant them leave to visit Victoria and return to Adelaide without quarantining. Mildura has had zero COVID-19 cases for seven months. Right now, 500 patients are waiting for surgery and other procedures. Dr Arthur Karagiannis, the only visiting ophthalmologist to Mildura, tells me over 200 patients are waiting for cataract surgery right now. Most of them have been waiting eight months, with no send in sight—pardon the pun. This is inconceivable in 21st-century health care in Australia. If the trends hold, Friday will be the 14th day—the accepted life cycle of the virus—in Victoria with no COVID cases. The South Australian government has foreshadowed an announcement on the border for tomorrow. Anything less than a full removal of border restrictions for Victorians will not only be unjustifiable, it will be un-Australian. Mahon, Hon. Hugh 41 13:45 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton In this House, 100 years ago today, a grave injustice occurred. At 5 am on this day in 1920, debate concluded on the motion proposed by the Prime Minister Billy Hughes to expel the Labor member for Kalgoorlie, Hugh Mahon, from this House. The member for Kalgoorlie was sick and not present when this debate and vote occurred. The vote divided on party lines and resulted in the democratically elected member for Kalgoorlie being expelled from the Parliament of Australia. What a way to treat a founding member of the federal parliament! Hugh Mahon is the only member ever to be expelled from federal parliament. The member for Fremantle and I know that he, like most founding members of the Australian parliament, was not born in Australia. He was born in Ireland and was a strong supporter of Irish self-government. As it turned out, he was on the right side of history. Mahon attended a public meeting in his capacity as President of the Irish-Ireland League following the death in a London prison of the Sinn Fein Lord Mayor of Cork. Hugh Mahon's statement at that meeting led to the motion to remove him from the House for sedition and disloyalty. The democratic foundation of this institution is that the members of this House are democratically elected by their constituents. Voters, not the executive government, are our bosses. Executive government should never get to decide who sits in this House. That is going down the road that leads towards fascism. We need to make right what happened to Hugh Mahon, and I'm glad the member for Fremantle and others are taking up this cause. Robertson Electorate: Christmas Card Competition 42 13:47 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson Local primary school schools across the Robertson electorate have now submitted their designs to our annual Christmas card competition. I look forward to seeing so many of the creative and colourful designs that are exhibited by our students every single year. In 2020, there were over 1,000 entries from 22 schools across the Central Coast. The theme of hope is particularly pertinent given the recent challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and the summer bushfires. I had a look at the designs, and every single one of them gave meaning to this idea in a really insightful and thoughtful way. First place this year goes to Winter from Empire Bay Public School, who perfectly captured the spirit of hope and a brighter future in her design featuring a ray of sunshine coming in from the clouds. Second place goes to Annalena from Woodport Public School, and third place to Sienna from Brisbania Public School. Highly commended places go to Maria from Woy Woy, Ethan from Chertsey, Megan from Green Point, Emily from St John the Baptist and Willow from Our Lady Star of the Sea in Terrigal. So congratulations to all of our place winners and also to each and every student who entered the competition. The time and the effort that you put in shone through in your amazing entries. I really look forward to meeting our award winners and their families at the annual presentation afternoon and also to seeing the Christmas gift-tag pack, which features every single student as a way of recognising and acknowledging their individual efforts in creating their own pictures of Christmas hope this year. Mahon, Hon. Hugh 42 13:48 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle The partisan expulsion of Hugh Mahon from the Australian parliament 100 years ago was a serious injustice and it was a dangerous misstep in the early life of this parliament. It's a reminder that we should consider our parliamentary system, its procedures and culture very carefully. Essentially, Hugh Mahon was expelled for daring to criticise the British Empire and its conduct in Ireland. It was a time when the issue carried a feverish charge and there was in Australia a transplanted sectarian divide between different parts of the Christian faith. Now that prejudice has significantly abated, but there will always be new forms of misunderstanding and prejudice. Indeed, in the last month, we have seen prejudicial and frankly ridiculous conduct within a parliamentary inquiry process towards Australian citizens who happen to have Chinese heritage. I reflect that in 2019 the members for Pearce and Aston—oddly enough—called for my resignation from parliament for having the temerity to observe that checkpoints in Israel could be gravely dangerous for Palestinians. I waited to hear protests from the great champions of free speech on that side of the House—the great champions of the need for Australian parliamentarians to speak freely about conflict resolution and human rights in other parts of the world. Do you know what? I did not hear a single squeak. The expulsion of Hugh Mahon was wrong and we should acknowledge it in an appropriate way, but the enduring lesson of the Hugh Mahon debacle is that we must protect and improve our democratic institutions and culture at every opportunity. Remembrance Day 42 13:50 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning Remembrance Day is a time to reflect on the peace secured by the sacrifice of Australian soldiers. Importantly, it reminds us that the battle for human freedom is ongoing. We must heed this lesson so that our democracy remains strong. Although it is now often forgotten, Australians believe they were fighting for a just cause during the First World War. I believe they were, too. Two days prior to the Battle of Hamel in July 1918, Prime Minister Billy Hughes visited the Australian Corps in France. Hughes spoke directly to a group of them. He said: Your deeds, the history of this war, are the basis upon which the future nation of Australians will be brought up. You have fought to keep alive the ideal of freedom and to save Australia from the domination to which, if Germany won, we would certainly be subjected. While you are doing that abroad we pledge ourselves to look after your interests at home. Yesterday we remembered those who gave their lives serving Australia, defending our values and our interests from Gallipoli to Afghanistan. For us in this place, it reminded us, as Billy Hughes said, of our responsibility to care for those Australians we send to war on our behalf while they're in harm's way but especially when they return home. Women in Parliament 42 13:51 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga Like many members of this House, I have the privilege of speaking with lots of primary school students who are learning about parliament and about our democracy. Almost every time I do this, I am asked by them what it's like to be a woman in parliament. I tell them that it's different to what it's like for men but that that's why it's really important that women are here and that we're represented. I'm always reassured by how many young girls are keen to be part of our democracy. But this week I worry that the message being sent from this place to young, middle-aged and older women is that they are not welcome here and that a number of sensible women would look at what's been reported this week and think that this is an environment they don't want to be part of. So I'm using this time to do a symbolic shout-out. In some ways, it seems amazing that I still have to do this in 2020. I'm 33 weeks pregnant and I'm here. Women should be in this place and we are in this place. We should be MPs and we should be staff. Women should be safe in this place, particularly women working as staff. It's clear from what we hear this week that we still have structural work to do to make sure that everyone who works here feels safe and is treated appropriately. I know that on the Labor side of the House we've been doing this work and we are committed to doing more, so that we do have the structures and the culture that mean women want to work here and are safe when they do so. I urge every member of the House to do their part. O'Connor Electorate: headspace 43 13:53 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I've been approached many times about the provision of more mental health services for youth in the beautiful coastal town of Esperance and I'm pleased to say that a new headspace will open in Esperance next week. Since August 2018, I've spoken of the need to increase the service in regional WA, particularly in Esperance where, previously, there had been only one visiting psychiatrist each month and even more limited services for children and youth. I approached Minister Hunt to seek a departmental review of these services, and a needs assessment was conducted. There are more pressures on young people today than ever before and the establishment of this headspace is so important to providing this vital service in Esperance. The headspace program aims to improve access for young people aged 12 to 25 years who have, or are at risk of, mental illness. Headspace is a trusted model of care that is recognised by young people, their families and their communities for providing youth-friendly mental health support. I was pleased that the department agreed that the isolation of the Esperance community warranted more support and have funded a headspace. Headspace delivers quality frontline support and coordinates tailored interventions for at-risk youth. One in four people aged 16 to 24 experiences some form of mental illness every year, and three-quarters of all mental illness manifests in people under the age of 25. Headspace offers early intervention services across four keys areas: mental health, related physical health, social and vocational support, and alcohol and other drug use. I look forward to being in Esperance next week to officially open the new headspace. (Time expired) National Integrity Commission 43 13:54 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs The Australian Federal Police Association has today slammed the Attorney-General's proposed integrity commission as a protection racket for government MPs. The government's proposed 'cover-up commission' would create a two-tier system, with public hearings possible for law enforcement officials accused of corruption but hearings for politicians, like himself, and public servants working under the direction of this government to be held only in secret. What does that tell us about this Attorney-General's commitment to integrity? But you don't have to take my word for it. The head of the association representing the Federal Police today called out the hypocrisy of the Attorney-General when he said: If you're going to create a system for integrity, then it needs to be one rule for everybody. You can't just say 'my mates get this, and everyone else gets that'. It's just not fair. It's almost like creating a protection racket for their parliamentary mates. The indictment of the Morrison government's proposal as a protection racket for Liberal Party mates adds to the wave of criticism the Attorney-General's proposal has had from legal experts across the country. The ever-growing list of scandals surrounding the Morrison government shows why Australia needs a powerful and independent national integrity commission and why Mr Morrison and his colleagues will apparently do everything in their power to prevent one from being established. Longman Electorate: Non-Profit Groups 43 13:56 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman Today I want to acknowledge the great work that not-for-profit groups on Bribie Island are doing for their community. Around three years ago a number of these groups got together and formed an organisation called Helping Agencies Network Development, or HAND. HAND is a great example of how different helping agencies can work together to have a greater positive impact on their community. Headed up by Neil Wilson, HAND is an initiative of the Bribie Island Neighbourhood Centre. Its membership includes the Sandstone Point Lions Club, Rotary, Global Care and many others. Recently I attended one of their meetings and heard firsthand how this type of networking can benefit the wider community. They share knowledge with each other on what their respective organisations have to offer and can refer clients as needed. It's a great example of the willingness of people in our community to become volunteers and support worthwhile causes. The dedication of these organisations that rely on volunteers to keep them going is, frankly, amazing. I've seen this networking approach in other parts of my electorate of Longman, too. An organisation called Intercept based in Caboolture has a team of about 20 people and a wide range of different social service programs working together to get the best outcomes for people who are in need of some help. I recognise that this approach is vital in government, too, and I hope that local, state and federal governments can put aside their differences and find some common ground for the betterment of our communities. Scullin Electorate: Diwali 44 13:57 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin On behalf of the Labor Party I say happy Diwali to everyone around Australia who is celebrating the festival of lights. At Diwali, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists—some of the world's oldest religions—light the diya with family and friends. And importantly, in our great multicultural society, they share its spirit with all of us. The festival of lights is a celebration of life's blessings and the triumph of good over evil. It's also a time to reflect on our responsibilities to help our fellow human beings, particularly those who are doing it tough. There have been some great examples. I want to acknowledge the inspiring ways so many members of the Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh community in this country have responded to the pandemic, with extraordinary compassion, helping less fortunate members of the community and lighting the darkness that has characterised so much of this most difficult year, from the bushfires to the pandemic. And this year of course Diwali will be different. I know that celebrating at a distance isn't easy, when you want to get together to share the fun. But celebrate we must, because we have so much to celebrate. Happy Diwali, everyone! North Sydney Electorate: Diwali 44 13:58 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney This Saturday marks Diwali, one of the most important festivals in the Hindu, Sikh and Jain faiths. Thousands from the Indian-Australian community in my electorate will join over a billion people around the world to celebrate a time of renewal, light and colour. Diwali, or the festival of lights, marks the victory of good over evil and light over darkness. It's a wonderful time for families to come together and share or renew bonds of kinship. Normally Diwali would be celebrated across Australia with cultural performances, bazaars and the brilliant food for which India is so famous. Because of the pandemic, Diwali celebrations will look a little different this year. Many public community celebrations will be happening either in a modified, low-key form or not at all. But I am pleased that the Lane Cove Indian community is still marking Diwali with a rangoli display at Lane Cove Council and a drawing competition, which I've been honoured to be asked to help judge. Diwali, for me, is also a time to reflect on how much Indian Australians contribute to making Australia the world's most successful multicultural nation and why Australia's continued relationship with the Republic of India is so important. I'm sure we will all find our own ways to celebrate. I might even try to match the Prime Minister's legendary Indian curry skills in my own kitchen this weekend. To all those celebrating Diwali this year, I say: shubh Diwali! The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 44 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE JobKeeper Payment 44 14:00 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Treasurer. Were jobs lost in every single state and territory in the first full fortnight after he cut JobKeeper? 14:00 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I can confirm that 446,000 jobs have been created over the last four months and that the unemployment rate today is 6.9 per cent. And what we have done is: we have put in place $507 billion of economic support— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW A point of order, Mr Speaker, on direct relevance: it is hard to think of a more specific question, and, while I appreciate rulings that they don't have to give a yes or no— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right! The Manager of Opposition Business has the call. Mr Burke DYW I appreciate that a question can't demand a yes or no, but to simply riff off anything relating to jobs is a long way from the specific way this question was asked. The SPEAKER 00APG Yes. I say to the Manager of Opposition Business, he makes a reasonable point. I was allowing the Treasurer a preamble, but this is a very, very specific question, and the Manager of Opposition Business is right—it might invite a yes or no, but it can't demand a yes or no answer. The Treasurer needs to be directly relevant to the question—that's in the standing orders—or wind up his answer. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL I can confirm that the unemployment ticked up to 6.9 per cent and that it is expected, by Treasury and, indeed, the Reserve Bank, to actually increase between now and the end of the year, up to around eight per cent, but, by mid next year, to be 7¼ per cent. The member for Rankin did refer to JobKeeper, and what was implicit, and actually explicit, in his question was the tapering of JobKeeper, and I need to remind the House, in that context, that the tapering of JobKeeper has been supported and advocated by the Leader of the Opposition and by the honourable member for Rankin. And I repeat: on ABC's The Business, he was asked how long the tapering should be, and he said: 'They should be looking at a kind of tapering.' And I refer to the Leader of the Opposition, who, when he was asked: 'Would you extend JobKeeper and extend— The SPEAKER 00APG I'll just say to the Treasurer: the Treasurer is now moving way beyond what was a very specific question. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Well, Mr Speaker, the question was put about the tapering of JobKeeper and the impact on jobs, and the message to those opposite is that we have seen the creation of jobs but we've also seen a tapering in JobKeeper, which is something that those opposite have advocated for. Morrison Government 45 14:03 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is demonstrating strong national and international leadership in addressing the challenges we face as a nation, including regional and economic security and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and recession? 14:03 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Wentworth for his question and the considerable experience he brings to this chamber on the matters that he's raised here in his question today. He would understand that this year we have rightly been focused on the extraordinary challenges here in Australia—the domestic challenges in dealing with what is, though, a global COVID-19 pandemic and a global COVID-19 recession that has followed from that pandemic. While that is true, it has been Australia's performance during this time that has not gone unnoticed here by Australians—but, in fact, in so many nations around the world. Australia now is one of a small group of nations that have been able to perform best amongst the nations of the world in terms of how we have dealt with the COVID-19 pandemic and the COVID-19 recession. Indeed, you could say we are part of a small group of leading nations when it comes to our government's handling and working with other governments around the country and the Australian people in managing this pandemic. This has not gone unnoticed by those overseas. Earlier today I had the great honour to speak to President-elect Biden. It was a very warm conversation, and I welcomed and congratulated him on his election. But one of the key issues that President-elect Biden raised in the call was the seeking of input from Australia in how we have been so successful as a nation in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic and the COVID-19 recession. I welcome his great commitment as President-elect to this region and to the important alliance—an alliance that spans generations and will continue to serve the security needs and the prosperity and peace needs of this country in the region and more broadly. We were also able to discuss the fact that next week I will be joining the new Prime Minister of Japan, Prime Minister Suga, in Tokyo to further strengthen our relationship on both security and economic issues. That will be followed—on my return trip—at Port Moresby with Prime Minister Marape, where the issues in the Southwest Pacific remain incredibly important to our own future—supporting our Pacific family in the COVID-19 pandemic and, in particular, our support for them through the comprehensive vaccine strategy which has been developed by the Minister for Health and will also be discussed at the national cabinet meeting tomorrow. This weekend the ASEAN forum will convene. We will join the East Asia Summit and we will be speaking to the issues of the COVID-19 pandemic there and the leadership role Australia has been able to play but also the support we're also providing to ASEAN nations, not just in terms of the pandemic but issues more broadly— (Time expired) JobMaker Hiring Credit 46 14:07 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that last night the government did a deal with One Nation to allow workers to be sacked or have their hours cut for cheaper workers with a hiring credit? 14:07 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook What I can confirm is that last night the government implemented its plan to get Australians back into work as part of a comprehensive set of measures that were outlined by the Treasurer in this year's budget—a COVID-19 recession recovery plan set out in our budget, building on the record investments that we have made as a government on behalf of the Australian people to ensure that this nation stands amongst a group of nations small in number that have been able to address not just the health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic but the severe blow of the COVID-19 recession that follows. That has been through the unprecedented investment in measures, whether it be JobKeeper, JobSeeker, the JobTrainer fund, the cash-flow boost or the JobMaker hiring credit to get Australians back into work. We will remain committed to putting these measures in place. We have the protections in place to ensure the integrity of these measures support Australians right across the community. We will get on with that job despite the opposition we get from those opposite, despite the undermining we get from those opposite pretending it's some sort of bipartisanship in a pandemic when on every occasion they take the opportunity to undermine and seek to circumvent the record level of support that our government is putting in place. Australians know that this government has their back and they know that Labor has turned its back on them. Morrison Government 46 14:09 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls My question is to Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government is demonstrating strong leadership in our economic recovery from the COVID-19 recession through its continued investment in critical infrastructure? 14:09 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Strong leadership and rural and regional areas go hand in hand through the COVID recovery, because rural Australia and country Australians are leading the way out of this terrible, terrible time. I thank the member for Nicholls. He's a very staunch advocate for regional development. He knows that, through the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, the local government areas within Nicholls will benefit to the tune of $21 million. That is the case for all electorates right across the nation. That particular program is going to benefit local roads and community infrastructure, and it's going to get on with the job of putting workers back on site, getting tractors busy, getting excavators pushing dirt around and, most importantly, helping the small support businesses in and around those work sites. The member knows also the benefits which are being realised by our transformational Inland Rail project. Inland Rail is going to go through Seymour in his electorate. This corridor of commerce—expanding 1,700 kilometres from Brisbane to Melbourne—is going to make sure that produce gets to port within 24 hours. The first section, Parkes to Narromine, was completed recently, and $110 million of value of goods and services went to 99 local and regional businesses. The member for Hasluck—the minister—the member for Barton and maybe even the member for Lingiari will be interested to know that, during this special NAIDOC Week, $14.1 million was spent on that section—the first section of 13—with Indigenous owned businesses, and 298 Indigenous workers were employed on this section. That's something that we are very proud of. Inland Rail is using Liberty steel—South Australian steel, Whyalla steel—and that's also certainly helping with the recovery from COVID-19. Moree Mayor Katrina Humphries has applauded the contract that has been awarded for the next section of Inland Rail, from Narrabri to North Star. She says that, with most of the Inland Rail workforce to be accommodated in Moree, there is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for many different businesses to cater for the influx of Inland Rail personnel as well as keeping tourists happy. Inland Rail is going to have such benefits for Queensland. In fact, most of the benefits of Inland Rail will be experienced—during the construction phase and certainly beyond—by Queenslanders. Garth Hamilton, a local engineer from Toowoomba—and, hopefully, the next member for Groom—says Inland Rail will deliver faster and cheaper freight for farmers whilst making Toowoomba a freight and logistics hub, bringing significant economic benefits to the region. So all are going to benefit from it—Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. I'm very pleased that I was able to sign those intergovernmental deliveries. That's delivery. That's outcomes. That's getting on with the job and that's making sure we get the projects completed. (Time expired) JobMaker Hiring Credit 47 14:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that no worker will be sacked or have their hours cut for cheaper workers with a hiring credit? 14:12 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The protections were set out in the protections that sit underneath the bill, and that's why they're in place— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gorton is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L They're in place to achieve the outcomes that the Leader of the Opposition has set out. I will ask the Minister for Industrial Relations to add further to the answer. 14:13 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce It is a very important question. What this chamber and the dispatch box should not be used for is to send the wrong message to any employer or business that they might be able to do something which, at law, they clearly should not be doing. The general protection provisions in the Fair Work Act, which include all casuals, include general protections against adverse action, such as dismissal or a reduction in hours on the basis of a protected attribute or age. An employer who contravenes the general protections could face significant civil penalties of up to $13,320 for an individual and $66,000 for a body corporate. They might also be required to pay compensation. Why would Labor be using this dispatch box to suggest to employers that they could do something that they clearly cannot and should not do and for which there are very serious penalties if they ever were to do it? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides! I guarantee I'll start ejecting people in a second. Trade 47 14:14 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Minister representing the minister for trade, don't China's trade sanctions and threats make a mockery of free trade agreements? Will your government now adopt self-reliance and recreation of industry as policy imperatives: all cars purchased under a government contract Australian made; 22 per cent ethanol mandate, as exists in Brazil; laws dictating water supply; and sewerage pumps be made in Australia. Minister, doesn't the free market's belt and road reinstate the convict colony? 14:15 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I thank the member for his question. It's an incredibly important question. As he would know, the Australian government has chosen not to enter into a written agreement on the BRI. One thing that he can be absolutely certain of is that we will pursue our national interest, and we will pursue our national interest strongly. There have been reports about China placing restrictions on our exports, and we find these deeply troubling. As a matter of fact, there was another report today about logs being part of these restrictions, and that's going to impact the port of Portland and parts of my electorate— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. Mr Katter interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Hang on, I'll come to you. I've got to give you the call. Do you want to make a point of order, or not? Mr Katter HX4 No, I— The SPEAKER 00APG Right, that's over! Minister, you've got the call. Mr TEHAN 210911 Mr Speaker, I could hear what the member was saying. He actually wanted to be able to hear the answer. He sees this as something that's incredibly important, and he wasn't able to hear it. He was actually asking for the interjections on the other side— The SPEAKER 00APG Can I say to the minister: if he'd actually let me give him the call, he could have said that. Do you want to swap seats? What do you want to do? Mr TEHAN 210911 No, I was just trying to point out— The SPEAKER 00APG Well, get on with your answer. Mr TEHAN 210911 I was just trying to point out what he was trying to say, Mr Speaker. Member for Kennedy, I don't know whether you can now hear me, but thank you for your question. The Australian government has chosen not to enter into a written agreement on the BRI, and we will pursue our national interest incredibly strongly and stand up for it at all times. We've heard reports about China placing restrictions on our exports, and these are deeply troubling. As a matter of fact, today there were more reports about logs out of the port of Portland having restrictions placed on them. This is something that the member for Barker and I are particularly concerned about. But Chinese authorities have denied these rumours, and we welcome these statements. Given these denials, we would expect Chinese authorities to work as effectively as possible to resolve trade issues in a timely way. We recognise that there are a range of factors behind each trade issue. In the main, China has been at pains to talk about the technical aspects. China has alleged noncompliance with various technical import requirements. One of the benefits of ChAFTA, the free trade agreement that we have with China, is that it gives us the parameters to work through these disputes, and that's what we will be seeking to do with China. When it comes to import replacements such as ethanol, Australian government policies allow for ethanol in fuel, and, as the member would be aware, Queensland and New South Wales actually have E10 standards. We would encourage other states and territories to adopt similar approaches. COVID-19: Economy 48 14:18 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the Morrison government's strong and decisive economic leadership is helping families, generating jobs and rebuilding our economy during this COVID-19 recession? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches? 14:18 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Curtin and acknowledge her experience as the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Notre Dame, a professor of law and someone who has specialised in insolvency and is very pleased with the insolvency reforms that we have introduced into the parliament today. The member for Curtin, like other members on this side of the House, understands that the JobMaker hiring credit, which passed the parliament last night, will help support 450,000 jobs. Four hundred and fifty thousand jobs will be supported by the JobMaker hiring credit. It was a big win for the job prospects of thousands of Australians who are looking to move from unemployment into work. We as a government will provide up to $200 a week to employers who take on an eligible employee for a minimum of 20 hours a week, where that employee is aged between 16 and 35. Treasury have said that this will support around 450,000 jobs. This legislation got through the parliament despite the games of those opposite, where they were looking for any hill to fight on to distract from the divisions between the member for Hindmarsh and the member for Hunter—aided, of course, by his legal adviser, the member for Isaacs. But the big winner of that division was the member for Chifley, who is now the shadow minister for agriculture and resources despite his electorate not seeing a sheep station since Federation. The reality is that the JobMaker hiring credit, together with the tax cuts that we have passed through the parliament, the infrastructure spending, the expanded instant asset write-off and the loss carry back, will help create nearly one million new jobs. And we're already seeing the Australian economic recovery underway. Consumer sentiment is up. Business sentiment is up. Consumer confidence has been up for 10 weeks in a row. Our AAA credit rating has been reaffirmed. The Governor of the Reserve Bank has said that our economic response is the right response. And 446,000 jobs have been created in the last four months. On this side of the House we support jobs, jobs and more jobs. JobMaker Hiring Credit 48 14:21 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister guarantee workers over 35 looking for a job that they won't be turned away in favour of a young worker with a hiring credit? 14:22 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong The many measures in this budget are designed to create jobs right across the economy for people of all ages. And the tax cuts that have been legislated for 11½ million Australians; the two $250 payments that are coming to pensioners and carers and others on income support; the expansion of the instant asset write-off to businesses with a turnover of up to $5 billion; the loss carry-back measure; and the measure that is designed to support new skilling and training through the JobTrainer program, which is open to people of all ages, are designed to create economic activity. But the question was going to the heart of what passed the parliament last night, which was the JobMaker hiring credit. As I have told the House before, we have focused on getting younger people into work because they have been heavily hit. And today the unemployment rate for those aged 15 to 34 is 10.2 per cent. But, for those who are aged 35 to 44, the unemployment rate is 4.7 per cent. In terms of people aged 15 to 34, from March to September, there has been a 6.1 per cent decrease in the number of jobs, or 307,000 people. In contrast, over the same time, the decline in jobs for those aged 35 and over has been 1.4 per cent, or 109,000 people. So the reality is that people of all ages have lost jobs, and businesses have closed, some not to reopen. But we, the Morrison government, are doing everything we can to help get people into a job, regardless of their age. COVID-19: Vaccine 49 14:23 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister outline how the Morrison government's leadership in securing a COVID-19 vaccine has assisted in keeping Australian lives and livelihoods safe during the coronavirus pandemic? 14:24 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Reid, a practising psychologist for almost 20 years with a deep focus on mental health and somebody who has witnessed the challenges that Australians have faced, not just with their health but with their mental health, during this, the year of COVID-19. Today is an important step forward not just with regard to health but also mental health, with a fourth day out of five of zero cases of community transmission nationwide. This is an immensely important step on the road to having Australia back to not just COVID-normal but normal. At the same time, we see abroad another 24 hours with over 600,000 cases and, agonisingly, the worst day ever for loss of life from COVID-19, with over 10,000 lives lost for the first time. Against that background, we recognise that, no matter what we do with containment in Australia, ultimately a vaccine must be required not just for Australia but for around the world. The work we have done as a nation is helping Australia to lead internationally in regard to the development, distribution and acquisition of vaccines. With regard to the development, we've been able to invest $363 million in research relating to COVID-19. Our vaccine research has seen vaccines underway through investments in Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney, and, in particular, at the University of Queensland in Brisbane. The University of Queensland's molecular clamp has a $5 million investment from the Australian government. The progress of the results so far has been good, and we anticipate further results in the coming weeks. The news is positive and good, and Australia is playing a role not just at home but internationally with that leadership. In addition, I am pleased to be able to inform the House that we have secured cold chain logistics distribution capacity for the Pfizer vaccine, one of the four vaccines Australia has been able to acquire as part of a 134.8 million-unit purchasing program, with an additional 25.5 million units available under the Covax Facility—enough to protect all Australians three times over. But this cold chain logistics is innovative. It's about making sure we can provide the mRNA vaccine, if that is the successful vaccine. Our hope and our expectation is that it won't just be one vaccine but that all of those four, and hopefully some of those other vaccines in which we are investing, will be successful. Through that, we'll be saving lives and protecting lives in Australia and also helping to save lives and protect lives around the world. JobMaker Hiring Credit 49 14:27 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Yesterday in this House the minister said that job ads that state a preference for workers who are under 35 and eligible for the hiring credit should not exist under the Fair Work Act. I have here 16 jobs advertised online, all of which prefer or require applicants to be eligible for the hiring credit. What action has the minister taken since Labor raised this issue yesterday? 14:27 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce The question yesterday was in respect of someone in Diamond Creek, a single mother in her 40s, who said that she'd never been unemployed until now. She found a job ad which stated that candidates under 30 were preferred so the employer could receive the hiring credit. It would not be an exception—and you could not advertise for people preferred over existing employees if that person— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left. Mr PORTER 208884 There are existing exemptions to the Age Discrimination Act, but you cannot advertise saying that you prefer someone in a way that would displace an existing person who, based on their age, was not inside the hiring credit. That would be quite wrong. There are exemptions to the discrimination legislation, which have long been there, which do permit employers to target prospective employees who fit within a Commonwealth employment program. So that is an exemption, but you cannot advertise for someone to receive the hiring credit in a way that would displace an existing employee. You cannot do that. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left. The Manager of Opposition Businesses is seeking to table a series of documents? Mr Burke DYW Yes, I've got 16. Can I go through them one at a time? The SPEAKER 00APG No. I think you can do it as a job lot. Mr Burke DYW I seek leave to table the 16 job advertisements. Leave not granted. Environment 50 14:29 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is leading domestic and international efforts to protect and preserve our environment? 14:29 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer It is a pleasure to take a question from my friend the member for Braddon in the great state of Tasmania and to talk about the Australian government's strong domestic and international leadership on protecting the environment. Whether it be oceans, reefs or climate adaptation in our unique natural landscapes, Australia is, indeed, a global leader. There is no place where this is more demonstrated than in Antarctica, which is of special interest to every single Tasmanian. Australia has always been the strongest voice in protecting this last untouched wilderness on earth. At a recent international meeting, we were joined by Norway and Uruguay as new co-sponsors in our efforts to champion a new East Antarctica Marine Park. While we haven't got there yet, our efforts in Antarctica will always have a focus on scientific research, protecting the environment and using the continent for peaceful purposes. We have reported on the construction and operation of a new icebreaker, which is undergoing sea trials near the Netherlands, advancing the Davis aerodrome project—the first all-weather runway. Of most interest, the million-year ice core drill is being made in Hobart with the amazing Australian Antarctic Division. This is an ice-core drill that will drill to find how the climate on earth changed a million years ago. There is no doubt that our Antarctic scientists punch well above their weight, with their deep understanding of Southern Ocean climate systems. I find it amazing that the opposition is laughing at the work of Antarctic science; I think it is extraordinary. The Great Barrier Reef: benchmarked against global standards, our management of the reef is recognised as a leading example and it is considered by many to be of a gold standard. But that is not me saying that; that is UNESCO saying that in their reports, because of the work we are doing in our pioneering research and adaptation program, funded through our $1.9 billion investment on the reef. Such work is enhancing the natural genetic adaptation of corals so they can survive in warming waters. The minister for science is well aware of the program at the Australian Institute of Marine Science. Back on land, I know the member for Braddon is interested in Landcare, a movement which does attract international acclaim because it brings together conservation and the production of food and fibre on the 50 per cent of our continent that is managed by farmers. The Minister for Agriculture would agree that enhances our international clean, green reputation. I could talk about our Indigenous protected areas. Seventy-four million hectares are managed with the unique approach of our First Australians and that extraordinary work, again, is internationally acclaimed. There is no better way to demonstrate leadership than what we do on the ground with practical action in communities, oceans, reefs, sea ranges and land care. (Time expired) Employment 50 14:33 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Can the minister confirm that there is no protection against employers excluding workers over the age of 35 from even being allowed to apply for a job? 14:33 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce With respect, the question doesn't make any sense. I mean, there is a provision in the Age Discrimination Act which allows for the existence of Commonwealth programs that target people by a cohort of disadvantage, including age. What has Labor got against a policy designed to help the people most in need with the highest rates of unemployment, which are young Australians? What has Labor got against that policy? What is the problem that they have? As the Treasurer noted, it is young Australians who have suffered the most with unemployment during the COVID recession. It is young Australians who will have the most scarring effect to their employment and wage-earning capacity, and there is an enormous effort by this government through the hiring credit and other matters to try to bring those young Australians back into employment as quickly as possible. It is precisely those types of provisions in the Age Discrimination Act, which have been there since 2004, that allow for Commonwealth programs of this type. There have been many Commonwealth programs that have specifically tried to target the people at the greatest disadvantage, which right here and now are young Australians. So the point is that that is precisely what we are doing, trying to help those people who have the greatest disadvantage. But I will say now, as I have said before, as a message to the House, as a message to employers, notwithstanding that we are trying to help those people who are suffering the greatest disadvantage in terms of unemployment, under the Fair Work Act you cannot favour those people against existing employees by adverse action against those existing employees. In addition, there are a whole range of protections that the Treasurer has clearly outlined that means that they cannot do what it is that the opposition are suggesting—quite falsely to people who listen to this and take views from it—that they can do. They can't. It is designed to help young people, not to disadvantage anyone else. Child Abuse: Cybersafety 51 14:35 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Can the member stop for a second. Can those members interjecting cease interjecting. He's trying to ask a question. If you want to have a loud conversation, go and do it outside the chamber. Can the member for Cowper start his question again. Mr CONAGHAN 279991 My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison-McCormack government's leadership on protecting children from online threats includes working with international agencies to prevent abuse and prosecute perpetrators. 14:36 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. I recognise his service with the New South Wales Police Force and his work as a detective on many crime types, including child protection. He went on to become a police prosecutor, and after his policing career he went on to become a lawyer, so he went off the rails at that point! Nonetheless, a very distinguished career before he came into this place. An honourable member interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI Mensa—he didn't get that. That wasn't for him. The fact is that we have, as I have mentioned in this place on a number of occasions, made a priority for this government to protect children. We have worked with our international partners to make sure that we can protect children, in particular, online. I want to praise the work of the Australian Federal Police in Operation Arkstone that many Australians would have read about in the papers over the course of the last couple of days. Fourteen men have been arrested on 828 charges of child exploitation. The Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation based in Brisbane, the Australian Federal Police in New South Wales, the Queensland Police Service and the WA Police Force worked with US Homeland Security to identify these vile individuals and to stop them from causing further harm. The operation has now identified 46 Australian victims of child sexual abuse, including 16 from a childcare centre. Homeland Security partnered with the Australian Federal Police during search warrant activity, and that intelligence has led to the outcomes that we've seen. I want to thank very much the United States government and the United Kingdom government as well for the work they've done with us on making this area of investigation an area of priority for us. It is the reality that our children are being targeted not just by offenders who would be Australian based but offenders offshore and, similarly, Australian based men seeking to target children in other parts of the world, including South-East Asia. Our work will continue with the Biden administration because it is such an important area of mutual assistance that we provide to each other. The work that Homeland Security does with my Department of Home Affairs really is world leading. The centre in Brisbane has given us international credibility to work with partners in our own region and to work with partners across Europe. We have many people who are located in the Brisbane office who are working with NGOs, including people, for example, like Bruce and Denise Morcombe, so that we can leverage off those relationships to protect more children. We know that there's been a massive spike during COVID of online activity in the targeting and grooming of those children, and the fact that we've been able to save these children from further violation is something of which our country should be very proud. 14:39 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—Labor joins with the government in thanking our authorities, as well as the authorities in the United Kingdom and the United States, for this absolutely critical work to keep children safe. This abhorrent practice—it's hard to understand why it exists—exists far too much, and the fact that there has been a rise during COVID, as the minister has said, has had devastating effects. I think this would be a really tough area to work in, and we need to look after our people in those authorities who undertake that work, because of mental health issues and other issues that would occur. I can't imagine working in that area. I thank the minister for his answer. Income Support Payments 52 14:40 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Prime Minister. Marko from Hobartville is 53 and a qualified fitter whose work dried up about a month ago. He says he has been a victim of the government's illegal robodebt scheme. Marko is cut out of the hiring credit scheme and he isn't eligible for mature worker subsidies yet. How is Marko meant to get ahead when government policy is making it harder for him to get a job? 14:40 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong As the honourable member knows, the Morrison government has announced a record $507 billion of support—both balance sheet support and direct fiscal support—designed to create jobs across the country for members and constituents in that electorate, whatever their age. The JobMaker hiring credit is focused on those aged 16 to 35 because, as I said to the House prior, the unemployment rate for those who are aged 15 to 34 is 10.2 per cent, but for those who are aged 35 to 44 the unemployment rate is 4.7 per cent. Look back at Australia's experience with previous recessions, and particularly the 1990s recession. 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 a full 15 years to get the unemployment rate back below the levels from which they started prior to the recession. We will continue to implement and to legislate the announcements that we made in the budget. Announcements such as the tax cuts, the expanded instant asset write-off, the research and development incentives and the loss carry-back measures are all already legislated, and the JobMaker hiring credit was legislated last night. They are all about doing one thing, which is creating jobs across the honourable member's electorate and, indeed, the electorates represented by all of those in this House. Energy 52 14:42 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's strong and decisive leadership in the area of energy technology is lowering energy costs and reducing Australia's emissions? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:43 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question. Having been a small-business person before she came into this place, she knows the importance of technology led approaches to bringing down emissions—technology, not taxes. Australia's experience has been that, when new technologies become competitive with high-emitting alternatives, small businesses and households take them up. We are seeing that with renewables. We were seeing investment in renewables in this country 10 times the global average and four times that of places like the United States and Europe. Our ambition is to be a global leader in low- and zero-emissions technologies. That's our ambition. That's the focus of our Technology Investment Roadmap. That's exactly what we are doing; we are building from our position as a world-leading exporter of energy products into these lower-technology areas. Technologies like hydrogen, soil carbon and carbon capture and storage are all technologies that President-elect Biden is supporting. We know, as the US knows, that the widespread deployment of these technologies—our priority technologies—will substantially reduce emissions or eliminate them in sectors responsible for 90 per cent of the world's emissions. But it will take international collaboration and leadership to achieve this. Speaking of leadership, this week the member for Hunter has shown some leadership. He has taken the battle for blue-collar workers to the backbench but not before an almighty dust-up on the frontbench, like something out of the gunfight at the O.K. Corral. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides—the minister will resume his seat. I'll just say to the minister for energy that he needs to relate his remarks to the question. Ms Burney interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Barton needs to let me finish. He was asked about alternative approaches. An alternative approach is not the same as a political commentary on what's happened. The question asked about the government's policy and an alternative approach. Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Second Deputy Speaker is not helping. I just have to say to the minister that he does need to confine himself to that. Asking for an alternative approach is not asking to give a political commentary on what may or may not have happened inside party rooms or party forums. The minister has the call. Mr Taylor 231027 I will avoid political commentary and I'll quote directly from 2GB this morning where the member for Hindmarsh said it got a bit— The SPEAKER 00APG No. The minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition. Child Care 53 14:46 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has now had over a month to adopt Labor's cheaper childcare policy, which we announced on 8 October. Why is the Prime Minister sticking with his broken childcare system, which holds parents back from taking on a fourth or a fifth day of work in the middle of a recession? 14:46 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for his question. The minister may wish to add to this. The policy that the government put in place addressed the many difficulties the policy previously was finding, and as was highlighted by the Productivity Commission report on this topic—we subsequently adopted that—meant that the employment participation rate amongst women in this country increased to record levels. The gender pay gap fell to record lows. The out-of-pocket expenses for child care actually fell by 3.2 per cent. We continue to support the policy that is sustainable and it has been getting those results. But the member makes reference to his own policy. I would happily stand corrected, but it has been a month and I'm still not aware of any of the detailed costing that related to the policy that the member referred to from the Parliamentary Budget Office and the detailed assumptions that sat behind that. That is not on their website. It is not there. It hasn't been released. The detailed assumptions of the Parliamentary Budget Office—they can protest that it exists, but it simply doesn't. So, if they are going to come up with a policy, they need to be transparent about what it costs and the assumptions that sit beneath that. The Australian people know that, when it comes to matters of policy and how you pay for it, they elected a government that knows how to do that and they rejected an opposition who does not. COVID 19: Economy 53 14:48 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister please advise the House how the Morrison government continues to show strong leadership in the development of science and research to help drive our economic recovery out of the COVID-19 recession? 14:49 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank the member for his question. We have both visited the CSIRO's Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies in Pullenvale in his electorate. They do world-leading work there, particularly with their specialist Data61 unit. As I said earlier this week, the challenges we have faced this year have made Australians aware of the critical role of science, research and technology and the roles they play in our everyday lives. Of course, this is more important than ever before, because we know that the solutions that can be found through science are going to lead us out of this COVID recession. Central to that effort will be the role of the Chief Scientist, and earlier this week the Prime Minister announced that the new Chief Scientist will be Dr Cathy Foley. She will commence her work next year, but she has been employed by the CSIRO for some 36 years in a wide range of roles. Prior to being the chief scientist at CSIRO, she worked in their manufacturing sector. Of course, under our manufacturing strategy, we're creating an even bigger role for CSIRO so that we can make sure that CSIRO is playing an integral part in developing manufacturing strategies, supporting our businesses, making sure that we are harnessing science and technology to support our industries, and particularly making sure that our manufacturing businesses can develop the scale, the resilience and the competitiveness that they need. Last month in the budget, we provided an extra $460 million to CSIRO to address the impacts of COVID-19 and the effect that that had on the great work that they do. That injection of funding is going to take our investment in CSIRO to $3.8 billion over the next four years, which is a significant investment. CSIRO does amazing work across a large range of areas, but I want to mention specifically the work that is being done by their data scientists and engineers in Data61. They have done an amazing amount of work to support the work that's needed as part of COVID-19 to make sure that we have a good understanding of how viruses behave and how we can put in place COVID-safe workplaces. This is exactly how we're going to harness technology for the future to help us come through the recession that has been happening as a result of COVID and to prepare ourselves for the future. Science and technology will be the key enablers for industry. Child Care 54 14:52 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston My question is to the Prime Minister. Imogene, from Sandringham in the member of Goldstein's electorate, is a part-time management consultant with two children, and her family is not eligible for the childcare rebate. Imogene loves her job and wants to work full-time but says it would cost her family $6,000 a month to put her kids in child care five days a week, which makes little sense. Why is this Prime Minister holding Australian women back from working the fourth or fifth day in a week? 14:52 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I thank the member for her question, and I remind the member that the government is providing record funding to the childcare sector: $9.2 billion this year, which will grow into $10 billion into the coming years. Once again—and I'm sure I say this on behalf of all members of the House—I thank all those people who work in the early childhood and care sector for the extraordinary job that they've done in providing care throughout this pandemic. As a matter of fact, by working with the government, the sector has been able to ensure that 99 per cent of providers have remained open right throughout the pandemic and been able to provide that essential care, especially for those essential service workers and those vulnerable children who we wanted to make sure were protected throughout the pandemic. When it comes to our policy, what has it done for families? What it has done is see a 3.2 per cent reduction in out-of-pocket costs for parents, and it means around one million Australian families who are balancing work and parental responsibilities are benefiting from our package. Seventy-one point four per cent pay no more than $5 per hour in day-care centres, and, within a subset, 24 per cent pay no more than $2 an hour. Our approach is targeted. It's about benefiting those who earn the least. It's about encouraging and incentivising people to get into work and, if they're not in work, to look at ways to train, to volunteer and to undertake activities which will help them get into work. That's what our policy will do. What we haven't done is put in place a policy where, if you earn $1 million, have two children in centre based care for 30 hours a week, currently receive nothing and do not one extra minute of work, you would receive $561.60 per week. If you earn $1 million, you would receive $28,000 a year for not doing one extra minute of work. I'm not quite sure; we obviously haven't seen the costings of their policy and we don't know whether that's eventually what they will go ahead with—it's a mystery. But we will continue to provide support for those who need it the most. COVID-19: Housing 54 14:55 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay My question is to the Minister for Housing and Assistant Treasurer. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is leading the housing market's recovery from the COVID-19 recession, including through its HomeBuilder grant and First Home Loan Deposit Scheme? 14:56 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. I want to acknowledge the wonderful knowledge that she brings to this chamber given that, prior to being the member for Lindsay, she worked for Wentworth Community Housing. She is so dedicated to the first home buyers in her electorate as well as those who are employed in the residential construction industry. It was wonderful, therefore, to visit Mulgoa last week with the member for Lindsay. We were able to announce that the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme had an additional 10,000 places for first home buyers to get into the market with a guarantee from the federal government. We were able to be there with Nick from Rawson Homes, who explained that this was really fuelling jobs in the residential construction industry. When we announced the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme extension, the managing director of the HIA actually said: 'This policy ticks all of the boxes. It provides extra support for first home buyers and it supports the residential construction industry.' The First Home Loan Deposit Scheme support on top of HomeBuilder is fuelling growth in our residential construction industry, and the HomeBuilder Program also has been a huge success. According to the ABS, since HomeBuilder was announced we've seen a 27 per cent increase in loans for new dwellings. This is not just higher than pre pandemic. This is the highest it ever has been since the ABS has held records, since 2002. It is a 27 per cent increase. We've seen a 49.8 per cent increase in new home sales. What does this mean? It means tradies jobs on building sites, and that's what the HomeBuilder program has done—in addition, of course, to the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. So it's no surprise, given that that is what HomeBuilder has done, that the following has been said about the HomeBuilder program in supporting the residential construction industry. The CEO of the Master Builders Association said that HomeBuilder is the most effective government stimulus they have seen in decades in the industry. The CEO of the Property Council said: HomeBuilder has been the popstar of government stimulus policies released to date: highly effective, immediate and great value for money. Importantly: It has helped protect hundreds of thousands of jobs and stimulated activity right at the time the economy needed it most. Very excitingly for us on this side of the House, what is driving this growth? It's first home buyers. The CEO of CBA said yesterday, 'The upswing in housing so far has been drive by first home buyers and owner-occupiers.' The Morrison government stands with first home buyers and the residential construction— (Time expired) Environment: Native Species 55 14:59 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur My question is to the Minister for the Environment. In June 2019 the minister announced protecting native species was an immediate priority. Why is it then that almost 18 months later 170 out of 171 outstanding threatened species recovery plans, including for the koala, are still overdue? Why does the government never deliver on its announcements? 14:59 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I thank the member for Macarthur for his question and thank him for his interest in threatened species, because it's an interest that the government shares and is committed to addressing. I know that members opposite raised the issue of recovery plans, and they're an important part of the conservation approach we take to threatened species generally, because 95 per cent of all listed species have conservation advices. But I also want to make the point that, while the Labor Party focuses on a document, a name, a plan—and those plans exist—we focus on a range of activities, including our safe havens, our work with feral invasive species, our $200 million expenditure post the bushfires— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, on relevance. The question went to the minister's own announcement that there'd be 171 threatened species recovery plans as an immediate priority, and one has been delivered—one, after 18 months. The SPEAKER 00APG The minister has the call. I think she's still— Ms LEY 00AMN The threatened species recovery plans are part of the work of my department. They are on the way, and they are ongoing. What I focus on is the outcomes when it comes to the conservation of species and when it comes to protecting their habitat against bushfires, against drought, against climate change and against the most awful thing, which is pests, weeds and invasive species. If you look at our work post-bushfires you will see how our expert panel, our Threatened Species Scientific Committee and our national Threatened Species Commissioner are all addressing this very important work. Climate Change 55 15:02 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is demonstrating international leadership by responding to the challenges posed to Australia by a changing climate and building resilience to natural disasters? 15:02 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the member for Herbert for his question and acknowledge his leadership, particularly after the floods in Townsville last year, in rebuilding that community. Over the last two years this nation has faced flood, fire and drought. Deloitte Economics estimates that the cost to our economy is around $18.2 billion, and that will escalate to around $39 billion by 2050. Our response is not only in the immediate relief and recovery, in committing $10 billion for drought, $3 billion for those floods in north-west Queensland and $2 billion for the fires. It's not just about the here and now but also about building that resilience within that envelope of money—new, cutting-edge research that equips our emergency service personnel with world-class modelling that helps them to prepare even more quickly. Regarding the drought, we've just announced eight new drought innovation hubs that will be out in the regions, where the adoption of the research and development takes place, so that our farmers are equipped with the tools to grow even more and better food and fibre for the world. It's important that we undertake this in a way that intersects also with our Regional Development Corporations. They represent 15 commodities and, between the federal government and the producers, put in over $800 million in research money a year. This is making sure that there is collaboration, coordination and no duplication of taxpayers' money and levy payers' money. This is getting better results for producers and equipping them. And we've now put $88 million into a new national disaster research centre that will provide the science to help our emergency services personnel prepare meticulously for disaster seasons well in advance. That complements what the minister for energy has done around reducing our emissions—carbon capture storage technology. In my own electorate, we're going to see that the coal-fired power station in Millmerran will reduce its emissions by up to 90 per cent. That is backing ourselves with the smarts of the 21st century—the very best knowledge in the world—to reduce our emissions, keep the electricity on and protect our farmers. Tomorrow, the Prime Minister and I will be tabling our response to the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements, after national cabinet. It is important that we understand that this is a partnership, a partnership with the states, in working together to protect Australians from natural disasters and making sure that the outcomes of these recommendations are worked through collaboratively to protect Australians well into the future from any natural disaster we may face. JobMaker Hiring Credit 56 15:05 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga My question is to the Prime Minister: 48-year-old Nicole lost her job in March and is looking for a full-time position. She says that job ads which express a preference for younger workers eligible for the hiring credit are absolutely discriminatory; they may as well write: 'If you're over this age, please don't even read the advert.' What does the Prime Minister say to Nicole? 15:05 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question. And, whether it's in the member's electorate or anywhere else around this country, what Australians can take great heart from is that, at the time of our greatest need in generations, the government, working together with the Reserve Bank, has invested more than half a trillion dollars to ensure that Australia comes through the COVID-19 recession, frankly, almost better than any other developed economy in the world today. This has been a response of unprecedented scale, of unprecedented expanse, to deal with the many challenges that exist in bringing Australia through the COVID-19 recession. Whether that was the immediate need for a lifeline of support through JobKeeper and JobSeeker, and the measures that went to apprentices as well, to keep apprentices in work, or through to the longer term initiatives that have involved our advanced manufacturing sector, and everything in between—bringing forward investment decisions, bringing forward hiring decisions, and also delivering the tax relief that enables Australians to bring forward their decisions as well. That is an economic recovery plan that is working in this country and is reflected in the rebound in confidence that we have seen. A comeback in confidence that has been matched by a comeback in jobs, a comeback in investment, and a comeback in the ability of Australians all around this country to plan for their future with confidence. And, as we come into this Christmas period, and as we meet as a national cabinet also tomorrow and we continue the process of reopening this country safely and ensuring that it can remain safely open, the rest of the world looks at Australia and says 'How have they done it? We would like to be able to achieve the same.' And that was the message I had from President-elect Biden this morning when I spoke to him. And that is the message I get from leaders all around the world. Earlier this week I had the discussion with the Prime Minister of Israel and the Prime Minister of Denmark, and the Prime Minister of Norway, the Prime Minister of Greece and the Prime Minister of Austria, and they have looked at Australia and they've seen what we've been able to achieve. Now, that does not lessen at all the significant blow that Australians have suffered during the course of this COVID-19 recession. But Australians have known and will always know that my government has their back—and this Leader of the Opposition is watching his. COVID-19: Southwest Pacific 56 15:08 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde My question is to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific and Assistant Defence Minister. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's strong regional leadership is ensuring a shared recovery from the pandemic in the Southwest Pacific? 15:09 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I want to thank the member for Forde for his question. I recognise his work with his very large Pacific community, including a large Samoan community—and I know Queensland is looking for some answers in State of Origin III; he might be able to recruit a few from his large Pacific Islander community! There's never been a more important time for Australia to stand with our partners and our neighbours in our region. With Australia, so many countries in the Indo-Pacific have done so well during the COVID-19 pandemic in managing the crisis, and we congratulate them again. This matters; their success is our success, and regional leadership matters. To the question: that is why, from 2018, we stepped up in the Pacific. Australia stepped up and we showed up. The Prime Minister, the government, the foreign minister and I have been regular visitors to the region, and we have stayed in touch with our counterparts throughout the region during the COVID-19 pandemic. As I was pleased to hear from the Prime Minister, the importance of this is underscored by his announcement that he will be visiting Papua New Guinea as one of his first priorities during the pandemic to make sure the depth of that relationship continues, and it is really appreciated at this time. Of critical importance in the budget was the development assistance package. We announced a record for an Australian government of $1.44 billion to be spent in the Pacific region and, most importantly, an additional $304.7 million of new money to help all the countries of the Pacific deal with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. This support has been very important for enabling workers in Australia from the Pacific to stay and keep working here through the pandemic, remitting money home. We have enabled more people under the restart of the Pacific Labour Scheme and the Seasonal Worker Program to come to Australia during the pandemic and keep working. Most important is the Morrison government's commitment to the vaccination of the countries in South-East Asia and the Pacific region. That historic commitment of $523 million is deeply appreciated by the population of every single country of our neighbours and friends in the Indo-Pacific. The government are regularly working with our partners, such as the US, Japan, New Zealand, France, Canada and India throughout the region, and our alliance with the US underpins that rules based order. That is why we will keep investing in the region and keep investing in the priorities of our partner countries in the region to make sure they have what they need to get through this very difficult time. The Morrison government makes no apology for prioritising the needs of the Indo-Pacific region first. They are our neighbours, they are our friends, they are our family; we owe it to them and we're delivering a record level support for them to get through this pandemic. Stepping up is vital for the shared future of this region. Under this government and this Prime Minister, we will keep stepping up, we will keep showing up and we will keep delivering for our family. Mr Morrison E3L Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 57 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ALBANESE R36 Yes. The SPEAKER 00APG Please proceed. Mr ALBANESE R36 During question time, in response to a question from me about the childcare policy I announced as part of the budget reply on 8 October, the Prime Minister asserted there had been no costing done. That is not true. We have full costings from the Parliamentary Budget Office. It's cost was $6.2 billion over the forward estimates and, on the night, we announced that. DOCUMENTS 57 DOCUMENTS Presentation 57 15:12 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce (): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BUSINESS 57 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 57 15:13 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. Leave of Absence 57 15:13 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That leave of absence from the determination of this sitting until 3 May 2021 be given to the honourable member for Jagajaga for parental leave purposes, and that leave of absence from 30 November 2020 until 2 February 2021 be given to the honourable member for Burt for parental leave purposes. On behalf of everyone in the House, firstly, we wish the member for Burt and his partner, Annabel, and their already young son, Nicholas, all the best as they get Nicholas a young brother or sister. The member for Burt has a task ahead of him, but the member for Jagajaga has got a more significant one because she is due to give birth next month. We wish Kate and her partner, Daniel, and their daughter Harriet all the best. They will have a fantastic Christmas arrival in that family and, on behalf of the House, good luck. 15:14 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden On behalf of the government, can I wish those members all the very best. So many of us here have families, and they are extraordinarily special. We get such great joy from our children. All the very best. We wish you well and we are looking forward to seeing you back here in the House. The SPEAKER 00APG Both the Leader of the Opposition and the minister speak for all members of the House. All the best. Question agreed to. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 58 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Expulsion of a Member of Parliament: 100th Anniversary 58 15:15 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I appreciate the indulgence of the House. It is very important for the parliament to recognise the 100th anniversary that occurs today, which is 100 years since the House of Representatives took the action it has taken only once in the history of Federation, which was to expel one of its own members. It's been the case for some time under the Parliamentary Privileges Act that that's no longer allowed, but it was an extraordinary event, an event that does not reflect well on the parliament at the time at all. It was an attack on democracy. Hugh Mahon, the one who was expelled, was the member for Kalgoorlie. A motion was moved on 11 November to expel him from the parliament. He got notification from Billy Hughes that it was going to happen while he was in his electorate on the 10th. So it was impossible for him to make it to the parliament. They started the debate. Effectively, he was too pro-Irish and not pro-English enough for the day. Having been democratically elected, he was expelled from the House of Representatives on a vote along party lines, on the basis of what he was said to have said in documents that were never disclosed but which Billy Hughes claimed to have—documents that he referred to as affidavits that were written by journalists who alleged to have heard what had been said. In noting it now, we should just note how wrong it was. Similarly, what happened at the end of the debate is that the government of the day moved a gag motion and gagged the debate. For those of us who actually support freedom of speech, it's an important 100th anniversary to acknowledge that part of that means, when the public vote for someone, they should be able to serve their term here. And, when something is being debated, people should be allowed to speak. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 58 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Morrison Government 58 15:17 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Chifley proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: How the Government's failure to deliver on its announcements is harming everyday Australians. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:18 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley At the outset, I just want to say that it is always an honour to be an MP in this place. It's something I'm very grateful for, and I'm also very grateful for the chance to be able to serve on the front bench. I just wanted to publicly record my gratitude to my colleagues, to the leader: thank you very much for this opportunity. I also wanted to record my enormous gratitude for the attention I have received from the National Party. Two days in the job, and so much love—a lot of attention! In fact, some of it has been quite extraordinary. You might be interested to know that our friends from the National Party, particularly in New South Wales, reached for the ventilator, the 'hyperventilator', and put out a media statement that says 'Labor picks inner-city MP as ag spokesman'. I am very proud, friends, to represent the area of Mount Druitt. This 'inner-city' area is 50-plus kilometres away from the central business district of Sydney. Instead of reaching for hyperventilation, maybe if they'd reached for Google Maps it might've helped! I noted that our good friend the member for Kooyong, the Treasurer, also wanted to get in on the act. He picked out the fact that I was from an area that, he said, didn't have a sheep station. This is the member for Kooyong who, at one stage, was the minister for Northern Australia! I never knew that they stabled the colt from Kooyong in that northern Australian area known as Melbourne! But I'm very grateful for his attention as well. I'll tell you what else I'm very grateful for as the shadow minister for agriculture. I follow in the footsteps, absolutely, of people like the member for Hunter, but I also, importantly, on the Labor side, follow in the footsteps of giants like John Kerin, the member for Werriwa, or the then member for Hotham Simon Crean, who was a minister for agriculture. These were people who cared deeply about the regions, and they cared deeply about agriculture. And, importantly, they didn't always think they were the smartest person in the room. They listened; they learned; they stood up. I want to acknowledge another person in the New South Wales state government who was also recognised as an extraordinary spokesperson for agriculture, and that was Richard Amery, who represented the seat of Mount Druitt! He did the same thing. They all cared. The Deputy Prime Minister gave me a bit of attention too, quoting my critically acclaimed speech—critically acclaimed by myself!—for the Eddie Graham lecture. As to all this attention about a suburban based person having the temerity to think they're able to represent the regions, it's easier to focus on that than to focus on this: I acknowledge, firstly, that there are a lot of people who support the Nationals in those rural areas. But the question you've got to ask is: do the Nationals support those people back? Do they support them back when they need that support? This is the track record of Nationals representation in this place. The worst unemployment hotspots in the country are in Nationals seats. This is the stuff that the Deputy Prime Minister didn't quote into Hansard yesterday from that very speech. The worst health records and life expectancy in the country are in Nationals seats. Nineteen of the 20 electorates in the country with the highest life expectancy are Liberal. However, every single Nationals seat in Australia has a life expectancy in the bottom third of all electorates. They promised for ages they'd build a dam, and they haven't built damn one—pardon the French! Not one! And there's the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility that, in five years, had—in the words of the leader—no actual infrastructure fund. We need to ensure that, in the regions, there is delivery. These are the everyday Australians who are relying upon delivery by this government and are always let down. It's comical, in part, when you don't deliver, but, when you seriously just keep making those announcements and don't deliver, it's disrespectful. You're treating as fools the people who depend on you, who turn up and say: 'We're hurting. We're going through a bushfire. We're going through a drought. Have you got a plan?' And the Nationals and the government say: 'No.' 'Have you got money that we could actually use today to make our lives easier?' 'Well, no.' 'So what have you got for us?' 'A media release; an announcement.' There's one after another with these people. They continually say that they've got something in the pipeline, but they never deliver. They just want to be able to rattle it off. Look, for example, at the Morrison government. They supported the National Farmers Federation's ambition to grow farm-gate output to $100 billion by 2030. In July 2019 at the Dubbo Bush Summit, the Prime Minister did what he does best—he makes all these big promises; he doesn't follow through—claiming: 'That's why, today, I'm announcing the agriculture minister, Bridget McKenzie, will draw together a national plan to enable agriculture, fisheries and forestry to become $100 billion.' That all means one thing: jobs. Despite the PM having committed to the 2030 road map in 2018, they haven't developed a comprehensive plan. On 26 October 2018 at the drought summit, they announced the government's plan for the drought, a $5 billion Future Drought Fund off in the never-never. We're two years on from that. How much has been delivered for people who suffered through the drought? Nothing. An opposition member: A doughnut! Mr HUSIC 91219 Absolutely, a doughnut—an elusive fund, with nothing delivered. The agriculture minister loves to announce, for example, that he wants to see new ideas, smarter thinking and application with these research and development councils that he has for regional and rural Australia. He's commissioned reports. He's had inquiries into the RDCs. We've had reports, we've had reviews into the reports and then we've had new reports into those reports. I have to say he has had some success. The crop that is flourishing most under the minister for agriculture's watch is consultants' invoices. I don't know if there's a Latin name for them, such as 'consultantus invoiceus'. I don't know what it is, but that's the only thing he's been able to deliver. An opposition member interjecting— Mr HUSIC 91219 Actually, I should have used that! The only thing he's been able to deliver is consultant reports, but there is nothing there for when people need it. On biosecurity, they have let the nation down. They said they'd look after us through the pandemic. What happened with the Ruby Princess under the minister for agriculture's watch? When he was asked about how to deal with it, what did he say? He said that the biosecurity area of the department of agriculture isn't responsible for human health. Really? The department of agriculture, responsible for food and so many other things, is not responsible for human health? He doesn't even know his own act. They do not have an ability to follow through on their announcements. How many things have we seen? One Minister for Agriculture, the former Minister for Sport, made all these promises about what they would do with sports funds, and the only thing they delivered is that they skewed them to electorates, and she lost her job. The Prime Minister said, back in January when the heat was on, that he would deliver for all those communities. Remember all those community groups that put that effort in. They applied for those grants. In good faith they expected that money. They wanted that support, and they were let down, because they were never going to get the support at all, because the fix was in. It was always going to see money go to the government's mates and to those areas where they were chasing the votes. They said they would fix it up by coming up in this year's budget with something. They made an announcement at the Press Club. And what's happened now? They didn't deliver. They are constantly promising on one hand and not delivering on the other. They are talking about all this money they'll spend on infrastructure. In fact, I got the Deputy Prime Minister to name a suburb in one of his responses this week. It was the first time he acknowledged Marsden Park, which I've been trying to get infrastructure for. At least he has finally acknowledged it now. But he's a minister who doesn't deliver. Last year, there was a $1.7 billion underspend in infrastructure, with all the needs that we have for infrastructure plus jobs. When you count it out over six years, they have underspent by over $1 billion every single year. But they always spend on the ad campaign. As I said before, in part it is comical, but it is downright disrespectful when there's a big difference between the announcement and the delivery, and that's absolutely what they should stand condemned for. 15:28 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I start by acknowledging the member for Chifley and congratulating him on his promotion to shadow minister for agriculture, which is an exceptionally important ministry, but I'll correct him on a few things. I'm sure you'll agree with me, Deputy Speaker, that, when you live in greater Sydney, you may think that 50 kilometres is not inner Sydney, but, when you live in regional or remote Australia, you know 50 kilometres from Sydney is certainly inner city. We're talking here today about the delivery of the government, and I've got so much to talk about that I know 10 minutes won't be enough, so, if anyone's happy to move an extension at the end, I'll certainly take it. I want to touch on a few national things that we have focused on over many years and are focusing on right now and continuing to deliver on, because we know it's important for the growth of our economy and, if it's about the growth of our economy, it's going to be about the growth of jobs and the delivery of infrastructure and a whole lot of other areas. The first one I want to talk about is tax cuts. What we started speaking about as soon as we got elected to government back in 2013 was lowering taxes both for business—small business and big business—and for households. Why do we believe that? We believe that because we know, especially with company taxes, this is a competitive world. Wouldn't it be good if we could all take our bat and go home? But small businesses and large businesses have a lot of choice with globalisation about where they set up and where they conduct their workforce and their operations. So we have lowered company tax rates, especially for small businesses, from 30 per cent to 25 per cent. We believe in that; we know that. It used to be bipartisan. The governments of Hawke and Keating understood this. They lowered company tax rates as well back then. Unfortunately it's not a bipartisan agreement now, but we know that, which is why we've done that for small business. We wished to do it for large business, but we couldn't get it through. But it's also with personal income tax. Especially now, in an economy that is challenged, we know that lowering taxes means that people have more of their own money to spend, and we know that is a healthy thing. Whereas, obviously, on the other side, they always believe they know where to spend your money better than you do. The other thing that's really important to me—and I know the member for Chifley will be really interested in this, as the new shadow minister for agriculture; I'm sure it's important to you as well, Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien, and especially for an area that represents the regions—is free trade agreements. The great thing about the regions is that we are the exporting powerhouses. The member for Paterson would agree with me as well, being a regional MP: we are the exporting powerhouses of our country. In the agricultural sector in my own area, it's things like blueberries and macadamias. But, in my area, it's especially value-added meat processors. Over a thousand people work in my local meat processor. Seventy per cent of what they process is exported. So the free trade agreements that this government has negotiated—and there's been a heap of them: Indonesia, Hong Kong, Peru, Japan, Korea, the TPP-11. Again, the other side, at some stage, said they weren't worth going through with or didn't want to go through with them, but we persevered with all of those. That's because any market that we can get for our exporters is good for our economy, our country and jobs. This government has a proud record in the area of free trade agreements and lowering taxes. But the area I want to focus on is infrastructure. Infrastructure is exceptionally important. I think this government is going to be known for three or four things. Besides free trade, besides tax, one of them is certainly going to be the infrastructure delivery that we have done over many years. You might indulge me, Deputy Speaker, because I'm going to focus on my local area—what I know and what has happened in my community, locally, with the delivery of infrastructure, and what that's meant for my community. The centrepiece of our infrastructure spend has been the upgrade, the duplication, of the Pacific Highway. I know you have the Bruce Highway, Deputy Speaker; it's important to you. Why do we do dual duplications of major highways? The No. 1 reason we do it is to reduce fatalities. The fatalities on the Pacific Highway—this is obviously for the section that interests me: the Sydney to Brisbane section—are at multidecade lows. That's because, as the highway is dual duplicated, fatalities in those sections decrease rapidly. Since I've had the pleasure and privilege of being a member of this place, my section—which was almost the final section to be completed; it's almost completed—was the Woolgoolga to Ballina section. How much did we commit as a government? The state has contributed 20 per cent as well. It was a $5 billion investment in dual duplicating this highway. This, at any one point, has had 2,500 to 3,000 direct jobs. So the primary reason is to reduce fatalities, but the other benefit of this is direct employment to my local region and my local economy. Obviously, at the completion of it, it will be a boon as well: we are closer to the rest of the country, and it's easier to get goods and services and tourists to visit our area. There are some real highlights on this highway, too. Deputy Speaker, I know you're a motorbike enthusiast. I know you've been up and down that highway a lot. There's the Harwood Bridge. The bridge at Broadwater over the Richmond River is very spectacular. Deputy Speaker, I now want to take you on a quick tour. You've been on your motorbike; you might have been in the other sections as well. I just want to go through some of the regions of my local area and focus on what this government has done as far as infrastructure goes. I know that you would be a great fan of the BBRF. We were speaking yesterday, actually, weren't we. I brought up the BBRF yesterday, and you're a great fan of that, as well as the Bridges Renewal Program. Why is this important, and why do we as Nats do this? The Bridges Renewal Program is a Nats program and was instigated by a previous leader, Warren Truss. What is a bridge renewal program important for? Take Kyogle, a small LGA in the sense of ratepayer base, with only a few thousand, but they have over 300 wooden bridges. Some of those 300 bridges might only service 10, 20 or 30 families, and others are more important. They had a huge infrastructure backlog. What I've been able to do, and what we have done as a government with them, is co-invest. We have done—I've lost count, but it's tens of millions of dollars each that we've invested in this to start fixing the backlog. There are really important roads that we've done with them as well. The Toonumbar Dam road is a really important tourism road for Kyogle. The Culmaran Creek Road is really important for commerce there. Vitasoy—Deputy Speaker, you might be interested to know there's a company in my region called Mara Global Foods, and they supply 80 per cent of Vitasoy's soy. They need an upgrade of a road for their processing plant, and we were happy to invest, with the council, to fix that. Because what was it about? It was about jobs. It's about jobs and it's about the health of our local economy. Let's move over to Lismore. Lismore is a great sporting town. Why is upgrading sporting events important? It is not just for locals to have good facilities on a Saturday; it also brings sports tourism. For just 300 grand we co-invested with the local Far North Coast Hockey Inc and we got a second field. What has that meant? It's an international standard field and, since then, we've been able to bring a number of national tournaments to Lismore, like the under-21s national tournament and the seniors national tournament. This is bringing hundreds of people to Lismore and the surrounds for not just a day or two but for two weeks in some cases—a great economic boon. It's the type of infrastructure that we focus on because it's the type of infrastructure that supports the local economy. We are upgrading a local sporting complex, Oakes Oval and Crozier Field, which is a rectangular field and an oval. They're international standard. We're spending $14 million there. Why? Because we're going to attract the best of all the codes and we're going to attract those types of events to our community. Again, it's about economic activity and bringing those people and that money to our local town. Norco—I'm sure you've heard of it, Deputy Speaker, and I encourage the new shadow minister to meet Norco. Norco is a local dairy co-op, in my region. They have an ice cream factory in Lismore. They're a very good brand. A new brand they've got is Hinterland, which they've just marketed. They're a very important employer in Lismore. We have co-invested with them $15 million each to upgrade that ice cream factory to be world class. And that is very important for the hundreds of jobs in our region and the hundreds of jobs in that dairy processor. Casino—Deputy Speaker, I know you're a Queenslander, so we'll probably disagree here. To the shadow minister: Casino is the beef capital of the world, member for Chifley. Do not believe that it is Rockhampton. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 I'm pretty sure it's Rockhampton! Mr HOGAN 218019 It's not Rockhampton. To further prove that, we have made—please don't shake your head, Deputy Speaker—a $14 million investment into the saleyards there, our premier saleyards. Good for animal husbandry and good for local commerce. The meatworks across the road employs 1,000 people, so the upgrade of that saleyard was very important. I've got 15 seconds left and I've got four council areas to go. But very quickly, what we've done is we've focused on local infrastructure that has supported local jobs. That's been our focus, together with what we've done with tax cuts from free trade agreements, to keep our economy as healthy as we can. Thank you. 15:38 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Can I just say it is great to have the member for Chifley kick us off this afternoon and have him back in a frontbench role. It's really important. He's someone who can speak about serious things and do it with an element of good humour. I think that's something that we need in Australian life and certainly in Australian politics. At the other end of the emotional spectrum, it is sad to say that in time to come, members of the government will probably get together and reflect on the fact that they made an art of doing very little with the trust that they were given by the Australian people. They've been here for seven years now, maybe eight years by the time it's all done—three terms in government—and they will have to reflect on what they've done here, which has been a lot of noise and lots of announcements, lots of press releases and lots of media stunts. But it has amounted to two-fifths of not very much. Some might say, 'Well, there's a kind of evil genius in that.' There's a narrow political frame in which you would say, 'If we can get away with that, if we can keep saying we're doing things without actually making a difference in the lives of ordinary Australians, why wouldn't we?' But I just think we're here in this place to do more than that. I was interested in what the member for Page said. I guess that's always a challenge if you ask a Prime Minister in a three-term government, with seven or eight years here: 'What would you put on your list? If you were sitting around having dinner with your friends or out walking in your community, what would you tell them are the hallmarks of what you've achieved in your time?' The member for Page talked about big business tax cuts—at a time of record profitability, in the name of some sort of trickle-down philosophy whereby that will turn into jobs. Does it turn into jobs? The evidence says: no, that doesn't happen. We're told, 'We'll take away penalty rates, and that creates greater flexibility and that will turn into jobs.' Has it turned into jobs? That's not what's happened. They make a song and dance about trade agreements. Say you went around Australia right now and you stopped people in the street who are doing it tough or are finding it hard to get work and are concerned about their future, worried about the fact that TAFE has been smashed and degrees are about to double in cost. Do you think that if you said to them, 'We've signed these seven trade agreements,' that would be much solace to them, to the people who are actually experiencing the economic and social conditions that apply in Australia today? The slogans, the press releases and the announcements don't cover for a lack of delivery. You really have to ask: what is the point of spruiking a $2 billion Bushfire Recovery Fund if you haven't advanced any money out of that for people who have lost their homes and lost their livelihoods? What's the point of having a $4 billion Emergency Response Fund if you don't actually advance any money to support people who have been smashed by Australia's first national-scale climate change emergency in the bushfires that we saw last year, which burned through 12 million hectares and killed more than a billion Australian animals? What's the point of trying to find clever ways of pretending that you're acting on climate change when during this government's first five years emissions rose in this country? At best, with some clever accounting tricks, you've reduced emissions over seven or eight years by one per cent. The previous Labor government reduced emissions by 15 per cent in six years, and we put in place all the things that have done any work on that front since that time and defended them despite the relentless attack from those opposite. What is the point of pretending that the NBN fiasco is actually some sort of achievement? What is the point of pretending that the multitechnology mess—the great 'recoppering of Australia' escapade—has done anything other than deliver a broadband network that is obsolete at the point of delivery? What should have been the key building block of productivity and broad economic participation in Australia's future has been absolutely wrecked by this government. In the end, it does not matter if you feel like you're getting away with it. It doesn't matter if you think that in here you can smile and wink and say, 'We think we win the day,' or 'We think our lines are cutting through.' What matters is what's happening or not happening for the Australian community. And what we see is a falling share of Australia's productive value for working people and a growing digital divide because of the hopeless NBN that's going to make life more difficult for those in rural and regional Australia and those facing socioeconomic disadvantage. There has been virtually no progress on homelessness, no meaningful progress when it comes to closing the gap, and a failed environmental protection framework. I mean, you're the government. Wouldn't it be good to be able to reflect in years to come and say, 'We did something; we moved the dial for the Australian people'? 15:43 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I was very tempted, when I saw the subject of this matter of public importance, to pull out my appropriations speech that I gave only two weeks ago, where I spent 15 minutes talking about the achievements of the government in Grey—but of course I've only got a five-minute speaking spot this time, so I would have had to abridge it far too much. So I'll have to start all over again. It's a bit like a 'gimme', a free kick, to be talking about the delivery of government support back into an electorate like Grey. It's often said in regional areas that if you've got a safe seat you don't get any attention. Well, I've held this seat now for five elections, and I've never seen the largesse from the federal government coming back at the kinds of levels that we're seeing at the moment. There is over $700 million committed to highway upgrades at the moment, and they are underway. I'm very pleased. What we're talking about—and this is what the subject is—is the government living up to its commitments. Before the last election, in the weeks leading up to the election, I announced that we would be providing $64 million to begin the duplication of the Augusta Highway, north of Port Wakefield. Sure enough, it was delivered in this year's budget. It's there ready for the DIT in South Australia. They are working on the planning now, and then they will get the works underway. If we're talking about things that the government has committed to and then delivered, I'm very pleased at the moment to be driving past and driving through Port Wakefield. Port Wakefield sits at the top of Gulf St Vincent. It is the place where the national highway goes straight on to Port Augusta and the alternative route peels off onto Yorke Peninsula. It is the access road to Yorke Peninsula, which is a popular spot for a lot of reasons. It's great farming country and it's a great tourist spot. There are a great many beaches around Yorke Peninsula. It's got enormous history. In fact, there is a mining history in Moonta, where we've just delivered $5 million for heritage purposes, I might say. But, to come back to Port Wakefield, the turn-off is called 'crash corner', for good reason. It's been a bugbear of parents, in particular, and families as they send their loved ones off on that road during busy holiday periods when the traffic can be jammed up for kilometres. In August 2018, we committed to a complete rebuild—an overpass. It's happening now. So, if we're talking about things not being delivered, it was actually promised then and it's happening now. The bulldozers are in, the graders are in and it's all underway. Further north at Port Augusta is the Joy Baluch AM Bridge. The Great Western Bridge, which was the walkway for Port Augusta, closed down about four years ago, and I started campaigning to get a duplication of the Joy Baluch AM Bridge there. It was promised in the lead-up to the last election, and it's in this year's budget. Work is underway on that bridge at the moment. That is exactly what government is about; we say what we're going to do and then we deliver it. Over 20 mobile phone towers have been delivered in Grey. We said we would put in a black spot program. For the benefit of the member for Chifley—and welcome back to the front bench, member for Chifley—let me say that, from his very rural spot of within 50 kilometres of the centre of Sydney, he may not appreciate just how necessary mobile phone towers are in rural and regional Australia. But let me tell you, Member for Chifley—because you haven't been around as long as I have—your government were in power for six years. They didn't break any promises on mobile phones; they actually just didn't deliver anything. In fact, they did break one promise. Two billion dollars had been committed to a future fund for telecommunications in the bush by the Howard government. Guess what? Former Prime Minister Rudd came along and hoovered that up and he said, 'I'm going to use that and I'm going to put another $2 billion with it'—so that was $4 billion—'and I'm going to build an NBN network.' With $4 billion! We know how well that went! So, if you're talking about governments that actually say they're going to do something and then get out, roll up their sleeves and get the job done, you're talking about this government—the Morrison government. I'm very pleased. I can talk for another 10 or 15 minutes on what's happening in Grey— (Time expired) 15:48 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta When people look back on the Morrison government, they're going to talk about the tale of two governments: one of glossy press releases and great announcements that look really great and the other of appalling, abysmal delivery or, even worse, no delivery at all—an announcement and then nothing. If you want a really good example of that, just look at aged care. I'm going to talk first about home care. Around 100,000 to 120,000 people are on the waiting list for home care. I've been sitting in this House, year after year, listening to budget after budget, where they announce new places for home care, and the waiting list doesn't go down. So what is going on here? The reason is that it's an announcement with no delivery. Minister Hunt said the government had provided an additional 50,000 home-care packages since the 2018-19 budget at a cost of more than $3 billion, so the waiting list should have gone down. But then the royal commission reveals that, in fact, it's not 50,000 new home-care packages; it's 300. Announcement, 50,000; reality, 300. What a difference. Great announcement; appalling, abysmal delivery. Yet we've got people out there waiting for home-care packages and many people have died while waiting, and this government is making announcements that make people feel that something might change when it won't. In the most recent budget, we see another announcement: an additional 23,000 packages. Let's hope they're right. Let me assume for a minute that, contrary to all past experience, they government are actually going to deliver. Let's look at what it actually is: 23,000 packages over four years. Only 2,000 of them are level 4—that is, 2,000 of them are the ones that stop a person from going into aged care. Two thousand packages over four years—that's 500 a year. Assume for a minute—again, not what usually happens—that they're evenly spread across electorates and the government don't pork-barrel the Liberal electorates. Let's assume that. That means 14 new level 4 packages over four years—that's three a year—for Parramatta. That's actually what they have announced. Yes, do the maths. I can see the members over there questioning it—get your little calculator out on your mobile phone and do the maths! You've announced— An honourable member interjecting— Ms OWENS E09 Yes, exactly: do the maths. You've made an extraordinary announcement. You've actually announced three level 4 home-care packages in my electorate per year for the next four years. Congratulations! What a wonderful photo opportunity that was, but what an extraordinary—I was going to say 'lie' but I know I can't use that word. But how extraordinary that you've misled the people in Parramatta in that way. Let's look at what else the government have promised. Back in 2018, in the A Matter of Care strategy, the government promised to set up a task force to look at staffing requirements for aged care. That was back in 2018. None of the strategy's 14 measures have been implemented. They've done nothing. Back in 2017, there were two government reports into elder abuse, the ALRC report, Elder abuse: a national legal response, and the Carnell-Paterson report. Both were published in 2017. Four years later, the government says they're actually going to set up the review that they promised back then—for 2021. That's four years later. Meanwhile, we've got 100 reported assaults of the elderly every week, with up to 1,000 unreported assaults every week, and that's been going on for four years. The government made the announcement four years ago that they were going to do something about it—and nothing. And now, finally, four years later, they announce that they're going to set up the Serious Incident Response Scheme that they promised four years ago. Honestly, this is the reality of this government—not the glossy announcements that we get all the time; not the wonderful press releases; not the market-tested announcements. The reality is something quite different, and it's truly shocking. Let's look at the NBN. Parramatta is the second CBD and geographic centre of Sydney. It's the capital of the third-largest economy in Australia. We were promised the NBN in 2016. We were promised it in 2018. We were promised it in 2020. The minister says it's finished. We're not getting it until 2022! The second CBD of Sydney, the geographic centre, the capital of the third-largest economy with the second-largest workforce of any economy in the country—bigger than the entire state of South Australia; sorry, South Australians—is not getting the NBN until 2022. And they're saying: 'Sorry; there are heritage issues.' It's Parramatta—who knew? Honestly! Everything you learned about in school, about the Rum Corps, about Macquarie—it all happened in Parramatta. There is heritage there. Every time we build anything there's heritage. It's not an excuse. Again, it's an announcement without substance. Honestly, it's the tale of two governments—but the real one is appalling. 15:53 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I rise to speak on this matter of public importance proposed by the member for Chifley, and I'd like to thank the member for Parramatta for highlighting some of the government's great initiatives and some of the Morrison government's fantastic announcements. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Members on my left! Ms BELL 282981 I'd also like to congratulate the member for Chifley on his return to the front bench. Hopefully, when the inevitable leadership change arrives, he stays there, because he seems to be a sensible type, and I do like and respect the member for Chifley. Being sensible, however, on that side is not always welcome, and maybe the member for Hunter could give him a few pointers on that one. Unfortunately for the member, the pressure is on in his new role and he's been handed the same lines that weren't working for the current Leader of the Opposition because they're just not credible to anyone who is listening to them during the pandemic. The real failure of delivery in this place is the failure of the Labor Party to make a meaningful contribution to emissions reductions over the course of 14 years. The Labor Party just continue to make themselves irrelevant to everyday Australians, who expect better. Let's look at the Morrison government's record of delivery that Labor deliberately ignore. They ignore the $70 billion in JobKeeper that has gone out the door—the Treasurer's words. It doesn't suit their narrative. Just in Moncrieff alone, JobKeeper is supporting a revised number of businesses. There are now 10,500 businesses on JobKeeper in Moncrieff. Moncrieff light rail has enjoyed support from all levels of government. The federal government, the Morrison government, has contributed $95 million to stage 2 and is contributing $269 million to stage 3 that will go from Broadbeach down to Burleigh Heads and that is underway. We completed the last section of stage 2, and stage 3 is now underway. We have delivered that and we have kept our promise. Of course governments should and do make announcements about plans. It keeps people informed and it invites scrutiny. The Morrison government, as we know, is trusted to deliver for the Australian people because we stand on our record. The Morrison government has committed $750 million to the Coomera Connector, which is an important piece of infrastructure that leads to Moncrieff. You don't have to take my word for it that it will be built, but you should ask the Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk if and when the Queensland government will proceed with that project. The Stronger Communities Program is another good example of Morrison government delivery in Moncrieff. No, they are not quite as visible as the large projects like light rail, but these community projects are very important to the good people of Moncrieff. Some of the projects underway have been funded with over $626,000 from the Morrison government. I will just outline a couple: a $13,000 contribution to the upgrade of stage lighting at the Southport High theatre—that is important to that school; close to $6,000 for the Southport Bowls Club to upgrade lighting and power; $20,000 towards the upgrade of the patrol operation centre of the Broadbeach Surf Life Saving Club—that is very important. Moncrieff is a safer place for families to drive now, thanks to over $2.75 million in recent Black Spot projects. I'll just list some of them: Alexander Drive, Armstrong Way, Highland Park, Ashmore Road, Carrara Street in Benowa, Ashmore Road and Racecourse Drive in Bundall, Gold Coast Highway, Waterways Drive in Main Beach, Hinkler Drive, Mortensen Road in Nerang, Southport-Burleigh Road, Southport Nerang Road, Sunshine Boulevard, Markeri Street in Mermaid Waters—that is pretty close to where I live—Surf Parade, Australia Avenue on Broadbeach, Surf Parade and Chelsea Avenue, Broadbeach. All of these projects I have just listed in my electorate are finished and completed—box ticked. Thanks to the work of the Deputy Prime Minister, Moncrieff is directly benefitting from over $1.2 billion in infrastructure projects, regional development and cities measures. Indeed there is a similar story in other portfolios—clear evidence of a strong record of effective and efficient delivery. The good work continues with the JobMaker hiring credit that Treasury has advised will support 450,000 jobs. The member for Chifley may be a little too busy in his new portfolio working out how not to get caught in the crossfire between the member for Hindmarsh and the member for Hunter, so let me help him out a bit on what the Morrison government has been delivering for his electorate. There are around 76,400 taxpayers in Chifley. I know Chifley well. I used to work in that area of Blacktown, Mount Druitt and Rooty Hill—I know where you are. Those 76,400 taxpayers will receive up to $2,745, thanks to the Morrison government. That is about $200 million to the good people of Chifley. (Time expired) 15:58 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce The topic for this debate is how the government's failure to deliver is hurting everyday Australians and it really does go to the very heart of what is wrong with this government and this Prime Minister. Everything is political. Truth doesn't matter anymore. You can just say stuff; delivery doesn't matter. You just pop up and say stuff. You don't have to actually do the hard business of governing and delivering. You actually just say stuff. It is all about spin and marketing. The Prime Minister makes the announcements but he never delivers. It is all about the photo-op—the daggy dad, the dodgy little hat; 'I'm just an ordinary suburban guy,' who happens to be the Prime Minister and a former Liberal Party hack; 'Just an ordinary suburban dad, I am.' He's a fake. He was the head of Tourism Australia— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member will withdraw the word 'hack'. Mr HILL 86256 Well, I thought the director of the New South Wales Liberal Party was a hack— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member will unreservedly withdraw. Mr HILL 86256 but, sure, I'll withdraw the word 'hack'. He was the head of Tourism Australia and he was sacked from that role. He's a failed marketing guy. In life, words do matter. What you say actually does matter. But, at the end of the day, it's not what you say; it's what you do. And the Prime Minister is a fake. Bushfire recovery—how many billions has he promised? Nothing's been spent. Aged care and home care—there are over 100,000 senior Australians in this country desperately waiting for a home-care package. In the last two years, 28,000 of them have died waiting for a home -are package. In every single budget under this government, including when the Prime Minister was the social services minister and then the Treasurer, they pop up and say, 'We're going to have more home-care packages; it's all fixed.' The royal commission said that 300 of the 50,000 home-care packages they promised had been delivered. It's all spin and marketing. It's a house of cards. You cannot believe that anything the government announces will actually happen. The biggest problem in this debate is trying to choose what you're going to talk about. We've tracked 58 pages of announcements in the seven years the government's been in office and the Prime Minister's been hanging around the cabinet table. There are 58 pages of stuff they've announced in every portfolio: aged care, communications, foreign affairs, defence, economics, industry, trade, VET. With everything they promise, you've got to wonder whether it will ever be delivered. On the National Disability Insurance Scheme—I see the minister sitting over there—the government thinks it's just a piggy bank to balance the budget. They promised $4.6 billion more and they ripped it out of the budget to prop up the fake surplus that never happened. Remember 'back in black'? How did that go? Where are those coffee cups? It was the fake surplus that never even happened. Some of this stuff is not life or death. They should have done it. 'We're going to build some dams.' How many dams has the government built? Zero. Not a single dam has been built in over seven years. There was the $100 million recycling fund. How much has been spent from that? Zero, not a single dollar. The COVIDSafe app—$70 million for an app that was going to transform contact tracing. The app can't find anyone. It's found 14 people. That's $5 million for every person it's traced. All spin, no delivery. Then there are all the jobs programs. On the most recent one, the JobMaker scheme—it should be called the 'job faker scam'—the Prime Minister told us at budget time it was going to deliver 450,000 jobs. That was a good announcement—it sounded good—except then at Senate estimates his officials had to admit that that's not actually true; it's only going to deliver maybe 45,000 jobs. He says one thing, but the truth is very different. Around budget time, he said there was going to be an increase from 1.3 million to 1.5 million people relying on unemployment benefits. That fell to bits, because they had to admit at Senate estimates that, by Christmas, there will be 1.8 million Australians relying on unemployment benefits. He told those people—people who were losing their jobs through no fault of their own—that the government would be there for them, that they would get the support they need. Except what has he announced this week? A third cut to JobSeeker. The supplement is going from $550 to $250 to $150. In my electorate, this matters. You don't just say 'job' a lot; you actually need a jobs plan. Apprenticeships—seven years of tradie crisis. It's not caused by COVID. Right now in this country there are 140,000 fewer apprentices than when the government came to office. Their latest plan for 300,000 more doesn't even cover the $3 billion in cuts to TAFE. Does anyone seriously believe the government will deliver a vaccine by March? The government's deal only covers one in five Australians. It doesn't even cover the healthcare workers and the vulnerable people. It's a scam and the Prime Minister's a fake. (Time expired) 16:03 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay I am so pleased to be able to talk about all that we are delivering, all the commitments we're delivering for Australians, and particularly for Australians in my community of Lindsay. The member for Chifley will be pleased to hear that, when you fight for something really hard, not only do you get the commitment you promised during an election campaign but you double that and you get it fully funded and delivered in a budget. That's what's happened with Dunheved Road; there was $63½ million promised in the election campaign, and I delivered that. We wanted that road fully upgraded. There was $427 million from the Morrison government, and that road is being delivered for our community in Lindsay. That is not my only commitment. I have seven pages of commitments that are being delivered across Lindsay. These include commuter car parks so people can park their car and get to where they are going safer and quicker, to ease congestion on our roads. It also includes something I am really passionate about: healthy, active living. We're investing in Penrith Valley Regional Sports Centre, investing in our local sporting fields so kids can have those opportunities to play sports, to stay active. That is something I am really passionate about because in Lindsay we have more than the state average levels of obesity in both kids and adults. I think that is a really important issue that we need to address, so I will be fighting hard for more funding for healthy, active living in my community. Another really important commitment that is being delivered is a mental health hub in Penrith, which is a much-needed investment in our community, particularly during coronavirus and as we emerge from the pandemic. In addition to all of these commitments, it was really great to have had the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Housing come to Lindsay not too long ago, just the other week. That's where we announced the extension to the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. We visited a building site in Mulgoa that's going to employ 40 to 50 people on this one site—tradies, contractors coming in, local people and, most importantly, local jobs. We are delivering the support people in our community need to get their foot in the door and into the housing market—the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, the HomeBuilder Program, the First Home Super Saver Scheme. We are delivering for our communities and we are delivering for Australians. We are helping more people—those aspirational people that we're working really hard for—to purchase their first home. For our tradies, the investment means more building sites and, as I said, more local jobs. As we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, creating more local jobs is really at the heart of our economic recovery, so we're delivering support and incentives for small businesses to grow, to expand, to scale up and to explore opportunities. Something I am very passionate about is supporting our manufacturing industry. In Western Sydney, that really is about advanced manufacturing. We're investing in the manufacturing of the future. I really do believe that Western Sydney holds the key to the new era of manufacturing. I am so pleased that the Morrison government is backing our manufacturers. I was very pleased that the Treasurer made his very first stop after handing down the budget to my electorate of Lindsay. We met with small-business owners, manufacturers, local families and members of our community and we heard firsthand how our investment and support programs are helping people—from swim schools to hotels, child care, industry and more. Very much the feedback from them is that JobKeeper has been a real lifeline through the coronavirus pandemic. They are so grateful that they have been able to keep local people employed and doing their jobs. We have delivered tax relief for over 80,000 people in Lindsay. This is delivering for our communities, meaning more people get to keep what they earn. We have extended the instant asset write-off, and over 15,000 businesses have access to that. It is so pleasing. I went to a manufacturer the other day and they told me they're investing in their business and the equipment that they need to emerge and be really successful post coronavirus. That's fantastic. This is what this is all about: backing our local businesses so they can employ more local people. We're delivering for everyday Australians, aspirational Australians and the hardworking, resilient small businesses that will employ and lead our economic recovery. 16:09 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan It was Estee Lauder, the global cosmetics giant, who famously marketed her wares as jars of hope on the promise that they could deliver much-sought-after eternal youth to millions and millions of women. I have always thought there was something inherently cruel about that—something inherently cruel about promising people something that you couldn't or wouldn't ever be able to deliver. Don't get me wrong; I certainly believe that hope is a powerful force. Indeed, I have come to rely on hope many more times in my life than I care to recall. But you can't eat hope. You can't feed your children hope. You can't pay the mortgage with hope. You certainly can't erase wrinkles with hope. And you can't connect to the internet with hope. This government, led by a marketing man, tries to sell itself on hope. And how often have we seen this? How often have we seen the big announcements, the press conferences? It is a whole lot of fanfare, and then they just scurry away, back to their suites, off to another media engagement, as Australians wait—in hope. I have here a folder of no less than 58 pages of examples where the government has made an announcement, with huge fanfare, and then failed to deliver, on aged care, bushfire recovery, child care, reforms to the Family Court, funding for the arts, cybersecurity, defence, agriculture, jobs, education, training, emergency management, foreign affairs, national security, infrastructure, tourism, the NDIS, veterans affairs, corruption and integrity—58 pages, across every single one of these portfolios and more. There were big promises, big announcements, but nothing to show for it except a trillion dollars of debt—hope in a jar. Before the 2013 election Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull—remember them?—promised access to minimum NBN speeds. They said: Our goal is for every household and business to have access to broadband with a download data rate of between 25 and 100 megabits per second by late 2016— Late 2016! Well, we're now in late 2020—that's four years on—and the copper NBN is still failing to deliver minimum speeds to up to 120,000 households. You can't download hope. Across Perth's northern suburbs and in my electorate of Cowan, the government's failure to deliver on its promise has caused significant harm to families, to individuals and to businesses. For example, Kristy in Alexander Heights is still waiting on the NBN. Helen in Greenwood tried to connect to the NBN for two weeks and ended up getting worse speeds than she was getting when she was on ADSL. Her house, although connected to the NBN, utilises fixed wireless, because it's the only option that delivers even the minimal speeds that her family needs in order to do basic internet-based tasks. Joanne in Hocking has been trying to get connected to the NBN and is absolutely frustrated. In fact, she's given up hope, stating: 'I have no faith that this will happen. I have no doubt that my NBN won't be connected anytime soon.' Gillian in Marangaroo has been trying to get on the NBN since July this year, and six months later she's still waiting. Arn in Alexander Heights wrote to me saying that most of the homes in Alexander Heights have been receiving the minimum speed, but not his home, because it's connected to FTTN, utilising old copper, which is the basis for not reaching the minimum speed. Australians don't need hope in a jar; they don't. They don't need to be sold promises by a marketing man who knows very well how to craft an announcement but doesn't know how to hold a hose. 16:13 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman The suggestion put forward today that the government is somehow not delivering for the Australian people is yet another example of a lack of understanding when it comes to job creation, and it shows a lack of understanding when it comes to getting our economy back on track as we come out of the worst economic crisis in 100 years. This crisis was caused by a global pandemic, and the Australian government have released a plan, and are delivering on that plan, to bring Australia out of the COVID-19 recession. Not only that, but the government's plan is designed to carry Australia not just out of the pandemic but also into the future. When the global pandemic struck earlier this year, the government understood that it needed to act in order to save jobs and support those people who lost their jobs as a result. The government didn't just make empty promises. It took action, and it delivered. The government's JobKeeper payment has supported 4,000 businesses in my electorate of Longman, supporting them through the pandemic and keeping them connected to their employees. Across Queensland, as of 18 September, 188,805 registered businesses received JobKeeper payments totalling around $10.7 billion, and we have extended the JobKeeper payments to help businesses that continue to struggle as a result of this pandemic. Around 12,488 individuals in my electorate of Longman have received the coronavirus supplement, which was added to JobSeeker to provide additional support through this crisis. Around 66,300 taxpayers in Longman are benefiting from tax relief of up to $2,745 this year, as a result of the tax relief measures which were delivered by this government. To support new investment and increase business cash flow, the government provided a temporary tax incentive to allow around 13,600 businesses in my electorate of Longman to write off the full value of any eligible asset they purchased. This built on the government's successful instant asset write-off measure announced earlier in the year. The cash-flow boost has helped around 3,600 small and medium businesses, providing payments to help businesses in Longman to stay afloat. Around 23,064 age pensioners and 3,311 carers in my electorate will receive extra support payments of $250 in December and a further $250 from March next year. How anyone can see this data and still claim this government is not delivering for the Australian people is beyond me. But there's more. Health and hospitals funding to my state of Queensland has increased by $609.1 million, compared with the 2019-20 budget, to $5.6 billion. Payments to Queensland for public hospitals have increased by 105.1 per cent. Housing and homelessness funding to Queensland has increased by $7.9 million. Education and skills funding for Queensland is $5.4 billion. This is 72 per cent more than what was spent on education and skills in 2012-13. This includes $4.8 billion for quality skills, $315 million for national skills and workforce development, and $83.1 million for early childhood education. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has committed to invest an additional $14 billion in new and accelerated infrastructure projects across Australia over the next four years. Just this week, work is beginning on a major $662.5 million Bruce Highway upgrade in my electorate, with a federal government contribution of $530 million. Work is also about to begin on the $163.3 million New Settlement Road overpass in Narangba, to which the federal government contributed over $130 million. These are projects we are not just announcing but delivering. But there's more. Work is well underway on the $30.4 million Bribie Island-Old Toorbul Point Road upgrade, which we contributed $20 million towards. Work has been completed on the new $61.7 million Boundary Road overpass in Narangba, with a federal contribution of $49.3 million. We've also made the D'Aguilar Highway safer for road users, and we've installed smart managed motorway signs along the Bruce Highway to keep motorists informed about traffic conditions. Under the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, we have provided Moreton Bay council with around $5 million to begin key local projects that are shovel-ready. In my electorate of Longman, the projects funded under this program include: a new fauna crossing at Woorim, a park upgrade in Caboolture, soccer field lighting at Dakabin, and a new footpath in Elimbah. Moreton Bay council also received around $25 million under the Roads to Recovery program. We've also delivered seven blackspot upgrades, with two more on the way. The list goes on. I feel like Tim the Demtel man: 'There's more! There's more! There's more!' The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 And, with that, the discussion has concluded. BILLS 68 BILLS National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020, Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2020, Fair Work Amendment (Improving Unpaid Parental Leave for Parents of Stillborn Babies and Other Measures) Bill 2020, Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio and Other Measures) Bill 2020, Education Legislation Amendment (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection) Bill 2020, Higher Education (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2020, Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Wellbeing of Veterans and Their Families) Bill 2020, Health Insurance Amendment (Administration) Bill 2020, Services Australia Governance Amendment Bill 2020 68

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2020

Fair Work Amendment (Improving Unpaid Parental Leave for Parents of Stillborn Babies and Other Measures) Bill 2020

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio and Other Measures) Bill 2020

Education Legislation Amendment (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection) Bill 2020

Higher Education (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2020

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

Health Insurance Amendment (Administration) Bill 2020

Services Australia Governance Amendment Bill 2020

Returned from Senate 68 COMMITTEES 69 COMMITTEES Corporations and Financial Services Committee 69 Report 69 16:19 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Regulation of auditing in Australia: final report. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr GEORGANAS DZY by leave—Can I just start off by saying what an important report this was. It is the final report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry into the regulation of auditing in Australia. I'd just like to highlight some of the important points contained in the report. The inquiry itself has increased reporting transparency in the audit history that has not previously existed. It was quite adamant and clear when we were conducting the inquiry that this was a shortfall. Organisational structures, remuneration and poor outcomes were placed on the public record during the inquiry, and they were placed on the public record more clearly. The committee did not have access—it was unfortunate—to certain information when we presented our interim report earlier, including details on the concurrent provision of audit and non-audit services. This information has since been provided to the committee, and that's why we have this second report. With regard to auditor independence—and this was one of the areas that the committee looked into intensively—the committee wanted to reiterate its view that auditor independence, both real and perceived, is a key determinant of a robust audit regulatory framework and crucial in the process of building trust, confidence and stability in capital markets. Our financial markets are underpinned by auditing. Our banking systems and our insurance systems are all underpinned by good independent auditing and auditing reports, which then give the investors and other people the ability to know that the information they are receiving is correct and they can invest in confidence that they are investing with a particular group that has all the checks and balances required. Of course, the changed circumstances we've been operating under since the interim report was lodged mean that some of the recommendations needed to be tweaked regarding suggested start times and expectations. We looked at digital financial reporting because it's becoming standard practice in a growing number of countries, and we recommended, therefore, that the government undertake a review to resolve barriers and also make digital financial reporting standard practice in Australia in the near future. The opposition members on the committee did have some concerns about ongoing reports of workplace cultural practices that dissuade internal or external whistleblowing, and this was quite evident in the evidence that was given to us. In the workplace settings of the major firms and major companies to whom they supply assurance services, confidential disclosures of unethical and coercive behaviour and sexual harassment continue to be reported to senators and members of parliament. The need for cultural reform to address these instances will remain a focus with the opposition members of this committee in their oversight of ASIC. Of course, safe workplaces are vital to ensure the independent professionalism of each member of an audit team and are so vital to the quality of audit on which Australians rely. I'd like to thank all the committee members that participated—including James Paterson, the chair, and Deb O'Neill from my side of politics—and, of course, the committee secretariat, who do great work in ensuring that we have our briefings, meetings, minutes et cetera. I couldn't pay credit enough. I just hope the government gets on with the job now and ensures that the recommendations are implemented and that people will have extremely good confidence in auditing companies. 16:23 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I too sat on the committee, and I thank the member for presenting the report. It may not surprise the House to hear that I had a very different take on the evidence that we received. I think what we saw today— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member for McKellar has to seek leave also to speak. Mr FALINSKI G86 Pardon me. I seek leave to speak to the report. Leave granted. Mr FALINSKI G86 It may not surprise the House to hear that I have a very different take. This inquiry was moved by the Senate. It was done very surprisingly. There was little matter on the public record, except from a number of journalists—and one in particular—about concerns around the auditing sector. Most of the concerns that people pointed to actually did not occur in Australia but occurred in North America and, in some limited examples, in the United Kingdom. The reforms that have been undertaken in the United Kingdom have had so many unexpected and adverse impacts that they are now being reviewed by the authorities over there to see if some of them need to be reversed. What we saw in Australia—and let there be no doubt—is that our auditing sector is working incredibly well. In fact, in relation to most of the organisations that have found themselves insolvent, the concerns of auditors around the financial aspects of those businesses were well telegraphed. Australians need to know that our corporate regulations and the providers of financial services in this country are delivering for investors. Some of the allegations about work practices and whistleblowers that were aired during the committee inquiry were certainly made. None of them—not a single one—could be verified. Not one skerrick of evidence was brought to the committee. There seems to be nothing but a healthy sector that is delivering transparent, honest advice to all Australians who invest in corporations in this country. Frankly, it is something that we and this parliament should be proud of, and the committee report demonstrates that. I hope that that is noted out of this report. Law Enforcement Committee 70 Report 70 16:26 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the committee's report titled Illicit tobacco. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 by leave—Firstly, I declare an interest when it comes to tobacco. I am a fanatical antismoker. I cannot stand the smell of tobacco. I'm sure my good friend the member for Macarthur over there would congratulate me on that point. The point of this inquiry is that we have a problem. We've taken a government policy, which has been a bipartisan policy, of increasing taxes and increasing excise on tobacco with the idea that, if we drive the price up, we will prevent people from smoking. But, as history has shown, when government steps in and increases excises and taxes, you create an opportunity and you incentivise a black market. That is exactly what we have seen happen here in Australia. We've seen that illicit tobacco consumption, as measured by the KPMG study—and I would say that the methodology of that study is sound—has increased from 12.5 per cent of the total market in 2012 to 20.7 per cent in 2019. We've seen a very major increase in Australian Border Force detections. As a signal of how prevalent cigarette smoking and illegal tobacco are in this country, during the inquiry we were actually mailed some samples. Illicit and illegal tobacco came through the mail into the federal parliament. So products like this—illicit, illegal products—are so prevalent in the country at the moment that they can actually be put in the mail, arrive in Parliament House and then be delivered to a member of parliament's office. The main premise of the committee's inquiry was that we are very concerned about this increase in illegal activity, and we are concerned that, as was noted by the 2019 KPMG study, a fall in domestic tobacco sales has actually been offset by an increase in illicit tobacco, resulting in a small increase in overall tobacco consumption from 2018-19. Therefore, the policy that we've adopted to drive the price up has actually allowed more illicit tobacco onto the market at a cheaper price, and it is having the perverse, reverse, opposite effect to what we want. The committee believes that what we need to do as a parliament, in a bipartisan manner, is improve the results to stamp out illicit tobacco by making it clear that illicit tobacco enforcement is a law enforcement issue, rather than a health matter. That is what the recommendations of the report go to. I thank the deputy chair of the committee, who is in the chamber at the moment. I also thank the secretariat, all the other members of the committee and the over 180 members of the public who made submissions. In particular, we need to protect the small businesses of our country that are operating in a lawful manner, that are obeying the law and that are currently having their businesses undermined by this illicit and illegal market. Although we've done some good things so far, this parliament needs to recognise this as a law enforcement issue and give our law enforcement authorities greater ability, greater strength and more powers if we are going to drive down the rate of smoking in this country. I thank the House. ADJOURNMENT 70 ADJOURNMENT COVID-19: Victoria 70 16:30 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo For many of us in Victoria, this last fortnight has been a milestone. When we made our way to Melbourne Airport on Sunday to fly here to Canberra, our Comcar took us on the highway past Gisborne, where the ring of steel has been. It has been the border between Melbourne and my electorate in regional Victoria. There was tear in my eye to know that at midnight that border would come down. It has been a challenge for many in our state. I believe that some of those on the government's side have really misunderstood that Victorians sacrificed willingly because they knew it was the right thing to do. The feedback in my electorate when I was home last week was one of joy and relief—relief that they had done it, relief that life was going to start to get back to normal, at least COVID normal, and that they had done so without there being a loss of life in my electorate and without there being many people getting sick in my electorate. I really feel that we need to acknowledge that, whilst there is the politics, whilst there is the banter, whilst there are a lot of people presuming to say what Victorians are saying, the vast majority are pretty excited to be where we are at—13 days straight with zero reported new cases and deaths. Far too many people have lost their lives in Victoria and in our country due to COVID-19. It is a virus that is very easy to catch. It spreads very quickly. It is one that is hard to combat. Whilst we have had success which other countries have not had, it is because of leadership. It could have been a very different situation if the Victorian government had followed the calls, the pleas, the banter, the bullying of government ministers but, instead, the leaders stuck it out, even if it was unpopular; that is the definition of leadership. It is doing what is right, not always doing what is popular. We are now seeing the results of that in Victoria and we hope that continues. As the borders start to reopen and as businesses start to get back to normal, now is the time we need investment from all of our governments. There have been casualties, not just casualties of interstate borders being closed. I would like to mention that the Victorian borders have never closed. You might think from some of the rhetoric of government ministers that the Victorian borders have been closed because they have been so critical of Daniel Andrews, but it was the other states that closed their borders to Victoria and not the other way around. There has also been the closure of our international borders, and I support the closure of international borders. It is one of the reasons why we are keeping Australians safe and why we are keeping the virus out. We know that the new infections in our country are largely through hotel quarantine. But because we had to close the borders, because we are in a global pandemic and for health reasons, there have been knock-on economic effects that have hit some of our industries very hard. Our travel industry will not recover any time soon, yet we have seen no package to help travel agents and the travel industry, which are so reliant on overseas travel. These industries and these workers can't get back to work like the government is telling them to. We have seen a huge impact on our arts sector. Whilst hospitality businesses are reopening, whilst retail businesses have reopened and are slowly getting back to work, our arts industry is largely still closed, particularly when it comes to major events. It is not just the artists who are going without—the performers and the creatives; it is also all of the other associated industries, like catering, AV equipment and so on and so forth. We don't know when it will be safe for these events to come back. They need more than just JobKeeper. The big challenge for this government is, rather than a one-size-fits-all model, which we got with JobKeeper, to now look at industry-specific targeted programs, which they have failed to deliver so far. It is disappointing because, as travel agents said to me on many occasions, this government is very good at delivering industry-specific funding for drought, for our farmers, but not for other industries. I challenge the government to start thinking about support packages from the industries that won't bounce back quickly. This is a time for economic leadership. This is a time when we need a government to step up to support all industries so they make it through to the other side of this pandemic. Nicholls Electorate: Transport Infrastructure 71 16:35 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls I am proud to be a member of the Liberal-National government that delivers on nation-building, job-creating infrastructure, particularly in regional and rural Australia. The Nationals in government are delivering a record $110 billion transport infrastructure program and a $3.5 billion rolling water infrastructure fund to support local jobs and businesses at a time when it is most in need. This budget supports more than 30,000 direct and indirect jobs over the life of the projects, to get Australia back to work and back in business following the pandemic. The 2021 budget commitment to infrastructure builds on the government's existing delivery on infrastructure. In my electorate of Nicholls, one of the most significant and largest transport infrastructure projects that northern Victoria has ever had is the $323 million Echuca-Moama bridge. This project has been discussed for decades—for some 50 years they have been talking about this project—but it has taken the Liberal-National government to get it delivered. Right now, stages 1 and 2 have been completed and stage 3 is well underway. In September, an important milestone was reached, with the completion of all of the piling works, with some 550 foundation piles driven for the Murray and Campaspe bridges. Installation of bridge beams is well underway. The Shepparton bypass is another project that has been kicked down the road for many years. In last year's budget, the federal government put $208 million on the table for stage 1 of the bypass. But this project has remained dormant because the state government refuses to complete the business case. They have taken over two years to do a business case on the bypass. The Victorian government needs to release this before the end of the year so it can at least form part of next year's budget. We were pleased to hear in Senate estimates the department's first assistant secretary state that the policy project report from the Victorian government has been received and that it is anticipated that the bypass construction will start in 2022. So let's hope that things get underway. This year's federal budget also allocated $320 million to stage 3 of the Shepparton rail upgrade. Whilst Shepparton is Victoria's fourth-largest regional city it has fared very poorly when it comes to the Victorian government and its investment in rail. Geelong, Bendigo and Ballarat have 50 services, 27 services and 24 services respectively, whereas Shepparton has 4½ services—an extra 27 kilometres away from the CBD than is Bendigo. However, this infrastructure is likely to see up to nine Velocity services be delivered to Shepparton, which is a fantastic outcome for the people of Nicholls. I also wish to bring the attention of the House to the need for a commitment from all governments to build the Yarrawonga-Mulwala bridge. The need for this bridge has been spoken about for many, many years and there is a genuine need to shut down the two bridges that service Yarrawonga and Mulwala at the moment. This planning study was commissioned in 2009—11 years ago. There have been options that have been identified, and both communities—Yarrawonga and Mulwala—have been asked by their councils what their preferred option is and what their preferred route is. They have both come back with an acknowledgement that they need to build the bridge as far to the east as possible—what is called the 'green route'. Victoria is effectively now on side with that route, but New South Wales needs to make the decision to build the bridge where the people of both Yarrawonga and Mulwala need to have it built. It is an incredible project, and as soon as we can get the route sorted out we will be in a position for New South Wales and Victoria to put up their money and, if money is needed from the federal government, then we will be in a position to contribute. Once again, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his overall understanding of how important this nation-building infrastructure is for regional seats, regional areas and regional cities. With the investment in rail, bridges, roads and bypasses, we've certainly been well looked after by the Nationals and Michael McCormack. Public Housing 72 16:40 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Imagine for a minute a single mum, aged 39, raising four kids on her own, all living together in a small house, and there's something else living in the house as well—mould. It sounds like a simple problem; a bit of Exit Mould will fix it. But it won't fix it; it's not as simple as that in the house that Shae and her four kids live in. There is mould on the walls, mould on the ceiling, mould on the floors, mould on the carpets—the place is riddled with it. There is mould on the kids' soft toys, mould on the mattresses and mould on the kids' clothes. Just imagine what's in their lungs. One of the kids has severe asthma. The place is a health hazard. Who do you think owns this house? In a sense, we all do. The Australian people do. It's a government house. It's public housing. If it were any other government building or office, it would have been fixed yesterday. If it were any of our offices, it would have been fixed in a flash. But Shae has been struggling for years to get anybody to help her to fix the home. That's just one story. Here's another one. Casey's house is that bad she can't even live in it. Her place is so bad—it's full of mould, leaks and rot—that you can smell it when you walk through the door. She is afraid to let her two kids sleep there at night. In fact, they don't live there at all; they are all crammed into her mum's house. But she's still paying the rent, for a place she can't even live in. It's the same story as Shae's; it's a government house being left to rot. There are 100,000 more stories like this right around the country, 100,000 places that need urgent repairs or basic maintenance. These are two examples from my own electorate. I have seen with my own eyes places where there are holes in the ceiling above a baby's cot or raw sewage leaking out of pipes and pouring into people's bathrooms. As I said before, if these were our offices they'd be fixed in a flash. What's the difference between our offices and these homes? They are both government buildings. The difference is that we have loud voices and microphones, and these mums and kids don't. If there was ever a time when we should put our minds to fixing this, it is now, when we are in a recession and tradies are running out of work. The Australian Bureau of Statistics recently put out a report in which they showed that, in the six months since COVID-19 hit, 12,000 carpenters have lost their jobs, 9,000 bricklayers have lost their jobs, 10,000 painters have lost their jobs, 4½ thousand roof tilers have lost their jobs and 11,300 electricians have lost their jobs. That's a lot of tradies out of work—and, if the predictions are right, another 40,000 tradies will lose their jobs in the next six months. They could be put to work right now, fixing places like Shae's or Casey's or those 100,000 other places in towns and suburbs around this country that need these urgent repairs and basic maintenance. It's a simple, commonsense idea. There are houses that need to be fixed and there are tradies who need work. Just put them together. It would be a win-win. I know what the government will say; it is what the government always says on this issue. They say, 'It's not our job; it's the job of state governments.' But it's the wrong way of looking at this. It's not about whose job it is—whether it is the state government or the federal government. It's about the jobs of those tradies—the thousands of carpenters, electricians and plumbers who are out of work and could be put to work doing this. And it's about Shae and Casey and their kids and the 100,000 other families around the country who need their help. Leichhardt Electorate: Cairns University Hospital 73 16:44 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I say to the honourable member: if he's got some spare tradies, send them in busloads up to Leichhardt. We're desperately short of tradies up there. I rise tonight to highlight a critical project in my electorate that is needed sooner rather than later. In January 2019, Prime Minister Morrison visited Cairns and announced $60 million towards the establishment of the Cairns University Hospital in partnership with James Cook University. The funding included $10 million to purchase the necessary land and $50 million towards stage 1 of the project. The money was allocated in last year's budget and represents the full federal government funding requirement. Sadly, until recently, very little interest has been shown in the project by the Queensland state government. Call me a cynic, but, on the eve of the Queensland election, suddenly the Queensland government showed interest in being involved in the project. This was, of course, nearly 20 months after the Morrison government put its money on the table for the project. But we'll get back to that later. In 2017-18, Cairns Hospital had 130,174 presentations in its emergency department and 103,731 hospital admissions. Due to the estimated population growth of about 1.4 per cent per annum and the large number of residents in Far North Queensland currently aged between 40 and 55, it is expected that demand for health services is going to continue to grow very significantly. The new facility will allow for the relocation of research and education staff who are currently being housed within the Cairns Hospital to free up space to be repurposed for clinical use. The new building will include research laboratories, education and teaching spaces, an auditorium and office spaces for research, education and executive staff. During the recent Queensland state election, the Queensland government finally showed some interest in its own project and announced $15 million towards the purchasing of the necessary land and $1.5 million towards a preliminary business case. The commitment fell short of the $5 million required for the preliminary and detailed business case and well short of the required state investment of $160 million to actually build the Cairns University Hospital. The LNP, in one of its signature election policies, announced $160 million to build and construct the Cairns University Hospital, and I have absolutely no doubt that this caught the Queensland Labor government off guard. All eyes were on them to see whether they'd come to the party. Premier Palaszczuk remained noncommittal, when she visited Cairns on 22 October for the final time during the campaign, as to whether her government would stump up the state's $150 million share of the project. However, less than a week later, on 28 October, Cairns member of parliament Michael Healy said that a Labor government would build the Cairns University Hospital, despite committing no money towards the project. So I guess we're just going to have to take him at his word and hope that it doesn't become another disaster such as we experienced with Labor's global tourism hub. That was held out to us in anticipation for a couple of years, and then they came out more recently and said, 'No, we've decided we're going to scrap that idea; we can't continue to proceed with it.' Of course, we've had another situation with the convention centre that has been dragging on and on and on, and only recently have they started to do the work. So I hope that we don't see the same situation with our university hospital, because it's desperately needed. For the university hospital to be operational by the target date of 2025, progress needs to be made now, not in another four years on the eve of yet another state election. I, like many others in the community, will be watching with a great deal of interest to see whether the Queensland government comes good with its election commitments around the Cairns University Hospital when it finally hands down its budget later this month. We'll be sitting in breathless anticipation hoping to goodness that this happens, because it's something that is well and truly overdue. We desperately need it to happen, not just for Cairns but for our whole region. I guess that, at the end of the day, time will tell whether we see that commitment there that we desperately need. National Integrity Commission 73 16:49 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I want to talk today about integrity or, more specifically, the profound lack of it in the Morrison government. Last month, the Prime Minister mounted his high horse to proclaim that the Australia Post CEO should lose her job for giving Cartier watches to executives as rewards for a lucrative business deal. This may well be a reasonable position, but it rings hollow when the Prime Minister refuses to lift a finger to address the rot that has set in deep in the core of his own government—and rotten it is. This is the government that has used a $100 million public grants program as the Liberal Party re-election fund in the sports rorts scandal, and the government that paid $30 million to a Liberal Party donor for land worth just $3 million in the airport land scandal. The Morrison government also took $721 million from Australians illegally during the robodebt scandal. And the energy minister for this government was investigated by the Australian Federal Police when he tried to damage his political opponent with doctored documents. This is the same man who breached ministerial standards by failing to disclose private financial interests. Despite all of this, despite this litany of disgraceful deeds, the Prime Minister has done nothing. Indeed, not only has the Prime Minister failed to demand integrity; he's actively shut down scrutiny and oversight wherever possible. When the Australian National Audit Office did their job and started to uncover some of these scandals, they were promptly punished by having their funding cut. This isn't the behaviour of a transparent, accountable government. It is intensely worrying and it reminds us why a national integrity commission is so critical. Labor has been calling for a powerful, well-resourced integrity commission for years. In December 2018, the government claimed it had been working since January on 'a robust, resourced, real system that will protect the integrity of Commonwealth and public administration'. But, almost three years later, they haven't even produced a draft bill. When questioned, the Attorney-General simply said that an integrity commission was 'not a priority'. It was only last month, when calls for the government to act had reached a crescendo, that it finally put forward draft legislation for a weak, secretive and compromised body. Frankly, it's the national integrity commission you have when you don't want a national integrity commission. This is a commission that would be unable to instigate its own independent inquiries, except in very limited circumstances. It would shield the conduct of politicians and public servants from hearings, and it might even be prevented from investigating any of the multiple past scandals of the Morrison government. It would, as Crikey said, 'protect the corrupt'. So you would have to ask yourself: why is this government fighting so hard against corruption being exposed? What are they scared of? Well, whatever it is, this cannot go on. The mounting list of scandals surrounding the Morrison government shows why we need a powerful and independent audit office and a powerful and independent national integrity commission. Come on, Prime Minister. Integrity and accountability are key features of a healthy democracy. We need to start restoring the trust that has been so thoroughly trashed by your government. Restore funding to the Audit Office and give Australia the national integrity commission we need, one with real teeth that will do the job the Australian people expect it to do. Stop dragging your feet. The time for action is now. Mackellar Electorate: Community of Calm 74 16:54 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I rise today to acknowledge the work done by the members of a local group on the Northern Beaches. This innovative and compassionate group is known as the TAPS Community of Calm. This volunteer group was first established to combat the silent mental health problems that plague our community. Mental health has been a growing concern on the Northern Beaches, with a rising number of practitioners and support groups required to support those dealing with anxiety, depression and other mental health conditions. The Community of Calm aims to increase awareness surrounding the impacts of stress and trauma on the body by teaching coping techniques through their programs. The Community of Calm began in early 2019 with Jane Macnaught as the founder. Her intention was to stop the cycle of people suffering in silence on the Northern Beaches, reminding them help is just around the corner. Jane set up her private practice in Mona Vale in 2016. It was here that she brought together numerous passionate practitioners, developing a network of creative approaches to combat stress, grief and anxiety. Generously, Jane and her practice provide mental health training sessions for other local practitioners. To date, more than 90 practitioners have benefited from these training sessions, some specialising in yoga, dance, art therapy, mindfulness, counselling and nutrition. The Community of Calm places a weighted focus on encouraging trauma awareness, not only for their own practitioners but also for those in the wider community. Being aware of the severe and often lasting impacts that complex trauma may have on an individual allows for increased understanding and support of an affected individual, which is why the TAPS group have included the five core principles of trauma-informed care and practice into their programs. These five core principles are safety, trustworthiness, choice, collaboration and empowerment. Jane has always worked alongside Mandy Loveday, and they both testify to the importance of movement in supporting mental health. The two attended trauma-sensitive yoga training in 2015. Mandy's client base tripled when she made more trauma-informed alterations to her own classes. The TAPS group also runs the Arts for Wellness workshop. This initiative is led by Mandy herself. This program encourages the community to engage in wellness support. The Arts for Wellness workshop is a month-long program that takes place at Mona Vale and Manly. The program allows members of the community to sample creative and expressive activities and therapy sessions, all whilst relaxing and forming social connections. To quote Jane, 'It is so important for everyone to slow down a little and find some creative outlets as an alternative to other coping mechanisms.' I could not agree more. Another noteworthy endeavour of the Community of Calm is their partnership with the Big Anxiety Festival, which is not a meeting of parliament but in fact the world's largest mental health and arts festival. In 2019, the festival focused on one central challenge: how do we cultivate empathy in place of stigma, fear and discrimination? The festival highlights the importance of using innovative and engaging tools to encourage Australians to seek help for mental health related issues. The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics survey in 2017 estimated that 20.1 per cent of Australians have mental or behavioural conditions. The Arts for Wellness Workshop has divided its activities into four categories to suit people's personal preferences around relaxing: movement and rhythm; mood food and natural health; empathy and being heard; and, finally, self-expression. I commend Jane Macnaught, Mandy Loveday and the entire TAPS Community of Calm team for their ongoing altruistic work, which continues to provide support for those impacted by poor mental health and dealing with mental illness. I thank them sincerely for establishing their proactive program. House adjourned at 16:59   The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Zimmerman) took the chair at 10:00.

Thursday, 12 November 2020

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Zimmerman) took the chair at 10:00.

 

BILLS 76 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021 76

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021

Consideration in Detail 76 10:00 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa This year's budget is a pivotal one in the future of agriculture. We announced a targeted plan to go towards agriculture's ambitious goal of reaching $100 billion by 2030—a plan with seven key pillars—and we backed it with cold, hard cash, making sure we understood what will drive agriculture to grow from a $61 billion industry to a $100 billion industry over the next 10 years. I've got to say that agriculture has done its bit of heavy lifting, despite drought, fire and flood. We have, in fact, gone ahead this year—from $60 billion to $61 billion. Despite the headwinds that have been there, agriculture continues to support the nation's economy not just during COVID; it will help us accelerate out of this COVID recession even more quickly. But it was important that the government itself put a structured plan around Ag2030 and the NFF's plan of a $100 billion industry, and those seven pillars are very important. The first one is around trade and exports. We understand we're a nation of 25 million people. We produce enough food for 75 million. If we don't engage with the world and trade with the world, we don't need farmers and we don't need regional communities that support our farmers. So we put real cash—over $300 million—into streamlining our trade platforms to make sure that farmers and exporters can do it even more quickly and simply with one simple touchpoint. We're issuing over 200,000 export certificates a year at the moment in manual form. We want to go back to a digital platform that makes that easier. We're doing complementary measures and, in fact, we've announced that, and I have to congratulate AMIC, as the peak meat-processing body, for working through regulatory reform that streamlines it. It'll save that industry over $40 million a year. As well, just yesterday we finalised the live trade complementary measures, which will save that industry around $5 million a year. We expect, over the next 10 years, potentially about $1.2 billion to go back to the industry from these measures. There's over $873 million in this budget going towards the second pillar, which is biosecurity. We want to protect brand Australia. We're doing that with more paws on the ground and more boots on the ground, but also with technology—X-ray technology. We're also working with Home Affairs at our ports to be able to use X-ray technology that will use artificial intelligence to look for both contraband for Home Affairs and also biosecurity risks for us. So it is just using common sense. We'll continue on with our stewardship program, worth $34 million in the last budget, and ANU is now finalising the methodology so we'll be able to go to a pilot program early next year. That's on target to be achieved by the end of this year so it will have that pilot ready to start early in the new year. We're also working through supply chains and understanding the importance of supply chains for Australian agriculture. That forms part of what the industry minister announced around manufacturing, making sure we invest and we look at even the vulnerabilities that we've seen through COVID-19 in agricultural inputs, not just the outputs. It's important we look holistically at that approach. We continue to look at country-of-origin labelling, which is very important in making sure that Australians are empowered to make decisions that support Australian farmers. The review into that has started, and we're looking to possibly extend that to seafood and cut flowers. I've challenged the fast-food outlets to have that on their boards. McDonald's has taken that up, and I think Hungry Jack's is very close. That's important in empowering consumers. Multinational organisations can have a significant role in empowering that. We're also looking at infrastructure. Around an extra $2 billion is going into water infrastructure to help the states build the dams. It's their constitutional responsibility to build the water infrastructure, but we're not going to cut and run. We're going to give them the money to go and start to plumb the nation. It's an important investment because, if we get the water, we will grow the agricultural sector. Innovation and research is the six pillar—and very important to me. In fact, we've just gone to tender for eight new innovation hubs to be located in regional areas across the country—not in sandstone universities but out in the regions, where the adoption of that research can be taken up. It is very important that we get our farmers to understand the tools that we are trying to give them in a changing climate to produce even more. The last pillar is the most important one, as it is about our human capital, our people: an investment in education, reducing universities costs by 59 per cent for agricultural courses. In addition, the education minister announced an extra $200 million for short courses that agricultural students can take. So this is a holistic approach. It is about our government putting the shoulder to the wheel with the agricultural sector in achieving their goal of $100 billion by 2030. 10:05 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley It gives me great pleasure to participate in this consideration in detail debate. I will start by submitting to the minister an enthusiastic declaration: on our side, we have a number of very energetic, passionate and committed advocates for regional Australia who are here today, alongside myself. I have been very fortunate to be given the shadow ministerial responsibility for the agriculture portfolio, and I very much look forward to engaging with the regions on this issue. If it's okay, Minister, we would prefer to submit a range of questions to you without necessarily going through the five, and I would hope that our regional representatives are able to submit quick questions to your good self. My concern, or the issue that I'm very much focused on—and the minister is fully aware of this—is in relation to biosecurity. Biosecurity does matter and, as we know, particularly through the course of a pandemic. It has been made patently clear through a series of reports, that we need to ensure that the Department of Agriculture and the minister, in particular, are ready to deal with emerging or known biosecurity threats. My question to the minister relates particularly to reports around the prevention of the entry into Australia of African swine flu and the need for the department to review and bring the government's attention to the effect of resourcing levels. We have had the CSIRO report which says that, while the current models have served us well, we need to handle the growing biosecurity threats that the nation faces. My question, given that there is no more sharper time to consider these issues given what we have gone through in terms of the pandemic and the failings around the Ruby Princess and Al Kuwait, is: what has the department and minister done to ensure that biosecurity issues will get their full attention and that the department will be able to manage those in terms of protecting the health of the nation? How can the Australian people be reassured that the minister and department are prioritising biosecurity obligations when the department hasn't, in some instances, even accepted that it has a responsibility for human health as a department? 10:08 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa There are 873 million reasons that this government has continued and will continue to support biosecurity. The $873 million has also been targeted around ASF, African swine flu. There was $66.6 million was put into surge capacity. That was about putting more paws on the ground, boots on the ground, and about X-ray machines—and we will continue to invest in not just boots on the ground but also technology. That CSIRO report you mentioned clearly articulates the importance of technology in protecting biosecurity in this country, and we will continue to invest in that—in fact, we already have. We now have scanners that are actually in many containers that help us identify any insects or pests that are in there. We have underwater drones that go underneath ships to ensure there is nothing that has hitchhiked its way across the seas to Australia. Those investments will continue over the forward estimates as we work with the Inspector-General of Biosecurity. It's important that we do that, because he plays a pivotal role in making sure that the regulatory approach is firm and the guiderails are kept—and the department undertakes that. With respect to human biosecurity, I think it's important that the shadow minister delves a little further into the Biosecurity Act, because the agriculture department only looks after the biosecurity of plants and animals. The Biosecurity Act clearly goes further, where the health department then intercepts and human health biosecurity plays in. When we talk about the reports, particularly into the Ruby Princess, it is quite clear that Mr Walker laid the blame at the feet of NSW Health. It was very clear. He was very strong in his language. I have to say that the New South Wales government has been very mature in accepting the recommendations and moving on. In fact, we work with them in ensuring that protocols are tightened. The granting of pratique is formalised at NSW Health, who are the health experts, and they make sure that they have formally provided that in writing, rather than by text or verbally. I have to acknowledge that the Western Australian Premier, to his credit, acknowledged he got it wrong and that we had followed our processes at the department of agriculture. To the shadow minister: before he makes assertions, it's important that he should, in fact, read the full Biosecurity Act and delve further into it and understand that the department of agriculture looks after the biosecurity of plants and animals; it does not do human health. That is not what we are trained to do. We don't have doctors and we don't have medical professionals in the department of agriculture; we have veterinarians and biologists—people who are focused on plants and animals. That's our job. That's what we do well. We are continually vigilant about biosecurity and we will continue to be, because that does protect brand Australia. The investments that we're making are pivotal. We will continue to work with the I-G and the department about any further investments we need to make, particularly if surge capacity is required for a specific pest, as we did with ASF. We did that quite quickly, with $66.6 million straight off the bat to make sure we got out and got the job done. That risk is still there. It's now in Papua New Guinea. In fact, we're working with DFAT around making sure that we can help PNG deal with that issue as well. Also, the number of passenger flights that come in have reduced. We have moved our biosecurity officers around to other areas where greater capacity is needed, and that's normally, at this stage, at ports, where we have surge capacity with our staff. The department has been agile with respect to using those biosecurity officers to make sure that we protect ourselves against risk. We'll continue to do that, but we will take the best scientific advice of our biosecurity officers, who are world's best. But we have to be pragmatic and honest in that the challenge will continue, as that CSIRO report has clearly articulated, and the government stands ready to take the best advice and make the investments it needs to ensure we protect not just agriculture but our entire environment, because it's not just agriculture that's at risk from this. 10:12 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I find the minister's comments extraordinary, given what is happening with coronavirus. It is mutating in Denmark. Coronavirus is transferring from minks. They are now worried that we will have a third wave of a different strain. Equally, we had the Victorian outbreak and the worst ever outbreak of avian flu, and the minister just dismisses the concerns that are being raised by our shadow minister in relation to biosecurity. The coronavirus is infecting humans. We don't know the risk this mutation overseas will pose to Australians. We also now have an outbreak in the poultry industry in Victoria which is the worst outbreak we have ever seen. The fact that the minister is flippantly dismissing it and saying it's somebody else's job is really quite alarming. My questions today are actually about workforce and this government's failure to address the workforce issues. The borders were shut in March, and Ernst & Young said, through their own research, that there is a shortfall of at least 26,000 workers required for fruit and vegetable picking. That's what our farmers are telling us, that's what we know and that's what's been reported over and over. The minister claims that 22,000 workers are on their way. I have a series of questions in relation to this claim. First of all, why has it taken so long? We knew in March that this would be an issue. Here we are in November and we're still talking about 22,000 workers being on their way. When will they arrive? That is the first question. Why is it taking so long? Why has it taken your department so long to organise this when we knew the borders had been closed? Minister, where are the workers coming from? Do you agree with the member for Nicholls that we should bring them from Asia, where coronavirus is rampant? Are we going to bring backpackers from Asia to this country to work on the farms? How much will it cost these workers to be here? I just want to highlight some of the concerns that are being raised. This is another question for the minister. Are the few workers who have come from the Pacific the workers who were going to come anyway, and now they just have to bear the extra costs? In one case, $1,500 per person was charged to workers for chartered flights. Those workers, when they finish their quarantine and start working, will essentially be working for free to pay back their flight costs. Minister, is this fair? These guest workers who come here to help our farm workers out are having to work for free to pay for their flight costs. Are the workers who are quarantining on an Emerald farm paying for their own quarantine? Will they be, again, essentially working for free on our farms to pay for quarantine costs? What has the department done to ensure that these workers are not being disadvantaged and ripped off? That brings me to another issue, around health care and these workers. We have had the tragedy of people who are here on the Pacific Labour Scheme dying—being diagnosed with cancer and not getting the health care they require because of the insurance that they've got. There have been disputes with Bupa and people dying. These are guest workers. What are the minister and the department doing, through the labour hire scheme, to ensure any worker coming here has quality health care, is being protected and is not dying on Australian shores? My next question goes to the alarming report that a business that was established, AgriAus, said: 'Okay, Australians, there's work on the farms. Let's recruit you and link you to the jobs.' There were 1,500 applications from Australians wanting to work on farms, yet they couldn't find one farm that would take them on. When the company dug a bit deeper and asked farmers why, they were told, 'Because they're lazy'—not that they'd interviewed any of these workers to see what their work history was—and 'We'd have to pay them.' Minister, do you endorse farmers saying, 'We don't want to hire Australians because we'd have to pay them'? Minister, how rampant is the underpayment of foreign workers? Is the reason why the farmers are not giving these 1,500 Australians a go the ugly secret in agriculture—that we bring foreign workers here who don't know what their rights are and they are exploited? Minister, what are you doing to ensure that there is labour market testing so that an Australian, if they want a job, can get a job in agriculture? Why is it still the culture of these farmers and your industry that, when it's being shut down because of the close of borders, Australians aren't getting jobs and they're still saying, 'We need to bring backpackers here from Asia instead of giving these Australians a go'? You say that your department is on top of this, that 22,000 workers are here. Why are you putting those foreign workers before Australian workers who want to have a go in agriculture? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Before I call the minister, I just remind members that, under the arrangements that have been put in place, at 10.20 we are meant to be moving to the environment aspects of this portfolio and at 10.40 to the resources, water and northern Australia segment. But members are still able to speak and ask questions, so long as they are relevant, about any part of the portfolio under consideration this morning. 10:18 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I would just caution the member on besmirching farmers in a broadscale way like that. Within any industry, there are always those, a small minority, who cut corners. But to broadly suggest that farmers are manipulating and in fact exploiting people is disgraceful and shows that you have turned your back on regional and rural Australia. But let me answer these questions about quarantine. I would have thought the member, as a Victorian, bitterly understood the arrangements that the federal and state governments undertook about quarantining, because we had this little cluster down in Victoria created by the Victorian government, which couldn't handle the quarantining arrangements, because the states had taken it up. It is now up to each state to define their quarantining arrangements for those 22,000 prevetted workers to come in. Unfortunately what the member fails to acknowledge is that the state governments took up this responsibility, and the cost, from the start. They are working in partnership— Ms Chesters interjecting— Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Most states are. As you articulated in your comments, Queensland has already brought them in, because the Chief Medical Officer in Queensland has allowed them to quarantine on farm. In the Northern Territory they are quarantining at Howard Springs. Those costs are an arrangement between the state government and industry themselves, so to try and come in here and say that the federal government has done nothing—I am sorry, since March we have, in fact, extended the visas of those Pacific, seasonal and working holiday makers for 12 months if they work in ag. Then in August we opened up the program. But we are still waiting on the states to work out their quarantining arrangements, particularly Victoria where they have failed at every level. The Victorian government has failed and, in fact, cost the Australian taxpayer billions of dollars, because of their ineptitude to be able to handle quarantine. The response to the bill they put up is a disgrace. That is the problem that we face and that is the one that will get these workers in other states—when they finally work out their quarantine arrangements. Some states have. The smallest jurisdiction, the Northern Territory, can do it, but Victoria still can't work out what they want to do. They don't know how they're going to quarantine. They are the ones that are holding up the workers for coming in. These jobs are market tested. There is a Harvest Trail website that has been created. They must be tested for Australians to do it first. We are incentivising Australians, by claiming up to $6,000 in travel expenses, to go and take these jobs up. But farmers don't have the luxury to sit around and wait for someone to turn up. When their crop is ready they have to get it off the paddock and on to your plate. That is a little detail that those opposite—not knowing what happens in regional and rural Australia—seem to forget. This is the responsibility. We will work with the states. Sadly, not all states can do it, but some have and not all of them are coalition states. Some states have been forward leaning on this. But there have been complete failures by the Victorian government. Your Victorian government has failed agriculture, failed to be able to support agriculture in supplying workers. That is the issue at play around getting those 22,000 pre-vetted employees across. It's as easy as that, but Victoria cannot get their chief medical officer to come forward and provide a quarantine solution, because they don't have the confidence because they failed before. 10:21 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer It's a pleasure to be here as part of this consideration in detail to inform and promote the work that is being done in the agriculture portfolio. I am delighted that the member for Wentworth is joining me to, again, defend, if we need to—although I am sure the messages coming from the other side will be a broad endorsement of our approach. It's very unclear what the Labor Party's approach is in the environment because we haven't seen detailed policy. However, in the government we have a detailed policy, because we know that every Australian knows that our iconic environment is front and centre and part of our national identity. We're committed to protecting and preserving it for future generations. What that means is practical and meaningful action to preserve, protect and restore the environment. That proud and strong record continues a coalition track record on the environment with comprehensive policies that we've reconfirmed during this year's budget. They deliver crucial environmental recovery and restoration activities with an additional $1.8 billion over five years in brand new investments. We have invested the single biggest amount ever in Australia's Commonwealth national parks with more than $233 million injected into tourism and other infrastructure. This funding will upgrade park sites across Uluru, Kakadu, Booderee, Christmas and Norfolk Islands, creating thousands of jobs for regional communities. Yes, that does link to the environment because those tourists come to see our unique and special natural environment. That's in addition to the $216 million we pledged last year to upgrade and remediate Kakadu National Park. We are helping our tourism industry come back better by enhancing more of our magnificent heritage-listed sites across the country, such as Budj Bim in Victoria, the first ever site listed on the World Heritage List for its Indigenous cultural values, and how proud that moment was. The Gondwana rainforest and the Tasmanian wilderness will all benefit from funding from this year's budget. Fifty million dollars has been earmarked to begin implementing the first stage of recommendations of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust review, protecting and preserving heritage sites, because, of course, the environment portfolio includes heritage and that includes the built environment as well. We are continuing to rollout our $100 million Environment Restoration Fund. It's supporting large-scale projects across the country, like restoring koala habitat in northern New South Wales and working towards Bruny, Flinders and French Islands to be feral and cat-free. Our commitment to Antarctica is demonstrated by investments totalling $2.8 billion, including $1.9 billion to deliver and run a new ice breaker over 30 years and build the first permanent runway on the continent. We are the first government to have a comprehensive 20-year strategy for Antarctica. I never heard one coming from the Labor Party in the six years that I saw them in opposition in this place. Oceans, marine ecosystems and the Great Barrier Reef are of interest to many Australians. Our oceans package of $67 million is being invested to protect our oceans and our marine ecosystems, including $14 million to tackle the impact of ghost nets and $20 million through the relief and recovery fund to establish native oyster reefs, which are about water quality as well as recreational fishing. It is about marine habitat around our coastlines. Building on our international leadership, we are investing in international blue carbon and rainforest partnerships to protect coastal and rainforest ecosystems. We are doing that very well with our Pacific neighbours. That's on top of the $1.9 billion over a decade for the Great Barrier Reef. That includes funding to improve water quality, manage crown-of-thorns starfish, and remove and reduce marine debris and pollution. We've also got an ambitious, world-leading reef restoration and adaptation program. This is unprecedented investment in our reef. Then there's bushfire recovery. We're committed to recovering, restoring and rehabilitating following the devastating Black Summer bushfires, but we're also readying ourselves for another such event because we know that climate change and longer periods of drought increase the risk and intensity of bushfires. I'm developing plans with the seven fire-scarred areas across Australia, looking at how community groups want to get involved in building back better when it comes to revegetating, and preparing the communities, working closely with the fire agencies and working closely with the natural environment. We've always lived in a changing environment, and climate adaptation and resilience inform the National Environmental Science Program, which has just received another allocation of close to $150 million to support the work of our scientists who do the critical informative work that underpins the expert science approach to what we do in the Environment portfolio, matched with that fantastic on-the-ground engagement. 10:27 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith Under this government, Australia's natural environment is in serious decline. Our threatened species and national icons like the koala are under serious threat, exacerbated by the summer's national bushfire crisis. The environment laws are not fit for purpose. The government have made a mess of administering the environmental laws, and now they're making a mess of reviewing them. Last summer's bushfires caused more than 17 million hectares to be destroyed. Three billion animals were killed or displaced. But, even before the bushfires, Australia had the highest mammal extinction rates in the world. Yet, after the government announced $50 million in immediate so-called support for wildlife harmed by the fires, it dragged its heels in getting that money out the door, with only $19.1 million of it spent in the same fiscal year as the bushfires occurred. Minister, how can Australians trust this government to protect the environment when your government is all about the photo-op and never about the follow-up? Our threatened species are in decline. Fewer than 40 per cent of threatened species have recovery plans, and the government seems to be completely clueless about whether all the recovery plans that do exist are being implemented properly. The Morrison government recently announced a new 10-year Threatened Species Strategy, but there's no funding attached to it—and it replaced the previous failed five-year strategy. Minister, when will there be a funding commitment to back up the new strategy, and when will the new strategy be in place? Koala populations in Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory were listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act back in May 2012. The government has announced that they are being formally considered for uplisting in the wake of the fires. The government was supposed to create a recovery plan for the koala by 2015, but as at October 2020 that recovery plan still does not exist. It is now five years overdue from the original deadline. The previous Labor government's national koala conservation strategy ran until 2014, and the Liberal-National government has not yet bothered to replace it, so there is no current strategy in force. Minister, how can Australians trust this government to make sure that future generations don't have to resort to reading about koalas in the history books? When will the threatened species recovery plan for the koala be finalised, and what will be done to ensure that its implementation is monitored? The second 10-yearly statutory review of the EPBC Act is now underway. The interim report released in July recommended immediate reform directions, but the government tabled a bill that was inconsistent with that interim report and instead tabled a bill that was described recently by the then Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, as being a 'Carbon copy of a bill pursued by Prime Minister Abbott in 2014'—a 'carbon copy' of an Abbott-era bill instead of a bill that gave effect to the interim review from respected regulator Graeme Samuel. The final report was due to be provided to the government in October 2020. Minister, when will the final report be made public? Does the government intend to bring forward legislation that is consistent with the interim report or the final report for this parliament and the Australian people to consider? Will that legislation, if it exists, contain interim national environmental standards, and, if so, will those national environmental standards have the support of a broad cross-section of the Australian community, including environmentalists, business, industry, resources, regulators, lawyers and others, including of course traditional owners? Will the government be proposing an independent compliance body, and, if so, what form will it take? Is the government considering the Academy of Science's proposal for a bureau of biodiversity to substantially increase data collection, which is a serious issue identified in Graeme Samuel's interim report. When can the Australian people expect to hear something meaningful from the government in relation to the interim report's strong concerns about the protection of Indigenous heritage and the imperative to reform decision-making to ensure Indigenous peoples are respected and get a real say in relation to environmental decision-making? In 2020, the Australian National Audit Office released a scathing report on this government's decision-making under the EPBC Act. Approval delays had blown out by 510 per cent. Seventy-nine per cent of decisions were affected by error or were otherwise non-compliant. In a single financial year, 2018-19, 95 per cent of key decisions were made late. The government have tacitly admitted that it was their longstanding underfunding of the department that caused these delays and problems, by providing additional funding. Minister, will the government apologise to the workers whose jobs have been delayed and the firms whose projects have taken longer to get off the ground because of this government's budget cuts and woeful administration of environmental decision-making? 10:32 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust looks after some of the most iconic and precious sites on the Sydney Harbour foreshore—ex-defence sites that were placed into public hands for future generations in an act of considerable foresight at the time by the Howard government. In particular I'd like to acknowledge the efforts of then environment minister Robert Hill and Prime Minister John Howard in having this vision. Since its creation, the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust has, to my mind, done a remarkable job in rehabilitating these sites, opening them up to the public, making them accessible, activating them and finding a way for them to generate commercial returns whilst remaining true to their purpose. The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust looks after some of the amazing sites at Middle Head; former submarine base Platypus at North Head; Cockatoo Island; Woolwich Dock; and, in my own electorate, the Macquarie Lightstation in Vaucluse and the former Marine Biological Station at Camp Cove. I'm particularly pleased that the government has helped secure the future of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust in this budget, both commissioning the independent review and now providing funding of $40 million in the 2020-21 budget to make up the approximately $50 million recommended by the review to immediately tackle urgent works. This funding will support a range of works to restore and maintain the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust's military, convict, Indigenous and industrial maritime heritage sites, including: repairs, hazardous material removal and decontamination works at 10 Terminal at Middle Head, laying the groundwork for the $10 million already committed for parklands and building restoration works to bring the precinct to life; repairs and safety works for large cranes on Cockatoo Island; upgrades to roofs and gutters and make-safe works to windows at the industrial precinct, including the turbine hall, on Cockatoo Island; restoration and conservation of the World War II era gun emplacements, observation posts and tunnels at the historic North Fort in North Head Sanctuary; restoration works to the exterior of Building 1 Other Ranks' Mess at North Head; and wharf and pontoon upgrades at Woolwich Dock. The funding will also enable the harbour trust to develop a refreshed vision for Cockatoo Island and for North Head Sanctuary. This funding is in addition to more than $20 million that was made available to the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust earlier this year, and comments are now being sought from the community on draft legislation that will make the harbour trust an ongoing entity, rather than a remediate-and-handover entity, and ensure that its board has the right skills and experience for the future and that long-term leases are available when they support the objectives of public access and amenity. There are two particular recommendations I wanted to touch on and which I think are worth highlighting contained in the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2020, which is currently open for public comment. The first one is that the trust should become an ongoing entity. In my view, the trust has proven its worth and its value, and this certainty will allow the trust to plan for the proper management of some of the more difficult sites and difficult issues, including on Cockatoo Island. The second recommendation is to allow for longer leases in certain situations and with appropriate parliamentary and ministerial oversight, which will provide the commercial certainty for the scale of investment needed to rehabilitate and remediate some of these sites. The trust is a lasting legacy of the Howard government and the Morrison government is building on the coalition's strong track record with this year's budget and reaffirming our commitment to protect and preserve our iconic environment through Sydney Harbour. I also wanted to touch upon funding for Antarctica in this year's budget, and in particular the Australian Antarctic Strategy and 20 Year Action Plan, a $2.8 billion action plan which the minister mentioned in her remarks. This funding and this action plan will help us acquire a new icebreaker, will help us construct a permanent runway near Davis research station and will help us construct a year-round research station on Macquarie Island. It's unfortunately true that the status quo in Antarctica can no longer be taken for granted, with some states pushing ahead to establish a presence and facts on the ground. As an Antarctic Treaty claimant state, we have a duty in particular to help preserve our sovereignty over our Australian Antarctic Territory, to maintain Antarctica's freedom from strategic and political confrontation, to protect the Antarctic environment and to conduct world-class scientific research. There are two other initiatives in the budget I would mention. Firstly, support to recycling and waste reduction, including the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020. Australia does have to do better in this area, and I'm very pleased the government has committed to eliminating the export of unprocessed waste, in consultation with the states and territories. Finally, the Samuel review into the EPBC Act. We've only seen the interim report of that but I think this is important to ensure that the act fulfils its purpose and does its job. My question to the minister is: can the minister please outline and reaffirm the government's commitment to protecting the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust sites and other sites into the future? 10:37 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'm interested in the government's programming and resources when it comes to national heritage, and specifically Indigenous heritage. I've got some questions for the minister on that. I acknowledge what the member for Wentworth said about the Antarctica program. Obviously there was a lot of foresight by the Gillard government to commission the new icebreaker. It is behind schedule. It means we won't have an operative vessel this summer. The Aurora Australis has been retired and the Nuyina is not yet delivered. The comments the member for Wentworth made about Australia's role in Antarctica are important. It's salient, I think, to reflect on the fact that we've only conducted a very limited number of inspections of bases in our territory since the 1960s. Until recently, that was as few as nine. I think we've changed our approach and we're going to do more of those. That's yet to be seen. I really want to focus on national Indigenous heritage. There's no doubt that we have a badly inadequate national protection framework for Indigenous cultural heritage. Sadly, we saw that through the tragedy at Juukan Gorge and the caves there earlier this year. We saw sites that had evidence of occupation dating back 46,000 years wantonly destroyed as a result of failures all around—failures by Rio Tinto, but certainly failures when it comes to the Indigenous cultural heritage protection framework at every level, including the Commonwealth level. We did not need the Juukan Gorge tragedy to tell us that that framework is in a state of failure. It has been like that for some considerable time. There have been alarm bells all along the way. This government itself committed to a review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act in its heritage strategy in 2015. It said that that review would occur by the end of 2017. It never appeared. The northern Australia white paper said that the same review would occur. It never appeared. I'd like to minister to explain what is actually being done in this space. Since the Juukan Gorge cave tragedy and travesty, we've been told that there will be some roundtables, and some of them have already occurred. That's sort of standard government practice when there's a disaster: let's call for some roundtables. There was supposed to be a review and a plan for reform delivered at the end of 2017. That was three years ago. If that had happened, maybe what happened at Juukan Gorge might not have occurred. So I think it is for the government, and certainly for the minister, to explain what actually is being done: what the resources and timetable are to get on with the job that the government tasked itself to complete three years ago, about which it has done absolutely nothing. The second thing the minister should explain is what actually occurred in her office. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act creates emergency intervention powers for the minister, so that when a state protection framework isn't working the minister can step in and say, 'Hang on a second. We've got to pause.' What happened in this case? The traditional owners contacted the minister's office; they were told they would get a phone call back; and it didn't happen. It was like dropping a stone into a deep and empty well. There wasn't even a splash. Nobody got back to them. As a result, the department wasn't even aware of the prospect of the destruction until after it had occurred. That is not good enough. Any minister that has emergency intervention powers must have their office set up in such a way that they can respond when that need is triggered. It didn't happen in this case. It's no answer for the minister to say that it was too late. We actually don't know that. It's no answer to say that it was too late, because the next time it happens it might not be too late—if it was in this case, and we don't know that. What I want the minister to explain is what has she done in her office to address that failure? The first thing would be to acknowledge it. The Prime Minister this week talked about human frailty. We make mistakes. Ministers make mistakes. But things aren't going to improve if people don't have the courage to say, 'That wasn't right. What happened in my office wasn't correct. Someone should have got back to the traditional owners and it didn't happen.' The CEO of the National Indigenous Australians Agency, his agency was contacted, and they made a mistake of not reaching out to the department. They acknowledged that when they appeared before the inquiry. They said, 'We made a mistake. We've adopted a new protocol, and here it is, we table it.' Where is the equivalent from the minister? The minister needs to explain how now, going forward, if ever a traditional owner calls her office, it doesn't end up being a case of being told, 'You will get a phone call back from an adviser who's on leave, who doesn't get contacted, who never makes that phone call.' There needs to be some sort of change so that that emergency intervention power, which is absolutely critical to prevent these kinds of tragedies, doesn't get stuffed up again. The minister should be prepared to say, 'It was a mistake in my office. I accept it. I own it. I'm doing something about it. I'm adopting a new protocol so that if ever that phone call comes into my office again, that kind of failure doesn't occur.' 10:42 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler It's great to be here for consideration in detail of one part of my portfolio, which is obviously the component around water. This element is clearly focused predominantly around the Murray-Darling Basin, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and, of course, the basin plan. It's great to have the member for Nicholls here, who is a passionate advocate for efficient water use in his area of Victoria, around Shepparton, one of those great producing areas for agriculture. This is where you find the Two Fruits and all of those canned and fresh products that come out of there around Shep. Long may it continue. As we've seen in recent months, it's been a tough time, not only for the nation but particularly for those involved in irrigated agriculture. There has been a drought for a considerable period throughout large parts of the basin. We've seen significant challenges in those smaller communities. What I've said very clearly since I have taken up the portfolio is that we are putting those regional communities back at the heart of the basin plan. We intend to ensure that they continue to have opportunities for growth, opportunities for development, opportunities to produce jobs. We know that many of them have been significantly affected by the basin plan over a period of time, and we want to ensure that they have further opportunities for economic growth. One of the ways that we're doing that, as announced in September as part of the budget for this year, is the Murray-Darling Communities Investment Package. This is a significant investment in the Murray-Darling Basin. This is on top of what has been committed over a long period of time in a bipartisan way by governments of both stripes. Some $13 billion has been committed, and around $9 billion has already been invested as part of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. But this is about ensuring that we put those regional communities back at the heart of what we are doing, and that we strike the right balance between the needs of irrigators, the needs of the environment, the needs of business and the needs of community. The Murray-Darling Communities Investment Package includes funding to invest in community resilience and river health. That includes $37.6 million over two years to work with the South Australian government to deliver projects that will sustain Riverland environments. These are about practical and actual outcomes. These are about environmental outcomes that actually make a difference on the ground. I'm very pleased to be working with Minister Speirs in South Australia, and our other South Australian counterparts at a federal level, to deliver actual outcomes for the environment. There is $37.6 million. There is $20 million over two years in the community-driven grants for on-ground projects that will improve the health of rivers and wetlands. One of the challenges, and it's a significant challenge, is to continue to inform communities, and not just communities involved in the basin but right across Australia, because all Australians are interested in the health of the river system throughout the Murray-Darling Basin and what we have been doing over a long period of time to ensure we get that balance right, and this will certainly make a significant difference. There is $3.1 million over two years for the Indigenous River Rangers program to increase First Nations people's access to water for economic and social purposes and embed their participation in delivery of the Basin Plan. Once again, this is about ensuring that all members of the community are involved in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan's delivery. We will move to enforcement once we have all of our water resource plans accredited across what has obviously been a difficult and challenging period in terms of getting those things done. The package will also include funding to build trust, transparency and accountability—what the feedback has been through the Keelty report, the Sefton report and others. I have had a wheelbarrow full of reports in the last few months, all of which we are obviously acting on. Very clearly, the community have said they need to be sure that what they are looking at is transparent information that can be trusted. Once again, the member for Nicholls has been instrumental in ensuring that this has been delivered. He's been a very outspoken advocate for his community and has ensured that they are well-informed and the information we are providing can be trusted. That includes $38.7 million over four years for compliance activities, including the establishment of a new statutory and independent inspector-general of water compliance. My counterpart, the shadow minister, who's in the Federation Chamber at the moment, is very interested in what's happening with this. I want to publicly thank Mr Keelty for his work. His contract expired at the end of September. I thank him for his report. We are acting on all five recommendations. Mr Keelty did not offer to continue and an offer was not provided. We are currently working our way through the process of ensuring that we can replace the interim inspector-general with what will be a beefed-up role, as I stated, in September. We are investing significantly in the communities who rely on irrigation and whose local economies rely on the health of the river. We are ensuring it's being provided in a balanced way, right across the spectrum, whether that is for the environment, for business or for irrigators. I'm very pleased to have the support of colleagues, like the member for Nicholls and others, who have been very active. 10:47 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith It's interesting that the minister talks about 'a wheelbarrow full of reports', because, of course, one of the people who's been writing reports on the basin has said of this set of communities that they feel like they've been overconsulted but under-listened-to. That is a real theme that comes out when you talk to people in the basin. They feel like there have been a lot of wheels turning in attempts to consult them, but there has been very little action, there are very few outcomes, and there hasn't really been enough listening—or, at least, they're not being heard. There has been review after review, but there hasn't been enough action yet. I want to talk about that, but let me start by agreeing with the minister and saying, 'Yes, Minister, I am very interested in compliance in the basin, and I'm not the only one.' One of the reasons I'm so interested in compliance is that trust and confidence are central to communities in the basin being able to not just survive but thrive. They need to know that they're getting a fair go. That's what farmers want, that's what traditional owners want, it's what communities want, and it's what environmentalists want. They want a fair go. Part of that fair go is trust and confidence. This is important. The Basin Plan is a $13 billion plan, and the value of agricultural production in the basin is $24 billion annually. It is massively important, not just to the communities in the basin—although, that is, of course, a very wide geographical area—but to the entire nation, so we need to make sure that we have a government that understands what needs to be done. But this government has no plan for water security for our nation and has been quite woeful at handling the many criticisms that have been expressed about the way that the Murray-Darling Basin has been governed and how the plan has been implemented. There is, of course, their traditional approach of saying one thing in the regions and then doing something else in Canberra. With that as the context, let me talk about compliance. Let me talk about trust and confidence. The minister mentioned Robbie Sefton's report, Independent assessment of social and economic conditions in the Murray–Darling Basin. Robbie Sefton and her panel said: We found many people have diminished trust in federal and state governments to deliver good long term policy and support rural and regional Basin communities. People in Basin communities repeatedly said they had lost trust because they feel over-consulted and under-listened to. We heard strong messages that successive governments have hollowed out their local and regional capability and knowledge and have not provided clear leadership or a compelling vision. She also said, in making recommendations about how to improve the way that we all work together: Governments and Basin communities need to work together to rebuild trust, and communities need to be put at the centre of conversations about their future. This wasn't new. The Productivity Commission in 2018 had spoken of the legacy of community distrust and warned that if things didn't improve then trust and confidence would be reduced further. Infrastructure Australia has acknowledged the impact of the Menindee fish kill and other events in undermining confidence in the government's management of water. And, of course, Mr Keelty, who I join with the minister in thanking for his work in his time as inspector-general, said: In the absence of strong, basin-wide leadership, there is a perception that some parties are too busy 'playing politics' and are ineffectual at making any tough decisions, especially when it comes to making decisions in the national interest and at the whole-of-basin level. So a range of concerns have been raised by reviewers, by the Productivity Commission and by the inspector-general. Minister, that is why we are so interested in compliance—because it goes to the question of trust and confidence, and those things go to the question of the quality of life of the people who live in the basin, and the quality of life for our entire nation, because of the significance of agriculture and water to it. So that's why we're interested. Your predecessor as minister, back in August last year, announced the creation of an inspector-general position for the Murray-Darling Basin., and we welcomed it at the time. In a press release, the government said, 'This Inspector-General will be able to refer issues of concern off to the Commonwealth integrity commission.' There's only one problem with that: the inspector-general has come and gone and still no Commonwealth integrity commission has actually been established. So that never happened. But what also never happened was a range of things that had meant to be occurring with the inspector-general. It was meant to be interim, for a short time, and then a statutory basis for the inspector general position with statutory powers. It never happened. Then, a year later, the government abolished the position. They say, 'We'll have a new position.' That's great, but—guess what—it's not going to be stood up until September 2021. So there will be a year gap in compliance. And, of course, as has been said by the minister, Mick Keelty did not continue. There is no current interim inspector-general. There is no compliance entity of this type that was sold to Australians with so much fanfare back in August last year. It's was just another photo op with no follow-up. 10:52 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls In my electorate of Nicholls, which is right within the Murray-Darling Basin, we are engaged in this once-in-a-generation reform to try and restore the health of our river systems. We need to restore that to a sustainable level, but we also need to keep a very sharp eye on the communities, the industries and the environment. Our water resources are subject to increasing pressures, and not just economically but also through population growth, natural disasters and, particularly, drought. Over the last decade, the Australian government has been delivering key reforms under the Basin Plan to improve river health, water reliability and deliverability. Around 2,100 gigalitres of water has been recovered from irrigation users to better find this balance between consumptive use and environmental use. We understand that there's another 450 gigalitres that is currently tacked onto the end of the Basin Plan that has a socioeconomic neutrality test associated with its recovery. Therefore, if the recovery of any of that water were to have a negative impact on the socioeconomic status of that community, it cannot be delivered. This is something that we all need to acknowledge, and it's something that the reports referred to by both the minister and the shadow minister, the Keelty report and the Sefton report, which have been delivered recently, have acknowledged. Those reports acknowledged that the 450 gigalitres cannot be delivered without substantial pain to the communities. So, to address this and to reduce the impacts of the Basin Plan, the government—heavily facilitated by The Nationals in the way that they lobby—has introduced a 1,500 gigalitre cap on buybacks. We all understand that buybacks are the most dangerous and damaging way that water can be recovered. It was also this government that prioritised projects for water efficiency gains instead of buybacks, and this has led to a better socioeconomic impact on our communities. We're also fighting hard to promote the states with their 605-gigalitre reductions in water recovery and those 36 projects that will lead to fantastic environmental outcomes but not at the expense of recovered water. It is critical that we get the 605 gigalitres of sustainable diversion limit adjustment projects completed so that there doesn't need to be any more water recovered. I think it's very clear that we are working very hard. I acknowledge the work that the minister is doing. Keith Pitt really is turning his hand to the task, and it's a huge task ahead of him. The $269 million for the Murray-Darling Communities Investment Package is something that is making the communities the heart of the whole conversation. Some of these initiatives have brought fantastic life back to some of the smaller towns that have been at the giving end of all of this water recovery. We've got a $34 million extension of the Murray-Darling Basin Economic Development Program. That is picking up projects right around the Murray-Darling Basin. It allows communities most affected by the water recovery to apply for grants and get these projects up and running. This is a community-led program. These projects aren't imposed on the communities by government; they're actually developed from the community and come up through the community to government to deliver the projects that each of the communities want. We've also allocated $20 million for community driven grants for on-the-ground river health projects. Again, this has been a fantastic initiative so that those people looking after the health of the rivers are able to put those funds exactly where they need to be. We are also working on river health projects that are important to each particular area and each particular stretch of river, and that's certainly making a big difference to the health of the overall basin. This $20 million for the community to look after the rivers means so much to each of those areas. The rehabilitation of favourite wetlands, the stocking of murray cod, riparian vegetation plantations—all of this is becoming very important work that is being facilitated by the funds that the minister has been able to put on the table. I thank him for the work he's doing. 10:57 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith Following on from my earlier contribution, I've got some questions for the minister about the inspector-general model in the Murray-Darling Basin and the announcement in respect of a further compliance body being established and separated out from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Those questions are as follows. Minister, when will Australians see proposed legislation to establish the new compliance body? When will an interim inspector-general be appointed, if an interim inspector-general will be appointed? What powers will the interim inspector-general have and what powers will the new, presumably statutory, compliance body have? How will the government secure the cooperation of the other basin jurisdictions with either the interim inspector-general, if one is to be appointed, or, once there is a statutory body, that statutory body, given constitutional constraints? In other words, how can the minister assure the Australian people that whatever compliance arrangements are put in place will be able to be effective and rely on more than just moral suasion? I welcome the contribution from the member for Nicholls. I also want to talk about the implementation of the plan and the recovery of water that the member touched on. I think everyone in this room would acknowledge that the 450-gigalitre target is just not on track. It's just not. Minister, you spoke about progress in relation to the 450 gigalitres— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:59 to 11:10 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 The time allotted for consideration of the Agriculture, Water and the Environment portfolio has concluded. The question is that the proposed expenditure for the Agriculture, Water and the Environment portfolio be agreed to. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Consideration in Detail 86 11:11 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa My part of Home Affairs is Emergency Management Australia. Over the last couple of years, we have faced many disasters, starting with the floods in north-west Queensland, fires and the Black Summer fire events, and we are continuing to make sure that the programs we've put in place are targeted and continue to reach them. The Black Summer events were ones that this country has not seen and may never see again. Thirty-three people lost their lives, there were over 3,000 homes and premises destroyed and there were countless hectares of burn scar from this event. Tragically, there were 10 emergency service personnel who paid the ultimate price and lost their lives trying to protect Australians and their homes. In fact, three of those were from overseas. It's important we acknowledge the contribution and sacrifice that they and their families made to this country during those solemn times. It was important as a government that we made sure the recovery and relief was immediate. I'm proud to say that, in working with the minister for human services, we were able to make sure that the immediate relief payments, at over $250 million, went out. In fact, the large majority of those were out of the Commonwealth bank account and into the bank accounts of those who were impacted by these fires within 40 minutes. That is an extraordinary effort and one that I thank them for. That was simply about getting some dignity and respect to those who had been impacted by this event to make sure that they have the ability to get the essentials on the table and for their families. We then looked to further recovery. The government made it very clear that it was important that, due to the significant size of this event, we needed to apportion $2 billion in a recovery fund. That came in many parts and is about the immediate recovery but also the long-term recovery. We believed that we'd spend around $500 million of that $2 billion by 30 June. I'm proud to say we actually spent over $1 billion of that by 30 June, such was the speed. I congratulate Andrew Colvin, who heads the National Bushfire Recovery Agency, for the way he has worked with the victims but also the states. I have to acknowledge that this has been a partnership with those states across the country in this recovery effort. In fact, some of these programs have been matched by the states. It was important that we also understood that it wasn't just rebuilding infrastructure; it was rebuilding lives and, in some ways, much of the emotional attachment to their community and their properties that these people had lost. In terms of mental health, we committed $77 million. There's $38 million that has gone out already and will continue to go out. That's primarily targeted through our Primary Health Networks to make sure that they are local solutions, not Canberra solutions. We've made sure, with respect to agriculture and small-business grants, there was money on the table for them to continue, particularly in those parts where tourism was such an important part of their local economy. We also looked after, obviously, childcare subsidy support and emergency relief for charities. We are working now, through the royal commission, in and around some reforms with the charity sector to make sure that it's more targeted and that the Australian public can have confidence that the money they are putting out goes to where it's needed. The last big piece of this recovery is just under $450 million for what we call local economic recovery plans. We are engaging in empowering local communities to tell us what the long-term rebuilding of their communities will look like: what is the infrastructure that will help them diversify and grow after this disaster? We are partnering with each state, I again congratulate the states for matching our funding on this so that it will go even further. We are working through with these local communities on what that will look like, and through the National Bushfire Recovery Agency we are getting that money out on the ground. South Australia was the very first state to get going—in fact we worked on a desalination plant on Kangaroo Island. Now we're working with Victoria. They've signed up. Queensland has already signed up to the process. New South Wales were the last to sign up, but they had the biggest scarred area, so it was important that we got that right. We'll continue to work with these communities in their recovery, making sure that the money is targeted and that the solutions to their recovery are local, not Canberra-led. 11:16 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin The work of these portfolio agencies has never been more important. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the minister for emergency management and the agencies that he's responsible for within this portfolio. The work that individuals did in that agency in conjunction with the states and many Australians over the summer is something all of us in this place acknowledge and pay tribute to. But of course there are many broader issues in the Home Affairs portfolio that are particularly important right now. The work that people in that department do and have been doing to keep us safe through the pandemic and the work that needs to be done in a policy sense as well as an operational sense to restart a migration program are going to be fundamentally important to not only our economic prospects but also maintaining our social cohesion as the world's greatest example of a multicultural society. There are very significant challenges there that my colleagues and I are keen to explore in terms of the matters contained in these budget statements, particularly when it comes to the great threat that is posed to these issues by the rise of right-wing extremism and racism more generally. My colleague and friend the member for Cowan will be exploring that. There are other big challenges at a processing level. I'm concerned, as many others are, by the ongoing issue of citizenship delays. I acknowledge that there has been progress, but that progress has been too slow. In this area, as in so many other areas, we've seen the government very keen to announce its achievements before they have in fact been achieved. The area of citizenship, which is such an emotional and important issue, is a very significant exemplar of that. It is an area where the government needs to do much better. There is also the area of visas. I was very proud to have stood with my Labor colleagues in resisting the government's plan to privatise our visa system this year, and I'm pleased to acknowledge that in March of this year that plan was abandoned. That saved 2,000 jobs—2,000 critical jobs—involved in this work. But it also costs Australians $91.9 million. The problem remains. I ask the minister: are our systems fit for purpose? Has the case made for a visa modernisation process, as it was described, been met? Did the $91.9 million assist in managing visa wait times, particularly for partner visa? We've seen wait times almost double over the life of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. Minister, has this achieved value for money for the Australian people? We also had the recent announcement of the acting minister for immigration about a digitisation of the incoming passenger card and visa simplification. In estimates it was revealed that this will cost $75 million. That's not the capital cost; that is the cost of procurement, as I understand it. Perhaps the acting minister for immigration can confirm that: is it the case that the $75 million is just for a procurement process? Minister, can you more broadly assure Australians and this place that systems will be in place to ensure our visa system is as it should be to meet the needs of restarting a migration program that's so fundamental to who we are and to our economic prospects, or has the $161 million been wasted on a fool's errand? One hundred and sixty-one million dollars and nothing to show for it in an area that is so fundamentally important. There is no indication that we have the systems that are fit for purpose, nor fit to do the work with the fantastic hard-working public servants who do such important work and, as we all know through our electorate offices, have been under such pressure during these unprecedented times. Another very significant issue in this budget is the cut to our humanitarian program, a 20,000 person cut over the forward estimates. This is a cut characterised, like so many other issues in this portfolio, as something that's taken place without consultation and without any particular focus on what it means, other than presumably its impact on the bottom line. There is also some uncertainty in remarks as to whether the number 13,750 is in fact a cap. I ask if the minister could directly address that? Could the minister also advise us when he is going to take up New Zealand's generous offer to resettle, and otherwise update the House on his progress in third country resettlement options for refugees? The minister should be able to tell this place and the Australian people that he is as committed as we are to being tough on our borders without being weak on humanity. 11:20 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I am going to put a question to the acting minister for migration, but before I do I want to make some personal and other observations. My grandmother was born in a small town in Germany called Budingen near Frankfurt. As the Nazis came to power the family had a housekeeper, a woman called Katie Popp. I wouldn't be here in this chamber without Katie Popp because Katie sensed more than most what was happening and what it meant for my grandmother's family to be Jewish because people stopped serving her in shops. They started to shun her not because she was Jewish but because she worked for a Jewish family. My grandmother died in 1969 and I never met her. But Katie lived well into the early nineties. I remember as a small boy going to her place, enjoying a sense of the German culture that she had, enjoying the beautiful cakes and hearing her speak English with a thick German accent. I tell this story because I'm reminded of the way in which Katie learnt English in Australia in the 1930s and 1940s. She, like the rest of the family, loved dogs. She used to take the dogs for a walk in the park and would strike up conversations with people. Through those conversations she gradually picked up the English language. That may have been an acceptable way for people to learn English in the 1930s and 1940s, through osmosis, if your first language was German—German giving English many of its roots. But if your first language is Mandarin, if it's Farsi, if it's Arabic, if it's Korean, if it's Hindi, or any of the other Indian languages, how much more difficult it is to do that today? The minister made an excellent speech, if I may say, at the National Press Club recently where he looked at the issues around the challenges we face in social inclusion and in economic opportunities for people who live in this country who don't speak English. The figures from the census are quite alarming. There are over 819,937 people who don't speak English. One of the great strengths of Australia is its cultural and ethnic diversity. It's one of the things that make it such a wonderful place to live, that we have successfully absorbed migrants from the four corners of the earth. But if you don't have English your opportunities to contribute to the country, economically and socially, and your capacity to engage other Australians is much more limited than it could be. In my own electorate there are 4,944 people who have little or no English. Of those who came in the last 10 years there are 1,413 people. And of the total national figure over 44,000 people have been here for more than 50 years and have little or no English. This isn't just a problem for individual social inclusion; it's a problem for the stability and strength of Australia as a society. The former chief rabbi of the Commonwealth, Jonathan Sacks, who died at the weekend, wrote a beautiful book called the Home We Build Together about how to strengthen multicultural societies. I want to quote from his book, from an observation he made about his father when he came to Britain from Poland. He said: My father came to Britain from Poland in the first decade of the twentieth century. What might he have done had he come a century later? In those days he had to learn English to make contact with the world outside. He acquired British culture; he admired it; he made sure we, his four sons, made ourselves at home in it. He had no choice; neither did we. Had he come today he could watch Polish television, listen to Polish radio, read the Polish press. Through internet technologies he could be in spoken and visual contact with friends and family thousands of miles distant, as if they were living next door. His 'hello; would imply no 'goodbye'. Physically he might be here, but mentally he might still be there. The technology that Sacks speaks about makes our world terrific and allows us to have connections, but it presents a real challenge for societies today to ensure that the integration we desire, as a society and as individuals, is ultimately successful. The adult migrant Adult Migrant English Program is over 40 years old. In my own electorate, the Hornsby TAFE conducts courses in the Adult Migrant English Program, and I had the privilege of going a couple of years ago and sitting in on those classes. People came to those classes with Asian, Middle Eastern and European language backgrounds, and the program has been a success. But the fact that we have still over 800,000 Australians who speak little or no English indicates that we need to do better. My question to the minister is: how will the reforms that minister is making to the Adult Migrant English Program change the opportunities for people in Australia who can't speak English and allow us as a society to be stronger, more cohesive and more united? 11:26 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I have a few questions about cybersecurity aspects of the Home Affairs portfolio. On 30 June 2020, the Prime Minister announced $35 million in funding to deliver 'a new cyberthreat-sharing platform for industry and government to share intelligence about malicious cyberactivity as part of the 2020 cybersecurity strategy'. But this wasn't the first time the government announced a cyberthreat-sharing platform for industry and government. On 21 April 2016, 1,531 days before, the government announced in the 2016 cybersecurity strategy that it would 'establish a layered approach for sharing real-time public-private cyberthreat information through an online cyberthreat-sharing portal'. The strategy further provided that this threat-sharing portal would enable 'a broad range of organisations to share information on a secure online cyberthreat-sharing portal, including the results of analysis by the joint cyberthreat-sharing centres'. Funding was then allocated to the Attorney-General's Department to deliver this platform, and it sat unexpended on the budget papers for the next four years. The 2020 Cyber Security Strategy Industry Advisory Panel report on the cybersecurity strategy noted the surprise of industry that a real-time government-industry threat-sharing intel platform hadn't been delivered, stating: There is clear appetite from industry for real-time sharing of threat information. The Panel was surprised to learn that technical limitations currently prevent the Australian Cyber Security Centre from meeting these requests. ASD indicated in answers to questions on notice from Senate estimates last year that it had undertaken an approach to market to select a commercial off-the-shelf cyberthreat intelligence management and sharing capability, due to be delivered by 30 June 2020, which turned out to be the day that the Prime Minister reannounced a cyberthreat-sharing platform with new funding, as part of the 2020 cybersecurity strategy. My question for the minister is: why did the government fail to follow through on the delivery of the threat-sharing platform announced in the 2016 cybersecurity strategy for four years? Why did the Prime Minister then reannounce this threat-sharing platform in the 2020 cybersecurity strategy? I have another question about vulnerability disclosure processes and bug bounties. The ACSC's Securing the internet of things for consumers: code of practice advises developers to implement a vulnerability disclosure policy—'a public point of contact as part of a vulnerability disclosure policy in order for security researchers and others to report issues'. The code further recommends that manufacturers have 'a bug bounty program' to encourage users to report vulnerabilities. The code further states, 'The Australian government recommends industry prioritise vulnerability disclosure as it will bring the largest security benefits in the short term.' My question is: why does the Commonwealth government not follow this best-practice security advice in the IT services that it offers to Australian citizens? There's no vulnerability disclosure policy published for the COVIDSafe app or myGov or any other IT services delivered by the government. The government has never run a bug bounty program. Is this a case of the government telling manufacturers, 'Do as I say, not as I do,' on cybersecurity? Why does the Commonwealth believe it's more important for an internet connected fridge to be protected by a vulnerability disclosure process and bug bounties than the COVIDSafe app? Malcolm Turnbull's 2016 cybersecurity strategy established a dedicated role in the ministry for cybersecurity. After Malcolm Turnbull's ousting, one of the first acts of the current Prime Minister was to abolish that role and wrap the responsibilities into the Home Affairs portfolio. Since then, cybersecurity policy-making has been politically orphaned. Industry publication ZDNet reflected industry's views on these arrangements, after observing the media conference launching the 2020 cybersecurity strategy—the Home Affairs minister's first dedicated press conference on cybersecurity, well over a year into the role—with the headline 'Does Peter Dutton understand his own cyberstrategy?' The article concluded, 'The minister is already spread thin across this sprawling department. How well do we think this strategy will progress under his leadership?' Those views were echoed by former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, who noted on the Risky Business podcast, 'Part of the problem is that probably since I left there isn't anyone at a senior level taking an interest in cybersecurity. There isn't a minister for cybersecurity. I don't think Scott Morrison is particularly interested in it or familiar with it.' I think you need a minister who is clearly responsible for cybersecurity, someone who is prepared to actually learn. It has to be someone who is not a once-over light skimmer of things. It has to be someone who is a bit nerdy. My question to minister then is: when can the Australian people expect real leadership on cybersecurity and the appointment of a dedicated member of the executive with responsibility for cybersecurity, someone that's willing to learn, someone who is a bit of a nerd and not just a skimmer? When am I going to get someone as an opposite number who is actually interested in cybersecurity policy and the issues that underlie it? 11:31 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston Let me address a few of the questions which have been put so far. Firstly, in relation to citizenship ceremonies, in the last 12 months we've had record numbers of people becoming citizens. More than 200,000 people, in fact, pledged their allegiance to Australia in 2020, which is a 60 per cent increase on the previous year. We have very much got on top of the backlog that was there previously, in part due to COVID. Secondly, in relation to the permissions platform which the shadow minister was asking about and the $75 million which has been allocated in the budget, the answer is no, that's not just for procurement. Of course that's not the case. In fact, that money goes to procurement and processing costs, ICT preparations, biometric and identity systems developments, business case developments et cetera. So it's a full suite of things which that funding will be going towards. In relation to the humanitarian questions which the shadow minister asked, he asked directly whether this was in fact a cap. It is a cap. It's no longer a target. That was a decision which was made in this particular budget. Of course the 13,750 figure, if achieved this financial year, will in fact, be a higher number than it was last financial year, when the figure was in the low 13,000s. With that figure, we'll still be the third most generous country in the world, on an absolute basis, in relation to our humanitarian intake. Finally, in my last three minutes let me address the member for Berowra's question in relation to English language. I commend him, first of all, for the outstanding remarks that he just made in relation to English language, when he pointed out the critical importance of it for our social cohesion. It was a beautiful story that he gave himself, which he related to this chamber. I'll give a couple more stats on that. Today, of those who do not speak English, only 13 per cent are in work. I'll say that again. Only 13 per cent of those who don't speak English in Australia today are in a job. That's the employment rate, not the unemployment rate. If you do speak English, it's well into the 60s. Today you cannot properly engage fully in the employment market, or you certainly have great difficulty doing so, without English. This has changed from the 1950s and 1960s, when that English language wasn't so much required. Today, with the occupational health and safety requirements, you do need that English to have the best opportunity of getting work. Those statistics which I just outlined indicate that. It's not the case that just by being in Australia you'll naturally pick up the English language. The data doesn't support that. Fifty per cent of people who have been here for 15 years still don't have English language. So we are making three fundamental changes to support migrants to learn English. First, we're completely opening up the accessibility for our free adult English language programs. This means that any migrant at any time can get as many hours of English language tuition as they need. Second, we're improving the quality of those courses. That work is being undertaken now and, when the next contracts go out, we'll be insisting that there is better performance by those providers to get better outcomes, because we haven't been getting the outcomes we would like to see. Third, we will place higher expectations upon individuals to take up the English language courses which are available to them. In particular, we're asking people who are applying for partner visas to make a reasonable effort to learn English before they put in their permanent residency application. In most cases, 'reasonable efforts' will be defined as simply taking part in those free English language classes. There's nothing fixed. We're not setting a standard. There's no bar. We're just asking for a reasonable effort while they're here in Australia before they get their permanent residency. We think those three things will make a substantial difference. It will help the individuals, it will give them the best chance of seizing all the great opportunities in Australia, and it will add to our social cohesion so that we can all communicate together and, ultimately, continue our success as the greatest multicultural country in the world. 11:36 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan My questions are to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. I refer to the minister's indications that changes will be made to the citizenship test to include new questions on Australian values and his comments in the media that the stronger focus on Australian values in citizenship testing will be an important part of helping protect our social cohesion into the future. My questions are: does the minister condone the comments made by Senator Abetz in a Senate inquiry in which he asked three witnesses of Australian-Asian heritage to denounce the PRC under the guise of Australian values? What does the minister mean by 'Australian values'? Can the minister provide a checklist of what it means to be Australian that can be quantifiably verified through robust research methodologies? Does the minister consider that members of the government uphold these said values? Does the minister consider that Senator Abetz should offer an apology to the three witnesses he confronted? The Australian people deserve to know what this government means when they say 'Australian values'. They deserve to know at what point their Australianness is considered enough. Is it when they have been here 50 years? Is it when they've been born here? Is it when they've lived here all their lives and have never gone overseas to another country? While I am here, I may also ask the minister further questions about the changes to English language classes. The minister has stated that recent migrants will be able to access English classes for free until they have functional English, which the government defines as having the language skills to participate in society. I note that there have been further details given on this provision, but my questions really go to testing and functionality, so I pose the following questions to the government: while we welcome the lifting of the cap of 510 hours, which returns the AMEP to the level of functionality it had pre the mid-1990s, is the minister also considering amending the threshold for functional English competency from its current ISLPR 2? My second question is: considering that research suggests that it takes six months on average to progress 0.5 of a level across all four macro skills, reading, writing, speaking and listening, if an individual with zero to minimal literacy arrives in Australia and is eligible for AMEP, it's likely that they could take up to three years to achieve a functional ISLPR 2. Has the government received any advice as to the potential cost of this and the additional funding and resources that would need to be allocated to the AMEP to meet this demand? My third question is: what measures is the government putting in place to ensure that current inequities in the provision of AMEP are addressed so that women on partner visas, for example, are given equal opportunity to learn English even if they are not pursuing English for vocational purposes? Will these women have the same access to structured classes taught by a qualified TESOL practitioner in a formal setting? The current English language testing regime for immigration is not fit for purpose and is inconsistent. The five accredited tests, the OET, the PTE, the TOEFL, the IELTS and the Cambridge test, are diverse in their operation, in their purpose and in their standards. Each test has different levels or standards by which candidates are assessed, and they cannot be uniformly standardised or equivocated. Further, IELTS is widely used for immigration purposes in Australia, but it was not designed for those purposes. It was designed primarily to assess prospective university entrants. It's not suited to assessing English language proficiency for a wide range of prospective migrants. Given that context, what measures is the government taking to fix the English language testing regime for immigration purposes? Is the government considering including the ISLPR, which is widely used in Australia, in that testing regime? Has the government fully assessed the social and economic impacts of its proposal to test potential partner visa applicants for English language competency? What level of English language competency does the minister deem 'functional', and is this across all four macro skills? Is the minister aware that functional competency in oral skills is more readily acquired than functional competency in written skills? Has the minister undertaken to fully understand the functional competency skills required for different workplace participation, including levels of functional competency across all four macro skills in different workplaces? For example, somebody working in a job that requires primarily physical tasks would need to have a lower level of written competency. How does the minister propose to assess functional proficiency across these different skills requirements? 11:41 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. But, before I get to the question, I want to provide the House with a little bit of context first. As I've spoken about before, I'm a dad of two wonderful young children, and, like all parents, there is nothing that worries me more every single day than keeping my kids safe and the kids of Australia safe. For many of us, as a prosperous and secure nation, what we want is a safe future for our kids—and, for many of us, it has brought us to this place. But, unfortunately, the reality of the world we are living in is that there are lurking threats that are prevalent that we must always be guarding against—threats that are of the most vile and sickening nature that we can imagine. Criminals are using technological advances to collaborate in order to commit these kinds of child sexual offences and then to circulate child abuse material. An increase in criminals' online capability and the advances, such as end-to-end encryption, have seen the rise of these types of crime, and it's becoming a lot harder for our experts in our law enforcement agencies to find. I really want to commend the Minister for Home Affairs for recently calling out some of these technology companies for simply not doing enough to take responsibility for the technology that they have created that is thereby facilitating this kind of horrific act. They're also, frankly, using the cover of COVID. Using a global pandemic in such a way to hide their crimes and to increase their crimes is sickening to all Australians. I can think of nothing more abhorrent than these acts, and nothing should be more important to the parliament, frankly, than stopping these predators in their tracks. I particularly commend this government for the efforts that it has made to find these criminals, to stop them from reoffending, to remove these children from harm and exploitation and to prevent further offences. Recently, I visited the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, known as ACCCE. The centre was put together and pioneered by the Morrison government, under the stewardship of the Minister for Home Affairs. The centre is a hub with one important goal, and that is to tackle the online exploitation of children, and the organisations that the ACCCE brings together are world-leading in achieving this goal. Obviously, I would prefer that the risk simply didn't exist, but the reality of our world is that it does—and, if it does, then we must have the most up-to-date and best resources for our crime-fighting agencies in order to bring them to justice. So I'm delighted that the ACCCE is located in my home of Brisbane and brings together resources from a number of government agencies, law enforcement agencies and non-government organisations. The ACCCE allows for a centralised hub where specialists have the tools and capabilities they need in order to achieve their mission. And their mission is very simple, and one that we all embrace and support them in every single day, and that is children free from any exploitation both online and in the real world. Frankly, I have never met a group of people like those that I met at the ACCCE, who are so steadfastly focused on their goal at hand. Every individual that I met is focused and motivated by the importance of their role to Australian families and to the Australian community. They are truly remarkable individuals, and I think we should take absolutely every opportunity at hand to thank them for the incredible work that they do. We can only imagine what is involved in identifying these threats, working through thousands upon thousands of reports and sifting through some of the most truly horrendous images that would ever confront anyone—and many of them do it as parents themselves. They show a resolve which is uplifting, which is to be commended—a resolve that we can all aspire to in this House—to go about their job in a way that protects Australia's kids. I am proud to stand as part of this government, who have committed over $68 million over four years to the establishment and continuation of the ACCCE. Already the unit has seen significant results. Last financial year, 134 children were removed from harm thanks to the partnerships at the ACCCE and those dedicated police officers. That is 134 children who are no longer in harm's way because of the incredible work done by these officers. To the Minister for Home Affairs, my question is simple: will he further outline how the Morrison government is keeping Australian kids safe from these vile acts of child exploitation both online and in the real world and how they are actively being removed from harm because of the work of the officers at the ACCCE and because of the funding provided by the Morrison government? 11:46 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Communities across Eden-Monaro still very much bear the scars of the Black Summer bushfires. While we lost so much—lives, hundreds of homes and millions of animals—we stand united in our bid to build back better. Over the past couple of months, I've been meeting with community organisations across the electorate who are desperate to prepare for the next bushfire season. In Bega, the local Rotary group is currently crowdfunding to upgrade the toilets at the showgrounds to make them fully accessible for when the community needs to evacuate again. In Cobargo, the Cobargo Community Bushfire Recovery Fund is currently exploring multiple avenues, including crowdfunding, to build an evacuation centre for when disaster strikes again. In Eden, it's a similar story. The community there is trying to scrape together funds to upgrade a sporting facility to double as an evacuation centre, to provide a hub for the community in times of emergency. It's not a case of if; it's when. I've championed these projects to you and I thank you for hearing me out. The communities of Bega, Eden and Cobargo were all devastated by the last bushfire season and are doing everything they can to protect themselves for the upcoming bushfire season. Yet, despite this, the government has refused to release a cent from its $4 billion Emergency Response Fund, which is set up to, in part, fund mitigation and resilience projects. I've heard the line about how this fund can only be activated if there are no other emergency response funding avenues available. My question to you is: why have some communities been left to crowdfund for toilet block upgrades and evacuation centres, when you have a $4 billion Emergency Response Fund sitting untouched? Minister Littleproud, this week you were forced to correct the record and admit that your government has undertaken no formal consultation with the federal opposition on mitigation projects that could potentially be funded from this $4 billion Emergency Response Fund. How is it that, 18 months on from the establishment of this fund, you are yet to formally begin the consultation process with some federal MPs? You say this issue is above politics, so why are you leaving some opposition MPs out in the cold? Way back in June this year, the Prime Minister stood up during the Eden-Monaro by-election and announced a second round of funding for primary producers, covering apple growers, forestry and wine producers. At the time, the Prime Minister and Minister Littleproud made a big song and dance about the support this government would provide for primary producers in my electorate. Two weeks later, the government lost the by-election. It's taken many months for the government to approach the industry about funding, and dollars are still yet to hit the ground. Small-business owners that the government promised immediate relief for back in January waited months for the opportunity to even apply for funding they were relying on to keep their businesses afloat. In March, Scott Morrison admitted that the process was taking too long, and his government was forced to rejig its bushfire recovery support. Even now, with the latest round of primary producer funding, the National Bushfire Recovery Agency refuse to reveal, through estimates, exactly how much support has actually been provided to apple growers, wine producers and the forestry industry in bushfire electorates. My question to you is: why is it, in the middle of a by-election, the Prime Minister is full of announcements, but bushfire communities are then forced to wait months for any follow-through? In May, the Prime Minister announced that government would begin rolling out economic recovery plans in bushfire communities. Again, bushfire communities were forced to wait for months for any sign that these economic recovery plans were in the works. I understand that rebuilding communities takes time, but these economic recovery plans were just another example of the Prime Minister making a big announcement with little follow-up. Finally, last week, we saw signs of the funding for New South Wales communities. This is great news and I welcome it. But now we're in another bushfire season and communities have been waiting months to get their lives back on track. What's worse is that we're not seeing funding for the second stream of economic funding available through the New South Wales Bushfire Local Economic Recovery Fund until April next year. Why are affected industries being forced to wait more than a year after the 2019-20 bushfire season to receive bushfire economic recovery funding? 11:50 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I would like to address two of the issues which were raised by the former speaker in relation to citizenship tests and also English-language provision. On the citizenship test, the changes that we have made are very clearly documented in the citizenship booklet which is provided before each applicant does their citizenship test. They will see very clearly in that booklet some of the core principles which have underpinned Australia's success: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, democracy, the rule of law, and the paramounts of parliamentary democracy and parliamentary law over other religious laws. Those are the types of issues which are outlined in that document, and those are the types of issues which will be contained in the new updated citizenship test. In relation to English language, I was being asked about whether the standard was functional English and how it was defined. I can inform the member that, in part of our reforms to the Adult Migrant English Language Program, we are lifting the threshold to vocational level rather than just functional level. This has already been stated publicly. This is one of the reform measures. Of course, this is not the requirement for a person if they are applying for permanent residency through their partner visa. It is not to reach any particular standard. It's simply to make a reasonable effort to do some English-language classes. That would typically be defined by doing hours of those classes. That's an important change we are making and it's in recognition that some people may want to do more hours of classes until they get to that slightly higher level of vocational English. Some other changes are included, and these have been outlined already in the bill that was presented to the House. I note that the Senate is considering this bill presently. It removes the 510-hour statutory limit on eligible persons' entitlement to English-language tuition. It amends the upper limit for eligibility to access English tuition to a new level of vocational English, which I said. It removes the statutory time limits for registering, commencing and completing English tuition for people who hold a visa and were in Australia on or before October 2020. That means that, if you've been here for 10 years already and your English is still not as good as you'd like it to be, you can still partake in those free English-language classes, which you couldn't have done previously. These are very significant changes. It's particularly important, as I think the member for Berowra was pointing out, that, if your native tongue is linguistically distant from English, it will often take you more hours to learn English than if your native tongue is Latin based. Consequently, a person may need 2,000 hours, for example, and they will be able to take up all of those hours if they need them and want to do that, and they can go all the way up to vocational levels. These are important changes to the accessibility of free English language classes to migrants. As I said, we're working on the quality of those classes as well, which we think is important. We think work can be done on that. Furthermore, we're placing some expectations upon people. It is in the individual's interests as much as in society's interests to have a reasonable command of the English language, because it helps that individual participate fully in Australian society. That's what Australian society is about. It is about welcoming people from around the world and integrating them fully into our great multicultural community. We want to fully support that and fully support those individuals to learn the English language so that they can fully participate in our great democracy and our great communities and fully participate in our great multicultural society. 11:55 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce This is terrific. This is the one time of the year that we get the minister to sit here for an hour and actually answer some questions about what's going on. It's a chance, Minister, for you to apologise, to explain and to actually answer some questions of the almost 100,000 Australians who are stuck in your black hole of a department waiting for their partner visa to be processed. When Labor left office it took about six to 12 months, if you fell in love with someone from overseas, to get a visa. Under this government and this acting minister—God knows what he's up to most days—it now takes two to three years. Unbelievably, in the last two weeks he has taken the waiting times off the website, so nearly 100,000 Australians have no idea how long it's going to take them to be reunited with their loved one. There he is over there having a chat. Minister, you can answer the question: why did you remove the waiting times from the website? What have you got to hide? For every one of those 100,000 Australians desperate to be with the person that they love, how long are they going to have to wait? This is literally destroying the relationships of Australians. That's not hyperbole. Every week in my electorate office we get calls and we get people knocking on the door to bring their paperwork in who are wanting to know what's happening. People are crying in the foyer and on the phone. It's part of being Australian, to fall in love with someone from overseas. People love who they love. We've got parents who've never met their children, who only know their children on Zoom and WhatsApp. We've got a woman right now, this week, who's 42 and wants to start a family. Her biological clock is ticking. She has no idea now whether she'll ever be able to have children. Nothing from the department. Since you've been in office you've cut the number of partner visas issued each year. We believe you've used an illegal method. Section 87 of the Migration Act, as you well know, Minister, says that you have no power to cap the number of partner visas issued every year. The parliament did not give you that power, yet you use this administrative mechanism. I ask the minister: have you got legal advice that what you're doing is legal? If so, what does that advice say? Prove to the parliament that what you are doing is even legal. Of course, the government suffered enormous backlash, with nearly 100,000 people furious at this never-ending delay. The spin sounds good in the budget but the devil is in the detail. The government said—and this is a good step, a small step, but not sufficient—they'll finally clear out some of the mess that's in this black hole of a Department of Home Affairs. That's a good thing, Minister. You've said you'll process about 70,000 visas this year that are overdue, and that's welcome. But what about the thousands of people who applied for a visa offshore who are currently here in Australia waiting? I've got constituents who are now literally booking flights to go to Singapore and then come back, and taking a quarantine space that should be used for a stranded Australian. The minister could fix this now. He could grant these offshore visas onshore by changing the migration regulations, but the government refuses to do so. We've got hundreds if not thousands of Australians taking the quarantine spots of people who should be able to come home. But I believe the nastiest impact of these budget measures that you've put in place is blatant discrimination. The government said that they might process a few of the offshore visa applications if these people live in a regional area. Minister, why are you discriminating against people who live in cities who fall in love with someone from overseas? Why is the love of someone who lives in a regional area worth more than the love of someone who lives in a city? Minister, could you please tell Australians—he has his back turned! He's not listening to anything. I don't know how he's going to answer a question, but I'll keep going. Minister, could you please tell Australians: what is a regional area? Which cities are not going to be able to have their partners come to Australia if they fall in love? The other aspect—and this is really nasty discrimination, and the government knows it—is that if you happen to fall in love with someone from a nice, white, Western country you're going to get a visitor visa to come here and wait, but if you happen to fall in love with someone from Africa or the Middle East or South-East Asia or India or parts of China you're in a black hole; you'll never have any hope of being reunited with the person you love. The practical impact is discrimination. With regard to prospective marriage visas, Minister, you said, 'You might get a refund, but you might not.' Can you give a clear commitment to people on when you're going to change the regulations, which you need to do to implement the budget measure, so that these prospective marriage visas can be extended? Are people guaranteed of getting a refund? If so, in what circumstance? The core question for people there is: how long are they going to have to wait? I'll put another few questions on the record to the Minister for Home Affairs: how many stranded Australians is the minister going to abandon overseas this Christmas? How many stranded Australians abandoned by the minister are medically or financial vulnerable? Why isn't the minister and the Morrison government doing more to help stranded Australians get home, and what is the minister's advice for stranded Australians and their families who are still unable to get home during this deadly pandemic? 12:00 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston At the outset, I want to say to the member for Bruce that it is utterly offensive to suggest that this government or the department of foreign affairs somehow conduct a racist immigration policy. It is offensive—and he knows that—and it's a disgrace for him to be suggesting it. He should know better than that. This government and Australia have had a non-discriminatory immigration policy now for decades under successive governments, Labor and Liberal governments. For him to come into this place under parliamentary privilege and make such accusations— Mr Hill interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Member for Bruce! The minister is entitled to be heard in silence. Mr TUDGE M2Y It is deeply offensive, and he knows it. He's saying it deliberately under parliamentary privilege here. He should ashamed of himself for saying such things. This government proudly has a non-discriminatory immigration program. Successive governments have had a non-discriminatory immigration program. To come in here and suggest, as he did, that we have somehow done otherwise is a disgrace, and he should absolutely reject that. Mr Hill interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Member for Bruce! Mr TUDGE M2Y He continues to interject in relation to this point. He's still making the arguments, and he continues to do so now. I simply point out that we have a non-discriminatory immigration program. That will continue. By the very nature of the program we have, people come from all corners of the world, from China, India, Africa, South America, the Americas, Europe, New Zealand—you name it—every corner of the world. It changes each year depending on where the demand is coming from. In each case, people get considered on their merits. Their security checks are done on their merits. Their applications are assessed on their merits. We are the great, successful country that we are today in very large part because of the successful immigration program that successive governments have run for decade upon decade. When the pandemic is over, this country will again continue to be a great immigration country. We will continue to be the greatest multicultural country in the world. So I will not stand for the member for Bruce coming in here and making a slur not just on this government but on Australia in suggesting that we have a policy such as he was suggesting. We do not. In relation to the partner visas, the member would fully aware that in this budget we almost doubled—almost doubled—the number of partner permanent residency visas for this financial year. That was in part in recognition of the sheer numbers that were applying for that partner residency visa. About 90 per cent of the entire family program is made up of partner permanent residency visas, and consequently we almost doubled that for this financial year. That will address many of the issues that the member has raised. But I also point out that most people are actually already here in Australia when they are applying for that permanent residency visa. And they will stay here, because while they're waiting for that permanent residency visa to be applied they'll be put on a bridging visa. So there is no question about them not being here in the country with their loved ones, Mr Hill interjecting— Mr TUDGE M2Y The member for Bruce constantly interjects. He is aware of the answers to these questions, and he's just making assertions which are incorrect. This government has almost doubled the number of permanent residency partner visas in this budget. Mr Hill interjecting— Mr TUDGE M2Y He's constantly interjecting now on different points. The final point that he raised, which again I will address directly, was in relation to what's called the visa application charges. We've made some considerable changes to that in recognition that people may have paid their fee but been unable to get into the country. So we've either waived or deferred those fees or effectively given people a voucher. That is all outlined publicly in my press release also. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Consideration in Detail 95 12:06 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney I thank the chamber for the opportunity to make an opening statement. The Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio currently has 14 agencies that receive appropriations from the government. The 2020-21 budget supply and appropriations bills provided the portfolio with appropriations for ordinary annual services of $2.2 billion in 2021. The total appropriations for the portfolio include half a billion dollars for functions not related to Indigenous affairs. Minister Wyatt will discuss the budget measures received by Indigenous agencies within the portfolio shortly. Included in the total funding for the portfolio, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will be provided with appropriations for ordinary annual services of $246 million in 2020-21. The average staffing level for the portfolio is 4,712. It should be noted that a substantial portion of the staff of the portfolio is funded through external revenue receipts that were not appropriated to entities within the portfolio by an annual appropriation act or another act. The 2020-21 budget delivered a number of important measures led by the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. These include supporting communities impacted by the catastrophic bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Prime Minister announced the establishment of the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission on 25 March 2020. It was renamed the National COVID-19 Commission Advisory Board on 27 July 2020. The name change reflects its strategic advisory role in providing businesses' perspective to government on Australia's economic recovery. The advisory board will provide support and effort to the government's plans for Australia's economic recovery and help get Australians back into jobs. The 2020-21 budget is an economic recovery plan with a renewed focus on making it easier for businesses to operate, invest and create jobs. The government will provide $14.2 million over the next two years to the Deregulation Taskforce and to regulatory performance functions within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet as part of the wider JobMaker plan deregulation package. The Deregulation Taskforce will provide additional support to help National Cabinet drive an ambitious recovery and oversee the implementation of measures. The regulatory performance function will support regulatory agencies to improve accountability and transparency, to build capability and drive a culture of regulator excellence. I was pleased to announce this initiative last month. Placing this regulatory performance policy function at the centre of government will increase accountability, promote best practice, build professionalism of regulators and drive cultural change. This isn't about a more systematic expectation-setting, reporting, monitoring and promoting culture of regulator excellence across the Commonwealth. It's about better coordination and data sharing, more rational and ultimately effective risk based compliance monitoring, and footprint mapping, with a view to possible streamlining. The government is committed to supporting women's economic security through the 2020-22 Economic Women's Security Statement. This will support women who have been impacted by COVID-19 and complement the government's JobMaker plan. The department will receive $47.9 million over four years to expand the existing Women's Leadership and Development Program. In addition to creating employment, the funding will also bolster existing priority areas, including women's safety by supporting women experiencing domestic, family and sexual violence to return to and retain work. Minister Ley will be able to provide further details on the 2020-22 Women's Economic Security Statement and package during her statement today. The government will provide the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet additional resourcing of $39.2 million over four years to support the government's policy priorities, including its COVID-19 response and establishing ICT systems for the Office of the National Data Commissioner to regulate public sector data sharing and release. The government has recognised the importance of critical technology and has committed $5.6 million over two years to improve the government's capability to identify assets that address national security related issues for critical technologies. This includes the establishment of the Critical Technologies Policy Coordination Office within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, enhanced international engagement and expanding the Department of Defence's role in assessing trends in emerging technology. The government will also provide the Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General additional resourcing of $18 million over four years. The office plays a pivotal role in supporting the Governor-General and administering the Australian Honours and Awards System. The funding will support ongoing community engagement, the processing of national emergency medal and the office to undertake necessary ICT upgrades. The National Drought and North Queensland Flood Response and Recovery Agency will receive $19.6 million in 2021-22 to extend the drought support offered to affected communities. Old Parliament House will receive $1.9 million over three years to undertake critical urgent works to the heritage listed buildings, to ensure public safety and asset repairs. The Australian National Audit Office will receive $69.4 million in appropriations for ordinary annual services in 2020-21. I thank the committee for the opportunity to set out the portfolio's budget measures and to give a brief insight in how they'll benefit our community and our economy. I thank the hardworking staff of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for their support for the government's priorities. 12:11 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland My question is so the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister—an assistant minister representing a Prime Minister without a credible plan to power Australia's economy out of recession. This Morrison recession is the first recession in Australia in nearly 30 years, and it is the worst recession since the 1920s. The Morrison recession has cost hundreds of thousands of Australians their jobs. It has shattered the living standards and hopes of millions of Australians. It risks consigning a generation of young people to years of unemployment and underemployment. And it risks assigning a large cohort of mature workers to uncertainty about whether and when their jobs are coming back. The Morrison recession is Australia's most urgent economic challenge in living memory. It is a recession which was precipitated by the coronavirus pandemic but is a recession which has been exacerbated by the policy failures of the Morrison government. The recession is deeper because this government ignored the economic warning signs during 2019, and the recession risks being longer because the Prime Minister has no plan for jobs, no plan for growth and no plan for the challenges of the future—challenges like climate change, the impact of technological change on the workforce, the need to boost productivity and the need to tackle rising inequality. They have no agenda for economic recovery and they have no agenda for building a better Australia. The reason they have no plan is because this is a Prime Minister obsessed with marketing slogans and politics—a Prime Minister always there for the photo op but never there for the follow-up, moving on from one marketing slogan to the next, never delivering and always leaving too many ordinary Australians behind. The government has just delivered a budget that racks up a trillion dollars of debt. But, for all the spending and all the debt, the budget will not create the jobs Australians need. On the latest ABS data, the unemployment rate is 6.9 per cent—and we know the effective unemployment rate is closer to 10 per cent. On this government's settings, unemployment will be too high for too long. Another 160,000 Australians will be added to the ranks of the jobless by the end of the year. We have 2.6 million Australians right now who are either out of work or desperately need more hours in the job they have. The jobless rate won't get back to pre-recession levels for more than four years. Budget forecasts have the official unemployment rate still at 6.5 per cent in June 2022 and 5.5 per cent in June 2024. Treasury's modelling shows economic slack will continue over the next five years, with GDP below its potential until 2025. This is a national jobs crisis which the government is failing to address. By contrast, the Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, has laid out a plan to make this generational crisis the start of a new era of prosperity and fairness. It's a plan that's about creating the jobs we need today and training our people for the jobs of the future, making quality child care a right for all families, easing pressure on living standards and giving women more opportunities in the workforce, rebuilding Australia's manufacturing sector, creating jobs and opportunities for skilled workers and powering our economic recovery with investment in clean energy and new electricity transmission infrastructure. The contrast is clear. Labor has presented a plan that puts jobs first and the future first. The coalition is withdrawing support for jobs and just telling Australians hit by the recession to suck it up and wait for the economy to get back to normal in four or five years time. Never in the history of the Commonwealth has so much money been spent for so little impact as it has been by this government. Look at what they're doing right now. They're removing JobMaker and JobSeeker. The cuts in September have cost my electorate deeply. We've seen 17,000 recipients of JobKeeper have their payment cut and 20,000 recipients of JobSeeker have their assistance cut. The fortnightly hit to the electorate of Shortland is $22 million. Just imagine that for a minute—$22 million taken out of the Shortland economy every two weeks, money that is urgently needed by my businesses to keep those businesses afloat. This is a government that is removing assistance at exactly the point when we need that money. This is a government without a plan to rebuild Australia, without a plan to rebuild our economy. It's all about a plan to win the next day's headlines. It's all about a plan of spin and marketing by a Prime Minister who is all photo op and no follow-through. My question to the assistant minister is: with a country in economic crisis, with hundreds of thousands of Australians having lost their jobs, why is the Prime Minister more interested in marketing slogans than in bringing forward an agenda to drive jobs and growth? 12:16 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins Some commentators have suggested that the 2020 federal budget was blokey and focused on hard-hat industries such as transport and infrastructure, construction and manufacturing— Mr Conroy interjecting— Mr Morton 265931 Point of order, Deputy Speaker: I think the member for Shortland should be quiet while we're listening to a question on the women's economic statement. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The member is entitled to be heard in silence. Dr ALLEN 282986 Thank you for the interruptions. I'd like to continue about women's role in our economic recovery. In his budget reply, the Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, made comments in a similar vein. This is an archaic and, to be frank, borderline sexist view of the modern Australian workforce. It is premised on the idea that women are excluded from the high-skilled and high-paying industries where the jobs of the future ultimately lie. It is critical that we correct this gendered view of the workforce. The Morrison government is guided by the belief that a strong economy, grounded in private enterprise and scholarship, allows citizens to realise their aspirations. The 2020 budget centres on the premise of unshackling industries to allow us to deliver a strong, modern and resilient Australian economy now and into our future. It is about creating high-quality and sustainable employment opportunities for all Australians. Modern manufacturing is critical to a modern Australian economy. It plays a key role in almost every supply chain and adds significant value to all sectors. It is important, however, to stress that we are not talking about the manufacturing of old. We're not talking about men in blue overalls bending metal. We're talking about complex, high-value-add manufacturing using smart technology and levering off research and development, design, logistics and services. We're talking about modern industries such as medical technology, recycling and clean energy, food and beverage, defence and space. As we pivot from the health crisis to our economic recovery from the COVID pandemic, building on both our established and emerging strengths in modern industries such as these is critical. I'm particularly keen to see women step up to seize the opportunities of the manufacturing revolution of the 21st century, and so too is the Morrison government, with sizeable investments targeted at women in STEM, including in the 2020 Women's Economic Security Statement. More than 14,000 female apprentices and women have already benefited from the Morrison government's $2.8 billion supporting apprentices and trainees wage subsidy. The $1.2 billion commitment to the new Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements, which subsidises employers to take on new apprentices, will also greatly benefit women. Likewise we are supporting greater participation and outcomes for women in vocational education and training through the $585 million Delivering Skills for Today and Tomorrow package. The 2020 budget includes $25 million for the women in STEM cadetships and advanced apprenticeships to create STEM career pathways for up to 500 women, through industry supported and advanced apprenticeship-style courses starting just next year. I'm particularly keen on these initiatives as a woman in STEM myself and knowing that these are the high value-add jobs of the future. These are the sorts of things that help to close the gender pay gap. Importantly, the Women's Economic Security Statement includes a $50 million investment, increasing women's workforce participation and measures to encourage more women into traditionally male dominated sectors. The benefit of enabling women in these fields is ultimately threefold. First, it supports our economic recovery post COVID. Second, these roles are often high paying and will help us to bridge the gender pay gap. People often think the gender pay gap is about the fact that women are paid to do the same job but paid differently to do the same job. In fact, the gender pay gap in Australia is more about getting women into high paying jobs. Third, increasing women's workforce participation promotes economic growth. We all know the three Ps of economic growth: participation, population, and, of course, productivity. This is so important to get women into the workforce to make sure they're getting the high paid jobs. KPMG estimates that halving the gap between women and men's workforce participation will produce an additional $60 billion in GDP by 2038 and cumulative living standing standards will increase by $140 billion. As we reimagine the Australian economy we need to also reimagine the role of women in the workforce and ensure they grasp the opportunities provided with both hands. My question to the minister is: could the minister please explain how the Women's Economic Security Statement will further the prosperity of women in the post-COVID economy? 12:21 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I am very pleased to follow up on questions regarding Australian women and what this government's not doing to further advances for Australian women. Women working on the frontline, in predominantly underpaid and undervalued roles, have carried Australia through the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite this women also experienced the worst adverse economic and social implications at the peak of the crisis. Since February 21 per cent of the female workforce, or 1.3 million women, have lost work or are experiencing pressures on their capacity to retain paid work. Women's workforce participation has disproportionately decreased with 115,000 women leaving the labour force altogether. The government chose to exclude short-term casuals from JobKeeper, including hundreds of thousands of jobs in the female-dominated sectors that experienced the worst impacts of the shutdowns, such as tourism, arts, hospitality and retail. Cuts to the JobSeeker coronavirus supplement in September also had a disproportionate impact on women. Women are losing $137 million more per fortnight than men, with an estimated $465 million taken from their fortnightly incomes compared to $328 million for men. Women with dependants and older women already face pronounced risks of poverty and homelessness, now made worse by these cuts. The superannuation early release scheme has increased risk to women's already inadequate economic security. More than 1.7 million women have stripped $13 billion from their retirement incomes. Over 300,000 women have emptied their accounts entirely. More women under the age of 20 years and between the ages of 36 and 55 have made withdrawals compared to men during COVID-19. The pandemic has also dramatically increased the caring burden on households, especially parents juggling their jobs, homeschooling and caring for children. ABS data suggests this increased child care and household burden was disproportionately borne by women. Women are also experiencing risks of violence. 1800RESPECT received 1.5 times more calls in 2020 than in 2019. Half of the women experiencing abuse told an Australian Institute of Criminology survey that the abuse had become more extreme since COVID-19. Frontline service providers have reported an increase in women experiencing violence for the first time during the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to all of this, the Morrison government has failed to produce a meaningful plan to make sure that women don't go backwards as a result of this pandemic. The Morrison government has racked up $1.1 trillion of debt, but the Prime Minister's Women's Economic Security Statement contains just $240 million in spending on small initiatives over a five-year period and is without a plan to improve participation of women in the workforce. This is equal to just 0.024 per cent of the trillion-dollar debt racked up by the Morrison recession. More broadly, the 2020 budget contains no new funding for frontline domestic and family violence service providers that support women and children escaping violence. There is a $1 million cut from the government's anti domestic violence education program in Australian schools, Respect Matters. There's nothing new to address the gender pay gap, nothing on superannuation and women's economic security in retirement, nothing on child care and nothing for social housing. The 2020 budget doesn't contain a single measure that directly addresses women's long-term and structural economic disadvantage. The government's response to criticism of this was what? 'Women can drive on roads too.' It's not just the 2020 budget that is the government's failing of Australian women— Dr Allen interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Stop the clock. Member for Higgins, the member for Newcastle is entitled to be heard in silence, as you were heard in silence. Ms CLAYDON 248181 Petty interjections don't deter me one little bit. The government's 2018 economic security statement is still not fully implemented. The member for Higgins might want to look at that. It promised to focus on workforce participation, earning potential and economic independence. All of these three pillars have since gone backwards under your watch. The Morrison government's missed the opportunity to put forward a genuine reform agenda. My question to the minister is: why has the government failed women so badly in this budget? 12:27 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer For all the rhetorical flourishes and crazy interjections from the Labor Party opposite, I'm grateful to receive the question from the member for Higgins and am also very keen to respond to the questions that have been raised by members opposite, because they actually go to the same thing: what is the government doing in the Women's Economic Security Statement—both the 2018 statement and the 2020 statement—that builds on our earlier messages? Our overarching objective is to return Australians, women and men, to work and to boost prosperity as Australia emerges from the COVID-19 crisis. With that in mind, the 2021 budget provides $98 billion of response and recovery support under the COVID-19 response package and the JobMaker plan. It brings the government's overall support to $507 billion. Increasing women's workforce participation is an economic and social priority. I mention the core economic effort that we are making. The JobMaker plan aims to drive down the unemployment rate and drive stronger economic recovery for all Australians. The 2020 Women's Economic Security Statement builds on the government's COVID-19 economic recovery plan by providing the targeted, tailored and specific support needed to help women overcome barriers to full participation in the economy, and it significantly builds on the 2018 statement, which was an initiative of a previous Minister for Women in the member for Higgins' own electorate. That shows that our commitment to women's economic security did not just arrive in this budget, it's been there for a long time. In this budget, the $240 million package over five years covers a wide range of measures to provide targeted support for women, to strengthen their employment opportunities, their pay, their participation and the flexibility that we all demand in our workplace and in our lives, because women all have different choices. They make different choices about family, work, training and early childhood education at different stages in their lives. What we aim to do and what we will do is support those choices, as and when they happen. The statement that the member mentioned focuses on five key priority areas: to repair and rebuild women's workforce participation and further close the gender pay gap; to bring greater choice and flexibility for families to manage work and care; to support women as leaders and positive role models, such as the member for Higgins and the examples that she brings from her electorate to this parliament; to respond to the diverse needs of women; and to support women to be safe at work and safe at home. We will invest $50 million in the women at work program to help restore and exceed the level of women's workforce participation, which was at a record high pre COVID. It expands on the existing Women's Leadership and Development Program to create jobs and employment opportunities for women, including those from diverse backgrounds. The Morrison government will establish a respect at work council to provide practical support to employers and employees to prevent and address sexual harassment in Australian workplaces. We know it's a barrier to women's workforce participation, particularly for women working in male-dominated fields, and the government is committed to eradicating it from Australian workplaces. Our existing commitment to women's safety is well known. On 29 March we announced a $150 million domestic violence support package as part of our COVID-19 response. The package is in addition to the $340 million the Commonwealth had already invested under the fourth action plan. Since 2013 we've invested over $1 billion to prevent and respond to violence against women and their children. The 2020 Women's Economic Security Statement includes investment across other portfolios: building female founders, to support start-ups and women entrepreneurs; the paid parental leave work test to provides flexibility for parents at this difficult time; the ParentsNext program, again supporting parents with children; and the expansion of our women in STEM programs through cadetships and advanced apprenticeships to create those STEM career pathways for up to 500 women, who will become beacons their communities. As I said earlier, the package builds on the 2018 Women's Economic Security Statement, and it complements the wide range of existing government supports, including JobTrainer. It will support women into jobs now and help drive economic growth in the future. 12:31 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland When the bushfires and COVID-19 hit, Australia's public service was struggling under the weight of seven years of Liberal-National cuts and mismanagement. By the end of 2019, the government had slashed 18,000 APS jobs since it took office, including cutting 1,705 APS jobs in regional areas. In 2019 alone, it cut 2,270 staff from Services Australia and 1,260 staff from the ATO. So, instead of having a strong public service ready for a crisis, we had to scramble. In March we saw shocking images of queues around the block at Centrelink offices as people desperately tried to access services. Hundreds of thousands of people were unable to access the myGov website because of capacity issues. It was so bad that the minister initially tried to blame hackers, only to later concede that he'd got it wrong. In this budget the government has had to give top-up funding to essential government agencies just so that they can maintain their core operations. This seems to be an admission that the staffing cuts along with the $9 million in funding cuts through the efficiency dividend have gone too far. Minister, my first question is: why did it take an unprecedented health and economic disaster for the government to admit that it has run down the public service to an unsustainable level? During the same period the government slashed the size of the public service, it's spending on contractors and consultants doubled. Contractors and consultants engaged by this government now cost taxpayers around $5 billion per year. Some of the most important service delivery departments and agencies now have an extraordinarily high reliance on contractors rather than APS staff. At the Department of Veterans' Affairs, over 40 per cent of staff are engaged through labour hire firms—40 per cent. At the aged-care regulator, 27 per cent of staff are temporary contractors. These agencies are trying to support our veterans and keep aged-care residents safe during COVID-19, yet this government continues to impose arbitrary caps on the number of public servants they can hire, forcing them to resort to temporary staffing arrangements. My questions to the minister are: when will this government finally admit that its policy to cut staffing levels has been a total failure, and why are taxpayers spending so much money on fees for labour hire companies to do little more than put public servants onto their books as contractors? 12:34 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney The government is committed to the government's five-year JobMaker Plan to drive sustainable private-sector-led growth and job creation—through tax relief to households, through the bringing forward of the government's infrastructure investment pipeline, through the JobMaker credit that was passed in the Senate last night, and through supporting apprentices as well. I'll be very quick in my remarks, knowing that I don't want to cut into the time of my colleague, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, and the important considerations that will come after this session. I make the point, though, that the government is very thankful for the work of hardworking members of the Public Service right around the Commonwealth in supporting Australians in their time of need. The gratitude from this government has been commented on on a number of occasions by this government. Whether it be Services Australia, whether it be the agencies that have been created through the COVID commission, they supported Australians at the time when they needed support. One of the things that I've been very proud to see is the very many members of the Australian Public Service who have been reallocated from their existing work into other areas of need as a result of this pandemic. They've put up their hands, they've volunteered and they've done exactly what this government would expect of them to support Australians when we need it the most. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The Federation Chamber will now consider the Indigenous Australians segment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, in accordance with the agreed order of consideration. 12:35 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make an opening statement. As was pointed out by the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the 2020-21 budget provides the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio with appropriations for ordinary annual services of $2.3 billion in the 2020-21 financial year. Of the total appropriations for the portfolio, $1.8 billion relates to Indigenous affairs, with funding provided to the National Indigenous Australians Agency, Aboriginal Hostels Limited, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Indigenous Business Australia, the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation and the Torres Strait Regional Authority. We are investing in new services and initiatives to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have sustained economic and social opportunities as part of our economic recovery plan for Australia. The 2020-21 budget builds on the existing $5.4 billion Indigenous Advancement Strategy, which sees work continuing on projects to reduce the rates of Indigenous incarceration, youth suicide, and family and domestic violence, as well as improving the health, safety and wellbeing and the educational, employment and economic opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We are also forecasting $1.4 billion in expenditure from the special accounts over the coming four years. This includes funds from the Aboriginals Benefit Account to the four Northern Territory land councils and the Office of Township Leasing for operational purposes, as well as discretionary projects specifically for the benefit of Aboriginal people living in the Northern Territory. Outside of the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, we have continued our commitment of $4 billion in Indigenous health funding over the coming four years through the Department of Health, including $976 million in 2020-21. The government is rebuilding our economy by stimulating economic regional development activity, ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people secure appropriate, affordable housing that is aligned with their priorities and needs. This will also contribute to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. To enable this, Indigenous Business Australia will receive an additional investment of $150 million over three years to deliver 360 home loans for new housing construction in regional Australia. The extension of the IBA's Indigenous Home Ownership Program will support over a thousand jobs in regional Australia and increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in appropriately sized housing. This helps Indigenous families move into their own homes and start to build intergenerational wealth while addressing overcrowding and stimulating the economies of regional and remote Australia. Building on our significant investment in housing for remote communities in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia, this budget also provides $100 million to the Queensland government to deliver more housing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in remote Queensland. The payment is part of the agreement reached with the Queensland government to assume full responsibility for housing in remote communities. The 2020-21 budget reaffirms the government's commitment to supporting the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. The government would enhance the next phase of closing the gap with an investment of $46.5 million over four years to develop the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled service delivery sector. The funding supports the commitment of the national agreement under Priority Reform Two and will help improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Productivity Commission will also receive $10.1 million over four years to provide independent oversight and accountability of progress under the national agreement. The government is also continuing the return of cultural heritage initiatives by investing a further $10.1 million over four years for AIATSIS to secure the return of more cultural heritage to traditional owners and custodians. The budget includes $4 million to create four new Indigenous ranger groups to care for country, which will bring Indigenous knowledge and connection to country to support water and natural resource management activities within the Murray-Darling. This builds on the $40 million Aboriginal entitlements program and our commitment to appoint an Indigenous board member to the Murray-Darling authority. With these new investments we're ensuring that the challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic do not slow down progress to improving the lives of Indigenous Australians. These new measures build on my announcement in April 2020, where we made available $123 million over two financial years for targeted measures to support Indigenous businesses and communities. Our budget reflects the way in which we are considering the economic and social opportunities for Indigenous Australians right across this nation and optimising better pathways and better futures for the young who are coming through our systems, and we will continue to work in concert with state and territory jurisdictions. 12:41 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton Before going to the substance of what I want to say today, I will first put on the record the five questions to the minister that Labor is seeking answers to. The first question is: Minister, given the results published in the RBA's annual report, how confident are you that the target of $150 million in loans will be met, how many loans or houses do you expect will be achieved, and are you confident that the figure will be met? The second question is: given the shortages and the issues facing remote communities, would this money have been better spent in remote housing? The third question is: as part of the co-design consultation process budgeted for in the 2019-20 budget, has the consultation process recommended a makarrata commission or something similar? The fourth question I would like to put on the record goes to the consultation process referred to in question 3. Has a treaty process been recommended? If there is no such recommendation, will the government consider a treaty process? Finally, it has been reported that the government voted down a motion to fly the Aboriginal flag and the Torres Strait Islander flag in the Senate this week. Minister, will you consider joining me in putting forward a motion to change the House Practice and include flying the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags in the House? They are the five questions that I put to the minister. I will now go to some of the points that I wanted to make. In relation to housing, of course, this pandemic has reminded us of the importance of a home—and you cannot properly self-isolate if a home is overcrowded. Indigenous Australians make up three per cent of the Australian population but account for 20 per cent of all persons who are homeless as at the last census. The National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation estimates that, in some parts of Australia, an average of 17 people are living in a single, small dwelling with five or six people to a single bedroom. The high rates of overcrowded dwellings in First Nations communities was included in the recently revised Closing the Gap targets—to increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in appropriately sized housing to 88 per cent by the year 2031. I will now make some specific comments on a voice to the parliament, reconciliation and the flag. The Uluru statement called for three modest asks: a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous voice to the parliament, a makarrata commission to oversee the process of agreement and treaty-making, as well as to oversee the process of truth-telling. Labor remains committed in full to the Uluru statement. We have always said that First Nations people are best placed to address the challenges that face us. This necessarily means First Nations people have a say in the decisions and laws that affect us. It means a voice that represents gender balance and a voice that represents Indigenous Australians in our regions as well as our cities. It means a voice that is secure and certain and cannot simply be removed by the government of the day. A makarrata commission is about treaty and agreement-making, and we know that a number of treaty processes have commenced, as the minister would be aware, in a number of jurisdictions. Proper and meaningful reconciliation means recognising our past, as a nation, and the atrocities faced by First Nations peoples. We must recognise this past if we are truly to unite as one country. It is knowing and acknowledging this past, and healing, that is required to move forward. We've recently heard from the Prime Minister that the singing of the national anthem at rugby league games unites us. What will unite us in recognising and acknowledging our First Nations past? (Time expired) 12:46 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor Today I want to acknowledge the great work being done by this government to support our First Australians and to touch on some of the fantastic Indigenous initiatives being delivered in my electorate of O'Connor. My vast electorate extends from the Noongar lands in the south to the Wongi lands of the Nullarbor-Goldfields region and the Nangadadjara lands on the edge of the Central Desert. As you will recognise, their needs are as varied as their postcodes. Most recently, Minister, you visited the beautiful coastal town of Esperance to announce nearly a million dollars of funding certainty for the Tjaltjraak Rangers. I have long been a supporter of the Tjaltjraak Rangers' job-readiness training programs, their environmental restoration and cultural survey work and their successful efforts in reconnecting disenfranchised youth to their country. Over the years, I've had the pleasure of engaging with many other O'Connor Indigenous rangers, with each group performing highly specialised tasks particular to the needs of their local environment and communities. The Ngadju Rangers showed me their monitoring of malleefowl behaviour and predation via camera traps in the Great Western Woodlands, and the Tjuntjuntjara Spinifex Rangers described controlling feral plants and animals and maintaining water sources in the desert. Beyond the significant government investment in Indigenous rangers, I'm pleased to see a further expansion of the Indigenous Protected Areas program. Early in October, Minister, you announced that an additional seven million hectares of land, an area larger than Tasmania, would be placed in the care of traditional custodians for biodiversity and conservation, through the dedication of two new IPAs in Western Australia. The newly announced Ngadju IPA covers almost 4.4 million hectares near Norseman, in my electorate, and includes one-quarter of the Great Western Woodlands. Regarded as the largest remaining area of intact Mediterranean-climate woodland on earth, it is home to 21 vertebrate species and 166 plant species listed as threatened or priority species. Through an additional $15 million commitment, announced in 2017, there are ongoing consultations with traditional custodians on the dedication of other IPAs, including Spinifex Pilki in O'Connor. While I've spoken of government investment in conservation, Indigenous job-readiness and cultural enrichment outcomes, I'd like to mention some of the broader investments of this government in the 2020-21 budget: the continued commitment to the $5.4 billion in Indigenous advancement strategies to support programs that reduce the rates of Indigenous incarceration, youth suicide and family and domestic violence and improve health, safety, wellbeing, education, employment and other economic opportunities; the continued commitment of $4 billion in Indigenous health funding over the coming four years; $46.5 million over four years to support the National Agreement on Closing the Gap; $39.8 million over four years for the Clontarf Foundation, which is active through my electorate, improving the self-esteem, confidence, leadership skills and engagement of young Indigenous students; and $40.1 million over three years from 2021-22 to extend services to provide specialist early intervention to support at-risk children and families with complex needs. Additionally, Minister, this government's Indigenous Procurement Policy program continues to grow towards the goal of three per cent of all Commonwealth contracts being awarded to Indigenous businesses by 2028. Indigenous Australians will also benefit from increases to mainstream services, including more funding for mental health and suicide prevention initiatives; expedited handling of family law matters; more support for victims of domestic and family violence; increased numbers of apprenticeships and trainees; and a package of measures to support regional Australia in recovering from the impacts of COVID-19. Lastly, but by no means least, Indigenous Business Australia will receive an additional investment of $150 million over three years to expand the Indigenous Home Ownership Program and provide new construction home loans to Indigenous Australians, including in regional and remote Australia. These new construction loans will support over 1,000 jobs and stimulate an extra $300 million in economic activity by unlocking financing for a significant pipeline of shovel-ready new homes. This investment will support Commonwealth COVID-19 economic stimulus efforts, demonstrate commitment towards closing the gap and increase movement through the housing continuum to home ownership. Repayments from loans made with the initial equity injection will be reinvested in the Indigenous Home Ownership Program through new loans to Indigenous Australians. The measure has a positive impact on the government's underlying cash balance of $12.7 million over four years from interest receipts on loan repayments. Could the minister please provide further information on the response to this announcement and, in particular, the take-up in Western Australia? 12:51 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari Before the onset of COVID-19, in 2016 more than 53.4 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in very remote areas were living in poverty. Even in urban areas in 2016, average Indigenous household incomes were approximately three-quarters—77 per cent—of average non-Indigenous household incomes. In 2018-19, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey found that in 2018-19 over one-third—38.6 per cent—of very remote Indigenous households experienced hunger. In addition, over half—51.7 per cent—ran out of money for basic living necessities. University studies have attributed the increasing poverty in remote areas to at least four factors. First, the abolition of the former Community Development Employment Projects scheme, CDEP. Second, the inadequate rate of social security payments. Third, the higher level of disengagement from government systems—for example, from 2018-19 NATSIS data, more than half of working-age Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in very remote areas were neither working, studying nor receiving JobSeeker payments. Fourth, the very high level of payment suspensions and penalties applied to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Community Development Program, through which JobSeeker is delivered in remote areas. The reforms so far to the current CDP program have been nowhere near sufficient to change the current level of poverty. The temporary increase in social security payments as a result of COVID will also not change the ongoing level of poverty and will indeed have an impact because they're going to be reduced. Furthermore, because Indigenous people are disproportionately employed in casual roles as unskilled or semiskilled labourers and as service workers, they are likely to have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 recession. Minister, how will this budget address the endemic poverty and disadvantage particularly in remote Aboriginal communities? Secondly, I want to go to issue of housing, which was referred to by the shadow minister. In 2017, the government's own remote housing review recommended that across Australia an investment of an additional 5,500 houses by 2028 was needed. It also pointed out that overcrowding still exists and the population is growing. In fact, on a graph, the population curve is going up and housing is staying flat, so the gap is widening. Bear in mind that overcrowding would still only be reduced by about one-quarter as a result of the government's proposed expenditure. This means that, for a house that has 16 people living in it, the overcrowding is reduced to 12 effectively. In the NT, the NT government and the federal government are currently spending over $1.6 billion over 10 years. The current spending in Queensland will bring the total to over $1.8 billion. Add to that the total of $121 million provided by the federal government to WA in the 2018 agreement plus an amount to South Australia, and the total funds provided by the government is only around $2 billion, far short of the $3.3 billion that is required. Minister, how will this budget address the chronic housing shortages in remote Indigenous communities? I also want to raise very briefly two other matters. Firstly, NACCHO has pointed out that building much-needed new Indigenous health clinics is an effective way to stimulate the economy. They estimate that $900 million is needed to bring our national network of clinics up to scratch—and there are over 550 of them across the country, as you would be aware, Minister. What resources are being made available, or are required, to bring the national network of clinics up to scratch? Lastly, I want to raise the issue of Juukan Gorge. In the 2020 budget, there is $2.2 million over four years from 2020-21 to speed up application processes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. The Commonwealth heritage protection law has been widely criticised, as we know, since the destruction of the Juukan caves at the Juukan Gorge heritage site. With that tragedy in mind, this measure is hugely inadequate and invites further and similar horrors. Minister, what changes is the government proposing to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act to ensure that there is no repeat of the Juukan caves disaster? 12:55 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay The wonderful work that Minister Wyatt is doing in his portfolio for Indigenous Australians is having a real impact on the ground in local communities, including in my electorate of Lindsay. Recently, the minister and I caught up with our local community and outreach organisations. The feedback we received was that, because of coronavirus, as our schools reopened, many of our kids weren't getting back to school and attendance rates had dropped. Minister Wyatt and I both share the same passion for education and we're working closely together to address these challenges to make sure more kids are going to school. I know the minister is working closely with all states and territories to ensure that our kids continue with their education so that they have the best start in life. As the local federal member, I want to ensure that our kids don't fall through the cracks and that they have as many opportunities as possible. This week is NAIDOC Week, and at our local schools and across our community we're celebrating the contribution and culture of Indigenous Australians. But there is more that we must do to break down the barriers facing young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids, and education plays such a key role. Education not only improves quality of life, it unlocks opportunities to get a job, contribute to the community and find your calling. There is always more work that can be done, like reducing the gap for Indigenous children in reading, writing and numeracy, because we know that these are all key elements and fundamental to a good education. In saying that, more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are exceeding national minimum standards, better positioning them to transition to further study and work. It's important we keep this momentum and encourage our communities to help our kids foster a lifelong love of learning. In the budget we've committed $39.8 million over four years for the Clontarf Foundation to support young Indigenous students and improve their self-esteem, confidence and leadership skills. This funding will deliver an additional 2,000 places, above the 10,500 already on offer, and will have a direct impact on the education of Indigenous students that's so important as a foundation for their futures. I spent time this week with the minister to talk about the importance of education, and the minister shared how education had made such a big difference in his own life. While we couldn't be there in person, we recorded a NAIDOC message to the students at Cambridge Park High School in my electorate of Lindsay to encourage our local kids to think about their future and what they want to do with their own education journeys and careers. Minister Wyatt said that if he hadn't followed through on his education and didn't have those opportunities, he wouldn't be in this place. He spoke passionately about the teachers who had influenced him, even from year 1. This set the foundation from an early age to value his education. Minister Wyatt learned to value his education so much that he got a Bachelor of Education and became a teacher, passing on that lesson to his students, as he continues to do now. Education plays such a pivotal role in putting kids in our community on pathways to local jobs. From educating our kids to supporting local businesses, we are paving the way to employ our kids in the jobs of the future. In October, Minister Wyatt launched a new Indigenous Business and Employment Hub in Western Sydney. The hub will help Indigenous businesses in Western Sydney make the connections they need to grow and sustain their business, and explore opportunities to create more jobs. They'll be able to connect directly to the knowledge and expertise they need through training, seminars and specific business growth support. The Yarpa Hub is working with Indigenous businesses right across New South Wales across industries including construction, health and—one of my favourites—manufacturing. There are over 6,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in my community of Lindsay, from the students at Cambridge Park High School and right across our community. Education plays such a key role for their future. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole and agreed to. Bill agreed to. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2020-2021 105

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2020-2021

Second Reading 105 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021 105

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021

Second Reading 105