2021-02-02 46 1 5 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 2 February 2021

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

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020 1

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

Consideration of Senate Message 1 Aviation Legislation Amendment (Liability and Insurance) Bill 2020, Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020, Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2020, Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 5) Bill 2020, Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance Administration) Bill 2020 1

Aviation Legislation Amendment (Liability and Insurance) Bill 2020

Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020

Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2020

Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 5) Bill 2020

Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance Administration) Bill 2020

Returned from Senate 1 Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2020, Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020, Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020, Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 5) Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020, Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020, Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2020, Sport Integrity Australia Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Review) Bill 2020, Electoral Amendment (Territory Representation) Bill 2020, National Emergency Declaration Bill 2020, National Emergency Declaration (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020, Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020, Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamations) Bill 2020, Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019, Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020, Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020, Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020, Corporations (Fees) Amendment (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020, Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020, Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020, Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Bill 2020, Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020, Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020, Customs Charges and Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020, Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020, Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill 2020, Aged Care Amendment (Aged Care Recipient Classification) Bill 2020, Aviation Legislation Amendment (Liability and Insurance) Bill 2020, Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2020, Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance Administration) Bill 2020, Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020, Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020, Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020, Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 2

Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2020

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

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

Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 5) Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020

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

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020

Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2020

Sport Integrity Australia Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Review) Bill 2020

Electoral Amendment (Territory Representation) Bill 2020

National Emergency Declaration Bill 2020

National Emergency Declaration (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020

Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamations) Bill 2020

Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020

Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020

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

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

Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020

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

Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Bill 2020

Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020

Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020

Customs Charges and Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020

Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020

Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill 2020

Aged Care Amendment (Aged Care Recipient Classification) Bill 2020

Aviation Legislation Amendment (Liability and Insurance) Bill 2020

Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2020

Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance Administration) Bill 2020

Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020

Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020

Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020

Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

Assent 2 COMMITTEES 2 COMMITTEES Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Select Committee 2 Membership 2 12:02 The SPEAKER 00APG On 16 December 2020 I received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating members to be members of the Select Committee on Mental Health and Suicide Prevention. In accordance with standing order 229(b), as the House was not expected to sit for several weeks, the appointments became effective on that date. 12:02 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland by leave—I move: That Ms McBride, Ms Stanley and Ms Templeman be appointed members of the Select Committee on Mental Health and Suicide Prevention. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 2 MOTIONS Member for Hughes 2 12:03 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I seek leave to move the following motion: That this House: (1) notes: (a) the Member for Hughes' repeated use of social media to spread damaging mistruths about COVID-19; (b) comments made by the Member for Hughes regarding COVID-19 vaccinations which have the potential to undermine public confidence in the upcoming rollout; (c) the Member for Hughes' claims have repeatedly been refuted by health experts; (d) last week, the Member for Hughes told SBS he is in "regular contact with the Health Minister and the Prime Minister's office"; (e) yesterday at the National Press Club, the Prime Minister again refused to condemn the Member for Hughes' irresponsible and dangerous comments during a pandemic; and (2) calls on the Prime Minister to condemn the irresponsible and dangerous comments of the Member for Hughes. Leave not granted. Mr BUTLER HWK I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Hindmarsh from moving the following motion immediately— That this House: (1) notes: (a) the Member for Hughes' repeated use of social media to spread damaging mistruths about COVID-19; (b) comments made by the Member for Hughes regarding COVID-19 vaccinations which have the potential to undermine public confidence in the upcoming rollout; (c) the Member for Hughes' claims have repeatedly been refuted by health experts; (d) last week, the Member for Hughes told SBS he is in "regular contact with the Health Minister and the Prime Minister's office"; (e) yesterday at the National Press Club, the Prime Minister again refused to condemn the Member for Hughes' irresponsible and dangerous comments during a pandemic; and (2) calls on the Prime Minister to condemn the irresponsible and dangerous comments of the Member for Hughes. The member for Hughes is a dangerous menace to the national COVID-19 response. The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. 12:05 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the member for Hindmarsh be no longer heard.

The House divided. [12:09]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 63 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Broadbent, RE Chester, D Christensen, GR Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hamilton, GR Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Kelly, C Laming, A Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 59 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Coker, EA Collins, JM Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Haines, H Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, G Khalil, P King, CF Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mulino, D Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 13 PAIRS Bell, AM Wells, AS Buchholz, S Aly, A Coleman, DB Conroy, PM Evans, TM Gorman, P Hogan, KJ Keogh, MJ Howarth, LR Hill, JC Landry, ML King, MMH Leeser, J Wilson, JH Marino, NB Leigh, AK Morton, B Mitchell, RG O'Brien, LS Perrett, GD Thompson, P Payne, AE Wood, JP Thwaites, K

Question agreed to.

 12:14 The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 12:14 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I second the motion. The member for Hughes is a dangerous fool, and a real leader would have dealt with him by now. 12:14 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland In moving that the member be no longer heard I'd also ask the member to withdraw that statement. The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides, it may be the first day but 94(a) certainly applies. I'm just going to say to both sides: I hear people interjecting saying it should be withdrawn. If that's the case, there'll be a lot of withdrawals through question time. I'd have to go back through pages and pages of Hansard to do that. The minister. Mr CHESTER IPZ I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the member for Cooper be no further heard.

The House divided. [12:16]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 62 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Broadbent, RE Chester, D Christensen, GR Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hamilton, GR Hammond, CM Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Kelly, C Laming, A Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 59 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Coker, EA Collins, JM Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Haines, H Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, G Khalil, P King, CF Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mulino, D Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 14 PAIRS Bell, AM Thwaites, KL Buchholz, S Aly, A Coleman, DB Byrne, AM Evans, TM Conroy, PM Hastie, AW Wells, AS Hogan, KJ Gorman, P Howarth, LR Hill, JC Landry, ML Keogh, MJ Leeser, J Wilson, JH Marino, NB King, MMH Morton, B Leigh, AK O'Brien, LS Payne, AE Thompson, P Mitchell, RG Wood, JP Perrett, G

Question agreed to.

 12:17 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the motion moved by the member for Hindmarsh be agreed to. The member for Corio. 12:18 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio Antivaxxer conspiracies at this moment in time: that's where this Prime Minister— 12:18 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the question be put.

The House divided. [12:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 62 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Broadbent, RE Chester, D Christensen, GR Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hamilton, GR Hammond, CM Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Kelly, C Laming, A Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 59 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Coker, EA Collins, JM Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Haines, H Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, G Khalil, P King, CF Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mulino, D Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 14 PAIRS Bell, AM Thwaites, KL Buchholz, S Aly, A Coleman, DB Byrne, AM Evans, TM Conroy, PM Hastie, AW Wells, AS Hogan, KJ Gorman, P Howarth, LR Hill, JC Landry, ML Keogh, MJ Leeser, J Wilson, JH Marino, NB King, MMH Morton, B Leigh, AK O'Brien, LS Payne, AE Thompson, P Mitchell, RG Wood, JP Perrett, G

Question agreed to.

 12:21 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the motion moved by the member for Hindmarsh be disagreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. Debate adjourned. BILLS 8 BILLS Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020 8

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020

Second Reading 8 12:23 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham Thank you so much, Speaker, for the opportunity to make a statement on behalf of the Australian Labor Party in this second reading debate on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020 that is before the House. It's very unfortunate that we're dealing with this bill far, far later than we should be. The government has taken much too long to respond to serious incident abuses that have been happening in our aged-care system. The bill that's before us will implement the recommendations for a scheme that were put before the government more than three years ago by the Australian Law Reform Commission. Soon after that, the Carnell-Paterson review, commissioned by the government following the Oakden nursing home tragedy, also recommended introducing the scheme—back in 2017. Here it is—an issue as critical as how a nursing home manages a sexual or physical assault on a vulnerable elderly person, and it has taken the government years to take action. As I'll explain, the bill that's before us is deficient in some very profound ways, including the fact that it actually leaves the majority of users of our aged-care system completely out of this scheme. The way in which the government has dealt with this issue—this lumbering, delayed, lack of urgent prioritisation—is unfortunately emblematic of what we see of the government's entire approach to the aged-care crisis which confronts our country. It is obvious to every Australian that changes need to be made to this system. We have a royal commission's report titled Neglect—this is how obvious the problems in this system are—and yet we see that time and time again these reports are given to the government, and it takes them years to do anything, if at all. In fact, when the Prime Minister was Treasurer of this country, we saw him try not to solve the problems in aged care but to cut $1.7 billion out of this system in crisis. We see again that when the government attempts to make changes it does so in a slow fashion, in a way that shows that this is not an urgent priority for the Morrison government and in a way that, frankly, introduces a sub-standard system like the one we'll be debating today. I make these points because it's really important for Australians to see the pattern that's in place here. We've got a royal commission on foot which tells us that this system is profoundly failing hundreds of thousands of users of the aged-care system, profoundly failing millions of people who will in future use that system, and we have a government that just drags its feet when it comes to reform and to appropriately fixing the problems that are discussed here. Neglect is the title of the royal commission's report into aged care. That doesn't just describe the way in which the aged-care system operates; it describes the way in which the government has dealt with this critical area of policy for its almost eight years in office, and it needs to be held to account for that. Ultimately, I see the government's handling of this issue and so many others as its own form of cruelty. Let me talk a little bit about the specifics of this bill, because it's an area that I think hasn't seen the kind of light and transparency that I think it deserves. So I want to talk a little bit about the problem that's trying to be solved. The scheme that's before us is trying to bring more transparency into the issue of serious incidents that occur in aged care. Serious incidents in aged care are actually very common, and we saw reported assaults, for example, in aged care have gone up every year in recent years and reached 5,233 in 2018-19. So let's think about the cohort of Australians that we're talking about here against whom these serious assaults or incidents are occurring—the most vulnerable, the most frail and, in many ways, the most important Australians that this parliament gathers in this chamber to protect, and yet we are seeing routine incidents that are not being properly reported and which people are not being held accountable for because of the failures of this parliament. The bill does make some important changes—of course, changes that Labor greatly supports. The bill will require providers of aged-care facilities to manage incidents and to take reasonable steps to prevent them in the first place, and that's going to include requiring aged-care homes, for example, to put in place organisation-wide systems that will manage and report incidents of abuse and neglect. The bill will require approved providers of residential care in residential aged care to report all serious incidents to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner. A wider range of incidents will now be reportable, including unreasonable use of force, unlawful or inappropriate sexual contact, psychological or emotional abuse, unexpected death, stealing or financial coercion by a staff member, neglect, inappropriate physical or chemical restraint and unexplained absence of care. The scheme is going to remove an exemption that exists at the moment for reporting assaults where the alleged perpetrator is another residential aged-care victim with a cognitive or mental impairment and the victim is another care recipient, obviously another important piece of reform. The bill will strengthen protections for people working in aged care who disclose incidents of abuse and neglect in the system. The bill will improve oversight of these new changes, expanding the powers of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, and there are some other aspects that are more administrative that support the scheme. You can hear from the things I'm describing here that these are important changes. I think the question that most Australians would have when hearing this list of things is: why in God's name aren't these things already law in this country? How can we have a system where people can be sexually assaulted in aged care where there's no real transparency and appropriate reporting of that to the people who run the aged-care system? How can we have a system where you can be the victim of a physical assault, for example, and where, because the perpetrator of the assault is another aged-care resident with a cognitive disability, that doesn't get reported? The thing that enrages me about the changes that we're seeing—I'm happy that they're going through; I'm just frustrated that they weren't already part of our system—is the treatment of people in aged care. It is as though they have fewer rights and less dignity than every other Australian. Of course, that is completely contrary to Australian values. As I said, I'm pleased to see some of these changes, but why the hell are we having to have the debate now? Why wasn't this done urgently, when we knew all the way back in 2017 that this was the system that ought to have been in place? I and Labor do have some critical concerns with some aspects of the bill. The main concern that we have about the bill is that it does not include serious incidents in home care. It's much more than an oversight because, as much of the parliament would know, the vast majority of the people who are consumers of aged care in Australia, who are citizens who are getting that support from services, are actually getting that support in their own homes. There are more than a million people in Australia today who are getting some type of home care through the aged-care system, and this bill offers them no additional protections and no additional transparency. Why would we make a big change like this to the aged-care reporting system for serious incidents and leave out the strong majority of people who are in the system? It's not just Labor, of course, that has this concern. In the royal commission, the counsel assisting, in its final submission, asked that the government ensure that the new scheme that was going to be put in place include home care. That was a direct request from the royal commission. Yet here we are in this parliament passing a bill that will introduce a system that will protect fewer than a quarter of the people who are receiving aged-care services today. That we are failing to protect an additional million Australians in a way that we so easily could through this parliament just seems, again, like a negligent and silly mistake. So I want to call on the government today to look at this scheme and urgently assess how it could be applied properly in a home-care setting. Of course, there are serious incidents that are occurring in home-care settings. That's inevitable when you have a million people, and they're vulnerable people, who are receiving these services. As has been requested by the royal commission, we need to have a proper system in place to protect those critical Australians, and I'd like the government to put that in place. I want to turn now to the second reading amendment which I'll move at the closure of my remarks. I just want to talk a little bit about the broader context for this debate. I know that the parliament and most people watching and listening will know that we have a royal commission on foot because the aged-care system in this country is in crisis. There are a quarter of a million vulnerable people in residential aged care who, we know, are living in a system that does not provide adequately for the needs of most of them. We, as a parliament, make choices about how we prioritise things and about how we prioritise funds. I just think it is absolutely bleeding obvious that we need to be doing more to ensure dignity in the later years of life of older Australians who have done so much for this country. Reading this report is actually quite hard going. But I hope everyone in this parliament has read the report, because they would not be in any disagreement with me when I say that this system today is a national disgrace. Even reading the initial 12-page forward of this report is gut-wrenching. It is rage inducing that we have allowed a situation to transpire where people whom we say we care about are being treated so poorly by a system that is run entirely by the Morrison government. The interim report describes horrific mistreatment of older people in aged care. Many of the people in this chamber will recall seeing images of maggots in open wounds. This royal commission report details older Australians who are lying for hours, sometimes days, in urine and faeces, because the aged-care provider has rationed continence pads. It details the fact that up to half of Australia's most frail people living in aged care are malnourished. They are malnourished in a system that the Australian taxpayer pays for. It describes how about 60 per cent of residents in aged care today are on psychotropic medication, but that medication is estimated to be justified in about 10 per cent of cases. For anyone who wants to read and better understand this system, it confirms that 4,000 notifications or allegations of suspected sexual abuse are reported each year, that 274,409 self-reported cases of substandard care were made, and that, indeed, in one year, 32,715 calls to the My Aged Care consumer hotline went unanswered. That's in one year. That is neglect. That's why this report is called Neglect. The report confirms, too, that we have an aged-care workforce that has been profoundly let down by the Morrison government—an aged-care workforce which is undervalued, underpaid and not properly resourced to do some of the most important work in the community. I want to ask why you think it is that today you can earn more doing a shift in a supermarket than you can in caring for one of the most vulnerable people who live in our country. How can that be the case? Yet it is the case because for almost eight years the Morrison government have known about these problems and have commissioned report after report after report and have done nothing to fix the problems. Instead, they have made the situation profoundly worse by taking funding out of this incredibly stretched system. Hearing these stories and digesting what has happened on the watch of the Morrison government is very difficult. It's really difficult to confront some of these issues. In the report the royal commissioners speak about the fact that a lot of people don't want to think about their own ageing, so it's hard to really engage with some of the difficulties that are talked about, but we have to because we cannot stand back when good people are being treated this way. Overwhelmingly, the victims of this horrible system are some of the most elderly and frail people in our whole country. Not just that; they are people who contributed to this system their whole lives by paying taxes. I think that, as Australians, they have a reasonable expectation of getting a dignified life and a good quality of life in their retirement, but not in Scott Morrison's aged-care system. I want people to really take notice of this. We will have the royal commission final report released in about three weeks. This is a report that doesn't affect just the quarter of a million Australians in residential aged care and their families; it is a report that is going to affect all of us. It affects all of us because we have many millions of people who are using the system or are families of people using the system. We have a very large generation of Australians, the baby boomers, who are starting to make decisions and have discussions about how they are going to age. I don't think that that generation of Australians should feel fear about what might happen to them as they age. It's important for people of my age, as most people of my age have ageing parents and we're also having to think about how we are going to help them as they age, and about the issues that happen as one ages. But it's also very important because many, many millions of Australians are going to access this system themselves. The royal commission report talks about the fact that, if demographic trends remain as they are today, more than half of all Australian women are going to spend time in residential aged care. So, if you are a 20-year-old out there on the street and thinking that aged care isn't important for you, that's not right. This is a system that we need to invest in and that we need to fix, because no Australian could read this report and think, 'That's the system I want to end up in.' It's absolutely the case that there are providers of aged care in Australia—and, most importantly, the amazing staff who work in this sector—who are doing extraordinary things. I want to include in that my amazing mother-in-law, who's one of my heroes and who's an aged-care nurse in regional Victoria. I could not respect the work that she does more. She looks after people who are at the most vulnerable and difficult phase of their entire lives, and she does it with more love and more commitment and more community spirit than you could ever imagine. But what the royal commission report points out is that the providers that are doing a beautiful job of looking after elderly people, and the amazing staff who are so undervalued and so unsupported by this government, are doing that not because of this system but in spite of this system. There is nothing in the system today that actually promotes great quality of care and great quality of life for Australians. One of the things I want Australians to be outraged about is the cost of this system to the taxpayer and the outcomes that we're getting. As I've said, this is a system that is in abject crisis. There is no room for debate about that question. Today we are paying literally billions and billions of dollars—$22.6 billion—to an aged-care industry. While this has happened, while we have had maggots in wounds and vulnerable people sitting in urine and faeces for days, we have also had operators of aged-care facilities that have essentially behaved like profiteers, who have accumulated vast fortunes on the back of, really, the poor treatment of older Australians. Whatever we do, coming out the other side, to fix this system—a conversation that Labor are more than keen to have—we need to address that problem. It is despicable that we have had people getting rich off the mistreatment of older Australians. With every power that we have to control what lies ahead, Labor will not allow that to continue. I've talked a little bit about Labor's commitment to this; I actually don't think that the Australian public are going to have much trouble believing in our absolute and genuine desire to see this problem resolved once and for all. We have, over long periods of Labor government, invested in this system. We have reformed this system, and we have done everything we can to look after older Australians. In the last eight years, we've had eight years of despicable neglect. There has been neglect from the point of view of funding, but also—and more importantly, perhaps, for this parliament—a neglect in prioritisation. I want to come back to the bill before us. We make choices in this chamber and, in particular, the government makes choices about what it will legislate and how it will prioritise the different issues that face the country. Whenever it has had the chance, the government has put aged care and vulnerable older Australians at the back of the queue. That is what has to change, and I am looking forward to Labor holding the government to account for that over the coming months. I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes the systemic, ongoing failures in Australia's aged care system as evidenced by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, including, but not restricted to, serious incidents in residential aged care; (2) further notes the bill as drafted only deals with incidents in residential aged care facilities and not incidents that occur in home care; and (3) calls on the Government to explain their plan to deal with serious incidents that occur in home care." The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the amendment seconded? Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 12:43 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins As a doctor, I'm deeply committed to ensuring better health outcomes for not only my own constituents in Higgins but all Australians. As we all know, Australians are living longer, and they want the security and protections that the aged-care sector will provide for them in their twilight years. The Morrison government is passionate in leading, improving and reforming this aged-care sector. Yes, I know there can be complaints that it's not happening fast enough. But let's be very clear: this sector has been changing incredibly rapidly, and that is because of the population bubble that is occurring before our very eyes. We know that Australians are getting older—and getting healthier in the process—and there is a baby boomer bubble ahead of us. By 2030 there will be more Australians over the age of 80 than ever before in our history. Steady economic growth, smaller nuclear families and a high propensity for people to work later into their older years mean that there is more need for aged-care facilities than ever before. This bill before us today, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020, is a step towards much-needed reform, introducing a Serious Incident Response Scheme for residential aged care and for flexible care delivered in a residential aged-care setting. It can be very hard to trust others to care for your loved ones. I personally know how it feels; I experienced this with my father. He had a long career as a doctor. Later in life, he developed Alzheimer's. Because of his career as a doctor, he knew what it was like to care for patients with dementia. He knew what lay ahead. And, as I said in my first speech in this House, it was heartbreaking to watch as this gentle man, who had himself cared for so many with this disease, was tortured by it. Throughout his slow and unrelenting deterioration, he never once complained. In the last year before his death, he lost the faculty of speech, but he had two words left: thank you. Dad's gratitude for the family and the life he was given was boundless. But I know as a daughter that putting my father into aged care was a very difficult step. We as a family kept my father at home as long as possible because we wanted to care for him in his own home. It can be very, very challenging for those who have loved ones in aged care and even more challenging if that loved one is unable to communicate with you and you have no option but to trust the people whom you have employed to care for your loved one. It can be so unsettling for families and loved ones, and this bill will help give them a sense of comfort. The Australian government has no tolerance for abuse and neglect in aged care. Our Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, cares deeply about this issue, and the first royal commission he called for as Prime Minister was into aged care, so it's something that is very much at the centre of his agenda. Australians have rights which do not diminish with age. This bill will see improved legal frameworks which will provide appropriate protections and safeguards for older Australians, who should be enjoying their golden years without having to face any form of abuse. This bill will also provide much-needed confidence to loved ones who have placed a family member in aged care. This bill implements key recommendations from the Australian Law Reform Commission's report entitled Elder abuse—a national legal response and from the report of the Review of National Aged Care Quality Regulatory Processes handed down by Ms Kate Carnell and Professor Ron Paterson. The bill is also consistent with the National Plan to Respond to the Abuse of Older Australians (Elder Abuse) and aims to address issues raised in counsel assisting's final submission to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. The Serious Incident Response Scheme will replace the current responsibilities, under the Aged Care Act, of approved providers of residential aged care and flexible care delivered in an aged-care setting in relation to reportable assaults and unexplained absences. The bill will require approved providers to manage incidents and take reasonable steps to prevent incidents, including through implementing and maintaining effective organisation-wide governance systems for management and reporting of incidents of abuse and neglect. Both as a previous chair of a school council and as a board member of a hospital, I know how important these checks and balances are. The bill will also require approved providers of residential care and flexible care delivered in an aged-care setting to report all serious incidents to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. A wider range of incidents, including but not limited to unreasonable use of force; unlawful sexual contact or inappropriate sexual conduct; psychological or emotional abuse; unexpected death; stealing or financial coercion by a staff member; neglect; inappropriate physical or chemical restraint; and unexplained absence from care, will all be reportable. The Serious Incident Response Scheme will also remove the existing exemption for reporting assaults where the alleged perpetrator is a residential aged-care recipient with cognitive or mental impairment and the victim is another care recipient. I know it might seem shocking to those listening to hear that such a step is required, but we need to remain alert, not alarmed. These events do happen, and we cannot turn a blind eye to them. This bill will also strengthen protections for people who disclose incidents of abuse or neglect in aged care. These protections will extend to both existing and former staff members as well as to current and past residential aged-care recipients, their families and others supporting them, including volunteers and advocates. This bill will protect people disclosing such failures against any civil or criminal liability. As in any system, whistleblowers need the courage to speak out, but more than that they need protection from a natural, innate tendency for organisations to protect themselves against criticism. An open, transparent and accountable system provides an important underpinning to build trust in an organisation. Whistleblower protection is just such a mechanism that builds trust. All Australians would want to have this protection for themselves and their loved ones. This bill will also expand the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission's powers to enforce the requirements of the Serious Incident Response Scheme and the responsibilities of approved providers and related offences more generally. These will include standard regulatory powers which provide the commission with a more graduated suite of powers for ensuring compliance and protecting consumers. An additional information-gathering power will also ensure the commission is able to obtain the information and documents it requires to administer the Serious Incident Response Scheme. But we are not simply stopping there. We are not stopping at residential aged care; we're extending these provisions into other aspects of the aged-care sector. That is why the government has also put forward a feasibility study to inform future government decisions on the potential introduction of a similar serious incident response scheme in home and community aged care. This bill is further proof of the Morrison government's commitment to improving aged care for all senior Australians, which remains one of the government's key priorities. We are delivering record investment across the aged-care sector. It has grown from $13.3 billion in 2012-13 under Labor to $23.9 billion in 2020-21 under our Morrison government. It is estimated that funding for aged care will grow to more than $27 billion by 2023-24. Senior Australians are increasingly choosing to remain in their own homes for longer. This is something our government is committed to and supports. We believe in supporting choice. More than $746 million in aged-care COVID-19 response measures has been part of the $1.6 billion in COVID-specific support in aged care. This investment in the budget will see an additional 23,000 home-care packages to help care for older Australians in their homes in this financial year. That is because we recognise that Australians want to stay home longer, want to stay healthy and want to stay in their own homes. The Morrison government has delivered, and will continue to deliver, on aged care. This bill enables the next phase of aged-care reform, which I hope will receive a bipartisan approach across the parliament—working together to ensure we are delivering the best possible outcomes and protection to our older Australians living within the aged-care sector, now and into the future. 12:53 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons The safety of older Australians has never been more critical than in the past year or so, with the revelations of shocking abuse and neglect, as outlined by the shadow minister. Australians know we need to do more to protect our elderly in residential aged care—in home care as well—and they expect government to act and to lead. Older Australians have spent their lives contributing to this country. Whether as workers, homemakers or volunteers, they have built our communities and nurtured our young people. Older Australians deserve respect, dignity, comfort and support; they do not deserve neglect and abuse. The country's aged-care homes should be the best that our nation can afford, not the least worst that is legally possible. Tasmania has the oldest population of any jurisdiction in Australia, and my electorate covers the three areas in the state with the oldest population. This bill comes four years late, but I am pleased to support any measure that seeks to ensure older Australians, their families and aged-care workers are provided with a comprehensive set of protections. The bill introduces a serious incident response scheme for residential aged care, amending previous legislation to clarify and add further protections for both victims and advocates. Under this scheme, approved aged-care providers will now have to manage and take reasonable steps to prevent incidents at an organisation-wide level. Additionally, all serious incidents will have to be reported to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, which will be given greater powers to enforce the requirements of the scheme. Those powers will include a more graduated suite of responses to ensure the commission has the flexibility it needs to address a wider range of issues, and additional information-gathering powers to ensure the commission does the best job it can to protect residents. The bill expands the definition of an incident and consolidates the expanded definition under one regulation. Incidents will now include neglect, psychological and emotional abuse, unexplained absence from care and unexpected death. Additionally, the bill removes the exemption that allows the nonreporting of abuse where a perpetrator has cognitive and mental impairment. It is crucial that every incident is reported. A gaping hole in this legislation is its failure to include home care in the safety provisions. More than one million older Australians receive care in their home, and there is an equal risk of a serious incident occurring in that setting as in an aged-care facility, yet such incidents will not be captured by this bill. It's a serious shortcoming, and it's a serious shortcoming from a government that already has a woeful track record on aged care. In 2018-19, there were 5,233 reported assaults in residential aged care, more than 100 a week. But, in November 2019, KPMG told the government there were 50,000 unreported cases of assault across Australia every year—10 times the reported number. Discovering the true number of assaults will help inform better resourcing and better staffing. Closing this exemption is essential. We know that the challenges that come with aged care fall too often and too disproportionately on aged-care workers, who are understaffed, underfunded and most definitely underpaid. The shadow minister mentioned how in this country we've got a situation where you can be paid more for working behind a check-out or stacking groceries in a supermarket than you can be paid for looking after older Australians in residential aged care. It is a disgrace. Aged-care staff are doing the best job they can with the limited resources they have access to. I know aged-care workers, many of them women in their 50s and 40s, who are distraught at not being able to provide the care they know their residents deserve and need. Staff are practically running between jobs, with only a few minutes to provide meals, a few minutes to remove dirty dishes, a few minutes to wash and a few minutes to assist with toileting. There is never enough time, certainly not to sit down and just talk, be with and comfort often lonely residents desperate for human contact, a hand to hold or a chat. The expanded definition of 'incidents' will appropriately place more focus on providers, their systems, their governance and their resourcing. Importantly, this bill will provide enhanced protection from civil and criminal liability for staff and other people who disclose abuse and neglect. This will include current and former staff members as well as current and past aged-care clients, their families and their volunteers. We know that aged-care workers are often the first line of protection against abuse, and we need to ensure they have the protections and systems in place to allow them to safely advocate for themselves and their clients by having the confidence to speak up when things go wrong. When aged-care workers see problems in their workplace that impact the care of older Australians, they should never have to worry about the impact on their job. When so many workers are part time or casual, it is all too easy for aggrieved managers to put staff on blacklists and to cut their hours. It is just one of many reasons why there should be less casualisation in aged care and more job security and permanence. Labor supports this bill, but Labor does not support the government's frankly appalling record on aged care and elder abuse. In 2017 two separate reports recommended that the government enact a serious incident response scheme, which this bill now seeks to introduce. It has taken this government nearly four years to act. How many older Australians have died in substandard care because of this government's unconscionable delays? The government failed to act again, in 2019, when it budgeted for the scheme but then failed to follow through. All announcement, no delivery. It failed to follow through after receiving the KPMG report on rampant, unreported abuse in aged-care facilities. That report and its findings were not released until 2020. All this, of course, is in addition to the interim findings of the aged-care royal commission. We will see the final report in the next few weeks, and I'm sure it will not make for good reading. The title of the interim report, Neglect, tells us all that we need to know about this government's frankly incompetent management of aged care and its woeful disregard for the dignity of older Australians. These are Australian lives. You do not lose your human rights just because you get old. So we support this bill, but attention must focus on this government's woeful, incompetent handling of aged care, and we will see what the aged-care royal commission has to say in a few weeks. 13:02 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby I take great issue with the allegations those opposite have made in the several speeches we have heard so far. Our government has done more than any federal government to make sure that our senior Australians and our elderly Australians are cared for and protected. As someone from South Australia who was in this place when the Oakden disaster was reported, I take particular issue with the allegations of those opposite, because it was a state Labor government that oversaw and, in fact, ran the Oakden facility and that terribly neglected those very vulnerable senior Australians in their care. People died, people suffered injuries, and the families who fought for their loved ones still suffer the scars from fighting for so long to get justice for their family members. So I refuse to be lectured by those opposite. We have done many things in this space to protect our senior Australians. We legislated for new aged-care quality standards—the first upgrade of the standards in more than 20 years. We established the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. The Morrison government also established a royal commission. The Prime Minister led this. The Prime Minister has led on this issue for the entire time that he has been Prime Minister. The royal commission was into the aged-care sector, and was one of his first acts as Prime Minister. We cannot and we will not tolerate instances of older people being hurt, abused or neglected, and we are working very hard to make sure that families who put their vulnerable loved ones into care have confidence in our aged-care system. We have also put billions of dollars of extra funding and resourcing into aged care. Our funding has grown from $13.3 billion in 2012-13 to currently $23.9 billion this year to support senior Australians who want to stay at home for as long as possible. The government is providing an additional 23,000 home-care packages, which means the number of home-care packages has now tripled, from 60,300 in 2013 to around 185,500 this year. And 99 per cent of all those seeking an in-home aged-care place now have access to some form of in-home support. We are also doing a huge amount in the dementia-care space. I am incredibly proud that, thanks to the federal government, my government, and the South Australian Liberal government, the former repat hospital site, another state Labor disaster—they shut down the much beloved repat hospital when they were in government—reopened and we will have one of the nation's very best dementia-care facilities there. That is something that I am incredibly proud of to have delivered for my local community. I have a high number of senior Australians residing in my electorate. There are three groups in our society who deserve a very particular level of care from us all: children, those with a disability and, of course, the elderly. That's what we're speaking about today. These are some of our most vulnerable citizens who often can't advocate for themselves. They can't protect themselves, and I am, as I said, very proud that under our government we established the royal commission into aged care, we passed new quality and safety standards and we are introducing this bill today and speaking on this bill today, which I hope will pass through this place and the other very quickly, because we need to ensure that people understand how they can be protected, the help that they can seek if they need it and what the specific measures are that we will be putting in place through this bill. The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill introduces: a serious incident response scheme that will respond to and take steps to prevent the incidents of abuse and neglect of older Australians in residential aged care and those receiving flexible care delivered in a residential aged-care setting; and a range of broader powers for the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner consistent with the Regulatory Powers Act. Specifically—and these are some of the really important elements—under this bill, which will become the act, residential aged-care providers will be required to manage all incidents with a focus on the safety and wellbeing of consumers and reduce the number of preventable incidents from reoccurring. This will expand the responsibilities of residential aged-care providers in relation to identifying, recording, managing, resolving and reporting assaults and a broader range of serious incidents in residential aged care. The reporting will include a range of new matters, which is really important, such as sexual misconduct, neglect, psychological abuse, inappropriate use of restraint—which was one of the key issues that was uncovered at Oakden, and it was absolutely appalling—and unexpected death, amongst others. The bill does a range of specific things, as I've just outlined. Importantly, it includes broader protections for whistleblowers who disclose information about reportable incidents and it introduces the ability for the commissioner to issue compliance notices in order to deal with enforcement of the incident management responsibilities, including in relation to reportable incidents. The bill also introduces new enforcement powers for the commissioner to impose civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions under the Regulatory Powers Act in relation to this bill and more broadly. I'm very happy to commend this important bill to the House, and I look forward to making sure everyone in my local community is well aware of the standards that we expect to be applied to our most vulnerable citizens. 13:08 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Deputy Speaker Mitchell, happy new year to you and to everyone in the chamber. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E And you. Mr PERRETT HVP I speak today on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020. I want to start by pointing out something that occurs in my family, and that is that my two sons, aged 12 and 15, call me a boomer. They also call my wife a boomer, who's only a year younger than me. I'm 55. I want to put on the record that I am not a baby boomer. I am actually too young to be a baby boomer. The reason I take that sort of approach is to point out some facts. The reason we have the term 'boomers'—apart from my children trying to insult me, and I'm talking about you, Stanley and Leo—is that after World War II, after six years of world war, there was an explosion in the number of children in Australia. That generation are called baby boomers. We hear people opposite saying that there's record funding. They go on about the increase in the number of home-care packages et cetera. I just want to make very clear upfront that the reason there are record numbers is that there are more seniors. The baby boomers are moving through the system. World War II was a long time ago, and we have more Australians who are baby boomers. We hear those opposite talking about the incredible new numbers—there being one-third more et cetera—but it needs to be put in the context that there are more elderly Australians. That's why governments are not to be commended for just doing their job but should be called out—and I notice that the shadow minister did that very well in her opening remarks—for not implementing the recommendations that a responsible government would do. This bill will require approved providers of residential aged-care facilities to manage incidents and take reasonable steps to prevent incidents. This includes through implementing and maintaining effective organisationwide governance systems for the management and reporting of incidents of abuse and neglect. It will establish the Serious Incident Response Scheme. This bill will expand the powers of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission to enforce the responsibilities of aged-care providers. Currently aged-care providers are required to report incidents, suspicions or allegations of assault on residents to local police and to the commission within 24 hours. Last year there were 5,717 notifications of assault under the act. Last year there were 244,363 people in permanent residential aged care. This area of responsibility rests with the Commonwealth government. There is currently an exemption from reporting incidents of assault where the perpetrator is another resident with a cognitive or mental impairment. On one level this is a practical response, but I do stress and point out that such victims still have human rights. In 2019 KPMG completed a study commissioned by the Department of Health. It estimated that, in a year, there were more than 50,000 incidents of assault on residents that were not reported. As I said, they should notify the commission and the local police. Even before the KPMG study was completed we knew there was a problem in aged-care facilities. George Brandis, who recently visited Australia, in his time as Attorney-General commissioned the ALRC to inquire into and report on existing laws to prevent elder abuse. The ALRC handed down its report in May 2017. The ALRC report from 2017 recommended the Serious Incident Response Scheme, which would require reporting of an expanded list of incidents and be monitored by an independent oversight body. The terrible abuse uncovered at the Oakden nursing home in South Australia shocked the nation. A review of the nursing home by the state's chief psychiatrist was described as a 'deeply troubling report'. The Oakden facility was closed in 2017. So there have been some very quick kneejerk reactions from those opposite, but good government is much slower. Any time that there's an image in the media, the image trumps the actual carrying out of responsible government. Following the failures identified at the Oakden facility, the Commonwealth government commissioned the independent Review of National Aged Care Quality Regulatory Processes, or the Carnell-Paterson review. Without taking away from the fine work in that report, I think that we could easily list 50 inquiries into aged care. Ms Burney 8GH Absolutely. Mr PERRETT HVP We wouldn't have to go back that far—just a decade or so, Member for Barton. It wouldn't take long to find where people were investigating people having kerosene baths and the like. We don't have to go that far back. There have been lots and lots of inquiries looking into aged care. I can save you reading all 50 of them because they basically say we need to invest more resources in the care of our elderly Australians. I go back to the Carnell-Paterson review. It was completed in October 2017 and the review concluded that the current scheme to report assaults in aged care was not adequate and did not protect aged-care residents from abuse and neglect. The Carnell-Paterson review endorsed the recommendation of the ALRC to establish a serious incident response scheme to be overseen by an independent body. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, in their report on the quality of care in aged-care facilities tabled in 2018, noted that the government was considering establishing a serious incident response scheme, as recommended by the ALRC. The committee also recommended the exemption for the reporting of resident-on-resident assaults be removed. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety handed its interim report to the Governor-General back in October 2019 and that report, as I'm sure people following this area would know, was simply titled Neglect. The royal commission reported that a high incidence of assaults by staff on residents and by residents on other residents and on staff had been brought to their attention. In October 2020 counsel assisting the royal commission proposed an extensive list of recommendations for aged-care reform, including developing a new and expanded serious incident response scheme. The government has known for a long time, at least since 2017, that older vulnerable Australians in aged-care facilities are not being adequately protected from physical abuse and assault. Why has it taken the Morrison government this long to address this serious issue? Not only have the Australian Law Reform Commission, the independent Carnell-Paterson review, the House of Representatives committee and the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety all expressed concerns about the safety of residents in aged-care facilities; anyone who has a relative in aged care is very aware that there is a problem. The royal commission's interim report referred to evidence presented to them that family members had installed hidden cameras in their relatives' rooms to ensure their safety, only to be horrified by the rough treatment and even assaults that were captured on these hidden cameras. It is inexcusable that this Morrison government has ignored this problem for as long as it has. This is about protecting some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Labor identified this as a problem many years ago and has been calling on the government to act. In a speech in February 2018 the shadow Attorney-General said: A future Labor Government would also look at amending the Aged Care Act to provide for a new serious incident response scheme for aged care. In his final submission before the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, counsel assisting, Peter Rozen QC, said: Many witnesses have explained that they placed their loved ones into residential aged care because they felt that it would be safer for them or because safety was a concern. It is therefore entirely unacceptable that people in residential aged care face a substantially higher risk of assault than people living in the community. We cannot continue to claim we are a country that protects human rights if we are not protecting the most vulnerable members of our society. In a media release in December last year the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety said that they estimate 39.2 per cent of people living in Australian aged-care facilities experienced elder abuse in the form of neglect, emotional abuse or physical abuse; that's basically saying two in five people in these facilities would experience some form of neglect, emotional abuse or physical abuse. I think that's disgusting. It is neglect as per the report. The Liberals have been asleep at the wheel for seven years. They don't care about older Australians in aged care. In his first budget as Treasurer, then Treasurer Scott Morrison ripped $1.2 billion from aged care. There have been four ministers and the aged-care system has lurched from one crisis to another. Going back to the kerosene baths and that approach in aged-care facilities, back to the disgraced former Speaker, Bronwyn Bishop, this is a horrible legacy. So this legislation is welcome, but it does not go far enough. It does nothing to protect the one million older Australians receiving support or care in their own home. These older Australians are equally at risk of a serious incident occurring. They also deserve to be protected by this scheme. Apart from that oversight, I do welcome this legislation, but it is shameful that it has taken so long for this Morrison government to put this legislation before the parliament. As I said, this legislation has been called for since the middle of 2017. How many older Australians have been subjected to abuse during that time with no adequate scheme in place to protect them? There is no excuse for not acting sooner to protect older Australians. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety is due to hand down its final report in just a few weeks. There have been 10,144 submissions and 6,729 phone calls at last count received by the commission. Aged care should concern every Australian. Our mothers, our fathers, our brothers, sisters, aunties and uncles, our neighbours should all be confident they are receiving proper and dignified care if they require it in an aged-care facility. That is not the case on Prime Minister Morrison's watch. I will be reading the recommendations of the royal commission with interest and I hope that the Morrison government does not take as long to implement those recommendations as it has to implement the legislation currently before the House. I support this legislation and I support the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister for senior Australians and aged-care services. 13:21 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling I am pleased to speak today about the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020 relating to the Serious Incident Response Scheme. Before I cover the detail, I always like to talk about why legislation is being introduced. In this case, this legislation is being driven by the core belief that this government holds that it is our responsibility as a nation to look after and support the interests and the safety of elderly Australians—those Australians who have contributed so much in shaping the nation that we have inherited, those Australians who have helped raise us, the next generation. At this point I would also like to specifically mention my wife's nan, Patricia Coombe, who died just on Sunday. Patricia was a very fierce advocate of family love. She was a wonderful example to all of her extended family. Pat always led by example in setting up family events, in keeping in touch with loved ones, in sharing information and of course in having a nice full lolly jar at her own home. My personal favourites were the lolly bananas, but, unfortunately, they were Nan's favourites too, and I was left with whatever the kids hadn't already cleaned out. Pat was also a recipient of aged-care services, as many elderly Australians are. Those services were mixed and supported by her own family—her daughters Maureen, Coralie and Kathleen, and their own families as well. Under this model, we can see the expectation that we all have—that when elderly Australians are receiving care on a formal organised basis it is in a safe and supportive environment. That is where this bill comes in. This bill introduces a Serious Incident Response Scheme. This will respond to and take steps to prevent the incidence of neglect and abuse of older Australians in residential aged care and for those receiving flexible care delivered in a residential aged-care setting. It also introduces a responsibility for approved providers to manage incidents and to take reasonable steps to prevent incidents, including through implementing and maintaining an incident management system. Importantly, this legislation also defines a reportable incident and provides a broad range of powers to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner. The bill will provide protections for whistleblowers who disclose information about reportable incidents. The bill also introduces the ability for the commissioner to issue compliance notices to deal with enforcement of incident management responsibilities. Importantly, the bill will introduce enforcement powers for the commissioner to impose civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions. This Serious Incident Response Scheme is all about driving quality and safety improvements to residential aged care at the individual service level and at the broader system level. Under this scheme, residential aged-care providers will be required to manage all incidents, with a focus on the safety and wellbeing of consumers and on reducing preventable incidents from recurring. Reporting under this scheme will include a range of new matters, such as sexual misconduct, neglect, psychological abuse, inappropriate use of restraints and unexpected death, amongst others. I've got some experience myself in the implementation of incident management systems. I was a captain in the Australian Army, a few years ago now, when an online system was brought in to manage incidents. At first we thought this was just burdensome paperwork but what we soon learned was that this system enabled us to track actions in response to incidents, whether it was a medical response that needed to be followed up, where a soldier had been injured and we needed to track their treatment and care, or whether it related to administrative or procedural controls to help prevent future incidents. We found that the system was great at ensuring actions were implemented and that any macrotrends in incidents that occurred across Army were identified and mitigated. When I moved into the business world I also had experience with incident management systems, including in mining and oil and gas, which are of course high-risk environments where it's really important that incidents are identified and controls are implemented and tracked. That's where this bill will help—by providing a system under which incidents can be defined and identified and the actions relating to those incidents can be tracked so that, importantly, we continue to improve aged care for all ageing Australians. As has mentioned by previous speakers, this Prime Minister is passionate about continually improving aged care. That's why, since coming to government, this coalition has seen an increase in spending to $23.9 billion this year. It is why, since coming to government, we have tripled the number of home-care packages. These are just some of the measures whereby we are continually improving the provision of services to aged Australians. This scheme will see a fit-for-purpose serious incident response scheme that gives comfort to all of us across Australia. I know this sentiment is shared across the chamber and by all Australians. We want to provide the best quality for our ageing loved ones. This scheme will help by ensuring that, as they enter aged care, our loved ones experience a supportive and safe environment. 13:27 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley As speakers before me have said, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020 is legislation that has been some time coming. We know that work had been done before 2017 and that at least two reports were published in 2017 recommending the enacting of a serious incident response scheme. We know that the Australian Law Reform Commission, in its report Elder abuse, recommended that an SIRS be introduced. We know that the Carnell-Paterson review when it was looking at the Oakden facility recommended such legislation. We know that in the 2019-20 budget the government put forward some money to prepare for an SIRS. But it still took some time before this legislation made its way into this parliament. It is of course welcome that it is here now. But no-one in this place and no-one in any of the communities that we represent can say anything other than that we have an aged-care system which is currently broken. Start with the fact that an interim report of a royal commission can be titled Neglect. Then go to the experiences of the mothers, fathers and grandparents across our communities who are in aged-care facilities. The people who work there want to do the best that they can and are dedicated to caring for the people who reside there, but they're hamstrung by the fact that there aren't enough staff from shift to shift. They're hamstrung by the fact that it can be very hard to recruit staff when wages are so low. They're hamstrung by the fact that work in aged care is now so casualised, so precarious that we have people working across three and four different facilities in order to make ends meet. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 18 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Jackson, Ms Leonie 18 13:30 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta On the night of Saturday 16 January, Leonie Jackson celebrated her 50th birthday with her family. The next day, on Sunday 17 January, Leonie drowned while saving her son from a rip at Congo Beach. A family lost a mother, a friend, an advocate and a person who her sons say would move mountains for them, and Australia lost one of its genuine leaders, a person who really made a difference. She was a pioneer from the very beginning of her career, helping establish Australia's first bilingual program for deaf children aged two to five, and her work went on, selflessly, for another 25 years. She was generous and never passive, she believed in opportunity for all, and she worked to improve the capacity of the deaf community collectively and individually. When I met Leonie, she was the CEO of the Deaf Society. She was the organisation's first deaf CEO in its 100-year history, and she made us all wonder why it took so long. It was so obvious. She was an amazing advocate. She was the one of the strongest and most effective advocates for Australia's deaf community in recent history. Last year's landmark merger between Deaf Services and Deaf Society was largely due to Leonie's ability to merge strategic vision and practicality and her unwavering optimism for the future of the deaf community. She is missed deeply. Leonie Jackson, this woman who broke down barriers, built community capacity and supported deaf people to realise their dreams. Rest in peace, Leonie. Hackett, Ms Kate 18 13:31 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I rise to inform the House of a special achievement of a member of my community in Bennelong. Ms Kate Hackett of Ryde has been awarded the Public Service Medal in this year's Australia Day honours. Ms Hackett is the director of nursing and midwifery at Westmead Hospital and has been at the forefront of the fight against coronavirus in Australia. Since the first cases emerged in January last year, Kate has been leading the nursing team at Westmead Hospital through this extremely challenging period of our national life. Ms Hackett's recognition is a timely reminder of the debt we owe all frontline workers for their extraordinary efforts in fighting COVID-19. This unprecedented public health challenge has put heavy demands on frontline workers, many of whom have worked longer hours in uncertain and dangerous conditions for months on end. I'd also like to thank the government for establishing a dedicated COVID-19 honours roll to acknowledge the service and achievement of so many Australians in dealing with this challenge. Fortunately, Australia has avoided the tragic mass infections that have ravaged other countries. This has only been possible because of the quiet and diligent work of many hundreds of thousands of Australians working together so that we all remain safe and healthy. We owe you so much. Thank you. Cambodia: Human Rights 18 13:33 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I want to call out the Cambodian government—Hun Sen's gangster regime—for a new tactic to silence dissent: the mass trials of hundreds of people across the world for incitement offences. Australia must push back hard on this, as it affects our citizens, including two of my constituents and a former Victorian MP, Hong Lim. They are Australian citizens. They haven't been to Cambodia for years. Their crime is to speak up from afar in support of human rights and democracy. In a sense, the whole thing is ridiculous. It's a trial by a kangaroo court. No information has been provided. The only notice was their names on a piece of paper nailed on a door in Phnom Penh of a banned political party. They learnt this third hand as word spread. So, in a sense, this is laughable, but it's actually a serious issue for Australia and for those charged. If these fake crimes stick then Australian citizens could be barred from safe travel through any country with whom Cambodia has extradition arrangements. They may have to declare a criminal record. Freedom of speech in Australia is diminished, yet the Morrison government remains shamefully silent. Make no mistake: this is a blatant attempt at foreign interference in Australia. It's silencing Australian voices. It's way past time this useless excuse for a foreign minister said something, did something. Giving them a list of lawyers is not enough. This is a political issue; it's not a legal issue. The Australian government must speak out and work with like-minded countries to push back on this tactic. Safer Internet Day 19 13:34 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise to mark Safer Internet Day on 9 February, to join the chat about online safety and help unite the global mission of making the online experience safer for everyone. As a mother, I know how hard it is not knowing whether your children will be exposed to predatory internet behaviour. As parents, we can feel we have little idea of the risks they take in the privacy of their bedrooms. And every parent will tell you that kids these days spend a lot of time on their devices. That is why the Morrison government is committed to keeping Australians safe through a record investment in Australia's national security, including boosting Australia's cyber-resilience. This vision—to create a more secure online world for all Australians—will be delivered through a record $1.67 billion investment in the Australian cybersecurity 10-year strategy. To all those in Higgins whose children have recently started back at school, or to the countless teachers and volunteers who educate and lead our community each and every day: there is no better day than 9 February to mark Safer Internet Day and start the chat. Spread the word about the importance of internet safety. To register your support, alongside that of millions of other people around the world, for Safer Internet Day, visit the website esafety.gov.au. Together, we can work towards a better internet for everyone and help keep our kids safe. Oil Exploration: Petroleum Exploration Permit 11 19 13:36 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle In 10 days time, the lease for Petroleum Exploration Permit 11, PEP 11, will expire. This controversial permit could see oil and gas rigs set up on the coastal waters between Newcastle and Sydney. Unsurprisingly, local communities haven't taken too kindly to the threat of massive drilling rigs along their precious coastline. Together, they have built one of the most extensive and powerful local grassroots campaigns that I have seen in years. Their message has been loud, it is clear and it's gathering momentum every day: PEP 11 is not welcome—not in Sydney, not on the Central Coast and most certainly not in Newcastle. Currently, there's an application before the minister for resources, Keith Pitt, and his state counterpart to extend PEP 11 for another two years. Minister, on behalf of my community, I say to you: there is only one person who can put an end to this uncertainty, and that's you. You alone have the power of veto in this decision and you alone can ensure the community's wishes are enacted. It's time to listen to the voices of the people. PEP 11 has no place in our waters. Please, Minister, reject this application and put an end to this reckless project once and for all. Menzies Community Australia Day Awards 2021 19 13:37 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies On 26 January, I was delighted to be able to host the 28th annual Menzies Community Australia Day Awards and to present awards to a number of workers and volunteers in my electorate for their wonderful service, and I'd like to just list them today: John Barnes from the U3A in Manningham; Steve Buys from the Eltham South Preschool; Gee Wing Chung from the Chinese Senior Citizens Club of Manningham; Colleen Danaher from the U3A Manningham; Ross Dawson from MannaCare; Zakir Fakhri from the Manningham Interfaith Network; Malcolm Ferguson from the Manningham Rotary op shop; Ila Franklin from Doncare; Trish Hargreaves from the Manningham Rotary op shop and, also from the Manningham Rotary op shop, Sue Hudson; Alston Jerome from the Australian Air League at Doncaster; Tony Louey from the Chinese Senior Citizens Club of Manningham; Captain Adrian Mullens from the Warrandyte Country Fire Authority; Warrant Officer David Ryan, the President of the Warrandyte RSL; Elizabeth Seward from the Doncaster Templestowe Historical Society; Christian Sharkey and also Stuart Steiner from the Wonga Park Scout Group; Ron Twining from the Templestowe RSL; and Cheryl Watt from Doncare. In addition, I presented to the women's friendship group the Organisation of the Year Award, and that comprised a flag which had flown in this chamber, which the Speaker kindly provides, one to each of us as members, and I present that on Australia Day to an organisation within my electorate. Congratulations to all those involved. Oil Exploration 20 13:39 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell PEP 11, the permit for mining companies to explore for oil and gas off the coast from Sydney to Newcastle, including off the Central Coast, is up for renewal in 10 days time. Critically, this decision won't be made locally. It won't be made on the Central Coast. It will be made by two ministers who don't live in the area: the federal Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia, Minister Keith Pitt, and the New South Wales Deputy Premier, John Barilaro. If the ministers want to know how locals feel about the prospect of oil and gas rigs off the coast, I'll tell them. Nearly 2,000 local people have already contacted me, calling on the ministers to stop PEP 11 and to save our coast. This risky proposal, which the community is opposed to, threatens our environment, our economy and our way of life. As one local summed it up, communities are deeply connected to the coast and depend on it for their livelihoods and wellbeing. It's not just locals who will be impacted by PEP 11. In 2019, 1.94 million people visited the coast, adding $692 million to our local economy. In the pandemic recovery, tourism should be boosted, not threatened by risky proposals like PEP 11. PEP 11 puts our economic recovery at risk and it puts Central Coast jobs at risk. I encourage every local on the coast who is opposed to offshore drilling to join with thousands of others and have their say. It's not too late. Every signature, every email and every phone call sends a strong message to Minister Pitt and Minister Barilaro that locals don't want drilling off our coast. Reid Electorate: Lunar New Year, Reid Electorate: COVID-19 20 13:41 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid This month many of my constituents will be participating in lunar new year celebrations across Reid. My electorate is an incredibly diverse place. We have over 40,000 people of Chinese ancestry and over 12,000 people of Korean ancestry living in Reid. For this reason, lunar new year is one of the most celebrated events in our community's calendar. I remember the festivities last year in Reid for lunar new year. These celebrations took place just as the world was beginning to hear about COVID-19. The pandemic has since caused many disruptions to our lives, but this has made the message of lunar new year more important than ever. This year, 2021, marks the year of the ox, an animal respected for its diligence, patience and hard work. These qualities define the attitude and work ethic of the Chinese and Korean Australian communities in my area. They are also the qualities we need in order to bounce back from the COVID-19 pandemic stronger than before. We must continue to be patient as we work to suppress the virus. We must also be diligent in ensuring we remain COVID safe in our communities. I hope those celebrating lunar new year gain strength from the symbol of the ox and have good health and prosperity in the coming year. Immigration Detention 20 13:42 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne The compassionate people of Melbourne have for over a month been rallying every day outside the Park Hotel in Carlton in my electorate. They have been rallying because since 2019 over 60 innocent men have been cruelly imprisoned there. These men, along with hundreds of others, were brought to the Australian mainland to receive medical treatment. Instead, at times they been confined to their rooms for 23 hours a day. Australia's immigration system is based on torture and cruelty and says that when people come here seeking our help we show them a closed fist instead of an open hand. I ask each of you here in parliament today: if you or your family were in a situation where bullets were raining down on you or you couldn't feed yourselves or you were under threat of death or persecution, wouldn't you flee to seek safety? And wouldn't you want to be treated like a human being when you arrived in a country like Australia? The people of Melbourne have now borne witness to the inhumanity of this government. The community pressure is working. In the last fortnight 46 men were released, and they are now free for the first time in eight years, but there are still 12 men languishing in the Park Hotel. As the leader of the only party in this parliament that opposes the cruel system of indefinite mandatory detention, I want to assure each of these 12 men that we will keep fighting not just until those 12 are released but until every detention camp is closed down and no-one is locked up indefinitely for committing no crime. Wentworth Electorate: Australia Day Honours 20 13:43 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth I rise to single out the exceptional individuals within the Wentworth community who were recognised with an Australia Day honour or award. First, I want to pay tribute and make special mention of a predecessor of mine here, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, who was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia for his eminent service to the people of Australia not only as a Prime Minister and cabinet minister but in a number of other roles. I want also to congratulate Emeritus Professor Christopher Fell on his appointment as an Officer of the Order of Australia for his distinguished service to science and engineering. I want to congratulate the following outstanding individuals appointed as members of the Order of Australia: Ms Georgina Byron, for her significant service to the community and to social change initiatives; the late Maureen Kerridge, for service to the television industry and the arts; Dr Milton Osborne, for service to history as an author; Dr Tom Playfair, for service to ophthalmology; Mr Kerry Roxburgh, for significant service to the financial sector; Ms Elizabeth Swan, for her service to library and information services; and Mr Peter Wise, for his service to the Jewish community. I extend further congratulations to the following people in Wentworth awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia: the late Denise Bannon, Mr Steven Ostrow, Mrs Lea Portrate and Mr Gregory Sanderson. I congratulate Mrs Anita Hawtin and Ms Natasha Luschwitz, who were awarded a Public Service Medal. Last, but certainly not least, I congratulate Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Vincent O'Neill for being awarded a Conspicuous Service Cross for his role as commander of the Australian Contingent in MFO Sinai. Member for Hughes 21 13:45 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara Last week the government committed funds to Holocaust education, and I commend them for that, but this week a member of the government recorded a podcast with a person who shared Neo-Nazi memes. Many dismiss the ongoing conspiracy theories of the member for Hughes about the Bureau of Meteorology. The conspiracy theories and denial of climate change are obviously unscientific and the work of ignorance, but as is often the case with conspiracies, there is a sinister and dangerous underbelly that eventually shows its face. The member for Hughes's antivaccination and false medical advice has been deeply irresponsible during a global health pandemic. The member for Hughes is not a doctor, and nor is he in any way qualified to give advice on medicines or treatments. However, his false and deeply offensive comparisons of Victoria's health authorities with Nazi Germany surely should have been the final straw for the Prime Minister to intervene, but there was nothing—nothing from the Prime Minister, who is meant to lead and protect all of those in our country, especially minorities. Of course the member for Hughes sat down with Pete Evans to record his podcast. It clearly didn't bother the member for Hughes that Mr Evans has shared Neo-Nazi imagery, but it should bother the Prime Minister. It matters when members of the government endorse dangerous and offensive ideas, and it matters when our country's leaders fail to call them out. History has shown that, in these moments, indifference is the worst possible approach, but that is exactly what is happening. The Prime Minister is indifferent. Regional Forestry Agreements 21 13:47 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash The establishment of the Regional Forestry Agreements took great thought, effort and political will throughout the Hawke-Keating and Howard years. The people, our people, paid a great price to achieve consensus in order to have a sustainable timber industry across this nation. There are those who have found ways to circumvent the RFAs to the detriment of regional communities and the Australian people. To close down our industry and import timber products abrogates our national responsibility in two ways: (1) we exploit other nations which do not have the environmental safeguards we do in timber, and (2) we fail as a nation to become self-sufficient in managing this essential product. Has COVID taught us nothing about self-sufficiency? This is simple but not easy. It will take brave, intelligent leaders to examine the issue honestly and in detail without regard for political consequences. May common sense prevail. This is an issue of national survival, not ideological warfare. Blue Mountains: Tourism 21 13:48 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie A year ago, I gathered 300 Blue Mountains tourism businesses together to hear what they needed to help recover from devastating bushfires. They needed cash injections to help attract visitors and support to create new things to inspire people to come back for more. They got some of that—only some of it—before COVID hit, and, most recently, have missed out on fast-tracked grants because of political favouritism by the New South Wales Liberals. Thank goodness the Morrison government listened to the pleas of businesses and workers and our plea for wage subsidies, which have kept many of these tourism businesses on life support. Scenic World has revealed that it had a 75 per cent drop in visitors, and that's played out right across the local Blue Mountains tourism economy. Yes, businesses have pivoted. They've adapted. They've re-invented. But Blue Mountains Tourism tells me that many operators are back to bare bones and jobs have been lost. Those lost jobs are nothing compared to what they fear will happen when JobKeeper ends, because this government refuses to recognise that a sector heavily dependent on international visitors cannot replace them with domestic visitors. These businesses want to keep employing local people. They want to keep the rest of the local economy ticking over. If the government refuses to extend JobKeeper, those job losses and business failures will lie at the feet of people who only pretend to be the friend of small business. Keswick Island 22 13:49 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson In December I visited residents on Keswick Island to see firsthand what they have been suffering under their new Chinese landlords. From the moment I set foot on the boat ramp, I was being watched by a security guard who was employed by that Chinese company—that's the head lessee—to record the movements of visitors and residents and check them against a register. Can you imagine this kind of Big Brother style surveillance occurring anywhere else in this country? I've since heard further reports about the conduct of the Chinese company that's the head lessee. Keswick Island is now peppered with Keep Out signs, large boulders blocking vehicle access, locked gates and chained-off areas. A boat ramp which was deemed not fit for purpose is the only access point for residents and tourists since the main boat ramp was closed. The residents and homeowners of Keswick Island have had a gutful. These people bought and built their houses in Australia. The Palaszczuk government has allowed access to the island and to places on the island to be restricted by a foreign company. The Palaszczuk government has failed to protect the interests of Queenslanders from a foreign company on Queensland publicly-owned land. The Palaszczuk Labor government now has two options: pull the lessee into line or, preferably, tear up the lease altogether. Anything less would be an affront to the rights of Queenslanders. Anything less would be putting the interests of a Chinese company ahead of the interests of everyday Aussies. Labor's MP in Mackay, Julieanne Gilbert, says that all this is nonsense. She's going to find out what nonsense is. COVID-19 22 13:51 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand Yesterday at the National Press Club, when the Prime Minister was asked about the coalition's one-man COVID-19 misinformation superspreader, the member for Hughes, the Prime Minister declared that the member for Hughes was doing 'a great job'. The member for Hughes took this prime ministerial endorsement of his recent attacks on the Therapeutic Goods Administration as his cue to go on the podcast of Pete Evans. That is the same Pete Evans who was fined earlier this year by the TGA for his marketing of a crank cure for COVID-19, the $15,000 BioCharger NG. Evans claimed that the BioCharger NG was a 'hybrid subtle energy revitalisation platform' and had 'a recipe for COVID-19'. And look! It has these great flashing lights, and there's a metal ring thing and a big red button— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member will put the prop down. Mr WATTS 193430 It is laughable, but this is the kind of rubbish that is being promoted on Pete Evans's podcast, which the member for Hughes appeared on. Unfortunately, the BioCharger NG doesn't cure internet brainworms! I'm sure that the member for Hughes would insist that he personally doesn't endorse the BioCharger NG; he has his own quack cures for COVID-19. This would be laughable if we weren't in the middle of a pandemic, but we are in the middle of a pandemic and it's serious. The rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine is the most important thing happening in this country now—the most important thing for fighting the health crisis and for securing our economic recovery—and it's being undermined by the silence of the Prime Minister about members of his party room. (Time expired) COVID-19 22 13:52 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling As we begin 2021, let's consider what we can and must do to adapt to and prosper in the wake of changes wrought by the pandemic. Our ability to navigate challenges and seize opportunities will be guided at least as much by individual attitudes as by government policy. Personally we must be resilient and bold. We must be flexible. We must manage risk but not be ruled by fear. Our Morrison government response is reflecting these principles. Economic supports have been targeted and time-framed. Our Modern Manufacturing Strategy will build supply-chain resilience whilst targeting growth in priority areas. We must continue to support and encourage small and family businesses. We must continue to lower energy costs, so let's be open to exploring emerging technologies, like safer, small modular reactors for nuclear energy, and hydrogen. These can help firm energy production alongside renewables. We also need workplace rules that are fit for purpose in a changed world. As we recover and grow stronger at home, we must also continue to support the recovery and the sovereignty of our neighbours in the Indo-Pacific. Whilst we live in different states and territories, whilst we are from different countries and different cultures, let us all combine, let us all collaborate, as we remember that we are all Australians and that we are all one. Cobby, Mrs Anita 22 13:54 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway On this day 35 years ago, a young woman from Blacktown was cruelly taken from this life. She was barely 26 years old. She could not have been more innocent: a nurse, someone who had chosen a profession of caring for others, and a local beauty queen. After finishing a shift and dinner, she caught a train from the city to Blacktown station and was walking home. She never made it there. The murder of Anita Cobby on 2 February 1986 outraged the nation and profoundly affected those of us from Blacktown. The manner of her death was an abomination, but the unbelievable courage and dignity of her family and of her parents, Grace and Garry Lynch, will never be forgotten. The professionalism of the detectives and law enforcement agencies on the case will never be forgotten. It was a massive challenge for them, not only in terms of dealing with the depravity of the murderers but in terms of the anger and fear amongst the community whilst they were trying to do their best for Anita. The movement to remember Anita Cobby and to recognise and support the families and loved ones of homicide victims continues to this day. I pay special tribute to retired police Chief Inspector Gary Raymond, who, along with other retired police and those who worked to bring her justice, organised the first public memorial service for Anita in 2015. Even at that time, 29 years after her death, it was raw and painful. As Gary said: I'm glad people still feel it's worthwhile to not let her memory go. The community concern has never faded away. Let us never forget the life of Anita Cobby and let's recommit ourselves to the eradication of violence against women. Travel Industry 23 13:55 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper Over the Christmas break I was contacted by numerous travel agents who were extremely appreciative of the government's $128 million support package for the travel industry. Having said that, some of them identified an anomaly that had arisen through the ATO processing whereby many of them were submitting under TTV, the total ticket value, and some were submitting under the turnover. What that did was create a disparity or an inequity between the two. Some were receiving greater payments than others. I've raised this issue with the minister. We've discussed that, and we will continue to work with AFTA and the department to ensure that all travel agents receive their fair share of that $128 million. In addition, these businesses, 60 per cent of which are rural and regional businesses, and these 40,000 people in our travel industry, 80 per cent of whom are women, have supported our industry and supported our people over the past 12 months. I call on our side, as the other side has today, to consider an industry support package over the next 12 months to ensure their viability. Superannuation 23 13:57 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam Yesterday the Prime Minister told the country that he has no appetite for vanity projects. If this is true, he should stand up in parliament today and say that he will not cut workers' super. He should do this because the Liberal Party plan to cut superannuation is a direct and a deliberate breach of a solemn pledge that he made to the people of Australia before the last election. He should also do it because it is not fair. Australian workers currently get superannuation at the rate of 9½ per cent. That means that the average Australian retires with $180,000 in retirement savings. For women, it's much less: $120,000. The Prime Minister seems to think that this is enough for ordinary Australians. But in two years the Prime Minister amasses more in superannuation than the average Australian retires on. This is because every member of this place and every public servant gets 15.4 per cent in superannuation. The Liberals argue that $180,000 is enough for ordinary Australians but that they should get much more for themselves. How can any of us argue this to the retail workers of Australia? The Prime Minister should stand up today and say that he will not cut— (Time expired) Horticulture Industry 23 13:59 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls For the past 10 months it has become apparent there's going to be a shortage of overseas labour available in Australia for fruit picking this summer. This work is usually done by backpackers and Pacific islanders. The industry has been warning all state governments that, without any new backpackers coming to Australia, state governments are going to have to be proactive in putting in place their respective protocols around the countries of origin that these workers will come from, the flights, the quarantine arrangements, the accommodation and the general movement of these workers while they're in Australia. The Northern Territory moved months ago to bring in Pacific islanders to get the mangos harvested. The Queensland government brought in Pacific islanders to pick fruit and it put in place a quarantining-on-farm protocol to enable the fruit to be picked immediately. The federal government assisted and facilitated all of these movements. The Victorian Premier acknowledged on 11 December that Victoria needed 15,000 to 20,000 workers, yet he has still failed to act. The consequences of this inaction will see a state-government-created disaster within the fruit industry. There is fruit falling and rotting on the ground as we speak. How Daniel Andrews brings in tennis players and their entourages from countries that are rife with the virus while at the same time not being prepared to assist bringing in workers from countries that are clear of the virus shows his utter contempt for the fruit industry. Daniel Andrews will own the consequences of his inaction, and I don't think he's going to be able to blame this disaster on a 'creeping assumption'. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 24 CONDOLENCES Sullivan, Mr Jonathan Harold (Jon) 24 14:01 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House of the death on 17 January 2021 of Jonathan Harold (Jon) Sullivan, a member of this House for the division of Longman from 2007 to 2010. As a mark of respect to the memory of Jon Sullivan I ask all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the House. Jeffery, Major General Hon. Philip Michael, AC, AO (Mil), CVO, MC (Retd) 24 Reference to Federation Chamber 26 14:14 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That the resumption of debate of the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Honourable Philip Michael Jeffery be referred to the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 26 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:15 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I present a revised ministry list reflecting changes made since our last sitting and a change of representative arrangements. The document read as follows— SECOND MORRISON MINISTRY 22 December 2020 Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there can be two departments in one portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a Minister in all cases. Ministers are sworn to administer the portfolio in which they are listed under the 'Minister' column and may also be sworn to administer other portfolios in which they are not listed. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952. SHADOW MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 28 SHADOW MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler For the information of the House, I present a revised list of the shadow ministry which reflects the reshuffle that I announced last week. The document read as follows— FEDERAL SHADOW MINISTRY 28 January 2021 Shadow Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 31 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Workplace Relations 31 14:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister legislating changes to industrial relations laws which would allow take-home pay to be cut? 14:16 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook That is not the case. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left. Mr MORRISON E3L It is simply not the case. We are seeking to get Australians back into work. That's our goal: getting Australians back into work. Since the commencement of the pandemic, we have now seen 90 per cent of the jobs that were lost come back into this economy. Everything we are doing as a government is designed to get Australians back into work. Morrison Government 31 14:16 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison government has ensured we start the year in a stronger position and explain how we will deal with the challenges Australia and the world face in 2021? 14:16 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question and for the great work she has done over the summer break with the local community. Australians have put Australia in a relatively strong position at the beginning of this year as we continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic. As we battle it from a health perspective, as we battle it from an economic perspective and as we stand here today, Australia is among a small handful of countries that have had the relative success when it comes to saving lives and when it comes to saving livelihoods. As we look around the world, we know that here in this country there has been that valuable time that has enabled us to move forward with the plans and preparations to ensure that we emerge from 2021, at the end of this year, even stronger again. Australians have created that space. Australians, through their efforts, through their patience, through their discipline and through their overcoming have ensured that we are in the relative position of envy of those elsewhere in the world in terms of where we stand today. But we know that the job is far from finished. The journey is still a long way in front of us as we continue that road to recovery. Our efforts to save lives and livelihoods have been effective, but they must continue along the same Australian way that we have managed to pursue over this course of this past year and we must pursue again as we go throughout this year—the targeted, proportionate approach, the way we have worked with existing delivery mechanisms, the way we have worked in concert with other arms of policy delivery, the way we have understood that emergencies are emergencies and that you then need to emerge from them and ensure that the economy can stand once again on its own two feet. As we go into this year, we go in with five core goals. They are to suppress the virus and deliver the vaccine rollout, an unprecedented logistical effort that this country will embark on in the course of this year to again save lives and livelihoods; to continue the path of economic recovery—the comeback that has begun, the comeback that continues—and, as the momentum builds, as confidence figures and job vacancy figures— Mr Frydenberg FKL Job ads. Mr MORRISON E3L job ads show, our economy will come back throughout the course of 2021; to guarantee those essential services that Australians rely on, whether they be the National Disability Insurance Scheme, aged care, veterans support or the many other areas that Australians rely on for this support; to pursue our interests in a very uncertain world; and to care for our country in the best traditions of our Indigenous Australians, who have done so for millennia. Workplace Relations 31 14:20 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio My question is to the Prime Minister. Why are the Prime Minister's industrial relations changes being cited by retailers as a reason for workers on $57,000 losing every single penalty rate, overtime rate and shift allowance? 14:20 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce Well, it's just not correct. Everyone in this House will remember the final sitting week of last year, when members opposite said that there would be pay cuts before Christmas. They said that there'd be pay cuts for Christmas. Did that happen? Did it happen? The difficulty with not telling the truth is that, when the things don't become true, people lose faith in what you're saying. It was desperate and untrue then, in 2020, and it's desperate and untrue now, in 2021. Mr Burke DYW I seek leave to table the requests from the retailers, which the Attorney-General just said don't exist. Leave not granted. Economy 32 14:21 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please inform the House on how the Morrison-McCormack government's continued commitment to supporting businesses in regional Australia and creating regional jobs is ensuring a stronger Australia for 2021? An opposition member interjecting— 14:21 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It is when you're in this place! I do thank the member for Dawson for his question and note his hard work during December and January, when he didn't talk at his constituents but listened to them—listened to and heard their concerns and their issues. And, of course, as all good members do, he comes here and acts upon those issues and those matters that they raise with him. I want also to particularly thank all Australians, especially regional Australians, for what they've done, as the Prime Minister has just said, through the COVID crisis. Australians have been magnificent. They've done what they've been asked to do by the health experts: social-distancing, quarantining, self-isolation, and wearing masks. It's been difficult, particularly for regional Australians. In many areas of country, rural, coastal and remote Australia they haven't had any COVID cases, and if they have, those cases have been very minimal and not for many, many months. Despite that, they've had limitations placed upon them. They have risen magnificently to the challenge, to what they've been asked to do to keep their areas and our nation COVID free. For that I say, we all say: 'Thank you very much.' Certainly, I know that the assistance this government has provided to those regions and to the nation as a whole has been very much appreciated, particularly, as I say, in regional Australia. Our support has come through many programs, including Regional Recovery Partnerships—partnering with local communities to deliver targeted, localised development opportunities for 10 regions, including the Mackay, Isaac and Whitsunday region in the member for Dawson's electorate. This $100 million investment backs in existing local plans and priorities, boosting jobs. I went around a lot of Australia during the break—north-west New South Wales, Northern Queensland, the Northern Territory, Tasmania and elsewhere—and I saw a lot of hi-vis workers out there building infrastructure, everything from just sealing roads, little dusty roads in the member for Parkes's electorate, right through to major bridge infrastructure. We're getting the job done, and we're doing it with states. We're doing it with the 537 councils, through the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. I know that that has been very well received, particularly in the member for Dawson's electorate, by Burdekin Shire Council, Mackay Regional Council, Townsville City Council and Whitsunday Regional Council. They're doers, just like the member for Dawson. They want to make sure that they recover from COVID as best they can, and we're helping them. Workplace Relations 32 14:24 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Can the Prime Minister confirm that the pay cuts being proposed in writing by the retailers and facilitated by his industrial relations changes will see store managers who work all night cop a pay cut of more than $10,000 a year? Opposition members: Shame! The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Industrial Relations has the call. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW Again, the question was to the Prime Minister. He's not indicating that he's referring it to anyone. These are people who are receiving a pay cut; he's said that it doesn't exist. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister can refer the question to the minister. The question is: how? In the way prime ministers always have. I think the point I'd make is that the Prime Minister can refer questions to other ministers and, providing that's conveyed to me, I don't need any great formality about it. I think I can tell that it's being referred. The minister has the call. 14:26 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce Again, the premise of the question is just completely incorrect. There is nothing in this bill that does or facilitates what the opposition spokesperson on industrial relations contends—nothing at all. What is in the bill is a range of reasonable, sensible, debated changes that will increase jobs growth in Australia and actually ensure that people have their employment relations governed under agreements that have always increased people's wages. There's one example of that that I think is pertinent, and that is with respect to that part and the provisions of the bill that seek to have enterprise agreements for a period of greater than four years for what are known as greenfield projects, our most important mining and resources projects. There are a range of people who've submitted—indeed, the member for Maribyrnong was one of them, before the last election—that having the ability to have those agreements for greater than four years— Mr Burke DYW A point of order on direct relevance, Mr Speaker. The question asks about the changes to industrial relations effecting a pay cut. The greenfields arrangements are a completely different section of the government's changes. The fact that it's part of industrial relations ought not make it relevant to this question. This question's not a general question about IR; it's about their pay cut. The SPEAKER 00APG I think what the minister's doing is comparing on a matter of principle, so I'm prepared to keep listening to him. The minister has the call. Mr PORTER 208884 Thank you. Indeed, in the question they can't point to the specific provision in the bill that does what they say it does, because it's not there. It doesn't exist. But what we can do is point to specific provisions in the bill that will ensure better, more and better paid jobs for workers, and greenfields agreements are one of those provisions. It was very interesting that the then Leader of the Opposition, before the last election, in dealing with this particular issue, had this to say: We would look at companies undertaking these mega projects and the multiple billions of dollars, we will be competing with the rest of the world for that investment. He also said the big companies, the constructors, need to consider amendments to the Fair Work Act which would allow companies undertaking major resource construction projects— The SPEAKER 00APG Minister for Industrial Relations, you are now moving beyond the question that was asked. Mr PORTER 208884 beyond three or four years for longer projects. In this bill are things that create more jobs and better jobs. I think what the opposition tried to say last week with their reshuffle was that what we should be looking at, as a parliament, is jobs, jobs and more jobs, and that's precisely what this bill does. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides! Mr Conaghan interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Cowper! Climate Change 33 14:29 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. The Climate Targets Panel has found that for Australia to do its share in meeting the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to well below two degrees—a tipping point beyond which climate change becomes unstoppable—we would need emissions cuts of at least 50 per cent by 2030. Will you now lift Australia's 2030 targets before Joe Biden's April 22 summit and join the rest of the world in fighting what the President says is an 'existential threat', or will you stick with your paltry 2030 targets that are based on Australia warming by over four degrees and becoming largely uninhabitable during our children's lifetimes? 14:30 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The member may know that in 2020 we beat our targets for Kyoto by some 459 million tonnes. The member may know that in 2019-20 emissions were three per cent lower than in 2018-19. Emissions are now 16.6 per cent below 2005 levels. The government is committed to our Paris targets. We will achieve them, and I believe we will beat them. The way we will beat them will not be by any other method than ensuring that we are investing in the technological changes that are necessary to continue to successfully transform our economy, and not just our economy. As indeed Biden's special envoy said, the United States could cut their emissions to zero tomorrow, and it wouldn't solve the problem. What we need around the world is the technological transformation that has as big an impact in this country, the United States, Europe and the United Kingdom as it can also have in China, in India, in Vietnam, in Indonesia— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Greens, on a point of order? Mr Bandt M3C On relevance. The question wasn't on how or whether the targets are going to be met; it was on whether the 2030 targets are going to be lifted, and the Prime Minister has not addressed that. The SPEAKER 00APG I just say to the Leader of the Greens as I've said many times to those asking questions: certainly there were two questions there. But, as I've said ad nauseam, if there's a long quotation at the start or a long statement at the start, the Prime Minister is entitled to address that as well. To avoid that, you simply just need to state a clear, short, sharp question. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L Thank you, Mr Speaker. I note the point that the member for Melbourne just made. He's not interested in the how. I'm interested in the how. I'm interested in how we get to net zero as soon as possible and preferably by 2050. I'm interested in how we get there, because, if you don't get there by technology, you get there by taxes. I will never put a cost on Australians for getting to net zero by 2050. I see us getting to net zero by transformational technology that keeps the jobs in our regions and that keeps the jobs in our heavy industries, one that provides a future for all of those workers, particularly across regional Australia. That's what we're investing in. Our 2030 targets are very clear. I took them to the last election, and they were endorsed by the Australian people. I call on others to nominate what their 2030 targets are, because I think that would be very important for the people of Australia to know before the election next year. Economy 34 14:33 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the Morrison government is ensuring the Australian economy is stronger and more prepared to deal with the challenges of 2021? 14:33 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Higgins, my electorate neighbour and friend, for that question and note her deep experience before coming to this place as a paediatrician, as a professor and as a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences. She, like others on this side of the House, understands that 2021 will be quite different to 2020. That was a year like none other. We were staring into the abyss of a double-digit fall in economic growth and potentially a tripling of the unemployment rate. Through the hard work of our health professionals on the front line and 25 million Australians, we have been able to get this virus under control. With the incredible and unprecedented economic support from the Morrison government, the economic recovery is now well underway. I can inform the House that today consumer confidence is up again—up 16 out of the last 20 weeks. I can inform the House that today the ABS put out payroll jobs data which shows that jobs are up in every state and territory for the fortnight. I can inform the House that yesterday job ads were up 5.3 per cent over the year. We have seen the unemployment rate fall to 6.6 per cent, with 50,000 jobs having been created in the month of December, more than 70 per cent of which were full time, and 320,000 jobs having been created over the last three months. I take the interjections from those opposite, because we have been working to create 320,000 jobs, and they have been— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. We have enough interjections without the Treasurer inventing them. The Treasurer will come back to the answer. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL We have spent the summer working to help create 320,000 jobs— An honourable member interjecting— Mr FRYDENBERG FKL I do take that intervention, because they have spent their summer trying to save just one job—the member for Grayndler's job. The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will pause for a second. This was a very specific question—from your own side—that made no mention of the opposition. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL We have seen 320,000 jobs being created over the last three months, and what we have seen across the country is around two million Australians graduate off JobKeeper. I had the opportunity to join the member for Higgins in her own electorate to meet a homewares business which saw seven people graduate off JobKeeper. This is something that we have seen replicated across the country. So jobs are coming back, consumer confidence and business confidence are back to their pre-pandemic levels, we have seen economic growth in the September quarter have its biggest quarterly jump since 1976, and we know that this country is on track with respect to the economic recovery. JobKeeper Payment 34 14:37 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is also to the Treasurer: Why is the government cutting JobKeeper for the tourism industry but can afford to splash $100 million on sports rorts? 14:37 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong The member for Rankin will understand that the JobKeeper program was always a temporary program, and he also knows that the Leader of the Opposition himself said last year about JobKeeper: … we haven't said to extend it. What we have said, though, is it would need a tapering … So we have tapered this JobKeeper payment, and it was always temporary and to end in March. This is taxpayers' money, and more than $80 billion has gone through the JobKeeper program, helping to support more than 3½ million Australians. This has been a remarkable program. We have seen more than two million Australians graduate off JobKeeper and around 450,000 businesses graduate off JobKeeper. The member for Rankin asked me about JobKeeper. Well, he was out there last Friday beefing himself up, claiming that JobKeeper went to dead people, and then the ATO put out a statement in fact denying that very accusation, in a huge embarrassment for the member for Rankin. So not only did he receive a slapdown from the RBA last year; now he's received a slapdown from the ATO. He's not fit to be the shadow Treasurer and he's not fit to be the Leader of the Opposition—the job he's really auditioning for. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 35 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:39 The SPEAKER 00APG I would like to inform the House that we have present in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon the Ambassador of Switzerland to Australia, His Excellency, Mr Pedro Zwahlen. On behalf of the House, a very warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 35 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE COVID 19: Vaccine 35 14:39 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker My question is to the minister for health. Will the minister please update the House on the Morrison government's actions to make Australia stronger through the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine to all Australians, including those Australians in my electorate of Barker? 14:40 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Barker for his question but also, in particular, for his advocacy for mental health support for his constituents, particularly in the border regions during some of the most difficult lockdowns during COVID. I'm pleased to be able to inform the House that shortly before question time the national incident centre provided the advice that there have been zero cases of community transmission in Australia today. That will be important for all Australians, but particularly for those from Western Australia at this moment. It's real progress: zero lives lost in the last 24 hours and zero cases on ventilation or in ICU around the country. The number of those in hospital from COVID-19 is down to nine Australians. All of this is immensely important information. It comes at a time when the world has rocketed above 103 million cases, sadly, and is approaching 2¼ million lives lost. Those lives lost have increased dramatically since last we met as a parliament. Whilst we have done extraordinarily well as a nation, we will never be fully safe until the world deals with the pandemic. Vaccination abroad is fundamental and vaccination at home is fundamental. We are in the fortunate position of having secured one of the highest rates of doses per person in the world, 140 million units of vaccine—10 million Pfizer for the mRNA vaccine, 53.8 million AstraZeneca for the viral vector vaccine, 51 million of the Novavax vaccine and 25½ million units through the Covax Facility—whilst also supporting our neighbours in the region. Critically, we've already seen approval—one of the earliest full approvals in the world—by the TGA, after going through all of the processes, not an emergency process, for the Pfizer vaccine. That means we are on track, on current advice, repeated this morning by our officials who have been working with the EU, for commencement of Pfizer vaccinations beginning in late February. That's always subject to shipping and to international events, but that advice has been repeated this morning. I'm providing that guidance to the parliament and to Australia. Furthermore, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is due to commence its international rollout in early March, subject to TGA approval, and the CSL-AstraZeneca vaccine—part of 50 million units made here in Australia, beginning here in Australia—in late March. These vaccines are about saving lives, protecting lives and improving lives. JobKeeper Program 35 14:43 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the government cutting JobKeeper for Tasmanian workers, but it can afford to spend nearly $1 billion on advertising and marketing? 14:43 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook JobKeeper has been the game-changing investment of this government—unprecedented. It has ensured that we have protected livelihoods in this country, and I also believe it has saved lives of itself. In March of last year we were looking into the abyss of a pandemic that no-one in the world fully understood. The government moved swiftly, but also effectively, to ensure that we followed the principles that we set out before going into the pandemic measures, to ensure that we could achieve the results we have with the Australian people. Now, as we continue to transition out of the pandemic recession, it is important that we encourage businesses. As they are, some 450,000 businesses came off JobKeeper at the end of September. We expect more into December, as these figures are provided to the government, because the Australian economy is getting back on its feet. Australians understand that, when we put these measures in place, they had to be done as emergency measures. But Australians also know that you cannot run the Australian economy on taxpayers' money forever. Australians understand that. They know you have to be responsible about taxpayers' money. On one hand the opposition says, 'You're spending not enough,' and then they say, 'You're spending too much.' We're not going to take fiscal advice from the Labor Party. Our government has demonstrated its fiscal responsibility, as well as the urgency of fiscal action when it is necessary, which the Governor of the Reserve Bank has also commended. For those sectors and those areas specifically that are continuing to contend with the effects of the pandemic, we have already demonstrated that we will continue to provide targeted support where that can be effective, and that is exactly what the government will do. What those opposite have done throughout the pandemic and continue to do here is seek to undermine the confidence of Australians as we work through this. Whether it's seeking to undermine the great work that is being done in rolling out the vaccine strategy or elsewhere, what we see from the opposition is an opposition addicted to politics and not solutions. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members will cease interjecting. I briefly refer them to my comments in the last week of last year. If you're interjecting, you know it: 94(a) does not require a warning at all. If you interject continually, you'll be asked to leave the chamber. There are a number of members on both sides that never interject. Mr Snowdon interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG You're not on the list, Member for Lingiari! Employment 36 14:46 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is backing businesses by ensuring they have the skilled workers they need? Will the minister outline how critical this is to our plan to build a stronger Australia and to keep us that way? 14:47 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank the member for his question. I know that he has a very good understanding of the vocational, educational and training sector in this country because he started his working life as an apprentice. Like all of us on this side of the House, he's committed to ensuring that our hardworking businesses have the skilled workforce that they need for the future, particularly but not only in the manufacturing sector, because we understand how important it is that we have a skilled workforce in order to grow our economy and to make sure that we are creating jobs and making Australia stronger. In this year alone we are investing over $7 billion to keep apprentices in jobs, to help job keepers to re-skill and to promote vocational training so that we can fill the skills shortages, the gaps, that we currently have; that we can make sure that Australians have the skills that they need for jobs of the future; and that businesses are able to draw on a skilled workforce for the skills that they need in order to grow and to develop their businesses. Importantly, we are making sure that this is led by industry. That's why we have invested $1 billion in the JobTrainer fund to give more Australians access to free or low-cost training places in areas of identified skills need. This is going to result in about 340,000 new places. All of the states have signed up to this program. It started to go live very late last year, with the courses going online, and early this year. We've already seen a significant uptake of training places, and we expect that that is going to increase over the coming months. On top of that, we have apprentice wage subsidies, which have been critical to supporting small businesses through the pandemic and encouraging businesses to take on new apprentices. As of last Friday there were 117,000 apprentices and trainees employed by over 61,500 businesses that have been supported by our wage subsidies. Of those businesses, over 90 per cent were small businesses. They are the ones that are taking the opportunity to take on new apprentices. They're the ones that are out there having a go. That's why this government always supports small businesses. We know that they are the engine room of our economy. They have stepped up significantly during the pandemic, and this government will continue to work with our small businesses. JobKeeper Program 37 14:50 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the government hound robodebt victims to repay money they never owe, when it now says companies should keep JobKeeper money that they used to fund executive bonuses? 14:50 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook In relation to matters that the member raised, the government has taken the necessary steps to correct and to repay the moneys that were collected under that program under the income averaging arrangements that were pursued by the Labor Party—as this House has been reminded on numerous occasions—and practised by members opposite when they were ministers in their own governments. In relation to JobKeeper I make this simple point: when JobKeeper was introduced there was great uncertainty, and the arrangement we put in place was to ensure that JobKeeper could be made under the qualifying arrangements that were set out and agreed to in the legislation before this parliament. Once you do that, once you set out the certainty under which those payments are going to be made, then, after the effect, you don't welsh on that arrangement. That provided much-needed certainty at that time for those businesses to keep people employed. Treasury has advised that some 700,000 jobs were saved because of the certainty and the policy design of JobKeeper. What I notice from the Labor Party is they like to have an each-way bet on this pandemic. They want to support the government's initiatives and oppose the government's initiatives all at the same time. That's not something that Australians can rely on—an opposition party that has become a fight club, not an opposition, and cannot agree with itself on the measures that the government has been pursuing. We will continue to deliver the very strong economic supports and the additional measures that we outlined in the economic recovery plan that was in the budget handed down by the Treasurer—the instant expenses arrangements and the loss carryback, which will be vital to those COVID affected businesses so their COVID losses can be offset against previous tax paid, providing much needed cash flow to ensure that those businesses can invest. The challenges we have now are to ensure that businesses invest and that businesses employ people and that we, as a nation, address the many workforce challenges that we have in the regional areas of our country, where there are indeed shortages, and those who are in the metropolitan areas who we want to get off unemployment benefits and get them into work. That's what we're focused on. That's what our plan is delivering, and I know Australians have gained great confidence from those plans, because they have been voting with their feet to join the economic recovery in this country. Workforce participation, labour force participation, has returned to new record levels, but we're going to go further, because that's where our plans take us. The Labor Party— (Time expired) Morrison Government 37 14:53 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's focus on technology, not taxes, is reducing emissions while strengthening our economy and creating a stronger Australia? 14:53 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the member for Curtin for her question. As a former researcher, she knows that Australians are world renowned leaders in the adoption of technology. She knows that when technologies become economically competitive Australians rapidly adopt them. Just today we've seen the Clean Energy Regulator confirm that Australia last year installed a record seven gigawatts of new renewable capacity. That's up 11 per cent from the previous year. It's an addition of around 10 per cent to total capacity, and it's a record level of investment. Central to that is very rapid investment in household solar and solar PV. We now have the highest total amount of solar PV capacity in the world—644 watts per person. One in four Australian houses now have solar on their roof. It's the highest rate of solar uptake in the world. Indeed, in the member for Curtin's electorate there have been 15,000 solar PV installations. That's an extraordinary number. The success of technology adoption in this country is the reason we have recently launched the Technology Investment Roadmap. Because of the development and deployment of technologies we can strengthen our economy, create jobs and drive investment while at the same time bring down Australia's emissions and contribute to bringing down emissions in other countries as well. All of that means technology, not taxation. We are not going to tax our way to the Paris goals. We're going to take action by investing in our priority technologies, like hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, soil carbon, long-duration storage and low-emissions steel and aluminium. We know that by 2030 those investments will create up to 130,000 jobs. The investment we committed to in the budget was an extra $1.9 billion. The total investment in priority technologies comes to $18 billion. Alongside the private sector and state governments, we expect a total of $70 billion of investment in these priority technologies. These technologies bring down emissions and bring down prices. There has been a nine per cent reduction in electricity retail prices in the last 12 months, bringing down the price of energy for Australian households and businesses. Whilst those opposite are fighting over their jobs, we're getting on with the job. HomeBuilder 38 14:57 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government's HomeBuilder grant is creating and supporting jobs in the construction sector and helping to build a stronger Australia in 2021? 14:57 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I thank the member for Boothby for her question. The member for Boothby is a tireless advocate for her electorate. I thank her for the close work that she has done with the building industry and the tradies who live and work in her electorate. I take the House back to last year when the pandemic hit. The residential construction industry had fallen off a cliff. New home sales had virtually stopped overnight. Up to half a million jobs—plumbers, carpenters and manufacturing workers—were at risk because new home sales had stopped. So the Morrison government put in place the HomeBuilder program. Beyond any of our expectations, as at 31 December last year, we hit 75,000 projects—75,000 new homes or substantial renovations. That's quite a remarkable outcome for this program. The Labor Party called it 'HomeBlunder' I think. I think they said that nobody was going to take it up. They said that all it does is help rich people. Yet the biggest single cohort of HomeBuilder recipients are first home buyers. That's why we've seen the number of first home buyers at its highest level for 11 years. Since that time HomeBuilder applications have hit 80,000, supporting, as I said, up to one million jobs in the residential construction industry. Every single electorate in this House has people who live there and are benefiting from the HomeBuilder program—from the brickies, the carpenters, the plumbers and the electricians all the way to the manufacturing workers who make the bricks, the tiles and the glass and all the way to regional areas where timber mill workers make the frames and the trusses. This is a program that is keeping the residential construction industry busy right across this country. It's benefited regional areas more than any. To go back again to last year, we were hoping the HomeBuilder program would at least mean the residential construction industry got back to where it was pre pandemic. Not in our wildest dreams did we think the industry would have new home sales up 32.5 per cent by the end of the year. New home sales up 32.5 per cent means more jobs. The Australian people know the Morrison government put in place HomeBuilder. The opposition bagged it and opposed it from day one and now have been dragged kicking and screaming to support a program that's unquestionably popular, and we are very pleased to be supporting those jobs and new home buyers. (Time expired) Climate Change 38 15:00 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. Deloitte has found inaction on climate change will cost almost a million Australian jobs. Deloitte also says that transitioning to net zero emissions will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Why won't the government save Australian jobs by matching Labor's commitment to net zero by 2050? 15:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for his question, and I congratulate him on his new shadow ministerial portfolio. I wish him the same sort of success he had as shadow Treasurer. My government supports getting to net zero. The question now is not when; it's how. What those opposite cannot tell the Australian people is how. What I can give to the Australian people is the commitment that we will be able to tell you how, and we will do it by technology. We will do it through technological transformation. We will do it based on the science that produces that technology and gets us to that important goal, not just for Australia but for the many other countries that also need to also go down that path. You've just heard the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction set out the $18 billion that will be invested over the next decade through the Technology Investment Roadmap. My minister for emissions reduction has a background in energy technology and understanding what can be made to work on energy. The shadow minister has a history of how to put up taxes. He's like a hammer who sees every problem as a nail. Every problem this shadow minister sees is solved by a bigger and bigger tax. That's the difference. We will get to net zero through technology. The Labor way is always higher taxes. National Security 39 15:03 Mr IRONS HYM Swan My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government is creating a stronger Australia in 2021 by taking action to keep Australian families safe? 15:03 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. Obviously, as the Prime Minister outlined in his speech at the National Press Club yesterday, this government is determined to keep Australians safe from the coronavirus, but we're also very determined to keep Australians safe from the threats of terrorism and foreign espionage. We have for a number of years now had a terror threat level at 'probable', and the espionage threat remains at levels higher than during the Cold War. So these threats are extant, and we need to deal with them in a sensible way. I'm proud of the fact that, because of the management of the budget, we've been able to invest more into ASIO to support the work that they do, and funding for ASIO is now at its highest level in 70 years. We've contributed an additional $300 million over four years to the Australian Federal Police and record funding to our other agencies. We are committed to making sure that we can deal with the threat against our national sovereignty, and we've introduced legislation to this effect. I'm also very proud of the work that the Morrison government has done to protect our vulnerable young children, particularly those online, from the insidious and abhorrent threat posed by dark-web predators, and we have legislation before the parliament to designed to protect our children. In our cybersecurity strategy, given the amount of time Australians, their businesses and their families now spend online, we have invested $1.67 billion into protecting those families, businesses and our infrastructure. It is incredibly important that we work with the private sector and with our law enforcement agencies to deliver that outcome. The Morrison government has also cancelled the visas now of 6,200 people, including for 309 individuals who have been involved in organised crime and outlaw motorcycle gangs, bearing in mind that the main business of outlaw motorcycle gang members is to distribute amphetamines and other drugs in our country. If you look at our country towns, where the scourge of ice is ravaging young communities, it's incredibly important that we continue that work. We want to defeat the importation of those drugs, we want to defeat the manufacturing of those drugs domestically and we want to stamp out the activity of the outlaw motorcycle gangs who are involved in the distribution of those drugs to young children and to communities across the country. The Morrison government has continued to keep our borders secure. I want to pay tribute to all of the front-line officers in the agencies within the home affairs department for the work that they do 24/7 to keep Australians safe. The Prime Minister, myself, members of the National Security Committee and cabinet will make sure that we continue to provide support to those officers in the great work they do. Member for Hughes 39 15:06 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister patted the member for Hughes on the back and said 'he does a great job'. Can the Prime Minister explain how the member for Hughes's record of undermining medical advice about vaccines, attacking Australia's health agencies and calling masks 'a form of child abuse' during a pandemic is doing a great job? Will the Prime Minister now condemn the member for Hughes's remarks as irresponsible? The SPEAKER 00APG That question at every level, I believe, is out of order. Members can groan and sigh about what is the practice of the House if they wish to, and I can talk for a very long time about it all, but I can tell you it is very clear that ministers and Prime Ministers cannot be asked about the statements of individual members wherever they are. If someone can find something to the opposite, I'll always listen. Mr Burke DYW First of all, Mr Speaker, the part the question turns on is a quote from the Prime Minister himself at the National Press Club yesterday. That quote is referred to twice in the question. As you know, so I'm not telling you anything you don't know, Practice does confirm very strongly that people can be asked about their own comments. In terms of its link to policy, right now, it is more important than ever in terms of policy that there is public confidence in our health agencies during the pandemic. In terms of both the quote from the Prime Minister himself and the link to the importance of public policy, I'd ask you to reconsider whether the question's in order. The SPEAKER 00APG I have to say very strongly on the second point: obviously we're well aware of the importance of the issue but that doesn't modify standing orders or practice; it really doesn't. Yes, the Prime Minister was asked about something he said yesterday. On that basis, the rest of the question would be completely out of order. The Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order: the rest of the question simply asks whether or not the Prime Minister's statement holds given those other facts. In almost every question where we refer to someone's quote we then go to other facts and say: Do they stand by that remark? Does that comment hold? The comment from the Prime Minister that has been quoted is then referred back to in the light of those other comments. That's why it's referred to twice. It's very specifically about a comment the Prime Minister made himself before the National Press Club yesterday. The SPEAKER 00APG Alright. I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Porter 208884 It's not specifically about that. That's window-dressing to try to do something the procedure doesn't allow. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides! For those members who seem to doubt the history and the practice, page 554 of Practice makes very clear what questions can and can't be asked, based on what previous Speakers have ruled out of order—Speakers of all political persuasions, I have to say. They include arrangements between the parties—for example, coalition agreements; policies of previous governments; statements in the House by other members; statements by people outside the House, including other members, notably opposition members, and that's something I think the opposition need to bear in mind if they wish to open this. In other words, all these are anchored around the fact that ministers are responsible for their portfolios. That's what they can be questioned on. This question, I am going to rule out of order. I've given it a lot of consideration. Even though it's asking about a quote from the Prime Minister, essentially it's asking about the Prime Minister's views of a member and of a member's statements. As much as I can see that you'd like me to rule the other way, I feel that if I did do that there'd be a lot of complaints when there were questions about other members. There are other forms of the House where these matters— A government member interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No, hang on. There are other forms of the House where these matters can be raised, and they can be raised in a very robust fashion—in fact, have been already today—but the rules for questions are quite clear. I'm being asked to rule differently and I'm not prepared to do that. Mr Albanese R36 With respect for the ruling that you've made, there are two points, I think. One is that if it is not possible for the opposition or any member in this parliament to ask the Prime Minister about a quote that he has made then that undermines the importance of question time. This is the statement that the Prime Minister made at the National Press Club yesterday. Yes, the second part of the question does put the context in which the question was asked; otherwise it wouldn't make sense. So that's why the second part has to be put in there. That's point 1 that I'll make. The second point I'll make is that if your ruling is to be consistent then every time those opposite ask about alternative views of those on this side of the House those questions are out of order. Those questions are out of order, because what we have on this side of the chamber, day after day, is questions whereby we get responses that go for three minutes: 30 seconds about their policy, then 2½ minutes about us. So, if we're going to go that way, then we understand— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right! The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to be heard. Mr Albanese R36 Thanks, Mr Speaker. They are, in my view, very clearly the implications of this ruling, and perhaps you might like to reflect— Dr Chalmers interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG on that as well. I think, very clearly, in this chamber the Prime Minister of the day has always had to answer questions—it's been up to them how they've answered them but they've had to answer questions—about their statements in public. Ms Coker 263547 Fair enough! The SPEAKER 00APG I don't need the member for Corangamite interjecting. There's probably a reason no-one else is at this point in time. Yes, ministers and prime ministers have been asked about their statements, but the statements have to relate to their ministerial or prime ministerial responsibilities. Questions that essentially ask—I'm not going to use the whole 30 seconds—'The Prime Minister or a minister made a statement about a member; what do you think of all that?' open up a Pandora's box. Now, I will say to the Leader of the Opposition and the Manager of Opposition Business I can understand the point they're trying to make. I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make on behalf of all members, okay? Because it can flow both ways very quickly. I'm ruling the question out of order, but I hope you'd expect I will consider the matter. I won't detain the House any further now. I will look carefully at all of the precedents—and I'm searching for one in Practice where it has occurred—but I just have a different view on that matter. I'm not saying it's impossible to frame those questions, but they need to go to ministerial responsibilities. So we'll go to the next question. Trade 41 15:15 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is pursuing new opportunities for trade and economic growth, to build a stronger Australia in 2021? 15:15 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I thank the member for Wentworth for his question and I acknowledge the outstanding contribution he made to relations between Australia and Israel—and one of the things this government would like to see more of is a deepening of the economic relationship between Israel and Australia. The approach that this government is going to take to trade policy, going forward, is a proactive one. It's going to be a principled one. And, where we need to, we're going to be patient. The reason why we're going to be proactive when it comes to trade policy is that jobs are dependent on it, jobs right across this nation are dependent on it, and we want to make sure that we are focusing on Australian jobs. This year and in the lead-up to next year, that will be our focus: jobs, jobs, jobs and more jobs. We're doing this because one in five jobs are dependent on trade, and in regional and rural areas it's one in four jobs. We want to make sure that we're continuing to back Australian communities by expanding the number of trade agreements that we have. We've already got an outstanding track record when it comes to trade agreements. We've put in place eight FTAs since we came to office. But we want to make sure that we do more. That's why we're in negotiations currently with the United Kingdom and with the European Union. What those FTAs will do is open up opportunities for Australian exporters to 550 million additional consumers—550 million additional consumers. Our exporters will get preferential access to those markets. That'll help our farmers, it'll help those in the resources sector and it'll help those in the services sector to create more opportunities, and with those opportunities will come jobs. There are other opportunities for us also. For instance, because of COVID-19, APEC have had to go to virtual meetings, but we will be working with New Zealand to see what we can do towards the end of this year to make sure that we can get meetings taking place again within APEC because that will bring countries from across the Asia-Pacific together to create extra opportunities for our exporters. This Friday I'll be having my first bilateral meeting with New Zealand, where we'll be discussing how we can work together to enhance the Australia-New Zealand trade relationship—another key partner when it comes to trade liberalisation and when it comes to investment. Then of course there is the World Trade Organization. Everyone across the globe wants to see the World Trade Organization operating, as it used to 20 to 30 years ago, as a key driver of trade liberalisation, because that will create jobs as well. Mr Morrison E3L Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 41 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Road Safety 41 15:19 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler As members would be aware, three weeks ago I was confronted with a head-on car crash with a Range Rover. I want to thank all members of the House, both current and former members and former prime ministers, from both sides of the chamber, who contacted me and expressed their concern and provided support at an important time. It was very much appreciated. The first person on the scene was a witness, an off-duty nurse, Ali Barton. It was a real reminder that nurses are never off duty. They provide such an important role. Ali provided comfort and advice and made sure that I remained in the car. I couldn't get out anyway. Anyone who has seen the picture knows that; the car was a write-off. Ali provided a great deal of comfort and medical advice on the spot. To the police who arrived at the scene, Constable McDonald, Constable Valente and Probationary Constable Heinz of Marrickville police command: I thank you for the work that our police do. I haven't had contact before with paramedics, but Alex Bees and Henry Carroll were magnificent. I thank them in particular. They provided initial medical examination and advice. They provided appropriate comfort that relieved pain, and they were incredibly professional in the way that they dealt with what, at the time, was a traumatic incident that could have had long-term effects. Fortunately, that hasn't been the case. To the doctors, nurses, orderlies, radiographers and cleaners at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital: I thank all of you. In a retrospective policy way—and I've had this discussion with the New South Wales health minister, Brad Hazzard—it was particularly good to see just how extraordinarily professional they were. Also, in the context of COVID, being a patient for 24 hours, I saw the extra pressure that our health professionals are placed under. I pay tribute to them and thank them. It's been an experience—a near-death experience—that I wouldn't wish on anyone, but I thank all those people who provided support. It was a very difficult time, but I've come through to the other end and, as you can see, Mr Speaker, I am fighting fit and ready to resume duties here in the parliament. 15:22 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'm pleased to see the Leader of the Opposition looking well. I know that was a very distressing time for him and of course for his son and others. As he knows, being a former transport minister, it's a reminder of the importance of safety on our roads. In the last few weeks we have been reminded of this again by the deaths of Kate Leadbetter, Matty Fields and their unborn child and the terrible accident that occurred up in Queensland, and the members here from Queensland are deeply distressed by that. And of course it is a year since the terrible, tragic deaths of Antony, Angelina and Sienna Abdallah and Veronique Sakr, which we marked just yesterday on what is now national I4Give Day. Safety on our roads is so incredibly important, but it's good to see you here and well. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 42 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:23 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Yes, very grievously. The SPEAKER 00APG The member may proceed. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The Attorney-General has been using my remarks in our pre-election policy to justify his pay-cutting laws, which they did not tell the voters about before the last election. It was done in three ways. He quoted from a speech. He said that he was using my Labor policies as inspiration for his pay-cutting laws. The first of the three ways in which that's wrong is that it's untrue. I spoke about megaprojects, not projects of $250 million. I certainly did not speak about greenfields agreements without unions; they were to be with unions. And we did not speak about eight years. That was the untrue part of his quote. But he also omitted other parts of our industrial relations policies. This cheeky fellow then didn't mention penalty rate cuts, which we proposed— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Maribyrnong will refer to people by their correct titles. Mr Shorten 00ATG The Attorney-General, formerly known as the cheeky fellow. The SPEAKER 00APG This could end very quickly. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I apologise. He didn't mention, as they proposed their pay cut to the workers who've gone through COVID, that we want to restore the penalty rates cut by the government. He hasn't got a policy to call out the sham contracting which affects hundreds of thousands of workers, and there is no policy to look after labour hire workers. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Maribyrnong has shown where he's been misrepresented. Mr Shorten 00ATG Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 00APG He can't now commence a debate. DOCUMENTS 42 DOCUMENTS Presentation 42 15:25 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. Parliamentary Service Commissioner 42 Presentation 42 15:25 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the annual reports of the Parliamentary Service Commissioner for 2018-19 and 2019-20. Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers. Commonwealth Ombudsman 43 Presentation 43 15:25 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the report for 2019-20 on the Commonwealth Ombudsman's activities under part 5 of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 43 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Reports Nos 24 to 28 of 2020-21 43 15:25 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Auditor-General's reports Nos 24 to 28 or 2020-21. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Documents made parliamentary papers in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 43 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Employment 43 15:25 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failure to deliver a proper jobs plan for the Australian people. 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— 15:26 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio Yesterday at the National Press Club the Prime Minister gave himself one giant pat on the back. He's doing a great job; all you need to do is just go and ask him. There were no new announcements and no grand plans for the future, but the stats and the graphs were an exercise in self-congratulation of epic proportions. Here we are in the eighth year of this government. The Prime Minister and his government are looking quite comfortable as they are entrenched on that side of the parliament. They are luxuriating in the blue carpets and strolling the grounds of Kirribilli and the Lodge, but there is a certain detachment from the Australian people. It is hard to imagine a speech that is more divorced from the reality of the Australian experience than that which we heard yesterday. On this day there are two million Australians who are looking for work—Australians who are unemployed or who are underemployed. To be sure, COVID-19 has dealt a very significant blow. There were businesses, particularly small businesses, that had a line struck through their business model literally overnight. We should never forget that this was a government which, at the outset, had absolutely no intention of putting a wage subsidy in place—no plan whatsoever for having a connection between those businesses and their employees. JobKeeper has been a game changer, but it came about because of the advocacy of Labor. It's what we said and what we did that meant it happened. Here we are in February 2021, and JobKeeper is due to end next month, in just eight weeks. If you have a business that has no chance of having the circumstances which existed before COVID-19 being put back in place, that is a devastating time line looming on the horizon. If you are a travel agent or if you are operating in the tourism industry and are reliant on international tourists or if you are in some way connected with aviation, you're not through this. There's no prospect of those businesses being back in place. Just a couple of weeks ago I went to Degraves Street in Melbourne, that iconic strip in the heart of the city, which is famed for its restaurants and its coffee shops. Normally it's a part of the world which is teeming with people, but they're not there right now, and all those businesses are doing it tough. The simple fact is this: if JobKeeper is removed before those businesses are in a position to operate properly then we are going to see them go bust, and, with that, we will see the loss of thousands of jobs. But even before COVID-19 struck, this was a government which had an appalling record when it came to jobs and employment. Throughout the entirety of the tenure of Scott Morrison as the Prime Minister of this country, there have been more than a million people who have been underemployed. In my electorate alone since 2013, we've seen Ford stop making cars and we've seen Alcoa stop producing aluminium at its smelter at Point Henry. I'm not here saying that every job can be saved, but you can certainly have a go. And that's not what this government has ever been about. In fact, this is a government that went and dared the car industry to leave our shores, and that's exactly what they did, in decisions from Toyota and Holden. At that moment, we lost significant industrial capability, because at that moment we lost the most complex manufacturing that we were doing in this country. Rather than climbing the technological ladder, we fell down it. What happened at that moment was that well-paid secure jobs were also lost. I know lots of people who worked at Alcoa and Ford. Some of those people have not got a job since, but, of those who have, none of them have got the kind of well-paid, secure job that they used to have when they worked at Alcoa or Ford. When you have a job of that kind and you lose it and it is replaced by a part-time, casual job where you're being paid half as much, that is not a transaction which is like-for-like. And this is where the stats don't tell the story. This is a government which loves those statistics, but they are not telling the story of the human experience in communities across our country. But there is one group of jobs that those opposite will protect and defend with the intensity and focus of a feeding shark, and that is their own. You only need to look at the sports rorts program in the lead-up to the last election. In a desperate moment, that's what they put in place—a $100 million scheme, where most of the decisions that were made went against the recommendation of the effective independent umpire, Sport Australia. Instead, what we had was a colour-coded spreadsheet being directed from the office of the Prime Minister himself, based on the marginality of the seat in which the particular sports club was located. For hundreds of sports clubs, thousands of hours were put in by volunteers to produce those applications, which never stood a chance because of the place in which those sporting clubs were located. If the votes inside those sporting clubs weren't going to help protect this man's job, then he was not going to give a damn. When you look at those who used to serve in this government, like the former finance minister going for a job in the OECD, no expense is spared. The Air Force? A private plane to fly all over the world? Do whatever you want, whatever it takes, to get that job. But they're not focused on the jobs of the Australian people, because, in the last eight years, this government has become very, very focused on itself and has forgotten all about the Australian people and their interests and their jobs. Well, between now and the next election, you're going to see a strong contrast in terms of what's put forward by Labor, because we care about the interests and the jobs of the Australian people. We are on their side. With humility and with respect, we are going to go to small business and seek to amplify their voice as that group which has been on the frontline of the COVID crisis, knowing that, as we do, the sorts of initiatives that they're really relying on at the moment—things like loss carry-back and instant asset write-off—are ideas and concepts which found their origins in the work of Labor, from this side of the House, from the wonderful work of the member for Gorton when Labor was last in office. So when small businesses go to the election when it next comes and look for a reason to vote, the first place they will see is Labor. And we will be doing everything we can to put forward a plan for how we are going to build and rebuild industry and manufacturing in this country, in a First World context, knowing that the only way you can do that and make a profit is for us to be making product at the highest value level. That means climbing the technological ladder, and that means placing science at the centre of our national discussion in a way that has not been done before, and certainly in a way that is not done by this government. This is a government which enables antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists. This is a government which is cutting science jobs from the CSIRO; that's its science policy. Ours is going to be very, very different indeed. Most importantly, we understand the importance of turning science into jobs. Under this government, Australia stands as one of the worst commercialisers of public research in the OECD. The ability of this government to translate our basic research into jobs in this country has been singularly hopeless. So that is going to be different, and we will have plans in respect of that. We will have plans in respect of small business and its place within our economy. Unlike this government—which has been focused on itself, which has been focused on its own jobs, which has been focused on the jobs of its friends and its mates and those who used to serve within it—we will be different. We are going to be focused on the Australian people. We will be focused on their interests. We will be focused on their employment and their opportunities in the future, and we are going to do everything we can between now and the next election to advocate for their jobs, because we are on their side. 15:36 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler That was a very polite contribution from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I have to say. I'll go to his opening remarks about strolling in the grounds of the parliament. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker O'Brien, I can tell you exactly where we've been strolling in recent weeks. It's been in places like Cloncurry, the Cannington Mine, and Gladstone and Northern Oil. We've been to Humpty Doo and Darwin; we've been talking to the people of Townsville and right across the north. While I have the opportunity, I'll give a shout-out to Humpty Doo Barramundi again. What a great Australian success story! It's a small business that's driving more jobs with support from the NAIF, which includes a second loan to put on more people, more Australians, in the north. I think that's a wonderful story that we should all reflect on and be thankful for—that we still have those Australians out there having a crack, employing more people and continuing to grow. But I'd say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: regional areas are actually desperate for people. The employers I speak to cannot find enough staff. Right now we have any number of businesses that would normally be open seven days a week but, instead, are open four, or that would normally be open five days a week but, instead, are open three. This is because, quite simply, they cannot get enough staff to be operational for that entire period. So, if you're out there and you're looking for work, I can say there's a great opportunity in the regions. There's an opportunity right now. Whether you're in the member for Barker's area, whether you're with the member for Grey or whether you're even with the member for Petrie—just north of Brisbane—there is an opportunity for you. You can buy a house, you can have a backyard, you can have two dogs and a cat and a couple of bicycles, you can have a horse if you want or two cows—whatever it is that floats your boat, there is an opportunity for you in regional Australia right now. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, people are taking up that opportunity. They are building new homes. They are shifting to the regions. They are taking up that chance, that opportunity and that choice to be in a life which suits them in a post-COVID environment. JobKeeper was always intended to be a temporary support measure. If we want to talk about the support for small business, if we want to talk about manufacturing, there are a lot more people from small business on this side of the House than there are on the opposite side. There are individuals on our side who've been out; they've taken the risk; they've borrowed the money; they've employed Australians; they know what it is, every second week, to wake up and wonder how they'll pay wages. They know what risks you have to take and what work you have to do to be successful, and I congratulate them all. And when it comes to manufacturing I'm very pleased that those opposite are interested in manufacturing. I genuinely am. I think there is a real opportunity for our country right now. This is a watershed point for our country to drive manufacturing back onshore. But the fundamentals of business will always remain the same, and the fundamentals are very straightforward. You need a competitive gas price. You need a competitive electricity price. You need available staff with the right skills. You need to ensure you're not bogged down in red and green tape that makes it even more expensive for you to try and get your business up and operational. I've spoken to any number of Australia's big manufacturers, who are all keen to look at expansion opportunities and many of whom will shift into the regions and open up those new opportunities for regional people. I think that is a positive outcome from what has been a very difficult year. So we do have a plan for Australia's economic recovery. There is the $74 billion JobMaker plan. I'm sure you've heard of it, Mr Deputy Speaker O'Brien. It is a plan for Australia, it is a plan for Australian jobs and it is succeeding. I will come to the actual statistics shortly. If in doubt, go with the facts! As the core of our plan, we will support a stronger economy, we will drive a faster recovery, we will invest in skills and higher education, we will prove the ease of doing business and we will support the manufacturing and energy sectors, which are so critical to Australia's future success. Now, our JobMaker plan is working. How do we know that? The unemployment rate decreased to 6.6 per cent in December 2020, with employment increasing by 50,000 persons and the participation rate going to a record high of 66.2 per cent. Those are the numbers. And 71 per cent of that increase in employment was full-time jobs—35,700—while the remaining 29 per cent were part time. The underemployment rate fell to 8½ per cent in December, down from 9.4 per cent in November, and is now at its lowest level since December 2019. Those statistics are a statement of fact. Since May, 784,000 jobs have been created, recovering 90 per cent of the 872,000 jobs that were lost between March and May. That is very positive news for those Australians who are out there doing it tough, who have been supported by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has ensured that they have every opportunity to be successful. We have a $1 billion JobTrainer program which is providing an additional 340,700 training places to help school leavers and jobseekers access short and long courses. We will continue not only to keep Australians safe but to provide opportunities for them to develop more skills, to have higher paid jobs, to develop their own sets of skills, to pay their own way, and that, I think, is the great Australian dream: to be successful, to be self-sufficient, to be able to make your own opportunities and to make your own choices. I will come to my own portfolio briefly in the remaining time, the resources sector—what an absolute success story. I welcome the new shadow minister to the portfolio—it's a shame that there are issues with Western Australia in terms of attendance—and I thank the former shadow minister for his brief contribution. Once again, the resources sector is leading the way for Australia. The sector has been the shining light of our economy. They have dealt with the pandemic, they have put in place mechanisms to keep their staff safe and operational and, as a result, they have been an absolute success story. We know it has been going well, but even I didn't know it was going this well. Last week the ABS noted that the number of people employed in mining jumped by 22,000, or nearly 10 per cent, in the three months to November last year, providing jobs for 264,000 Australians. Mr Deputy Speaker, would you believe that 25 per cent of that additional employment came from coalmining? It came from the coal sector, Australia's success story in resources for decades. That's also a 23 per cent increase over the year and it is the greatest number of Australians employed in the sector since 2012. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know it's out of order, but we should be putting our hands together for the resources sector. They have helped this country through this very difficult period. They have increased the number of Australians who have a job, and they are well-paid jobs, they are good jobs and they are jobs that will continue into the future. Those statistics are without the over one million Australians who are indirectly employed by the industry. So we will have a resources led recovery, we will have a gas led recovery and we will have a jobs led recovery. This government will ensure that that is absolutely the case. The resources sector is continuing to do what it has done for decades: drive the Australian economy, provide the common wealth for the common people, provide opportunities for our kids to be employed and trained to have successful jobs into the future—and long may it continue. In fact, the value of Australian coal exports in December increased by an impressive 26 per cent from November and was worth $3.7 billion to the Australian economy. So, regardless of all the noise and the things that we've read from some of those media outlets about how difficult it has been—and certainly there have been some trading challenges—the reality is, quite simply, that the coal sector and the resources sector have continued to go from strength to strength, continued to grow and continued to provide opportunity. Coal sales to Vietnam and India were stronger, reaffirming the competitiveness of Australian coal. We have a high-quality product, we are in the right position to deliver it, we can do it at a cost-competitive price into those markets, and there is demand. Exports were valued at a phenomenal $272.5 billion in the 12 months to December, which was a significant increase on the previous quarter. That is due to the hard work of the men and women, in their high-vis jackets and suits and shirts and pants and their steel-capped boots, who did what was necessary to help deliver jobs and a stronger economy for this country. We should be absolutely thankful not only for the fact that they exist but for the fact that they are willing to do what is a very tough and difficult job. Whilst we'll always hear plenty of noise from those opposite about what they may or may not intend to do, it is the coalition that is delivering. It is the coalition that has put the commitment on the table. We are delivering in spades. The facts and data stack up. Everything that we are seeing is indicating that there are green shoots and strength in the economy. There is confidence from business, confidence from the Australian people and confidence from investors. It is confidence that matters, because confidence puts you out there to take risks, and those risks result in more jobs for the Australian people. Our JobMaker Plan will continue to deliver. 15:46 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro It would be great if those opposite could take their heads out of the sand and get into the regions, where things are really happening. The people of my electorate remain hopeful that out of the dark days of bushfires and the fear of the pandemic might come jobs and prosperity. These experiences have rewritten our lives, and what we need to learn has to count. Otherwise, we fail those people who've lost their lives, who've had their homes destroyed and whose businesses have had to close. We have the chance to re-imagine Australia and provide a vision for our country that unites and inspires. As I travel through my electorate, people talk to me about the need for more secure, locally based jobs that have the potential to care for community and country. The people of Eden-Monaro see what needs to be done and are tired of waiting for the government to act. The forestry industry in the South West Slopes supports one in every two jobs and creates $2 billion in economic activity every year, but the Black Summer fires took out 40 per cent of Hind Timber's plantation pine supply. By the middle of this year, 157 jobs will be lost in the Snowy Valleys—140 of which are in Tumbarumba—if the supply shortfall isn't filled. The business has found timber from further afield. With some transport assistance, this timber could be redirected from overseas and processed locally—a commonsense approach which is still waiting for government support. While I'm talking about the South West Slopes, last week I visited the community of Talbingo and met with the residents there. We talked about bushfire recovery and the lost jobs that have been ripped out of the region and centralised in Sydney. The land managers who used to manage our bushfire risk are gone, along with the local knowledge and pay packets that went with them. Nearly two years ago, this government announced a $4 billion emergency response and mitigation fund, and not a single dollar has been spent. Anxiety was through the roof as we headed into this fire season. Communities from the mountains to the sea wanted to see women and men in our environment managing our landscape, and we saw none of it. While rain might have reduced the immediate risk, the jobs in caring for our community are desperately needed in regional communities. While businesses in Eden-Monaro haven't been dealing with bushfires this summer, they've been dealing with equally devastating border closures. Business owners have been in tears describing the trauma of losing summer trade for a second year in a row because this government failed to lead in the national cabinet on definitions for hotspots and triggers for border closures. In some of our areas, tourism, hospitality and retail businesses generate 70 to 80 per cent of their yearly earnings during the six-week summer holiday period. We fear for the jobs and livelihoods that depend on those small businesses. Since the devastating border closures on New Year's Eve, I've met with business chambers in the Bega Valley, Tumut and Jindabyne. Small-business owners in Eden-Monaro need help. They need help in the form of travel vouchers, to entice visitation back to our communities and tax incentives or concessions for those hardest hit. And mental health support for our business owners is desperately needed. Finally, news last week that Telstra will be closing its overseas call centres and bringing those jobs back to Australia presents another opportunity for jobs in the region. I urge those decision-makers to support regions like Eden-Monaro by establishing call centres in fire affected communities like mine or setting targets for people to work from home in our regional communities. More than two million Australians are looking for work in this country right now, but this government is failing to see the opportunities that are right in front of us. Instead, we have a $1 trillion debt and no answers from this government to the questions screaming at us from our future. Only Labor will provide the vision for our future. My electorate knows it, because I am on their side. 15:50 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie Happy new year to you, Mr Deputy Speaker O'Brien, and a happy new year to all parliamentarians. The Morrison government want it to be a happy new year for all Australians too. We want to see all Australians in work and doing well throughout 2021. The government have invested over $260 billion in combined health and economic support to help Australia through the crisis—to keep Australians safe, to keep businesses open and to keep workers in employment. Our plan is to act decisively in the interests of all Australians, to keep them in jobs and to get more Australians into jobs as the economy recovers from COVID-19. The Morrison government gives thanks to all 25 million Australians for we are nearly unmatched around the world in our comeback. Australia is certainly a wonderful place to live. As the Prime Minister was saying this morning in the party room, you wouldn't want to be anywhere other than Australia at the moment. Ninety per cent of the jobs that were lost are already back, with 748,500 jobs being returned to the economy over the last seven months. The unemployment rate fell from 7½ per cent in July last year to 6.6 per cent in December. Consumer and business confidence is recovering, and this will be further supported by the vaccine rollout, which the Morrison government is funding through Medicare. At the same time, the Morrison government's JobKeeper payment, supporting apprentices and trainees wages, kept over 3.8 million Australians in work and a further 117,000 Australians in training. In my own electorate of Petrie, Pilpel, a local restaurant, kept its doors open, thanks to JobKeeper and other support from the Australian government. That restaurant gave back at Christmas. It held a dinner for hundreds of community members, including the homeless, to help give a little Christmas cheer. Specsavers told me that they would have had to lose staff, but instead they kept their doors open. Tradies are busy at the moment. The Morrison government's HomeBuilder is supporting record new home sales. Also, of course, due to the lack of travel, people are investing locally and in their own homes. We are in a good position in Australia, but there certainly is more to do. Every member and senator in this place can play their part. The Australian government is focused on the Australian people. That's why we're here. That's what drives us. That's what we will continue to focus on throughout 2021. The government's $74 billion JobMaker is a key element of the government's economic recovery plan and will support economic activity and higher employment. In assisting Minister Cash in her portfolio, this includes boosting apprenticeship commitments to give more people the skills they need to get back to work and delivering the JobTrainer fund in partnership with states and territories for 340,000 additional training places that are free—funded by the Australian government—or low fee to give jobseekers and school leavers skills. Youth employment has increased by 240,000, almost a quarter of a million, since May, but there is more to do. The Morrison government is delivering the JobMaker hiring credit, helping to accelerate growth in employment by giving businesses incentives to take on younger employees. Young jobseekers will not be at risk of becoming long-term unemployed and reliant on welfare. We are investing $4 billion to support young people into work through the JobMaker hiring credit. The JobMaker hiring credit will support around 450,000 young people to move into employment. The Labor Party, those opposite, should explain to young Australians why they have opposed every youth employment measure that the Australian government has introduced. It's disappointing that, in the first question time of 2021, the Labor Party started question time with a lie in relation to industrial relations. Here in the Morrison government we want to get people back to work. That's why the fair work amendment bill, the industrial relations changes, that the Morrison government has planned will simplify the Fair Work Act. This, I believe, can help reduce underemployment and casualisation, which those opposite always talk about. At the moment, the act encourages casualisation as opposed to permanent part time. The JobMaker hiring credit, as I spoke about before, will continue to help people. The recovery will not look the same in all communities for all Australians. Every MP and senator has a role to play. (Time expired) 15:55 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Today, the first day back in parliament for 2021, was important because it was an opportunity for the government to tell us what their future plans are for creating jobs. We've had the health crisis of 2020, and today was the day to define the kind of Australia that we want. Part of that is what the jobs of the future will be and how we will get people back into employment, especially those two million people in this country who today find themselves without a job, or the ones who are underemployed and want to work more but cannot find that extra work. So this year there will be a clear choice for Australians, a clear choice between a government that cares more about protecting its own jobs and the Prime Minister's job or one that wants to ensure Australians have a fulfilling and reliable future of work. This government is all about slogans and marketing, instead of believing in actions. When you think about the future of the government and their actions, you just need to look at their record, what they've done since they have been in government. We've seen a decline in manufacturing. People have lost their jobs; industries have gone out of business; particular products that we made here in Australia, with Australian workers, have just disappeared. You don't have to look too far. Just look at South Australia, my own home state, where we had an automobile industry, GMH, that created hundreds and hundreds of jobs. It put food on the table for thousands of people over the years. We don't have that industry anymore. Why don't we have that industry anymore? Because those opposite didn't give two hoots about it. We saw the automobile industry and GMH goaded out of Australia. The Treasurer of the time, Mr Hockey, made that absolutely disgraceful speech in this place. Two days later, GMH announced that they were leaving Australia. We know for every assembly-line job that exists another 30-odd jobs are created. In fact, the car industry has been subsidised by governments all around the world because they know that it economically benefits the nation. The government turned its back on the car industry. It's turned its back on manufacturing. It is also losing those highly skilled, experienced workers we once had. Many are still unemployed today regardless of what programs the government put in place. The government announces a lot, but the outcomes speak for themselves. For example, the government announced that it would decide in 2019 the long-term location for the full-cycle docking of the Collins class submarines. Well, it's 2021 and we're still waiting. There are close to 900 people employed at the Australian Submarine Corporation in Osborne in South Australia. They are 900 people who spent Christmas and the holiday period very uncertain about how long they will have jobs. We have an aged-care system which is broken and has left our oldest Australians exposed to the coronavirus. The home-care waiting list just gets longer and longer. We saw the debacle, and we're still seeing it, of the COVID-safe app. There was great fanfare, great marketing, great advertising on TV, but how effective has it been? I believe there have been only 17 cases confirmed by the app, although it cost the Australian taxpayer $70 million, including advertising and marketing for those opposite to prop up their own jobs. The government has announced 22 failed energy policies whilst they've been in for the last eight years, and instead of creating jobs in renewables for the future they've created nothing but uncertainty for businesses that want to invest in renewables. What does that do? It leaves players out of the market, and energy prices have skyrocketed, up to 20 per cent in some cases. They've gone up in the last eight years since this government has been in power. This government and the Prime Minister talk about jobs, but there are two million Australians who are looking for work in the country right now, not to mention the number of people, as I said earlier, who are underemployed, and wages growth is at the lowest it's ever been in the history of this nation. In fact, they're going backwards under this government, instead of the other way. This is the government's track record, with wages going backwards. And what did they have to offer just before we left parliament? An industrial relations bill that's going to cut wages. It's going to cut wages, because it's in their DNA. (Time expired) 16:00 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker The temerity of the Australian Labor Party and their members of parliament to come in here and debate a false premise, namely the government's failure to deliver a proper jobs plan for the people of Australia, to be honest, doesn't know any boundary. That a party that left the parliament in late November, early December last year fighting each other over one person's job, namely the Leader of the Opposition's, and who spent all of Christmas, New Year and that time in January continuing those fights has the temerity to come in here and accuse us—that is, the government and the Prime Minister, who are getting on with the job of protecting Australians and their livelihoods—just beggars belief. Those opposite in this debate this afternoon have been fond of saying, 'We're on your side.' I warn the people of Australia: Be very cautious of any member of parliament who professes to be on your side. Rather than listen to their words, look at their actions. And, while you're doing that, look at the government's actions on this issue over the course of the pandemic. Of course, we stepped into the breach when it was needed and established JobKeeper. While we were dealing with that, we moved onto JobMaker and the hiring credits that were necessitated to facilitate that. I'll get to the statistics on where we are in relation to the national unemployment rate in a minute. There are also apprentice and trainee incentives. Of course, almost on cue, because he must have known I was looking to speak to this issue, Minister Sukkar enters the chamber and I mention the fabulously successful HomeBuilder program. If those opposite want to come here and say there's no plan for jobs post-pandemic, I challenge you to go and find a tradie in this country and say, 'The Morrison government has no plan for your jobs going forward.' I think almost every tradesman in this country will say to you: 'Rubbish. We know the good work that HomeBuilder has done. We know that we've got more work than we can fly a rocket ship over and we know that that's going long into the future.' Don't stop at the plumber, the electrician, the concreter, the tiler, the surveyor. Come to my community and let's go to a timber mill where that timber is sawn into structural timber that goes into frames. Talk to those timber workers. The old Labor Party would have done that once upon a time, but unfortunately the disconnect between the Labor Party and those that work in those facilities is now at its highest. I said earlier I'd talk about unemployment statistics and where we're at. Those opposite, indeed, all Australians, indeed, everyone on this globe, understand the scale and scope of the pandemic—a one-in-a-century event that we've been dealing with. I think it's important that Australians understand that the unemployment rate in December fell to 8.5 per cent. How does that compare, pray tell, to December 2019? As I said, it was 8.5 per cent in December 2020. Well, in December 2019 it was 8.2 per cent, so before the pandemic we had an unemployment rate at 8.2 per cent. After everything this nation has been through over the last 12 months—nay, everything the world has been through over the last 12 months—the plans and the programs that have been implemented by our government have meant that we have recovered to the point of being 0.3 per cent above the rate of unemployment that existed prior to the pandemic taking hold. Those opposite can come in here and try to create fake fights with the coalition; they can try to put a message out of this place to Australian workers and the Australian citizenry that the coalition government, led the Prime Minister Morrison, has not done a good job. But they know that this has been a very difficult period and they know that this ship has been steered particularly well. And you lose credibility by coming in and making these arguments. Work with us to make sure we can recover even better and be best positioned in the world. Don't come in here and have fake fights in the interests of the Leader of the Opposition. 16:05 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore From day one it's been clear that this government has no real plan for Australians jobs. They were dragged kicking and screaming by Labor before they announced a wages subsidy, their so-called JobKeeper. We suggested it, and we were thrilled when they finally agreed. They took their time, but they did finally agree. But now, when it is so incredibly clear that, at least for some industries, JobKeeper will be needed for longer than their arbitrary end date next month, they are still refusing to do what is needed to protect local jobs. My electorate on the New South Wales South Coast is heavily dependent on tourism. We have all you could want in a holiday destination: beaches, mountains, beautiful people, beautiful food. But the tourism sector is hurting like never before. International tourism is off the table for who knows how long. The domestic tourism market is there, but, with border closures and new hotspots creating high levels of uncertainty, it is putting the viability of many local tourism operators at risk. So what's the government's plan? It's clear. They don't have one. There has been talk—there have been little rumbles and little hints, but rumbles and hints aren't going to keep tourism businesses across my electorate in business. For months and months I have been raising the concerns, the alarm, of local travel agents in my electorate. I have called on the government over and over again to provide targeted support to that industry. Without the international tourism market, many travel agents simply won't survive. They struggled for so long while being completely ignored by the Prime Minister. Travel agents breathed a sigh of relief when the government finally announced a seemingly tailored package late last year. But, like so many things the Morrison government does, this was yet another failed delivery. I want to share some of the thoughts of local travel agents in my electorate about this package so that you can see the reality. Several agents told me they won't qualify. While the money should have helped to cover the hundreds of hours they have spent, unpaid, helping their clients since this all began, they will get nothing. So, without JobKeeper, they won't survive. Soon after the assistance program was announced, one agent from Nowra said: 'To say that our industry is disappointed is a massive understatement. In the proposal presented by AFTA, my office would have received a grant of $40,000. This would have assisted me to keep trading and my two remaining staff members employed until October 2021. The grant has been butchered by the powers that be, and my office will now only receive $11,000, which will not even pay one month's wages once JobKeeper ends in March.' Another agent said: 'The turnover model is a nightmare for those of us in retail travel. Austrade continued, even though they were fully aware of this grave flaw, and consequently they have signed a death warrant for many in our industry.' These sentiments were echoed by agents up and down the coast—a failure for real people, real businesses and real jobs. But it isn't just travel agents. Another forgotten industry that has been begging for help is independent cinemas. Independent cinemas have seen huge drops in audience numbers. They have had to deal with prolonged closures and capacity restrictions. And, with the US in the state it is in, there is a huge lack of major blockbusters, which they rely on. In 2020, independent cinemas saw a 70 per cent reduction at the box office. They are struggling and many may not survive. Independent cinemas are so dismayed by the government's complete refusal to help them that next week they are launching a week of action. Why should it come to that? One of the independent cinemas in Batemans Bay said in December, 'Without further support through the COVID-19 crisis, my business is at risk of financial collapse. That will rob Batemans Bay and surrounding areas of its affordable and well-loved cinema, and leave our staff without jobs.' That sums it up perfectly. But the government are not listening. They don't have a plan. There are 1.6 million Australians relying on JobKeeper, but, from next month, they will lose that critical lifeline. This pandemic is far from over, and, despite the government's attempts to paint a positive picture, a huge number of businesses and jobs are in dire circumstances. We need an extension of JobKeeper for those who need it. The government needs to start listening. 16:10 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm It is important to speak on the Morrison government's plan to create jobs, to get Aussie businesses firing and to drive our national economic recovery. First, though, let's look at where we were this time last year. With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to forget how little we all knew about COVID-19 at that time. As case numbers rose, it seemed that every day brought new theories, forecasts and speculations. Misinformation, fear and panic were abundant. Between March, when Australia recorded its 100th case, and May, 872,000 jobs were lost as restrictions took their toll and business confidence fell sharply. Amidst this uncertainty, the Morrison government acted decisively. Our emergency response, including JobKeeper and an increased JobSeeker rate, softened the blow, supporting Australians through the darkest days of the pandemic. The success of this response has been widely acknowledged, with the Reserve Bank reporting in November last year that a further 700,000 Australians would have lost their jobs if not for JobKeeper and our triple A credit rating being retained. But we knew then that the work wasn't over, as we know now that it's not over. Cushioning the blow of the virus was necessary, but it was nowhere near sufficient. The people of Australia expect us, and we intend, to deliver a strong and sustained economic recovery which will help drive the unemployment rate down as fast as possible. That's where our JobMaker plan comes in, supporting aggregate demand and more jobs in the near term, while also starting to deliver the flexible and dynamic economy that we need to unlock Australia's longer term growth potential. Core policies that fall within this framework include lowering taxes, putting more money back in the pockets of Australians; creating an estimated 100,000 jobs by the end of the 2021-22 financial year; investing an additional $14 billion in new and accelerated infrastructure projects over the next four years; supporting an extra 340,000 free or low-fee training places for school leavers and jobseekers; and, with the $4 billion JobMaker hiring credit, providing businesses with an incentive to employ younger Australians, a group disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. On top of this, specific targeted packages have been prepared for industries particularly affected by COVID-19. For example, Australia's arts industry will be backed by a new $250 million package to help restart our creative economy and get the entertainment, arts and screen sectors back to work. These are examples, but even a quick glance at the raft of policy measures put forward by the Morrison government reveals a clearly defined set of objectives for our JobMaker plan, supporting a stronger economy, driving a faster recovery in employment, investing in skills and higher education, improving the ease of doing business and supporting the manufacturing and energy sectors. This isn't reading between the lines. It's plain to see it's what makes the opposition's suggestion that there is no plan for jobs simply laughable; it's just incorrect. But those opposite know this is just more political spin and more Labor lies cooked up by the marketers and focus groups. Australians deserve better. 16:16 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon We've all been tested in ways we never imagined a year ago. The pandemic has exposed the huge economic difficulties we now face as we look towards recovery. Across the nation, more than two million people are either out of work or underemployed—that is, they want to work more hours. The 1.6 million Australians still relying on JobKeeper as a lifeline are looking at next month with dread as the government cuts off that support. So my message to those opposite is: you need to keep supporting COVID-exposed industries, employees and businesses. You need to support small businesses and their employees—keep them connected. They need certainty, not all these whispers and suggestions. But those opposite, the Morrison government, still can't tell us what will happen to them. Businesses need to plan ahead and employees need to plan ahead, and they're not seeing any certainty. It's been the worst recession in 100 years and that's why getting people who are unemployed back to work and keeping those who are employed connected to their workplaces is so important. Success will lie in a visionary policy, but we've seen nothing of that from those opposite, no follow through as per usual. What is their vision? They should be investing in jobs. Instead, they're sacking workers and defunding organisations that support people at work in our community. Just look at what is happening in my electorate, in Darwin, with the NT Working Women's Centre. The Working Women's Centre helped vulnerable women manage issues like pay, working conditions, superannuation, discrimination, harassment, unfair dismissal, bullying, and workplace health and safety. For almost 30 years they've been doing terrific work supporting Territory women, in particular women living with a disability; women living in regional and remote areas; women experiencing violence; women with mental illness; young and mature-age women; and, of course, First Nations Territorians. The centre says that in April last year the top concerns for their clients were COVID-related issues, employment and pay. Workplace bullying and harassment were also major problems. It's clear that women, especially vulnerable women, need the support of the Working Women's Centre, which is locally based with local staff who have a deep understanding of the nuances and complications of working in a place like the Northern Territory. But, instead of supporting the Working Women's Centre, in December the government advised the centre it had failed to secure new funding and that current funding would run out on New Year's Eve. Well, happy new year to Territory women, with the defunding of the NT Working Women's Centre and the telling a group of dedicated Territory workers with very short notice that they would be entering 2021 unemployed at a time when unemployment rates were already so high. It's totally irresponsible. It's a rotten Christmas present. Giving funding to an interstate body with no NT presence for those jobs is also unfair. But, unfortunately, it's typical of those opposite. Territory women in employment will suffer as a result of the loss of their local advocates. Labor knows that women are vitally important to the health and growth of our society and economy. Working women are important to our nation. When women are taken care of and do well in the workplace, the flow-on effects are felt at every level in our society. It's not just for the economy; it's for the wellbeing of our society and our families. The NT government has stepped up and managed to find a bit of funding for the short term, but that will run out shortly. So I'm calling on those opposite, the government, to reinstate the funding for the Working Women's Centre so they can keep doing their incredibly valuable and important work for working women in the Northern Territory. 16:21 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne This MPI has a rather hollow ring to it when you hear about what's been happening in coastal New South Wales. It's reflecting the figures that the Treasurer spoke about today: job numbers up in every state, job ad numbers up in every state and consumer confidence coming back. Business confidence is certainly coming back too, although I do acknowledge there are some sectors of the economy that are still incredibly challenged by the effects of COVID on international travel and tourism. Otherwise, it is really all going exceptionally well and better than we expected in coastal New South Wales. In the beautiful Lyne electorate, there was hardly a spot you could put a caravan or a family who wanted a holiday up and down the Mid North Coast. Caravan parks, holiday villages and beaches were packed. Accommodation in the rental holiday areas from the Hunter River to Hawks Nest was booming over the Christmas and new year period; I've never seen Hawks Nest as busy. Through Forster and Tuncurry, there was exactly the same phenomenon. Up into the Hastings and the Manning, there were people everywhere. That is because of the plans that have been rolled out since the COVID pandemic started. Anyone on the other side must have been blind and deaf or refused to listen. We've had so many plans. First of all, there's the JobKeeper and the JobSeeker support and increasing cash flow by tax refunds. Most recently we have had HomeBuilder kick the already growing residential housing market out into the stratosphere. To put things in perspective, there was a subdivision of 32 blocks in my own home town of Wauchope. It went on release, and do you know how long it took the real estate people to sell it? It was all gone in one hour. People are voting with their feet. They are leaving the metro and they are seeking a better life in the regions. That's what our party stands for. We want people to decentralise, and many businesses have worked out the same. Industrial lots were going very quickly too, because people realise they can move their business. They have cheaper business and land costs, and, if they've got a successful internet business, they can sell their product back into the bigger markets. We've also had plans to support apprenticeships, which are up by 110,000. We had apprentice subsidy schemes before the pandemic, but the latest scheme brought in 110,000 new apprentices. That is exceptional. We've heard the amazing figures from the resources sector. I have two coalmines in my electorate, plus half the people in the Hunter region of my electorate work in mining and mining related industries as well agriculture. The dairy industry has recovered from the drought in most areas, and, also, Norco is paying 77c a litre. That is a big improvement in prices. So we have had huge grain crops to the west, and in our part of the world things are looking up. There have been exceptional prices for beef cattle and, depending on who the processor is, exceptional prices for milk, which is a welcome benefit. The building industry is where it's really going gangbusters, the tradesmen all tell me, whether you're in Forster Tuncurry at the McDonald Jones sites, or in Wauchope or in Taree. In Taree, the Figtrees on the Manning project is kicking off. It's a $495 million master plan site. Bushland Health Group is delivering the $8½ million grant that we got. The project is underway. In the arts sector we've got Netflix and other prominent Hollywood movie producers making movies on the North Coast. I was there for the late Doug Anthony's funeral, and around the Byron Bay district it's full of moviemakers because of our arts plan: $270 million to get moviemaking and all the employment that runs off these big movies going in Australia. We have had a plan. The facts are there. Employment is rising rapidly. Ninety per cent of the jobs have come back. We've just got the international and the health plan sorted and we'll get travel going again. Make sure you have a holiday in regional Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The discussion has concluded. MOTIONS 52 MOTIONS Member for Hughes 52 16:26 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved by the member for Hindmarsh to suspend standing orders on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the honourable member for Hindmarsh be disagreed to.

The House divided. [16:30]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 63 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Broadbent, RE Chester, D Christensen, GR Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hamilton, GR Hammond, CM Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Kelly, C Laming, A Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 59 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Coker, EA Collins, JM Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, G Khalil, P King, CF Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mulino, D Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Phillips, FE Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 53 BILLS Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020 53

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020

Returned from Senate 53 COMMITTEES 54 COMMITTEES Corporations and Financial Services Committee 54 Report 54 16:35 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report, incorporating a minority report, entitled Litigation funding and the regulation of the class action industry. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr GEORGANAS DZY by leave—This report is a clear example of the important work that we do in parliament and the important work that committees do because it reflects the very serious debates and discussions that occur in our committees. This is evident in the minority report of the committee members, which has been tabled as an attachment to the committee's report. It reflects the reservations expressed by the Labor committee members regarding a number of the committee's key recommendations. Over the last three years, the current government's approach to policy-making in relation to class actions and litigation funding has been fairly contradictory and conflicting, to say the very least. An example of this is from December 2017, when the current government commissioned the Australian Law Reform Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of class action proceedings and third-party litigation funders. After the commission completed its review and made 24 recommendations for reform, the government did nothing, and for almost 18 months the Morrison government uttered barely a word about class actions and litigation funding. Then, in the middle of a global health and economic crisis, the Attorney-General established this supposedly extremely urgent inquiry into litigation funding and the regulation of the class action industry. But in May last year, before this committee had even received its first submission or held its first public hearing, the Treasurer pre-empted the outcome of the government's own inquiry. It did so by announcing two primary requirements: (1) the litigation funders would be required to hold an Australian financial services licence, and (2) they would have to comply with the managed investment scheme regime under the Corporations Act 2001. I remind the House that these two proposals had already been considered and had already been rejected by the Law Reform Commission, the Department of the Treasury and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, among others. The opposition members on the committee therefore question why the committee is tabling a report that largely repeats those precise recommendations, and that is all in our minority report. My colleagues and I sought to explain in that report just how irrational the Treasurer's new regulations are. But you don't have to take just the words of the opposition members on this committee. ASIC, for example, the entity tasked with administering the Treasurer's new regulations, has had to spend $60,000 of taxpayers' money to get legal advice about what the regulations even mean. If the regulator doesn't understand the regulations, then what hope do the organisations subject to those regulations have, we ask. Perhaps even more incredibly, ASIC has admitted that it is impossible for some class actions to comply with these rules. ASIC said this, not committee members. It's true that ASIC has said that it won't act against class actions that do not comply with that requirement, but at the same time it's acknowledged that it is powerless to stop other Commonwealth agencies or even private parties from taking legal action against a class action for breaching these obligations. In other words, many Australians will now have to break the law in order to exercise their basic legal rights. So I'd urge those listening and those who are interested to read the minority report by the Labor members, which sets out in detail those objections. But, despite those objections, there are also areas of agreement. There are many good things in the report as well. Labor members agreed that the Federal Court could and should make better and more regular use of independent fee assessors and contradictors to represent the interests of plaintiffs in class actions. We also agreed that there should be greater transparency around the process of approving settlements, and better processes around managing or prohibiting conflicts of interest. No-one is arguing that the current system is perfect. But we, in Labor, believe that there is a lot this parliament could do to ensure the best possible returns for plaintiffs in class actions while also improving the access to justice for ordinary Australians. This is a very important matter and we would welcome a bipartisan approach from the other side. But, based on this government's track record, I'm not sure how likely that is. 16:41 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar by leave—In the short time that I have been here in this parliament, I have to say that this inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services was definitely the most willing that I have been involved in. It is fair to say that it gave new meaning to the term 'full and frank advice' being given by many witnesses. I have to say that the answers were, in most cases, direct. I particularly want to single out Omni Bridgeway. That is an Australian litigation funder who, throughout this process, gave the committee what it needed to understand to make its deliberations possible. In a desert of integrity, frankly, it is simply a single oasis, and for that I thank its CEO and its organisation. But the one thing that this did show is that the adversarial nature of our justice system—and, indeed, this inquiry—did provide some very good information for this parliament to consider. The first is that our justice system is not meant to be about profit. Our justice system is meant to be about justice. Many years ago, and for many centuries, the concept of champerty and maintenance was maintained in the legal system—that people were not allowed to be part of an action that they were not part of and that they were not meant to profit from legal action. But many reports by the same people that the deputy chair spoke of made this point over and over again—that we need access to justice. The Australian Law Reform Commission, ASIC, the Australian Law Council—all of them talk about the prohibitions and the barriers to access to justice. But always in the fine print is the fact that the greatest barrier to entry is the cost of the lawyers themselves, and not a single one of them—not the Productivity Commission, not the ALRC, not the Law Council—ever speaks to the fact that maybe lawyers should consider reducing their fees. It's a bit hard for this parliament to cop having millionaire partners of class-action law firms coming before this parliamentary joint committee inquiry claiming that they represent impoverished individuals and impoverished Australians just seeking access when they themselves will not consider reducing their fees to do so. No-one ever talks about lawyers reducing their fees. What we know is that some of these boutique investment products—otherwise known as litigation funders—are making returns of over 500 per cent. When the committee asked one of the litigation funders: 'Could we invest in one of these funds?'—given that its returns are over 500 per cent—they informed us that we would need a minimum investment of a million dollars. When a committee member said that they thought that, at 500 per cent, they could rustle up a million dollars, the reply came back: 'Oh no, that's in US dollars.' Then, when the reply came that this person could get to a million US dollars, it was: 'All our funds are oversubscribed.' Most of them are in places like Gibraltar, Malta, and, of course, the Bahamas. Those opposite are constantly lecturing this parliament about overseas tax-evading corporations. But, when it comes to litigation funders, the only thing they did when they were in government was give them a free pass and absolve them from the Corporations Law. The idea that litigation funders should be regulated as managed investment schemes came from the Federal Court itself. When those opposite were in government, they moved heaven and earth to make sure that that would never apply to litigation funders. Is a litigation fund managed? Yes. Is it an investment? With returns of over 500 per cent, it clearly is. Is it a scheme? Absolutely. Should it be managed? Yes, it should be. In all of this, we found the hopelessly conflicted nature of the regulators. We found consumers and class members being ripped off and being given misleading and deceptive information. When reported to the ACCC—who will prosecute a toy store if the store doesn't have the right warning labels on a toy—the ACCC, after nine months, actually decided it was an investment product and it should be the job of ASIC. ASIC—who will pursue real estate agents because it thought that they might have been giving people false or incorrect information or information about people withdrawing early from their super funds, even though it had no evidence other than an internal email from a subordinate to a manager—wouldn't take up this cause, where the very same people, who, apparently, are only seeking access to justice, are seeing themselves being ripped off through misleading and deceptive information.The ACCC and ASIC had no interest whatsoever in pursuing this in the interests of ordinary Australians and consumers. That's why we are determined that Australian consumers be given the protections people have when they're opening a savings account. But, apparently these tax-haven-dwelling, litigation-funding investment vehicles that are bespoke should be absolved from the laws of this parliament. It is absurd. As we heard in evidence, it undermines the very pillars of our justice system—where the responsibilities and obligations of lawyers to their clients are subverted by their obligations to the people funding the action. There have been court cases in London that have made it very clear that lawyers now have no obligations to clients, but rather to their funders. This has all been reflected in the explosion in class actions, in the explosion in insurance premiums and in international investors saying that they are not seeking to make investments in Australia because of the nature of class actions in this country and the funding vehicle in litigation funding. That's before we get to shareholder class actions, where we have the absurd idea that suing yourself, as an owner of the firm, is somehow going to punish people who didn't disclose information. That became well and truly clear. We had HESTA come to us and say, 'We think that's a good idea, that we should be allowed to sue ourselves,' and then, halfway through their evidence to the committee, admit that they're an investor in Omni Bridgeway. It's okay, though, they're only a passive investor! We have the situation where the Victorian government announced that they would introduce contingency fees against the advice of the Australian law council. On the very same day that they made that announcement, the Attorney-General in Victoria, Jill Hennessy, had a meeting with the directors of Maurice Blackburn, who, later that afternoon, made a $100,000 donation to the federal Labor Party. This whole system—unregulated, unseen, operating in the darkness, with people refusing to come before a committee and give us straight answers to straight questions—is undermining the very pillars of our justice system and is perverting so much of the policymaking in this place and in other places. I highly recommend the recommendations in the report. BILLS 56 BILLS Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020 56

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020

Second Reading 56 16:49 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley I rise to contribute to the debate on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020. Speakers on this side of the House before me raised as one of the concerns about this bill that it doesn't cover in-home care. I just wanted to raise another concern that has been raised with me in my electorate, which is one that I'm sure the government will take note of and work to make sure is addressed before aged-care facilities are asked to implement this new scheme—that is, making sure that there is certainty about how the scheme is to be applied and the sorts of serious incidents it covers. It's been raised with me that the current documentation available on the departmental website has some ambiguities about 'neglect', 'intentional' and 'recklessness'. It is the case that there are a number of incidents in aged-care facilities that result in serious injury that don't fall into the categories of neglect or intention or recklessness but are accidents. It has been raised by many who are concerned about there being guidance, because people who work in aged care want this guidance so they can make sure that they are giving the best care where they can, they are reporting incidents where it's appropriate and they are not taking up a lot of time and scarce resources when it's actually not necessary for them to report incidents. It's not a criticism of the legislation but simply a concern that has been raised with me that I wanted to put before this House so that the government can consider it. Of course, I would be very happy to forward more details of that concern to the minister if the minister is interested. I turn to the second reading amendment and to the fact that the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety not only shone a light on many of these serious incidents that need to be addressed but also, more than that, shone a light on how badly neglected and underfunded the aged-care system is and has been for some time. It is something that should cause shame to all of us to have an interim report that says: Many people receiving aged care services have their basic human rights denied. Their dignity is not respected and their identity is ignored. … It is a shocking tale of neglect. We had an aged-care royal commission in this country because our communities would no longer accept this neglect of their loved ones; because our aged-care workers would no longer be silent about the way-too-low wages, poor conditions; and because precarious employment often prevents them providing the care that they want to while living the sorts of lives they should be able to live; and because brave Australians from across the country wanted their voices to be heard. It is to those people and everyone who joined the campaign to force this government to finally call a royal commission whom we owe our thanks. The interim report of the royal commission—and the hundreds of thousands of Australians who wanted their voices heard and who wanted the aged-care system fixed—was released last year before hundreds and hundreds of Australians died from COVID while in residential aged care, on the Morrison government's watch. In the stark words of Peter Rozen QC, senior counsel assisting the royal commission into aged care, the evidence would reveal that neither the Commonwealth Department of Health nor the aged-care regulator developed a COVID-19 plan specifically for the aged-care sector. It was in August last year that the leader of the Labor Party—the member for Grayndler—stood at the Press Club and, in the absence of a government plan, offered eight points for the government to consider, which included minimum staffing levels in residential aged care and reducing the home-care package waiting list so more people can stay in their homes for longer, because we still have over 100,000 Australians approved for residential home care waiting for their packages, and the Department of Health says that more than half of them are eligible for the highest level of care. Ensure transparency and accountability of funding to support high-quality care: it should be the case that aged-care providers who receive taxpayers' money have to acquit how they spend it and how they spend it on care for the people that are in their facilities. There should be independent measurement and public reporting, as recommended by the royal commission. Every residential aged-care facility should have adequate personal protective equipment and better training for staff, including but certainly not limited to infection control, and a better surge workforce strategy. And, in August of last year, the Leader of the Opposition's recommendation was that additional resources go to the aged-care royal commission so that they could inquire into COVID-19 across the sector but not impact or delay the handing down of the final report. We've seen little willingness from the current government to adopt any of those minimum and sensible recommendations. I know that the people of Dunkley have had enough. They tell me over and over again that action needs to be taken on aged care, because they know we didn't have a royal commission because this Prime Minister or this government wanted one. They know that we had a royal commission because eventually the Prime Minister and the government realised that they had no choice. In less than a month, the Prime Minister and the government are also going to be put in a position where they're not going to have a choice, because the royal commission is going to hand down its final findings and recommendations, and this government cannot simply stand up and say: 'Sure. We accept that,' and think that that will be enough. What Australians expect and deserve is a government that will implement reforms swiftly and will fund them without reservation. After seven years of presiding over systemic and ongoing failures in Australia's aged-care system, this Liberal government cannot continue to deny responsibility, it cannot underfund the system and it cannot pretend that the serious and shameful problems don't exist. When we have royal commissioners who say, 'Had the Australian government acted upon previous reviews of aged care, the persistent problems in aged care would have been known much earlier and the suffering of many people could have been avoided,' then there is no excuse not to act. We cannot have a government that continues to put 'bandaid fixes on the run'. It is not good enough. And that's not my phrase—'bandaid fixes on the run'; that's the royal commission's phrase in its interim report, titled Neglect. It is an abrogation of one of the most fundamental responsibilities of government—to care for those who can't care for themselves, to protect Australians when they face dangers which they can't defend themselves from and to be on their citizens' side. Australians expect that they're entitled to the best quality level of care in aged-care homes, and the royal commission has been clear that more is needed to enable providers to meet those expectations consistently—more funding. I also challenge the Morrison government. Here are some other things that are needed to help ensure Australian citizens get their expectations met in aged-care homes consistently: acknowledge not only what you want praise for, but where you have failed and take responsibility for fixing it; fund the system properly, because if we can't do it now when can we do it; address the pay and the conditions of workers and minimum staffing levels for the sake of the workers and for the sake of the people that they've dedicated their working lives to care for. It is not too much to ask of an Australian government that it ensures senior Australians have dignity and meaning in their later years no matter how many resources they have available to them and no matter what their personal wealth is. What Australians need now is a federal government that demonstrates through actions and outcomes, not announcements and spin, that it is truly on their side. I challenge the Morrison government to be that. But I can tell you this: a federal Labor government will be that and will be on the side of all Australians. The people in Dunkley know that I will continue to stand up in this place at every opportunity I get to say we have to fix our broken aged-care system for the sake not only of the people who are there now but also of people in the future. I want to end this contribution by raising a positive example of an aged-care facility. We do hear a lot about where things go wrong, and that does have to be fixed, but we have to also mention the facilities that are great and where things are going well. The Village Baxter in my electorate—I know that Kim Jackson will be slightly embarrassed that I am praising her and her staff so publicly in the parliament, but they deserve to be praised—is a facility that sat down at the start of last year, before the federal government had taken steps to deal with the pandemic, and said, 'It looks like we've got an issue. How can we make sure we're prepared for it?' They took out their old sales plan and their infection control plan. They talked with their residents. Before masks were mandatory they had staff and medical staff wearing masks. They educated their wider community about what was required to keep their residents safe. They did an amazing job in the face of the same difficulties that staff and facilities across Victoria and across Australia did and they did it well, and I want to make sure that they are remembered for how well they did it. As Kim has said to me, aged-care is about people. Our approach, as with everything we do, must value those people at the centre of every decision. That is a guiding principle that works for aged care, and it's a guiding principle that should be adopted by governments and would work for governments: people should be at the heart of every decision. In a year when Australians fought fires, floods and, as Kim Jackson has said to me, microscopic enemies that we couldn't see, we needed to make sure that we learnt from that that people should be at the heart of every decision. 17:02 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro Here we are at the start of a new parliamentary year, but in many respects it is groundhog day, especially for this government, which means nothing has changed in the lives of the precious people this government is bound to care for. This government turns up year after year showing next to no progress on aged care and on how we can better support the elders of our community, whether that care is in their own home or in a specialist facility. In the midst of our country's COVID-19 crisis last year, thousands of families, including mine, found themselves confronted by the Morrison government's complete failure to care for our elderly. The interim findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety grabbed the headlines, but the bells had been ringing long before 2020. It has been more than three years since a serious incident response scheme was first recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission. The Carnell-Paterson review, commissioned by the government in the wake of the Oakden nursing home tragedy, also recommended introducing a scheme. The Morrison government has taken far too long to introduce a response scheme that will respond to cases of assault and abuse in our aged-care system. At Oakden in South Australia, a 99-year-old woman with dementia was indecently assaulted. What more motivation does this government need? How can people in my electorate—indeed, those right around Australia—trust this government to respond properly to last year's royal commission when it takes more than three years to respond to the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Carnell-Paterson review? Failures in this government's system continue to be exposed. I want to weep as this government sits on its hands, promising to act but so far failing to deliver. My own family has experienced these failures firsthand, but first I want to give a voice to the people of the mighty Eden-Monaro, the people that I serve. Rhonda wrote to me recently. She's a health professional with decades of caring experience. She is now the primary carer for her mum, who is approaching 90. Like many families, Rhonda's mum wants to stay at home for as long as possible. Like many, what we've seen unfold in nursing homes around the country has left Rhonda and her mum feeling anxious about the prospect of nursing home care. Let me give you a sense of what Rhonda shared with me. She said: Mum is on a full pension and has a debilitating back injury from years of being a nurse. Two years ago mum broke her leg, which has further impacted her mobility. For several years mum has been receiving a community home support package, which has helped with cleaning and showering. In light of mum's increasing care needs and the subsequent financial demands, we organised an ACAT assessment. The assessment was conducted in April 2020 and mum was assessed as needing a level 2 home-care package. In November 2020, mum was advised that, as funds were not available for level 2, she would commence on a level 1 package and we had three months to select a provider to manage the package. Mum elected to remain with her existing provider, who had been very helpful. But their advice to Rhonda was to reject the level 1 package because Rhonda's mum would be at a financial disadvantage. She would be out of pocket almost $3,000 a month. As Rhonda said, 'We waited eight to 10 months in anticipation of financial support only to find out that mum could not actually afford to take up the package.' Knowing that her mum's needs are increasing, Rhonda has been looking at the higher level 3 and level 4 packages. She has been alarmed to hear that many people waiting for those higher care packages often die before the packages are made available to them. Again we weep for those families, as this government watches on. Rhonda says, 'I do not understand who actually benefits from these home-care packages if those on pensions can't afford them or die waiting.' We're talking about a woman who has served her community as a nurse, helping those in need throughout her whole life. It's a total disgrace. Sadly, Rhonda and her mum are not alone in Eden-Monaro. The latest waiting figures for home-care packages reveal just how broken our country's aged-care system is under the Morrison government. The waiting list for home-care packages across the country shows that 100,000 older Australians are in desperate need of care. In my electorate, more than 1,100 people are waiting—up from 600 people in the previous reporting period, a nearly 50 per cent increase. These figures are heartbreaking and reveal the pain and trauma many local families are feeling as they look to provide care and dignity to their loved ones. The government says it has injected more money into the system. Well, people in Tumut, Queanbeyan, Cooma, Jindabyne, Bega and Narooma are yet to see or feel any improvement. 'More will be announced in the budget,' the Prime Minister says. Well, families don't have the luxury of time. Every moment counts in the days that we share with our elders. At Braidwood poor Norman, aged 90, has had to argue with the aged-care minister to get a provider to visit his regional community, which is about an hour down the road from here. At one point Norman went 11 weeks without his regular home-care visits because the provider said it couldn't service Braidwood. As Norman told me: 'I'm 90 years of age and had a stroke 12 months ago. This leaves me in a difficult position, not to mention the rest of the folk who were getting the service.' Thankfully, Norman's service has been rebooted, but only after he jumped up and down about the system. Australia's aged-care system is broken when people like Norman and Rhonda can't get the assistance they need and deserve. The system was broken long before the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic only served to put extra stress on this system, resulting in the death of hundreds of people. My Nanny Hobby could have been one of those. She passed away in the middle of Victoria's second wave, not as a direct result of COVID but the cracks in the system didn't make her last months happy or comfortable. Living with dementia, 91-year-old Gladys Hobson endured six negative COVID tests and the collapse of services at her original home, including meal services. My family simply couldn't see her traumatised any further and pulled her out, but it was no easy task, as my nan was placed in a COVID ward before heading to her final days in a private hospital. She spent her last weeks free of the distress that had become such a feature of her day. My family were lucky that we were able to find other options and could move her, but what about the elders and families who don't have those options? These are the people and families who need this government to meet its duty of care. We need to put the care of these fragile people at the heart of our aged-care system, at the heart of aged-care reform and at the heart of government. No-one in my community has any confidence in the current system. Day after day the evidence of serious neglect mounts. Another Eden-Monaro constituent, Robyn, wrote to me: It seems to me that the amount of money allocated to each eligible aged-care recipient is eaten up by administrative fees. The current model has created an industry at the expense of the aged-care recipient. The service organisation is profiteering while the aged-care recipient either goes begging or is woefully underserviced. Another constituent, Belinda, wrote: 'It is just like a morbid lottery. It has nothing to do with care or respect.' Frank wrote: The royal commission revealed the litany of abuse and neglect that the coalition government has known was occurring under their watch. The government regards the aged as leaners on the budget. As the royal commission reported, this neglect has led to the cruel fact that men over 85 years have the highest rate of suicide of any group in the country. We then have the situation in Harden, just outside our electorate, where the Southern Cross Care retirement facility is being closed. There is no interest from this government in helping regional Australians, no help with establishing those places needed in Jindabyne or extending care in any other of our regional communities. When it comes to aged care, the Morrison government continues to hide from its responsibilities. A decade of inaction will be further highlighted when the final report from the aged-care royal commission is handed down later this month. Money alone is not going to fix the problems Australians see every day. There is no evidence from those opposite that the thinking and compassion needed to get us where we need to be is even happening. We're a trillion dollars in debt, and some of the big reforms needed in this country are left untouched. This experience should count for something. The need is evident to anyone with a heart, but so too is the opportunity. Fixing the waiting lists and reforming aged care could be part of our recovery from the bushfires and COVID-19. Jobs in the care economy provide meaningful work, especially in country towns, and clearly meet a desperate need. These workers are doing their very, very best; it is the system that is broken. My great hope is that this government finally hears the call of Australians and does what we need it to do. While the Serious Incident Response Scheme is very welcome and long overdue, we need deep and lasting aged-care reform. This needs to be just the beginning, because Australians deserve better. I'll continue to highlight these issues in the electorate of Eden-Monaro, because I have their back. 17:13 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020. The main point of the bill is the establishment of the Serious Incident Response Scheme, putting in place a new system of managing reportable assaults and unexplained absences in residential aged care. It will also require providers to manage incidents of abuse and neglect and take responsible steps to prevent incidents. It will require approved providers of residential care and flexible care delivered in a residential aged-care setting to report all serious incidents to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. It will remove the existing exemption for reporting assaults where the alleged perpetrator is a residential aged-care recipient with a cognitive or mental impairment and the victim is another care recipient. These changes are important reforms to improve the management and transparency of and accountability for serious incidents within the aged-care sector. Unfortunately, through the aged-care royal commission, we have heard numerous cases of neglect and abuse in the aged-care sector, so many cases that the interim report from that royal commission was titled simply Neglect. The neglect, however, goes far beyond the reporting of incidents. It's throughout the system, where funding cuts and reduced staffing ratios continue to weaken the standard of care provided to aged-care residents. The Serious Incident Response Scheme is necessary, but it is dealing with the symptoms of a neglected system rather than addressing the cause and increasing staffing ratios and the training provided to carers. So, while I welcome the establishment of this scheme and the recognition that the government bears some responsibility for the neglect in aged-care facilities that we too often hear of, I maintain that broader reform of the sector and increased funding is required to address the root cause of these reported incidents of abuse and neglect. In Warringah, aged care is a key issue. Of the total population, 15.7 per cent are over 65, and this proportion is growing. I've spoken with local providers about this bill and I've engaged with Leading Age Services Australia. Local providers and the LASA agree in principle with the need for the broader incident-reporting scheme but believe the legislation as currently drafted may cause some difficulties as well for the sector. They're concerned that something like a heated argument between two residents about who gets to sit where at dinner would possibly be a reportable incident under the legislation. There's also a concern about the lack of a need for consent from residents for the reporting of incidents, particularly in respect of incidents between residents and family members. While the LASA are working with the regulator and the department on refining these elements, they argue—and I would agree—that these elements should be agreed to and sorted out prior to the parliament passing this legislation. The proposed commencement schedule is another concern shared by the sector. The new reporting arrangements are due to commence in April this year; however, the aged-care facilities are yet to receive detailed guidance from the department on how they will be implemented and what the requirements are. The bill also introduces a range of new penalties for breaches of incident-reporting and other obligations. In the circumstances, the sector argues that the new penalty regime has come from left field; there wasn't detailed consultation and they've not had the opportunity to discuss the detail with providers. In the broad, the new penalties better reflect appropriate degrees of escalation and the opportunity for review than the current penalties regime, but the new penalties sit alongside existing penalties, which further complicates the regulatory environment for providers. So a broader overhaul of the penalties regime as part of the response to the royal commission findings would be more appropriate. But there's no doubt that there are broader concerns about the aged-care sector. As we heard during the royal commission into aged care, there are countless stories of neglect throughout this underfunded system, and it requires a broad overhaul. But today we saw further data released from the royal commission showing that 36.9 per cent of nursing-home residents presented to an emergency department at least once in 2018-19. We need more regular reporting of this data and more transparency in the aged-care sector, beyond the context of a royal commission. A constituent approached me with her own story of her partner's experience with the system, and she would like me to share her story for the record. John was diagnosed with a brain tumour and subsequently suffered a stroke. He required the care of a residential aged-care facility. Following his admission, John endured multiple reviews by his ACAT, the aged-care facility provider and other specialists. John's wife, Paula; My Aged Care; and the aged-care provider disagreed about the level of care required, and they ended up in countless rounds of dispute. The only person that paid a price, ultimately, was John, in the level of care he received. In 2019, John was admitted to hospital, and, upon admission to hospital, his accommodation at the aged-care facility was terminated immediately, with the facility stating they were no longer able to care for him. The termination notice did not offer any alternative care arrangements, and Paula felt isolated by the experience, with no-one to care for John. With nowhere else to go, he spent his final months in two different hospitals, until he passed away. We need to do better as a parliament—and I'd urge the government to do better—but also as a society. This is not how we should treat the elderly, people who have spent their lives contributing to our society, to our economy and to our welfare. This story of the costly burden of compliance and reviews is uncomfortable. There are so many stories across so many electorates of people where the system is failing them. It is possible that there were reportable incidents in John's case that potentially could have been reported through the Serious Incident Response Scheme. So we need more qualified staff at the aged-care facilities and more consistency of care to improve the standard of living for older Australians. The level of admission to emergency departments for aged-care residents is a concern, and it must be a red flag to the government that there is a lack of sufficient staffing ratios—a lack of registered nurses and the people with the experience and the qualifications to deal with the high level of care needed. Home care is an issue that comes up a lot. I commend the intent of the government to keep more people out of aged-care facilities and in their own homes. It is something that comes up a lot when I speak to constituents. But to do this we need to be better at delivering the home-care packages that they need to support their independent living arrangements. I've spoken in this place previously of the need to address the urgent needs of 100,000 people waiting for approval of their home-care packages. I regularly receive correspondence from constituents complaining of the difficulties in obtaining an ACAT assessment, and then the long waiting time for the home-care packages. A constituent recently approached me with concerns that her father has been waiting nearly two years for the approval of his level 3 home-care package. It seems that the greater the level of support required the longer you have to wait. The ultimate cost of this delay far outweighs any savings government realises from not approving the package sooner and delivering it. With the cost and the quality of life for those in need, not to mention the frequent hospital visits and the countless hours of unpaid carer responsibilities taken on by family members taking them away from their usual employment, there is no saving by failing to deliver the high level of home-care packages needed. It's inhumane that, last year, 28,000 Australians died while waiting for their home-care package to be approved. How many of them would have lived longer, more comfortable lives had their package been approved and delivered sooner? The elderly deserve respectful, affordable, accessible and safe aged-care options that are offered in a timely manner. We want aged care that promotes independence and wellbeing, with choices so people can stay at home longer while being healthy and connected, and more options for a suitable mix of home help and medical support. So, whilst I welcome this bill and the need for the Serious Incident Response Scheme that was recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission report, and I welcome that this bill is consistent with the findings of the interim report of the royal commission and is recognised by the community, the sector and providers, I urge the government to accelerate its negotiations and communications with providers to finalise the detail of the reportable incidents and the rollout of the required information to affected providers as soon as possible. I urge the government to look more broadly at the changes they are making—from the penalties alignment to the opportunities presented in this bill to the need for broader reform of the aged-care, home-care and disability support sectors. We need to simplify the system and make it easier for people to understand; improve access to the care that they need; reduce administrative costs; and ensure that the money goes to where it is needed, which is for the care of our elderly. 17:23 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I'm very glad to make a contribution to this debate this evening on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020, and I stand in strong support of the amendments moved by Labor's shadow minister, the member for Hotham. This is an important piece of legislation that enables the creation of a Serious Incident Response Scheme for residential aged-care facilities. The scheme will help reduce abuse and neglect by requiring care providers to manage incidents and to take reasonable steps to prevent them. This includes the organisation wide governance systems for management and reporting of incidents of abuse and neglect. This is an absolutely vital step which Labor has consistently called for. But, frankly, it's nothing short of shameful that the government has taken so long to act. The creation of a serious incident response scheme was recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its Elder Abuse—A National Legal Response report, which was published back in 2017. That was four years ago. This same recommendation was made by the Carnell-Paterson Review of national aged care quality regulatory processes, which was part of the inquiry into the South Australian Oakden facility for dementia patients. In 2018-19, there were more than 5,000 reported cases of abuse—a number that has been growing year on year. As shocking as this figure is, the Morrison government's own report, which it commissioned KPMG to do in 2019, found that these 5,000 reported cases of abuse are just the tip of the iceberg. The government was given this report in November 2019, detailing the scale of the problem and the urgent need for action. But what did the minister do? Nothing. That's right—nothing. Not only did he do nothing but he actually sat on the report for a further six months. Australians weren't told about the terrible extent of this situation until it was quietly released in June the next year. Make no mistake: it is very serious indeed. Clearly, 5,000 older Australians being abused in a residential facility every year is a national tragedy, but the KPMG report estimated 50,000 cases of assault and abuse in aged care across Australia go unreported every year. Just take a moment to let that number sink in. Unfortunately, the Morrison Liberal government didn't see this information as being urgent enough to release immediately or as a matter worthy of national attention. Even after the government revealed the damning truth about the state of Australia's aged-care system, older Australians and their families had to wait another six months for this legislation to come before this parliament. This is absolutely shameful. Thousands and thousands of cases of abuse quite likely went unacted on because this government didn't seem to understand or heed the urgency of the situation. So Labor are glad that this bill has finally come before the House, but we have been a long, long time waiting. While we still have concerns that it doesn't also encompass home care, for example, we will, of course, support its passage today. But we need to recognise that this appalling delay in responding to the calamity of abuse in our aged-care system isn't an aberration. No, it is absolutely par for the course when it comes to the way in which the Morrison government has managed—or, more accurately, mismanaged—the care of older Australians. Let's be clear: the scheme created by this bill, while important, goes no way to repairing the damage done to Australia's aged-care system under this government. It's not just residential aged care that has been neglected by the Morrison government. Sadly, the situation is just as bad when it comes to the home-care packages. Alarming new data that Labor secured through Senate estimates revealed that there are close to 100,000 older Australians who are still waiting for packages that have been approved, and my community in Newcastle learnt that 2,600 people in the Hunter aged-care planning region are now languishing on a waitlist for aged-care home packages that they have, again, already been approved for but don't have a hope in hell of being able to access because of the lengthy waitlists that now exist. The diabolical reality of the home-care system under Mr Morrison is that too often someone has to die in order for a new home-care place to become available. Older Australians are now having to wait two years or more to access the packages they have been approved for. Shamefully, more than 30,000 older Australians died waiting for home care that they'd been approved for in the three years to mid-2020. Make no mistake, Australia's aged-care system is in crisis as a result of the reckless underinvestment and mismanagement by the Morrison government. Aged care is a Commonwealth responsibility, yet the Morrison government washes its hand of any responsibility. Well, Prime Minister, it's time you stepped up—no more excuses, no more dodging and weaving—this crisis in aged care is on your watch, and it's time you fixed it. Possibly the most compelling insight into the depths of Australia's aged-care crisis can be found in the title of the interim report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. After months spent reviewing the evidence, Neglect was the single most accurate term that this august and independent commission could find to describe the diabolical state of Australia's aged-care system. The interim report found that, under the Liberals, Australia's aged-care system is failing and failing badly. The media statement accompanying the interim report explained: Commissioners describe the many problems that older people and their families have in trying to get access to aged care services, service shortfalls, the dispiriting nature of residential care, serious substandard care and unsafe practice, an underpaid, undervalued and insufficiently trained workforce, and isolation of young people with disabilities. Commissioner Richard Tracey AM couldn't have been clearer in his summary, which said: The neglect that we have found in this Royal Commission to date is far from the best that can be done. Rather, it is a sad and shocking system that diminishes Australia as a nation. The interim report of the aged-care royal commission was released in October 2019. At that stage, no-one had even heard of COVID-19. The words 'lockdown', 'iso' and 'hotspot' were not yet part of our daily vocabulary. But when COVID-19 arrived the system, which was already in crisis, fractured further along the fault lines that had developed under the Morrison government. The very foundations of Australia's aged-care system buckled under the pressure of this deadly disease, and the Morrison government did not do enough to stop it—685 Australians in residential aged-care facilities died. Some families and loved ones were forced to say goodbye in online videoconferences. Mothers and fathers, beloved grandparents and cherished uncles and aunts were taken too soon, all because the Morrison government failed to have a proper plan for COVID-19 in aged care. Labor has a plan and has been calling on the Morrison government to act now on minimum staffing levels, on more home-care packages, on transparency of funding, on public reporting, on adequate personal protection equipment, on better training and surge workforce strategy and on additional resources for the royal commission. But this isn't just Labor's perspective—no. In it's report, the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety itself found exactly this: that the Morrison government did not have a plan to manage COVID-19 in aged care. We now have, in black and white, confirmation that the Prime Minister and his incompetent minister Senator Colbeck did nothing to prepare the aged-care sector for the impact of this deadly virus. The commissioner said that the Morrison government is responsible for aged care and its response to the COVID-19 pandemic in aged care was insufficient. Let's be clear—there can be nothing more serious than the deaths of Australian citizens on a minister's watch, and close to 700 older Australians in aged-care facilities lost their lives because this government did not have a plan. The Senate understood the gravity of this situation when it censured the aged-care minister in September of last year, but still the Prime Minister refused to act. The Prime Minister has shown again and again he's too weak, too compromised or too arrogant to hold members of his government accountable for their actions. He consistently does nothing when the member for Hughes continually compromises Australia's national health response by spreading grossly irresponsible lies about COVID-19. He stayed silent when ministers falsely accuse families, students, jobseekers and Australians with a disability of owing money, a disgrace that's created untold pain and prompted a $1.2 billion court settlement for 400,000 Australians. He stayed out of it when his government spent $30 million on a piece of land in Western Sydney worth only $3 million—notably, a piece of land that was owned by a Liberal Party donor. But you'd think that even this 'born to rule, protect your mates' Prime Minister couldn't possibly sit back and do nothing as hundreds of Australians died in facilities that his government was responsible for. But that's exactly what he did. As long as we have a Prime Minister that fails to act on egregious acts, as long as we have a Prime Minister that refuses to adhere to the important principles of ministerial responsibility and as long as we have a Prime Minister that thumbs his nose at scrutiny and chooses his colleagues over his nation then situations like this will continue to happen. We've already had 30,000 older Australians die waiting for a package that they were entitled to and we have 100,000 more still waiting. If those numbers don't scare you, Prime Minister, I don't know what will. No-one should have to die waiting. In closing, I'd like to reiterate that Labor does support this bill but there is no excuse for the time it has taken to get to this parliament. The tardiness of this bill is just another example of the callous disregard and neglect with which the Morrison government has treated older Australians. We have seen the devastating consequences of the Morrison government's failure to not prepare our aged-care system for COVID-19. It's now time for the Morrison government to stop focusing on dismantling our responsible lending requirements, to stop going after workers' pay and conditions, to stop pulling protections from vulnerable Australians in the middle of a global pandemic, and to start owning up to this mess and focusing on fixing our broken aged-care system. 17:38 Mr GEE 261393 Calare The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020 introduces a serious incident response scheme that will respond to and take steps to prevent the incidents of abuse and neglect of older Australians in residential aged care. This includes those receiving flexible care delivered in a residential aged-care setting. The scheme will provide greater protections for older Australians by taking into account broader instances of abuse and neglect, and by introducing more robust requirements for residential aged-care providers to respond and report. From 1 April 2021 this bill introduces legislative requirements that will build provider capacity to identify risk and respond to incidents if and when they occur. By imposing these requirements, the scheme is expected to drive learning and improvements that will reduce the number of preventable serious incidents in the future. The bill will also provide new powers to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission to enforce the requirements of the scheme and the aged-care responsibilities of approved providers and related offences more generally. These are standard regulatory powers which will provide the commission with a more graduated suite of powers for ensuring compliance and protecting consumers. Additional information-gathering powers are also provided to ensure the commission is equipped to obtain the information it requires to administer the scheme and the commission's regulatory framework more broadly. The scheme complements and supports existing regulatory settings, including the integrated expectations of the aged-care quality standards, the Charter of Aged Care Rights and open disclosure requirements. Together, these will all support residential aged-care providers to engage in risk management and continuous improvement to deliver safe and quality care to older Australians. I thank members for their contributions to debate on this bill. The health, safety and wellbeing of older Australians is of the utmost importance to the Australian government. Any abuse of a person in residential aged care is unacceptable, and it is important that these incidents are reported, managed and prevented from occurring in the future. I wish to table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum, which responds to concerns raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. This addendum clarifies how subordinate legislation will operate to support the arrangements in this bill. I thank the committee for their comments. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hotham has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

The House divided. [17:45]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 63 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Broadbent, RE Chester, D Christensen, GR Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Haines, H Hamilton, GR Hammond, CM Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Kelly, C Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 57 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Coker, EA Collins, JM Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, G Khalil, P King, CF Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

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

 Third Reading 65 17:49 Mr GEE 261393 Calare by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Export Control Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 65

Export Control Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020

Second Reading 65 17:50 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 I move: That this bill be now read a second time. 17:50 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin This is the first piece of legislation that I have spoken on since having this portfolio. I want to say how excited and thrilled I am to be the shadow minister for agriculture. I'm really looking forward to this. I know that agriculture is a critical part of our national economy. In my home state, and even in my own electorate, it is a critical part of the economy. I know how important it is to local producers to be able to get their product picked by workers and to get their product to market. We know from what we've seen from this government to date that there are some things they absolutely haven't got right when it comes to that. The Export Control Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 makes amendments to the Export Control Act 2020 to support the implementation of the new export control framework. The act commences at a time fixed by proclamation or on 28 March this year. But isn't it extraordinary that, almost a year into this new control framework, the government is already amending its own legislation? It says a lot about this government. They talk about things a lot and say they're doing all this stuff and, in reality, things take forever to get done and are not done properly. This act will be supported by the Export Control Rules. In particular, this bill is proposing the following amendments. It is seeking to clarify the circumstances where a fit and proper person test is required for an application to vary a registration of an establishment or to approve an alteration of an establishment. It enables the rules to prescribe circumstances where the secretary may approve or refuse to approve a notice of intention to export prescribed goods. It provides the secretary with the power to prescribe requirements in the rules for determining whether to issue or to refuse to issue an export permit. It enables the rules to modify how certain provisions in the Export Control Act 2020 and the Administrative Tribunals Act 1975 apply to reviewable decisions for tariff rate quotas. It enables the rules to apply matters contained in any instrument of a foreign country that sets out, or provides a method for calculating, the tariff rate quota for the importation of a kind of goods into that country. The bill will also support the implementation of the new export control framework, as I said, and Australia's agricultural industry and stakeholders. The government has stated that this bill has no financial impact on it or on the budget. It seems extraordinary to me that, if that is the case, these changes have taken so long. It seems to take this government forever, not just in this portfolio but in every portfolio, to get things done. I also want to raise some concerns that we have on this side in relation to the government's failures in agriculture. The minister, the member for Maranoa, has promised us two things during the global pandemic—that is, an agricultural workers code and, of course, 22,000 overseas workers to come and assist in getting product off the farms. The question is: during this global pandemic, has he achieved these two commitments from the government in relation to agriculture? Of course, he has not. He's failed to deliver on both of these vital issues. After scrambling together a code, at the behest of the Deputy Premier of New South Wales, the state and territory chief health officers rejected the minister's half-baked agricultural workers code. Despite chief health officers' concerns, the Prime Minister and the minister rammed it through national cabinet and then called foul when the states and territories refused to incorporate the code into their health orders. We know that this is how the government works. They go along to national cabinet, and we know that the states and territories are really controlling the agenda, but the Prime Minister thinks he is. The Prime Minister makes all these announcements and, of course, it's the premiers who are doing all of the work. It appears that the minister has ignored his state and territory colleagues, and, indeed, the health professionals, in relation to this. When his state and territory colleagues were calling to try and find workable solutions, the minister for agriculture did not engage. If this is leadership on behalf of our farmers, I think we all know how that's going to end. Farmers are clearly doing everything on their own with their state and territory leaders. Then, in October last year, we had the minister proudly claiming that he had 22,000 vetted, work-ready workers ready to come to Australia to help get our produce off our farms. We've heard in the last week that $42 million in crop losses to date are due to labour shortages. Farmers are obviously asking themselves, 'Where are these workers that the minister promised?' With produce being left to rot on farms across the country because of labour shortages, how is this government doing its job? Where is the minister? The minister promised that these workers were ready to go, and clearly they were not. For far too long, what we've seen from the government and the minister is obfuscation, with their trying to blame the states and territories. We know that some of the states and territories have indeed brought workers to Australia, and some of them are trying still. We had the member for Nicholls in a 90-second statement before question time today trying to blame the Victorian Premier for the fact that produce is rotting on farms in Victoria, when it's clearly the federal government's responsibility. They are responsible for seasonal worker programs and they are responsible for quarantine systems, and they have been for more than a hundred years. How can it possibly be the Premier's fault that these workers are not available to assist in getting produce off the farms? It clearly is the Commonwealth's responsibility, and the minister needs to take responsibility for his failures. If he really has these workers ready to go, if they're really there, why is the government not doing something about having a national scheme for quarantining them so they can get produce off the farms? We all know why—because it's too hard. The government don't really want to do it. The minister needs to come clean and say why he is shirking his responsibilities when it comes to ensuring that there are enough workers to get the produce off our farms. Indeed, we would not have accepted a subpar workers code that the health officers rejected, and the minister would be working to get a national approach to get the produce off our farms if he were serious. In fact, my colleague, the former shadow minister for agriculture, the member for Chifley, wrote to the minister last month about this very issue. It is a crisis. It's another workforce crisis that the government are ignoring. They talk all the time about how there are jobs available for those that want to work. The Prime Minister said, 'If you have a go, you get a go.' If you want a job, you can get a job. We know that farmers want to give people work. We know that people want to work. Indeed, a lot of people around the country are going out to help farmers pick their produce. But the government is not doing enough and it is not taking up its proper role in this. We know that the COVID pandemic has seen a shortage of 26,000 workers across Australian farms. We know that the government has been aware for some time that this would happen. We know that the government is aware of the structural issues in trying to get seasonal workers on farms. We know about previous issues with the underpayment of workers. We know what a difficult issue this is. But the government has had eight years to fix it. The government has had eight years to address the structural issues in this program. As I said before, the fact that the National Lost Crop Register indicates that labour shortfalls are now responsible for $42 million in crop losses is not good. How can it possibly be acceptable? Here we have fine produce—fruit, veggies, cherries, berries, all sorts of great produce—that Australian farmers have worked tirelessly to get to this point, and now they're seeing it rot. It is completely unacceptable, and this government needs to take some responsibility for that. As I said, the government knew, prior to the pandemic, that there were structural problems with the workforce. They knew that it was overly reliant on migrant workers. They knew as soon as they closed the borders that we would have an issue and they have not done anywhere near enough about it. We've seen, in recent weeks and months, the states and territories scrambling to make up for the federal government's lack of action. That is what we are seeing today in Australia. It's clear that the federal government is constitutionally responsible, as I said, as it has been for more than 100 years. The government is responsible for our borders, it's responsible for our seasonal worker program and it's responsible for quarantine. Why is the government not doing its job? We on this side of the House say to the government: 'You need to fix this and you need to fix it quickly. This cannot go on.' It absolutely cannot go on. The government and the minister need to get serious about this and do better. Labor has said that we'll be supporting this bill, but, clearly, there's a lot more work to be done from the government when it comes to dealing with the worker shortage. We also know that, of course, when it comes to agricultural legislation, as I've said, some of it has sat around for years. This government is very slow to act when it comes to the reforms that are necessary to ensure that we get as much produce to market as quickly as possible and support this industry in Australia. So I move as an 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 the Coalition Government's continued failure to prioritise agriculture legislation and its inaction to address the agriculture workforce shortage." The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Is the amendment seconded? 18:00 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 The original question was that bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Franklin 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'll state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 18:01 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to speak about the Export Control Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are a major exporting nation, and this bill is very important to help the machinery of export industries flourish. I hope it doesn't end up clogging up the works, but the intent is there to streamline things and to give exporters certainty. And we certainly have, in agriculture, a wish to export our food and produce—processed, unprocessed, raw and live—to feed millions of people around the world, both in Asia and in distant quarters like North America and even Europe. The amendments to the Export Control Act streamline and consolidate existing port controls, and they come into force on 28 March this year. Why are there amendments? It is because there are issues that have been identified since the original act passed through the royal assent process in March 2020. There will be five amendments, and I'll just outline them before I say a few words. First of all, the fit-and-proper-person test is applied when there are variations to the exporting facility or the holder of the licence. It also gives greater flexibility in the notice of intention to export, which is a process one has to go through. If you have an export licence, you have to apply to the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, and it then will become a registered notice of intent to export, which gives both the department and the exporter the certainty that the process is at a certain stage. There were a lot of third parties who were intervening on the export of certain products—usually live—and you could have the situation where animals were on a boat and then an injunction turned up. So it gives certainty to the exporter, and it also gives certainty to the process. The other thing is that the bill will give guidance in relation to the approval of export permits. People on both sides of the House realise that we have struck many free trade agreements, which have quotas on what we can export into the recipient countries. Those quotas—what is allowed and what tariffs would be due—under those free trade agreements will be much more certainly defined. It gives the secretary of the department the legislative clarity to facilitate that process. The bill also contains rules or legislative instruments that the secretary can use to modify other acts that might be involved in challenging it, like the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. It also clarifies and facilitates the certificate generation so that everything is laid out—it's there for everyone to see—and there'll be no ambiguity. As you would appreciate, some of these free trade agreements have gradual increases and changes in quota over time. The amendments to this act will also facilitate the export quota certificates that need to be adjusted as details of the free trade agreements that have already been struck come into force. There are certain things in this act which I'll put on the record that I queried but it appears that it has been discussed, commented on, and exposure drafts have been put out. But there is vested in these changes ever-increasing mounts of regulatory control to the secretary of the department as opposed to the minister responsible for the act, and that is a global concern that I have about many of the legislative processes coming through this House. There appears to be a shift away from legislation into regulation but the legislative instruments in this case will be decided upon by the departmental secretary. I mentioned we are an exporting nation. We do have a long record in this government of trying to facilitate and increase our exports. Everyone in the agricultural industry knows that we produce far more food and fibre than we, as a nation of 26 million people, will ever consume. In fact, about three-quarters of what we grow and produce goes to export. We feed not billions of people but we are feeding, as well as our 25 million people, depending on the product and the harvest, enough for 60 million or 70 million more people. Trade and exports mean jobs in Australia. We in Australia support our neighbours with their nutrition. A lot of them can't grow protein as well as we can because their climate and their vegetation don't suit broadacre cropping. Through our live meat and live sheep trade, we supply animal protein not only to the Middle East but to our near neighbours to the north. We want to grow all our export industries, hence this bill. The government have also put a lot of funds into increasing exports. I just want to put on the record what we've been trying to do in a policy sense and in fiscal support for our exporters. We have, in the last budget, allocated $328 million to modernise our trading environment, and this legislation is part of that. A single, digital one-stop shop fast-tracking goods to international markets is a goal that these funds will be used towards. The government wants to reduce other red tape where possible. We also want to have streamlined plant export services giving farmers quicker, easier and cheaper access, and there's $10 million allocated to programs with that in mind. The government has also done a lot for agribusinesses to expand their markets and their reach into foreign markets with an expansion program. During the COVID crisis, a lot of this planned-for expansion was potentially frozen in limbo, so we allocated $669 million to address air freight shortages and disrupted supply chains for both agricultural and fishery exports. The International Freight Assistance Mechanism has kept a lot of those exports going. We've also set aside funds to enhance our competitiveness in the horticultural sector. We've got another package for small exporters, with $6.14 million set aside to assist small exporters. We have tried to reduce the impact of non-tariff measures by funding industry based analysis. So not only have we put legislative processes in place to streamline things; we've backed those processes with hard dollars to help our exporters. There are 2,000 agrifood exporters through the Austrade led accelerator program. That is going to deliver dividends for many years. I think that, after COVID, our Export Market Development Grants scheme will need to be refreshed, because a lot of people will have to re-establish their markets. Though it's not part of this bill or the announcements in the last budget, I think it's something that we need to look at. This is an important bill. It doesn't have the most comprehensive amendments, but they're all important. If they function in the way they're intended, it will give a lot more certainty to our exporters of live produce, fresh food and all the other food and fibre that we export to our neighbours and nations around the world. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 I thank the member for Lyne. I call the other lion in the chamber. I think we have a pride! 18:11 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Member for Lyons! Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Zimmerman. The Export Control Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 is a pretty technical bill. Members can read the details at their leisure, and I point to the shadow minister, who gave a very good precis of it. In a nutshell, it's intended to ensure that Australia has the regulatory settings needed to grow exports and drive higher productivity, something that we'd all like to see. This bill will give some certainty to our farmers and the wider agricultural export industry, which have suffered some pretty big whacks under the incompetent management of this government. Labor does understand the value of our regions and our farmers. That's why we support the National Farmers Federation's goal to grow the value of agricultural products to $100 billion by 2030. It's a goal the government shares, but which, frankly, it is not doing enough to advance. Members can learn more about that tomorrow afternoon when I deliver the dissenting report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources inquiry. An honourable member: I'll be here for that. Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Thank you. In my home state of Tasmania, agricultural production is worth $1.6 billion annually. It's a sector that directly employs about five per cent of my state's workforce. Farmers are used to dealing with uncertainty all the time in all manner of ways, but they should be able to rely on stable export governance. As the shadow minister quite rightly pointed out, we're just months down the track from this legislation having been passed in the House, and they're already amending it. This is a government that simply can't get the details right the first time. Whether it's the NBN—it doesn't matter what it is, they stuff it up and they have to come back and fix it up. How about, for a change, doing it right the first time? Farmers have been doing it tough in recent times, thanks to the deteriorating relationship with China, which has resulted in bans and delays, and, of course, the impacts of COVID on global supply chains. There's no doubt that Australia's exports need to get back on track. Labor understands that increasing the value of our agricultural exports is not only a matter of quantity but also a matter of quality. This is especially important in Tasmania. We have built a strong reputation tied to our pristine environment and the excellent products that come from it. Whether it's fruit, vegetables, nuts, seafood, beef, lamb, cheese, beer or spirits, Tasmanian produce sits at the top of the wish list for many buyers around the world. It's vital that our export rules do not get in the way of Tasmania maximising its potential global reach. I know that many Tasmanian producers are trading in bespoke goods in niche industries or are more than holding their own on the world stage in massive sectors such as whiskey and wool. Tasmanian producers are constantly making a clean sweep of national and international awards for excellence. It is the protection of quality that the bill does seek to address. It's vital that we ensure that our agricultural exports maintain the pedigree that is associated with the Australian brand. A well-regulated export market is the backbone of Australian agricultural production and trade. This bill should ensure that export regulation can adapt to the increased agricultural production we seek while also ensuring quality controls remain in place. By giving more flexibility and clarity to the new regulatory framework the bill will allow our agricultural export industry to be administered with a renewed and modern policy that seeks to boost exports in line with our goals. It's important that our exporters are assessed as fit and proper persons so we know they can best represent Australia through global trade. These amendments seek to clarify this. Regional communities have faced extreme challenges over the past 12 months. From fire and floods we dived straight into the economic maelstrom of the pandemic. All of it came at the same time as relations with our biggest export partner hit historic new lows. This legislation is a step in the right direction, but there is so much more work that needs to be done to make the most of Australian agriculture. For this government RMs, moleskins and akubras are part of the uniform, but it is a skin-deep commitment to the country. There's a pinstriped suit under every checked shirt. Those on that side of the parliament are on the side of the banks, not the bush. Farmers don't need talking points from the minister; they need action. Real legislation on agriculture has been sitting on a shelf for more than a year. In October the minister said, 'The government will need to be clear eyed about the task ahead of us.' That was four months ago. What has happened since? What was he even talking about? It was just a meaningless word salad from the government. Farmers and regional communities are paying the price of the government's failure to show leadership and manage difficult relationships. This bill is at least a start, but in the scheme of things it's a minor set of changes. There is a backlog of agricultural legislation that needs to be brought on and debated and there are ongoing issues in the agricultural industry that need to be addressed. My Labor Party colleagues and I are looking forward to helping our farmers grow agriculture to $100 billion. This bill is a small step in the right direction, but there is not much to show for seven years on the government leather. Farmers and regional communities deserve better. That brings us to the shadow minister's second reading amendment. You would have to be living under a rock to not notice the crisis facing many of our farmers in their battle to get fruit off the vines and vegetables out of the ground this year. This was an entirely foreseeable problem. Labor and farmers were warning the government in March last year. It was foreseeable that we would need workers on site. As the quarantining measures started to come in and the lockdowns started around the world we could see in March last year that we would need measures in place to ensure that there would be workers to pick the fruit and get the vegetables out. We on this side make no bones of it. We would much prefer to see Australian workers doing this work—absolutely—but we know the reality is that to date most of the work is done by overseas workers, whether they are backpackers on visas or seasonal workers from the Pacific. The holiday-maker visas have pretty much dried up, for obvious reasons we don't need to go into here, but there was scope for the government to get its act together over the year to make sure that the seasonal program could run. All it had to do was talk to its state ministers, talk to the Pacific nations, make sure there were flights ready, make sure there were quarantine facilities ready and make sure that the workers could get here and be appropriately quarantined so that they could get out onto the farms. It was a pretty simple process for a national government to manage, and they absolutely stuffed it up every step of the way. They left it far too late, despite warning after warning about the need to get workers on the ground. They absolutely messed it up. Now, as the shadow minister said, there is $43 million of food rotting in the ground as a result. We hear reports of farmers unable to get the labour they need and just turning it back over. It's the most expensive green manure you will ever see. It was entirely foreseeable, and they could have fixed it, but they absolutely stuffed it up. And, of course, what we've seen from the member for Nicholls today and the minister and the government more generally is they're just trying to duckshove this onto the states, onto the premiers. They're blaming the premiers and the national cabinet, never taking any responsibility themselves, for the fact that, under the Constitution, this government is responsible for quarantine. There should be a national scheme, and there should be national quarantine. The Prime Minister should be taking the lead. Instead he sits back and takes all the credit when things go right but none of the responsibility. It's an absolute disgrace. I fully support the shadow minister's second reading amendment. I think, frankly, if the National Party in this place have any guts, they will support the second reading amendment too. They are supposed to be the party for farmers and regional communities, and the shadow minister's second reading amendment goes straight to the heart of the issues they are meant to be representing in this parliament. The fact is that this government has utterly failed the farmers of this nation by not managing to ensure that we have enough seasonal workers to do the work. 18:21 Mr JOYCE E5D New England It's great to be to be here to talk on an issue which is so close to my heart, which is obviously the Export Control Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020, and also to talk about the live cattle and live sheep trades. I remember the time when the ban on live cattle was brought about by the Labor Party. As the shadow minister for water, of all things, I went out and did a press conference. I said: 'This is ridiculous. It's going to absolutely bite us on the backside. We've got to get out of this position as quickly as possible. This will be disastrous for the industry.' To be frank and to be honest, the first call I got was from Tony Abbott, and he wasn't happy with me. Nonetheless, the greater wisdom that resides within the coalition and the Liberal Party said: 'No, we're actually on the right path. We've got to stand by this. We've got to make the hard decision to bring a logical outcome for something which is one of the most vital industries for northern Australia.' Once upon a time you could buy a place for nothing in an area like Broome, and, if you mustered cattle, you'd probably pay for it with that. Now you can go up there, and it's professional. You can see every beast that goes on—$1,500. Also, it goes beyond that. I went up there, and I was talking to people at the pound at Broome. The Indigenous families, the Aboriginal families—we call them Aboriginal families, because they want to be called Aboriginal—that are working— An opposition member interjecting— Mr JOYCE E5D Sorry? An opposition member interjecting— Mr JOYCE E5D Wideranging? I thought you said 'wide hating'. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Order! The member for New England won't be distracted by the interjections, and the interjections will cease. Mr JOYCE E5D These also give so much opportunity. I remember talking to another senior Aboriginal person up in the Cape, and he said: 'We, for the first time, have got on our feet. We're actually making a serious dollar. We're actually making money. And then, for once in our lives when we're getting ahead, you shut us down.' It was wrong. I'd like to also now commend the Labor Party for seeing around that corner. That's important. But the next step is the live sheep trade. We can't close the live sheep trade down. It's the same thing. It's just— An opposition member: It's not the same. Mr JOYCE E5D It is exactly the same thing. You can't just arbitrarily go and decide to shut down sections of regional Australia because you have some sort of philosophical problem with them. The issues with the live sheep trade are just another permeation and combination of what you wish to do to with the live cattle trade, and then you'll go on to the transport industry and others, and we just can't do that. Our greatest advantage in Australia is in agriculture. That is where we can really get ahead. It's not just farmers on farms; it's all the people associated with it. In the myriad of industries, from computer programmers to biomathematicians, to vets, to mechanics, to everything that goes with it—the construction and development of abattoirs, all this—you need an industry that is making money across every section of it. There's always going to be a place for processed beef, processed lamb and processed mutton, and there's always going to be a place for the live cattle and sheep trades. They work hand in glove, and if you try to force an industry to go in a certain direction that it can't go then it's clumsy and it doesn't work. AACo—God bless their cotton socks—spent a huge amount of money building an abattoir in the north, and it fell over. It just didn't work. That's been the case so many times, but people have always thought the great opportunity for an abattoir in the north is going to work. It doesn't work. You can't get consistency of supply and you can't get the finished product in the form that's required to make it stack up financially. They just put them into mothballs. So you need the live cattle and sheep trades. I remember once with the live sheep trade you got three bucks for wethers, maybe—the ones that are called broken mouth or cast for age. You bring them in for three bucks or two bucks. They basically give them away. The price of their skins is what they're worth. Now, they're $100, $120, $80. There's real money. What that's doing is bringing people back onto the farm, bringing farm workers back, giving you the capacity to pay a wage to someone that you mightn't have had the capacity to pay for before, and that's actually allowing people on the land to go and do the things that other people do—to make some money so they can renovate their kitchen and buy a new car, not a second-hand car, and go on holidays. You say it's glib. It's not. It's the reality. That's the sort of quality of life that people want, and now they're getting it. So this export control amendment is vitally important in making sure that we continue on. It's great to see the new shadow minister for agriculture here: congratulations, it's an incredibly important portfolio. I hope that if this is possibly an election year that we see the structure of an agricultural policy that you can actually go out into the country and give us curry about, so people go: 'Oh, I don't know. Labor Party policy—probably. It's a good policy. It's worthwhile considering it.' I actually want that. I actually want the shadow minister for agriculture to be asking us umpteen questions about agriculture and to be absolutely strident and absolutely acerbic across the details, because that makes agriculture in our nation better. It makes it better. An opposition member interjecting— Mr JOYCE E5D Yes, but we don't want just a free ride in the park. We want to make sure we have a real debate. And I want to see the Labor members from regional areas asking the hard questions on agriculture, because that is good for our nation. So often, for us, agriculture is just seen as a free kick. It's like you're never going to get a question on it. They don't really care about it. And, when you do hear from them, it'll be more driven from the philosophical views of an inner-urban electorate than from the views of regional Australia. Maybe the new shadow minister will turn that around, and I hope that she does. I wish her many, many questions in question time. If we go back to what we're actually doing, we're investing about $330 million in agricultural export systems to modernise Australia's trading environment and lead a strong economic recovery. About $222 million of these is to transform our export systems, including contributing to a single digital one-stop shop fast tracking goods for international markets. When working in international markets, there's got to be that capacity to work quickly and be able to deliver to your destination without an excessive bureaucracy. That's both on our side and their side. What we have to do in Australia is also make sure that we build up our trading relationships with our old customers but our good customers in the Middle East. If you're in agriculture, you're going to learn a lot about the Middle East. If you're in agriculture, you're going to learn about Saudi Arabia and you're going to learn about Kuwait and Bahrain and Jordan, because that's where a lot of our product goes, and you're going to see how important they feel we are in their lives. It's going to be important when dealing with that. We need to make sure these markets are strong—China's an incredibly important market for us, vitally important—but we've got to have a contingency plan in case things don't go as well as we wish. That contingency plan, of course, goes back to other solid markets, such as Indonesia. As we know, we supply Indonesia with so much of the protein content for the sustenance of people, especially those in Jakarta. They have bakso balls—the meatball in their standard dish—and we supply the meat. Of course, when the live cattle trade shut down, the meat went, and they were not happy. We created a really bad name for ourselves when we did that. We've got to make sure we don't do that again. There were some suggestions that they, a Muslim country, replaced some of the meat with pork—not consciously by a producer of pork, but people were ripping them off by creating substitutes that were going into that marketplace. We have got to be the great, strong, diligent and reliable supplier of protein into these markets. A piece of legislation like this is not going to get the ratings tonight; they're not going to be playing it. But it's vitally important to the job we need to do. Australia, by reason of COVID and the financial liabilities we now have before us, is going to need to make every post a winner to try and make this economy hum in such a way that we can start getting on top of the debt. It won't matter who's in power, whether it's us or the Labor Party; we're going to have to target balancing the books because that means repaying the debt. Therefore, every opportunity you get to make a buck, you've got to take it, and you've got to grab it with both hands and run as hard as you can. Agriculture is one of the areas where you're going to do it. What we've got to remove from agriculture are some of these nonsensical, inept value statements that there are moral crops and immoral crops. Somehow, cotton is an immoral crop. Ridiculous! It's a crop that makes money. If they made money out of asparagus, they'd grow asparagus. Somehow, there's something is wrong with rice. It's ridiculous. We're going to somehow moralise ourselves out of the live sheep and cattle market. It's ridiculous. You can't do that. You've got to make a dollar wherever you can find it and run as hard as you can to do it. One of the interesting things we might be able to create in our nation, and this should be a goal for all of us— An honourable member interjecting— Mr JOYCE E5D I'm trying to help you out with some ideas! We should have a massive, internationally based agricultural company. We don't have one. We've got BHP, which is one of the big miners. We've even got Atlassian, which is not bad, obviously, in the software area. The United States has Apple and Google. Apple's size is about $2 trillion, but, in historical terms, it's not even nearly as big as the Dutch East India Company, which, in today's terms, was about $8 trillion and had its own army. But, in Australia, and this is odd, we don't have a massive agricultural player, like JBS from Brazil or Conagra from the United States. We should have one. We should be working out how— An honourable member interjecting— Mr JOYCE E5D This is for you, shadow minister, to take up. This is where you challenge us in question time. Where you come forward and say, 'How are you going to do it?' You create the debate and make us sweat. It would be a shame, if this is an election year, for us not to have a strong debate on agriculture. We want it as much as you, especially me and the member for Boothby because we come from agricultural families and we want to make sure that this is right at the front. I can see the member for Wright there—you've still got yourself a little block, haven't you? Yes, there you go. This is important. So this Export Control Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 gives us capacity to also talk about agriculture in general—to talk about how important the live cattle and sheep trade is and how important it is to make sure we streamline our export opportunities, and to show that the government is fair dinkum about this with substantial investment in this space, and to challenge the Labor Party, with the best intentions at heart, that we should have, in this chamber, serious debate about our agriculture and what the next step is, to lay down some ideas as to our policy objectives and to see that one of the ways you could judge that is in such things as making sure that Australia is the seedbed of a major international agricultural company, like other nations have—even New Zealand, God bless their cotton socks! They've got Fonterra, a major player, and I know the good members from Tasmania would understand all about that and how that works, because they're a big player, obviously, in Australian agriculture, especially in the dairy game. An honourable member interjecting— Mr JOYCE E5D But Gunns wasn't quite big enough, mate. It wasn't a big player—not like the multiple-hundred-billion-dollar space where they've got to be. Maybe in the future, as we go forward in this year of the parliament, we can see that debate and, if we have that debate, in that section you're going to get an awful lot of interest from regional people, and they're going to tune into question time in a way that will probably be a lot more engaged than in the past. 18:36 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright Can I acknowledge all the speakers who've made a contribution to this debate. Agriculture is and has been a cornerstone of our economy, particularly through the COVID period, where the resource and agriculture sectors both held their own. I acknowledge all of those exporters in my electorate who will benefit from this, in the Lockyer Valley and the Fassifern Valley—one of the seven most fertile valleys in the world, where we produce vegetables that go all around the country. The Export Control Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 is required to amend parts of the Export Control Act 2020. The bill addresses issues identified since the Export Control Act 2020 received royal assent on 6 March 2020, following consultation with key industry stakeholders. The bill will clarify the circumstances where a fit and proper person test is required for an application to vary a registration of an establishment, or to approve an alteration of an establishment. It will enable the secretary to make rules to enable notice of intent to export a consignment of prescribed goods to be approved or refused. Furthermore, the bill will modify how certain provisions apply to the reviewable decisions of the tariff rate quotas and enable the secretary to make rules to prescribe requirements for determining whether to ensure an export permit. The bill will also clarify which instrument may be incorporated into the framework to calculate the tariff rate quota for those particular goods. The bill will also support implementation of the new export control framework and minimise the administrative burden for Australian agricultural export industries and stakeholders. The bill will support the initiative of the Morrison-McCormack government to bust congestion in regulation and ensure that agricultural industries come out firing after the threat of coronavirus has passed our nation. I table an amendment to the explanatory memorandum, in response to a request by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, providing additional information about the bill. With that, I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Franklin 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.

The House divided. [18:43]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 65 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Broadbent, RE Chester, D Christensen, GR Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Haines, H Hamilton, GR Hammond, CM Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Kelly, C Laming, A Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD 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 Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 56 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Coker, EA Collins, JM Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Katter, RC Kearney, G Khalil, P King, CF Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mulino, D Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

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

 Third Reading 74 18:46 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020 74

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020

Second Reading 74 18:47 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh It's a great pleasure to rise on behalf of the opposition to address this bill, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020 and to speak on behalf of the opposition on health matters for the first time. It's a particular pleasure to deal with a bill that covers the operations of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, one of the great agencies of government in this country which has an extraordinary reputation and an extraordinary track record. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Health under the first Rudd government, I had the great privilege of having ministerial responsibility for the TGA, so it's a great pleasure to be associated with their work again. This is a bill that the opposition will be supporting without substantive amendment in either house, although I will be moving a second reading amendment. We particularly recognise the urgency of one element of this bill, because it goes to the smooth and lawful operation of the vaccine rollout. So we recognise the urgency of the passage of this bill through the House and the Senate. It's passing in a timely fashion means that Australians can have confidence that the vaccine rollout will operate in an expeditious manner, and in an effective manner as well. There are a number of measures contained in this bill that are unrelated to the vaccine rollout, and I'll address them. Although there are some comments that I and some other members of the opposition may have in relation to those measures, we will, as I said, be supporting the bill without amendment. The most pressing matter in the bill is the vaccine labels, or the labels that will be affixed to the bottles of the different vaccines that will be part of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. It is important to say, as I think all members of this House understand, that it is going to be a monumental challenge to roll this vaccine out successfully for the country. It is not particularly an Australian challenge; it is a challenge that countries around the world are facing. We are starting to understand the enormity of the logistical challenge involved in undertaking as many as 50 million to 60 million vaccinations over the coming six, seven or eight months, depending on how quickly we're able to do it. Not only are two doses of the different COVID-19 vaccines required, but Australia is also going to have to undertake its usual round of flu vaccinations as we head into the flu season in winter, and there needs to be proper space in between dose one and dose two of the COVID-19 vaccine but also in between the COVID-19 vaccinations and the flu vaccination. The enormity of this is something that the minister has said and experts have said—I think we all understand—is of a scale that we've never quite dealt with before. It is hard, really, to overstate the scale of what we're embarking upon. I've said over the last couple of days, as I start the job of shadow minister for health and ageing, that there remain a number of logistical questions that need clearer answers from the government. They are important questions not only for the community to have confidence that this vaccine rollout is going to operate in a smooth, timely and effective fashion but also for practitioners and aged care facilities, for the GP practices that have stuck up their hand to be part of this and for the state governments that will have responsibility for some elements of the rollout, not the least of which being the storage of the Pfizer vaccine, which requires very cold storage at about minus 70 degrees centigrade. There remain unanswered very important questions that go to the logistical challenge. I will talk about a couple of them tonight because it is important and, in spite of the fact that we are bringing what is objectively a very constructive approach to this question, it is our job to continue to ask the questions that the community—the medical community and the broader community—are themselves asking. The first question obviously is: when are we going to get supplies of the vaccines? We understand that there are issues beyond the control of any particular government that is seeking to import vaccines from overseas manufacturing countries. There is obviously a very live debate underway within Europe about where the vaccines manufactured in Europe are going, given the enormous challenge that most European countries are facing now. We're blessed with not having here the scale of the challenge of the ferocity of the virus in Europe, the US, Brazil and many other countries beside, but we need to understand when Pfizer vaccines are going to land in Australia. There will have to be batch testing undertaken by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. That will take maybe up to two weeks, and only then will we be able to see those vaccine supplies rolled out to the 30 or 50 Pfizer hubs that will be in place around the country and from there rolled out to vaccination points of presence. We need to understand when those are going to land. We are already into February. The Prime Minister committed to four million vaccinations being completed by the end of March. There is some suggestion that that commitment is going to seep into April, but, given that we're not in February, it would appear we're still some weeks away from the vaccines' being ready to be put into people's arms, given that we've got at least a couple of weeks of batch testing. These things are starting to slip. If the front end of the vaccine rollout slips too much, it will be very difficult, given the flu vaccination campaign we're also going to have to undertake in winter, to meet the hard commitment that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health have given to have the country vaccinated by the end of October. These are important considerations, first and foremost, obviously, for the community as it thinks about how we're going to come through this health challenge, but they also go to economic confidence, to business confidence, in being able to plan and to have some light at the end of this tunnel. In addition to the question of suppliers, it's not just Pfizer; it's also the AstraZeneca suppliers who will be working to have more than three million doses brought in from overseas. That appears to have been reduced by a little bit more than half. We might have 1.4 million doses, or thereabouts, from AstraZeneca. Again, there are challenges with the speed with which the virus that is the viral vector for that vaccine is being manufactured around the world. We understand that is not a matter within the control of the government, but we need some clarity around the arrival dates—the landing dates of those vaccines—so we can get them out into the system and get injections into arms. People do remember that the Prime Minister said that we were first in the queue. We understand there are emergencies at a level—in the Northern Hemisphere particularly—that, luckily, we don't confront here, but tens of millions of people around the world have already been vaccinated. Millions are being vaccinated every day. Countries like Israel have already vaccinated more than one-third of their populations. Millions are being vaccinated in the US, the UK and Europe, and not a single injection has gone into an Australian arm. Australians, at some point, need some clarity around these questions. I've also asked questions about the online booking system that the government has announced it is preparing. This is utterly critical to the smooth rollout. If the only way members of the community not in a residential aged-care facility are going to be able to book and access a vaccination is through a single online entry point that's still in construction, we need to know when that will be ready. We need to have confidence that, frankly, the performance of this online tool will be better than some of the other online or IT applications this government has had responsibility for. The COVIDSafe app has been pretty much a failure. The online census was pretty much a failure. There are other instances as well. The community needs confidence. GP practices and other parts of the medical community that are going to roll this thing out still don't know how the booking system will work. If you are a member of the community, a patient wanting to have one of these vaccinations, all you know at the moment is that you're going to have to access an online booking system, you'll be connected to a GP practice, and there's every chance it won't be your own GP practice, because not every GP practice is going to be undertaking these things. What will that mean for patients that have a particular relationship with their GP? What will it mean for the discussions that some patients will need to have with their general practitioner about being confident that the vaccination is the right thing for them? And so on and so forth. We need answers to these questions. A little bit down the track, we also need some answers to the questions around the negotiations that are taking place with other vaccine suppliers. We know, for example, that the other highly effective, highly efficacious mRNA vaccine, which is produced by Moderna, is not something the Australian government has a deal on. We have no deal with Moderna. We have a deal with Pfizer for 10 million doses to vaccinate five million people. The other mRNA vaccine with highly effective rates is not something Australians are going to have access to, at least at the moment. We don't have a deal. What is the government doing to access that down the track? We know from medical experts that, as we start to think about boosters and as we start to think about vaccines being modified to take account of new variants that we're already seeing around the world, mRNA vaccines, which are a new technology, are going to be very important and are very effective, apparently, at adapting to those new variants and can be adapted to provide boosters as well. Australia needs to get in on that. We need to know what the government is doing to get into the market of the Moderna vaccine—J&J and others in the market as well. We say that in good faith. We want to be as constructive as possible, but these are things that members of the community want the government to start answering. It's also important that we look to some of the polling that was released today by Newspoll which reminds us that there is still substantial vaccine hesitancy in the community. Our country can be very proud of its track record on immunisation. There is a very strong track record of bipartisan support between governments of different persuasions for educating the community about the broader benefits—not just the individual benefits but the herd immunity benefits—of strong vaccination rates. I know that in only the past couple of weeks the minister released some data showing that we've got to fantastic levels of childhood immunisation. The level is 95 per cent or thereabouts generally for five-year-olds and even greater, 97 or 98 per cent, for Indigenous five-year-olds. These are figures of which all Australians can be rightly proud. Governments of both political persuasions over many years have got us to that point. It is important we work on that track record, use that track record, as a foundation to make sure as many Australians as possible are vaccinated against COVID-19. Newspoll says 25 per cent of the community still don't intend to take up a vaccine. Let's leave aside the fact that if 75 per cent want to get one, or probably want to get one, there's still the logistical challenge of connecting them to a needle. That 25 per cent is a worrying figure. The Newspoll shows, as I think all members of this House would understand from talking to their own communities, that there are particular cohorts of the population who have higher levels of hesitancy. Women between 25 and 34 and between 35 and 44 years of age are one example, but there are others as well. It is important that as a parliament we continue to nurture understanding of the broader, and the individual, benefits of everyone getting this vaccine unless there's some extraordinary circumstance as to why they shouldn't. That's why we've supported the information campaign that the government is running. At the moment, it's running on TV and elsewhere as well. This is a campaign that we've supported. We've supported this type of education campaign in the past. We think this is the right thing to do. But I have to say that's why, in the face of all of that—the challenge of getting this thing out, the challenge we have of ongoing vaccine hesitancy in the community—it is so irresponsible for the Prime Minister to continue to refuse to condemn the grossly irresponsible fearmongering undertaken in particular by the member for Hughes, generally around our COVID-19 response and, most recently, in relation to the vaccine program. The Prime Minister was asked at the Press Club yesterday whether he would, as the AMA and the College of GPs have done over the last 24 hours and as vaccine and immunology expert after expert has done over the last several weeks, condemn the inflammatory, irresponsible remarks of the member for Hughes—things like effectively accusing the Chief Medical Officer of crimes against humanity, or suggesting that advocates of mask wearing are involved in child abuse. They are extraordinarily inflammatory remarks undertaken through his vast social media platform that, as I said today, reaches more people, unfortunately, than the Department of Health's Facebook page does. When the Prime Minister was asked to echo those condemnations from the AMA and other health bodies, he said instead that the member for Hughes is doing a good job. He said instead that the member for Hughes wasn't his doctor. It was reminiscent of his remark during last year's bushfire emergency that he 'doesn't hold a hose, mate'. It is time for the Prime Minister to step up and take responsibility and recognise the damage the member for Hughes is doing to the national vaccination campaign. The Prime Minister talked a lot last year about 'team Australia'. He talked a lot about the importance of all hands being on deck to get through this pandemic emergency. And he was absolutely right. We as an opposition were as constructive as we possibly could be in supporting every measure the government put in place to respond to this pandemic, whether it was a health measure or whether it was an economic measure. We suggested improvements from time to time, almost all of which were taken up by the government. That was our job. That's what the community wanted us to do, because the community wanted their governments to succeed. They didn't really care whether the government was Liberal or Labor, at a federal level or at a state level; everyone just wanted their governments to succeed and they wanted their oppositions to be as constructive as possible. And that is what we did. That's what the Prime Minister asked us to do and it's what we did in response. But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If that's the approach the Prime Minister is asking the entire community to undertake, he's got to call out the member for Hughes and force him into line as well. I now turn to the specific measures within the bill. As I said, we intend to support this bill. The Therapeutic Goods Act currently requires all medicines and vaccines to display on their label the listing number they have as part of their registration on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, the ARTG. That's for good reason—so that consumers and providers know that medicines and vaccines, therapeutic goods, that are circulating through the community have been through the proper process and can be traced to the ARTG. The challenge for the vaccine campaign is particularly for vaccines manufactured overseas in manufacturing operations that are ramping up very quickly to supply vaccines to a whole range of different countries, as customers aren't able to comply with those labelling requirements. And we need those vaccines as quickly as possible, as I've tried to outline in my earlier remarks. The other challenge, particularly with the Pfizer vaccine, as I think members of this House now understand, is that it needs to be stored at minus 70 degrees, so it simply can't have labels; labels can't be put on bottles that are stored at that temperature. This bill seeks to exempt those vaccines from the existing legislative requirement to have their listing number on the label. In some cases, there won't be a label, particularly on the Pfizer vaccine. Instead, the departmental secretary will be able to ensure that those listing number arrangements are published online on the Department of Health website, and in other ways as well. This is obviously important to ensure that we can get this thing into people's arms as quickly as possible. For that reason, the opposition supports the bill. There are matters in this bill that are unrelated to the vaccine rollout. That's convenient. I guess these are things that have been waiting to come through the parliament for some time. Although they're not necessarily matters that have the same level of urgency as the vaccine arrangements, they are things that we nonetheless support. The first is the question of pharmacist substitution. Members of this House will have heard story after story, for some years before COVID, of medicine shortage in Australia. A number of members of the medical and consumer community—and some members of this side of the House may make remarks about this—have said for some time that Australia needs to diversify its supply arrangements to deal with this sort of regular problem we have of medicines being in short supply. Under the existing legislative regime, pharmacists are able to substitute a different brand of the same medicine when the brand that has been prescribed by the prescribing doctor is not available or is in short supply. This bill will allow pharmacists to supply not only a different brand of the same medicine or the same therapy but a different therapy altogether. They won't have carte blanche to do this under this legislation. The secretary of the department will have the ability to prescribe a particular type of medicine that can be substituted—it's not carte blanche; it will be a particular type—and pharmacists will be able to do that. This is important when a patient needs a particular therapy and that brand's not available, and a different brand of the same therapy is not available, and the prescribing doctor is not available to issue a new prescription. So there are circumstances where this is important for quality of care. There are some concerns circulating through parts of the medical community that these safeguards aren't entirely adequate, that there should be some further safeguards than those that I've just outlined. We've encouraged them to make those concerns known to the government. If the government is minded to make some changes that might improve those safeguards, then obviously we would look at that very favourably. But I will say that, in their current form, we think these provisions are worthy of support, and we will be supporting them. The other element of the bill that I want to address is the medical devices register. I'm very glad to see that this is contained in this bill. This has been a longstanding complaint. For a long time there have been calls to improve the traceability of medical devices. We all know that when adverse events or other safety concerns arise about a particular medical device, or a therapy for that matter, it is important to be able to trace who has used that therapy or had that medical device implanted. Currently we can't do that. There have been a range of issues or scandals—call them what you will—around devices like transvaginal mesh and textured breast implants where it can be difficult to trace patients or members of the community who have had those devices implanted so that those adverse events can be dealt with. There have long been calls for this reform. A Senate inquiry that was initiated by members of the Labor Party over recent years made that call. Many other groups in the community have as well. The government has decided to adopt a unique device identifier system that would ensure that every device has a UDI or identifier. That would enable patients to be traced if they need to be because some issue has arisen with that particular device. This is a system that the EU, the United States and Japan have already rolled out, or are in the process of rolling out, and we think it's something we should lend our support to. Again, I offer the opposition's support to that element of the bill. I note that this legislation doesn't actually create the scheme; it creates a regulation-making power for the department to set up this UDI scheme by regulation. It goes without saying that Labor would examine any regulations that ultimately might be made by the secretary and the minister very closely. There are a couple of other additional amendments I'll quickly address. Most of them are technical in nature, so I won't go through them. There is, though, an important measure to protect from criminal responsibility officers of the TGA undertaking work that we want them to do. Members of parliament will understand from the dealings they have with their own community the proliferation of online and other means of access that have just cropped up. People are buying therapies online from overseas, getting them mailed. There are other ways in which you can access therapies that aren't on the ARTG, that are not on the Register of Therapeutic Goods, that have not gone through a proper TGA approval and assessment process. There is a whole range of reasons why this is happening, but it is important that we be alive to that and agile enough to deal with the issues that that throws up. One of those issues is that we want the TGA to test these things. If these things are circulating in our community, whether bought locally or bought overseas online, we want the TGA to use its extraordinary expertise, through its laboratories and such, to be able to test these so-called therapies. A part of the problem, though, is that it's against the law to possess them. We don't want our TGA lab officers and other officers to be subject to criminal charges because they are possessing something that is unlawful to possess. So we support the proposal the government has included in this bill to provide a shield to TGA officers—obviously only in authorised circumstances; it's not a carte blanche for them—to possess these therapies in order for them to undertake their important work. Labor support this provision. We support the bill more broadly. There are some other issues that I've tried to address that members of the community have raised with us about different aspects of the bill. We particularly support the urgent measure that deals with some of the particular logistical challenges of the vaccines that are being imported for supply here in Australia that wouldn't comply with the existing legislation, and we commend the government for bringing that forward. There are, though, concerns that we do have that I tried to outline in my remarks about whether this parliament is united in its support for the public health advice that members of our public health community have been working so hard to prepare day in, day out through this pandemic and the reluctance, the refusal of the Prime Minister to bring his own team in a united fashion to that community effort. In that vein, 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 condemns the ongoing campaign by some government members against the independent and expert Therapeutic Goods Administration, and urges the Prime Minister to finally censure those members.' The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? 19:15 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The honourable member for Hindmarsh 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. 19:15 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020 involves some rather technical changes to the operations of the Therapeutic Goods Act. The TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Authority, is a world renowned regulator which analyses drugs, vaccines, medical devices, implants, prostheses et cetera that are then defined as therapeutic goods. The amendments support existing processes that ensure Australians continue to get the medical devices, drugs and vaccines that we have been used to, particularly in the post-COVID world. I'll outline some of those changes in subsequent comments. As you can appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, with the COVID crisis there were interruptions to supply chains around the world—not only in Australia but really worldwide. Some of these changes have been brought to fruition as a result of that, but they are basically very safe, commonsense responses to a problem that emerged. There are also regulations to enable a system to be set up so that there's a universal device indicator, so that we can create a register of the ever-increasing numbers of medical devices, prostheses, implants or medical gadgets that remain inside humans, like pacemakers, hip replacements, knee replacements or meshes—things like that—so that we become in tune with what other regulators around the world are doing, including in the EU and the US. That is a really great initiative. Some prostheses and medical devices already have registers and, in the orthopaedic world, have had them for some years. But this will, over a period of four years, allow for digital recording, such as in My Health Record, and allow for surveillance of side effects, for recalls, for health statistics on outcomes et cetera. It's an initiative which I think will add another layer of safety in that sort of device use in humans. There is a history of problems with devices that only become apparent after a certain time, like some of the side effects of breast implants or the pelvic mesh, which was hailed as a breakthrough, only to find out that it caused problems later on. But the main change is allowing, in a regulatory and legislative sense, the application of common sense if there is a critical shortage of medicines. Currently in the system, if there is a shortage and there is a Serious Shortages Substitution Notice issued by the TGA, then, state-by-state, each state can allow the pharmacist to dose-substitute. This bill will allow the pharmacist to make authorised delivery of an equivalent generic or equivalent dose or formulation—so, rather than a capsule, a tablet, say. Or, instead of a 20-milligram tablet, give them two 10-milligram tablets. Or if there was a patch that delivered a medicine absorbed through the skin and that wasn't available, a cream could be used. So a lot of this is just putting legislative clarity and power behind what are sensible, professional decisions. If there's a shortage of a particular original brand, it can be replaced with a generic, or an equivalent molecule made by a different maker. It will also, as the previous speaker mentioned, offer some protections for officers of the Therapeutic Goods Administration who are analysing drugs which were hitherto illegal. We're all familiar with the black market of illegal muscle-enhancing drugs, or drugs that are used to improve sporting performance. For us to know what's going on with these drugs in humans, at some stage the TGA will have to analyse them, but we don't want our chemists and biochemists being nabbed because they are in possession of illegal goods. Another issue is creating what's called data protection. Everyone's familiar with patents for drugs. Data protection is for all the information that's behind getting a drug or a device evaluated and proved to be safe and effective. It's all the data that goes with it. It's allied to part of the patent but it's a separate process. People who've spent billions of dollars and many years getting all this information together to get it licensed have some legal rights to have their data protected so that some subsequent manufacturer can't just come along and get its equivalent drug licence on the basis of that data. So this will clarify data protection. It is for a limited number of years, but it means the secretary will know—it'll be recorded—that that data is protected to the use of that drug or that owner of that information. It also clarifies in a legislative sense the declaration of a good as not being a therapeutic good. A lot of claims are made about substances that are sold for people's health. It's a bit of a vague area, and this declaration will mean that people won't be able to make outrageous claims about a so-called therapeutic effect of a drug or a device if it doesn't have it. To me, this seems like a really sensible idea, because there are some lotions and potions that people think are a registered therapeutic good and are definitely going to have an effect. If it has been analysed by an internationally renowned organisation, like Australia's TGA, and it has been proven not to have any therapeutic outcome, people can still buy it but the makers can't use and advertise that. This bill is very technical. There are a lot of things that maybe only boffins or pharmacists or pharmaceutical companies will appreciate the benefit of, but it's all sensible stuff. It all keeps our system up to date. If there are disruptions to the supply chain again and there are shortages, pharmacists, who have a lot of university training and learning behind them, will be able to substitute appropriate medications without having to go through a rigorous process or contact the original prescribing doctor. It also incorporates pretty much commonsense legislative changes to include the poison standard in other sections from time to time. Obviously the poisons schedule changes, and it will facilitate appropriate use of that information elsewhere. Our TGA has been very busy analysing all the vaccines that are coming through the works. It is a national asset. Our pharmaceutical system really is a highly regarded system internationally, both the TGA and our allied processes for putting things on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I support this bill, which has a lot of commonsense and safe procedures in it, and I commend it to the House. 19:25 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley The COVID pandemic has seen medical workers, including doctors and nurses, working 24/7. We've seen pharmacists staying open to make sure people get the medicines they need. We've seen people in pathology work shift after shift to make sure that COVID tests can be processed swiftly. We've seen politician after politician stand up and thank the heroes of the pandemic—the people on the frontline, the people that are the last defence, the medical profession, the scientists—and we rightly thank them. But we need to do more than just thank these people. We need to back them in. Many people today will say how amazing the TGA is and how crucial it has been and continues to be to our health system in Australia. And that is absolutely right. We have an obligation to do more than just congratulate the scientists and the administrators that work at the TGA. We need to back them in. We need to support what they're doing. And we need to back in the Australian people, who have sacrificed so much in the last 12 months to get behind their state and federal governments to suppress the virus. They haven't been able to see family and friends, they have missed weddings and funerals and birthdays, they have had to talk to grandparents through windows at aged-care facilities and they haven't been able to leave their house for more than an hour in a day so that we can suppress the virus and save lives. We owe it to those people to do everything that we can to make sure that our community has confidence in the vaccine. We know that a proper rollout and penetration of the vaccine through the community is what we have to achieve to be able to carry on with suppression of this virus. We know that the best way to protect the economy is to also deal with the virus. I know that the Prime Minister, the health minister and members of the government are outraged by what they see the member for Hughes saying on social media and in mainstream media interviews. That is why it is so disappointing to see all of these people just let him go. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. For far too long, the Prime Minister of this country has walked past the outrageous behaviour of the member for Hughes. For too long, the Prime Minister of this country has let outlier backbenchers in his government daily go about undermining the work of our public health officials, the chief health officers and chief medical officers of this country. It has to stop. Why is it that the member for Hughes felt empowered to do a podcast with Pete Evans? Why is it that he feels empowered to go on the news and say that it's his right to undermine the efficacy of the vaccine? It's because the Prime Minister walks past and turns a blind eye to what the member for Hughes does. The member is undermining public health and he is doing a disservice to every single person in this country. We cannot have a member of this parliament, elected to be a leader, spreading antivaxxer, antihealth conspiracy theories, and have the medical practitioners in the government, let alone the Prime Minister of the country, do nothing to stop it. It is a disgrace. The free speech warriors in this government, who like free speech when it's from people they think are on their side but hate it every other time, appear to think that free speech applies everywhere in this parliament. They even gag debate on whether the member for Hughes should be pulled into line by the Prime Minister and should stop his dangerous actions. ADJOURNMENT 80 ADJOURNMENT COVID-19 80 19:30 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton Firstly, I would like to congratulate the member for Dunkley on her contribution to the debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020. In fact, it's something that I've been reflecting upon. Having listened to the Prime Minister yesterday, you would have thought that most of the problems that beset this country in relation to a global pandemic were solved, but that's not the case. I think it's fair to say that there are some people who, in many respects, feel uneasy about the government's response, and it's something that the government needs to attend to. Firstly, we had the rolling out of the COVIDSafe app, which has become an abject failure—something that was not able to be sufficiently used to contact and trace those people who may have contracted the virus. Secondly, we have many thousands of Australians still stranded overseas and seeking a way to get back to their home country. This government had promised that they would be home by Christmas but has failed in that regard. The government has been derelict in its duty to the many Australians who want to return home but have not been able to find a way home, despite the commitments and undertakings made by the Prime Minister last year. There are so many things that need to be attended to. As a federal member who wants to look after constituents in his electorate—and I'm sure I am no different from other members—I have had to assist constituents who find themselves overseas in places where they would rather not be during this pandemic and cannot find a pathway home. I've dealt with many, many such constituents. We're aware that there are people in the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Estonia, Ethiopia and many other places who wait for an opportunity to board a plane to come home only to find, too often, that bookings made are cancelled or that planes are cancelled. Their frustration and anxiety continue. On occasion, I have had some good fortune when working with DFAT, but this just doesn't seem to be a priority or a focus for this government. Notwithstanding that, there does seem to be a lot of hubris in the government's attitude to its response to the pandemic. I think it would be fair to say—and I've acknowledged this in the past and I do so again—that, whilst I accept that some of the economic responses to the pandemic by the government have been correct, it was indeed Labor that recommended that there be a wage subsidy, and I accept the fact that the government, belatedly but assuredly, got around to doing so. That has been critical, but it wasn't perfect. It didn't cover everybody; it did exclude people unfairly. However, it has been critical, and we would say that Labor played a constructive part in suggesting to the government that this approach be taken. We are happy that the government responded, in the main, by looking after businesses and, effectively, millions of Australian workers. However, it is also true to say that without the very tough decisions of premiers and chief ministers, sometimes contrary to the comments made by the Treasurer and others in this place, we would be in a very different position altogether. If the premiers had not taken the action they took in relation to this pandemic, we would have found ourselves in a very, very different position. I will finish where the member for Dunkley finished her contribution to the debate on the therapeutic goods amendment bill. It is now time that the Prime Minister repudiate the comments made by the member for Hughes, not just because they are not true, not just because it's misinformation, but because it is misinformation with respect to the public safety and the health of fellow citizens, our fellow Australians. This is not just a matter of free speech and opinion. When it contradicts the facts and the facts go to questions of public safety, there is no reason for the Prime Minister not to contradict those comments, condemn the member for making them and make it clear that the government does not stand with the member for Hughes in relation to those statements that have caused anxiety and could lead to death or other forms of— (Time expired) Inequality 80 19:35 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong It is often said that in tough times the strong get stronger and the weak get crushed. We've seen it time and time again. Big money can afford to ride out crises while small investors lose everything. Big money buy up stock in the gloom and sell it in a time of boom. Hedge funds short-sell and make huge profits at a time of economic decline. Companies take bets against the market, confident that they are too big to fail and will receive support from the government when times go bad—support which saves CEOs but not workers. The entrenched nature of the disparity suggests that inequality is not just a current problem but one that threatens to get worse with this crisis and crises in the future. I remember in the 1960s, during the celebrated Gore Vidal and William F Buckley debates, Gore Vidal outraged us with the revelation that, in the US, the top five per cent of Americans owned 25 per cent of the resources and the bottom 25 per cent owned just five per cent. This sounded scandalous at the time. Of course, today those figures seem delightfully quaint. In the US now the top one per cent own 38 per cent of the stock market, the top 10 per cent own 81 per cent and the bottom 80 per cent own just eight per cent. Those figures are staggering. Wealth is no longer common in the United States. When we have income inequality we breed social unrest. As people are denied a fair opportunity their anger finally results in violence. They protest and they riot. They attack financial markets. They elect populous autocrats. This syndrome is repeated through history, and we will not be immune. There is a definition of corruption that suggest that a country's level of corruption can be directly linked to the amount of money raised based on government decisions. Countries like the US, with a large number of entrepreneurs who have raised money through their innovations, are less corrupt than those countries where money raised comes directly from government, through direct distribution of money, jobs or legislative decisions that benefit an individual's assets. Since the time of John Macarthur and the early days of the colony, wealth in Australia has largely come through government decisions around land. In the early days of New South Wales it was land grants. Chunks of land were unilaterally given to colonists or were a means of buying favours. It was blatantly unfair, even before looking at the legality of handing out freshly discovered land. Today, mercifully, there is less corruption in the decisions made but, undoubtedly, there are still huge amounts of money to be made off the decisions of government through the rise in land prices. We've seen it in the north-west of Sydney as the metro line went through the suburbs. Along the train line in Castle Hill house prices went up not by a third or a half; prices went up five, 10 or 20 times. People with fibro houses and small blocks were walking away with millions of dollars in their pockets. Smart groups of residents started pooling their houses together to sell on to developers. One such group pooled their houses and sold on for $360 million. But this is small change compared to Badgerys Creek. The millions that have been made by property speculators in the area around the airport and the new train line have been well reported. Hundreds of millions in profits have been made all by the stroke of a pen in a faraway department, accompanied by taxpayer funded infrastructure. Now the government is proposing to invest billions of dollars in infrastructure to build our way out of the economic doldrums caused by the coronavirus. But, until we put in place a value-capture mechanism to ensure that the taxpayer gets fairly reimbursed, we will just be funding the millionaire landowners and speculators into billionaire status. If we continue to ignore these lessons, the Commonwealth of Australia will be a misnomer—wealth will no longer be common. We will once again have allowed a crisis and allowed the rich to get richer while impoverishing future generations of taxpayers. Climate Change, Australia Day 81 19:40 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne The Prime Minister has been dragged kicking and screaming to say something about the climate crisis. He says that we're potentially going to have net zero emissions by 2050. By 2050 it will be too late. Targets for 2050 are very attractive for do-nothing governments, oppositions and businesses that don't want to lift a finger in this the critical decade—the decade that scientists have said is the last chance for us humans not to lose control of a spiralling, reinforcing breakdown of our climate system. If we don't succeed by 2030 then by 2050 the domino-like collapse of our planet's natural processes will be unstoppable. It will affect our farms, our oceans, our forests, our cities and our suburbs. It's what we do by 2030 that matters. Net zero by 2050 blows our carbon budget. It is code for someone else's problem. There will be no aspect of life left untouched, and nothing we will be able to do will be able to stop the damage if we don't clean up our act by 2030. The new US President understands the urgency and the seriousness of the problem that neither the Liberals nor the Nationals, or even, sadly, Labor, have quite grasped—100 per cent renewable electricity by 2035 and $2 trillion on job-creating clean energy infrastructure. Within the first few days of his presidency, Mr Biden has yanked away permits for massive oil and gas pipelines, withdrawn exploration permits, rejoined the Paris Agreement and committed to an all-electric fleet of homemade vehicles for the government's use. He did more in two days to create jobs and protect the climate than the Australian government has done in its entire seven years. The coal, oil and gas industries there have been left stunned. To quote one oil executive: The industry is aghast at these changes … They are more direct, more fierce and quicker than what folks expected. But that is how you start to act when you truly deeply realise that we only have a handful of years to stop a runaway climate breakdown. It is simple maths. There's only a certain amount of carbon left that we can burn before we go over these tipping points. Here, at home, the independent Climate Targets Panel updated Australia's obligations based on the new global carbon budget. The government has to double its 2030 target, to 50 per cent, for a two-degree hotter world and triple it for a safer 1½ degree one. The pathway for a two-degree world is net zero by 2045 and the pathway for a 1½ degree world is net zero by 2035. That is what a science based target looks like. If the Prime Minister ever gets a call from the new United States President and if he invites us to the climate summit in April—which we shouldn't be confident about given the UK and France barred us from speaking at the UN conference last year—what is the Prime Minister going to do? He can't take his gas fired recovery there, because US climate envoy John Kerry explicitly said that gas is not a bridging fuel and warned against new gas projects. He said: … when we haven't really exhausted the other possibilities, we're going to be stuck with stranded assets in 10, 20, 30 years. The only thing that this government can do to not remain isolated on the global stage, with other petrostates like Russia and Saudi Arabia, is to commit to 2030 science based targets and have a fully costed plan to get us there, just like the Greens have. The day that dispossession commenced is marked on 26 January. It's a day of mourning for First Nations people, and it's a day of shame and reflection for an ever-growing number of Australians. For those who insist that we continue to celebrate dispossession and all the misery, pain and suffering that followed, they not only make the pain and hurt for First Australians worse but they deny the truth about our shared history. It is only by facing up to our shared history and accepting it that we can then start preparing for our shared future. The Greens are calling on all leaders across society not just in this place but in business as well as local community leaders, sports leaders and club managers to listen to and respect the wishes of First Nations peoples so that we can close the gap, acknowledge and address sovereignty, achieve justice, negotiate treaties and repair and protect country. This is a future we should all be striving for—listening, respecting, healing and contributing. Individuals can do it and governments can do it too. But when governments do it, it's called treaty. Treaty and truth-telling are the foundational processes for giving First Nations meaningful control and power over their lives, and that is when we will see all the gaps meaningfully and permanently closed. By healing ourselves, we can heal country, and, in turn, by healing our country, we can heal ourselves. By listening and contributing positively, we can do the things that need to be done to make this country a better place. Australian Constitution, Australia Day 82 19:45 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise today to speak on a matter of great importance to my electorate of Higgins and, indeed, to our nation at large—Indigenous recognition. I would like to start by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. As I said in my first speech, a strong country is one that is at peace with its past. Certainly, the Statement from the Heart was an important and historic process in progressing peace with our past. However, despite its immense value, the Statement from the Heart did not prescribe specific details about how to practically legislate on this very issue. Indigenous culture is an essential and core part of our national heritage and fabric. We need to continue to embrace it, through the themes of voice, treaty and truth. Accordingly, further work is needed to define the detail of an Indigenous voice, and this is what our government is seeking to undertake. Our government is working to empower Indigenous Australians, and at a deeply practical level we strive to close the gap for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. The recent date of 26 January marks a contentious date in our national calendar for some in this country. Contentious issues such as these only further highlight our need for a voice for Indigenous Australians, to ensure that our First Nations peoples' voice is amplified and heard on this very important issue and on other matters that affect them. The Morrison government believes that the Indigenous community requires a strong and distinct voice. With this in mind, at the heart of our decision-making, we have committed $7.3 million for the co-design process to determine options for an Indigenous voice. I know that some in my electorate of Higgins have a view that we should change the date of Australia Day. They have written to me as their member and representative to outline their immense passion for this matter. However, others in my community want Australia Day to remain on 26 January. They tell me they are not convinced that changing the date of Australia Day would right the wrongs of the past nor that it would progress closing the gap for our valuable and vulnerable Indigenous community. I listen to the voices of Higgins and, whilst I am open to a conversation about changing the date—if that is indeed the wish of the Australian people, and particularly our Indigenous community—I am not open to cancelling the date. I believe this would be a backward step for our country. I think all Australians want to be proud of who we are. We need to be able to understand our past and respect that our history has been complicated. We need to come together for these types of conversations—much like the Indigenous community concept of 'yarning'. We need to speak respectfully to each other, to better gain an understanding of how to embrace our past and move forward to a better future, one where Indigenous Australians do not have a yawning gap in health, education, employment and mortality outcomes; one where we can celebrate the beauty and dignity of Australia's Indigenous culture—the longest surviving culture, one that is more than 60,000 years old. With this in mind, the Morrison government has now launched the second stage of the Indigenous voice co-design process, inviting all Australians to provide their feedback on Indigenous voice proposals. If anyone in the electorate of Higgins—and, indeed, Australia-wide—would like to provide feedback, please visit voice.niaa.gov.au and have your voice heard in the process. It's so important for all Australians. Higgins has a proud history regarding constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. It was Prime Minister Harold Holt, the first member for Higgins, whose government successfully passed the 1967 Australian referendum for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In continuing the legacy of my electorate, I am proud to be a member of the parliamentary working group on Indigenous recognition. The meetings that I have participated in over the past year give me hope that we can move to right the wrongs of the past. There is no doubt that we are currently at an important milestone in our country's history in the way of Indigenous recognition. This is a time for us to look forward and take action. This is a time to seek to be at peace with our past. Aged Care 83 19:50 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham Aged care in Australia is in a state of national crisis. I think a lot of people who interact with the sector have known that for a long time, but we have absolutely irrefutable evidence in the interim report to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety that was provided to the government some time ago. What this report tells us is that we have a system where fundamental features of caring for vulnerable elderly Australians are being mismanaged for many of the people who are in residential aged care. I'm speaking here about things like wound management, where many Australians would have been just appalled and disgusted to see photos of maggots in wounds. I'm talking about the evidence in this report that tells us that up to half of the residents in residential aged care today are malnourished. I'm talking about basic fundamentals like the management for the many people in aged care who are incontinent, who are living in homes where incontinence pads are being rationed and who are sitting in urine and faeces. I don't think there is a single Australian out there who thinks that these things are acceptable. The question for this parliament and especially for those opposite is: what are we willing to do about these problems? Residential aged care takes up a lot of the focus of this conversation, and I think it is where some of the most egregious examples of awful mismanagement have been found. But I want to draw the House's attention here to what is an extraordinary crisis in the number of Australians who are waiting for home-care packages. Residential aged care gets a lot of focus but in fact the vast majority of users of the aged-care system are people who are living at home, who need additional support to stay in their homes, which is what most Australians desperately want to do. There are about 100,000 Australians today who are waiting for funding to get a home-care package, and I really want Australians to understand what that means. What that means is that the Morrison government has, through its public servants, assessed that Australian as someone who needs support in the home to live in their home safely. But what doesn't necessarily follow is the money, so we've got 100,000 people out there who have been told that they need support to live in their homes safely but they have to wait, and some of them, many of them, are waiting for years and years and years. So what happens while people wait? What happens is that their condition deteriorates, so instead of needing an entry-level phase 1 package, they go up to needing a stage 3 or stage 4 package. We know that many go into residential aged care because they actually have no option when they don't have the funding they need to live in their home, even though—as you know, Speaker—it would be much cheaper for government if we actually provided them the support they needed to stay at home. In the absolute worst case scenario, vulnerable Australians who need help in their homes die while they are on the waiting list. Now, no Australian should die while they are on the waiting list for home care that the government has already told them that they need. We know that, in the three years leading up to mid 2020, more than 30,000 older Australians died while they were waiting for a home-care package to be approved. This problem has been profoundly exacerbated by the neglect of this critical policy area by the Morrison government. In fact, in the time that the Liberals have been in office, the wait times for aged care have exploded by almost 300 per cent. One of the cruellest parts of this whole system of home care is that the people who are made to wait the longest for care are the ones who are in most need. The people who are in most danger of falls, of other critical medical incidents, are having to wait for years for their packages. That is not in line with how Australians want to see this system run. I mentioned that the government has known about these problems for a long time. We are having a royal commission, but you would have noticed at the time the royal commission was called that one of the real refrains coming out of the sector was: do we need another report? We've known about these problems because this is not the first report this government has commissioned to tell them that the system is broken. What is lacking is not information about how bad the system is. What is lacking is political will from those who have the power to fix this problem, to actually prioritise these issues and to make a serious impact on them because what is what older Australians deserve. Mercer Moore, Dr Sandra, AM 84 19:55 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I rise tonight to pay tribute to the late Dr Sandra Mercer Moore AM. Raised in rural Queensland, she was educated at All Hallows' School in Brisbane and then at the University of Queensland, where she trained as a physiotherapist. In 1964, Sandra married Dr Robert Mercer, and they worked together in North Queensland for a number of years before then moving to the UK, where they both worked in London, and subsequently returning to Brisbane. Unfortunately, Robert died in 1975, having contracted an infection from a patient he was caring for. Sandra continued her work as a physiotherapist. She became the president of the Australian Physiotherapy Association and subsequently the President of the World Confederation for Physical Therapy, an international role which she served in for some eight years. In later times, she became a director of the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital in Melbourne. In 1989, Sandra married John Moore and moved to Melbourne. For the past two decades, Sandra has been a friend, a confidant, a supporter and a willing worker for the Liberal cause. She served on the Menzies electorate council executive and was subsequently elected chairman, a position she occupied for some 16 years. In this role, Sandra was superb, maintaining a close eye on everything happening locally in the party and the broader community. She had an ability, when chairing meetings, of deflecting criticism with a disarming comment and a smile. She also served as chair of the Menzies 200 Club for many years, helping to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for our campaigns both in Menzies and in marginal seats. When I say that she was chairman of these bodies, she was addressed once as 'Madam Chair' in a meeting I recall, and she responded: 'I'm the chairman. I'm sitting on the bloody chair.' Thereafter, her interlocutor and all others referred to her as 'the chairman'. I recount this anecdote because it was this directness that I admired in Sandra. She had a strong set of values, a clear set of principles, that endeared her to many but of course annoyed others who either didn't share them or were jealous of her abilities. She was closely involved in the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party, serving in senior roles on the administrative committee for a decade, including, I think, some eight years as a vice-president of the party. Her ability to negotiate the labyrinthine passages of a political party with grace and courage was remarkable, and I have no doubt, had she decided that that was her aspiration, she could have become a senator for Victoria, but her focus remained firmly on assisting others. Sandra made great friends and she also made enemies. She didn't suffer fools gladly. Through it all, she handled victory and defeat with the same equanimity. She was awarded a distinguished service award in 2018 for her contributions to the party. She was also made a Member of the Order of Australia for her magnificent leadership of the World Confederation for Physical Therapy and her significant contributions to the party. I last saw Sandra on Christmas Eve, when I dropped around to wish her the best. She'd been in pain and a considerable discomfort for not just months but some years, and she was obviously in discomfort at that time. But I left that discussion on Christmas Eve, having talked about current political issues, believing I'd have many more such discussions in her lounge room or around the dining room table. Alas, it was not to be. So I pay my respects and pay tribute tonight to a wonderful woman; a generous, witty, intelligent and kind person; a world leader in her chosen profession; and a great contributor to our democracy through her tireless work for the Liberal Party. She was truly a woman of character, integrity and courage, and I extend my condolences to her husband, John; to her sister, Deb; and to her stepchildren Joanne and Kristen. May she rest in peace. House adjourned at 19:59 NOTICES 85 NOTICES

Tuesday, 2 February 2021

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Wicks) took the chair at 16:00.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 91 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Chin Community of South Australia, Burundian Community of South Australia 91 16:00 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Spence One of the most pleasing things over the last decade in public office for me has been to see so many communities in my electorate, who come to Australia from parts of the world where they've suffered persecution or conflict and settled in the northern suburbs, become a vibrant part of our community. Today, I'd like to talk about two of those communities: the Chin Community of South Australia and the Association of the Burundian Community of South Australia. The Chin Community of South Australia have been around for 12 consecutive years since resettlement and they will celebrate the 73rd anniversary of Chin National Day on 20 February this year. That commemorates the event in 1948 when the General Assembly of Chin Land was held in Falam. The Chin people are a vibrant part of our community. On this day every year, they meet at Salisbury Villa Soccer Club and play soccer, volleyball, table tennis, rattan ball and Chin traditional wrestling. That day is obviously a big day of celebration for them. It involves sports, it involves community and it involves their religion. Most of them are Baptist Christians. They've done their very best to keep an essential part of their culture alive while integrating with the Australian community. I'd like to give a shout-out to Mr Van Bawi, who is chair of the Chin Community of South Australia; Mr Mang Bawi, the youth leader of the Chin Community of South Australia; and Pastor Mang Hlei Cung, who's the pastor at Adelaide Chin Christian Church, in Elizabeth Park. I say to all of them that we certainly love having them in the north. The Burundian community is a very vibrant part of our community. They are celebrating their 15th anniversary in South Australia. They've been active with the    Burundian Men Drummers, the Burundian Women Dancers Group, the Burundi Eagles Soccer Club and a Christian choir. Their association has been led by many presidents: Leonidas Nitereka, Muhama Yotham, Charles Nzohabonayo, Modeste Hatungimana, Jacob Nduwamungu, and Elias Kabura. All of those individuals have provided leadership and built the Burundian community in the northern suburbs, and we're very fortunate to have them as great participants of our community. I send my congratulations to them. North Sydney Electorate: Lunar New Year 91 16:03 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney On 12 February, hundreds of thousands of Australians across the country will join with many more across the world in celebrating the Lunar New Year and what we all hope will be a happy, healthy and prosperous year ahead. The year 2021 in the lunar calendar is the Year of the Ox. Oxen are known for their diligence, dependability, strength and determination—all traits that we aspire to in this parliament, I hope. Last year, we saw many celebrations cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic overseas, particularly those held in China, where COVID was already prevalent. Thankfully, in Australia we were able to still sneak in celebrations before our own lockdowns started. But this year the Lunar New Year will look very different in Australia due to the ongoing restrictions and COVID-safe practices that are now required. For example, Lunar New Year in Australia normally attracts some 1.5 million visitors to Sydney, making it the largest celebration outside of Asia. With our international borders closed to visitors, that won't be the case in 2021. It is a reminder of the fact that many Australians have been unable to connect with family and friends from overseas for such a long period. We would usually expect to see many suburbs and business centres awash with the colour and festivities of the new year celebrations, with large crowds coming together to witness lion dances, fireworks and performances. This year will be very different but I am pleased that so many communities are still finding ways to celebrate. In my own electorate, Willoughby City Council will be holding a series of COVID-safe events in Chatswood. During the festival, which will last from 3 to 28 February, Chatswood will be home to a comedy festival, a celebratory concert, an exhibition from an amazing Chinese Australian artist, and the transformation of Chatswood Mall into an Asian style market with stalls selling flowers, lucky bamboo, decorations and delicious new year delicacies. In Lane Cove, festivities to welcome the Year of the Ox will include children's activities, a lion dance travelling the course of the Lane Cove Plaza, the new canopy project and live music. I look forward to also marking the Lunar New Year, at a lunch I'm hosting, with the North Sydney Chinese Community Forum, which I established a year ago to bring together community leaders and local businesses. I'll also be following that very ancient Chinese tradition of handing out red packets to constituents next week, although I should say that they won't be containing cash, despite the tradition—because I expect that's illegal—but I'm sure they'll enjoy their chocolate coin! It's so good to see celebrations of a multicultural Australia continuing even in the world of a pandemic. It's a poignant reminder of the incredible contribution that has been made to Australia by those who have migrated to our shores. It is also an important time to reconnect with family and friends, something that, perhaps, has never been more important. I want to wish all Australians celebrating the Lunar New Year a very prosperous 12 months ahead, and to my own constituents of Chinese heritage: Xin nian kuai le or Gung hei fat choy. COVID-19: Victoria 92 16:06 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara It's a pleasure to be back here, in this place, representing the great people of Macnamara, for the start of 2021. That means we're finally seeing the end of 2020, a year that firmly belongs in the bin. I am pleased to say that, today, Victoria, my home state—which other members on this side also are from—is very pleased to have 27 days in a row without any community transmission of this coronavirus pandemic. That is a huge relief and an indication that life in Victoria is as normal as it's going to get while this pandemic is on. I want to take this opportunity to thank the thousands in the Victorian public health team who have worked tirelessly, over the summer, after that breakout from the northern Sydney beaches—where the cases did, inevitably, come down to Victoria—at a time when many families were hoping to have holidays. Our trackers, our tracers, our testers, our nurses, our doctors, our paramedics, everyone in the Victorian health team, were going above and beyond. In a remarkable achievement, despite there being an outbreak in Victoria, they got it under control within a week, which is truly a sensational achievement. I want to take this opportunity to send my sincere thanks—and the thanks of all members, I think it's safe to say. Today we see that there have been two days in WA without a COVID case, which is certainly a relief from where we were, but it's safe to say that with this current outbreak—or the escape from hotel quarantine—in WA they are not out of the woods yet. We send our best to the people of WA and we send our best to all of those trying to bring that under control as quickly as possible. I would point out that, unfortunately—as we felt, in Victoria, during the height of our pandemic—members of the government are keen to play politics with the pandemic and are keen to undermine the efforts of the health experts and of the contact tracers. I would have thought that they would have learnt their lesson, that politically it's not particularly popular to do that, as Queensland rightly re-endorsed the Labor government up there. It's disappointing to see the Minister for Home Affairs take a swipe at the WA authorities as they are trying to bring this pandemic under control. You cannot play politics with a pandemic. Those opposite and those in the federal government need to start acting like a federal government and not like petty political hacks taking aim at health authorities. This pandemic is not going away. For now, we say thank you to our health workers and thank you to all those keeping us safe. Longman Electorate: HomeBuilder Grant, Taipan Hydraulic Hose Systems 92 16:09 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman We all have hopes and dreams in our lives. It may be to run a marathon, to find a more fulfilling job or to purchase your first home. But stepping out of our comfort zone and making changes to pursue our dreams can be too big a step for many. Sometimes people just need some guidance or a nudge in the right direction. Recently I visited Taipan Hydraulic Hose Systems, a local industrial business in my electorate of Longman. Taipan employs around 60 people across four branches, with its flagship branch in Caboolture employing around half of those staff. The company's owner, Allan Sandilands, along with his daughter Amy, like the majority of small business owners I speak to, has a managerial philosophy of always taking good care of his staff. So, when COVID hit early last year, Allan did everything possible to ensure that his staff were being looked after. Allan learnt about a rather unorthodox method of achieving this, through hiring a 'dream manager'—something I had never heard of. Dream managers operate on the idea that helping employees achieve their dreams can indirectly improve the results of a company. As it turned out, quite a few of Allan's staff wanted to achieve the Australian dream of owning their own home. Sadly, for many young people in my electorate, owning their own home seemed like an unattainable dream, something they would never be able to achieve. But, thanks to Allan and his dream manager, Tianah, along with the federal government's HomeBuilder grant, there are now seven people working at Taipan who are building their first home. How good is that! Without that HomeBuilder grant and Allan's help this would not have been possible. It also goes without saying that, if employees feel that they are appreciated by their boss, it makes them happier and they are more productive at work. Recently released data has shown what a massive impact the HomeBuilder grant is having right across Australia, but particularly in Longman. Longman has become one of the fastest-growing areas in Queensland, if not Australia. There are some massive new housing estates underway and many more in the pipeline—Riverbank, in South Caboolture, North Harbour, Morayfield East and Narangba Heights, just to name a few. Across Australia at the end of last December, more than 75,000 households had applied for a HomeBuilder grant, with 80 per cent of those applicants to construct a new home. In Queensland, 13,507 households have applied to build a new home under the HomeBuilder grant. A further 3,016 applied to rebuild an existing home. HomeBuilder has also created new work for builders and tradies when they needed it most. Many Australians, like those employees at Taipan in Caboolture, who have dreamed of building their own home but never thought it would be possible are now achieving their dreams thanks to the federal government's HomeBuilder grant and great employers like Allan and Taipan Hydraulic Hose Systems. Ballarat Electorate: Sebastopol Post Office 93 16:12 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I rise to speak about an important issue in my electorate. On Saturday, the Sebastopol post office is going to close its door. The community has been running a campaign to try and get that decision reversed, but the clock is ticking. Over recent week, the residents of Sebastopol—or Sebas, as we know it—organised by the incredible Joan Brown, who is in her late 80s, have organised a petition. She, as well as the Rosebank Retirement Village residents, walked the streets over our long summer to try to keep the post office open. Yesterday I delivered that petition to the Petitions Office, and I look forward to it being presented in parliament so that I can again raise this issue. The petition has received hundreds of signatures, and they are highlighting just how important this post office is to this local community and how determined the community is to actually save it. I want to thank everyone in Sebas and beyond who signed the petition and those who have taken it around to their friends and family to get them involved as well, the businesses in Sebas who have written to me and who have signed the petition and also written to the CEO of Australia Post. Post offices are something that many of us take for granted. They deliver a really important community service not only in terms of people being able to pick up mail and deliver mail and parcels but also, in areas where there are limited facilities, in terms of facilitating banking and the payment of bills. For many older residents, if they are not connected to the internet, it is the only way that they can access these services. That is exactly the role that the local post office plays in Sebas. According to the most recent census, Sebastopol has over 10,000 residents and over 20 per cent of those are over 65—frankly, more than enough of a population to support a post office and the services that are needed for older Australians. Australia Post have justified the closure by saying that they are moving the licence to the nearby Delacombe Town Centre, a growth area in Ballarat. It's true that Delacombe, too, needs a post office—and there'll be many new residents moving in there that will need a post office—but it shouldn't come at the expense of the residents of Sebas. Over recent weeks, I have written to the acting CEO of Australia Post as well as the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, calling on them to intervene and save this post office. I have yet to receive a response from either of them. But, even though the post office is due to close on Saturday, that doesn't mean that our voices will be silenced. We're going to continue on this issue until we save this post office. Australia Post exists to provide a service to the community, and it should do that in all communities, including Sebas. The minister, frankly, should pick up the phone and talk to the CEO of Australia Post. He should ask them to retender the licence for this post office, get a new owner in—or the existing owner, who has indicated he would be willing to keep the service there—and reopen the doors for this incredibly important service in my community. The people in my community won't give up on this. The government should back them. Chau, Dr Chak Wing 93 16:15 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Free and informed debate is essential for a healthy democracy. This morning, a defamation trial concluded in favour of one of Australia's most prolific political and university donors, Chau Chak Wing, with damages of $590,000 awarded to him. This is the second trial Dr Chau has launched against Australian reporters over whether he funded a $200,000 payment in 2013 to the now deceased, and allegedly corrupt, President of the United Nations General Assembly John Ashe. Some of the facts in this case are clear. Mr Chau's Australian contact, Sheri Yan, was charged by the FBI with bribing Mr Ashe. But Mr Chau's role in providing funds has been obscured by defamation cases. Members may recall that on 22 May 2018 the member for Canning outed Mr Chau to the House by his FBI codename. The member for Canning also made clear that security agencies regard Dr Chau as part of the Chinese Communist Party's overseas influence campaign. Documents have come into my possession, including FBI case files, detailing the evidence the agency has gathered about Dr Chau, including translations. I seek leave to table these documents. Leave granted. Mr TIM WILSON IMW These documents reveal Dr Chau's private company made payments to Mr Ashe via one of Mr Ashe's bank accounts. They reveal the FBI regarded this payment as a quid pro quo arrangement to get Mr Ashe to speak at Dr Chau's 2013 conference. They reveal that in February 2016 FBI agents questioned Dr Chau about these payments and that he told the FBI it was, in his mind, merely a donation to alleviate poverty. Meanwhile, US authorities charged Dr Chau's contact, Sheri Yan with bribery over the same payment. The documents also show the FBI has scrutinised other dealings between influential Australians and Mr Chau. In presenting these documents, it is my intention to simply allow for their scrutiny. The best antidote to those who seek to influence our political system, our universities and other important institutions that are the lifeblood of our democracy is sunshine. Let the light in. Airport Noise 94 16:18 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith Our community and the former member for Griffith, the Hon. Kevin Rudd AC, fought strongly on the issue of aircraft noise. It was hard fought, and Kevin even became personally liable to pay $32,000 after taking the issue to court. The community rallied around him, but ultimately they were not able to stop the second runway. In 2007, one of the last acts of the Howard government was to give the final approval for it. Throughout my time as the member for Griffith, I have made a number of representations to Airservices Australia and to the Brisbane Airport Corporation, and I want to thank them for engaging with me. Ultimately, though, it is the responsibility of the government, not unelected agencies, to call the shots. It is up to them to make sure that aircraft noise is managed well, while also making sure that Australians' domestic and international travel and freight needs are served. When the second runway commenced operations in July, an additional cohort of my constituents—residents under the new flight path—began raising concerns about noise, in addition to those who were already under the existing flight path. My local colleagues, the Hon. Di Farmer MP and Councillor Kara Cook, and I have run a petition calling on the government to take action to mitigate noise and to respond to community suggestions for measures that could assist in that regard. As of yesterday, 1,769 people had signed that petition, of whom 1,138 are my constituents. The three of us wrote to the government about the petition in mid-October—we'd already written to the government about the issue previous to that—and our letter enclosed several constructive suggestions that locals had advanced. Two months later, I received a response from the Deputy Prime Minister. He didn't provide a comprehensive itemised response to the suggestions that had been raised. I circulated his letter in my community, and a number of people have told me that they are extremely dissatisfied with it. One local commented: 'Typical responses, dodging the question and not providing an answer that is satisfactory. I expected nothing else from him!' Another said: 'It is very disappointing as there were some excellent suggestions that were reasoned and responsible. Thank you on your letter for asking their response in plain English and non-technical terms. It would be good to continue to keep this issue alive.' Another said: 'The response from the Morrison government is a stock-standard response that does little to acknowledge either the concerns presented or proposed solutions. I'm disappointed that the federal government is ignoring these concerns.' Another said: 'The response was far too general. There was one substantive comment on the five-knot versus 10-knot tailwind limit for take-offs over the bay but no time frame was given. We should request a detailed response which addresses each of the suggestions made.' I share the view of that last commenter and request that the Prime Minister provide a further response that is responsive to the proposals that were made in our correspondence. O'Connor Electorate: Australia Day Awards 94 16:21 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to acknowledge the good citizens of the city of Albany who were recognised on Australia Day for their contributions to their community. Albany is located on the south coast of my electorate of O'Connor and has a lower median income than Western Australia as a whole. However, in 2018, Albany residents donated more to large charities than any other regional locality in the state. These charities included the Salvation Army, Oxfam and the Royal Flying Doctor Service—fantastic causes one and all. A major local charity the residents of WA's south coast have rallied behind is the Albany Community Foundation. The foundation was the co-creation of Albany businessman Jeremy Stewart, who was named Albany's Community Citizen of the Year at one of the Australia Day ceremonies I attended last week. Under the stewardship of Jeremy and his dedicated team the Albany Community Foundation has raised $565,000 since 2014, helping people who are doing it tough. This foundation embodies the spirit of giving and caring that has built and sustained communities throughout regional Australia. Philanthropy Australia figures show that in 2017-18 Western Australians made the largest donation to charities—a very healthy $1,470 per donation. This is well above the national average of $846. The $634 million donated by Western Australians was an impressive 17 per cent of the national total. In addition to his philanthropy, Jeremy was also recognised for his work as a board member of Albany Finance Limited and the Small Business Centre Great Southern. Jeremy is also president of the Manypeaks Cricket Club. To coin a cricketing phrase: he is what any Australian Test side, replete with specialist bowlers and batsmen, has very rarely unearthed down through the decades: a top-flight all-rounder. And it seems that there is something in the water at the Albany Community Foundation, because its success is intergenerational. Joining Jeremy on the Australia Day podium was Ashley McPhail, who received the Young Citizen of the Year award for her volunteer work on the foundation's board. Ashley reviews applications for assistance, coordinates events, and liaises with young people on behalf of the board. The foundation aims for funding to flow without red tape and identifies recipients who are willing to help themselves but lack the finance to do so. In short, the Albany Community Foundation is a homegrown success story that I commend as a model for grassroots action in any regional community. I would like to finish by sending a big shout-out to all the Australia Day award winners in Albany. This includes the Senior Citizen of the Year, Colin France, who was lauded for his invaluable contribution to the city's music scene since moving to Albany in 1976. The 2021 Active Citizenship Award for a Community Group or Event went to Read Write Now Albany. For 40 years, their amazing volunteers have provided one-on-one tutoring for adults who want to improve their literacy. In closing, the spirit of philanthropy and empathy may only be recognised at ceremonies like the annual Australia Day awards but it is valued every single day throughout my vast and diverse electorate of O'Connor. Defence Industry 95 16:24 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh Late last year, flying in with much fanfare, the Prime Minister finally decided to visit the shipyards at Osborne, in my electorate. What did the workers at Osborne expect from the Prime Minister? Well, they were hoping for a commitment that the full-cycle docking work, which employs hundreds of highly skilled workers, that has been performed at Osborne for many decades would continue at that site. They were expecting a commitment to local content, after initially being promised by Christopher Pyne in 2016 that 90 per cent of the next generation of submarine build work would be done by Australian workers—and, more recently, at least 60 per cent. What did they get instead? They got another photo-op with no substance. Scott Morrison flew into Adelaide and declared the shipyard ready and open for the next shipbuilding, even though we're now told there may be a further delay of two years to the project, which would mean hundreds of jobs lost here in South Australia as the offshore patrol vessel work moves to Western Australia. When asked if the Prime Minister had finally decided whether full-cycle docking would continue to be performed at Osborne, Scott Morrison said the decision 'wasn't a priority'. This is a complete slap in the face for the 700 South Australian workers and their families whose future has been hanging by a thread because of the Prime Minister's refusal to guarantee their jobs will remain in Adelaide. We've now passed two Christmases, two summers, since this speculation was first raised, and the workers and their families at Osborne are still none the wiser about whether their jobs will remain in Adelaide or be shipped off to Perth. This government has form on betraying the shipbuilding from Osborne. They had no plan in place once the Air Warfare Destroyer program concluded, costing hundreds and hundreds of workers their livelihoods. Many of those workers could have been employed to build the next generation of the Navy's supply ships, as Labor had promised before 2013, but this government sent the supply ship contract to Spain instead, not even allowing Australian shipyards the opportunity to bid for the work. Now, with the Future Submarine project, the biggest purchase in Australian history, the Morrison government has inexplicably failed to make it a legal requirement that a minimum amount of the build work be done here in Australia. Today, The Advertiser published an article that finally puts to bed the lie that Osborne— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16 : 27 to 16 : 38 Capricornia Electorate: Stronger Communities Program 95 16:38 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I'd like to take this opportunity to speak about an important program in Capricornia. Applications for the Liberal-National government's Stronger Communities Program are open, and I strongly urge all eligible community organisations and councils in CQ to apply. Communities in Capricornia will have the opportunity to share in $150,000 of federal funding to improve local infrastructure and provide essential community equipment. This would fund up to 20 projects in Capricornia, with grants of between $2,500 and $20,000 available. This program has achieved tremendous outcomes across Capricornia in previous rounds, with so many local organisations receiving funding. In Rockhampton we've secured over $17,000 for the Frenchville Sports Club to install a digital scoreboard, over $13,000 CentacareCQ to construct new consultation rooms and a gym, over $9,000 for CPL Choice to upgrade their centre, over $3,000 for Sun City Sports Club to purchase new sports equipment and over $2,000 for Victoria Park Bowls Club to upgrade the disability access to the club. In Yeppoon there's been $7,000 for the Capricorn Coast Men's Shed to upgrade their premises and over $5,000 for the Rotary Club of Capricorn Coast to go towards their Mulambin Beach park facilities. In Sarina we've had over $15,000 for the Sarina rugby club to install new grandstand shading, and over $10,000 for Sarina Surf Lifesaving Club to purchase a new inflatable rescue boat. In Middlemount we've had more than $18,000 for C&K Middlemount Community Childcare Centre to purchase and upgrade their outdoor play equipment. In Collinsville $10,000 was delivered to St Vincent de Paul to purchase and install a solar power system at the Collinsville retail centre, and in Clermont over $2,000 for Clermont Men's Shed to purchase a new versatile toolbox. I recently visited the Frenchville Sports Clubs and met with general manager Damien Massingham to see their brand new scoreboard. It looks fantastic. As I always say, it takes a lot of sausage sizzles for any club to raise the money needed to make upgrades and to purchase new equipment. I am thrilled that we have opened another round of funding, which will support even more projects here in Central Queensland. Communities can rest assured that our government is with them every step of the way as we recover from the challenges of 2020. Applications open on 19 January this year, and expressions of interest must be in by this Friday 5 February. Applications close on Monday 22 March. Community organisations can get further information on my website. Thank you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. COMMITTEES 96 COMMITTEES Northern Australia Committee 96 Report 96 16:49 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak on the interim report to the inquiry into the destruction of 46,000-year-old caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia delivered by the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia. The report is appropriately titled Never again. The events—that disregard for such human history—shocked Australia and, I should say, the world. On 24 May 2020, Rio Tinto detonated explosives in the sacred sites of the Indigenous Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people. The Juukan Gorge rock shelters were the location of their ceremonies and the sacred sites for the storage of artefacts for 46,000 years. This is a great loss to the world and to the history of civilisation. The shelters demonstrated one of the longest periods of continuous habitation on the planet. They showed that Indigenous Australians had lived in that place since before the last Ice Age. The Juukan Gorge rock shelters were clustered around a perpetual source of fresh water in an otherwise parched landscape. In great symbolism of the intersection of the physical world and the spiritual world of the Indigenous custodians of the land, with the destruction of the cultural sites that occurred, that water source has now run dry. As Australians, we need to celebrate our rich history. Indigenous Australians, through the Uluru Statement from the Heart, have invited us to share in this history and walk with them on a path to reconciliation. I commend the thorough approach taken by the committee and the unanimous support for the recommendations. It was a shameful day for Australia when this was allowed to happen, and it was a failure of government that there was no step taken along the way that prevented this disaster. I fully support the seven recommendations in this report and urge the federal and Western Australian state government to implement each of them in full. I urge the mining companies to take heed. I also urge the mining companies to fulfil their responsibilities of restoration and reparation under the report, noting that nothing can ever replace the loss of heritage of artefacts some 46,000 years old. I encourage the mining companies and traditional custodians impacted by this report to engage in productive conversations. The work needs to continue. It does not end with this report. We know that there are many more sites under risk of further acts of destruction, and so more needs to be done. The report highlights the weaknesses of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act. The authors of the report labelled the latter 'virtually moribund'. To think we have allowed such vital legislation to provide such limited protection for the past 30 plus years is devastating. The report also focuses heavily on the Western Australian legislation, specifically, section 18 of their Aboriginal Heritage Act, where land users may receive permission to destroy sites where they conclude that impact to the site is unavoidable. The report highlights the confusion in governance and accountability for protection of these sites at a federal level, with the overlapping responsibilities between the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. I know I've raised with both ministers how the Juukan Gorge explosion could possibly have been allowed to happen, and I urge both ministers to do a review and implement the necessary changes to ensure this never happens again. I also feel there is a deep disregard for the voice of traditional owners under section 18 of the WA Aboriginal Heritage Act, in the gag orders placed on those impacted by section 18 and by the fact that there is no right of repeal. It should be noted that there are currently many, many sites under section 18 approval. So they are at risk of destruction. Despite this report, less than three weeks after its delivery we learnt of the approval of exploratory drilling in Lake Torrens in South Australia. Described as the South Australian Juukan Gorge by the Native Title Council, an exemption was granted under section 23 of the South Australian Aboriginal heritage laws to permit drilling on the lake, to the understandable outrage of the four Aboriginal nations with claims to the sacred site. Email correspondence obtained by the ABC reveals that almost every Aboriginal person consulted on the project opposed it. This is yet another example where the voices of traditional owners are being ignored and where dangerous exploration and actions are being permitted on traditional land. Interesting also is that the company authorised to conduct the drilling there, in Lake Torrens, received a $320,000 grant to conduct the drilling mid-last year from the government, while the approval was only granted in December, and this was announced quietly between Christmas and New Year's Eve. So there are clearly questions of transparency in the situation with Lake Torrens. I urge the committee, in the next phase of its inquiry, to expand its considerations to other states and territories beyond Western Australia, to consider the interactions between state and federal law in each jurisdiction and ensure we have a best-practice approach to preserving and safeguarding our Indigenous heritage, artefacts and sacred sites. We need to celebrate all of our history. Part of the issue that we face in Australia is a lack of awareness, respect and celebration of the deep cultural heritage of Indigenous people around Australia. Elsewhere in the world, museums are abound with artefacts of indigenous cultural heritage, yet in Australia we are sorely lacking. There is no national Indigenous museum. Many of the artefacts recovered from mining sites and developments, to date, sit in shipping containers, in the offices of mine sites and companies in capital cities. There is no protocol to ensure they are properly kept and preserved. There is no protocol to ensure that they are returned to traditional owners. We need to store these artefacts properly, highlight their significance, build awareness through education and celebration of our rich cultural history. If they cannot be returned to their traditional owners, there needs to be a national ossuary. Through elevation of the history and stories of Indigenous heritage, we will build respect and learn to take responsibility as a nation for the rich cultural heritage developed over tens of thousands of years. I call on the Minister for Indigenous Australians to progress how we are dealing with this, for the development of a national ossuary for these artefacts and remains that are not able to be restored to their original country or nation, to develop a set of protocols for the storage and keeping of artefacts recovered from mine sites, for the establishment of a national Indigenous museum, and I say to the minister: we need to progress on the Uluru Statement from the Heart. There is strong support for a voice to parliament. If this is being held up by voices within the party room, look to the whole chamber for support. It is time for reconciliation to happen. For that, we need to listen to Indigenous people, and they need a voice. I strongly support the Uluru Statement from the Heart and urge the government to act on this. Debate adjourned. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 99 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Immigration Detention 99 16:58 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon May I say, it's great to be back in Canberra for another year, 2021, representing Territorians. The Territory, as I like to keep reminding all members in this place, is an amazing and incredible place, full of incredible people from all walks of life and from all over the world. In the Territory we care about people. We are great hosts. Just ask those thousands of Australians who are being repatriated through the Howard Springs camp. We are great hosts, but we are not happy when the wrong thing is done on our soil. The week before last, I paid a visit to an Iranian refugee family who have been in immigration detention for almost eight years. Reza Golmohammadian, his wife, Mojgan, their adult daughter Farnaz, who's 32, and son Ali, who's 21, are at the Mercure hotel at the Darwin airport. They've been there for almost a year. Back in Iran, Reza worked in import-export, and his wife was a travel agent. His daughter, then in her early 20s, worked at a dolphin park, and Ali was a schoolboy. The family are committed Christians. They fled Iran in 2013 and spent years living in tents in immigration detention in Nauru. They were finally granted genuine refugee status and are now awaiting third-country resettlement in Canada, but with the global uncertainty due to the pandemic it's unclear when this will actually happen. The family were brought to Darwin for medical attention on 28 February last year. They haven't received much medical attention in that time. They are still waiting for medical attention. They have been locked up for far too long. As we have heard from many Australians who have been through quarantine in the past year, including from Australians repatriated from overseas who are in the Howard Springs facility as we speak, being cooped up in a hotel room for two weeks doing COVID-19 quarantine is not fun. You are cooped up in a small hotel room. This family has been having that experience. They have been cooped up in a small room for almost a year, with no end in sight. They are struggling. My constituent Lorna MacIntyre, who is their friend and advocate, said: Their lives consist of eating, sleeping, and watching television with no activities, excursions, or visits allowed. The only time that they leave the facility is for limited medical appointments. As a result of this confinement, they are all feeling despondent and depressed.” Of course they are! This indefinite detention is not what we should be doing to people in our care, genuine refugees. I met with Reza and his daughter, Farnaz. She was in tears. She and her brother, Ali, share a very small room, and Ali is despondent and depressed watching TV all day. Back on Nauru, once the family were found to be genuine refugees and had a bit more freedom in the camp, Ali was part of the emergency response unit. He was motivated. He had some responsibility. He had some hope. Now he has been in what is essentially isolation for a year in Darwin. Reza needs to see a dermatologist for a growing mark on his face, and Farnaz needs a knee operation. It's why they were brought to Darwin. But they still haven't received the medical attention they were brought there for. What also struck me on my visit to this family was that Serco, the operator of the facility, haven't had the common human decency to provide the parents, Reza and Mojgan, with a double bed. They are in a small room with bunk beds. What kind of sick organisational culture thinks this is a decent or right thing to do? Ali has had difficulties with his knee and can't climb the ladder of the bunk, so instead he's sleeping on a mattress on the floor. This sounds like something pretty basic. Is it really beyond us as Australians to offer them, these genuine refugees, this small courtesy? This sort of petty action is cruel and totally unnecessary. Reza's son, Ali, had his 13th birthday in detention on Nauru. He has now just marked his 21st birthday in a small room in Darwin. Ten of his years have been lost to indefinite detention. It's a terrible loss of a young person's potential, when he could be contributing to the community. They feel like these years have been wasted and time is passing them by. Farzan has been in detention since she was 24. She is now 32. If she wants to have children, what options are there for her while she languishes in detention? It's heartbreaking and it's un-Australian. What's worse, it's unnecessary to put this family through this treatment. Reza, the father of the family, is a proud and cultured man. As I mentioned, they are a Christian family, and they are gutted that Serco won't treat them with respect. The family asked to go to a Christmas church service, but that was disallowed. There are all these examples of unnecessary cruelty. Usually those who are detained have a birthday cake for their birthday. But Farnaz, who turned 32 in December, wasn't given a birthday cake because, apparently, it was a public holiday. Not only was it not a public holiday; there were still Serco staff there. In the Australia that I love, people would have chipped in, gone and got a cake and said, 'Happy Birthday'. That's the Australia that I love. The Territorians that I love are not happy with the way people are being treated unnecessarily on our soil. I'm giving voice to those Territorians today who are unhappy with this situation and are deeply saddened by the treatment of this family and others by the Australian government. I wrote to the home affairs minister, Peter Dutton, about this case, asking that the family be permitted to attend church as they had requested, and that was refused. I also raised the issue of the family moving into community detention, and this was ignored. I again wrote to the minister following my visit with the family, raising their treatment, noting the recent release of a number of refugees into community detention in Melbourne. I'm yet to receive a response. The family are hoping to get to Canada, where a group of Australian expats have raised $50,000 Canadian to help with the resettlement. They are the sorts of Australians I love—who actually are about people and aren't unnecessarily inhumane. We know it's within the power of the government to release this family—who are genuine refugees—into community detention. That would be a good option while they get their medical treatment and as they wait to go to Canada—and I'm talking to the Canadian High Commission about how we can speed that up. Reza has written to me telling me that the family has seen the news of those who have been released in Melbourne and Brisbane—which is a good thing. He said: We know most of them either from Christmas Island or Nauru. All of the previous movements are either from Melbourne or Brisbane. He said that he is afraid that his family's voice isn't being heard and said, 'We so much want to be outside' after almost a year in those small rooms. So I'm giving that family a voice today. I'm giving Territorians, who are sickened by the treatment of this family and others at the hands of Serco and the Australian government. I just hope that we can show them more humanity before it's too late. I'm very proud of Territorians, and we all would like to be proud of our federal government. I hope they to the right thing. Manufacturing 100 17:08 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn When the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, came to Gladstone on 21 January this year, he made two major announcements: firstly, a sod-turning event at the School of Manufacturing on the Gladstone campus of the CQU and, secondly, that the School of Mining would be set up in the North Rockhampton campus. Both schools will create an estimated 311 local jobs, including 114 in Gladstone, and there will be the ongoing jobs that will flow once the students graduate from these facilities. Thousands of Flynn residents work in manufacturing in my electorate. For example, Boyne Smelters employs over a thousand people in direct jobs, but there are many other indirect jobs that associate themselves with the Boyne smelter. We need more skilled and semi-skilled workers in regional Australia in all facets of the industry. According to World Bank data, Australian manufacturing is only 5.8 per cent of the economy. We are ranked 179th in the world. Some other countries' performances can be compared. Turkey is 40th in the world, at 17.6 per cent of the economy. Greece is 147th, at 9.5, which is better than Australia. In the USA 13 per cent of the economy is tied up in manufacturing. In Japan it's 19 per cent, and in Germany it's 23 per cent. Just below Australia, at 5.7 per cent, are Niger and Yemen, very small countries indeed. The best performers are Singapore and Israel, who have no natural resources whatsoever; they make do with what they haven't got. So there's plenty of room for improvement in this sector in Australia. The National Party's backbench policy committee released its manufacturing 2035 plan recently, outlining the National Party's vision for the manufacturing industry. The paper outlines a nine-point plan to double employment in the manufacturing, which currently sits at about 850,000 people. Going back 30 years, manufacturing was the biggest employer in Australia, employing over 1.6 million people. One point I'm particularly passionate about is providing our manufacturing sector with quality, reliable and low-cost power. I said it before, I say it again and I'll keep saying it: Australia needs new high-energy, low-emissions power stations. I think one in each of the states of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria would be adequate to supply cheap, competitive electricity. I think there's a spot in my electorate of Flynn where a new HELE plant could be built. Competitively priced electricity remains a key ingredient for a viable, profitable manufacturing industry. The latest trade data confirms the resilience of the Australian resource sector, with coal exports on the rise despite the recent global challenges. The value of coal exports in December increased by an impressive 26 per cent from November. Coal was worth $3.7 billion to the Australian economy in December alone. That result reinforces the importance of coal as an Australian export commodity that will remain for many years to come. Coal will be king for a long time yet. We have a great resource here in our own backyard, and while it's in the ground it cannot be used. The global demand is there, and that's why coal exports from the Gladstone port are increasing year on year, month on month. We can use this resource to help build our hospitals and our schools and other facilities that we take for granted, creating local jobs—well paying jobs, too—and that's really good for the economy in my electorate. Over 35,000 people are employed in the coalfields in and around my electorate. With Queensland's unemployment rate the worst in Australia, at 7.5 per cent, I urge the new Queensland government, which is nearly 100 days old, to get behind some of these manufacturing projects—get them off the ground, get the soil dug and get the projects started. It's essential that we do this to help people who are out of work and get them into the regions where these jobs exist. Workplace Relations 101 17:14 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean Today I rise to speak on a matter of great concern to working families across Bean and more broadly to millions of workers across Australia. Before entering this House, I worked as the director of Professionals Australia, advocating for and representing science and engineering workers for more than a decade. Prior to this, I managed industrial relations at the Australian Federal Police Association during the Work Choices era. My experience with both of these unions tells me that this government's approach to industrial relations change is wrong. Labor's simple test for the government's approach to industrial relations reform is how they deliver secure jobs with decent pay for Australian workers. Instead, what we have is an approach that enables the cutting of wages and conditions. This really shouldn't be a surprise coming from the party of the HR Nicholls Society, the party of Work Choices. The government has had two months to change their approach. They've had two months to say that they're not going to go ahead with it. And what have they done? They've left their approach exactly as it is. It is a slap in the face to many workers, including those that have worked so hard throughout the coronavirus in essential industries. The government's approach will allow for the cancellation of billions of dollars of back pay that without their legislation would have been owed to miscategorised casuals. Furthermore, the government's continued extension of simplified additional hours increases the threat of part-time work casualisation into the future. They are looking to normalise decreased job security, with these simplified additional hours enabling hours to be topped up without appropriate compensation. Most critically, they will see the removal of the better off overall test. It speaks volumes that the government see value in workers' new agreements not meeting the better off overall test and that, as we move out of the pandemic that so many have suffered through, they see benefit in allowing pay and conditions to go backwards. Even before COVID-19 the growth in insecure work and wage stagnation were major issues for Australian workers and for our economy. The pandemic exposed the fact that too many people in this country work in low-paid, insecure employment—casuals, contractors, freelancers, labour hire workers and gig workers. These vulnerable workers, the ones who can least afford it, were the first hit and the hardest hit. Rather than taking this opportunity to learn the lessons from COVID-19 and deal with the twin problems of insecure work and flatlining wages, some of the measures contained in the proposed new laws do the opposite. If passed by parliament, they would give business a green light to cut wages and conditions by allowing agreements to cut penalty rates, shift allowances and other entitlements. This approach is the answer from the Liberal-National government to the problem of insecure and low-paid work. This is the thank you to the workers who got us through the pandemic. Cleaners, supermarket workers, truck drivers, childcare workers, aged-care staff and many other essential workers on the front line put themselves at risk to keep the economy going and Australians safe, but under the proposed new laws they could end up taking a pay cut. When the government facilitated cuts to penalty rates for retail, fast-food, pharmacy and hospitality workers, they failed to deliver a single extra job, but now we're expected to believe that cutting more penalty rates, cutting overtime, cutting shift loading and cutting allowances will create jobs. Australian workers know they cannot trust a Liberal-National government with their wages and conditions. We've seen it before. It's what they always do. It's what they are doing now. Cuts to pay and conditions are bad for workers and bad for the economy. For Australia to recover from the recession, we need people with money and the confidence to spend. In decades past, Australian Labor governments took global upheavals as a chance to reset and recalibrate the national direction. Prime Ministers Chifley, Hawke, Keating and Rudd chose to reform elements of the nation for the better. This stands in stark contrast to the opportunistic attempt to weaken the workplace, pay and conditions for working Australians, many of whom have been the real heroes of the pandemic. If you want a real insight into the motivations of this government, consider how they treat their own workforce. Many in this House won't be surprised by the government's approach given the way they bargained with their own hardworking staff and the broader public service, including Federal Police employees. Way back at the end of 2019, our staff sat down with the Department of Finance to start the bargaining process for their new enterprise agreement. Despite a bargaining policy that limited any real bargaining, staff across all sides did their best to find improvements until bargaining was suspended due to the pandemic. This suspension was agreed to by all staff around the table. I would like to thank the staff of MPs and senators right across the country who worked hard to support their communities during the pandemic. Bargaining did resume eventually, with Finance encouraged back to the table, and they put their final offer forward. Despite staff from all sides seeking some modest improvements and the rejection of a pay freeze, these simple requests were rejected and the draft EA was put to a vote late in December 2020. Not only was this a cynical attempt to push a vote through just before Christmas, given how hard our staff had worked, but the offer itself was a disgrace. Fundamentally, the EA froze wages for all staff for another six months, after pandemic delays, and tied salary increases to the private sector wage price index, an index that could lead to an actual wage cut. The vote on the EA was expected to be tight—after all, an agreement had not been voted down since 2003—but the result was anything but. Close to 60 per cent of the staff voted down the agreement. The result indicated that not only did Labor, Green and Independent staff reject the offer but so did many coalition staff. Also, they know what is in their employer's DNA. Frankly, the offer was an insult to the hard work our staff do across every office, and I call on the government to take note of this result and return to the table with a better offer. As I mentioned at the start of this grievance debate, I also once represented our Federal Police through the Australian Federal Police Association, and, like our staff, they too are negotiating a new agreement. Their current agreement is in need of reform. At the moment, situations arise where operations are extended beyond five days and officers have to be rostered out. Some officers have found themselves on effectively a 36-hour continuous shift. Our officers are some of the lowest paid in the country. There lies within the agreement a perverse incentive to stay on the front line or in higher risk areas for longer. Attracting expertise to the AFP is becoming increasingly difficult. The AFPA know this and have offered an olive branch to try to address some of these issues. Federal Labor recognises that the varied roles and responsibilities of the AFP will require a flexible enterprise arrangement, one which ensures that the important work of the AFP is done safely. Unfortunately, instead of taking this offer of genuine engagement, the government has locked the Australian Federal Police into the same constrained bargaining policy with clauses that make it almost impossible to trade off the difficult measures I mentioned for productivity improvements and fair pay, and it locks staff into the same floating WPI index. It's disappointing that, after years of declining wages growth from this government's mismanagement of the economy, they are now asking AFP members to pay the price through lower wage increases. I'm also concerned by the apparent lack of consultation that went into this new policy with key public sector unions, including the AFP Association. Members of the association have written to me outlining their concern about where they think the government is heading with their bargaining policy. I want to assure them that I get their frustration and will be advocating in their corner to get this poor bargaining policy off the table. It's essential that all AFP employees, especially those in high-volume and complex portfolios, are adequately recognised and compensated for the important work they do. It's also important that the AFP has competitive industrial conditions to not only attract the right talent but also remain a premier law enforcement agency. Finally, as I said, in a previous life I also spent time working with scientists, engineers and medical professionals, including many of the dedicated staff of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. One of the main grievances these great professionals had was the lack of commitment of some in political life to evidence based decision-making. In a year when we have seen the differing consequences of either respecting and acting upon expertise or not, it is not just sad but also irresponsible that the Prime Minister continues to not rein in the member for Hughes. Barker Electorate: Blackford-Avenue Range Bushfire, Barker Electorate: Queensland Fruit Fly 102 17:23 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker On 11 January, while many in this place were enjoying a summer vacation, re-energising before the year ahead, the township of Lucindale in my electorate faced a terrifying threat to their lives and livelihoods. The Blackford-Avenue Range bushfire at Lucindale burnt 14,000 hectares, with significant stock losses and an impact to 75 landholders, with homes and infrastructure destroyed. Despite those losses, I'm beyond grateful that the community came away from this fire with as many people as when it began. After seeing the fire's aftermath, it was clear that, without the numerous organisations and units that fought this fire, given the catastrophic weather conditions on the day, the outcome could have been much worse. To the paid and the unpaid professionals who fought the Blackford-Avenue Range and Lucindale fire, I have a simple message for you: thank you. To the brave firefighters, the CFS, aerial operations and the numerous farm fire units who fought this fire on behalf of the community, your actions saved lives and your actions preserved livelihoods. As always, you put yourself in harm's way to protect our community. After the fire was safely contained, those who have unfortunately experienced bushfires before knew that the work had only just begun. The CFS, SAPOL, PIRSA, the Red Cross, representatives from state and local government and I were present at the community meeting the following day, and it was pleasing to see the Blackford, Avenue Range and Lucindale communities in relatively good spirits—not 24 hours from the fire itself. The meeting highlighted how important quick recovery of mobile coverage is to the recovery effort. I'm grateful that our government has extended battery backup in some of the mobile phone towers that we've funded under the Mobile Black Spot Program, but there is more work to do. Although the immediate threat is now over and services have been restored, the long-term recovery is just as important. I'm confident that the local council and state and federal governments will work collaboratively and closely to ensure the best outcomes for those communities. Although I'm a member of this government, it's clear to me that the most effective assistance comes from the community itself. On one of my visits to Lucindale, I popped in to see James and Georgie McKay at the Lucindale Hotel. It was heartwarming to see that children from the local community had created appreciation murals on the wall of the hotel, with messages expressing their thanks to the heroes who fought the fire on their behalf. There was also a convoy of trucks carrying donated hay, which rolled into Lucindale within days and was welcomed by cheering locals. This relief effort was facilitated by a good friend of mine, Adam Smith of Mount Gambier, and his dedicated volunteers at the Mount Gambier Hay Run. The community spirit that's present is something that I'm immensely proud of. Other fundraising events have included visits by Adelaide Crows players, who have thrown their support behind the community and its recovery efforts. Funds raised will obviously go to support the recovery. At the conclusion of this sitting week, I'm looking forward to going back home to the electorate—as I expect all my colleagues are—where I'll be going fencing with BlazeAid. It's an amazing organisation that arrives post fire across the nation and begins the job of refencing rural properties. For farmers like those in this community who rely on livestock for their livelihoods, the re-establishment of fences is critical. BlazeAid do immensely good work in this regard. Their work is not just about the fencing; it's also about returning confidence to communities and being there to provide a helping hand and a consoling conversation. The best way I have to describe BlazeAid, for whom I've volunteered before and with whom I've had many interactions, is that they don't just rebuild fences; they rebuild confidence and they save lives. To everyone involved in the recovery from this natural disaster, I want to say thank you. The road to recovery will be a long one. But I know the Lucindale, Avenue Range and Blackford communities are resilient and capable, and I have every confidence they'll emerge from this crisis better than they came into it. There are many days left in this bushfire season, and I want to take this opportunity to urge everyone who hasn't already—and even those who have—to revise their bushfire plans. Have them read, so that, like the people of Lucindale, Avenue Range and Blackford, you're ready to act if an emergency presents itself. As if the fire were not enough to deal with over the summer recess, my electorate is also dealing with another unfolding crisis: an outbreak of Queensland fruit fly in the Riverland. I've often spoken in this place about the horticultural powerhouse that is the Riverland. In my opinion, it's Australia's pre-eminent horticultural district. Riverlanders face lots of challenges—the cost of water, labour supply challenges that many in this place speak about regularly—but now they're also dealing with an outbreak of Q-fly. The fruit fly status of the Riverland is very, very important for international markets. It give us a competitive advantage. It means that our fruit doesn't need to be fumigated, cold treated et cetera. Currently a 1.5 kilometre outbreak radius has been declared in Monash and Renmark West. There is a further 15-kilometre radius implemented around the outbreak zones. My state colleague the minister David Basham has assured me that every resource is being thrown at this outbreak. Eradication measures such as organic baiting and the removal of fallen fruit are being pursued, but we know from earlier outbreaks that now is the critical time to get these outbreaks under control before we can't. I commend the South Australia Department of Primary Industries and Regions for committing significant resources. Not less than 70 staff members are on the ground in the Riverland today dealing with this outbreak. I urge everyone in the outbreak area to follow the department's advice. Allow easy access to gardens for PIRSA staff so that they can do their work quickly and effectively. Make sure to pick up all fallen and overripe fruit in your backyard as well as removing any remaining fruit from trees. Also please report any larvae or fruit fly in home-grown fruit and vegetables to the fruit fly hotline. Don't move home-grown fruit from property to property, particularly in those outbreak areas. We need to reduce the risk of spread. Riverland residents' outstanding work in cooperating with authorities has ensured that Queensland-fruit-fly-free status has remained in large areas outside the current suspension and outbreak zones in Monash and Renmark West. Unfortunately, this is not the first fruit fly outbreak in the Riverland and something tells me it won't be the last. After the 2018 Loxton outbreak I advocated for more preparation and coordination. Although there has been progress, there is always more to do. Hopefully, in the wake of this outbreak, growers associations, the state government and indeed the federal government can work collaboratively to prepare for the next crisis. We all have a role to play. Queensland fruit fly, as the name indicates, obviously doesn't originate in South Australia. South Australia has a zero tolerance approach to fruit entering the state, and it's disappointing that the pest has arrived again. Although the penalties are substantial, I think it's probably time to re-evaluate them, as we know that the risk is all too real and the potential for harm is catastrophic. These are multimillion-dollar industries that rely on that fruit-fly-free status. So, when entering the Riverland, please think about the impact your actions will have. Obviously there's a potential of a significant fine to you, but the harm that you could be doing to your fellow Australians, to Aussie farmers, is immense. I assure visitors to South Australia that there's plenty of high quality produce that you can purchase on our side of the border without the risk of destroying an industry. So no fear there! Colleagues, if we work together, if we put everything into this outbreak and, as importantly, if we plan for the future, I'm confident that—as with the Lucindale, Avenue Range and Blackford fires—we will emerge from the crisis stronger than we entered it. Thank you. Braddon Electorate: Environment 104 17:33 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon One of our nation's most significant challenges is the management of our natural environment. Regardless of whether you live in the city, the suburbs, the country or the bush, this is an issue that affects everybody. We all want to live in a clean, green, pollution-free environment. We want our local parks and bush trails to be rubbish-free. We want our local streams to be clean and weed-free. We want pet and livestock owners to be responsible and we want our native animals to be protected. Right across the great electorate of Braddon, which covers the north-west, the west coast and King Island in Tasmania, individuals and community groups are doing some absolutely fantastic work when it comes to the management, conservation and protection of our natural habitats—our land, our rivers, our wetlands and our coast—and the species they support. It's our local communities who know their local environments better than most, and they have the knowledge, the skills and the passion to care for our beautiful places and the unique wildlife within them. The Communities Environment Program is a fantastic electorate-based initiative that our government, the Morrison government, has put forward to address local environmental priorities in our region. I want to take this opportunity to recognise the recipients and those that are doing the hard work on the ground in relation to our environment. I'd like to thank the King Island Field Naturalists for the restoration of Pegarah nature reserve; Circular Head Landcare Group for cleaning up industrial rubbish in Duck River—they've done a fantastic job of that; Sulphur Creek/Preservation Bay Coastcare Group for their feral cat reduction program—as a farmer, I understand the impacts that feral cats have, and I've developed a real disdain for them; Friends of Reid Street Reserve for enhancing ecological connectivity to the Leven river; Friends of the Leven for stopping sycamores from invading the riverbanks; Devonport City Council for installing swift parrot nest boxes near Kelcey Tier; Mersey Estuary Group and Landcare for their work in restoring the Mersey river wetlands; Six Rivers Aboriginal Corporation for their fauna monitoring program and the work that they've done in recovering threatened species—and they've done some fantastic work; Rubicon Coast and Landcare for their feral cat reduction program—we can't have too many of these feral cat eradication programs, I always say; Wildcare and Friends of Narawntapu and their weeding programs for sea spurge to improve shore bird habitats; and, finally, Conservation Volunteers Australia for their work within coastal clean-ups and microplastic monitoring. Last month I had the pleasure of hosting the Minister for the Environment, Sussan Ley, in the electorate. I know the minister is passionate about the environment—as am I—the Communities Environment Program and practical environment solutions that we have in the electorate of Braddon. Our first stop was to a dairy farm owned by a mate of mine, Simon Elphinstone, a great farmer in Flowerdale. Simon was the recipient of a grant through the federally funded Cows Out of Creeks Program. He was keen to show us the work that he'd been undertaking to prevent livestock from getting into these watercourses and waterways. This program has been assisting farmers to build fencing in off-stream watering systems since 2014. Minister Ley and I are on the same page when it comes to looking after the land on which we live. Effective land management is practical land management, and the protection of our environment and productive agricultural areas go hand in hand. I don't know a single farmer that doesn't care deeply for the environment in which he or she works and lives. In chatting with Simon that day, it was obvious that he had a commitment to the program, to protecting the environment and to being a role model for others. Simon and the rest of the environmental grant recipients are just a few examples of the thousands of local people who actually care and make a practical difference every day. They nurture and restore our natural environment every day. It takes all levels of government, businesses, local communities and individuals to meet the challenges of protecting our natural environment, and Australians generate more than 67 million tonnes of waste each year. To put this more geographically, that is about 30 garbage bags of waste for every man, woman and child. It's time to change the way we think about waste. It's no longer take, make and dispose. It's not acceptable. We must move away from being a throwaway society to a future where waste management is a complete value chain and where we have a circular economy with our waste system. The Morrison government's transformation of Australia's recycling industry has seen a landmark agreement with the Tasmanian state government. Investing in recycling makes sense. Elimination and reduction of waste must remain our priority focus, but when we do produce waste we need to consider it as a very valuable product—one that is too valuable to bury in the ground in landfill. I know that Tasmanian entrepreneurial business people throughout the state centre have the capacity to contribute to the nation's recycling solutions. Under the Recycling Modernisation Fund plastics grant program the Morrison government will partner with the Tasmanian state government to deliver a $16 million boost to the state's recycling industry. I encourage all Tasmanian businesses to put forward their new ideas and technologies for tackling the country's growing waste issue. Guidelines to help businesses prepare applications are available from the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, and the final date for the nominations will close next week. I've talked a lot about Tasmania's progression towards meeting a 100 per cent renewable energy target. Today I'm pleased to update the House that last year the great state of Tasmania met its 100 per cent renewable target two years ahead of schedule. That's a remarkable achievement and something that all Tasmanians should be proud of. But there's always a lot more to be done. I congratulate the Tasmanian Liberal government for resetting the bar. Legislation to double Tasmania's renewable generation to a global leading target of 200 per cent by 2030 has passed both houses of state government. What's more, as we progress the Battery of the Nation project, Tasmania will also provide clean, green and dispatchable energy to the mainland. Again, that's an exciting concept, as Australia needs more energy as we progress towards a renewable future. Battery of the Nation and Project Marinus is a 1,500 megawatt DC—direct current— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:41 to 17:52 Mr PEARCE 282306 Before the suspension I was talking about Tasmania. Tasmania represents just one per cent of Australia's land mass. However, we receive nine per cent of Australia's rainfall and we have 26 per cent of Australia's fresh water in our hydro storage system, which comprises 54 dams and 30 power stations. We're using this to unlock the great asset that we have within Tasmania to transmit that energy via Project Marinus from Heybridge, on the north-west coast of Tasmania, to the mainland in Victoria. This will provide up to 1,500 megawatts of clean, reliable hydro energy to back in the dispatchable, firming energy that our NEG requires due to the exponential growth, 11 per cent of the international average, of renewables within Australia. In fact, we have the highest uptake of solar anywhere in the world, at 614 megawatts per every citizen. So we're using that effectively. This will provide a revenue source for the great state of Tasmania as well as doing its bit to firm up the National Energy Grid—great news for renewables and great news for Tasmania. The Morrison government is committed to investing in the health of our soils, our water and our landscape. A key part of that is continuing to rely on the efforts, dedication, the natural resourcefulness and the innovation of the grassroots community groups like I mentioned earlier on. They are best placed to recognise, respond and adapt to challenges and changes as they appear. As always, it is always the practical, local actions that will make all the difference when it comes to keeping our region the very best place in the world to live. JobKeeper Payment 105 17:55 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Isn't it great to be back in parliament! Let's start on a note of bipartisanship. We can all share that sentiment, that it's good to be back at work here in Canberra. I'm particularly proud and honoured to be back working, for the people of Wills, in my electorate. It's probably true to say, I think we can all agree, that we're all very happy to see the back of 2020. You've had the disastrous bushfires at the start of the year, the outbreak of COVID-19, the economic recession and hard times that we've gone through and the rolling restrictions. All of that pushed us to our absolute limits as a nation. It's taken a lot of perseverance, a lot of strength, to get through it and, for many people, to simply get by. As much as we might want to forget 2020 happened, it's not as simple as declaring that this is a new year. It's an arbitrary date. It's also true to say that if we don't face the challenges we have as a nation and tackle them head on we'll end up repeating the past, in many respects. Now is not the time to delay on that kind of action. It's not the time to ignore or forget. It is true, because we are a stronger nation, because we are more resilient and more capable than we've ever been, that it's really the time to act. To do this, we need to give every Australian the chance to get back on their feet. We're recovering from the deepest recession in almost a century, yet this government—here I am, getting bipartisan—is deliberately making things worse for hardworking Australians. Our Treasurer, just this past weekend, stood firm that JobKeeper will be terminated at the end of March and that the government is reluctant to consider a permanent increase to unemployment benefits. Apparently, it's time for the Morrison government—despite the pandemic still being with us—to shirk that responsibility to the people who need support the most. I say to the government: now is not the time to ignore the 1.6 million Australians who are still relying on this lifeline or the more than two million Australians who are either out of work or want more hours at work. In order to move forward, we also need to recognise those difficulties of the past year, listening to the cries for help and ensuring that Australians can get that help where they need it. In 2020 I heard—I'm sure we all as MPs have heard—so many stories about the long-lasting mental health impacts of COVID-19: the isolation, the feeling of being disconnected, the reality of being disconnected, of losing work, losing income, not seeing friends, not seeing loved ones and family. That anxiety, that uncertainty, is still there with many people. People are still living with this. So we're certainly not through the worst of what we could say is the height of the mental health crisis. In fact, it's just the beginning, in many respects. Despite the constant reminder that we're all in this together, many people have not been together; they've been separated and they've been isolated. I suppose we sometimes avoid having those honest conversations about our mental health. For young people, especially, the pandemic has upset their lives at a pivotal moment in their lives, at the very time they are transitioning into adulthood, deciding what to study, searching for their first job, looking for an affordable home, all made so much harder by this pandemic. So there are lots of question marks around important milestones and what's possible in the years to come. But the uncertainty that many Australians feel and face did not vanish when we hit upon 1 January 2021. The ABS reported that 32 per cent of younger Australians, aged 18 to 34 years, experienced very high levels of psychological trauma and distress during COVID, with women more likely than men to have experienced that distress. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The time for this grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:00