
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2021-02-03</date>
    <parliament.no>46</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>5</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 3 February 2021</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Tony Smith</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Line" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 25 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 15 February 2021. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today, and the committee's determinations will appear in tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 3 February 2021.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 3 February 2021, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 15 February 2021, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1   Mr Hill: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Migration Amendment (Common Sense for All Visas) Bill 2021</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 8 December 2020.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2   Mr Bandt: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Defence Act 1903</inline> to provide for parliamentary approval of overseas service by members of the Defence Force, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2021</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 1 December 2020.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3   Mr Wilkie: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment (Transparency in Carbon Emissions Accounting) Bill 2021</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 2 February 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4   Dr Webster: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) is alarmed by the undue pain and distress experienced by Australians who are defamed, bullied or otherwise harassed on social media platforms;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) global technology companies which provide social media platforms inadequately monitor platforms for defamation, bullying or harassment of individuals; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) global technology companies are slow to respond when complaints are made, increasing the damage to individuals;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that social media is a global sphere of communication in which vulnerable citizens can be unfairly targeted by individuals, with little consequence to the platform that hosts damaging content;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) expresses concern that current regulations do not adequately address global technology companies which control social media platforms; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) calls on the Government to develop:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a public regulatory framework within which decisions about removing content are made by social media platforms, to ensure community expectations around safety and free speech on social media platforms can be met; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) legislation which holds social media platforms to account as publishers of the content hosted on their sites, impressing the legal responsibilities that designation entails on those platforms.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 2 February 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—40</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Dr Webster—10</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Next Member speaking—10 minutes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5   Mr Albanese: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that on 13 February 2008 the then Prime Minister made a national apology to the Stolen Generation on behalf of the Parliament and the nation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the importance of Closing the Gap; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) reaffirms its commitment to Closing the Gap.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 2 February 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Albanese—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1   Mr Georganas: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the dire financial situation facing travel agents and the tourism industry in general as a result of Australia's current health and economic crisis;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) travel agents play a significant role in our tourism industry, sustaining businesses and employing thousands of people across Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) tourism was one of the first industries to be hit and will likely be one of the last to recover;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) for many of our approximately 40,000 travel agents, the cost of staying open in order to reimburse customers who were forced to cancel holidays is contributing to significant losses; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) with international travel restrictions likely to remain in place for the foreseeable future, travel agents need urgent assistance; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) develop a comprehensive industry-specific support package for the tourism industry, which acknowledges the important contribution this sector makes to the economy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) provide an urgent lifeline for travel agents on the brink of collapse, instead of the inadequate loss carry-back scheme, for which the vast majority of travel agents appear to be ineligible.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 30 November 2020.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—40</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Georganas—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2   Mr Simmonds: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that the Government has established the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation (ACCCE) as the frontline defence in the Government's fight to protect children from predators online, in Australia and across the world;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) ACCCE brings together the specialist expertise and skills from government agencies, law enforcement and advocacy groups, in a central hub, to investigate cases of child exploitation and to implement prevention strategies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in the period 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020, the ACCCE received more than 21,000 incoming reports of child exploitation, compared with 14,000 in 2018-2019—from this, 134 children were removed from harm; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) recent operations by the ACCCE removed 16 children in Australia from harm and arrested 44 offenders with 350 charges collectively;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) welcomes the Government's significant investment in establishing the ACCCE, with $68.6 million committed over four years to further the crucial work they do to protect children;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) notes the recent opening of the new purpose-built facility and thanks all the Australian Federal Police and state police officers for their selfless work in tracking and apprehending predators; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) commits to the ongoing safety of all Australian children, both online and in our communities, by continuing the Government's recent investment in anti-exploitation measures.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 10 November 2020.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—40</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Simmonds—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3   Ms Murphy: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that in July 2020, the UN Sustainable Development Goals index ranked Australia third globally for our management of the COVID-19 crisis, but 37th for our long-term direction;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that prior to 2020, Australia experienced 28 years of economic growth, where annual GDP growth peaked at 5 per cent and troughed at 2 per cent; but notwithstanding that GDP growth, inequality has increased, wages have stagnated, more people more people on low and precarious incomes are being left behind and the natural environment is in a fragile state;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that COVID-19 has illustrated that it's impossible to separate the wellbeing of our people from the health of our economy, society and environment; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to consider developing a national account of wellbeing in order to judge the success of recovery from the global pandemic not just by how swiftly the economy rebounds, but also by whether our country is meeting measures of what Australians value as contributing to a 'good society'.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 2 February 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—35</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Ms Murphy—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4   Mr Wallace: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australian Institute for Family Studies research shows that more than half a million Australian adults regularly bet on sports;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) 41 per cent of these gamblers, or 234,000 Australians, experience serious gambling related problems;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) in total, Australians spend more than $24.8 billion a year on gambling;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) research from the Australian Institute for Family Studies shows that Australians who gamble have on average increased the frequency of their gambling and their amount spent during the COVID-19 pandemic;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the same research identifies that half of gamblers have experienced a deterioration in their mental and physical health during the pandemic; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) professional players in the NRL and AFL are increasingly experiencing online harassment and threats from gamblers who have lost money through betting on matches in which they participated;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) commends the Government on its action to date to restrict the level of gambling advertising broadcast during live sports; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) encourages the Government to continue to explore options to further reduce the harm caused by problem gambling.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 2 February 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Wallace—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices—continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5   Dr Leigh: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that the Jobkeeper program is the most expensive one-off program ever implemented by an Australian Government, estimated to cost around $100 billion—it has been effective in supporting jobs, but the unprecedented spending requires close scrutiny;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that millions of Australians were excluded from Jobkeeper, including short-term casuals, arts sector workers, and the entire university sector.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Jobkeeper program is scheduled to be terminated at the end of March 2021, despite severe problems in many sectors and regions across Australia, and the warnings from economists that support should not be withdrawn prematurely;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) while many were left out of Jobkeeper, the program provided support to firms that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) recorded record profits in 2020; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) paid executive bonuses; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the practice of paying executive bonuses by firms receiving Jobkeeper has been criticised by the Australian Taxation Office, the Business Council of Australia, former Liberal Premier of Victoria Jeff Kennett and the Australian Labor Party, but not the Government; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Treasurer to make a statement to the Parliament no later than 25 February 2021 revealing how much JobKeeper support was paid to firms that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) saw their profits increase from 2019 to 2020; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) paid executive bonuses.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 2 February 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—45</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Dr Leigh—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6   Mr Drum: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) horticulture is essential to the Australian economy and is critical for the nation's food security;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the gross value of horticultural production in Australia was forecast by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARES) to be $12.6 billion in 2020-21, of which the value of fruit and tree nut production was forecast to be $5.3 billion; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Victorian Goulburn Valley region produces almost 50 per cent of the value of Victoria's fruits, excluding grapes, worth $337 million;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) ABARES estimated in the 2019 peak harvest months from February onwards that there were 63,300 overseas workers in Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) international travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic has left a massive shortfall in available labour for fruit growers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government developed a pathway for 20,000 Pacific Islanders to be available for seasonal work; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Queensland and Northern Territory Governments acted to support producers by bringing in Pacific Islanders for harvest; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) condemns the Victorian Government for its delay in delivering a means for Victorian producers to access Pacific Island workers while fruit goes unpicked and vegetables are ploughed into the ground.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 2 February 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—40</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Drum—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7   Ms Steggall: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) there are around 2.6 million families with dependent children aged under 15 in Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Australia has one of the least generous paid parental leave schemes in the OECD;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the McKinsey Global Institute found that in Australia, participation in early childhood education is lower than the OECD average and costs over 40 per cent more than the OECD average; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) perinatal discrimination is the top discrimination complaint in Australian workplaces;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australia lags behind other developed countries in the provision of best practice, evidence‑based policies that support families and children; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) there is significant economic benefit to Australia from increasing female workforce participation, gender equity and outcomes for children; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) increase health and wellbeing support for parents and children by amending parental leave legislation and providing for a year of paid parental leave to be shared by both parents;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) lower the cost of early childhood education for all families; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) improve access to paid carers' leave for parents of sick children.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 8 December 2020.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—40</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Ms Steggall—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8   Mr Leeser: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) places on record its support for recipients of the Order of Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the Order of Australia is the highest national honour awarded to Australian citizens for outstanding contributions to our communities and country, and to non-citizens who have given extraordinary service to Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) notes that since being established by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in 1975, there have been more than 600 recipients of the Companion of the Order of Australia, over 3,300 awarded Officers of the Order of Australia, more than 11,600 inducted as Members of the Order of Australia and more than 26,800 honoured as recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) recognises the recipients in the General Division of the Order of Australia on Australia Day in 2021 come from an array of fields including science, education, governance and sport; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) encourages all Members to congratulate recipients from their electorates on this immense achievement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 2 February 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Leeser—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 February 2021</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Law Enforcement Committee, Treaties Committee</title>
          <page.no>6</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>6</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received messages from the Senate informing the House that Senator Thorpe has been appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, and that Senator Steele-John has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and Senator Rice has been appointed a member of the committee.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>6</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>6</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6661" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>6</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>6</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TUDGE</name>
    <name.id>M2Y</name.id>
    <electorate>Aston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Today I'm introducing Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021, which amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to ensure continuity of funding to Australia's research community through the funding schemes of the Australian Research Council, or ARC. The bill will amend the Australian Research Council Act to update the existing funding caps and insert new funding caps through until 30 June 2024 to allow continued funding of quality research in Australia.</para>
<para>This routine update to the ARC's funding caps provides for anticipated inflationary growth so that the government can continue to support thousands of individual research projects.</para>
<para>These projects represent the cutting edge of Australia's research effort, undertaken in universities and research institutes across the country.</para>
<para>These efforts have been part of the Australian response to the COVID virus. In July last year, a research team from Monash University and the ARC Centre of Excellence in Convergent BioNano Science and Technology developed a test to detect positive COVID cases in about 20 minutes, and identify whether someone has contracted the virus.</para>
<para>As early as March last year, research teams at the ARC Centre of Excellence in Population Ageing Research had developed the first wide-ranging global economic assessment of the effects of the COVID virus to help policymakers prepare a coordinated response to the economic costs of a pandemic as the virus evolves.</para>
<para>As working from home became widespread across Australia and the world, a research team led by ARC laureate Professor Sharon Parker at Curtin University began to survey approximately 1,000 workers from all around the world, asking them about their experience of working from home. Their ARC funded research is helping us to qualify and understand the transformative effect that COVID is having on people's lives and workplaces.</para>
<para>Over the next four years, with the passage of this bill, the ARC will deliver more than $3 billion in funding for research projects like these, ranging in size from tens of thousands of dollars, to the tens of millions.</para>
<para>ARC funding supports a huge variety of basic and applied research, as well as providing valuable research fellowships, research training, research collaboration and research infrastructure to the sector.</para>
<para>This bill ensures the continuing support of many thousands of jobs in Australia's research sector, as well as many more jobs in the industries that rely on our homegrown research expertise to stay ahead of the curve.</para>
<para>Australia's ability to respond to the challenges of the future relies in a large part on the knowledge built from the research strength of our universities. It is in order to support and grow that strength that we bring this bill to the parliament.</para>
<para>The bill also amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003to swiftly implement the Government's 2020-21 MYEFO decision to recategorise the University of Notre Dame (UNDA) as a table A provider, and to make a minor amendment to correct a typographical error.</para>
<para>The recategorisation of UNDA as a table A provider places UNDA on a more equal footing with other universities, to better serve its students and continue to achieve comparable outcomes to other table A providers. UNDA has proven that it delivers high-quality teaching and produces job-ready graduates. For many years, UNDA has been teaching a significant number of students in areas such as teaching and nursing. UNDA's domestic bachelor student load is similar to, and in some cases greater than, other table A providers. According to the 2018-2020 graduate outcomes survey, 88.7 per cent of UNDA's graduates found employment within four months of graduation, exceeding the national average of 86.3 per cent. In the 2019-2020 course experience questionnaire, UNDA also rated significantly higher for graduate satisfaction at 91 per cent versus the national average of 80.4 per cent.</para>
<para>However, UNDA currently receives a limited amount of Commonwealth supported places due to its status as a table B provider, and this amount has not increased since 2015. This means UNDA has not been able to keep up with student demand for Commonwealth supported places with limited choice and equity for its students.</para>
<para>This recategorisation means that all non-medical domestic undergraduate students, including future students and current domestic full-fee-paying students, will benefit from access to Commonwealth supported places, with the Commonwealth subsidising part of their study. Importantly, as a table A university, UNDA will be able to offer Commonwealth supported places to students in all fields of education.</para>
<para>This is an investment of $27.2 million over four years from 2020-21 and $133.3 million over 10 years to 2029-30 to support UNDA's current and future students.</para>
<para>As a transitional arrangement, provisions in part 2-2 of HESA will continue to apply to UNDA as if it were a table B provider for 2021. This means that UNDA will not be treated as a table A provider for the purposes of receiving Commonwealth Grant Scheme (CGS) funding under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 until 2022. This approach is necessary to assist in the administration of UNDA's CGS funding agreement, noting that the amendments to recategorise UNDA as a table A provider will commence partway through the 2021 grant year.</para>
<para>However, to give effect to the government decision to transition UNDA's eligible students to Commonwealth supported places from semester 1, 2021, it is intended that the Commonwealth Grant Scheme Guidelines 2020 be amended in early 2021 to ensure that UNDA will receive CGS funding as a table B provider for all of its non-medical domestic undergraduate students in 2021, and that these students will be able to access Commonwealth supported places in 2021.</para>
<para>This means that UNDA will receive the sa me amount of CGS funding, as a t able B provider, for its students in 2021 th at it would have received as a t able A provider.</para>
<para>The amendments to HESA will also give UNDA access to new funding arrangements provided to table A providers under the Job-ready Graduates reforms. This includes funding from the National Priorities Industry Linkage Fund to support enhanced engagement with universities and industry, and demand-driven funding to support all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students from regional and remote communities to go to university.</para>
<para>This recategorisation of UNDA as a table A provider is fully supported by the university and its community. It is crucial that we make this amendment now to better position the university to serve its community and meet the challenges of the future.</para>
<para>I commend this bill.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6662" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I am pleased to introduce the Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021.</para>
<para>The bill amends the Narcotic Drugs Act to support an innovative Australian medicinal cannabis industry for the benefit of Australian patients by:</para>
<list>reducing the burden of regulation in the licence assessment process, by providing for a single medicinal cannabis licence to replace the current suite of licences required for cultivation, production, manufacture and research;</list>
<list>providing greater certainty to businesses and reducing duplicative processes, by providing for the majority of licences to be permanent; and</list>
<list>reaffirming the Australian government's commitment to patient availability of safe, legal and sustainable supply of cannabis derived medicines.</list>
<para>This bill's measures principally give effect to recommendations of the review carried out by Professor John McMillan AO.</para>
<para>First, the bill replaces the obligation for separate licences for any cultivation, production, manufacture and research activity with a single licence. Significantly, the majority of these single licences will be perpetual, thus reducing regulatory burden. For example there will no longer be a need to go through a regular licence renewal application and assessment process for potentially multiple licences relevant to an entity's business operations.</para>
<para>A single perpetual licence will also allow licence applicants and holders to appropriately manage their business investment and planning decisions. The obligation to hold a permit for day-to-day operations including specification of the allowed quantity of medicinal cannabis provides sufficient proportionate oversight.</para>
<para>The bill maintains the current specified supply pathways for medicinal cannabis including for clinical trials under the Therapeutic Goods Act and approvals or authorities under that act. They are supplemented by additional pathways for medical and scientific research additional to clinical trials, provided that it does not involve administration to humans; and the development of a reference standard. There is a separate regulation-making power to prescribe additional supply pathways anticipated to ensure compliance with the good manufacturing requirements under the Therapeutic Goods Act.</para>
<para>Reminding us all of the reasons for the medicinal cannabis regulatory scheme, the bill also includes a clear statement of its purpose—an assurance that medicinal cannabis products are available to patients for therapeutic purposes.</para>
<para>The department has been in lock step with industry on these reforms. In addition to consultation by Professor McMillan, the department has sought feedback through public consultation papers, conducted a number of industry forums in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne and most recently held an industry information session on the measures in the bill.</para>
<para>These changes maintain the careful balance the act strikes between facilitating cultivation, production and manufacture of a cannabis drug, implementing Australia's obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs to safeguard against illegal practices to provide for safe and sustainable pathways for patient access to medicinal cannabis therapies.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>TARIFF PROPOSALS</title>
        <page.no>8</page.no>
        <type>TARIFF PROPOSALS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2021</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOOD</name>
    <name.id>E0F</name.id>
    <electorate>La Trobe</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<para>Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2021.</para>
<para>Today I table Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2021. This proposal continues the concessional tariff treatment for essential medical and hygiene goods required by our community as we continue to meet the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Concessional tariff treatment for essential medical and hygiene goods has been in effect since 1 February 2020 and has facilitated the importation of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of essential goods needed to treat, diagnose and prevent the spread of the coronavirus. The government remains committed to ensuring that the Australian community is best placed to respond to these challenges. As such, the customs tariff proposal that I've just tabled, effective from 1 January 2021, extends this concessional tariff treatment until 30 June 2021 in recognition of the ongoing need for these vital goods. This is achieved by inserting a new concessional item, item 57B, into the Customs Tariff Act 1995. This new concessional item operates in the same way as previous concessions. It applies to the same range of goods, including masks, gloves, face shields, gowns, goggles, test kits, certain disinfectants and soap. It applies regardless of where the goods are made.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>9</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6651" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALLEN</name>
    <name.id>282986</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, it would be no surprise to you that the Morrison government is committed to keeping Australians healthy and safe. The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020 builds on this objective by introducing to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 a suite of amendments that are fundamentally centred on promoting efficiency and flexibility in our healthcare system. This will be particularly critical as we turn attention to the swift and successful rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine over coming months.</para>
<para>This bill comprises five principal measures designed to ensure we continue to keep Australians healthy and safe. First, this bill helps guarantee the availability of prescription medicine. Throughout the COVID pandemic there have been major concerns about the availability of prescription medicines, and I take note of the hard work of the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Greg Hunt, with regard to supply of prescription medicines during what has been quite a difficult period in 2020. This is a reality that few Australians have ever faced or even contemplated. Many will recall that in March 2020 India, the world's main supplier of generic drugs, restricted the export of pharmaceutical ingredients and medicines, including paracetamol. This created a significant sovereign supply issue for many countries, including Australia.</para>
<para>In the case of a serious shortage of a prescribed medicine, this bill will allow pharmacists to substitute a different medicine from the one that has been prescribed for a person. This would not require the approval of the prescribing doctor, but could only occur when a safe alternative is available. This will be particularly helpful in regional and remote areas of Australia. Importantly, it would only be permitted under the act when the minister is satisfied there is a serious scarcity of a specified medicine. This will help improve the availability of prescription medication during medicine shortages, giving Australian families peace of mind that their loved ones will always have access to critical medicine. These legislative changes are very practical measures and are welcomed by patients and providers in the sector. Importantly, they build on legislative changes introduced in 2018. In 2018, our government introduced legislation to ensure medicine companies report shortages of important medicines as soon as they occur. In addition, if a critical drug is to be removed from the market, the Department of Health must be notified by the manufacturer at least 12 months in advance. This measure has been a really important step in giving comfort to patients who have life-saving drugs but can have their health put at risk at the whim of overseas manufacturers and suppliers.</para>
<para>The 2018 legislation followed on from a serious event that arose earlier that year when there was a critical shortage of medicines. Australia was one of several countries hit by a shortage of EpiPens, which provide life-saving adrenaline for people who've had an acute allergic response. As an allergist, I cannot tell you the chaos that was created in the lives of families whose children depend on the provision of EpiPens to keep their children safe from anaphylaxis. The phones were running hot across the country as literally thousands of families were concerned that, if their child were to eat a food that could be potentially life threatening, their child might die because they didn't have an EpiPen available. In this and a number of other cases the shortages were not reported in advance to the TGA within the Department of Health. Prior to 2018, medicine shortages had become an increasing problem, as medicine companies, manufacturers and importers had failed to comply with the previous voluntary reporting scheme. Mr Speaker, you'll be pleased to know that tough penalties, including fines of up to $210,000 for each infringement and the possibility of further court action, are now in place for companies that do not comply with these new laws.</para>
<para>The 2018 law protects patients who rely on vital medicines. It also gives the community, medicine companies and patients opportunities to take action to mitigate a medicine shortage. Responses to a shortage can include redirecting the available supplies to patients who need them most, nominating alternative treatments and providing PBS coverage for the alternatives. What the legislative amendments being debated today do is ensure that the alternatives, including formulation and dosage changes, can be provided by pharmacists if there is a serious shortage. For instance, a pharmacist can provide two 10 milligram tablets instead of a 20 milligram tablet, if that is not available. I have to say that a frequent occurrence in daily practice is a pharmacist having to resend a script because they have a short-term shortage of 20 milligram tablets instead of 10 milligram tablets. A pharmacist can now provide a capsule rather than a tablet, or a topical cream rather than a skin patch, if there is indeed a serious shortage of a vital medicine. These are practical and safe alternatives that help ensure vital medicines are supplied to patients in serious need.</para>
<para>Second, this bill will improve the traceability and monitoring of medical devices. Australians have become keenly aware of the importance and utility of accurate and up-to-date health data over the past year. This bill will provide a pathway to establishing a unique device identification, or UDI, database to improve the traceability and monitoring of medical devices post market. The current inability to trace medical devices once implanted or supplied has been a costly and timely constraint on clinical action on patient safety issues. Recent unfortunate examples include defective mesh devices and breast implants. The bill consolidates the work of many public and private hospitals that are in the process of making changes to their systems to enable the recording of devices implanted and supplied. As a previous member of the board of our local hospital, Cabrini, I know how important this change in process is in ensuring safety for our important patients. Establishing a UDI system also brings us into line with our international counterparts, including the European Union, the United States and Japan, who are undergoing various stages of implementation of the UDI system. These measures will also help prevent counterfeiting, helping keep Australian IP safe. This bill will enable faster responses to safety issues and more rapid and targeted recalls of defective devices, again, keeping Australians healthy and safe. This sort of market responsiveness to safety issues is something all Australians want and indeed deserve.</para>
<para>Third, this bill will provide protection to our TGA investigators so they can successfully fulfil their duties. In this place, we recognise the vital work of our TGA investigators and their role in keeping Australians healthy and safe. It is important we give our TGA investigators the scope and flexibility to carry out their duties effectively. This bill will allow TGA investigators to obtain illicit therapeutic goods to determine whether the act and regulations have been complied with. For example, a TGA investigator may order a test purchase of such products to examine the goods and determine whether they are being supplied legally or contain other potentially dangerous substances not declared to purchasers. This type of practice is becoming rampant online. For example, selective androgen receptor modulators, which have been used to assist in the gym and with bodybuilding, can now be more formally assessed. This will protect TGA investigators from being found criminally responsible under state or territory law for unlawfully obtaining and possessing these goods for the purpose of investigating their safety. By protecting the important work of TGA investigators, the Morrison government is helping protect Australians. These types of investigative powers enable our world-class TGA to be on the front foot to ensure the public is protected from potentially unsafe products making their way to our shores.</para>
<para>Fourth, this bill will protect Australians from internationally prohibited therapeutic goods. Just as we are committed to keeping Australians healthy and safe, the Morrison government is also committed to being a good global citizen. That is why the bill will allow for the making of regulations that prohibit the import, export, supply or manufacture of therapeutic goods that are prohibited under international agreements that Australia has ratified. For illustration, it is anticipated that the Minamata Convention on Mercury may potentially be ratified this year. This pertains to mercury-containing products which, in relation to therapeutic goods, would affect mercury-containing thermometers and sphygmomanometers as well as topical antiseptic, with the phasing out of mercury dental amalgams. This bill will allow regulators to give effect to Australian obligations under the Minamata Convention on Mercury. It is at the core of improving the safety—and, therefore, the safe health of Australians—of dangerous therapeutic goods.</para>
<para>Finally, and most importantly, this bill streamlines the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines. One of the most important aspects of the bill is enabling the secretary of Health to consent to the importation and supply of registered or listed therapeutic goods that do not have their registration or listing number on their label. This may seem like a small detail, but it's actually quite an important practical detail. This is primarily designed to address the potential impediment to the timely availability of COVID-19 vaccines, because, as we all know, some of these COVID vaccines, particularly the Pfizer one, have to be stored at very low temperatures. In the case of the Pfizer vaccine, this is minus 70 degrees. As a medical researcher myself, I know how difficult it is to store these minus-70 products, and it may not be possible to have the registration number affixed to the label. So this is a very pragmatic change that, in other circumstances, may result in the failure to have the registration or listing number on the label of the therapeutic good, and that could incur a maximum potential civil penalty of $440,000. This could be a major roadblock to the prompt and seamless rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. I know it seems like a small change, but it's an incredibly important one. What it shows is a government that is very, very carefully thinking through all of the potential roadblocks so that we have a seamless rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. It's a massive undertaking. It's an important undertaking—and it's one that I know Australians are waiting very carefully for—to make sure that all of the regulations, all of the policy and all of the potential practices that are going to be taking place do so for the safety of all Australians.</para>
<para>At the risk of sounding like a broken record, we are committed to keeping Australians healthy and safe. This bill supports the delivery of the highest quality health care for Australians, particularly as we look to the future rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. Australians need to understand that the government has their back. This vaccine will be safe and it will be voluntary and, most importantly, we look forward to an effective rollout. The measures contained in the bill will provide efficiency and flexibility, meaning Australians can rest assured that our healthcare system will continue to deliver in these unprecedented times.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a great pleasure to follow the member for Higgins, although, like her government, she is perhaps a little loose with the truth regarding some aspects of this legislation. Whilst this legislation has been seen to be just routine and not of huge consequence, I believe that it is and that this government has once again been a little loose with the truth. I want to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill and on the amendments put forward by my colleague the member for Hindmarsh. Firstly, I would like to congratulate the member for Hindmarsh on his new appointment. I look forward to working closely with him over the coming months. It is great to have his very analytical and scientific approach to the Health portfolio.</para>
<para>I couldn't pass up the opportunity to speak on this legislation, because I do think it is very important in many respects. As a doctor, I believe in science. I wholeheartedly support the independent experts at the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which is a body that has a critical role in making evidence based decisions as well as keeping Australians safe when it comes to consuming pharmaceuticals, using devices, compliance and a whole number of therapeutic modalities. We are in the middle of a global pandemic, and the role of the TGA is of critical importance in our nation's ability to respond to this very challenging health crisis.</para>
<para>However, the greatest threat comes from the government benches, with some very unscientific, very polarising and very nasty information coming from some members opposite, whose names I won't mention. I would say that freedom of speech does not mean freedom of responsibility. I'd like those opposite to reflect on that. Disgracefully, members of the Liberal-National government continue to pedal misinformation and mistruths and to spread division and conspiracy theories without thinking about the consequences. I don't want to lay wanton blame where it is not due, because I do think much of our response to the pandemic has been good, but we need to face reality about some of the measures talked about in this bill. I know that many issues are being brought in under the cover of darkness, if you like. The issues regarding drug shortages, for example, have been many years in the making, and this government has failed to respond in any reasonable way to the supply chain difficulties, to the manufacturing difficulties and to the lack of local ability to respond when shortages occur.</para>
<para>The TGA is a very important organisation. It was formed in 1989. As I have mentioned, it regulates the quality, supply and advertising of a whole range of things, including medicines, pathology devices, medical devices, blood products, many other therapeutics and also some devices that enable therapeutic treatments. Anything that has a therapeutic effect or is used to administer a therapeutic effect must be approved by the TGA. For some years, the TGA has been led with great distinction by Professor John Skerritt, and it continues to do a wonderful job. On 25 January, the TGA provisionally approved the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the first one approved in Australia, and I personally can't wait for the rollout of the vaccine. There's much we don't know about the future of COVID-19, but these new vaccines are very safe, and they will cover many of the mutations that are already appearing.</para>
<para>I cannot emphasise enough how important the TGA is in keeping Australians safe using their scientific ability to examine all the things that are used for medical treatments in Australia. I cannot emphasise enough their expertise, their approach to the science and their ability to make sure that vaccines, in particular, are very safe. Some of the information that's coming from the government benches is very, very bad in terms of public health and public confidence. I want to assure everyone that our TGA is the best medicine and device approval organisation in the world. Other countries envy it. We should be very glad that this is the organisation that is assessing and approving our new vaccines for COVID-19. It is keeping all Australians safe and is allowing us to access the novel treatments, the new treatments, that are now becoming available for a whole variety of diseases and illnesses, thanks to science, around the world. In particular, you may have read a recent Department of Health survey that demonstrated that, in the last 10 years, deaths from cancer have dropped pretty dramatically around Australia because of the new treatments that we have access to due to TGA assessment and approval.</para>
<para>This therapeutic goods amendment bill is described as non-controversial, but I do have significant concerns across a whole range of areas. This bill amends the Therapeutic Goods Act. Its main provisions are to facilitate the importation of COVID-19 vaccines to Australia. The member for Higgins and others have mentioned the difficulty with labelling, particularly labelling vials that have to be kept at minus 70 degrees Celsius. The bill also allows importation of the new vaccines, if they're approved to be used on Australians, without the TGA product number on them. As you can imagine, we need to be very nimble and very flexible in getting these safe vaccines into the country and distributed to all Australians. There are many vaccines in the development stage that will be becoming available. It's said now that the vaccines that we're getting will not be the best vaccines for COVID-19 in the future—and there are over 200 different vaccines still being examined and assessed around the world. This bill will allow us to get the vaccines to the Australian population as quickly and as nimbly as possible.</para>
<para>This new bill will also allow pharmacists to substitute medicines where certain shortages arise. It will allow the minister to declare a serious shortage of a particular medicine, and a substitute medicine can then be dispensed by pharmacists in circumstances in which substitution is permitted. As a prescribing doctor, I do have some concerns about this. I know that for many years the government has not adequately addressed shortages of medications around Australia. The member for Higgins mentioned EpiPens. At times there are still shortages of EpiPens. There are a number of reasons for this. There's only one manufacturer producing the autoinjector of adrenaline, which is the EpiPen. There's no alternative to the EpiPen listed for use on the PBS. I know that shortages can occur, and this is incredibly distressing for patients who have anaphylaxis. I myself have bee sting anaphylaxis. My granddaughter has nut anaphylaxis—true anaphylaxis, where she collapses and loses consciousness and her blood pressure drops if she has tree nuts and has no access to an adrenalin autoinjector. This is very troubling for parents. We know that these shortages have been present for years, and the government has failed to address this issue. We know there have been shortages for a number of different medications, including the antiepileptic Epilem, sodium valproate, which is the most common antiepileptic medication used in Australia.</para>
<para>A number of times, there have been shortages of appropriate strengths of Epilim. As you can imagine, for someone who has epilepsy, this can be very distressing. There've been shortages of common antibiotics. We, through CSL, used to manufacture most of our penicillin-derivative antibiotics, and others, in Australia. We no longer do that. The government has failed to address supply chains for the common antibiotics. There've been shortages of desmopressin—which is used for, amongst other things, a type of illness called diabetes insipidus and also for enuresis, or bedwetting—a number of times over the last three or four years. Again, this was not addressed, because of the supply-chain difficulties. We know that there've been shortages in a number of treatments for ADHD. It can be very distressing to families who have a child with ADHD if they can't get their medication. The government is, under cover of darkness, if you like—the pandemic—introducing this legislation and pretending the supply-chain difficulties are due to the pandemic. They are not. They are due to the fact that this government has failed to address pharmaceutical supply-chain difficulties for a number of years.</para>
<para>This legislation will also facilitate the development of a device identification database. Labor has been calling for this for years and years and years. This means that people who have implantable devices—for example, those used in orthopaedic surgery, for hip replacements and knee replacements et cetera—can be identified and they can be recalled if required. You may remember there was a problem with some hip-joint replacements some years ago. The metal was leaching from these devices, causing a number of medical problems. It was very difficult to follow up these patients and recall them, as they couldn't be adequately identified because of the lack of a national database. Labor called for the introduction of a database some years ago. The government has been so slow to respond to this. It's been years since this has been called for. It's only now coming into effect. It also means that patients who have things like pacemakers, some cardiac valves or a number of different implantable devices for neurological surgery can be easily tracked and easily followed.We've been calling for this for years. It's so late in the day that the government is introducing this, but at least it's happening at last.</para>
<para>I have a number of concerns about the database. The government are very prone—and the future in health is in the data—to selling off our health data to private organisations. I would mention that, when I came into parliament in 2016, the government very surreptitiously sold off, without any appropriate public discussion, our breast cancer registry to Telstra Health, putting that data all in the hands of a private organisation. We have a Medicare platform that could be easily used to access and collect this data. The government sold off that very important health information, that health data, to a private company and is doing it even as we speak. Can you believe this—they announced on the evening of Christmas Eve that Accenture, a huge data company, was the data partner for the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. There's only one reason why you would introduce that announcement on Christmas Eve: you want to keep it secret, because you're again selling off our health data to a private organisation. Under cover of darkness, that's what the government are doing. Will they be doing that with our device register? They won't tell us, but I think they will. That's what they'll want to do—sell it off to private enterprise, removing it from public access and removing it from our research organisations et cetera, probably unless they pay a fee. So that's one aspect of this legislation that I think is a major concern.</para>
<para>Even though we agree with the spirit of this legislation, I have major concerns about some aspects of it. There are no details about how pharmacists are going to be able to change medications, and unless this government does something about the supply chains there will be shortages in the future; that's for sure. Yes, we agree with this legislation and the amendment moved by the member for Hindmarsh, but I do have major concerns about this government's response to health care in general and about its ability to maintain good health care for all Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WATTS</name>
    <name.id>193430</name.id>
    <electorate>Gellibrand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>While Australians are rightly proud of the way that we as a nation have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic, all of us have a role to play in responding to this great challenge of our time. In large part, Australia's institutions have responded well. When I look at what has been successful in the Australian response, I look with great pride at the success of our governments, our public servants, our independent regulators and, indeed, our parliament and our political system. These institutions have served us well in the face of this extraordinary challenge. One of the institutions that Australians trust and rely on to protect them is the Therapeutic Goods Administration. This bill, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020, is designed to assist the delivery of the COVID-19 vaccine throughout the nation and the role of the TGA in doing that.</para>
<para>The Australian community rightly expects opposition parties around the country to work constructively with governments to do all that they can to respond to this COVID-19 pandemic, and that's exactly what Labor is doing with this bill. There are some aspects of this bill that we have some concerns with, but overall the urgency of facilitating the COVID-19 vaccination campaign militates in favour of the quick passage of this bill.</para>
<para>This bill does a number of things. It facilitates the importation of COVID-19 vaccines to Australia. There are a number of regulatory requirements, particularly those relating to the display of Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods numbers on vaccines, that are difficult to implement with the COVID-19 vaccines. In some cases manufacturers can't put those individual numbers on because they are making doses for multiple countries. In other cases it's because the labels with these numbers can't be affixed to vaccines that must be kept at a supercold, minus-70-degree, temperature. This bill enables the Secretary of the Department of Health to waive the requirements to display the ARTG registration on certain therapies while making sure the information is still available freely elsewhere, particularly online. That's a good thing. The bill does a number of other things. It allows pharmacists to substitute medicines if certain shortages arise and it facilitates unique device identification databases for medical devices, as the member for Macarthur discussed earlier.</para>
<para>As I said, we might have some quibbles with aspects of this bill, but this is an important bill for the nation and the opposition is approaching it constructively. The constructive role played by the opposition in the COVID-19 pandemic doesn't mean biting our tongue when we think that the government has dropped the ball. In particular, we will hold the government to its word. When the Prime Minister says something about the way the nation is combating COVID-19, the Australian public expects that he will honour his word. As to the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine in particular, we want to see the Prime Minister live up to his promise, his commitment to the Australian people, that Australia is 'at the front of the queue' in the global vaccine rollout. I had a look online just before coming into the chamber today. We're at not quite 100 million doses—about 99 million doses of the vaccine have been administered worldwide—yet not a single Australian has received a vaccination. So 'at the front of the line but actually behind 100 million people' is where we are at the moment. It will be some time yet before the vaccine is actually rolled out in the Australian community. We will see then how far back in the queue we actually are, and we can compare the Prime Minister's words to his delivery.</para>
<para>The other thing that we will be very clear on is demanding that what has worked in Australia's response to COVID-19 is maintained by the government. What has worked is that our response in this pandemic has been based on science, and it requires political leaders to defend the science and it requires every one with a voice in our society to counter disinformation campaigns that undermine the primacy of science in our response to COVID-19.</para>
<para>It is particularly crucial that in the COVID-19 campaign all members of this House defend the institutions that Australians trust and rely on to protect them, particularly the TGA. Outrageously, the TGA has been the subject of a completely baseless campaign of abuse by the member for Hughes—an ongoing campaign of abuse of one of Australia's most important institutions in the middle of a global pandemic. It is outrageous, and it is not something that can be merely dismissed as the ravings of a Facebook comments guy come to life. Yes, this is happening on Facebook, but guess what? Facebook is very influential on people's decision-making in a modern world. The posts on the member for Hughes's Facebook page have been shared 10 times more than the posts of the Commonwealth Department of Health during this pandemic. They are 10 times as influential.</para>
<para>A particular problem is the member for Hughes's influence on the interaction and debate on Facebook—comments, shares and interactions. He regularly constitutes fully a quarter of Australian political debate on Facebook—a quarter of the total interactions Australia-wide are on the member for Hughes's Facebook page. This is not a trivial thing that can be dismissed. The member for Hughes is a one-man COVID-19 misinformation superspreader. It is extraordinary how he has enough time in the day to post the crap that goes through his Facebook page. I just had a look online. It's hard to actually keep up with it, but just in the last five days he has had 15 posts of COVID-19 misinformation. I was trying to keep count, because I did see that the Prime Minister had counselled the member for Hughes. It was reported in the media that the Prime Minister's spin doctors have been out there saying that he's had a word with the member for Hughes and he's counselled him—not sanctioned him, counselled him—and said privately, 'Please pull your head in.' Since that counselling—we saw it on <inline font-style="italic">7</inline><inline font-style="italic">News</inline> last night—the member for Hughes has done an interview with <inline font-style="italic">The Guardian</inline>; he's done an extended interview with Andrew Bolt on <inline font-style="italic">Sky News</inline>; he did a doorstop in the press gallery, where he accosted the member for Sydney in the middle of her doorstop; and, most tellingly, all of the member for Hughes's COVID-19 misinformation posts on his Facebook page are still up there. If the Prime Minister were serious about dealing with this COVID-19 misinformation superspreader he'd be saying to the member for Hughes: 'Take those misleading posts down. Take down the attacks that you are making on Australia's medical institutions, on our health and scientific institutions. Stop allowing this toxic, damaging garbage to be shared from your page.' But, of course, the Prime Minister is only concerned about the political problem here, not the substantive problem. He called the member for Hughes yesterday because the member for Hughes is starting to become a political embarrassment. He's not concerned about the substantive problem here of COVID-19 misinformation; he's concerned about the political problem. We know that, because you can hear the comments of the Prime Minister leading up to today, leading up to the absurd degree that the debate has gotten up to this week, enabling the member for Hughes. When asked about it previously, the Prime Minister has said, 'There's such a thing as freedom of speech in this country, and that will continue,' allowing the member for Hughes to continue his medical misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic and dismissing it laughingly, saying, 'I am not going to get into what people are talking about on Facebook,' despite Facebook being the most influential medium in that demographic, in the cohort of people that are most—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Howarth</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Petrie.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Howarth</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Gellibrand just reflected terribly on the member for Hughes when he used the word 'accosted' and he should withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, he didn't. There's no point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Howarth</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When you look up the work 'accosted' he should withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Petrie will resume his seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Howarth</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a bloody disgrace!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member will withdraw that remark—you won't use that language in the chamber—and then you'll leave under 94(a).</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Howarth</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Petrie then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Gellibrand in continuation.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WATTS</name>
    <name.id>193430</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We see the protection racket by those opposite for the member for Hughes. This man is leading a one-man medical misinformation campaign during a global pandemic, and we see a protection racket by those opposite. We see the Prime Minister continuing to refuse to do what is in his power to do to stop the member for Hughes from spreading medical misinformation in the COVID-19 pandemic. He could take his committee assignment. The member for Hughes is currently, at the behest of the Prime Minister, a member of the House Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources. The member for Hughes is still an endorsed member of the Liberal Party. You would think that, during a global pandemic, a real leader, a real Prime Minister, would say, 'I do not want anything to do with someone who is undermining the vaccination campaign for COVID-19 during a global pandemic, someone who is undermining the work of our frontline doctors, nurses, epidemiologists and scientists.'</para>
<para>This Prime Minister is proud to stand next to the member for Hughes. Indeed, the Prime Minister has said that the member for Hughes is doing 'a great job'. Whose side is he on? Is this Prime Minister on the side of those doctors and nurses who have been so heroic in the COVID-19 pandemic? Is he on the side of the epidemiologists and the scientists? They're the ones who have been getting us through this. They're the ones giving us advice to help us through this crisis. It's the scientists who have developed these vaccines. You would call them miracles, but they are not miracles. The vaccines to protect us from this pandemic, which has cost so many lives around the world, are the product of scientific endeavour, of investment in research and of hard work. We need to be standing with these people. We need to be defending the TGA. We need to be calling out medical misinformation wherever we see it. We have seen what happened in the United States when peddlers of conspiracy theories and baseless extremism online were indulged. Those extremists and conspiracy theorists became emboldened. They started ramping up their fantasies, and they have real-world consequences.</para>
<para>We saw this week extraordinary degradation in the debate when the member for Hughes appeared on the podcast of Pete Evans. This man has been fined by the TGA for peddling quack COVID-19 cures during a global pandemic. This snake-oil salesman was peddling a $15,000 light machine to people who are scared in a global pandemic. He was fined $25,000 by the TGA for exploiting the fear of Australians in the middle of a pandemic. This is a man that the member for Hughes thought was a good idea to share a platform with. This is a man that the member for Hughes thought was a good idea to elevate in our public debate. This is a disgrace.</para>
<para>There have been no sanctions from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has not lifted a finger in the face of this COVID-19 medical misinformation superspreader. He has said not a public word about sanctions against this individual. He has taken not a single action that is within his control to stop this. It has real consequences. There is nothing more important in this country at the moment than the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. It is what will get us through the health crisis. It will be what will enable our economy to go back to something resembling normal.</para>
<para>Australians on the whole are sensible in the face of this. Newspoll today shows that 75 per cent of Australians have said that they will get a vaccine. But there are some reasons for concern and some reasons to think that all of us in this chamber have a special obligation to ensure public support for this vaccination campaign. About 29 per cent of Australians said, yes, they would probably get the vaccine. That 'probably' is a cause for concern. What is in that 'probably'? When you delve into the cross-tabs and look at who is most likely to have a concern you see that it is people in the 39-to-49-years-of-age demographic. This is the prime Facebook demographic. Roy Morgan stats confirm that that age demographic are the most prolific users of Facebook. They have some concerns and they're not being helped by the member for Hughes controlling 25 per cent—25 per cent—of Facebook political debate in this country.</para>
<para>It is time that the Prime Minister showed that he is on the side of Australian doctors, Australian nurses, Australian epidemiologists and Australian scientists—all of those Australian frontline workers who have risked their health to get us through this pandemic—because it is only by being on the side of these heroes of the pandemic that you can show that you're on the side of the Australian public. It's about time the Prime Minister showed that he's not on the side of the lunatic fringe; he's on the side of the Australian people.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020. This bill amends the Therapeutic Goods Act to make a number of changes to the regulation of medicines and medical devices in Australia, especially during a pandemic. Before I get into the detail of the bill I want to take a moment to thank all the health professionals who have worked, and continue to work, so hard as we deal with the COVID pandemic. To the doctors, the nurses, the pharmacists, the carers: you stood in pouring rain, blistering heat and fume-filled car parks testing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Australians for COVID. To the pathologists who worked around the clock to get those tests out and to those wonderful people at the TGA who've been working incredibly hard as well: you are the reason that Australia has fared so well.</para>
<para>The bill's main provisions are to facilitate the importation of COVID-19 vaccines to Australia. This is the most pressing matter in the bill, as it deals with the labels that will be affixed to the bottles of the different COVID-19 vaccines.</para>
<para>The bill will also allow pharmacists to substitute medicines where certain shortages arise. Medicine shortages, as we heard from my good friend the member for Macarthur, are increasingly common. Around 150 a month are now reported to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. This bill would allow the minister to declare a serious shortage of a particular medicine, the medicines that can be dispensed instead and the circumstances in which substitution is permitted. As the member for Macarthur has pointed out, medical shortages have been happening since long before COVID, and this is a well-overdue measure.</para>
<para>Finally, the bill will facilitate a unique device identification database for medical devices. Under the status quo, there is limited collection of data on medical devices that have been implanted in patients. This means patients can't be contacted, let alone treated, in the event of safety issues down the track. There have long been calls for the creation of an essential database or registry to address this issue, including by a Labor-led Senate inquiry in the last parliamentary term. The bill allows the making of regulations to establish such a system but it doesn't directly establish one.</para>
<para>Labor will be supporting this bill. But, as the member for Hindmarsh has noted, there is no bigger task for 2021 than the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. The enormity of the logistical challenge involved in undertaking as many as 50 million to 60 million vaccinations over the coming months is really something. Labor wants this to work. We need a successful vaccine rollout that allows people to get back to work, not have to worry about border closures and see an end to the lockdowns, but we're worried that the Prime Minister has already fallen into his old trap of overpromising and underdelivering. The PM's track record isn't pretty. Throughout the pandemic the Prime Minister has failed in the two areas the federal government is responsible for: aged care and quarantine. The rest of the time he has hidden behind the incredibly good work of state premiers, taking credit when it goes well and getting his attack dogs out when things get tough. As a Victorian I was outraged to sit in this House and listen to the attacks on the Victorian Premier. In our state we worked so hard—so hard—to control the outbreak of COVID and we were successful. We were actually the envy of the world with regard to how we managed that, yet here in this House, my state—the people of Victoria and our Premier—was heartily attacked. And I find it galling when the Minister for Health and Aged Care stands here in this House and takes credit for the incredibly good outcomes from exactly the same measures that earlier were being attacked in this House.</para>
<para>There are three clear paths to delivering a successful vaccine rollout, and Labor will be putting some questions to the government on these points. There's the issue of vaccine supply—that is, getting enough vaccines to Australia to cover the whole population. There are the logistics of the rollout, and there's ensuring that Australians get clear, fact based information that is scientific and backed in by the experts. As an opposition member and as a nurse—and I'm proud to say that I'm still registered as a nurse—it's obvious to me that we already need clearer answers from the government on some of these points. These are important issues. The community needs to have confidence that the vaccine rollout is going to operate in a smooth, timely and effective fashion.</para>
<para>On the first point—the supply of the vaccine—the Prime Minister has already overpromised and underdelivered. Despite his promises that we were right at the front of the queue, Australia signed our first deal a full six months after other countries started securing theirs. We understand that there are emergencies, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, at levels that, luckily, we're not experiencing here in Australia. But tens of millions of people around the world have already been vaccinated—in countries like Israel, which has vaccinated one-third of its whole population.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister has promised to vaccinate four million Australians by the end of April and all Australians by the end of October. Despite these promises, though, it's unlikely that we will see even half the number of doses required to do that in this country by the end of March. We're still not clear when the Pfizer vaccine and the importation of the AstraZeneca vaccine will be delivered.</para>
<para>We also need more information about whether the government should be pursuing more vaccine deals to diversify the supply of vaccines. Currently, Australia has secured three vaccine deals—far fewer than other countries. To quote Steven Hamilton, an assistant professor of economics at George Washington University, and Richard Holden, a professor of economics at the University of New South Wales Business School:</para>
<quote><para class="block">You could be forgiven for thinking that three or four vaccines would be sufficient. But amid a pandemic that has claimed millions of lives and trillions of dollars of global economic output, you'd be wrong. By a lot.</para></quote>
<para>They go on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We recently failed to reach an agreement with Moderna. It's hard to conceive of any terms they might demand that we shouldn't be willing to accept—</para></quote>
<para>given the stakes. And, they say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… we seemingly haven't tried to secure any agreement with Johnson and Johnson.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Meanwhile, the US government recently secured an additional 100 million Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.</para></quote>
<para>So I ask those who sit opposite: please, do more to secure enough vaccines, and soon.</para>
<para>As a nurse, I am particularly focused on the logistics of the rollout. I know what has to happen on the ground. It is a huge challenge. While I know our wonderful public healthcare experts are up to the job, I hope the government is putting every effort into working with them and listening to them—hearing what they need on the ground to make this work.</para>
<para>Two early signs worry me. Firstly, there's the proposed single entry point—the online data entry point which will be required for people to make an appointment to receive their vaccinations. That is an online booking tool for people to secure their jab. Three weeks out from the launch of the vaccine rollout, we are yet to see any details of this tool. Is this going to be another COVIDSafe app debacle? We hope not. And can you imagine our elderly having to use a computer to book their vaccine? Under the government's current plans, not every GP will be participating in the vaccine rollout, and it would be a natural assumption for many, especially our elderly and vulnerable, that, to get that vaccine, they'd just ring their GP and book in. But for many, of course, this won't work. General practitioners have already raised this as an early issue.</para>
<para>We're also incredibly concerned about the plans to vaccinate residents in our aged-care facilities. After watching the federal government's failures in aged care during the pandemic, I hope they're putting every effort into ensuring the rollout goes well and that they know exactly what they're dealing with. It has to be thoroughly thought through. There are key issues like informed consent, especially for people with dementia.</para>
<para>Can we trust the government with this kind of complexity? We want to work with the government to make sure that they are covering off every single angle necessary, because we support this bill and we want the vaccine rollout to go well. But the government's broader pandemic response needs to not only be based on science; it has to defend the science and actively counter those disinformation campaigns, including against the TGA, that risk public health and that are emanating from the government's own ranks.</para>
<para>It's why the whole member for Hughes debacle is just so disappointing and worrying. Yesterday I was gagged in this House for calling him 'a dangerous fool', but I stand by that term and I stand by my comments that a real leader would have dealt with him by now. He's a menace to this vaccination program and, as a direct consequence, a menace to the health of all Australians—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Robert</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is inappropriate to call another member a 'fool' in the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll refer you to the Speaker's ruling yesterday. There is no point of order. The member for Cooper can continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So it's utterly irresponsible for the Prime Minister to refuse to condemn Craig Kelly outright.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will remind the member for Cooper to refer to members by their correct title.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, I apologise. What did I say? I said Craig Kelly. I apologise—the member for Hughes. In fact, the PM said the member was doing a fantastic job. But he is undermining the advice of our public health experts, including the Chief Medical Officer, and he's undermining confidence in the vaccine campaign. He's engaging in systematically undermining confidence in our medical and scientific institutions. He's accused the Chief Medical Officer and chief health officers of 'crimes against humanity'. He's engaged in conspiracy theories about big pharma, and we heard the member for Gellibrand express his concern about the member for Hughes's Facebook page and the quantity of misinformation on there—that it's all a conspiracy and the vaccine is merely there to make money for big pharma. He pushes on about his remedies, like hydroxychloroquine.</para>
<para>We also saw the polling research out yesterday, from both Newspoll and Essential, reminding us of the challenge in making sure that as many Australians as possible are willing to take up this voluntary vaccine. Newspoll, for example, showed that only 75 per cent of Australians intend to take up the vaccine, and that rate is lower among some groups, as we heard—the 36 to 45 age group. That's why Labor has supported the government's information campaign, but it makes no sense that the Prime Minister would refuse to pull the member for Hughes into line for undoing all the good work they are trying to put into that information campaign.</para>
<para>The Australian community expects the opposition to work as constructively as we can with this government, and we will and we have consistently done so throughout the pandemic, and our approach to this bill and to the vaccine rollout will be no different. We want it to be the best rollout possible, so we will continue to push the government in areas where we have concerns, we will continue to push the government on issues of accountability and we will make sure that we can give Australians confidence in the vaccine and its rollout program.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>According to this morning's email update from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, there are now 103 million cases of COVID globally and there have been 2.2 million deaths. The weekly global incidence, thankfully, is down to just 3.6 million new cases. Weekly global mortality is down a little but is still at the staggering figure of 93,803 deaths.</para>
<para>The vaccine is coming, but in Australia's case it's coming too slowly. Globally, there have been over 100 million vaccine doses administered; in the United States, 32 million doses administered. If you look at the Our World in Data site, it has figures on the share of people vaccinated per 100. In Israel, that figure is at 36 per cent; in the United Kingdom, 13 per cent; and, in the United States, eight per cent. So other countries are getting on with the rollout. But what is the share in Australia? Well, it's zero per cent. We are yet to begin the vaccination rollout, and, far from the Prime Minister saying that Australia is 'at the front of the queue', we find ourselves behind most advanced nations when it comes to rolling out the vaccine. That is not the fault of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which has now approved the vaccine for administration in Australia; it is the fault of the Morrison government for failing to strike a sufficient number of vaccine deals.</para>
<para>Australia only has three direct vaccine deals; most equivalent health systems have five or six. It took us a full six months after other countries started signing vaccine deals in March before we secured our first vaccine deals. We signed vaccine deals with Oxford-AstraZeneca and UQ-CSL on 7 September 2020. The early access agreement was to have provided 3.8 million doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in January and February 2021. On 7 September 2020, the health minister said on Twitter that the vaccine would be available progressively throughout 2021 in Australia, commencing in January. The government failed to meet that test. In part, that's due to AstraZeneca reneging on the promise to provide 3.8 million early doses from overseas, now only sending 1.2 million by March. Australia then signed a deal with Pfizer for 10 million doses and Novovax for 40 million doses on 5 November. But it took Pfizer proactively reaching out to the government in July for the government to even commence discussions on a vaccine deal. By the time Australia signed to get doses of the Pfizer vaccine, Pfizer had already signed away one billion doses to 34 countries, including those in the European Union. So Australia has too few vaccine deals in place.</para>
<para>As the rollout happens, it will be critical that we tackle vaccine misinformation. We've already seen the challenge this can pose overseas. On Saturday, Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, one of the largest mass vaccination sites in the United States, was temporarily shut down when antivaxxer protesters blocked the entrance to the stadium. Thankfully it didn't result in the cancellation of any appointments, but it did represent an attempt to intimidate those in charge of the vaccine rollout.</para>
<para>Here in Australia, we should have a situation in which the entire federal parliament is standing in unity with the chief medical officers. But unfortunately, the Liberal and National parties have allowed the vocal antivaxxer statements of the member for Hughes to have their head. The member for Hughes has been vocal in his support for hydroxychloroquine. He stated it was safe and effective, and has referenced studies that allegedly found that hydroxychloroquine is associated with substantially reducing both death and hospitalisation in COVID-19 patients. The truth is a different matter. Hydroxychloroquine looked good in observational studies, but, once high-quality randomised controls were in place, it became clear it was not a desirable treatment. Its use is strongly discouraged by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which cites the results of several large-scale studies conducted by the World Health Organization, the US National Institutes of Health and Oxford University. The National COVID Clinical Evidence Taskforce recommended against the use of hydroxychloroquine.</para>
<para>The member for Hughes has questioned the effectiveness of masks to stop the spread of COVID-19. He has also stated that forcing children to wear masks is causing massive physical and psychological harm and that forcing children to wear masks is 'child abuse'. There are two mistruths there. Firstly, children under 12 aren't required to wear masks in any state or territory. Secondly, there are multiple studies supporting the effectiveness of masks. One study of people who had the common cold found wearing a surgical mask reduced the amount of the respiratory viruses admitted in droplets and aerosols. Another study compared the coronavirus growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 US states and found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in the daily growth rate of COVID. In the first five days after a mask mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 of a percentage point compared to the five days prior to the mandate. At three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by two percentage points.</para>
<para>Then there are his attacks on the Victorian government, as the previous contributor to this debate has noted. When the Andrews government put in place measures to help stop the spread of coronavirus, the member for Hughes compared them to Nazi Germany and stated that 'tens of thousands of medical professionals around the world' had signed a declaration urging coronavirus restrictions to be lifted for non-vulnerable populations. Again, the truth is far more complicated. News organisations found that anyone could sign that declaration by claiming to be a medical professional and the list of signatories contained dozens of fake names including 'Dr IP Freely' and 'Dr Person Fakename'. Other so-called medical professionals included homeopaths, massage therapists and hypnotherapists—hardly infectious disease specialists.</para>
<para>We need <inline font-style="italic">ER</inline>, but this government is giving us <inline font-style="italic">The Twilight Zone</inline>. With the wild conspiracy theories spreading online, the member for Hughes could get his own gig writing a Netflix special. But his antics are anything but entertaining. His spreading of dangerous misinformation has been called out by the Chief Medical Officer, Paul Kelly. Dr Karen Price, the President of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has said it's unacceptable. But the Prime Minister has failed to act. He hasn't condemned the member for Hughes for spreading misinformation in the midst of a pandemic. He's just said people should listen to doctors.</para>
<para>But the simple truth is that so-called viral posts have an ability to catch fire in a way in which basic truths by medical professionals simply don't. Over the past six months, in the midst of the pandemic, Facebook posts made by the member for Hughes have been shared more than 10 times more than those posted by the Australian Department of Health. The member for Hughes's shares of misinformation amount to 847,000, compared to 79,000 from the official source. The member for Hughes is a superspreader of misinformation. Misinformation, as we well know, spreads like wildfire. It's a simple truth about the way in which social media operates. The point is that the Prime Minister should call him out, not just pick up the phone when he's having an interview with Mark Riley but actually publicly denounce the views of the member for Hughes.</para>
<para>The government itself is now spending $24 million promoting the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, and that campaign is itself being undermined by one of the government's own backbenchers. What do they do? Do they remove him from his committee assignments, including his position on the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources? No, nothing of the sort. Taxpayers are paying for vaccine information, and the government's own backbencher is spreading vaccine misinformation. The member for Hughes has claimed that hydroxychloroquine was being banned by our regulators as part of some anti-Donald Trump conspiracy and that it would be approved after the US election. He's supporting the view that any government that bans hydroxychloroquine is deep-state freemason controlled. He's accused Australia's chief medical officers of crimes against humanity, ominously stating 'the day of reckoning is coming', the sort of language that is used by QAnon supporters in the United States, by those who stormed the US Capitol on 6 January. When the World Economic Forum unveiled its post-COVID reconstruction plan, the member for Hughes compared it to Pol Pot's Cambodian genocide.</para>
<para>On Monday the Prime Minister laughed off criticism of the member for Hughes and said the member for Hughes was doing 'a great job'. Doing a great job of what exactly? Is it discouraging his constituents from listening to the Chief Medical Officer? Is it encouraging his constituents to use a dangerous and unproven drug, in hydroxychloroquine? Is it encouraging his constituents not to use masks, which we know save lives? Is this the kind of 'great job' the Prime Minister thinks the member for Hughes is doing? On Tuesday, when the member for Hindmarsh tried to call out the member for Hughes's irresponsible and dangerous behaviour, he was gagged by the votes of every Liberal and National party member opposite. When the member for Cooper tried to condemn the Prime Minister for not protecting the Australian people from misinformation, she too was gagged by every Liberal and National member in this House. When the member for Corio spoke out against the dangerous misinformation and spoke up for science, as he so often does in this place, he was gagged.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister is happy to gag those speaking out for truth, but he doesn't have the guts to gag his own backbencher from spreading medical mistruths in the face of the most dangerous pandemic Australia has seen in a century. And it's not just the member for Hughes. Make no mistake: if the Prime Minister were to take him on, he would also need to take on the member for Dawson, who co-authored a letter to the Queensland Chief Health Officer, Jeannette Young, criticising her stance on hydroxychloroquine, a letter which turned up in Queensland mailboxes spread house to house. The member for Hughes says that there are at least a dozen of his parliamentary colleagues that support his antiscience stance. That means that, like climate change denialism, vaccine denialism and the spreading of misinformation is rampant on the coalition back bench.</para>
<para>I haven't attempted in this speech to persuade the member for Hughes. I think he's a lost cause. But it is important that, as all of us in this parliament and people in the broader community speak about the importance of vaccines with those who are sceptical, we do draw on the best science. I draw the House's attention to a terrific piece by organisational psychologist Adam Grant, from the Wharton School, in <inline font-style="italic">The New York Times</inline> on 31 January 2021. It's called 'The science of reasoning with unreasonable people'. He says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Several decades ago, when treating substance abuse problems, psychologists developed a technique called motivational interviewing. The central premise: Instead of trying to force other people to change, you're better off helping them find their own intrinsic motivation to change. You do that by interviewing them—asking open-ended questions and listening carefully—and holding up a mirror so they can see their own thoughts more clearly. If they express a desire to change, you guide them toward a plan.</para></quote>
<para>He goes on to write:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In controlled trials, motivational interviewing has helped people to stop smoking, abusing drugs and alcohol, and gambling; to improve their diets and exercise; to overcome eating disorders; and to lose weight. The approach has also motivated students to get a good night's sleep; voters to reconsider their prejudices; and divorcing parents to reach settlements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recently, thanks to a vaccine whisperer, it has been applied to immunization. Arnaud Gagneur is a pediatrician in Quebec who encourages reluctant parents to immunize their children. In his experiments, a motivational interview in the maternity ward after birth increased the number of mothers willing to vaccinate their children from 72 percent to 87 percent; the number of children who were fully vaccinated two years later rose by 9 percent. A single conversation was enough to change behavior over the next 24 months.</para></quote>
<para>It's incumbent on every member of this House to work with our chief medical experts to ensure that as many Australians as possible are vaccinated against COVID-19.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBRIDE</name>
    <name.id>248353</name.id>
    <electorate>Dobell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020 and to support the amendment moved by the member for Hindmarsh, and I'm pleased to follow the member for Fenner and many of my other colleagues who have spoken on this legislation.</para>
<para>Labor supports this bill, which amends the Therapeutic Goods Act to make a number of changes to the regulation of medicines and medical devices in Australia. There are a number of provisions in the bill, and I'll go to the main provisions. The first is designed to facilitate the importation of COVID-19 vaccines to Australia. The act currently requires therapies that are imported or supplied in Australia to display their Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods number, or ARTG number. This may not be possible, as others have spoken about, for some COVID-19 vaccines because suppliers are manufacturing doses in batches for more than one country. In some cases, it's because labels can't be affixed to vaccines that must be kept at minus 70 degrees. This bill allows the Secretary of the Department of Health to waive the requirement to display the ARTG registration on certain therapies, while making sure that that information is freely available elsewhere.</para>
<para>The bill will also facilitate a unique device identification, or UDI, database for medical devices. Right now—and I know this is a concern to many—there is limited collection of data on medical devices that have been implanted in patients. This has occurred where patients can't be contacted, let alone treated, in the event of safety issues arising. Many will remember that a Labor-led inquiry called for the creation of a central database or registry to address this issue, and a review of medicines and medical devices regulation released back in 2015 noted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Panel supports the Australian NRA in pursuing the adoption of the UDI, in alignment with international practice …</para></quote>
<para>Now, some six years later, the government have made a first step. They are acting but are only introducing legislation which allows regulations to be made to establish a database. I call on the government to act more quickly. It shouldn't take years to act on recommendations to improve public safety and reduce the risk of harm.</para>
<para>I'd like to turn to another main provision of this bill which is of particular interest to me as a pharmacist. It will allow pharmacists to substitute medicines when certain shortages arise. Many people have experienced or have heard in their local community that medicine shortages are becoming increasingly common. It will be no surprise that around 150 shortages are now reported to the TGA each month. Increasingly this is for very commonly prescribed medications. People may remember that in February or March last year medicines like Ventolin or infant Panadol were in short supply or were not available in many communities.</para>
<para>The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia has pointed out, 'The most commonly used antidepressant in Australia, sertraline, which ranks No. 9 in usage across Australia, had five brands listed on the website as out of stock.' They say, 'At the coalface we know from our members even more brands are unavailable for order from their wholesaler.' Having worked as a mental health pharmacist for many years in acute adult in-patient units, I understand the very real impact that shortages of antidepressants and other commonly prescribed medicines can have on patient care. When someone has finally found a medication that works for them, that is effective, whose side effects they can tolerate and that gives them good results and benefits it is very distressing to patients and their families and carers when that medication isn't available and there is a risk of disruption to their care.</para>
<para>The Pharmaceutical Society of Australia has also raised concerns about the impact of medication shortages. They go to what I have just mentioned, the impact on patients and their carers: 'Medicine shortages unfortunately occur regularly for a variety of reasons. Pharmacists deal with them every day, communicating with patients who are affected, liaising with prescribers regarding alternative medicines, working through logistics with wholesalers and suppliers.' They go on: 'Depending on the nature and duration of a shortage, as well as the availability of a clinically equivalent alternative medicine, it can be confusing and stressful for patients and carers, particularly when continuity of chronic therapy is disrupted, not to mention the risk of adverse health consequences. It's also really time consuming for the health professionals involved.' It must be pointed out that these medicine shortages are not new. They pre-date COVID and have only been exacerbated by the disruptions to global supply chains that we've seen over the past 12 months.</para>
<para>The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia has noted: 'Hospital pharmacists already supply different strengths for in-patient medicines when required. They do so in a safe manner and have been doing so for years. They are acutely aware of medicine shortages, are uniquely positioned to best manage shortages and are ready to enact further alleviation measures based on their skills and experiences at the coalface.' Currently when shortages arise, pharmacists are allowed to substitute a different brand of the same medicine. However, they're generally not allowed to substitute a different medicine, although there are some ad hoc arrangements in different jurisdictions. This bill will allow the minister to declare a serious shortage of a particular medicine, what medicine or medicines are able to be dispensed instead and the circumstances in which substitution is able to occur. This is a commonsense change and has been welcomed. The PSA 'welcomes the willingness and efforts of regulators to implement solutions to help address medicine shortages for patients and to implement changes to allow pharmacists to substitute a medicine in a shortage without prior approval from the prescriber. This was originally proposed by the PSA and other industry bodies and advocated for by the profession,' and this commonsense change has been welcomed.</para>
<para>I'd now like to turn to the vaccine rollout. This will be the largest public health effort by a federal government, working with the states and other jurisdictions, in Australia's public health history. The Australian community expects Labor to work constructively with the government in the pandemic response. That's what we've consistently done, and that's our approach to this bill. However, we're conscious—and it's not just us; others are as well—of the danger of overpromising, especially in what will be, as I mentioned, the largest public health effort in Australian history. We were told last year and we were relieved that Australia was at the front of the queue in the global vaccine rollout. But today we know otherwise. We've seen tens of millions of people in the US and Canada, the UK, the EU and other countries already receive their vaccinations, and still not a single Australian has received a vaccination. It's important—and I know the Australian public are relying on this—that the Prime Minister delivers on his promise to have four million Australians vaccinated by the end of March and the entire country by the end of October. There are important questions that go to these commitments. What is the situation with the vaccine suppliers? There's been a lot of conjecture about this that's been reported. I'm sure most Australians would like to see that settled. When will we receive details about this single entry point, the online data entry point, which people will be required to use to make an appointment to receive their vaccination?</para>
<para>It's also of concern that Australia has only three direct vaccine deals, when most equivalent health systems have between five and six. The deals in Australia were made late and are seen by some to be weak. Now it appears that the rollout, from the original time frame that the government set, is delayed. As I mentioned, it's not just Labor that have concerns about this. Clinicians have been kept out of the process, and doctors were only formally invited to participate and register their practices on 12 January. In the middle of January, the New South Wales AMA President said that it was difficult to plan for the vaccine rollout because the schedule for the timing and number of vaccines was still not clear. It's concerning that the peak body in New South Wales doesn't have those details. Earlier in January, the RACGP national president said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… what I haven't seen too much of is the detail that we need to do that logistics planning. … we need the logistics because we've got to provide for our staff, for our existing patients and for the huge undertaking we're about to go through.</para></quote>
<para>She also made further comments in relation to residential aged-care vaccinations. She said it:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… doesn't sound like the GPs are involved, which is a bit challenging because GPs know these patients and could probably do it quickly—</para></quote>
<para>adding:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… there wasn't any clarity around who it would be.</para></quote>
<para>I now turn to the local concern—residents contacted me immediately about this—that no hospital on the Central Coast, in the region that I represent, has been announced as part of the rollout. This is in a community where one in five residents are aged over 65 and with a very high prevalence of COPD and other respiratory conditions. There is also very little detail with this hub model about outreach of vaccines from hubs to residential aged care or disability care—we know that's where we've seen, sadly, the biggest impacts of COVID-19 in Australia—or whether frontline workers, say, in a community like mine, will have to travel an hour to either Hornsby or Newcastle for their vaccines in the first phase of the rollout. These are really important questions and details that the government needs to make available to the community and also to those who will be providing this care.</para>
<para>As a pharmacist, I'd now like to turn to the involvement of pharmacists in the rollout. Over the weekend, I and many others were pleased to see the government commit $200 million to supporting the administration of COVID-19 vaccines by community pharmacists. I've undergone the training myself to be an immuniser, as have thousands of other pharmacists who are trained, prepared and ready to be part of this big nationwide effort. Community pharmacists, at this stage, are expected to administer the AstraZeneca vaccine in phase 2, subject to approval, and it's possible further vaccines will be approved for administration later in the year. While this is very welcome and I'm really pleased to see it, industry representative bodies have noted the clear recommendation from the King review that indicated the need to ensure adequate funding for services that pharmacists provide outside PBS expenditure. Pharmacists, like general practitioners and other medical professionals, are required to adhere to the strict protocols to administer the vaccine to the community. GPs are concerned around the level of remuneration, and, intuitively, pharmacists are concerned as well, particularly given that they must adhere to the same criteria and, as it stands currently, for less remuneration.</para>
<para>In my final remarks, I want to turn now more broadly to medicine supply shortages. Labor supports the measures in this bill to help address medication shortages, but, clearly, much more needs to be done. Pharmacists like myself are all too familiar with medicine shortages, and they face these problems, as I mentioned, day to day—even before COVID-19. I have firsthand experience dealing with shortages in both community pharmacies and in our local hospital. I mentioned before the example of sertraline, one of the most commonly prescribed medications—an antidepressant. At one point, multiple brands were just not available for people. As a specialist mental health pharmacist, I was involved in securing medicines through the TGA Special Access Scheme for patients at high risk if they were forced to discontinue or change medications. As a former chief pharmacist, I sat on the local Drug and Therapeutics Committee of Central Coast health, and we would deal with problems of this nature. Now, as a local MP, I'm hearing again the problems faced through COVID of people not being able to get infant Panadol or their ventolin inhaler. Medicine and medical device shortages represent a growing and potentially life-threatening risk.</para>
<para>This risk we have seen is real, and has only been heightened through COVID-19. When I spoke on bill No. 1 last year, I spoke about Australian manufacturing. The recent news concerning the European Union's plan to tighten rules on exports of coronavirus vaccines highlights a current and real risk that Australia faces. We need to be in a position so that supply shocks like this announcement don't risk the lives of vulnerable Australians. As I've mentioned, this issue of shortages of medicines and medical supplies is not new, but the COVID-19 pandemic has brought it into sharp relief. Where there is a sudden spike in global demand for particular medicines and vaccines combined with a disruption to global supply chains, Australia is suddenly even more exposed and often finds itself at the end of the queue. Medical supply shortages may occur more frequently in a global economy with consolidation of manufacturing and less products made in Australia. If more production occurs in fewer sites, especially overseas, there may be less spare capacity and more risks of disruption. That's why Labor firmly believes that, as part of the COVID-19 response, Australia should adopt policies to promote stronger domestic capabilities for the manufacturing and delivery of critical medical supplies.</para>
<para>As Labor leader Anthony Albanese said: 'Australia can and should be a country that makes things. If we get it right, a strong local manufacturing sector can deliver world-class products, incorporate the best technology and provide the good and secure jobs that our workers need and deserve.' We know Australian manufacturers are capable of world-class performance. It's been shown recently by the announcement from the US Department of Defense to grant contract work, worth over $300 million, to Brisbane based biotech firm Ellume to ramp up production of COVID-19 home test kits. We would really like to see, as part of this economic recovery, much stronger investment in Australian manufacturing, particularly in the regions. It's a win-win: a win for our economy and a win for local jobs, providing more security and certainty for Australians.</para>
<para>In the time I have left I would like to recognise the many frontline health workers who have worked to protect Australians through COVID-19. While there are many, in the context of this bill I would like to acknowledge my fellow pharmacists, who have made a considerable contribution on the front line, staying open and offering critical services when many other primary care providers were closed—hospital pharmacists managing supply and aged-care pharmacists providing telehealth services. For many of our most vulnerable Australians who have been forced into isolation, pharmacists have often been the only health professional they've had contact with.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very pleased to follow the member for Dobell. I can't promise that I'll cover as much ground as the member for Dobell. It was a fine contribution, and I thank her for that. I rise to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020. Labor, as the previous speakers have already mentioned, will be supporting this bill. We reiterate our support for the member for Hindmarsh, who has moved the second reading amendment. We, of course, will be supporting that second reading amendment, which I will talk to a little bit later in my contribution.</para>
<para>I also want to take this opportunity while speaking on this bill to acknowledge the member for McMahon, who, until last week, was Labor's shadow minister for health. He has done an outstanding job of leading not just the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party but in many ways the national response to coronavirus—working with the government, working with the minister—and has put forward the guiding principle that we will listen to the health advice, listen to the health experts and put that before politics. It has been our North Star throughout this entire pandemic that we have been committed to listening and respecting the views of our health experts, our scientists and our experts on this awful disease. As such, they have led us into the enviable position that Australia now finds itself.</para>
<para>The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020 covers three main provisions. I'll go over them very quickly and then I'll talk to one particular part of it in more detail. The first part goes to the labels on vaccines. At the moment there are, for good reason, requirements for vaccines to have labels to display their Australian registration and therapeutic goods number. We have never had mRNA vaccines before—they will be the first—and we have never had to administer these sorts of vaccines in Australia. The very nature of this technology means that they need to be stored at very low temperatures. It is a volatile substance and, as such, it makes the simple task of putting labels on these sorts of vials impossible, so this is a sensible measure that allows for this new technology to be administered in Australia and, of course, Labor supports it.</para>
<para>This bill will also allow pharmacists to substitute medicines where certain shortages arise. The member for Dobell very adequately went to issues pharmacists and pharmacies often face in some detail. Labor, again, supports that in principle. Finally, this bill will help facilitate a unique device identification database for medical devices that have been inserted into patients or implanted into patients and that will help the coordination of that particular medicine.</para>
<para>In my contribution to the debate on this bill today, I want to touch on the rollout of this vaccine, because it is obviously on all Australian's minds. It is encouraging that we are starting from this in a place where Australians broadly do have a trust in science and they do have an excellent vaccination record. I was pleased to work in the Victorian government when they introduced their No Jab, No Play legislation, which helped bring up the immunisation rates of children in Victoria to above the 95 per cent threshold, which in turn helped achieve herd immunity. It was an outstanding achievement led by the then health minister Jill Hennessy. I would say we are starting from a strong base when it comes to the rollout. We have outstanding health professionals around the country. We have outstanding resources and hospital systems that can successfully roll out the really mammoth logistical tasks required of this vaccine.</para>
<para>When we were here last year in this place, I was sitting with my colleagues and, like the sunrise in the morning, in every question time the Minister for Health would confidently stroll up to the dispatch box and parrot his lines about how Australia is at the head of the queue and how wonderful a job he and the Prime Minister had done to roll out a vaccine strategy in this country. On 19 August, the minister even put out a press release saying, 'Australians will be among the first in the world to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, if it proves successful, through an agreement between the Australian government and UK-based drug company AstraZeneca.' On 5 November, another press release from the minister boasted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… our Strategy puts Australia at the front of the queue, if our medical experts give the vaccines the green light.</para></quote>
<para>Well, our medical experts have given a vaccine the green light. They have given the Pfizer vaccine the green light. They gave that on 25 January. It has now been almost 10 days since that vaccine was given approval in this country, and how many vaccines have we had rolled out in this country? None.</para>
<para>The TGA have done their job. The TGA didn't get up at the dispatch box and boast about how good a job they have done; they just got on and did it. We saw from the Minister for Health and the Prime Minister constant patting on the back—the self-congratulations that they like to do—and self-aggrandising. They said that Australia was going to be among the first in the world to receive vaccines. There have been 99 million coronavirus vaccines administered around the world and not one of those 99 million has been administered here in Australia.</para>
<para>While I understand that there are supply chain difficulties, while I understand that there is obviously huge demand and while I absolutely think that Australia needs to be doing its part in ensuring the rollout of a vaccine happens not just in our country but also in our region—we have a responsibility to ensure that our friends and family in the Pacific also have access to a vaccine—it is simply not true to say that Australians are at the head of the queue and it is simply not true to say that the Minister for Health and the Prime Minister have done a great job in acquiring the vaccines, because, if they had, we would have already acquired them and they would have already started to be rolled out, like they have in almost 100 million cases around the world.</para>
<para>Things were made a little more frustrating for us on this side of the House, and the member for Fenner mentioned this—articulately, as always—in his contribution. At this stage the government has obviously put a lot of money into the various vaccines. I think it's safe to say that we have good vaccines that are coming to Australia and we should all be confident in receiving a vaccine as soon as the TGA approves the various vaccines. We have got only one approved, but, hopefully, in the not-too-distant future we'll have others approved as well. It's fair to say that the government is spending tens of millions of dollars rolling out an advertising campaign in order to build up the confidence of Australians to get vaccinated. Australians should know that, if a vaccine is available in Australia, it is safe. It has gone through some of the most rigorous testing and scientific analysis by some of the best experts in the world. Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration is one of the best in the world, and we can and should have confidence in it. But we don't need government members undermining the health response throughout this pandemic.</para>
<para>We have seen throughout this entire pandemic the member for Hughes spouting ridiculous claims around hydroxychloroquine in a sort of politicised fantasy around former US President Donald Trump. They are completely unscientific and ignorant comments around treatments. Quite frankly, he has absolutely no qualification and no right to be making those comments in this country. They are dangerous and false, but then they obviously extended to attacks on the health authorities. He even compared the Victorian health authorities to Nazi Germany. It was offensive.</para>
<para>What was even more difficult to stomach was the Prime Minister doing absolutely nothing to stop him, to call him out or to intervene. He sat idly by and—wink-wink, nudge-nudge—said: 'Off you go, Member for Hughes. Keep going. We want those votes that you're acquiring on the far Right extremes of society. We want those people to support the Liberal-National party, so you're free to go out and peddle your dangerous conspiracy theories.' Instead of actually showing responsibility, the Prime Minister let him continually rain his false and dangerous conspiracies. It's hardly surprising that the member for Hughes then turned his false and dangerous claims about the coronavirus pandemic to the vaccines.</para>
<para>We need people to be vaccinated. We need them to be vaccinated with safe vaccines. We've already seen the University of Queensland program, sadly, shut down because it was deemed to not qualify to the high standards that we require. Australians won't be offered vaccines if they are not safe. The determination of the safety will be done by the world's best experts. The determination of the efficacy and safety for Australians is being done by people whom we should all have confidence in. It is completely outrageous that members opposite sit in the same party room and quietly do media interview after media interview after media interview but say nothing of the dangerous and false conspiracies being peddled by the member for Hughes.</para>
<para>'We are all in this together' was a comment that the Prime Minister made, and, throughout this pandemic, I would agree. In fact, it doesn't just extend to Australia. What we are seeing now is that countries that allow it to replicate are allowing it to mutate—countries like South Africa, Brazil and the United Kingdom. The more virus there is, the more chances it has to mutate into a virus that may reduce the efficacy of a vaccine. Even with these vaccines, we are still potentially months away from being in front of this coronavirus pandemic. Australia may yet see the worst of this pandemic, and I really hope that I have never been more wrong. I really hope that I have never been more wrong.</para>
<para>But we cannot have members of the Australian government undermining our health authorities. We cannot have members of the Australian government attacking the very thing that will help bring Australia back to increased levels of normality. We cannot have members of the government make unscientific claims and we cannot have members of Scott Morrison's government attacking the very health experts that we need to be listening to to guide us through this pandemic. It is not good enough to allow the member for Hughes to continue his false peddling of conspiracies. It needs to stop.</para>
<para>On this bill, we say, the more safe vaccines that are available to Australians, the better. But the government shouldn't stop now and rest on its laurels. As this virus evolves, so should our vaccine strategy, and the government should be doing more deals with companies that potentially will be able to tackle the different variants of this virus. We will be dealing with vaccines long into the future. The different generations of vaccines that we will be seeing and that we will be required to get will require ongoing management long into the future.</para>
<para>But getting a vaccine will make a difference. We need to have full confidence, and Australians should have full confidence, in the rigour and high standards that Australian scientists and experts are making vaccine producers achieve in order for Australians to receive one of the coronavirus vaccines. At the moment, we have the Pfizer vaccine; that has been approved. It would nice if we had the Pfizer vaccine being rolled out in this country. We are still waiting for them and the delays are concerning. Nonetheless, we on this side of House will keep pushing for a commitment to science, a commitment to our health experts and a commitment to vaccinations that will help save lives. In the meantime, we hope that those opposite find it within themselves to have enough guts to call out those who are working against the health strategy and attacking our health authorities.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill. As the approval body for the release of medicines, biologicals and medical devices, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, more commonly known as the TGA, serves a critical role in the wellbeing of the nation through the provision of safe, affordable and effective medical products. The TGA has an enormous responsibility because its work and its decisions can have a profound effect on the health of the Australian people. A wrong decision can be devastating. Similarly, delays in the approval process that gets products to market, or making flawed assessments, can cause additional or prolonged suffering. We saw that with the pelvic mesh implants, which resulted in not only an adverse court ruling against Johnson & Johnson but, even worse, years of pain and struggle for so many women who had the implants. I note that Johnson & Johnson are now appealing the case.</para>
<para>Notwithstanding the TGA's role in that matter, I believe that there is widespread agreement that the TGA is rating very highly both here in Australia and overseas. Because of its professionalism and its thoroughness, it is one of the most reputable and trusted federal government agencies. Whilst that thoroughness is, of course, time consuming, the TGA approval process nevertheless compares very well with its overseas counterparts in the US, the UK, Canada and Europe. The TGA median approval times in 2019-20 was, I understand, around 162 days, having fallen from around 182 days in the previous year. Of course, the TGA approval is not the final step, as most medical products are still not accessible to consumers without government subsidies provided through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, otherwise referred to as the PBS. In regard to the PBS process, Australia does not rate so well. It lags behind many of the comparable countries that I referred to earlier. Acknowledging the importance of getting medical products to market quickly and safely, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport is currently inquiring into the TGA and PBS approval processes. As a member of that committee, I have to say that it has been an interesting journey so far and I look forward to the conclusion of the work of the committee and its report to this parliament.</para>
<para>As we know, medical science is moving at a rapid pace, and the TGA process needs to keep up with the innovations that occur almost daily across the word. However, if the TGA is to improve any of its processes, it will need to be adequately staffed, adequately funded and free from political interference. Since most of its funding comes from industry fees—I believe that over 90 per cent of its funding comes from industry fees—there is no reason for its work to be constrained by staff or other necessary resources. This legislation arose because of the urgency to roll out a COVID-19 vaccine and, therefore, the need to remove technical administrative barriers.</para>
<para>The legislation also deals with medicine shortages and with the establishment of a database of where medical devices have been used. Currently there is no database kept, which makes it difficult to track recipients of failed or faulty medical devices. As we saw with the pelvic mesh implants, it can sometimes be several years before a product fault is identified. It therefore is crucial that we have some sort of tracking system so that, when a fault is identified, we can then go back to those people who need to be supported and give them the support they need. Regrettably, however, the legislation doesn't go far enough and only provides for the making of regulations that will create a database. In essence, what we're doing is simply agreeing to a process that might establish a database, but we're not actually establishing a database. This is something that is long overdue and, as other contributors to the debate have pointed out, is something that Labor not only supports but has been calling for for some time.</para>
<para>My view is that, if we're going to make regulations, we should also go to the next step of establishing the database. However, there is no commitment to do so and, even more concerning, there is no information as to how that will be done, how the database will be established, who will administer it and how secure it will be. Securing personal information, particularly medical information, is increasingly becoming a problem for government departments, even more so when that information is held by a private sector entity, as the Morrison government is inclined to do. These are serious matters and, quite frankly, I believe the public have a right to know the details of how the database will be established.</para>
<para>Here in Australia and throughout the world, COVID-19 has indeed been devastating. The urgency in developing and rolling out a vaccine is well understood: every day matters. So, if the TGA process can be sped up without compromising the vaccine's safety and effectiveness, then that is what must be done. This legislation makes it possible to roll out the vaccine sooner by exempting administrative requirements relating to vaccine labels. The vaccine labels are of course important, but ultimately it's the product itself that is the most important. If we have confidence in the product, I think it will be quite reasonable to have a proposition whereby the labelling can be dispensed with if that means that their product can be rolled out even faster. So Labor, because of the current circumstances and the urgency required, will be supporting that exemption to the process.</para>
<para>On Monday the Prime Minister made an announcement in his Press Club speech about his government's commitment to a rapid national rollout of the COVID vaccine. However, like so many of the government's program announcements, I hope that this one is delivered much more timely than most others have been, because the whole nation depends on it. I hope this is not simply another announcement that the Prime Minister is not able to live up to. Labor will of course support the rollout, just as we have been constructive with all other COVID measures that the government has announced, but also, importantly, because we know that bipartisanship is crucial in building public confidence in the vaccine rollout.</para>
<para>This is particularly the case in light of the widespread antivaxxers' campaign that I'm sure we in this place are all aware of—the COVID-19 conspiracy theories that are rife on social media, both here and throughout the world, and comments from political leaders questioning the effectiveness of the vaccines and competency of the TGA and other comparable global agencies. All of that makes the rollout much more difficult. I'm aware, through the studies that have been carried out, and I've read reports of them, that most Australians—I believe in the order of three-quarters of all Australians—support the vaccine rollout, but many are also understandably cautious because of other comments that they are hearing and reading. Their caution may mean that they will not have the vaccine even when it is available in the early stages. That is not in the nation's interest. My concern is that, unless we have bipartisanship and unless we have a strategy whereby the Australian people are absolutely confident in the vaccine, not all of them—not because they're antivaxxers—will take up the opportunity to become vaccinated. That, in turn, will mean that the problem will be with us for much longer. So it is important that we not only have bipartisanship on this issue but we also have a common message right through to the Australian people.</para>
<para>We know that COVID-19 has devastated communities. Whilst here in Australia—and other speakers have made this point and used the Prime Minister's own words—we are in fact one of the world leaders with respect to the way we've managed COVID-19, the reality is there are still many, many people doing it tough because of COVID-19 and indeed will continue to do it tough for many, many months to come. It's in the national interest, and it's in the individual interests of those people and their families to ensure that we get on top of the COVID pandemic. The best way to do that is through the rollout of the vaccine, and therefore it's important we do so as quickly as possible.</para>
<para>Can I say, even with respect to the rollout itself—again, I don't have the details of how that is going to be done—that I hope the government has a carefully thought through strategy to do so because it's a huge task. In fact, I'm not aware of a similar challenge being placed on the Australian government ever before. Whether it's going to be rolled out under the direction of the federal government or the individual states, I don't know, but it is something that needs to be managed very, very carefully.</para>
<para>The third matter I will refer to in respect of this legislation relates to medical shortages. Other speakers have made the point that this is something that's not new and has not been caused solely by COVID-19. COVID-19 might have added to the problem but, quite frankly, medical shortages have been with us for some time. This highlights of the issues that I and others in this place have been talking about for some time now—that is, our reliance on other countries for many of the essential products that we need here in Australia. Whilst in the past we might have had liberal trade and easy access to many of those products, COVID-19 has highlighted that when there's a crisis of some sort our access to essential products can be severely disrupted. It was disrupted with COVID-19 and it might be disrupted again if there's another crisis in the future. We need to stop relying on overseas countries for the things that we need to have at all times in Australia.</para>
<para>I believe that here in Australia we have the ability to improve our production of pharmaceuticals. In my own electorate, Mayne Pharma has a major production facility. I've been through it on more than one occasion; it's an impressive facility. Mayne Pharma also has facilities overseas. I know that it's a very competent organisation, and I believe there are others like them. We should be supporting Australian companies to manufacture products here in Australia just as we are with CSL's facilities producing the vaccine in Victoria. We should be doing that because medicines and medicinal products and medicinal goods are essential items; they are not something that we choose to have from time to time. If they are needed they become an essential product.</para>
<para>To simply say, as this legislation does, that doctors and pharmacists will be able to dispense a substitute product is nothing more than a bandaid measure. That shouldn't be the answer. That already exists if there is agreement between the doctor, the pharmacist and the patient. It already occurs. The real answer to the problem of medicine shortages is to ensure that we have adequate stocks in Australia at all times. That's done through the reporting process—which has been shown to be flawed from time to time—but, more importantly, it can be done by manufacturing medicines and medical products here in Australia. It is no good having a great reporting system or the ability to dispense an alternative product if we cannot access the products from overseas because there is a shortage for whatever reason or because supply lines have been cut off. When that happens people whose health is entirely reliant on the medicines they take will be placed at serious risk. At a time when we're looking to rebuild our nation, it's an opportunity to invest in the manufacture of medicines and medical products.</para>
<para>Labor will be supporting this legislation because it is the right thing to do right now. During the COVID pandemic that we are all experiencing it is in the national interest to do so. As I said in the course of my remarks, I hope that the rollout is carried out as smoothly and as quickly as possible.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a pleasure to speak on the amendment to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020, which was moved by the member for Hindmarsh. I very much look forward to working with him as our health and aged care shadow minister. I note his comments about the Therapeutic Goods Administration. It's an agency that we and the community need to have confidence in, and we need to defend its independence and make sure that it is able to stay independent and separate from political influences. I'll come to that mater later in my contribution. Of course, we have said that we'll support this bill, but there are some matters I'd like to speak about. I want to start with the COVID-19 vaccine, one of the measures in this bill.</para>
<para>Australians can be very proud of how they have responded to the pandemic. Their discipline and their willingness to comply have made it possible for us to be guided by science, knowing that people will, by and large, be willing to take the steps that are needed. There's no doubt that the majority of people I speak to have a huge desire to see the vaccination rollout get underway. It is vital that this rollout is done efficiently and fairly. I think we all recognise the absolute challenge of rolling out a vaccination program such as this on such a huge scale. We're not alone in facing this challenge; we're watching countries all around the world grapple with it. We are talking about 50 to 60 million vaccinations over the next six to eight months, depending on how quickly this can be done. This will obviously be made more challenging because you will need to have two doses of the Pfizer vaccine—and we need to see what other vaccines ultimately become available—so it's not going to be just one visit to a nurse, a doctor or a pharmacy; it's going to be two. And it will happen at the same time that the flu vaccinations are administered as usual, which in itself is already a major logistical undertaking. Certainly, I know from talking to my local GPs that that is a really busy time for them.</para>
<para>We have never before seen anything on this scale in Australia. I think we are right to be asking questions about the logistics of how it will happen and asking the government to clarify things and share their plans about it or identify the issues they haven't been able to find solutions for. One of the key things we're all aware of is that the Pfizer vaccine needs to be kept extremely cold, at minus 70 degrees Celsius, which is colder than winter in Antarctica. That is an extraordinary logistical challenge, when you think of it being rolled out around the country. There are other vaccines that have different requirements, and the different needs of vaccines, again, will be one of the things we have to adapt to. I'm told the Moderna vaccine, which we don't have access to, also needs to be frozen, but only at minus 20 degrees Celsius, more like a regular freezer.</para>
<para>I'm really conscious that the community wants this vaccination rollout to succeed and GPs want to be on board. GPs in my electorate have put up their hands to be part of it and I'm sure pharmacies also are going to put up their hands to be part of it. But they need to have confidence that the processes to support them in doing so are in place. We know the vaccine we have access to and which, hopefully, will begin being rolled out soon arrives in packs of 10. Having packs of 10 means our normal labelling processes don't apply, nor will the labels stick to something being stored at minus 70 degrees Celsius. That's one of the measures in this legislation, and we're very happy to support it and help expedite the rollout. Let's keep in mind that the community are deeply unsettled at the moment. They know that outbreaks can occur, as we saw only this week. What we need is confidence in the way the rollout occurs. That will flow through to consumer confidence, which in turn will impact on business confidence. Health is our No. 1 priority, but the way the rollout happens will have its own effects.</para>
<para>I want to note that, at a local level in my electorate, no hub has been identified for a local rollout, although I know that GPs have offered to be part of it. The Nepean Hospital has been identified as a second-phase hub, but it isn't clear exactly where people who are eligible for phase 1a in the far west of the city and in my electorate of Macquarie but outside the electorate of Lindsay will be able to get access to the vaccine. I know that if you're in Lindsay it's obvious where you go, but once you move further west or north-west there are much longer distances to travel. I'm really hoping that we see as much local access as possible for my frontline people so they can have the vaccine that they so urgently want to have to reduce the risk that they're facing every single day when they go to work.</para>
<para>I think that we can't talk about this issue without looking at the supply of the vaccine. It's been interesting hearing the claims that we are at the front of the queue to access supplies of the vaccine when I think the evidence shows that we clearly are not. We weren't even at the front of the queue in signing deals for the vaccine. There's been, from what I can see, just under 100 million doses of the vaccine administered worldwide. Israel has reached around a 35 per cent vaccination rate. They are about half the size of us, but that is a very impressive vaccination rate. We have had precisely zero vaccinations. We understand that the TGA needed to go through the processes thoroughly, and it is good to see they did that in a very timely way, but, some weeks on, we're still not seeing any exact start dates for the vaccine rollout. So I do look forward to seeing those soon.</para>
<para>My community is conscious every time they read about some sort of tightening of supplies, as we read about with the EU in the last little while. That's another factor that we in this place and our communities are aware of. No-one can ignore the fact that it heightens our inability to produce the volumes of vaccine in our own country to look after our own people. I do hope that this lesson is something not just being learned. It's all very well to learn a lesson, but we then need to see actions in place, because it has highlighted how much we need to be able to make things here, in Australia. If you can't make the things in your own country that are needed to protect the health of your own people, you really are failing your community. I think we have a responsibility to act on that, and I look forward to seeing action.</para>
<para>The other issue that I would like more clarity from the government on is the online booking system. There is meant to be a single point of entry. When I talk to my GPs about the rollout of flu vaccinations, they are very clear on who needs to have a flu shot fast. They know their patients. They know who's on the list. They reach out to them. Sometimes it takes more than one phone call to organise to have them in. The process they use to make sure that the flu vaccination is effectively rolled out is very intensive. I want to understand how a single point of entry into a system, what GPs are used to doing and how effective that is in getting good rates of flu vaccination coverage, is going to be supported. How is an elderly person going to use that single point of entry? Will people in my electorate, for instance, pop in a postcode and be advised that their nearest place is maybe some 60 or 70 kilometres away? How is it all going to work? We know the challenges, but what we haven't heard from the government is what the solutions are.</para>
<para>There is no doubt that there are some people who are hesitant about being vaccinated. We need to give them confidence. I welcome the government's campaign. I think it's something like a $24 million dollar campaign to promote vaccination; that's a good thing. But then, to have that effort undermined by people like the member for Hughes, who has continued to peddle his views and spread misinformation on Facebook, on social media, on TV and today in the corridors, undermines any efforts being made with a huge portion of the population who are willing to listen to those words.</para>
<para>It's reported today that the Prime Minister has spoken with the member for Hughes and not only advised him that he isn't his doctor but apparently asked him to change his sort of communication. I'll believe it when I see it. The fact that it's come now—the member for Hughes has been peddling this misinformation about COVID from almost the day COVID was identified as a pandemic. Only this morning he was haranguing the member for Sydney in the corridors about it, all because she had the audacity to say that she believed the Minister for Health and the Chief Medical Officer of this country. He's been peddling these dangerous views for such a long time, and the Prime Minister has failed to do anything other than turn a blind eye. He's failed to take any responsibility for the things that a member of his government is doing—things that were contradictory to what the minister for health and the Chief Medical Officer were saying.</para>
<para>In case people need to be reminded of what some of those things are, there has been a systematic undermining of confidence in all our medical and scientific institutions where they've spoken on COVID, not least the TGA. He went so far as accusing the chief medical and health officers of 'crimes against humanity'. There have been conspiracy theories about big pharma from the member for Hughes. He has planted so much doubt about a range of therapeutic practices. He's promoted so-called therapeutic practices that have no medical basis. He jumped on the Donald Trump bandwagon on a whole lot of things to do with this issue and thrived on being controversial about it. He was promoting things to people who were apt to believe. He didn't do it just once; he didn't do it twice. He did it every day. He did repeatedly. He did it over days, weeks and months.</para>
<para>For the Prime Minister to speak with him today is far too little, too late. We have asked the Prime Minister to speak publicly about the member for Hughes's views, and to my knowledge that is yet to happen. It's extraordinary that nobody on the other side has really had the guts to call him out. He must be an embarrassment to those opposite. They really should speak out in droves about what he is saying and how he is undermining the very things that their government is standing for and we are supporting them on—that is, to encourage people to be part of the vaccination rollout so that we can really start to tackle the consequences of COVID and recover from the impacts that it has had, not least being able to keep our people safe.</para>
<para>In the time remaining to me, I will touch briefly on the other measures in this bill. One aspect of the bill deals with medicine shortages. These are not new. They are pre-COVID issues and they've been further exacerbated by COVID. There have been serious medicine shortages. This bill is good in as much as, if a serious shortage is declared by a minister, it allows for a pharmacist to substitute a different medicine, not just a different brand of the same medicine. But this really doesn't address the underlying supply chain issues, and that's what we need to see this government do. I will give you one example that's been raised with me. The acid reflux drug Famotidine can be ordered by mail from the US—it's available over the counter from Costco in the US—but you can't buy it for love or money in Australia. Pharmacists are raising this issue about a range of medications, such as for thyroid treatments and even for anaesthetics in surgery. So we need to see more than this.</para>
<para>The last thing I will mention is the medical devices register. Many people have said that it is easier to track a car part than it is a medical device, so I welcome the fact that this is a register, but I note there is a long way to go before it is in place.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the bill before the House, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020. This bill makes an important step towards the smooth rollout of Australia's very, very important vaccination program. Right now, drugs imported into Australia are required to have registration or a listing number on their label. With the COVID-19 vaccine, this may not always be possible—for instance, if those vaccines must be stored at extremely low temperatures, like the Pfizer vaccine. This bill amends the Therapeutic Goods Act to allow the secretary of the health department to waive this obligation so that we can import these critical life-saving vaccines and start the process of getting our lives back to normal. The removal of this impediment to the import of COVID-19 vaccines is a sensible and practical measure that puts public health and safety first.</para>
<para>The vaccine rollout in Australia will be delivered through hospitals, GP clinics, pharmacies and community health centres. But, if the rollout is to be successful, regional Australia will need additional support. We already have significantly fewer GPs per head of population than the cities, and these GPs are already overworked. Many people will have to travel significant distances to get to hospitals or other distribution points. Small clinics will need additional resourcing to cope with the millions of people across the nation who need to be vaccinated. This bill is important, but our vaccine rollout will need a dedicated regional focus if the promise of free and universal access to this vaccine is to be realised.</para>
<para>I have a deeper concern around the success of the vaccine rollout. My concern is that the government is not currently providing a clear and consistent evidence based public health message about COVID-19, largely due to the ongoing behaviour of the member for Hughes, behaviour that I believe is directly relevant to the bill before us. I was reluctant to make the following remarks today, because I have no wish to draw attention to this dangerous behaviour. But, with my background in clinical care and public health research, I felt it was my professional duty to intervene in this public debate. As a former nurse and midwife, over the years I've had many hundreds of conversations with new parents who hold concerns about vaccines. I know that in normal times many people harbour anxieties and reservations about vaccines; it's not unusual. If anyone out there listening feels hesitation about the vaccine, it's okay to feel some hesitation, but it's important to ask the right questions of the right people.</para>
<para>I know from my clinical and research experience that addressing people's concerns about their health and the health of their kids requires empathy, understanding and information that comes from evidence based medicine. That's why the member for Hughes is so heinous in doing what he's been doing. He's exploiting and aggravating legitimate concerns and anxieties of Australians just to big himself up. That is not on. In place of scientific, medically sound information, he's putting out serious misinformation. It's appalling in a pandemic—when millions overseas have died, when the entire world has been turned upside down, when people's lives have been disrupted so completely—to throw fuel onto the fire of people's anxieties about their health and security, and, in the process, endanger them.</para>
<para>I will not waste time countering each of the spurious claims that the member for Hughes has spouted over the last year. Instead, I am asking the government to stop this dangerous behaviour. I believe that there was a private conversation this morning between the Prime Minister and the member for Hughes. Apparently, that has been released in a media release. But a private conversation and a media release are not enough; this needs to be stated publicly. If the member for Hughes is allowed to continue, then all of the good work being done—for instance, through this really important bill—will be undermined.</para>
<para>The government has so much to be proud of in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic: shutting down the international borders early; establishing the national cabinet; and creating economic measures, like JobKeeper, JobSeeker and the coronavirus supplement, which were critical public health measures in allowing people not to have to choose between complying with public health advice and keeping an income. All of that good work is being undermined from the inside. Yet the government is refusing to do something publicly about it.</para>
<para>No person in this building has worked harder over the past year than the minister for health. I have much respect for his tireless and effective work in leading our national response. That's why I was so powerfully disappointed that, when asked to condemn the lies from the member for Hughes, the health minister only said, 'There will be different views from different people.' It's why I was so shocked when, as Acting Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister was asked about the member for Hughes's dangerous fabrications and he told people to 'toughen up', because 'facts are sometimes contentious'. That's not good enough. It's why I was scandalised on Monday, when the Prime Minister was asked to reject the arguments put forward by the member for Hughes and he instead said that he was doing a 'great job' in his electorate. From three of the most senior members of the government, this is reprehensible. This is not what being captain of 'team Australia' looks like—no, it's not. This is capitulation to idiocy that does not befit a government which has otherwise overseen such a successful response to the COVID-19 pandemic and is presenting a good bill to us right now. This is a government that called COVID-19 our 'Dunkirk moment', and yet, when its most senior members were called upon to show leadership, they squibbed it. They've the spine of a jellyfish when it comes to the member for Hughes!</para>
<para>Even the member for Higgins, a decorated doctor in her past life and highly respected, when asked about the member for Hughes said that debate is fine and that she doesn't follow the member for Hughes on Facebook so hadn't seen what he'd said. I understand that she's probably working very hard—she's told me she has been, inside the tent—with her colleague. But it's not enough. You need to say this publicly and give confidence to the people out there who are listening. If the most experienced medical professional in the government claims to have not even read the dangerous anti-science nonsense being churned out several times a day by one of her own colleagues, that's not something of which to be proud. The member for Higgins stood up in this place just this morning highlighting, legitimately, her expertise as a medical researcher and declaring that the government is removing all roadblocks to an effective rollout of the vaccine, but, really, all of them accept the enormous roadblock that sits in the party room.</para>
<para>This government has started pushing the line that the grand solution for all of this business with the member for Hughes is just to stop using Facebook for health information. The member for Hughes, though, has 90,000 followers on Facebook—50 per cent more than the Treasurer of Australia. He's had 3.9 million interactions with his Facebook page since August. By contrast, the Australian government Department of Health has had just 605,000. There has not been a single week since August of last year where the Department of Health has had more interactions than the Facebook page of the member for Hughes. So the idea that you shouldn't go to Facebook for your health advice is ludicrous, because in fact it's one which all of us here—and, indeed, the government, most profoundly—subscribe to. Right now, the pinned Facebook post for the member for Higgins is a video about how the vaccine will be rolled out—a post that she has hashtagged 'DrKatie' and 'health'. So that's a curious way not to share medical advice on Facebook! When the TGA approved the Pfizer vaccine on 25 January, the Prime Minister was really quick to post a celebratory note on Facebook, as was the Treasurer, as was the Deputy Prime Minister and as was the health minister. The obvious truth is that the government do use Facebook and social media to spread health advice because they know that that's where people get a lot of their information. This idea that Australians could just delete their Facebook accounts is a fig leaf for an inability to rein in their own renegade colleagues.</para>
<para>As far as I can see, the only member of the government who has even remotely called out this tommyrot is the member for Reid, one of the newest and youngest members of our parliament. She said correctly:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Freedom of speech does not equal freedom of responsibility. In a political environment shaped by COVID, the responsibility of every MP is to safeguard democracy by rejecting disinformation and fake news. We have a duty to our nation to follow the evidence and facts.</para></quote>
<para>I applaud the member for Reid and thoroughly agree with her. In a single tweet, she's shown more courage than the entire government ministry put together, and she's shamed the Prime Minister who, instead of leadership, has prioritised political expediency above public health—because you cannot claim to kneel at the altar of medical science and yet allow a bonfire of lies to blaze on the internet, lit by the self-appointed minister for conspiracy theories, the member for Hughes. You just cannot. It is simply unacceptable. It has to be called out—it has to be called out publicly, not just in a private conversation—and it has to stop, because people are being lied to and they are being misled.</para>
<para>Research from the ANU in November found that just 58 per cent of Australians will 'definitely' get the vaccine, but almost 30 per cent—30 per cent!—are hesitant, with 13 per cent actively resistant to it. Polling published by Newspoll yesterday showed a similar result, with just 46 per cent of Australians saying they would 'definitely' get the vaccine, a third saying 'probably', 17 per cent saying they won't and eight per cent being unsure. This is why it's so important that we get the logistics and communication right.</para>
<para>The vaccine will not itself be a silver bullet to get us back to normal, but it is our only pathway back to normal. To really get to the other side of this crisis, we need something like 70 per cent to 90 per cent of the Australian population to get vaccinated. The fact that we are only at around half of Australians saying they will definitely get the vaccine is a public policy failure that needs to be addressed urgently, and it is a failure that falls directly at the feet of those who spew lies and those too afraid to stop them.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister is spending $24 million of public money on a vaccine information campaign and yet his own backbencher is rowing in the other direction. The greatest challenge our nation will face this year, God willing, is to convince tens of millions of Australians of the truth that these vaccines are safe and effective. A clear and consistent message from our leaders is more important than ever. That's the one thing this government appears unable right now to give Australians while the member for Hughes is allowed to run riot.</para>
<para>The President of the AMA, Omar Khorshid, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's really disappointing to see people who should know better getting out there and putting out just crackpot ideas on health issues.</para></quote>
<para>And the vice president, Dr Chris Moy, said the member for Hughes and others are 'torching the foundation of community health and science'. There's now a push by organisations like the Doherty institute and the Immunisation Foundation of Australia for the parliament to pass legislation forcing social media companies to crack down on COVID-19 misinformation circulating online. So at a time when our vaccinologists and our public health experts should be focusing on the vaccine rollout they are instead mobilising to counter the dangerous behaviour coming from, of all places, the government party room. It beggars belief. What a disgrace.</para>
<para>I am not a firebrand MP. I came here to be a good local representative. I have no interest in stoking political drama just for the sake of it. My remarks on this bill today are absolutely motivated by a desire for the government to succeed on this, to protect public health with the same vigour with which it's approached the COVID-19 pandemic in general. I want to be extremely clear: if you are out there right now listening to all of this, getting confused about what vaccine works, what the side effects are or if you are feeling anxious, that's okay. It's not wrong to have questions. It's not wrong to feel anxious.</para>
<para>Before I was a public health researcher I spent 35 years as a nurse and a midwife. I have sat with thousands of new mothers and fathers and talked with them about how to care for their babies. Many hundreds of these new parents over the years have been reluctant or anxious to get their children vaccinated. When the measles-mumps- rubella vaccine was a big issue, I had many discussions with parents to reassure them about this. The research tells us that the best way to encourage people to get vaccinated is to recognise their concerns and answer their questions. Nobody refuses a vaccine because they are trying to harm themselves or other people; they do it because they are honestly worried about the health of themselves or their family. We are all driven by the same impulse here—to protect our families and our community. But it is important to be clear: the vaccines being rolled out in Australia have been rigorously tested. These approval processes have not been rushed. They are safe. They are effective. Australia's vaccine rollout will be voluntary, universal and free. The government is not making this mandatory. This means it is up to all Australians to choose vaccination. If we, as a country, can rally around this vaccination program and get vaccinated when we can then that is the way back to normal life.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the House, but it would be absurd to do so without noting that the greatest tool we have for a successful vaccine rollout is not legislation but communication. If the government is to succeed in this challenge, a challenge that the Prime Minister on Monday said was his No. 1 priority, then it has to step up and show leadership that Australians deserve and publicly call out misinformation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020 amends the Therapeutic Goods Act to implement a range of measures to support the delivery of the highest quality health care for Australians and to promote the health and wellbeing of Australians. In particular, the bill removes a potential impediment to the Australian government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to the importation and supply of COVID-19 vaccines in Australia. It also introduces measures to improve access to therapeutic goods for Australians and to enhance patient safety.</para>
<para>The bill supports continued access to medicine where there is a serious scarcity of a medicine in Australia, improves the safety of therapeutic goods in Australia by providing for the introduction of a unique device identification database and related requirements to trace medical devices, and enables the ratification of international agreements that protect human health relating to therapeutic goods.</para>
<para>The bill supports Australian Public Service employees to lawfully obtain, possess and convey goods, licit or illicit, for the purpose of determining compliance with the therapeutic goods regulatory scheme, clarifies aspects of the data protection scheme for assessed listed medicines and makes other minor amendments. I thank members of the House for their contributions to debate on this bill.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hindmarsh has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [12:20]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>61</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Alexander, JG</name>
                  <name>Allen, K</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KL</name>
                  <name>Archer, BK</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, RE</name>
                  <name>Chester, D</name>
                  <name>Christensen, GR</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, PJ</name>
                  <name>Connelly, V</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M</name>
                  <name>Drum, DK (teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, PC</name>
                  <name>Entsch, WG</name>
                  <name>Falinski, JG</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                  <name>Flint, NJ</name>
                  <name>Frydenberg, JA</name>
                  <name>Gee, AR</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, GR</name>
                  <name>Hammond, CM</name>
                  <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                  <name>Hunt, GA</name>
                  <name>Irons, SJ</name>
                  <name>Joyce, BT</name>
                  <name>Kelly, C</name>
                  <name>Laming, A</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J</name>
                  <name>Ley, SP</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D</name>
                  <name>Liu, G</name>
                  <name>Martin, FB</name>
                  <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, MI</name>
                  <name>Morrison, SJ</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, T</name>
                  <name>O'Dowd, KD</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A</name>
                  <name>Pearce, GB</name>
                  <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                  <name>Porter, CC</name>
                  <name>Price, ML</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, RE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, SR</name>
                  <name>Sharma, DN</name>
                  <name>Simmonds, J</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, MS</name>
                  <name>Taylor, AJ</name>
                  <name>Tehan, DT</name>
                  <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                  <name>van Manen, AJ</name>
                  <name>Vasta, RX</name>
                  <name>Wallace, AB</name>
                  <name>Webster, AE</name>
                  <name>Wicks, LE</name>
                  <name>Wilson, RJ</name>
                  <name>Wilson, TR</name>
                  <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                  <name>Young, T</name>
                  <name>Zimmerman, T</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>57</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, AN</name>
                  <name>Bandt, AP</name>
                  <name>Bird, SL</name>
                  <name>Bowen, CE</name>
                  <name>Burke, AS</name>
                  <name>Burney, LJ</name>
                  <name>Burns, J</name>
                  <name>Butler, MC</name>
                  <name>Butler, TM</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, JE</name>
                  <name>Champion, ND</name>
                  <name>Chesters, LM</name>
                  <name>Clare, JD</name>
                  <name>Coker, EA</name>
                  <name>Collins, JM</name>
                  <name>Dick, MD</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, MA</name>
                  <name>Elliot, MJ</name>
                  <name>Fitzgibbon, JA</name>
                  <name>Freelander, MR</name>
                  <name>Giles, AJ</name>
                  <name>Gosling, LJ</name>
                  <name>Haines, H</name>
                  <name>Hayes, CP</name>
                  <name>Hill, JC</name>
                  <name>Husic, EN</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P</name>
                  <name>King, CF</name>
                  <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                  <name>Marles, RD</name>
                  <name>McBain, KL</name>
                  <name>McBride, EM</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, RG</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D</name>
                  <name>Murphy, PJ</name>
                  <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, BPJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, CE</name>
                  <name>Owens, JA</name>
                  <name>Phillips, FE</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, TJ</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, AL</name>
                  <name>Rowland, MA</name>
                  <name>Ryan, JC (teller)</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, RCC</name>
                  <name>Shorten, WR</name>
                  <name>Smith, DPB</name>
                  <name>Snowdon, WE</name>
                  <name>Stanley, AM (teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z</name>
                  <name>Swanson, MJ</name>
                  <name>Templeman, SR</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, MJ</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, AD</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>15</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, KJ</name>
                  <name>Wilson, JH</name>
                  <name>Bell, AM</name>
                  <name>Watts, TG</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S</name>
                  <name>Aly, A</name>
                  <name>Coleman, DB</name>
                  <name>Byrne, AM</name>
                  <name>Evans, TM</name>
                  <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, IR</name>
                  <name>Wells, AS</name>
                  <name>Hastie, AW</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P</name>
                  <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                  <name>Conroy, PM</name>
                  <name>Howarth, LR</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S</name>
                  <name>Landry, ML</name>
                  <name>Keogh, MJ</name>
                  <name>Marino, NB</name>
                  <name>King, MMH</name>
                  <name>Morton, B</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, BK</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, LS</name>
                  <name>Perrett, GD</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P</name>
                  <name>Payne, AE</name>
                  <name>Wood, JP</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Original question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>33</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6606" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>33</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise on behalf of the Labor Party to talk about this extremely important issue, the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse. Labor will be moving a number of very sensible amendments, and I will speak to them in some detail in a moment. But it's true to say that survivors of institutional child sexual abuse wait too long for redress. It's been two years since the national apology to survivors and almost a decade since the announcement of the royal commission by the Gillard government in November 2012. We asked people to bear their souls, to dig up old and painful memories, and they did. We said to them, 'We hear you and we believe you.' We also made a commitment that our words would be backed with action, a commitment to deliver redress.</para>
<para>Survivors have been through so much that it is unimaginable. We had a commitment to deliver redress that was timely, redress that does not retraumatise and redress that does not leave survivors missing out. It's been 31 months since the commencement of the scheme and a fraction of the projected numbers of survivors have received redress, and I will outline that in a moment. There are still too many waiting. Many are ill, many are old and many are dying. In fact, we know that some have passed. Many have missed out altogether.</para>
<para>It is time for us, in this parliament, to get the redress to deliver on its promise to survivors. I seek to make it better with amendments. Labor will introduce a series of amendments to address the longstanding structural and emerging issues with the National Redress Scheme. The scheme that was ultimately rolled out by the government did not fully realise the recommendations of the royal commission, but I hasten to say that I do believe that everyone in this chamber, on both sides of the House, are absolutely committed to redress. There is no question about that.</para>
<para>Labor's amendments will better reflect the reality of survivors and the spirit of the original recommendations. I ask that the government carefully consider these amendments. I am genuine in putting them forward. The minister knows that, and I respect the minister very much. I have met with her to talk through Labor's amendments.</para>
<para>Fixing the National Redress Scheme should not be put in a too-hard basket, and changes do not need to jeopardise any aspects of the scheme. This gives the government—and I stress this—latitude and flexibility to work constructively. We will work constructively with the government to get the scheme working and delivering to survivors, as was originally intended.</para>
<para>The bill makes largely administrative amendments to the operation of the National Redress Scheme, and we welcome those administrative amendments. They include making the process of identifying related groups of institutions more straightforward by simplifying the minister's power to declare related institutions. This will mean large institutions can be referred to by a single name rather than as many legal entities—for example, 'the Anglican church'. The bill clarifies that the amount for which a funder of last resort is liable is based on the number of funders of last resort for a defunct institution—and we saw during the summer break the issues that arose from the Retta Dixon Home in the Northern Territory. The amendments allow senior executives of the department, rather than the minister, to appoint independent decision-makers, allowing for faster appointments. The administrative amendments will protect the names and symbols associated with the National Redress Scheme which are being misused for commercial purposes by some lawyers and organisations, and I say that those organisations and those lawyers need to have a good hard look at themselves. The bill permits a redress payment to be made to a person who's been legally appointed to manage the financial affairs of an applicant for redress—for example, a court appointed guardian. The amendments allow the National Redress Scheme operator to extend the time institutions have to make payments to the scheme—and this is important. The bill authorises the disclosure of protected information about a non-participating institution for the purpose of encouraging the institution to join the scheme. It also corrects typographical errors. Labor very much support these amendments, but we also believe that this is an opportunity for the parliament to address major structural shortcomings in the scheme.</para>
<para>The original royal commission estimated some 65,000 survivors would be eligible for redress. That's a lot of people. As of 15 January 2021, the scheme had received 9,232 applications, had made 5,487 decisions and had finalised 4,060 applications, including 4,620 payments totalling approximately $385.2 million. In June, we know, there were 512 applications on hold, waiting on institutions to join the scheme. These delays cause further trauma to the people who are waiting, and those institutions that still have not signed up should get their skates on. The anxiety many survivors are experiencing at the possibility of missing out altogether due to their age or due to illness is also a further form of trauma.</para>
<para>The slow rate of applications indicates that the scheme is difficult to navigate, inadequate and hard to find. This is certainly what we have been told by people who are trying to navigate the scheme. Survivors have spoken of the difficulty in preparing an application. The Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme heard that, for one survivor, it was 17 months to finalise their application. Given their age and the fact that many of these people are extremely vulnerable, that is just too long. The application processing time by the scheme itself is a separate matter. For example, for applications received in the first half of 2019, the Department of Social Services said the average processing time was about eight months. At estimates in October the department advised that the average processing time was actually between 12 and 13 months.</para>
<para>Institutions simply not signing up to the scheme, despite being named in applications for redress, is another major reason survivors are waiting in limbo for their application to be processed. I do acknowledge that prior to Christmas the minister very much named six of those recalcitrant providers or institutions. There is currently no mechanism, other than through civil claims, to compel institutions to join the scheme so that they can be held to account.</para>
<para>Labor supports the changes the government made to charity law last year, as I just indicated, to prevent organisations getting government grants and to remove their charitable tax deductibility status if they refuse to join the scheme within six months of an application being received. However, these changes will not guarantee that people will get access if an institution remains recalcitrant and refuses to join or if it deliberately restructures its affairs and hides assets to avoid its obligations. I find absolutely abhorrent that institutions that have responsibility for past trauma are going about restructuring themselves so that they cannot be accountable to this scheme. I have had concerns raised with me—for the chamber to understand—that Jehovah's Witnesses are doing this at the moment. It is absolutely reprehensible.</para>
<para>In these rare cases we are calling on the government to consider placing a levy on such institutions in order to cover the cost of redress and collect funds from these institutions through the tax system if need be. Survivors should not miss out on the opportunity to get redress because an institution refuses to take responsibility. It might seem unbelievable to us in the chamber that there are such institutions, but I can assure you that there are. I am sure that people in this chamber would be very aware of some of those institutions. I know the member for Lingiari is going to address that issue in his comments.</para>
<para>Many applications are in limbo because institutions that are the subject of applications are now defunct or have no present-day links or entities. In other cases, application for redress cannot be progressed because the institution itself does not have the financial capacity to meet obligations under the scheme. A notable example is the Retta Dixon Home in the Northern Territory, as I said earlier. This is where governments need to step up and provide a guarantee that they will act as funders of last resort. We don't think there are going to be many cases like this, but they do exist and people in the terrible situation of having suffered abuse at the hands of that institution, which is no longer viable, should not miss out on redress. That is why having a funder of last resort is so important.</para>
<para>No-one should miss out on access to the Redress Scheme because the institution responsible for their abuse has folded or simply cannot afford to pay. Labor's amendments will seek to ensure governments act as funders of last resort when people would otherwise miss out because institutions are defunct or do not have the capacity to join the scheme. I know that the government has done some work on this. We don't see that there are hundreds and hundreds of these cases, but these cases certainly exist in the community.</para>
<para>Labor's amendments are calling on the government to establish an advance payment scheme for people who are elderly or ill. This is very important. We've based this amendment on a model that exists in Scotland. There is capacity in that model for government to make an advance payment to those people who are incredibly ill or getting very old. This could be similar to the scheme which is currently used in Scotland, which has been well received by survivors there. So there is a working model that the government could actually look at in relation to an advance payment scheme. It wouldn't cost any more, because the advance payment would be considered in the final calculation of the person's redress. It would have no financial implications, but it would be an incredibly important process to put in place, given the advanced age and illness of some of the people we're talking about. Given the decades and years that many survivors have waited for a chance at redress and justice, it is vital that people do not die waiting. People deserve to see that institutions who have done them so much harm are held to account. They deserve to know that they are believed, they have been seen and they have been taken seriously.</para>
<para>Another major issue with the design and implementation of the scheme is the inadequacy of redress payments. Inadequate payments—in particular, the $150,000 cap on payments—are pushing people towards civil processes and away from or outside the scheme. We're hearing that survivors can get a more generous payment and are receiving these payments in similar time frames to the scheme. This issue is undermining the fundamental purpose of the scheme, which is to make it easier and quicker for survivors to access payments and support. Redress payments are also being significantly reduced because of prior payments, and I know the minister is very aware of this. The joint select committee heard of an instance in which a payment was reduced by $50,000 to $20,000, all because the survivor was awarded a payment of $15,000 years earlier. For example, it might be that prior payments to stolen generations survivors—a separate issue from institutional child sexual abuse—are being used to reduce payments. We know that, and I urge the government to look carefully at it.</para>
<para>The indexation of prior modest payments has also seen redress payments reduced. According to the interim report of the joint select committee, the Department of Social Services advised that as at February this year 449 payments had been adjusted due to prior payments, with the average value of the adjustment being about $34½ thousand. DSS also confirmed that the maximum adjustment made was $150,000, which reduced the redress award to zero. That is just not right. To that end, Labor's amendments would lift the cap on redress payments from $150,000 to $200,000, as recommended by the royal commission. Labor's amendments would also ensure that prior payments are not indexed when calculating a redress payment and that prior payments which do not relate to institutional child sexual abuse—for example, payments to members of the stolen generations—are not deducted from redress payments.</para>
<para>The redress assessment matrix has also been widely criticised, particularly by care leavers. As the joint committee found, the assessment matrix arbitrarily links the amount of redress awarded to the physical type of abuse perpetrated. It fails to recognise the lifelong harm that any sexual abuse has on survivors. Of great concern is the decision to limit the payment of exceptional circumstances to penetrative abuse. This approach fails to acknowledge the harm caused by other types of sexual abuse and is a noted departure from the original recommendations of the royal commission. One survivor stated, 'I don't know how they came up with the matrix.'</para>
<para>Labor's amendments will require the minister to remake the redress assessment framework to properly recognise the impact of abuse when calculating redress payments, as recommended by the royal commission. The limited one-off payments for psychological counselling and support are contrary to the recommendations of the royal commission. We are concerned that, in many cases, people are being provided with as little as $1,250 to cover future counselling and psychological care. Originally, the royal commission recommended that ongoing support be provided, not one-off payments. It said, 'Many survivors will need counselling and psychological care from time to time throughout their lives.' Counselling is not necessarily needed continuously throughout a survivor's life, but it should be available throughout a survivor's life. It should be available on an episodic basis, and I know people in this chamber understand that. To that end, Labor's amendments will ensure that necessary ongoing psychological counselling and support will be provided to survivors.</para>
<para>Often we hear a claim from the government that they can't make changes to the scheme on their own, and that's a very true statement. They need the support of states and territories, and I acknowledge this. Of course agreement is needed for certain changes, but so is leadership and so is action from the Commonwealth, which is incredibly powerful within that process. Improvements will not happen in a vacuum, just as this scheme and the royal commission that was asked to make recommendations on it did not happen in a vacuum. They happened because there was leadership from the top, leadership from Prime Minister Julia Gillard. The legislated two-year review of the scheme is due to report soon, and we know, from talking to survivors, that the issue reflected in Labor's amendments has also been raised as part of that review.</para>
<para>Only the government—and I'm pleased to see Minister Fletcher at the table—can move amendments that have a financial impact. That is why Labor has put forward a series of amendments that will require the minister to investigate change and report back to the parliament. This is a sensible and flexible approach for the government. There is absolutely no reason why the government should not support these amendments. They afford the minister and the Prime Minister the time to talk to jurisdictions and institutions, consider the two-year review and report back to the parliament on what they will do to fix problems with the scheme. As I said, I am very genuine in putting forward these amendments.</para>
<para>The scheme, as it currently stands, fails to deliver on the promise of redress for everyone—timely redress, redress that does not retraumatise, redress that does not leave survivors missing out. The reality is that the Redress Scheme, as rolled out, does not reflect—and in fact falls short of—the original recommendations of the royal commission. The amendments Labor has put forward seek to address major structural shortcomings in the scheme by bringing the scheme back in line with those original recommendations. We want to end the delays caused by institutions not doing the right thing and not joining the scheme. We want to ensure no-one misses out, through strengthening funder-of-last-resort provisions and the introduction of an advance payment scheme. We want to deliver full redress to survivors by lifting the cap on payments, as prescribed by the royal commission, and making sure prior payments are not indexed to take away from a redress payment, including for members of the stolen generations; scrapping the existing misguided and arbitrary assessment matrix and delivering one that is fair and that properly recognises the full impact of sexual abuse, particularly psychological and lifelong impacts; and ensuring ongoing psychological support for survivors throughout their lives. After so long, it is time that we in this chamber delivered on the promise of redress for survivors.</para>
<para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the deficiencies in the bill as drafted; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) urges the Government to respond to calls from survivors to improve the National Redress Scheme and deliver quicker, fairer and better outcomes for recipients, as recommended by the Royal Commission".</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SNOWDON</name>
    <name.id>IJ4</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm most happy to second the amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ARCHER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's important to me to rise here today and speak in relation to the National Redress Scheme. Whilst the bill before us deals with technical and administrative amendments, I take any opportunity to stand in this place to highlight these issues. It is also a fitting opportunity to acknowledge an amazing young Tasmanian woman whose name I have spoken in this place several times in the past year and whom most of the country now knows: Grace Tame, survivor, fearless advocate and now Tasmania's first ever Australian of the Year. This esteemed award is in recognition of Grace's courageous work through her Let Her Speak campaign, which led to the Tasmanian government finally overturning outdated laws barring survivors of sexual abuse from telling their own story. Grace delivered a fierce and frank speech upon receiving her award. Using a national platform to tell her story is incredibly powerful. Importantly, voices like Grace's speak to why the National Redress Scheme is so important. For the information of the House, I'd like to share an extract from her speech:</para>
<quote><para class="block">All survivors of child sexual abuse, this is for us. I lost my virginity to a paedophile. I was 15, anorexic; he was 58. He was my teacher. For months he groomed me and then abused me almost every day. Before school, after school, in my uniform, on the floor. I didn't know who I was. Publicly he described his crimes as 'awesome' and 'enviable'. Publicly I was silenced by law. Not anymore.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia, we've come a long way, but there's still more work to do in a lot of areas. Child sexual abuse and cultures that enable it still exist. Grooming and its lasting impacts are not widely understood. Predators manipulate all of us: family, friends, colleagues, strangers; in every class, culture and community. They thrive when we fight amongst ourselves and weaponise all of our vulnerabilities. Trauma does not discriminate, nor does it end when the abuse itself does. First Nations people, people with disabilities, the LGBTQI community and other marginalised groups face even greater barriers to justice. Every voice matters.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Just as the impacts of evil are borne by all of us, so too are solutions borne of all of us.</para></quote>
<para>Grace's words are so important. As a survivor of child sexual abuse myself, I can attest to the empowerment that comes from hearing the stories of other survivors: the hope for a future beyond what happened to you, and the relief in the realisation that the shame is not yours to carry.</para>
<para>It's because of survivors like Grace and thousands and thousands of other brave Australians who have come forward in recent years—be it through the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse or by perpetrators being taken to court or by survivors telling someone for the very first time about the abuse they suffered—that we are starting to lift the cloak of secrecy and silence that has protected perpetrators for so long. Some 17,000 survivors came forward to the royal commission, and nearly 8,000 of these survivors recounted their abuse in the commission's private sessions. It's an astounding statistic. But there are so many more who still suffer in silence. So much work has been done over the past few years to begin to bring these stories out of the shadows, but, as Grace herself said, there is still so much more to be done; this is just the beginning.</para>
<para>Those in positions of trust were protected and enabled to abuse children by the level of trust that families and communities had in these institutions. The government has worked tirelessly to ensure that these institutions are held accountable. Over the past two years, the scheme has secured the participation of all states and territories, and, as at 18 September 2020, 272 non-government institutions are participating in the scheme. This means that the scheme now covers over 52,000 sites across Australia. In addition, over 3,600 payments totalling approximately $298 million have been paid to survivors to date.</para>
<para>But I acknowledge that the road has not been smooth, and I want to acknowledge the pain felt by survivors who have faced further difficulty and distress in accessing the scheme, which first rolled out in 2018. I know that Minister Ruston has worked incredibly hard to ensure improvements are made to assist a smoother process for survivors. Our government is committed to supporting survivors of institutional child sexual abuse, and the amendments contained in the bill will address the minor and technical issues, including potential unintended barriers to scheme efficiency with the current redress operation. The changes will enhance the operational efficiency of the scheme, which will be beneficial for survivors but, importantly, do not adversely impact redress outcomes for survivors. The amendments play an integral role in ensuring that there is a clearer path to appropriately compensating survivors, who have suffered unimaginable horrors in our many institutions for far too long. Compensation does not take away the pain a survivor has suffered. It does, however, send a message that what happened matters. We recognise your pain. We hear you and we believe you.</para>
<para>To the institutions yet to join the scheme: shame on you. As Minister Ruston has said, it is completely unacceptable for named institutions to refuse to accept their moral obligation and responsibility to acknowledge the wrongs committed. I fully support our government's plans to strip organisations of their charitable status if they fail to join the scheme. You have been protected for far too long, and your days of avoiding consequences are coming to an end.</para>
<para>In closing, I'd like to say that, as important as the National Redress Scheme is, it's not the only thing we could do and it's not the only thing we should do. Our responses to the issue of child sexual abuse must go further. We must make greater efforts to prevent abuse from happening in the first place and we must have a more holistic approach to recognising and addressing trauma to mitigate the lifelong damage caused to victim-survivors.</para>
<para>I'd also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge that, when we talk about these things, as we so often do, and as has been highlighted by Grace Tame becoming Australian of the Year, it can be very difficult for survivors and it speaks to the ongoing trauma that the member for Barton acknowledged in her words. To anybody who's feeling that way, I would encourage you to reach out to a sexual assault support service in your state for some help.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to rise to make a contribution to the debate today on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020 and to strongly support the amendments moved by the member for Barton to really help set the Redress Scheme back on path to deliver on its promise to actually be a survivor centred and focused scheme.</para>
<para>The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was indeed a necessary and essential response to one of the darkest chapters in Australia's history. We remain forever grateful to the then Prime Minister Julia Gillard for having the courage to launch this royal commission. It uncovered some of the most heinous abuse of innocent children, often inflicted by the very people who were charged with their care. There is no greater betrayal of trust than what occurred under the watch of people who were charged with a duty of care.</para>
<para>The National Redress Scheme was launched in 2018, and it was one of the key recommendations of the royal commission. The commissioners saw it as a very necessary pathway whereby survivors could seek redress for the injustices against them without having to go through the time, trauma and expense of legal action. The legislation before us today makes a number of largely technical amendments. Regrettably, these changes won't solve many of the serious structural issues and deficiencies that we know exist within the scheme. We know that because survivors tell us so every day.</para>
<para>As the deputy chair of the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, as well as the deputy chair of the former committee that inquired into the same matter in the last parliament, I've been following the rollout of this scheme very closely, as have my Labor colleagues, since 2018. These are committees of parliament that have always operated in a multipartisan manner. Regrettably, the take-home message from the work of both these committees has been that the National Redress Scheme is not delivering on its promise to be survivor focussed and to be trauma informed. There are still too many examples where that is simply not the case, and we have taken extensive evidence from survivors, from experts, from community organisations and from government agencies that this scheme is slow, is difficult to navigate and, as I've said, is not sufficiently survivor focused. One of the key issues of the scheme is the take-up. I think it is deeply worrying that, even though it has been operating since 2018, only a fraction of the eligible survivors have signed up. Indeed, the royal commission estimated 60,000 survivors would be eligible, but as of last month only 4,620 payments had been made following 9,232 applications. That has to be ringing some alarm bells for government. That is an appalling participation rate by any measure. Indeed, at that rate you would be looking at 32 years for all 60,000 survivors to receive redress. Clearly that is untenable.</para>
<para>I believe that one of the fundamental problems is that the scheme that was ultimately rolled out by the government did not ever fully realise the recommendations of the royal commission, and each and every time we have deviated from those recommendations it has been to the detriment of survivors. As a parliament, we have stepped away from survivor needs, and it has to stop. That's why Labor has proposed a number of amendments to the bill before us today to bring the scheme back in line with what the royal commission envisaged. The amendments include increasing the maximum payment to $200,000, which is what the royal commission said and what survivors deserve and expect; removing indexation of prior payments when calculating the redress payments; removing consideration of any other payments that don't relate to abuse that are currently being caught up in those assessments; ensuring that the government acts as a funder of last resort for institutions that aren't eligible to take part. This is a very real and live issue before the parliament today.</para>
<para>Other amendments go to the provision of ongoing psychological counselling and support. I'm the member for Newcastle, an epicentre for this kind of child sexual abuse in the religious institutions. It is a shameful part of our history. I work with many, many survivors on a very regular basis, and it is the issue of ongoing access to psychological counselling and support that they feel utterly betrayed by. The royal commission couldn't have been clearer: 'You need to provide ongoing psychological and counselling support. It needs to recognise the episodic nature of abuse and trauma.' We do this for veterans in Australia. It is unforgivable that we have not been able to deliver the same kind of psychological and counselling services to survivors of child sexual abuse. I cannot fathom why we have a situation where different jurisdictions have different kinds of caps and access issues. It is untenable and unforgivable.</para>
<para>Labor's other amendments are to improve the framework to better recognise the impacts of abuse. We have an appalling system of an assessment matrix that exists at the moment that failed to learn the lesson of the royal commission—that is, you must put an emphasis on the impact of the abuse as opposed to the strict definitional nature of the abuse that took place; it is the impact that we need to be mindful of.</para>
<para>Labor will move amendments to create an advance payment scheme for the elderly and very unwell survivors. This is a system that the parliament in Scotland has been able to roll out very successfully. We, in Australia, absolutely should be delivering a similar scheme here. People should not be dying whilst waiting for redress but that's what's happening, and I don't think anyone in this parliament should be kidding themselves otherwise.</para>
<para>So those are Labor's amendments. I know the member for Barton has gone to great length articulating the detail of those amendments. I thank her for that and for her tireless work on behalf of survivors to try to get this redress scheme working again.</para>
<para>Labor are seeking to ensure that the amount of redress won't decrease if survivors request a review of their offer—another shameful consequence, perhaps unintended, but it is a consequence of what is in place now. If you seek a review of a decision you could end up with even less redress than you did before. Let's not forget, the redress that is being offered to people is extremely modest, considering the lifelong trauma that has been experienced.</para>
<para>These amendments go to the heart of the core problems that have been identified in the parliamentary committee's work. Indeed, many of them have been recommended by one or both of the committees in various reports that have been handed down before this Australian parliament. So it really is time for some action. Labor has also extended a very genuine offer to the government to work together in good faith on making the redress scheme the very best it can be. We are committed, and I have no doubt there are many members opposite on the government benches who are deeply committed to ensuring that this redress scheme is improved and delivers on its promise. We just need to ensure that everyone, in fact, is onboard and does the necessary heavy lifting when it comes to legislative reform and, indeed, those negotiations with various state and territory jurisdictions that need to take place.</para>
<para>There is limited time left in the debate. I would like to look at some of the detail of the amendments, the first one being around the maximum payment amount. It remains a thorn in the side of survivors that we are unable to explain to them why we deviated from the royal commission's recommendation that the cap would be at $200,000 yet, by the time the legislation came to this parliament to pass, that cap was reduced to $150,000 and there are all sorts of conditions attached to who can receive that maximum payment. This goes to the problem of the assessment matrix as it currently exists. To be very blunt, without penetration, you cannot receive the maximum amount of redress. That is an insult and it flies in the face of the recommendation of the royal commission around the way that that assessment matrix should work. It flies in the face of all the research that we know around impacts of child sexual abuse and it remains an absolute insult to people that they would be assessed through this matrix that defies all of the best research. Really, the way that this is now structured, it prevents people who have been profoundly impacted, who have lifelong trauma, from ever receiving a maximum payment in the National Redress Scheme because of the way that matrix currently works.</para>
<para>I have often explored the issue around indexation in this parliament in previous debates. It is not okay to be capturing payments that were made under other schemes or other capacities to provide some redress whilst royal commissions were underway or this parliament was sorting out what the National Redress Scheme would look like here. As I said, people are getting quite modest and sometimes very small payments out of redress. It's not okay to have them further reduced by these other payments, some of which are not even directly related to the redress issue. I know the member for Barton has raised before that survivors from stolen generations are having payments—payments resulting from the trauma they experienced due to the stolen generations—taken into consideration to reduce their redress payment. Those two should not be counting each other out in any way, shape or form. It is obscene that, when an offer is put on the table and you seek to have a review, you could actually come back with an even smaller offer at the end of the day. We need to make sure that survivors aren't afraid to seek a review of decisions because they are fearful that they would have money taken away from them.</para>
<para>I will go straight to this issue of funder of last resort, because I think it is a very significant issue that this government has to get its head around, and it has to resolve the problems sooner rather than later. There is an urgent need now. There is a huge problem in the National Redress Scheme around the lack of an adequate funder of last resort provision. There are currently 11 organisations that, despite wanting to join the National Redress Scheme—we can't blame these organisations for not wanting to join—are unable to do so because they do not meet the eligibility requirements. An example of this that is on the public record—I am not breaching any confidence here—involves the Retta Dixon Home in Darwin, where many children, many of whom were from the stolen generation, were horrendously abused over three decades. That organisation is unable to join this scheme, because it cannot assure the scheme that it is financially secure enough to pay redress to the victims, both current and future.</para>
<para>Labor believes that the federal government, as the deliverer of the National Redress Scheme, has a moral obligation to step in as the funder of last resort in these areas, and we have submitted an amendment to that effect. I hope the government looks very seriously at that. We need to have a system where we can make sure there aren't further injustices against survivors. We have a lot to say around how you might improve measures on tax deductibility and levy schemes for organisations that might try to dodge and avoid tax constraints. I would bring the House's attention back to the Scottish incentive around an advanced payment scheme. The Australian parliament could well adopt a similar scheme.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MARTIN</name>
    <name.id>282982</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I stand here to speak on the National Redress Scheme for Institutionalised Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020. Each of us in this place has a duty to confront the history of institutionalised child sexual abuse that haunts many Australians to this day. As a psychologist, I have worked with some of the most vulnerable members of our community. I know their stories. I have seen firsthand the ongoing trauma that child sexual abuse survivors live with: significant mental health issues that translate to a range of social, emotional, behavioural and interpersonal difficulties that are lifelong. Psychological treatment is imperative, and there is no doubt that the National Redress Scheme for institutionalised child sexual abuse plays an important role in rectifying past injustice and pain. It ensures that abusers are held to account, that institutional cultures change and that survivors are compensated. Over the past two years, the scheme has secured the participation of all states and territories, and, as of September last year, 272 non-government institutions are participating in the scheme. This means that the scheme now covers over 52,000 sites across Australia. These are the institutions and organisations that families and the community trust with their children. There is no greater horror as a parent than realising that this trust has been broken—that the vulnerability of your child has been exploited. It is imperative that these institutions are held accountable.</para>
<para>For this reason, it is promising that over 3,600 payments have been made to survivors to date, totalling approximately $298 million. Improvements have been made to the scheme during the initial two years of operation, but we need to do more to make sure the scheme is operating as well as it can be. Putting in place further improvements requires updating the act. This bill will increase the efficiency of the scheme for its remaining eight years of operation and assist in finalising outstanding applications. These minor technical amendments will provide clarity and improve scheme operations but will not have any financial impacts on scheme participants and will not change an institution's liability or obligations under the scheme.</para>
<para>The amendments contained in this bill include taking measures to clarify processes or remove potential barriers to the scheme's efficiency. The amendments will clarify how participating institutions that are associates of the responsible institution are to be determined and specified, provide for greater efficiency in engaging independent decision-makers, introduce protections for the names and symbols used in connection with the scheme, and authorise disclosure of protected information about a non-participating institution to remove barriers for institutions to participate in the scheme.</para>
<para>Further changes will also allow for redress payments to be made to a person who has been appointed by a court, tribunal or board to manage the financial affairs of a person entitled to redress. Currently, if a person accepts a redress payment or a counselling and psychological care payment, the scheme operator must pay this to an account that the person holds with a financial institution and that the person has nominated in writing. In not allowing payments to be made to third parties, we've seen unintended consequences, especially where an applicant has limited capacity to manage their financial affairs or where relevant court or tribunal orders exist. This amendment will enable the scheme to pay an applicant's redress payment to a public trustee or similar body with financial management powers made under relevant laws. The amendments will ensure the scheme can make a redress payment for an applicant, while also ensuring that their interests remain protected in a way that is consistent with the legal arrangements in this place.</para>
<para>Clearly, the focus here is on making the scheme as efficient and straightforward as possible. Many survivors of child sexual abuse have a complex range of mental health issues as a result of their trauma. The last thing that they want is to navigate a complex or cumbersome bureaucratic system designed to address this very trauma.</para>
<para>These amendments will not impact how survivors deal with the scheme, and nor do they have financial impacts for scheme participants. In fact, these amendments will better support survivors taking part in the scheme, by enhancing operational efficiency. We must continue to enhance the way this scheme operates to maintain its integrity and efficiency. Our government will continue to do the work to ensure improvement for this important scheme to better support survivors.</para>
<para>I'd like to acknowledge the very important work of Australian of the Year Grace Tame, whose bravery and advocacy for survivors of child sexual abuse is changing the national conversation on this issue. So I'd like to end by commending her on her incredible work, and I look forward to hearing more from her in the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over recent decades, my home town of Ballarat has been changed for the better by the courage of survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. These survivors have stood up, made their voices heard and are making our community a safer, more welcoming and more honest place. For too long our community was marked by trauma endured in silence, leaving a bitter legacy that touched the entire community. Ballarat does have a long, dark history when it comes to child sexual abuse. For too long that history and that legacy were ignored. Crimes were allowed to continue to go unpunished, to be only whispered about and to impact across generations. Ballarat survivors stood up and they've changed that. They made their voices heard, they pressed for the royal commission, they bravely told their stories and they made our community and our nation a safer place for all of our children.</para>
<para>The National Redress Scheme, recommended by the royal commission, was designed to give back to these survivors, to support those who've lived through so much, to recognise their suffering and to provide assistance so that they can live their lives. But, 31 months since the scheme commenced, the majority of survivors are still waiting. Survivors have waited so long and have been through so much. We made a commitment to deliver redress that was timely, redress that would not retraumatise and redress that did not leave survivors missing out, but, instead of delivering on these promises, too many are waiting. Many are ill, many are dying and many have missed out altogether. Survivors cannot be left waiting any longer. It is time for us to get the redress scheme to deliver on its promise for survivors.</para>
<para>The royal commission estimated some 60,000 survivors would be eligible for redress, but, as at 15 January 2021, the scheme has finalised just 4,660 applications, including 4,620 payments totalling approximately $385.2 million. In June we knew that there were 512 applications on hold, waiting on institutions to join the scheme. At the current rate, it would take 32 years for the estimated 60,000 people eligible for redress to receive a payment. These delays are inflicting further trauma. The anxiety many survivors are experiencing at the possibility of missing out altogether due to their age or illness is also a further form of trauma.</para>
<para>When I speak to survivors I'm told again and again that the scheme is difficult to navigate, inadequate and doesn't properly recognise the impact that abuse has had on their lives. For one survivor, it took 17 months to finalise their application. At estimates in October, the department advised that the average processing time was between 12 and 13 months. The awful truth is that, over time, some will get sicker, their conditions will worsen and some will die. These are people that our society owes an enormous debt, but, instead of delivering on the promises we all made in this place, we are hurting them again and denying them the recognition that they need.</para>
<para>In order to deliver and to support more, Labor backed the changes made by the government at the end of last year to sanction charitable organisations that refused to join the scheme within six months of an application for redress being made. This was an important change and one that could have been made a bit sooner. But more changes are needed to deliver on the promise of the royal commission, a promise which meant so much to so many.</para>
<para>To that end, Labor has introduced a series of amendments to address the longstanding structural and emerging issues with the National Redress Scheme. We call on the government to look at those seriously and to join with us. We are ready to work constructively with you to get the scheme working and delivering for survivors. This is not a partisan political issue; this is a matter that all of us should be engaged in and wanting to get right. I'll go through a few of those.</para>
<para>Of course, there is again the issue of the payment caps. The $150,000 cap on payments is pushing people into civil processes and away from and outside the scheme. It's undermining the fundamental purpose of the scheme, which is to make it easier and quicker for survivors to access payments and support. Redress payments are also being significantly reduced because of prior payments. The joint select committee heard an instance in which a payment was reduced from $50,000 to $20,000 all because the survivor was awarded a payment of $15,000 years prior. As well, there have been reports about prior payments to stolen generation survivors—a separate issue from institutional child sexual abuse—being used to reduce redress payments. That is cruel and it undermines the important work of the royal commission.</para>
<para>To that end, Labor's amendments seek to lift the cap on redress payments from $150,000 to $200,000, as was recommended by the royal commission. Labor's amendments will also ensure that prior payments are not indexed when calculating a redress payment and that prior payments that do not relate to institutional child sexual abuse are not deducted from the redress payments—for example, those payments made to members of the stolen generation.</para>
<para>The redress assessment matrix has also been widely criticised. As the joint committee found, the existing assessment matrix arbitrarily links the amount of redress awarded to the physical type of abuse perpetrated. It fails to recognise the lifelong harm that any sexual abuse has on a survivor. Currently payments in recognition of the impact of abuse are limited to a maximum of $5,000 for exposure abuse, $10,000 for contact abuse and $20,000 for penetrative abuse, no matter what the impact of that abuse was on the survivor. We hear from survivors about the impact abuse has had on their lives—on their relationships, on their children and generations even beyond that, on family, on work, on confidence, on mental health and on reaching their potential. This is not something that can very easily be slotted into a $5,000, $10,000 or $20,000 category on the basis of the type of abuse that was suffered.</para>
<para>The committee has also criticised payments for the recognition of extreme circumstances of sexual abuse, saying of grave concern is the decision to limit the payment of exceptional circumstances to only penetrative abuse. This approach fails to acknowledge the harm caused by sexual abuse overall. If we have learnt anything from Australian of the Year Grace Tame it is that the coercive control, manipulation and psychological abuse that goes alongside often the grooming of young people and children as part of sexual abuse cause extraordinary lifelong harm. It is those harms that people need to focus on when we're actually looking at the Redress Scheme, not the type of abuse someone suffered.</para>
<para>The royal commission recommended that payments for the impact of abuse be calculated separately from payments for the nature of the abuse. The current assessment framework is a noted departure from the original recommendations of the royal commission. Labor's amendments seek changes to the redress assessment framework to properly recognise the impact of abuse when calculating redress payments, in line with what was recommended by the royal commission.</para>
<para>Amendments are also needed to ensure payments reflect that ongoing support is needed for survivors, not simply one-off payments. The approach in the Redress Scheme has been a very legal approach. It has not actually been a health approach, which is in fact what the royal commission recommended. The royal commission stated that many survivors will need counselling and psychological care from time to time throughout their lives. To that end Labor's amendments will ensure that the necessary ongoing psychological counselling and support will be provided to survivors. We are concerned that in many cases people are being provided again a lump sum as little as $1,250 to cover all future counselling and psychological care. That amount will leave too many survivors behind coping on their own and again does not recognise the long-term structural nature of the harm that this abuse has caused to survivors.</para>
<para>Also leaving behind many survivors is the fact that many applications are in limbo because institutions that are the subject of applications are now defunct or have no present-day links to entities. In other cases, applications for redress cannot be progressed because the institution itself does not have the financial ability to meet obligations under the scheme. Where there are no linked institutions that can take responsibility, governments need to step up and provide a guarantee that they will act as funders of last resort. No-one should miss out on access to the Redress Scheme because the institution responsible for their abuse has folded or simply cannot afford to pay.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>42</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Freeman, Mr Desmond Allan</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In December last year, Ipswich lost one of its greatest leaders. Former mayor Des Freeman passed away at the age of 95. He lived with his wife Colleen in East Ipswich for many decades. Des was a life member of the Australian Labor Party, having joined it in 1961. He served as Ipswich's mayor from 1979 to 1991. He received an Order of Australia for his services to local government and the community. Des left school at the age of 13 to work on the family dairy farm in Tallegalla. He ended up working in a local coalmine because the pay was better, and for 40 years he served as a union rep and worked for better conditions for workers and their families. He served on the local ambulance and fire brigade boards and chaired the local health authority.</para>
<para>Both Des and Colleen have been community minded and, motivated by their Catholic faith, committed their lives to the service of others. Beloved and deeply respected, they were a formidable leadership team in Ipswich. They were married for 65 years. Des's time in Ipswich is to be remembered. He oversaw major transformations—huge investments in sewerage, water infrastructure and flood recovery—and he transformed the Ipswich CBD. Des never forgot his roots. He was a true believer, a man of integrity and determination, a mentor to many and a hero to me. His legacy lives on. My sincere condolences to Colleen and family. Vale Des Freeman.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Headspace Gympie</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With up to one in four young people suffering from mental ill health, the headspace Gympie service makes a very positive difference in the lives of hundreds of young people, providing services addressing mental and physical health, as well as alcohol and drug use. This is a fantastic, welcoming facility that also provides social and vocational advice in a safe, supportive and comfortable environment. It offers the right support to help youth navigate the challenges thrown at them. But the time has come for headspace Gympie to be expanded to become a standalone service. Headspace Gympie is contracted to deliver 100 appointments per month, but last year demand for the service jumped. They delivered 152 appointments in July, then 150 appointments in August, 131 appointments in September and 130 in October. The waiting times have also blown out, and more than 50 per cent of young people are waiting more than four weeks for their first appointment. Headspace Gympie is funded at one-third the cost of other headspace centres. It's time it was expanded to a full service to meet community needs so young people can get the help they need—but, critically, when they need it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Corangamite Electorate: Local Government</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Like many people who sit in this House, I spend a lot of time out in my local community talking to people about what matters to them. It's one of the best parts of my job. Time after time, the issue at the forefront of people's minds is inappropriate development. This is especially true on the Bellarine and in the Surf Coast in towns like Torquay, Ocean Grove, Drysdale, Portarlington and Leopold. On 20 January, a large group gathered in Portarlington Park's hall to discuss this very issue. At the heart of their concern is a proposal to build a five-storey apartment complex on the Portarlington foreshore. The community strongly believe it will negatively impact on their town; however, it remains under consideration by the Geelong council.</para>
<para>I understand that every property owner has the right to make a proposal. I also believe the council must balance economic development with protection of coastal character and community aspirations. That balance is only possible when the local community—the people who live and love these towns—is heard. I urge the Geelong council to not pre-empt the state government's distinctive area and landscapes decision regarding where development is appropriate and to listen to their community. I firmly support the right of communities to influence the way townships are managed, particularly with such significant growth pressures, green spaces, pristine beaches and vistas to the ocean. These places are special. It's why we call Corangamite home.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leichhardt Electorate: Australia Day Awards</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ENTSCH</name>
    <name.id>7K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise this afternoon to place on the record those in my community that were recently recognised at the Cairns Regional Council Australia Day Awards. These awards are always one of the highlights of the year, as they acknowledge those who have worked tirelessly to ensure our community is a great place to live, work and play. They are people who don't crave the limelight, but I certainly think that their work and contribution should be acknowledged.</para>
<para>I had the privilege of attending the awards with my beautiful wife, Yolonde. She was 2020's Cairns Citizen of the Year, which I'm very, very proud of. The 36 finalists across the eight award categories were all winners in my eyes. This year's award recipients included the Citizen of the Year, Ian Roberts; Young Citizen of the Year, Harrison Oates; Volunteer of the Year, Glynnis Kiernan; Sportsperson of the Year, Grant 'Scooter' Patterson; and Junior Sportsperson of the Year, Caleb Nissen. The Cultural Award went to Terry Doyle, the Junior Cultural Award went to Ashleigh Ung, and the inaugural COVID-19 Community Care Award went to Janine Bowmaker.</para>
<para>I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the many, many other unsung heroes in my community who don't make any official list. Their work in our community over the past years certainly hasn't gone unnoticed. To all of these people, I say thank you. Our community is far richer by your tireless work and selfless contribution.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New South Wales Government: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the failures of the New South Wales government and the New South Wales Premier in providing infrastructure in my rapidly-growing community. Governments like the Berejiklian government have developed a habit of putting in mass housing without putting in appropriate infrastructure.</para>
<para>For years now suburbs sprouted out of farmland with thousands of residents, like Gregory Hills, Gledswood Hills, Arcadian Hills and Oran Park—all new suburbs—have lacked infrastructure. The suburb of Gregory Hills lacks a public school. The neighbouring suburb of Gledswood Hills has a new school this year but has over 230 children enrolled in kindergarten—far more than it can cope with. Oran Park school has 42 demountable classrooms. All these houses have been put in place without infrastructure in schooling, in transport and in health, and yet the government has failed to listen to our plight of a lack of infrastructure for our many, many families. My job is to call them to account.</para>
<para>The new school at Gledswood Hills doesn't allow for parking. There's no room for parking. So parents who want to speak to the child's teacher can't park there. It is a disgrace that Liberal governments, state and federal, will not provide infrastructure in these rapidly-growing suburbs that require— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mackellar Electorate: COVID-19</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FALINSKI</name>
    <name.id>G86</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over the Christmas new year period, my community was locked down, and I want to thank them for their sacrifice. Because of them, Australians were not locked down and Sydney was not locked down. To the family that had to cancel for the fifth time their trip to Lord Howe Island, we thank you. To the 77-year-old grandmother who couldn't see her children and grandchildren on Christmas Day, we thank you. To the daughter who was not able to see her father who had just came out of emergency surgery, we thank you as well. To the hospital administrators that were able to scramble resources to the point where they could test 70,000 people in a day, we thank you. To the RFS, the SES and the Surf Life Saving members who were able to provide water and shade to people who were waiting in line for two or three hours, we thank you. To the business owners who missed out on their most critical period of trading, we thank you. As a former small-business owner, I want to assure you that I will continue to fight for you to get proper compensation for the losses that you suffered due to no fault of your own.</para>
<para>My community's sacrifice demands answers from Brad Hazzard. How did this outbreak occur? It is not good enough to turn up and say that you don't have confirmed information; we need to know what you know and how it happened. We also must revisit this idea of the megacouncil that saw Manly close down when it is 27 kilometres away from Avalon but only— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sheean, Ordinary Seaman Edward (Teddy)</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ELLIOT</name>
    <name.id>DZW</name.id>
    <electorate>Richmond</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak about a true Australian hero, Teddy Sheean VC. It was an absolute honour recently to unveil a commemorative tribute to Teddy at the Ballina Naval and Maritime Museum in my electorate. I congratulate everyone involved with the museum who made this special tribute possible.</para>
<para>Teddy Sheean is an Australian hero, and the journey to get his well-deserved Victoria Cross has been 78 long years in the making. His courage, determination and bravery in saving his mates in World War II is a true story of service and sacrifice. On 1 December 1942 HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Armidale</inline> was attacked and sunk by Japanese forces. As the ship was going down a wounded Teddy strapped himself to his anti-aircraft gun and maintained fire. He was seen still firing his gun as HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Armidale</inline> went under. In doing so he sacrificed his own life and saved many of his fellow crew members. Teddy laid down his life in the service of his country but also of his friends, and he was just 18 years old. Finally after much lobbying—78 years, in fact—he has been posthumously recognised and awarded the Victoria Cross. Teddy is the first member of the Royal Australian Navy to be awarded the Victoria Cross.</para>
<para>At the unveiling I also had the great honour to meet Teddy Sheean's nephew Mick Shea, who very kindly gave me a copy of Teddy's Victoria Cross citation. I now have that citation displayed very proudly in the front foyer of my office, and I encourage locals to come in and have a look. I also encourage locals to visit the Ballina Naval and Maritime Museum to visit this fantastic tribute.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Boothby Electorate: Citizen of the Year Awards</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FLINT</name>
    <name.id>245550</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to congratulate and thank all the citizens of the year in the seat of Boothby. Our local community is immensely proud that the City of Unley citizen of the year is Craig Scott, and he is also the South Australian citizen of the year. Craig has worked tirelessly at the Goodwood Saints Football Club as a volunteer, implementing a range of very important community programs. He has created programs for at-risk-youth, breast cancer awareness and mental health education. It has been a pleasure to work with him. The City of Marion's joint citizen of the year is Ines Patritti. Ines is an innovative and pioneering businesswoman who runs her family business Patritti Wines. She is a strong supporter of the arts and generously supports so many not-for-profits and community events. She truly is an inspiration to us all. The City of Holdfast Bay citizen of the year is Ronald Knolder, for his significant service to the local Catholic parish and the broader community. Ronald is a school volunteer and conducts welfare checks on senior Australians to combat social isolation as well as to cook for them. The City of Mitcham's citizen of the year is John Arthur, who has been active in our community for 25 years. I have worked closely with John in his role as president of the Bedford Park Residents Association as he has tirelessly advocated for his local community. These recipients are so deserving of these awards, and they embody the very best of Australian values. Congratulations and thank you so much to them all.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Donations to Political Parties</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The poker machine industry bankrolled the Tasmanian Liberal Party's most-recent state election win. Now it's in line for a thumping $350 million windfall in virtually gifted poker machine licences, and with them dramatically lifted business and property valuations. In other words, it's payday for the industry that effectively doled out mountains of cash to the Tasmanian Liberals, 40 per cent of which came from gambling addicts, and which now looks forward to its taxpayer funded reward. Federally it's much the same, with donations made and favours returned. The laws are so weak that most of the time we don't even know who's dishing out the cash, as evidenced by The Centre for Public Integrity, which finds that hidden donors gave more than $1 billion to federal political parties over the past two decades. It is no better than wads of cash in brown paper bags. No wonder the community demands reform such as a cap on donations, $1,000 disclosure thresholds, real-time reporting, bans on donations from dodgy industries and from businesses prohibited from making donations under state and territory laws, and recognition that a donation is any expenditure that benefits a candidate or party, like the campaign we saw from the poker machine industry in Tasmania. Instead, all we get is legalised corruption and wilful ignorance of what the $350 million could have done for the Tasmanian community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lyne Electorate: Australia Day Awards</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to acknowledge and congratulate Port Macquarie-Hastings Senior Citizen of the Year, Phyllis Hollis, who has a long history of volunteering within our area. She's put her time into countless groups, including the Upper Hastings sporting groups, Hastings Country Music Club, St Cuthbert's Anglican Church, Long Flat school, the football club and rodeo, Yarras school, Ellenborough hall and many other causes. After the devastating bushfires and drought experienced in our region, Phyllis and her husband, Reg, were ready and willing to help and began volunteering for the Dominion Grace women's ministry, helping to distribute clothes, household goods and food to all the bushfire affected families. Congratulations, Phyllis, you're greatly admired and you've earnt our respect and thanks.</para>
<para>Also, Judy Love of Bonny Hills has been recognised by our community for her commitment to the local environment in championing and being president of the Bonny Hills Landcare group. Judy has had many projects, including weeding Grants Head and the identification and removal of the African tulip tree, which is recognised as being detrimental to Australian bees. She's led Clean Up Australia Day and she has spread the message of being ecofriendly. People like Judy and Phyllis are part of the rich fabric that makes the Hastings Valley community so strong.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID 19: Australians Overseas</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to share with the House some of the words of one of the many Australians that are stuck overseas. This particular person is a constituent of mine, aged 31, who lives in Castlemaine. She's been stuck in the UK since mid last year, unable to return home. She knows she's not alone in this situation. She's currently in Glasgow and has been trying to get home since August, with no luck. She no longer has a valid visa and is very worried about what will happen to her. She's an Australian without a visa in the UK, yet her government is refusing to help. She did get an email from DFAT with a link to a government chartered flight to Darwin, but it was sold out by the time she clicked on it, which was within half an hour of the email being sent.</para>
<para>This government's efforts to help people return home is tokenistic. This Australian has been waiting months and months for help and is now without a visa. She's one of us, yet has been left stranded. The government needs to do more to bring Australians home. It is through no fault of their own that they are stuck there. While she recognises that the Prime Minister said in March last year, 'Come home', she wasn't in a position to do so because she was still legally working in the UK. Now she is without a visa and alone and stuck in strict isolation, hoping that that might help her get home. I implore the Prime Minister to do more to help bring these Australians home.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Goldstein Electorate: Australia Day Awards</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This year's Bayside Australia Day awards have highlighted the incredible work of our local Goldstein community, which is doing an amazing job to build a stronger community as the foundation for our great nation. Congratulations to Deb Brook, who has been recognised as 2021's Citizen of the Year for leading our community's response to COVID, domestic violence and bushfires. As president of Bayside Community Emergency Relief group, she mobilised over 6,300 Bayside volunteers to donate items to fire ravaged communities and wildlife shelters during the Black Summer of 2020.</para>
<para>Congratulations to Sam Higgins, who has been recognised as Young Citizen of the Year for his inspiring leadership as a young person with cerebral palsy. He is also making incredible contribution. Derek Jones has been awarded Senior Citizen of the Year for his environmental work as convener of the Friends of Bayside Roads program, which collects litter and rubbish. Bayside Community Emergency Relief was recognised with the Community Event of the Year award for its efforts in donating comfort packs to aged-care centres during COVID and to children displaced by family violence. John Eichler was given the environment award for his documentation of Bayside's flora and fauna. Congratulations as well to all those nominees who were recognised by having a chance at these awards, and congratulations to everybody who's doing great things for our community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Eden-Monaro Electorate: Water Quality</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Some MPs might be surprised to hear that many regional communities struggle with reliable supply of quality drinking water. Yes, in 2021 the colour of tap water in a number of the towns I serve is often brown and it's often smelly. The community of Yass is the latest to make some noise, but this is an issue for people in Cooma, Bombala, Tumbarumba, Bega and Tathra, and they can also relate to this issue. It's clear to everyone that water quality in Yass needs fixing. It's a situation that has gone on for too long and is causing increased anxiety and frustration in the community, not to mention that it is stripping away the opportunity that Yass offers new families and businesses. Yass Valley Council has been tenacious in its advocacy to the New South Wales government for some time, and to its credit has presented a solution. There is at least progress on a short-term fix, but I think the community deserves better than that. A new water treatment plant is what council says the community needs long term.</para>
<para>It's an insult that the Liberal-National government in New South Wales is spending 2021 crunching the numbers, asking themselves, 'Is Yass worth it?' My answer every time is yes. A brown, smelly shower would not be tolerated in the city, but, year after year, the residents of Yass have had to put up with just that. We really need to see some solid progress on this issue. Regional growth and the prosperity that flows from this needs confidence and a government that understands how country towns and economies work. I'll continue to support the community and council in achieving a solution, because I'm on the side of the Yass community. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: COVID-19, Western Australia: Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HAMMOND</name>
    <name.id>80072</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This week, hundreds of school students in WA were set to return to school for a new and exciting year, including about 30,000 in my electorate and two in my house. Backpacks that had been left untouched for weeks were found, hopefully with no skanky bananas left in the bottom from last year; new school shoes had been bought, and uniforms searched for, located, washed and maybe ironed, depending on the house. But, of course, all of this was quickly overshadowed by the announcement on Sunday that WA was entering into a five-day lockdown. And a raging bushfire had started in a beautiful part of our city—a fire which is reported to have destroyed over 71 houses, is causing dark smoke clouds all over the city and is dropping ash everywhere. It's yet to be brought under control.</para>
<para>The combination of these two events is very challenging for all of us in Western Australia. Those of us who are older have more experience at dealing with challenges, but we can still succumb to feelings of isolation, hopelessness and despair. It is vital that people recognise these signs in themselves and others and seek appropriate help. More importantly, we need to look for warning signs in our children and youth. They were anticipating one sort of week, and they got an entirely different sort of week—a sort of week that would shake even the most resilient of children. Just as we've done before, we need to take care of ourselves and join together as a community to look out for each other.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID 19: Australian Universities</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> () (): Australian universities saw over 17,300 jobs lost last year. Yet the Morrison government stood by, choosing to exclude universities from JobKeeper. Now there are more losses expected to come. Our unis have been hit hard by the fallout from COVID and the decline in international students. University education is one of the nation's biggest industries; it's also one of the biggest employers, including in Kingsford Smith, which is proud home to the University of New South Wales. The Prime Minister changed the rules three times to make sure that workers in this sector did not get JobKeeper. UNSW was forced to cut 256 jobs last year—academics, tutors, admin staff, library staff, catering staff, ground staff, cleaners, and many others trying to make ends meet—which has impacted families in our community. It's our universities that we've turned to during this pandemic to develop vaccines, look at treatments and investigate ways the disease spreads in our community. Yet the Morrison government has not supported them. Not only do hundreds of thousands of Australians rely on universities for their jobs; universities are home to the brilliant researchers that we're depending on to develop new treatments and equipment to combat COVID. It doesn't make sense. With over 17,000 jobs lost across our country's universities last year, it's our nation's productivity that will suffer in the future. It's a shameful record of this Morrison government that they choose not to support Aussie workers when they need it. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Swan Electorate: Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, Swan Electorate: Australia Day</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr IRONS</name>
    <name.id>HYM</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 22 May 2020, the Morrison government announced the $500 million Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. In the 2021 budget, the Morrison government announced a $1 billion extension of the program, following strong community and local government support. This program supports local councils to deliver priority local road and community infrastructure projects across Australia, supporting jobs and the resilience of local economies to help communities bounce back from the COVID-19 pandemic.</para>
<para>Councils were able to access the extension funding from 1 January 2021. The City of South Perth, in my electorate of Swan, used some of their grant towards the Thelma Street bicycle infrastructure project. Works will include construction of a new red asphalt bicycle path connecting the existing path and the Thelma and Throssel streets intersection. The works will also include minor car park improvements and a structural wall, which is required to accommodate the bicycle path. This project is a priority as it is a strategic bicycle route for the City of South Perth because it creates a direct link from Kwinana Freeway to Curtin University. This is another fine example of how the Morrison government is supporting local communities throughout Australia.</para>
<para>I'd also like to congratulate the City of South Perth on their Australia Day event. I shared the stage with the WA Governor, Kim Beazley, the former member for Swan, as we welcomed 165 new citizens to Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women's Economic Security</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The past 12 months have been extremely difficult for everyone, but they have been so much more difficult for women. Gender Equity Victoria's submission to the Victorian government's budget, <inline font-style="italic">Towards a gender </inline><inline font-style="italic">equal recover</inline><inline font-style="italic">y</inline>, which was released today, sets that out in stark relief. More women were infected by the virus than men, and more women died than men. During the pandemic, women were significantly more likely to feel that everything was an effort, to feel nervous and to feel lonely. There was a 37 per cent drop in breast screening, as an example of the health impacts. In Victoria, 109,000 women lost their jobs. The current Victorian unemployment rate is 8.1 per cent for women compared to 5.9 per cent for men, and we know that when women become unemployed over the age of 45 that unemployment is almost intractable. The majority of casual workers unable to access JobKeeper were women. Women were depleting their superannuation at a higher rate than men when withdrawing emergency COVID funds: 4½ per cent of women and 2½ per cent of men. This is in a situation where women's retirement incomes are drastically insufficient anyway. Up to 320,000 women have given up finding work, taking them out of the job statistics. Mr Morrison, Prime Minister: 50 per cent of the community needs you to stand up and do something for them now.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jeitz, Ms Denise</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak about those who help our party and help this political process. Denise Jeitz, a lady from Dalby who joined the National Party in 1985, was instrumental in so many careers, including my own. Denise was not a person of fabulous wealth. She worked very hard for her local community. She held positions such as Treasurer. She held a long-time position on the women's branch of The Nationals and then the LNP. She was a strong member of the Warrego Electorate Council. But as a person she was always there, always an absolute friend and a staunch colleague. Unfortunately, her husband, Graham, died before her, as did her son, and she also had to manage other issues within her family.</para>
<para>Even though so much was asked of her, Denise still gave to her nation. She was absolutely and utterly tireless in participating in the democracy of our nation. At one stage when she was ill, critically ill, she booked herself out of hospital—we thought that would be disastrous—and went on living for another couple of years.</para>
<para>Next Wednesday I'll be attending the funeral of Denise Jeitz, and other pallbearers will also be people she helped. I want to thank Denise for her work. May she rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Moore, Captain Sir Thomas</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When Captain Sir Tom Moore started doing laps of his garden to raise money for Britain's National Health Service, he thought he might just crack a thousand pounds. Armed with his walking frame, he planned to do a hundred laps, one for every year he'd been on this earth. His estimate was a little off. By the time he was done, his beloved NHS was better off to the tune of 33 million quid—that's A$57 million.</para>
<para>Captain Tom served his nation in World War II, so he knew all about meeting adversity with action, and that is what he did when Britain was brought low by the pandemic. Captain Tom was an inspiration to millions. He brought light when it felt like there was only darkness. Fittingly, he joined forces with Michael Ball to record for a charity a cover of that great anthem of hope and solidarity 'You'll Never Walk Alone'. As he became the oldest recording artist with a No. 1 hit, Captain Tom reminded everyone that there will be a golden sky waiting at the end of the storm. This true hero is now gone, but what he leaves is beyond measure. He gave hope not just to those in the UK but to those throughout the world. May he rest in the glory that he deserves.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We're almost at two o'clock, so I think it would be difficult for the member for Forde to say more than a sentence. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>47</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jeffery, Major General Hon. Philip Michael, AC, AO (Mil), CVO, MC (Retd)</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>47</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by the Prime Minister be agreed to, and I ask that we signify our approval by standing in our places.</para>
<para>Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Anthony, Rt Hon. John Douglas (Doug), AC, CH</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>51</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>51</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to formally welcome former member and former Minister for Community Services and Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, the Hon. Larry Anthony, here today. He has already been welcomed, but I want to formally welcome him.</para>
<para>I would also like to inform the House that we also have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Stephen Parry, a former President of the Senate. On behalf of the House, a warm welcome to you also.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</title>
        <page.no>52</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As we gather today, hundreds of firefighters are responding to the fires in Perth's north-east. Thoughts of all those in this House, I know, are with the people of Western Australia, and especially with the firefighters, who are working around the clock. Over recent days, and as recently as just the past hour, the Premier and I have been in regular contact, as have our respective ministers.</para>
<para>I can report that the Australian government's Disaster Response Plan has been activated, which means the Commonwealth has all of its resources ready to assist, upon request of the Western Australian government. The minister for emergency management has also activated the Australian government disaster recovery payment and the disaster recovery allowance. The disaster recovery payment will allow impacted individuals to receive an immediate cash payment of $1,000 for adults and $400 for children. This will be available through Services Australia from 8 am tomorrow. The disaster recovery allowance will provide income support payments to individuals whose income has been affected, including employees, small-business persons and farmers. We are also working with the Western Australian government on activating the disaster recovery funding arrangements, which will provide further support for impacted families.</para>
<para>A short time ago I was also briefed by the Director-General of Emergency Management Australia, Joe Buffone, along with the minister for emergency management and the members for Hasluck and Pearce, and I will update you briefly on the fires. I report that over 70 homes—71 at last count—and properties have been destroyed in the Wooroloo bushfire. The fires have burned through over 9,400 hectares. Thankfully, at this point, no lives have been lost and no-one is believed to be unaccounted for, and for that we are deeply grateful. Hundreds of people spent last night in evacuation centres, and we thank all of those, the Red Cross volunteers and others, who are providing support and kindness in those centres. But there is danger still ahead as we speak. An emergency warning remains in place as the bushfire continues to move rapidly. Adverse weather, including hot temperatures and gusty winds, is forecast to continue. As we speak, more than 220 firefighters are currently attending that fire. Aerial support has also been sent to assist ground crews. I can report that six firefighters have incurred injuries fighting these blazes, and our gratitude, love and support, and best wishes go out to them and their families.</para>
<para>To everyone in those affected areas, we simply say, as you know, to please listen to and heed the advice of the official warnings and authorities and, of course, as always, please look out for each other. I know this has been a hugely trying few days in Western Australia, not just with these terrible fires but of course the lockdown as well. Everyone living in the Perth metropolitan area and the Peel and South West regions has demonstrated great patience and forbearance playing their part to prevent the spread of COVID. Thoughts are with those Western Australians as they respond to the challenges before them. Every Australian is standing with Western Australia, and, as always, we will get through this together.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I spoke with Premier McGowan just this morning and I've been in regular contact with him over recent days. As the Prime Minister has said, more than 70 homes have been destroyed and more than 9,000 hectares have been burnt. This is a fire front that stretches some 80 kilometres. Perth, of course, already in lockdown, is shrouded in smoke. More than 200 firefighters are putting themselves on the line, and it's a reminder once again of the magnificent work that firefighters, those on the payroll, but by and large just volunteers in the community, do on behalf of their neighbours and their local communities.</para>
<para>We can be very thankful that no-one has lost their life. Animals haven't been so lucky, of course, and once again, pets, livestock and wildlife are suffering terribly. The Mayor of Swan, Kevin Bailey, said this morning that the lockdown appears to have helped, because people were at home, so they were able to go and lock up particularly horses and other animals. They were on site, rather than being away in the CBD or away from their homes.</para>
<para>Firefighters are bracing for wind gusts up to 70 kilometres an hour today, although, when I spoke to the Premier just a short while ago, he said it hadn't reached that point yet. But, of course, it's earlier in the day in Western Australia. There are concerns about the effects later this week of a cyclone which is forming to the north of the state. Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner Darren Klemm said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… while we may have slightly cooler temperatures, we will be dealing with stronger winds so there are some difficult times ahead …</para></quote>
<para>Today, our thoughts are with the courageous, selfless firefighters who are, once again, putting themselves in harm's way for the sake of their communities, their families and their fellow Australians.</para>
<para>On behalf of Labor, I stand to offer whatever support the Commonwealth can provide and to make whatever representations necessary from the people of Western Australia to make sure that we regard this as a national issue. A crisis in one area of this country is a crisis for our country. The Premier informed me that the tanker has arrived from New South Wales and is on the ground providing support, and that's a good thing. It would appear from the assessment, though, that what we're really waiting on is rain—a bit similar to what has occurred when we've seen fires in other parts of the country in our past. Our hearts go out to everyone who has lost their home. We stand with you, and we offer whatever support we can give.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>53</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Wages growth is the lowest in decades after eight long years of this government. Why is the Prime Minister making it worse and allowing cuts to wages through the legislation that's before this parliament?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What the Leader of the Opposition has said is just not true. Our government's economic recovery plan is about putting Australians back into work and ensuring that businesses can do just that. All of our plans are designed to get Australians back into work. That includes modest changes to industrial relations. Some would have liked much greater changes, but the government has not gone down that path. I would say that those opposite are overreaching here. We're just trying to get people back into jobs.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID 19: Economy</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SIMMONDS</name>
    <name.id>282983</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the Morrison government's plans to continue our recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic will focus on building our economic strength in the year ahead so we can continue creating jobs, opportunities and certainty for Australian businesses and workers?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Ryan for his question. He knows, as I think most Australians now do, that the economic comeback in this country is underway. It began last year. Some 90 per cent of the jobs that were lost over the course of the terrible COVID-19 recession and pandemic have come back into the economy. Australians are joining that recovery by voting with their feet, with participation in our workforce rising again back to record highs. That has led the Governor of the Reserve Bank to say that 'in Australia, the economic recovery is well underway and has been stronger' and earlier 'than expected'. The Governor of the Reserve Bank said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">These outcomes have been underpinned by Australia's success on the health front and the very significant fiscal and monetary support.</para></quote>
<para>A hallmark of the economic recovery plan has been the absolute synchronisation of fiscal and monetary policy, and I thank the Reserve Bank for the way that the governor and the board have worked closely with Treasury to ensure that our economic recovery plan has been so closely aligned. This has included measures like the HomeBuilder program. Today we read that housing building approval figures are the highest on record. At a time of a great pandemic, at a time of a COVID-19 recession, the interventions by this government have been targeted and proportionate and have ensured that those jobs would be there. As we looked into the abyss of this pandemic last March, we knew that we would need to take actions urgently in a range of sectors, but particularly in the residential construction industry. And here we see, in housing building approvals, people responding to be part of this comeback. But the delivery of the vaccines is critical over the course of this year—the delivery of safe, accessible, effective vaccines, TGA approved by the finest regulatory agency for vaccines anywhere in the world. There are 140 million doses secured by the great work of the minister for health and the secretary of health, Professor Murphy, with a sovereign capability to produce those vaccines here, a sovereign capability that so many countries around the world are envious of, with over 1,000 distribution points, linking in pharmacists, GPs, hospitals, respiratory clinics, and a clear priority for the rollout.</para>
<para>As I was able to advise the Pacific leaders who we joined with in the Pacific Islands Forum today, and it continues as we speak, there will also be $200 million to invest in supporting them for the full rollout of vaccines, working with the French government and the United States government to ensure vaccines for all of our Pacific family, from the Micronesian states right across Polynesia. In this part of the world, we're looking after our family when it comes to the vaccines.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBRIDE</name>
    <name.id>248353</name.id>
    <electorate>Dobell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Under the Prime Minister's industrial relations changes, a part-time disability care employee working a Friday to Sunday shift could lose more than $14,000 a year from their take-home pay. Workers in the care economy supported Australians through the pandemic. Why is the Prime Minister allowing cuts to their take-home pay?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The premise of the question is completely false.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There is no evidence whatsoever of any such contention. In fact, yesterday the member for Watson and the member for Corio referred to a document which they said was evidence of the sorts of things that were put in that question. In the member for Corio's words yesterday, the government's IR changes were being cited as reasons for workers on $57,000 losing penalty rates. Then the member for Watson said, 'The government's proposed IR reforms would facilitate a decrease in wages for store managers.' The document they seem to be referring to and which seems to be the basis for your—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on both sides.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're probably glad I didn't let you table it because it doesn't show what you say it shows. What that document appears to be is a joint proposal before the Fair Work Commission regarding retail award arrangements. In a statement yesterday from the Australian Retailers Association, they said: 'The proposal is—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will resume his seat.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Truth problems are what you've got.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on both sides. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order of direct relevance: we have a very specific question about a carer and the impact there. By his own admission, the Attorney-General says he's referring to a different process and different question. He has explained to the House why he is not being relevant.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I say to the Manager of Opposition Business a couple of things just before I rule: certainly the question did have a specific question in it but it also had a preamble and a statement afterwards about the pandemic. These things aren't hidden—they're live—so it does open it up, but I do say to the Leader of the House he's more than briefly referred. He has the opportunity to add to an answer which he could do at the end of question time on yesterday's question; it's not an opportunity to relitigate yesterday. The Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The difficulty, of course, is that there's no evidence of anything that they propose because it's not true.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Albanese interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will take the interjection. The document the Leader of the Opposition refers to, that they sought to table yesterday, we now know what that document is; it is a proposal before the Fair Work Commission. We know exactly what it is. That is a proposal before the Fair Work Commission with respect to award arrangements. The Australian Retailers Association had this to say yesterday—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, sorry. Leader of the House, you cannot proceed to answer yesterday's question. I said you could briefly refer to it. The question was not about retailers in any way, shape or form. The Leader of the House has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question's premise is completely wrong. There's no evidence for it whatsoever, and it is as wrong as the statement that was made in peak desperation by the Leader of the Opposition before Christmas when he said that workers were being give the Christmas gift of a pay cut. Did that happen? The difficulty is that, when you're truly desperate before Christmas and you predict that something will happen at Christmas but it doesn't happen, you have no real authority and you're not being truthful.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on both sides! Is the Manager of Opposition Business seeking to table a document?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. I seek leave to table the document from the Attorney-General to the Fair Work Commission where he requested that they undertake the work that he just referred to.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I call the member for Cowper.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Kearney interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Cooper will cease interjecting. The member for Cowper has the call, not the member for Cooper.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Regional Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government's continued investment in regional Australia is creating a stronger Australia as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What a fierce advocate the member for Cowper is for the Mid North Coast and, indeed, for regional Australia. In his role as chair of the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety, he is also an unwavering advocate for road safety, as all of us in this place know. As a former police officer, he has experienced firsthand the consequences of road trauma.</para>
<para>In the October budget, the federal government allocated an additional $2 billion for a new road safety program. This will be rolled out in every state and territory to improve road safety outcomes. It will save lives, and that's the most important thing—</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Catherine King interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In regional seats, Member for Ballarat, it will save lives. An important component in improving road safety—</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Catherine King interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Ballarat!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You'd think she'd be interested in saving lives and road safety, Mr Speaker!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Prime Minister will proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>is improving road infrastructure, which is exactly what this government is delivering. In the member's electorate, over the next decade, we are delivering the transformational Coffs Harbour bypass as part of our $110 billion pipeline of infrastructure, supporting, encouraging, enhancing and ensuring 100,000 jobs. That's what it's about as we build out of COVID-19—jobs, jobs and more jobs.</para>
<para>This project will take more than 12,000 vehicles out of the Coffs Harbour town centre, bypass 12 sets of traffic lights and save 11 minutes of travel for road users. It's a 14-kilometre bypass, and it's made possible by the $1.46 billion allocation and investment by this government. I know how hard the member for Cowper has worked towards achieving that. Safety and efficiency benefits are a priority in the delivery of this project. But, importantly and vitally, it's supporting 12,000 jobs over its lifetime. That means local procurement. People and their small businesses in Coffs Harbour's town centre are going to benefit from this project. It's but one example of the stability and certainty provided by this government's infrastructure package and programs.</para>
<para>Through the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, we've committed $15.4 million across the electorate of Cowper. Five local government areas share in this allocation, allowing each to deliver infrastructure works from small to large. But, again, it's about local procurement and local jobs. Projects such as the Crown Street rehabilitation in Bellingen demonstrate how these programs are supporting local jobs and small businesses.</para>
<para>The Assistant Treasurer, the Minister for Housing, will be delighted to know that Pycon Homes and Constructions in Port Macquarie, a second-generation family owned small business, are doing very well out of the HomeBuilder program. They're building homes on the Mid North Coast, they're supporting jobs, they're supporting the economy and they're supporting local families to get that first dream home. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Under the Prime Minister's industrial relations changes, a part-time car parking attendant working only three days a week, including Saturdays and Sundays, could lose more than $13,000 a year from their take-home pay. Why is the Prime Minister punishing workers who are struggling to find and keep secure jobs during a pandemic?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The premise of the question, again, is wrong. That figure is totally untrue. There is no evidence whatsoever, and, if the member has such evidence, then he can explain it to the House.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Louisa is 95 and receives a level 4 care package. Her provider charges over $1,100 every month in management fees. This is 25 per cent of her care package funds. For some elderly constituents in my electorate, management fees are gouging up to 45 per cent out of their care package. In regional areas, there's often one provider and little choice. Minister, this is not 'reasonable', as the legislation states; it's a rort. Will you protect our elderly Australians and implement a cap on management fees that can be charged by My Aged Care providers?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUNT</name>
    <name.id>00AMV</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Mayo. I think this is a very important question. One of the reforms that we put in place with regard to My Aged Care was precisely to ensure that fees were published. The advice I have is that 93 per cent of My Aged Care home-care provider fees are already being published, and I have asked the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner, Janet Anderson, to ensure that all are published or to take action to ensure there are show cause notices. So I think that the point you raise is very important.</para>
<para>The second element you raised is that individuals under our reforms must be given notice of the level of fees. That was brought into being as at 1 July 2020. The third element you raised was with regard to future actions. One of the items which the Prime Minister and I are looking forward to with regard to the royal commission is the final report, due in a matter of weeks—a commission which was never previously called by those on the other side but was called and delivered by the Prime Minister in his first weeks in office—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left! Member for Hotham!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUNT</name>
    <name.id>00AMV</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>to look at home care and residential care, and to ask for recommendations. My expectation is there will be recommendations and, if there are, we will act; and, if there aren't recommendations in this area, we will also be acting. So, either way, we will act. But we want to see, understandably, what that royal commission report recommends and take those recommendations forward either on the basis of the report or, if not that, on any other basis.</para>
<para>The other point that I would make is that we have increased the number of Home Care Packages from 60,000 to over 195,000. There were 60,000 in 2012-13. The member for Hindmarsh will remember that figure because that's what it was under him as minister. It's more than triple that now. The relevant population has increased by 28 per cent, but the number of packages has more than tripled in that time. That's giving more choice and better care to a higher number of people and a higher proportion of that population than has ever been the case before.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LIU</name>
    <name.id>282918</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer remind the House how the Morrison government's focus on creating jobs and supporting livelihoods is helping to ensure a stronger Australia in 2021 and beyond?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Chisholm and I acknowledge her experience in small business and as a speech pathologist before coming to this place and joining with those on this side of the House to deliver tax cuts to more than 70,000 people in the electorate of Chisholm. That is what the member for Chisholm has helped do in this place.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Gosling interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Solomon is warned!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Last year saw the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression. It helped create the COVID-19 recession. Since then, the Morrison government has responded with more than $250 billion in direct economic support. That's around 13 per cent of GDP. It is more than double what the states combined have committed. We saw the Reserve Bank ease monetary policy by boosting liquidity, by buying bonds in the secondary market, by cutting the cash rate. We saw 25 million Australians bond together to help suppress the virus, whether they were mums and dads at home, following the health rules, or whether they were our wonderful health workers on the front line.</para>
<para>The net result has been that Australia's economic recovery is now underway: 90 per cent of the 1.3 million Australians who either lost their jobs or saw their working hours reduced to zero are now back at work. Consumer and business confidence has recovered to its pre-pandemic levels, and we saw the biggest jump in quarterly economic growth since 1976. That is why the Reserve Bank governor has said—and he has again reaffirmed it today—that the economic recovery is happening earlier and stronger than first forecast. This leaves Australia better positioned than nearly any other country in the world, with the IMF forecasting that the economic impact of COVID-19 will be much more severe in the United States; across Europe—whether it's the UK, France, Germany, Italy or Spain; in Canada; in Japan; and in nearly every other country around the world.</para>
<para>We acknowledge that the job is not done. There is still a lot of work to do to get Australians back into a job. But the recovery is well underway and the government's record economic support is helping Australians get back to work.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Manufacturing: Employment</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
    <electorate>Chifley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Prime Minister. Almost 90,000 jobs in manufacturing have been lost under this eight-year government. Prime Minister, why has the government failed to protect jobs in manufacturing in Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Industry, Science and Technology has championed the Modern Manufacturing Strategy that was outlined in the last budget—some $1½ billion of investments in the future of advanced manufacturing in this country. She will tell you that that is how you're going to create manufacturing jobs going forward in this country. But one of the things it will be absolutely conditional on is the platform that is established by lower taxes and more competitive arrangements for businesses—ensuring that their energy prices are lower and that their access to gas feedstock is at levels which enable them to achieve the sorts of things that were able to be achieved in the United States, with the way that gas became available in the United States. That's why our manufacturing policy is based on the platform of those broader based reforms. But, on top of that, it is about investing in the things that put people into those jobs. As the Treasurer reminds us, there is the national skills platform, which we are establishing with the states and territories, and the new skills agreement, which is giving people the forward look on the skills that Australians—and the businesses who employ them—will need. That is backed up by a $1 billion training fund, the JobTrainer Fund, together with the states and territories, and it's also backed up by the 30,000-odd additional places going to educational institutions this year. All of that is equipping our workforce to be the workforce that manufacturing needs to be successful in the future.</para>
<para>I saw this when I was up at the Global Manufacturing Group in Maryborough. A wholly Australian owned metal manufacturer, CMG employs approximately 100 people across its Maryborough and Gladstone operations. They utilised the instant asset write-off and a $785,150 grant under the sovereign industry capability program. And then there's Rheinmetall at Maryborough, a $60 million facility expected to employ up to an extra 100 people in full operation by 2022. The government supported that through a $28½ million grant through the Regional Growth Fund. There's Delta Hydraulics in Devonport. I visited there on 15 December. It's a family owned business, founded in 1975 by John White. It specialises in the development and export of hydraulic cylinders, and it has benefited significantly from JobKeeper. There's CSL at Broadmeadows. There's Outsource1 in Brisbane, a manufacturer of civil and traffic light signage. There's Rheinmetall up in Brisbane as well. Whether it's in defence industries, minerals processing or waste management, that is the plan we're rolling out in this country. All of that is occurring because of the vision and leadership of this government, which is going to create a future for advanced manufacturing that will not be supported by the higher taxes on electricity and energy that they have— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Vaccines</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAMING</name>
    <name.id>E0H</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister update the House on Australia's world-leading vaccination rates and how they can assure us of a strong uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine, which will obviously help Australia become a world-leading nation in our recovery as we lead our way into a strong economy again?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUNT</name>
    <name.id>00AMV</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member who, as a young doctor in rural Australia, was proud of his work in helping to provide vaccinations to people from rural Australia. He, along with many others on both sides, including the member for Macarthur and so many others, has served in the medical profession and supported Australians.</para>
<para>Again, there is positive news for Australia in the fight against COVID-19—zero cases Australia-wide today, zero lives lost Australia-wide today, zero Australians on ventilators or in ICU today. At the same time, the world has lost another 15,000 people since we spoke yesterday, and so the global pandemic continues to rage. What that means is that as a nation, despite our strongest efforts at home, we will never be truly safe until there is vaccination abroad and vaccination at home. That's why the news that we have now achieved record vaccination rates for our five-year-olds is incredibly important. We have gone from 94.9 per cent, which was itself a record in the September quarter, to 95.1 per cent for five-year-old vaccination rates across Australia in the December quarter, the first time Australia has ever passed the 95 per cent mark for vaccinations on record.</para>
<para>In addition to that, as the Lowitja Institute explained to me today, the extraordinary Pat Anderson, Indigenous Australia has an even higher rate of vaccination. We sometimes talk about closing the gap. This time we need the rest of Australia to close the gap to reach the extraordinary 97¼ per cent vaccination rate for five-year-old Indigenous children. All of this is important because it's not only protecting those children, but it says that Australians are great vaccinators, that they believe in vaccination, that they practice vaccination. It's important that Australians continue to follow the TGA. That's why we are focused on the rollout and that is why one of the things we're doing is making sure we follow fully the advice of the TGA, not skipping any steps. There are those who wanted to skip steps to bypass tests to pass the things that the TGA has proposed and to bring it forward too early.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUNT</name>
    <name.id>00AMV</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is not the right place to be. What we have done is follow the advice of the TGA, because what Australians want to do is make sure that their medicines are safe, they are assessed and, therefore, they are effective. If they know that, there's confidence; if they know that, there's a higher take-up and, if they know that, we will protect the nation. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Member for Hughes</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer in relation to the inappropriate purchase of watches by Christine Holgate: 'I was appalled', 'it's disgraceful' and 'not on'. He also said, if she didn't stand aside, 'she can go'. If the Prime Minister is willing to condemn the inappropriate purchase of watches, why won't he stand in this place and condemn the dangerous disinformation about COVID spread by the member for Hughes?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think we have the same problem as yesterday, and that question—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, you can debate it across the chamber, member for Sydney, or I can rule.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Burney interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Barton. I'll be as brief as I can—I won't say I'll be very brief; I don't want to mislead the House! As I said yesterday, it is very clear under the <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline> that questions can only ask the Prime Minister or ministers about their direct ministerial responsibilities. Whilst the member for Hindmarsh has referred to a previous answer, as I've said before, that would enable a question to go to the Prime Minister's statements in that answer, not simply ask another question—and another question which is out of order. I did undertake to the House yesterday to have a look at all of the precedents that are stated in <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline>. I can assure you I did. There are a number of them that are there, and I can read through them in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>s from 1964 right through until the early 2000s and through more recent years. All Speakers have upheld the principle I did yesterday, so the question is not in order.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Agriculture Industry</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought, and Emergency Management. Will the minister outline to the House how new technologies are supporting the Morrison-McCormack government's national soils and biodiversity stewardship strategies which will assist in securing the future of our agricultural industry, care for our country and build a strong Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Mallee for her question and acknowledge the significant contribution the electorate of Mallee makes towards the $65 billion agricultural industry and the pivotal role Mallee will take in helping agriculture reach its ambitious goal of $100 billion by 2030. To achieve that goal, you have to have the right foundations, and those foundations start with our soils.</para>
<para>Our soils contribute around $930 billion indirectly to our economy each year, so their health is pivotal and important not only to agriculture but to our environment and our whole economy. That's why the Prime Minister at the National Press Club outlined that one of the key focuses this year for our government is around caring for country. That aligns with our Ag2030 plan and one of the strategic pillars of that, which is around stewardship—empowering our farmers and giving them the tools to manage their soils and country not only for increased productivity but also to manage the environment. A lot of that work has already been done.</para>
<para>We have to acknowledge the great work that Major General Jeffery undertook as our first National Soils Advocate. He has left a lasting legacy because of his passion and commitment for soils. That's now been taken on by the Hon. Penelope Wensley AC, and she will carry on in those footsteps, as big as they are, to ensure that we have a tactile response around real outcomes that farmers can understand—extension work and how we've got people sitting around kitchen tables explaining the science and collecting the data so that we're equipping those farmers with the new science and the new technology and allowing them to implement it on their farms. Those are the real outcomes that we continue to look for. That's complemented with the collection of the science through a $40 million investment through Soil CRC, making sure that cutting-edge science and technologies continue to be invested in by government but also by industry. That's making sure those tools are real.</para>
<para>We've also said through the minister for energy that we have now provided $14 million to try and understand and measure carbon in soil. At the moment, it's around $30 a hectare to be able to undertake. If we can get it down to around $3, that would be transformational for our farmers to play another significant role not just in the stewardship of their land but in the reduction of emissions and carbon in our environment. We're letting farmers do the heavy lifting, as they have always done.</para>
<para>That complements our biodiversity stewardship fund of $34 million, and I'm proud to say that the ANU has just completed work around being able to assess the improvement in biodiversity of our farmers from start to go. We're able to reward them through a number of existing programs that the government has been putting out. We're rewarding farmers for the stewardship of their land, improving biodiversity, abating carbon and improving the biodiversity of our country. These are significant investments not just in protecting our economy but also about protecting Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Law Enforcement Committee</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the member for Hughes in his capacity as Chair of the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. I refer to the committee's current inquiry into criminal activity in law enforcement during COVID-19. When will the committee's report be tabled, and has the member for Hughes recused himself from this inquiry, given his public comments trivialising the attack on the US Capitol by right-wing domestic terrorists who injured and killed law enforcement personnel?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House on a point of order?</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left! I'd just say to the member for Bruce: you're now warned. To others contributing to a wall of noise: you're not allowing things to proceed. The Leader of the House is entitled to the call, as is the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Porter</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The limitations on asking a question of a committee chair are narrow and well known. Page 552 of <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline> says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A question to a committee chair asking when a report would be tabled has been permitted.</para></quote>
<para>So the first part of that question I think would be in order. It continues:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A question asking if a committee had been requested to inquire into a certain matter has not been permitted.</para></quote>
<para>Extrapolating from that limitation, it's quite clear that the second part of that question is not in order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To the point of order, Mr Speaker: obviously, I agree with the first point that the Leader of the House made, about the reference to tabling being in order. Where he says 'reference to what the inquiry can go into and matters to be considered by an inquiry', that's not what the question refers to. The question refers to, as you'll find on page 550 of <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline>, the page before the one that the Leader of the House was on: 'can be confined to matters of timing and procedure.' Whether or not the chair of a committee recuses themself is a clear matter of procedure. The question simply provides, because it is essential for the context, given the statements that that member has made publicly, there is a clear context for him to recuse himself when he's dealing with an inquiry into criminal activity and law enforcement.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Porter</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Reading on at page 552—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to tell you, it's a long book!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Porter</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Indeed. It says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Speaker has ruled out of order a question to a chair which asked that the committee examine certain matters. Questions concerning statements by a committee chair are not permitted—</para></quote>
<para>That is clearly part and parcel of the second part of that question. No matter how they wish to try and dress that up otherwise, the second part of that question is clearly not in order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll rule on this very quickly. The principles around these questions, as both the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business have outlined and we've had cause to outline in the past, are that to a private member who's the chair of a committee, the opportunities to question are very limited and narrow, and they really do go to timing and procedure. What flows from that is, really, not an ability to talk at great length other than to just provide the information on timing and procedure. I am going to rule the question in order. Certainly the second part is very arguable, I agree with that. The second part is arguable, but it is still a matter of procedure. It's a very straightforward question really that, for the benefit of all members, goes to when the report will be tabled and whether or not the chair has taken action or not. So it's really quite straightforward. I'd just say to the member for Hughes: you're going to have to wait a second, because it's important for how our committees operate. The question does, certainly the statements within the question—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left! The member for Gorton—the member for Rankin will leave under 94(a). I'm trying to rule on the matter, okay?</para>
<para>An opposition member interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, it's just a constant clatter of interjections.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Rankin then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There are parts of the question that I know the opposition's relating to the in-order parts of the question that should be ignored, which are about his previous statements. That's absolutely right. The Leader of the House is right about that. What the question cannot ask the chair of a committee to do is to go to committee proceedings that have not been reported to the House. So I'm making that clear for the benefit of all members, particularly for the member who I'm now calling to answer the question, the member for Hughes.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CRAIG KELLY</name>
    <name.id>99931</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To the member for Macnamara, I welcome your interest in the law enforcement committee's work. The committee, yes, is conducting an inquiry, and we've received many very informed submissions. We've yet to set a date for reporting, but I look forward to sitting down with the deputy chair of the committee, the member for Cowan, and we'll work that out and we'll inform you in due course.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Manufacturing</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question goes to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister please outline how the Morrison government is backing our manufacturers to create jobs as part of our plan to build a stronger Australia and to keep it strong?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate>McPherson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question. Over the last few weeks in particular I've been out visiting many of our manufacturers—well, over a dozen, in fact—and every time I'm out on the factory floor with them, they say to me how appreciative they are of the support that the Morrison government has given to them and to their businesses. So, as you heard earlier from the Prime Minister, there are many things that we are doing to make sure that we get the economic conditions right for every single business in Australia, but especially for our manufacturing businesses.</para>
<para>It was just the other week that I visited the member for Fairfax and he and I announced a grant of $1 million for one of his local businesses, Naturo. They have developed world-first technology that extends the expiry of fresh milk to about 60 days. They will use the money that we have given to them, along with matched funding of their own, to build a pilot plant in Coolum. That is a process that will take them on the way to scale, and, when they scale, they will then start creating jobs in Coolum and jobs in Tasmania. This is just one example of the way that we have used grants, such as the Accelerating Commercialisation grants, to assist businesses to take the next steps to be able to commercialise their product and get it to the market.</para>
<para>There was a question earlier that dealt specifically with manufacturing, and the Prime Minister, as I said, spoke in a lot of detail about getting the economic conditions right. I would like to add to that platform by saying that what we have been doing with our manufacturing strategy is making sure that we are working with industry to look at the subsectors where we will be able to support our manufacturers to become competitive, to be resilient and to build scale, because it is as we build scale that we are going to build the jobs of the future. This is not a short-term process; this is not a quick sugar-hit. This is a well-thought-through policy and strategy that will be rolled out over the next 10 years, to make sure that we are building manufacturing businesses here in Australia and that we are developing the scale that we need, because we on this side of the House understand how important manufacturing businesses are and how important manufacturing workers are, because we care about manufacturing in this country. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Member for Hughes</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. How can the Prime Minister maintain the member for Hughes is doing a good job when, as chair of this parliament's Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, he backed domestic terrorists who attacked the US Capitol, killed and injured police officers and menaced members of Congress? How can a law enforcement committee chair who defended that conduct—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Isaacs can resume his seat.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If members interject when I'm about to speak to the House, they will follow the member for Rankin. I've made clear on a number of occasions, yesterday and today and many times previously, about the scope of questions that are outlined very clearly in the <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline>, and I'm not going to go over it again. When we've been down this path, I think a year or so ago, I've also made clear I wasn't going—having made those rulings, and made clear the position at great length, as I did yesterday and have reaffirmed today—to allow members to wilfully ignore the ruling and ask a question that is out of order, simply to reflect on a member of the House. This offends a number of standing orders, not just the standing orders relating to ministerial responsibilities but also reflections on members. That is not to say these matters can't be canvassed in this House at all. The rules for question time are different to other times of the day.</para>
<para>The member for Isaacs can contribute in a matter of public importance, in 90-second statements or in an adjournment debate, and, if he feels so strongly, he can move a substantive motion. But he is not going to misuse question time. I'm moving to the next question.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mining Industry</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'DOWD</name>
    <name.id>139441</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia. Will the minister update the House on the resilience of the resource sector and highlight how the Morrison government is assisting this important sector to position Australia for a strong start in 2021 and driving jobs in regional Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for his question. We're back to business, Mr Speaker. The member for Flynn is better known, not only locally but here, as 'the bulldog'—the fighter for Flynn. And it's so important in his electorate, the resilience of the resources sector, with 16 coalmines dotted across his electorate, and the port of Gladstone, one of Australia's biggest export ports for coal, LNG, aluminium, grain and cement—there are a lot of things going out through Gladstone, in 1,900 vessels a year—all adding to jobs; all adding to the local economy.</para>
<para>We were in Gladstone last week with the Prime Minister down at Auckland House. The power and the strength of the member for Flynn! He arranged two coal ships to be loaded in the background, and mid-speech an LNG tanker arrived, which I think was a great reflection on the strength of the resources sector and the strength of that area of Central Queensland and that area around Gladstone.</para>
<para>The resources sector has been a cornerstone of our economy. In this area, the member for Flynn's area, the coal sector employs 3½ thousand people; 3½ thousand are employed in the member's electorate. They continue to drive our economic recovery.</para>
<para>We need to talk about facts. We can forget the misinformation—some of the things which get put out publicly. If we talk about facts, the value of Australian coal exports in December increased by 26 per cent from November, worth $3.7 billion to the Australian economy, and that is despite all of the global challenges of the pandemic and otherwise. In fact, resources in total, for the 12 months to December, were up $272.5 billion. That is a testament to the hard work of the men and women of the sector. That is a reflection on getting through the pandemic and driving our economy. What a great result!</para>
<para>The ABS noted, just last week, employment in mining jumped by 22,000 people—nearly 10 per cent in the three months to November last year—providing jobs for 264,000 Australians. Coalmining was the standout, up 25 per cent, with an extra 11,000 people, and it has increased by 23 per cent over the year. That is the highest number of Australians employed in the coal sector since 2012.</para>
<para>Now, that does not sound like a sector in decline. That sounds to me like the resources sector is increasing, not decreasing. Jobs are going up, not going down. The sector is driving forward out of the pandemic, not going backwards. And I know the Treasurer is very happy about the fact that the resources sector continues to kick goals, because that is the money that we rely on to pay for the services that Australians require and desire. And that is what we'll continue to do—we will continue to support the resources sector in the member for Flynn's electorate and right across Australia, because they are delivering for us and they are delivering for our country.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Morrison</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</title>
        <page.no>61</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I respect the rulings that you've made in relation to matters that have been raised today by the opposition. But, on indulgence, I'll just say the following about matters that have been addressed here today. A key principle of the successful response of our government, and the state and territory governments with whom I work, to the pandemic—a principle that I have applied with the chairing of the federal cabinet, the National Security Committee of Cabinet and the national cabinet—has been respect for the expert medical advice that has guided our response and the institutions that have the responsibility under our system for providing that advice.</para>
<para>It is true that views expressed by the member for Hughes do not align with my views or the advice that has been provided to me by the Chief Medical Officer. Earlier today, the member for Hughes and I discussed these matters, and I made it very clear that that was the view of me, as Prime Minister, and, of course, the view of the government. Vaccination is critical. It is our primary responsibility this year as we continue to respond to the pandemic. I welcome the statement, which I table, that was issued by the member for Hughes following our meeting. Our job is to get on with the job of the vaccine. The Therapeutic Goods Administration is the authoritative body not just in this country; it is respected around the world. So I can say to Australians—indeed, for the same reason that I and members of this place will take our own children and our own parents to get that all-important vaccine—that our Therapeutic Goods Administration and the medical advice that guides my government's policy on the pandemic is the best in the world.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome the belated statements of the Prime Minister in distancing himself from the comments of the member for Hughes. The comments of the member for Hughes have been dangerous—</para>
<para>An honourable member: Which ones!</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We have a limited time on indulgence! But, in particular, it was the comments with regard to health, the use of hydroxychloroquine and the use of other drugs that have not been in accordance with the advice of the TGA or the advice of the Chief Medical Officer. Those have been of great concern. It is something that we on this side of the House have raised—particularly the former shadow minister for health, the current shadow minister for health and myself as leader—for a period of many months.</para>
<para>The challenge of the pandemic requires us to absolutely have faith and confidence in our institutions. We on this side—as the Prime Minister has said himself; I know the minister for health has said it a number of times as well—have faith in and we should be very proud of the role that the TGA plays in this country. As we respond to this crisis, it is absolutely vital that all of us who have the privilege of being in leadership positions show leadership in the information which we put forward to the community. We've said throughout this crisis, 'We're all in this together.' It needs to be more than a slogan; it needs to be a method of action as well. And that requires responsible leadership from every parliamentarian.</para>
<para>I hope that today sees an end to the information, or disinformation, from the member for Hughes. I haven't had the opportunity to see the statement that was just tabled by the Prime Minister. I hope as well that the member for Hughes calls into question and distances himself from statements about the attacks on the US Capitol. I think it is extraordinary that a member of parliament, any member of parliament, would justify that action by right-wing insurrectionists—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition has now moved on to a separate topic. Before we move to the next matter, I say to the House that the statement by the Prime Minister and the statement by the Leader of the Opposition on indulgence granted by the chair does show that the parliament can discuss matters; it just has to do it at the right time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>62</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>62</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Watson proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Government's industrial relations changes that will cut wages.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We set a really simple test when the government said they were going to change industrial relations laws: it had to deliver secure jobs with decent pay. What they've come back with are changes that make work less secure and deliver a pay cut. They are trying to get away with this under cover of the pandemic. Under cover of the pandemic, when people are terrified for their health and terrified for their jobs, the government are not even willing to make the case for what they're doing; they're just pretending that what is in black and white in their own legislation, introduced here and now onto the floor of this parliament, doesn't exist. That is their response—their own laws don't exist. The Attorney-General was today presented with a letter of his about starting this work. Apparently that doesn't exist either.</para>
<para>I will tell you what does exist. What does exist is Australian workers having gone through eight years of flatlining wages. We support JobKeeper; we called for the government to introduce JobKeeper, when they didn't want to. But that does mean that during this time a whole lot of people have gone from what they would ordinarily earn down to the JobKeeper rate, even if they've held a job. Workers have had eight years of flatlining wages and 12 months of going back to just above the minimum wage. After 12 months of putting off bills, of negotiating with the bank to delay mortgage payments, as the economy starts to improve, they get told, 'Now is the time you get a pay cut.'</para>
<para>It's not a new idea; this has happened before. They told us that what John Howard did to wages was dead, buried and cremated. Those three things were always in an odd order, but dead, buried and created is what we were told was the view of those opposite. What John Howard did was get rid of the no-disadvantage test and what they're wanting to do is get rid of the better off overall test. The impact is the same. If you've got a test that's designed to make sure people don't go backwards in their wages and you get rid of it, what do you reckon is going to happen? If you've got a safety net and you get rid of it, what do you think will happen to people?</para>
<para>This government is deliberately designing something they have always wanted to do and have believed in for more than a decade, which is design a pathway for wages to be cut. We heard grand speeches about the heroes of the pandemic—the shop assistants, the cleaners, the health workers, the caring economy, the people in warehouses keeping goods moving, the transport workers and delivery drivers. All of those people who we were meant to be joining together on and treating as heroes of the pandemic now discover that it's this side that wants to make sure they get paid and that side that wants to deliver them a pay cut. That's the thankyou after the 12 months those workers have been through. When the government want to cut JobKeeper and JobSeeker, the reason they give us is that the economy's doing so well. Then we get told, in the next breath, 'But the economy's doing so badly, we need to cut wages.' You can't have it both ways. Let me give you some figures.</para>
<para>The better off overall test protects take-home pay. The government wants to make it so that the only thing that is protected is the ordinary hourly rate. So every penalty rate, every overtime rate and every shift allowance can go and the agreement can still get approved by the Fair Work Commission. What does that mean? Let's ignore the overtime part of it. Let's not count any overtime. Let's just take a few people on part-time hours where they work weekend or night shifts. What would that mean for a part-time aged-care worker? A pay cut of $12,000. What would that mean for a part-time parking attendant? A $12,000 a year pay cut. What would that mean for a disability home-care worker? A $14,000 pay cut. Even a hairdresser would have a $3,000 pay cut.</para>
<para>People are protected from these pay cuts right now because of the better off overall test, and that's what the government want to get rid of. They'll say that they're only getting rid of it for a couple of years. There are still to this day Work Choices agreements. To this day, more than a decade later, Work Choices agreements are still around. The decisions that are made in this parliament about the pay cut the government want to proceed with will determine people's pay for more than a decade into the future.</para>
<para>The government first denied it's in the legislation and then they denied it was in a letter, but now they'll say: 'But the Fair Work Commission will fix it. The Fair Work Commission would never let anything through.' I have faith in the Fair Work Commission as an institution, but I have no faith at all in the way the government make appointments to it. It used to be the case that you had an even-handed approach to appointments to the Fair Work Commission. There were those who had a background representing employees and those who had a background representing employers. In terms of appointments to the Fair Work Commission, there are now 12 with a history of employee representation and 28 with a history of employer representation and, of the presidential members and commissioners, six have a history of representing employees and 14 have a history of representing employers.</para>
<para>One of those is Commissioner Boyce. With the sorts of people they are now putting in to run the commission and decide if you're going to be okay it's a game of Russian roulette for workers. I do not lie. This guy was turning up to work in his office with a life-size cardboard cut-out of Donald Trump. This guy, who is meant to be an impartial observer, was using his social media posts to promote the government. Let's take two of his decisions that were overturned—the BHP one and the Hungry Jacks decision. Why were they overturned? Guess what he didn't consider? Penalty rates, overtime or allowances on the BHP decision. It was the same with the Hungry Jacks decision. Even now he is trying to find ways to not apply the better off overall test when it's in the legislation. Do you really think that we're not going to have a situation where if you get the wrong commissioner these pay cuts will go straight through?</para>
<para>Think of how it works. It starts with one labour hire company with very few employees. The company might have a relationship with the employees and it gets the agreement through. That company can then undercut all of its competitors and will grow and expand across the market. Then its competitors say, 'We're losing business,' and go to their workforce and say, 'Unless you agree to this you're all going to lose your jobs.' The race to the bottom happens quickly, but the starting gun gets fired here by this government.</para>
<para>Secure work determines what it's like for the worker, for the business and for the economy. You might not have a secure job and pay that's reliable, but your bills will be reliable and your mortgage or rent payments will be reliable. If you're a business, you don't have security of income as a business unless your customers have security of income to pay you. There has never been a time in our recent history—certainly in our postwar history—where Australia is more dependent on domestic demand. You have some people facing a pay cut and everybody else knowing that they're at risk of one. What do you think that's going to do to domestic demand?</para>
<para>I say to those opposite: if you believe this, defend it. The only thing they say about the pay cut that they are legislating for is, 'Oh, no, it's not there.' The only thing the Prime Minister says when confronted with real examples is, 'Oh, no, that's not true.' When the Attorney-General was challenged with the pay cuts that would apply if this legislation went through he said, 'They didn't happen last Christmas.' Well, the legislation wasn't through. He's meant to know something about the law. He's in charge of it for the nation. All of this comes down to one point: this government is punishing the people who did the right thing by us for the last 12 months. It's unfair to them, it's unfair to business and it's unfair to the Australian economy.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORTON</name>
    <name.id>265931</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government's proposed workplace relations changes are a set of modest and sensible reforms aimed at putting more Australians into jobs. Since December last year, Labor and the ACTU have been in lockstep in their efforts to misrepresent the government's workplace relations reforms. This week, with parliament's resumption, we're seeing Labor, the unions and their left-wing fellow travellers overreach on a baseless scare campaign; a campaign that, if successful, will frustrate the COVID economic recovery.</para>
<para>So let's make no mistake, here today we have the Labor Party putting perceived political advantage ahead of reforms that will help this country recover economically from the COVID pandemic. As we've shown throughout the pandemic, the government are constructive and pragmatic when it comes to industrial relations policy. We focused on measures to regrow jobs, boost wages, enhance productivity, doing so in the same cooperative spirit the country so successfully embraced in our approach to the pandemic. We have done this through extensive consultation with unions and with industry, aiming to bring people together rather than to divide them.</para>
<para>What the country doesn't need is more attempts by the Labor Party to turn workplaces into battlegrounds for their own political advantage. We'd hoped that 2021 would see the Labor Party adopt a more mature approach to industrial relations. The government's IR reform package addresses known problems with our industrial relations system and Labor's Fair Work Act. These reforms will not only support wage growth and help regrow the jobs lost in the pandemic, they will tackle broader issues like underemployment, job security, underpayment of wages and the failure of Labor's enterprise bargaining system to drive wages on productivity growth. Even Paul Keating has reflected on the need for changes to the industrial relations system.</para>
<para>In opposing the government's entire IR reform bill, Labor is against tougher civil and new criminal penalties to stamp out wage theft. Does Labor want underpaying employers to continue without criminal penalties? Is Labor against a quicker way to recover underpayments where they occur? On ABC radio in December last year, the member for Watson said vulnerable workers getting their money back quickly has to be the highest priority. Now, in opposing the entire bill, Labor doesn't want to make it easier to recover unpaid wages—so much for that being the highest priority. Is Labor against a quicker enterprise agreement approval process through the Fair Work Commission to help deliver pay rises more quickly? Back in May, the member for Watson said, 'Bargaining is much harder at the moment and taking much longer than it should. Policies that get bargaining moving again are going to be really important. You know, I don't think anyone says every rule that's there at the moment should remain unchanged.' Well, now it's Labor saying 'block everything and change nothing'. Would Labor prefer we continue to see 100-day-plus delays before agreements and pay rises take effect? Is Labor against the opportunity for more hours of work for the almost 30 per cent of part-time employees in the retail sector and the about 40 per cent of the part-time employees in the accommodation and food services sector who want more hours but aren't getting them? Stronger conversion rights for casual employees who want to become full-time or part-time employees are part of these reforms that Labor is going to block in their entirety. By blocking this legislation, Labor is saying that it wants casual workers to remain casual, even if they'd prefer permanent roles. Is Labor against more job opportunities by providing certainty for mega job-creating projects on greenfield sites?</para>
<para>The Morrison government's supporting Australia's jobs and economic recovery package will give businesses the confidence to get back to growing and creating jobs and will provide the tools to help employers and employees work together in a post-COVID Australia. These vital reforms to the industrial relations system build on the various economic supports provided by the government during the pandemic. We're driven by one simple goal: breaking down barriers to jobs growth so that we can get more Australians back into the workforce. These reforms were developed after extensive consultation with employer and employee groups who sat down with the government for more than 120 hours to find innovative solutions to support struggling businesses as well as protect and enhance the rights of workers. The Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020 is the end of this process. Much of our industrial relations system has been built on pitting one group against the other. This pandemic has taught us that we can achieve far more by working together. When we make the move from conflict to cooperation, we are able to solve the complex problems that we must solve to see more jobs, better-paying jobs and higher wages. That's exactly what the Morrison government's industrial relations reforms will aim to achieve.</para>
<para>All parties in the parliament must put the interests of Australian workers first, ahead of their traditional, ideological positions. But we're seeing false claims by those opposite. Labor are prepared to say anything in order to get some traction in a policy area where they believe they have some equity. In question time yesterday, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition claimed that retailers had cited the government's workplace changes when making a proposal he claimed would lead to workers earning more than $57,000 losing penalty rates and overtime. The National Retail Association yesterday slammed these claims, stating in a media release:</para>
<quote><para class="block">NRA CEO … said it was very disappointing to see numerous federal Labor frontbenchers, including Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese, blatantly misrepresent retailers in a bid to land a political blow against the government.</para></quote>
<para>The media release further states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"Our exemption rate proposal is entirely opt-in and allows employers and workers to mutually agree on a wage 25 per cent higher than the weekly minimum wage. In exchange for the higher wage—</para></quote>
<para>workers—</para>
<quote><para class="block">would see exemptions to complex rostering rules with accompanying safeguards. Rather than a paycut, this arrangement would see most managers receive a pay rise of $13,000 per annum.</para></quote>
<para>Further, the National Retail Association confirms:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"Should the FWC grant the proposal, it will be because it views it in accordance with the industrial standards set down by the Rudd-Gillard Government of which Mr Albanese was a senior Cabinet Minister."</para></quote>
<para>But will those opposite withdraw their false and misleading allegations? I wouldn't hold your breath.</para>
<para>Today's MPI also coincides with the release of a briefing paper by the Greens front, that production line of bogus research, the Australia Institute. It's no surprise. This briefing paper argues that the government's changes will accelerate the making of non-union enterprise agreements, further suppressing wage growth. The author of this briefing paper is senior economist at the Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work, Alison Pennington. Before joining the left-wing Australia Institute, Ms Pennington worked as a national organiser for the Community and Public Sector Union. Ms Pennington's briefing paper is not some rarefied academic analysis. She's out there on Twitter trying to create a storm, trying to scare workers. No doubt we can look forward to some typically non-objective advertising from the Australia Institute to follow as well, to push these false claims, further eroding their credibility, if that's possible.</para>
<para>It's not just the Australia Institute; the union movement have laid the groundwork for this overreach that we're now seeing from those opposite. The Stop the Bus Campaign from the Electrical Trades Union and the CFMEU shows Prime Minister Scott Morrison driving a speeding bus towards a group of workers. The Australian Chamber of Commerce has blasted the ad. It's reprehensible and irresponsible. The unions' latest attack ad on the government's IR bill is not only contrary to community standards but also entirely misleading. Political debate is one thing, but the unions putting out ads of buses running over workers is reprehensible. Having such imagery shown on television in an era when we know vehicles are used by terrorists to run down and mass murder innocent civilians is truly shameful. But, doubling down in a joint statement, the unions have failed to recognise this and they will not pull these ads. So, while Labor rails against modest, sensible reforms which will help build jobs, we will continue to help the economy grow jobs so that more Australians can benefit from that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have spent a career standing up for workers' rights, from the time I was a job rep as a young nurse at the local public hospital. I led the nurses union and I had the great privilege of being the president of that great institution, the ACTU. I can tell you that right through all of those years—I'm getting on now!—I have, time after time, seen Liberal governments do nothing but attack the take-home pay, the wages, of hardworking Australians.</para>
<para>So this bill is absolutely no surprise. I could say it's deja vu, but it's not, because it's been a constant attack for eight years. Who would have thunk it—a Liberal government cutting the wages and conditions of workers? It couldn't be, could it? We all know and Australians know that cutting workers' pay and conditions is in the Liberal government's DNA, whether it was Work Choices—remember that?—or whether it was cutting low-paid people's penalty rates; whether it was the weasel-word titled 'ensuring integrity bill', which tried to cut the right to organise to maintain pay and conditions; whether it was leaving workers in key industries out of JobKeeper; or whether it was cutting superannuation. And that's just a shortlist. I could go on forever, but I've only got a few minutes.</para>
<para>We know that this new bill drafted by those opposite has again failed one very simple test: will it deliver secure jobs and decent pay? It won't. It has failed. It will allow wages to be cut and it will not effectively fix the scourge of insecure work. Asking for a decent job is not a big ask. A job is not a job if it doesn't give you the dignity of a decent wage and the security of a pay cheque coming in week after week that you can rely on. It means you can pay the mortgage or you can pay the rent. You might even have the joy of a holiday with the kids at the end of the year. It means you can actually go to the bank and get a car loan, because you have proof of ongoing employment and income. It means you can plan for life's unexpected events and it certainly means you don't have to work three jobs all at once just to get by.</para>
<para>The Attorney-General stands in this House and denies this bill will indeed do the things that we say it's going to do. This is extraordinary. We know the employers know what this will do. They know what they'll be able to do. They're getting ready—don't you worry about that. We had the shadow minister outline very, very well exactly what this bill will do, so I don't need to go through it. But, if the Attorney-General is denying it will do any of this, why have clauses in this legislation that mean they can cut the better-off-overall test? Why would you not want a better-off-overall test if you don't want people not to be better off? It makes absolute sense: get rid of that bit if you don't want that to happen. Why allow an employer to negotiate with their workers that they can lose penalty rates, lose shift allowances and lose entitlements? Why have something in there if you don't want them to lose that? It's because they do actually want workers' pay to go backwards. The Attorney-General knows that and the Prime Minister knows that. They talk about flexibility. Well, I know that workers say that flexibility is the other F-word, because whenever they hear that they know it's going to be easier to sack them, it's going to stop them organising for better wages and conditions, and it means their wages will be cut.</para>
<para>We know wages have been flatlining since before COVID. We know that it was a deliberate strategy of this government to keep wages low; it was admitted by their very own. Yet, this is at a time when everybody, from the Reserve Bank to any economist you would like to name, has been saying the country needs a pay rise. The government can't bring themselves to do that. The thought of raising wages for working people is absolutely beyond them. They want to keep it low. This is despite the fact that, as the shadow IR minister says, increasing people's wages and putting more money in their pockets is the best thing that could happen to our economy.</para>
<para>This bill will hurt so many people, including the essential workers who kept us going during the pandemic, who kept us alive, who kept the economy moving. We had a perfect example from my friend and colleague the member for Dobell about a disability worker who could lose up to $14,000 a year. What type of government would introduce legislation that could see that happen to some of the lowest paid and yet most important workers in our economy? I'll tell you what sort of government, Deputy Speaker. It's this government, a Liberal government, where cutting wages is in their pay. It's a prime minister and a Liberal government who simply do not care. They don't care about workers. They never have.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FALINSKI</name>
    <name.id>G86</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I thank the member for Watson, the member for Cowper and the member for Tangney for their contributions to this matter of public importance. It always concerns me deeply that the Labor Party can never seem to get its head out of the donors' trough that they have put it into. They can never seem to put what matters to ordinary workers above that of their mates and their donors in the union movement and in industry super. They have no concern for ordinary Australians. Their only concern has always been for ensuring that unions are first and foremost in our industrial relations system and that the IR club, which has hurt workers for more than a century, is maintained and enhanced.</para>
<para>During the lockdown, because I found it difficult to get to sleep some nights, I took up the task of reading 'Forward with Fairness'. I know those opposite don't like to remember the Gillard-Rudd years, but it was written by Julia Gillard. It envisioned a nation of enterprise agreements, individual contracts and small businesses not under the yolk and the threat of unfair dismissal laws. It imagined an industrial relations system of peace and harmony. So what went wrong? What did we get instead? Under the Fair Work Act we got lower productivity, we got lower wage growth, we got wage theft, we got higher unemployment, we got lower participation and we got workplace violence and bullying. We've seen 28 enterprise agreements certified by the Fair Work Commission since the Fair Work Act, in 10 years, and we've seen no individual contract, at all, certified by the Fair Work Commission.</para>
<para>In other words, this government agrees with everything that the opposition is saying. The difference is: we want to fix it; they want to make sure their mates are looked after. Time's up on this shake-down in the industrial relations system. Maybe the reason that Julia Gillard wasn't able to realise her vision of peaceful Australian industrial relations is that, when the time came to draft the legislation, she gave in to her biggest donors. She made sure that unions had right of entry, which no-one had imagined they could possibly have. Unions have the capacity to walk into workplaces all over this country, even when there isn't a single member of the workforce who's a member of that union! But it's alright. She put in place some safeguards. She said that you first had to be able to get signed off as a fit and proper person to be a union organiser. During the union royal commission, what did we find out? We found out that one organiser at a union had done over 100 of those exams on behalf of union organisers. So appalled were the Labor Party by this misuse and unlawful behaviour, they made that person a senator. Of course, having said that, they also made Kristina Keneally a senator—so, you know! They were ensuring unions have access to agreements where they don't have a single member represented in that workplace.</para>
<para>So what the member for Watson just said was absolutely untrue. He imagined this labour hire company being able to do some sort of inside deal. What he failed to tell the House is that that would have to be certified by the Fair Work Commission. That labour hire company would have to notify every single union that may or may not be able to have coverage of that hire company. So apparently under all of those safeguards, under their act, they'd still be able to get something approved.</para>
<para>This opposition is absolutely pathetic, because it will say and do anything to bring Australians and ordinary workers further under the yoke of union membership, even when they don't want to be members of a union. They get a Fair Work Commission, headed by Ian Ross, a former senior member of the ACTU, inventor of the industry superannuation system, as documented in <inline font-style="italic">Bad Egg</inline>, written by Senator Andrew Bragg. The BOOT test in Forward with Fairness and under the Fair Work Act is very specific that it is not meant to apply to every single person. But Ian Ross said, 'Because the act doesn't specifically stop me from doing it, I will now apply it to workers who don't even exist, who are hypothetical.' That is how bad the BOOT test has become. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAYES</name>
    <name.id>ECV</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Welcome back, members! I know the summer break has given people time to spend a bit of time not only with their families but talking about families in their electorates. No doubt they will know what we know. If you talk to those families, what are they concerned about? Wage stagnation. They're talking about the cost of living skyrocketing and household debt being at record levels. They're talking about job insecurity, about the amount of casualisation in the workforce. It may not be for a mum and dad, but it may be for their kids or grandkids. That is a concern to families right across the spectrum represented by this parliament. Those opposite know that. Under pressure, the Liberals have a tendency to go straight back to industrial relations. It's their stock in trade; it's really in their DNA.</para>
<para>Looking around, I know I've probably got the greyest hair in this parliament, but I was here when they introduced Work Choices. I was here when member after member on the other side got up and said: 'There won't be any wage cutting. Jobs won't disappear. Wage flexibility doesn't mean less money in the pay packet.' You know what? In Work Choices, for the very first time in our history, this parliament made it legal to pay people under the award rate of pay. The view of those opposite was 'it will never happen', but it did happen. Maybe they didn't cut the pay, but they introduced the mechanism by which employers could do it, and employers did it. By the way, John Howard not only lost his prime ministership over that very thing, he lost his seat. People know this. It's not going to disappear. It reminds me of the story about when the scorpion asked the frog to give him a lift across the river. The frog was very afraid, because he didn't want to be stung. The scorpion said, 'Trust me, because it's not in our mutual interest.' The frog agreed. They got halfway across the stream, and the scorpion did indeed sting the frog. The frog asked the scorpion: 'Why'd you do that?' The scorpion said, 'Because it's in my nature.' That is precisely what they're reverting to now. The moral of that little story is that Australian workers should be aware of the coalition's nature when it comes to industrial relations and particularly of its track record. It's not all that old. You don't have to go back much further than Work Choices to see that.</para>
<para>What we're talking about in this debate is our frontline workers. We had our police and our doctors and nurses and ambulance officers doing wonderful things throughout the pandemic, but our frontline workers were also the shop attendants, the cleaners, the truck drivers—the people who made sure our economy ticked over and households could continue to do what they do and look after their families. They are the people at the sharp end of this piece of legislation which the government wants to proceed with. They're not well-paid workers. They have little bargaining power, and what those opposite want to do is remove the better off overall test. The better off overall test means just that. It's a mechanism for preventing people from being exploited.</para>
<para>I know a series of attempts have been made to remove it, but I also know what the president of the Fair Work Commission, Justice Ross, said when one attempt was made and litigated. He said that the changing of the test might reduce the cost for employers and increase profits. He went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is less clear how such a change would increase productivity.</para></quote>
<para>So this is not about a productivity mechanism over the next two years; this is about changing the cost structure for employers. But, don't forget, we've just had the JobKeeper scenario presented. We saw what happened when robodebt was out there and how people were being pursued for debts they didn't incur. Yet, when it comes to things such as JobKeeper and the fact that employers have used it to fund executive bonuses, they're not trying to chase that and put it back in the public coffers. That's seen as fair because, although employers used it in a way that wasn't intended, they're not going to pursue it in any way. In closing, you don't have to look much further than Work Choices to see the motivation of this government. Just like the frog, don't trust this scorpion. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think there's nothing more important in the social compact that we have in this country—in fact, in any society—than to make sure that our economic growth is shared between capital and labour; that is to say, as our economy is growing, wages are growing as much as profits are increasing. That's fundamental in this country. Members on this side of the House and, hopefully, all of us in this House agree that we want to see wages growing and we want them to be growing because the economy's growing. Equally, we obviously want return on investment and profit to grow. So the fundamental principles of IR reform should always be that we're doing everything we can so employers and employees can work together to improve the businesses that they are equally involved in, that employees are achieving wage growth because of their part and that, at the same time, business owners and investors are achieving higher profits. That's really going to come through fundamental principles of growing productivity and flexibility.</para>
<para>What this government wants to do is exactly that: increase productivity in our economy at the business level and economy-wide, and also increase flexibility and live in the 21st century and provide more flexibility to workers. One of the previous contributors to this discussion, a member on the opposite side of the chamber, indicated that flexibility was the other F-word. I haven't met too many new mothers who would like more flexibility and the ability to negotiate with their employer to change the existing structure of their hours et cetera in the business where they work to accommodate new family arrangements. There are many other examples that I can think of. I know that, as a member of parliament, I come across examples of people seeking that all the time. Productivity and flexibility combined is good for both employers and employees. The problem is that it also leads to simplicity, and something simplicity is not good for is the union movement. The union movement basically exists to make things as complicated as possible so that things are so confusing that workers are convinced and required to give part of their salary to the union movement to help them navigate the extreme complexity of the current system.</para>
<para>The only thing that would be achieved by introducing simplicity, of course, would be to break the business model of the union movement. That would also destroy the capital lifeline to the Labor Party, which is opposing this kind of reform that brings flexibility, productivity and simplicity and allows good employers and good employees to work together to talk about the kinds of conditions they may find mutually beneficial in the future. The Labor Party aren't engaging in this debate at all. They're not putting up alternatives to reform. They're not talking with us or talking about their alternative position, because they're not about reform. They're about the politics and running a scare campaign, because in frightening workers they see there could be potential to create a political advantage for themselves. How disgusting! How absolutely disgusting to think that your political objectives are more important than the interests of working people in this country and an opportunity for reform that will actually provide benefit to working people in this country. But this is nothing new when it comes to the Labor Party. Frankly, we know it's the union movement that is telling the Labor Party what they need to do on this topic anyway.</para>
<para>We need reform, and I think the COVID pandemic in the last 12 months have shown that we have a system that needs to be brought into the 21st century. I agree that there are new categories of work that have almost no security whatsoever. They weren't envisaged decades ago when some of the structures that we operate under right now were first developed. The fact that Labor don't want to talk about reform and engage in reform is appalling to people in the categories that actually need reform. They deserve to be captured in the enterprise system, in this country's industrial relations system, like anyone else. There's an opportunity for that here. There's an opportunity to empower businesses to work with their employees, to talk together about how they jointly want to help grow the business. That's going to lead to wages growth, it's going to improve the profitability of businesses and it's going to grow our economy. That simplicity, flexibility and productivity would be great for employees and great for employers. It would take this country forward of course; it would bring us into the 21st century. But we won't get support from those opposite, because it makes the overly burdensome model of the union movement completely redundant. That's why they won't support it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The previous speaker just outlined exactly what employers argue. How often do we hear big business and employers talk about wanting to bring in these reforms for flexibility? What that usually means for a lot of workers is: 'We're going to cut your pay.' Quite often the term 'flexibility' is used to cover up. It's HR-speak, employer-speak, big-business-speak for cutting wages. I'm actually quite shocked that the government continue to pretend that the bill they've put before the House doesn't cut wages. It's like they think that if they say it into the mirror enough times then maybe the mirror will say: 'Yes, you're right. It's true.' They think that if they say it enough the Australian people will start to believe them. They won't, because many on the government frontbench, when they were advisers, have form.</para>
<para>What examples are there in the legislation before the parliament of the government actually trying to cut wages? First of all, there are the changes to the BOOT. It's called the better off overall test for a reason. When you negotiate an agreement in good faith, that agreement must not undercut or be lower than the minimum award rate. It's as simple as that. Guess what it means if you pause the BOOT, scrap the BOOT, weaken the BOOT or give an employer the opportunity to opt out of that minimum floor? It means you are cutting wages. This proposal by the government is so radical it actually goes further than what a previous coalition government did with WorkChoices. It says that you don't have to compensate in any way. You can just do it if you can claim you were somehow affected by the pandemic. Can I remind the government that they have one person on their frontbench saying: 'Everything is good; let's get back to work. Conditions are good. Business is booming.' That's the Treasurer. That's why they can scrap JobKeeper and force people on JobSeeker back onto the Newstart rate. On the other hand, they say businesses are doing it so tough that they should be allowed to lower wages below the minimum standard. That's pay cut example No. 1.</para>
<para>Pay cut example No. 2 will come as a surprise to a lot of workers who are on an award. Not only do they want to force you to work for rates below the award if you're on an agreement; they also want to see your wages cut in modern awards if you pick up extra work. Flexible part time is something that is negotiated. Voluntary overtime is something that is negotiated and is in a lot of agreements. However, these agreements are negotiated in good faith between employers and employees, and in these cases the workers are on higher wages—they bargain up. What this proposal does is to allow bargaining down. It allows employers to offer extra shifts to their existing workers who are part time at the same rate. That's not the overtime rate but the same ordinary rate. There's no compensation. There's no ability for these workers to get extra. What is being proposed by this government is a straight-out pay cut, and it has done it before. Let's not forget the cuts to penalty rates that occurred under this government—a straight cut to the award, where we saw workers in hospitality and other industries lose money. Those pay cuts mean that those workers today are earning less than they did for doing the exact same work.</para>
<para>Let's also not forget that it is the government that is trying to support business with the casual rate rorts. The unions won the case against casual rate rorts, where workers doing a permanent roster weren't being paid the proper full-time rates; they were being paid the casual rates. They weren't being paid their proper entitlements; they were being paid the casual rates so that companies could pay them less. Unions took the case to court, won the case and now, retrospectively, the government is trying to change the rules to claw back that money, to give these workers another pay cut. This government has form when it comes to industrial relations. Its bill and this matter of public importance are about the fact that all the government really cares about is cutting wages. Not only is it economically dumb; it will also see thousands of workers forced to live on less money, making our recovery even— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VASTA</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
    <electorate>Bonner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The fact is that Labor and its union financiers should be ashamed of their misinformation campaign against meaningful IR reforms that have been developed with some of the most intensive and inclusive consultation in recent years. The Attorney-General's industrial relations working groups brought together business, industry and union representatives to work collaboratively and in good faith to understand the needs of businesses and workers and to help Australia recover from the global COVID pandemic. Much of our industrial relations system has been built on pitting one group against another in the past. However, the working groups aim to change that status quo, to achieve more by working together. These groups worked, negotiated, debated and delivered the industrial relations reform which will go before the Senate committee. It is an absolute betrayal of that good faith to see those opposite not only so heavily backtrack on agreed reforms but also support an aggressive misinformation campaign by the ACTU. As Australia recovers from this global pandemic, as unemployment drops and as our economy gets back on track, it is somewhat disappointing to see Labor start in 2021 where it left off in 2020: misleading Australians.</para>
<para>The Morrison government's industrial relations reforms aim to put the interests of Australian workers ahead of traditional ideological positions. What a shame those opposite failed to reciprocate. Labor has its head stuck in an ideological rear view mirror. It claims to be on the side of workers but clearly it is not. Those opposite are not on the side of employees who want stronger protections against wage underpayment. They are not on the side of casual workers who want to convert to permanent employment. They are not on the side of part-time retail and hospitality workers who want more hours and can't get them. They are not on the side of employees and employers who want to negotiate higher wages and productivity gains more quickly through a better enterprising bargaining process.</para>
<para>The fact is Labor is not on the side of economic recovery, of jobs, of lower unemployment and of wage growth. After good faith working groups, it is in bad faith that Labor is not doing what all Australians' best interests are during COVID, which is working cooperatively to save lives and livelihoods. As per usual, Labor seems more focused on appeasing unions by running unbelievable untruths about what are very modest and much needed reforms. We will not let Labor's misinformation campaign stop us from delivering a commonsense package of reforms with one goal: to help protect and create more jobs as we move out of the COVID pandemic. We will not let Labor's misinformation campaign stop us from helping casual workers convert to permanent employment. We will not let it stop us from providing mechanisms to address the decline in enterprise bargaining, a key driver of higher wages. And we will not let it stop us from providing part-time workers with the ability to increase their hours.</para>
<para>The fact is that the Morrison government's IR reforms will make it easier for businesses to create better paid and more secure jobs for Australians. It will help people to grow their careers and support families as they get back on their feet and aspire to start their family, buy a house, book a holiday or even start planning their retirement.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I guess the shortness of time just confirms that the government's message is that bad they can't even sustain a full period of time. The simple fact is this: the government's industrial relations will lead to cut wages and worse working conditions. Nothing can be more simple than that. That is exactly what is happening with this legislation, and it's happening at a time when we're living through the worst pandemic and, because of the recession caused by this government, we're seeing the toughest economic conditions that we have had to face. We've learnt a whole new definition of what an essential worker is. It is not only our nurses, our doctors, our teachers and our emergency service workers that we are so familiar with but the new breed, the breed we have come to rely on: the truck drivers, the supermarket workers, the delivery based workers and the cleaners. These are the people who have helped keep this country running and have protected our lives during this COVID-19 pandemic.</para>
<para>They serve the people who are scared, anxious and, sometimes, even angry and violent. That reminds me that no-one deserves a serve, and we've seen that with retail workers. They work to help get us through this situation, and we owe them a debt of thanks. But we actually owe them a lot more. What we don't owe them is a pay cut. I find it interesting that those opposite sit there and say that this is Labor and the unions' move to get workers more—they're against workers getting more money. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is this side of the House and it is the union movement that has always fought to get better wages and conditions for workers. You only have to go through every single industrial relations case that has happened in the last 40 years to see that it's not the employers and it is not the Liberal and National parties that are standing up and supporting workers to get better pay and conditions; it is the labour movement. The labour movement, driven by unions and the Labor Party, has supported better working conditions and better pay and conditions for workers across this nation.</para>
<para>You have to sit there—</para>
<para>A government member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Don't interrupt, because you are a silly, silly man. It's interesting, we have an assistant minister sitting there who wants to interject at a time when we're talking about protecting wages and conditions. This is a bloke who comes in and cries when someone interrupts him. So how about we treat him the same.</para>
<para>An honourable member: He's on 15 per cent super.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, he's enjoying his 15 per cent super while he's stopping other workers in this nation getting a similar sort of thing. It's an absolute disgrace. When you sit there and look at this Liberal-National coalition, you see it's them first, them second, them last. That is all they ever think about. If they're going to sit there and say that this legislation will make pay and conditions better for workers then pull out the removal of the better off overall test. If those on the other side of the House are so confident that what they're doing is right then remove it. There's no need to have an amendment in legislation that removes the better off overall test if they're not going to touch it. The fact of the matter is that they know they're going to touch it. That is exactly what their big mates want. They want to remove it.</para>
<para>We heard the previous contributor to this discussion talk about heading from casual to permanent employment. I'll tell you about a real, living example of this. I'm currently going through this at the moment with constituents who have been casual for 18 months and want to go permanent. What did their employer do? The employer cut their hours. The biggest single issue we have faced in COVID has been insecure work. It is people working as security guards and cleaners and so on in quarantine hotels and the like who have had to go and earn money to pay the bills and put food on the table by doing two, three or four jobs. When those people get impacted, that puts a lot of work on the track-and-trace system. It creates far more work. Insecure workforces are the scourge of this society today.</para>
<para>We need to ensure that workers are given proper pay and conditions and the protections to ensure that they aren't worse off. That should be the key goal for any person who comes into this place and says that they're here for the people of Australia, because that's what is needed. Insecure work and casualisation of the workforce has done nothing but deliver more and more financial, physical and mental stress to Australian workers. It's time the government was honest with the Australian people and said what this legislation does. We've seen example after example of workers losing pay and conditions.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Drum interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Today—and I know you're probably asleep, but if you woke up once in a while you might find out some things—it's quite—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member will direct his comments through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Certainly, Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you are able to speak in the language of Mr Drum, the member for— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DRUM</name>
    <name.id>56430</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That was a typical contribution from our previous speaker. It was all about the fear and scaremongering that's going on and, again, not about facts. When asked for examples, those opposite are simply unable to produce them, starting with the statement that the current economic problems are somehow or other caused by the government. I think most people in Australia, irrespective of the side of politics they're on, would acknowledge that the government has done a pretty good job when it comes to keeping the economy together and keeping income coming into the family unit to enable them to maintain throughout the pandemic the standard of living they had.</para>
<para>But looking beyond the pandemic is where the government has been able to have the conversations with unions, employers and employee groups in relation to what we are going to do on the way out that's going to encourage greater productivity and the ability of our workers to earn more money. This is where, in the Australian labour situation at the moment, flexibility is so much needed. It is where we have to go and where we want to go. The measures that are in the reform package are going to address some of the known problems with our industrial relations and the Fair Work Act. The reforms will not only support wage growth and help regrow the jobs that have been lost during the pandemic but also tackle the broader issues: underemployment, job security, underpayment, wages and the failure of enterprise bargaining agreements to drive wages and productivity growth. That is something that we all thought might happen, but it hasn't happened.</para>
<para>Every time I go out into the industries and larger companies around the Goulburn Valley, there is a call for flexibility. There is a view that many workers who are currently on casual rates want to go across to permanency, but there doesn't seem to be a pathway across to permanency. I know from talking to the Parmalat workers striking two years ago that this was one of their biggest issues—there was no pathway across to permanency. It's very difficult to go to a bank and ask for a loan if you can't move across. So I think this will give us an opportunity to move forward. There is nothing more frustrating than when you go out to a farm, walk into the packing sheds and find a situation where the workers and the farmers both wish they had more flexibility, with the farmers being able to pay their workers more money for longer hours worked. It is quite an interesting situation.</para>
<para>We know that almost 30 per cent of part-time employees in the retail sector and around 40 per cent of part-time employees in the accommodation and food sector want to work more hours but aren't getting them at the moment. We are pushing as hard as we possibly can to make sure that those workers will no longer be underemployed going forward into the future. We've got a situation where around 80 per cent of all jobs in Australia are in the private sector, so we have to give businesses optimism. To have growth we have to give them the opportunities they need to invest in their businesses, to create more jobs, to take the risks that they take day in, day out. This is something that is paramount. In Australia, as we push to get out of the pandemic, we have to be able to give our businesses the opportunity to grow their business even more than they currently are.</para>
<para>This is going to take innovation and it's going to take us having an understanding of struggling businesses. And we've got to make sure, right at the very core of this, that we always protect and enhance the rights of workers. It is absolutely critical that, as we move forward and we find that pathway to full-time work, at every stage we enhance and protect the rights of workers. It's just disingenuous for the opposition to claim that these reforms are going to do anything but that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>72</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Agriculture and Water Resources Committee</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>72</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
    <electorate>O'Connor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled <inline font-style="italic">Growing Australia:</inline><inline font-style="italic"> inquiry into growing Australian agriculture to $100 billion by 2030</inline>, together with the minutes of proceedings.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Australian farmers are the most productive, innovative and resilient agriculture producers on the planet. They've had to be, with one of the harshest climates, with poor soil types and with the distance from export markets. Our agricultural sector is producing first-class food and fibre for the world. In 2019 its gross value to the Australian economy was $60 billion, and its future is positive. Opportunities abound with the expansion of trade access to markets in North and South-East Asia through the signing of a plethora of free trade agreements and with the prospect of improved access to the 450 million high-value consumers in the European Union and Great Britain on the horizon. To build on these opportunities, the committee is recommending that the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment allocate additional resources to the market access negotiations with trading partners.</para>
<para>Continual productivity improvements are critical to the Australian agriculture sector retaining its international competitiveness—Australian farmers delivering increased profits through the adaptation of international technologies, the use of new GM techniques and chemical formulations, and through homegrown R&D in the fields of plant breeding, agronomy and animal health. The committee has made recommendations to leverage this innovation through the promotion of new technologies and by setting consistent data standards for agtech.</para>
<para>The evidence also suggests that access to capital to fund adoption and expansion to achieve scale will be critical to the growth of the sector. Agricultural land prices have remained strong during the recent east coast drought, underpinning the confidence of both banks and investors. It is important to note, however, that the Australian superannuation industry, which manages over $3 trillion, invests only around 0.2 per cent of those funds in agriculture.</para>
<para>But there are many challenges facing the sector. The committee took evidence that maintaining Australia's strict biosecurity protocols to protect our producers from pests and disease is of primary importance to our farmers. Evidence was also given that well-funded and professionally run activist organisations continue to cause uncertainty and heartache for the farming community, particularly for livestock producers. The irrational opposition to GM plant technology has largely failed, with almost universal access across Australia to the technology. But that opposition delayed the uptake for up to 15 years in some states. The development of the glyphosate molecule revolutionised agriculture by enabling minimum-till cropping, delivering enormous environmental benefits and lifting billions of people out of food poverty. Unfortunately, this technology is now under threat. It is vital that Australian farmers continue to have access to the latest chemicals that not only increase production and reduce costs but often reduce environmental impacts, compared to existing methods.</para>
<para>Climate variability has always been a challenge for Australian farmers. Evidence gathered suggests that governments can assist in the management of this variability by continuing to offer financial tools such as income averaging and farm management deposits, and by providing disaster relief where applicable. To ensure these tools continue to offer farm businesses the best possible protection, the committee has recommended that the Productivity Commission undertake a review of the approaches to risk mitigation used in agriculture.</para>
<para>One of the strengths of the agricultural sector is its people, and it is vital that the industry continue to attract young people. Currently, the demand for agriculture graduates outstrips supply, despite the positive job prospects and above-average starting salaries available to graduates. The committee has therefore recommended a campaign to promote the diverse, skilled career opportunities available in agriculture. Additionally, the committee has recommended the creation of a professional development process to provide a structured, recognised pathway for skill development.</para>
<para>The evidence to the inquiry can give no doubt that, with the appropriate policy settings, Australian farmers will expand production and deliver $100 billion to the national economy in a sustained manner by 2030 and beyond.</para>
<para>On behalf of the committee, I recognise the secretariat for their outstanding work on this important report, which took over 12 months to compile. Of course, it was disrupted by the pandemic. I thank so very much committee secretary Jenny Adams; inquiry secretary Tim Brennan—Tim, all the best for your move to the Parliamentary Library; I know you will serve the parliament with distinction in the future—senior researcher Louise Milligan, who we wish all the best with the medical issues she's having at the moment; researcher Angus Gould; and office manager Sarah Brasser. I commend this report to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—As Deputy Chair of the House Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this report—<inline font-style="italic">Growing Australia: </inline><inline font-style="italic">i</inline><inline font-style="italic">nquiry into growing Australian agriculture to $100 billion by 2030</inline>. The committee worked very well together throughout this inquiry. There was a great deal of goodwill and cooperation. I thank the chair, Mr Rick Wilson, for the constructive and consultative way in which he led this inquiry. I thank my committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work and dedication last year, which was a challenging year. I thank Mr Gosling, who is behind me, for his hard work. We all approached this task with the best of intentions and in the right spirit. I have no doubt that all members had the common aim of seeing Australian agriculture get to $100 billion by 2030, but we have different views on how that might be achieved—hence the Labor members' production of a dissenting report.</para>
<para>I thank too the secretariat for their hard work, good humour and diligence throughout the inquiry and for their preparation of the draft committee report from what was a great deal of evidence. We took evidence from many witnesses and received plenty of comprehensive submissions. Like the chair, I acknowledge the presence in the chamber today of the secretary and the inquiry secretary. I thank them both for their hard work. I see that we've driven Mr Brennan off to the Parliamentary Library. Apologies for that! I'm sure you will do well. Sifting through all those submissions to develop a report that encapsulated the key points would have been no easy task, particularly given the challenges that 2020 presented.</para>
<para>Most of all I thank our witnesses and everyone who put in the effort to make a submission. They contributed to an important but unheralded process of the parliament. Committees and reports don't often make headlines, but they do contribute to the development of national policy.</para>
<para>As is the nature of these things, the committee report reflects the priorities of government members on the committee. Labor members on the committee agree with most of the recommendations as well as the broad thrust of the report, but we have some key areas of disagreement that form the basis of the dissenting report. Labor members support outright recommendations 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13; we support recommendations 6 and 8 with qualifications; and we oppose recommendations 2 and 9. Further, Labor members propose and support an additional 38 recommendations. They make for good reading.</para>
<para>In rereading the transcripts and submissions in preparation for the dissenting report I was struck by the fact that the key to achieving the goal of $100 billion is not necessarily to grow lots more things but to get better outcomes from what we grow already. For example, the evidence shows that one-quarter of everything we grow is wasted and that water inefficiency is far too high. If we get on top of those, that's billions of dollars saved. If we maximise the use of technology, we could add another $20 billion to our numbers. Then there is value-adding. And that's all before we even get to the development of exciting new agricultural initiatives—alternative proteins, seaweed, aquaculture, hemp and medicinal cannabis, to name a few.</para>
<para>The chief concern Labor members of the committee had with the report is the disregard paid to the threat that climate change poses to Australian agriculture. 'Climate change mitigation and adaption' is the heading above a small section buried on page 168 of the report. There was a total absence of any recommendations on how agriculture might respond to climate change, despite the strength of evidence provided to the committee on its importance. Climate change was not granted its own chapter. The term does not feature in the title of the chapter in which it is covered—'Land, Water, and Environment'—and it is not mentioned in the chapter's introduction. This apparent reluctance by the government members to acknowledge the importance of climate change to the future of Australian agriculture flies in the face of evidence provided to the committee, which is detailed deep in the bowels of the report and which included climate change being described by the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association as 'possibly the biggest hurdle to reaching the target' of $100 billion by 2030. The fact is that climate change affects regional and farming communities more directly and more savagely than it affects the inner-city communities with which it is politically associated. It is regional communities that bear the brunt of fire, flood, drought and other extreme conditions. Climate change is an issue for Blunnies more than it is for Birkenstocks.</para>
<para>Just because the Labor members prepared a dissenting report, the view should not be formed that there was a vast chasm between the government and the opposition members, nor that we have wildly different points of view on the broader direction that agricultural policy should take. Stakeholders can take a lot of comfort from the fact that the government and Labor members agree on more than we disagree on and that broad policy stability is assured regardless of which major party forms government. It goes without saying that Labor will simply do the job that much better, particularly with a Tasmanian now in charge of the shadow portfolio of agriculture. I commend the report to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
    <electorate>O'Connor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House take note of the report.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>74</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
    <electorate>O'Connor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>74</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r6429" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2020</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r6589" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from Senate</title>
            <page.no>74</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Mandatory Credit Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2019</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6476" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Mandatory Credit Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2019</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration of Senate Message</title>
            <page.no>74</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the amendments be agreed to.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>76</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That order of the day No. 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>76</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Immunisation Register Amendment (Reporting) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6643" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Australian Immunisation Register Amendment (Reporting) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>76</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on the Australian Immunisation Register Amendment (Reporting) Bill 2020, introduced last year, and recognise that we've cooperated in shifting the agenda around today to bring this bill on now so that it can pass with the support of both sides of the House this evening and be considered as a matter of urgency in the Senate, so that the bill passes this week. As a general proposition, this is important reform, but it's particularly important in the context of the COVID vaccine rollout strategy. So I want to indicate that the Labor Party will be supporting this bill without amendment. As a general matter, this is, as I said, an important reform to our National Immunisation Program, but it's particularly important to ensure the smooth, effective, timely rollout of COVID-19 vaccines.</para>
<para>I want to talk very briefly about the importance of the National Immunisation Program, the NIP. This program has enjoyed the bipartisan support of this parliament for many years. It's one of the pantheon of important public health measures that give Australians what is, I think, the best health system in the world. We have, at a relatively modest share of GDP, a fantastic primary healthcare system, underpinned by universal coverage through Medicare; we have the best medicine system, underpinned by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, introduced back in the 1940s by the Chifley government; we have a great public hospital system that takes in everyone that comes through its doors, not charging people, as you see in some developed economies; and we have a range of other measures as well.</para>
<para>One of the things of which we can also be proud is our immunisation and vaccination program. The NIP was started by the Howard government in the early years of the Howard government, but it came on the back of bipartisan support, which the idea of a robust, evidence based immunisation program has enjoyed from both parties in this House. In question time today, the minister quite rightly, I think, pointed to the extraordinary achievement that he reported a couple of weeks ago: reaching the benchmark 95 per cent immunisation rate for five-year-olds. The fact that the immunisation rate for five-year-old Indigenous children is 97 per cent is also an extraordinary achievement of which this chamber, the government, the broader community, the health community and all of the advocates of good evidence based immunisation programs can be rightly proud. This is going to have lasting public health benefits for the community, most notably for those Australians as they enjoy, hopefully, very full, robust, healthy lives.</para>
<para>On the back of the NIP, the register has been in place for several years as well. Its success has been more patchy. Although there are high levels of upload of childhood vaccinations to the register, particularly vaccinations for nought- to five-year-olds, the upload of vaccinations to the register for adolescents, adults and, in particular, older Australians is very patchy indeed. The minister said in his second reading speech that the upload rates for the two main vaccinations for over-70-year-olds, pneumococcal and shingles, are running at only about 40 per cent. He said in his second reading speech that the rate of registration of flu vax on the register was running at about a 50 per cent. I've read reports that last year's flu vax only achieved about a 40 per cent rate of registration. There may be obvious reasons for that lower rate last year given the pressure of the COVID crisis that the health system and health practitioners were under during that peak winter period—particularly in Victoria, but not only in Victoria. Clearly, those rates, whether they're 40 or 50 per cent, are not adequate. We need to lift them, particularly in the context of COVID, to as close as possible to 100 per cent.</para>
<para>There would be very good public policy reasons for this legislation, even if we were not struggling through a pandemic. The NIP is taxpayer funded, and the whole community should get the maximum benefit from that very substantial taxpayer investment. With all of the privacy assurances that the minister rightly gave us in the second reading speech, which I'm satisfied are contained in the legislation, I think it's reasonable to expect that immunisation funded by the taxpayer be uploaded to a register. It is for the benefit of the whole community. We and our health experts and agencies will be able to understand just how well our immunisation program is rolling out and how we can fill gaps, if there are gaps. Also, individuals will be able to access their own vaccination histories through the immunisation history statements—the personalised IHSs. That is, as a general proposition, a good public policy reform. But this is especially important in the context of COVID-19.</para>
<para>It is absolutely critical that not just the government but the whole Australian community understands how effectively the COVID-19 vaccine is rolling out, and we will only know that with good data. This is, as I have said before and as everyone in this House understands very well, the most monumental challenge we have faced in our health system in living memory. We are going to have to give two doses of a COVID vaccine to as many Australians as we can. The Pfizer vaccine is only approved through the TGA for those aged over 16. That may change over time, but, certainly for adults and older adolescents, we want to hit pretty much everyone if we can. We are talking about 40 million or 50 million doses of the COVID vaccine over the next several months. In the midst of that, we are going to have to have the usual flu vac campaign properly spaced around the two doses of COVID vaccine. This is a monumental logistical challenge and we will only know how well we are tracking on that if we have good data. The best way to get that good data is for it to be uploaded to the AIR, the register, for our departmental bureaucrats to be able to check very clearly.</para>
<para>It is also going to be important for consumers to be able show a record of their own immunisation. I've said it is a good thing, as a general proposition, that people are able to access details of their immunisation history through their HIS. This is going to be a good thing as a general proposition. But we know, as we continue to work through this pandemic, that, for many people, access to their workplaces, to their employment, is going to be dependent upon being able to demonstrate their vaccine record in a COVID context. Travel overseas is, most likely, going to require very clear, authoritative vaccine histories, and the AIR will be critical to that.</para>
<para>In his second reading speech—and I endorse this absolutely and without any hesitancy—the minister said mandatory reporting does not mean mandatory vaccination. There is a critical difference here. To the extent that there has been some concern and opposition raised in stakeholder consultation and community consultation around this bill, the minister and the department make the point that that is generally based on an innocent misunderstanding that, when we are talking about mandatory reporting, we are talking about mandatory vaccination. The minister has said—and Labor endorses the position—that the COVID vaccine is a voluntary vaccine. We encourage everyone to take it, unless there are very good reasons not to—and you should talk to your treating practitioners about that. Subject to that qualification, we encourage everyone to take it. But it is a voluntary vaccine.</para>
<para>All this bill does is say that, if you take the vaccine—if you take a flu vac or any of the other vaccines on the NIP—it will be uploaded to the register. A whole range of privacy protections have properly been put in place by the government. These are reflected in the bill and, importantly, they have been echoed by the minister again in his second reading speech. So I want to emphasise again that mandatory reporting does not mean mandatory vaccination. The minister made that point, and I echo the minister's statement.</para>
<para>The bill makes it clear that it is intended that this will get up and running pretty quickly—and so it should. If this vaccine rollout is going to be smooth, timely and effective, the provisions of this bill that make mandatory the uploading of vaccination histories will start on 1 March for the COVID vaccines and for the flu vac. That is something we support very strongly. For all other vaccines on the national immunisation program, the start date will be 1 July. Obviously, this being a mandatory scheme, as set out in this bill there will be penalties and consequences for noncompliance. Some of those are reasonably substantial fines, penalty units, contained in the bill. The department, as I understand it, have made it clear that they intend to take an escalating approach to non-compliance, focusing very much on education and information of health practitioners. Labor very much supports that. Of course in any mandatory framework there needs to be a series of consequences for non-compliance. But we understand, as I know the government understands and members on the government benches understand, the pressures our health system are under, the pressures our doctors, our nurses, our aged-care facilities, our Aboriginal community controlled health organisations and others right through the health system are under. This is another systemic requirement we are expecting them to undertake, and we should take an escalating approach to their compliance with it.</para>
<para>I want to note that this reform, which we say is a sensible, important reform, has been supported by a range of key stakeholders, including the AMA, the college of GPs and a range of others. As I said, to the extent that there has been some opposition expressed to this legislation, the government makes the point that much of that is based on the innocent misunderstanding that what this legislation is seeking to do is to make the vaccination mandatory, rather than the reporting of a voluntary vaccination. I want to make that point as well. This is part of the reason we're not only agreeing to the bill but agreeing to bring it forward and have it debated in an expedited fashion in this House and ultimately in the Senate so we can pass it this week. This is a critical link, one of many critical links in the chain of a successful vaccine rollout here.</para>
<para>We dealt with another element in that chain, another piece of reform to existing legislation, only yesterday with some of the therapeutic goods legislation as well. We are trying—I know my predecessor as the shadow health minister, the member for McMahon, was very focused on the opposition being as constructive as we possibly can be through the pandemic. We know that is what our communities want. It doesn't matter if they're Liberal, Labor or swinging voters; all they're focused on is their government succeeding. They don't care so much whether they're a federal Liberal or a state Labor or state Liberal government; they want their governments to succeed in the fight against the virus, and they expect their oppositions to be as constructive as they possibly can be. That doesn't mean giving a blank cheque and not asking questions that need to be asked, but it means being as constructive as we possibly can be.</para>
<para>I said before that we've been very supportive, broadly, of the vaccination strategy that's been outlined by the government. There are questions, though, that we are continuing to ask, and we think the community wants clear answers to them as soon as they are available. We want to know when supplies will arrive from overseas. We understand that that is not within the control of the government. We understand that there are a whole range of important politics—I don't say that critically—being played out in the EU. We understand that the scale of the emergency in the European countries, the UK, North America and many countries besides is much higher than we're lucky enough to deal with here. But Australians do want to know when it's likely that the Pfizer and the imported batches of the AstraZeneca vaccine are going to land in Australia, how long batch testing will take and when we will actually start to get needles in people's arms. I will continue to make that point in as constructive a way as I can. I know the minister is approaching this with extraordinary hard work, with very good will, and I'm happy to say with a great deal of ministerial experience.</para>
<para>We also want information as soon as we're able to get it about the logistics of booking. The online entry point—it's been called different things at different times—that Accenture has been contracted to provide for the government is going to be critically important so people can easily work out how they make a booking for a vaccination. If their GP practice is not one of the, as I understand it, 2,000 or so out of 7,000 that have so far expressed interest in being part of the rollout, how they get connected to a GP they've never visited before; the extent to which they need to take their medical history; if theirs is not an aged based eligibility but a medical condition based eligibility, how will that work? How are aged-care facilities going to work through this system?</para>
<para>These are all important questions that Australians are asking, GPs are asking—I know—and aged-care facilities are asking. They're not asking them in a political way. They're asking them because they want us, as 'team Australia'—to take a description from the Prime Minister—to do this in the most timely, effective and speedy way we possibly can.</para>
<para>The last thing we do need to have a discussion about is how negotiations are progressing between the government and other suppliers. We do have supplies coming our way from Pfizer and from overseas, from AstraZeneca. We're leveraging that extraordinary asset we have in CSL at Broadmeadows. It's just a wonderful national asset, so we will be able to manufacture about 50 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine here in Australia. That's a wonderful thing, but we do want to know what the government is doing to diversify supply for down the track, because we know we are going to need additional supplies of vaccines, whether they are booster shots or what have you. It is important that the community broadly continue to be updated on how negotiations, for example, are progressing with a company like Moderna. It has a highly effective mRNA vaccine that it's already rolling out to some other countries. We'd like to know how negotiations are progressing for some future supply of that mRNA vaccine that is likely to be easier to adapt, to the extent we need booster shots that take account of the mutations or variants that we're already seeing in the virus around the world. I say that in a constructive way. I'm going to continue to ask these questions. I know that the minister is bringing very good will and is working extremely hard on this national pandemic. With those closing remarks, I commend the bill to the House and indicate the opposition's support for it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALLEN</name>
    <name.id>282986</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a medical researcher, I have long understood the importance and utility of public health data collection. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Australians and many in this place have also become keenly aware of the importance of public health data. Nowhere is this more true than in my home state of Victoria. As our day-to-day lives hinged on the decisions of public health officials for months, access to accurate and timely public health data was critical. Looking forward, public health data will continue to be central to the effective and safe rollout of the COVID-19 vaccination program.</para>
<para>In recognising this, I recommend the Australian Immunisation Register Amendment (Reporting) Bill 2020 to the House. The Australian Immunisation Register, better known as the AIR, is already a powerful tool for achieving optimal public health outcomes. However, the Morrison government's proposed reforms will strengthen the AIR further, while sharpening it to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. The AIR was originally conceived to assist the National Immunisation Program in 2015 and has ultimately gone on to become an integral part of our health system. The AIR is a national register that records vaccinations given to people of all ages across Australia, including those administered under school vaccination programs. Any parent will tell you they are always searching for their immunisation records in order to ensure that they are keeping up to date for school records. The register has both micro and macro benefits for Australia's public health. On the micro level, it provides a one-stop-shop for health professionals to check and update their patients' vaccination records. On the macro level, it affords public health officials with the data needed to best shape and inform national health policy.</para>
<para>This bill will empower the government to use the AIR as a potent weapon in our fight against the COVID-19 pandemic and help keep Australians healthy and safe. The bill requires recognised vaccination providers to fully report all vaccines administered, allowing for the creation of an immunisation history statement. This can be accessed via Medicare online, myGov, the Express Plus Medicare mobile app, or, indeed, My Health Record. This bill will also grant the Commonwealth and the Secretary of the Department of Health the powers to compel a recognised vaccination provider to produce information if they do not comply with this reporting requirement. I want to make it clear again: we're talking about a mandatory aspect of provision for the provider, not for mandatory vaccination. In effect, the bill will make immunisation reporting mandatory and builds on the Morrison government's other important work in this area.</para>
<para>Our government has followed expert medical health advice throughout the COVID crisis. We are in a solid position to roll out the vaccine with no need for emergency approvals, as has occurred internationally, because we have followed the proven expert health advice all the way. After the extraordinary flourishing of scientific and technological outcomes that have occurred in the last year, we now are at a vital point to ensure that Australians embrace this progress with enthusiasm. I call on all Australians to continue to follow medical expert advice from the government. Let me be very clear. The only advice I back and support is the proven expert evidence based advice; the only advice the government supports and backs is the proven expert evidence based advice. We the government do not take advice from mavericks or solo operators who are pushing unproven advice, even if they are a member of parliament. We are only listening to expert medical advice, because we have many expert panels and expert institutions that are providing this. The government follows the expert medical advice of the TGA, a world-class institution by anyone's standards. It also follows the advice of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, and the Science and Industry Technical Advisory Group on matters related to the COVID-19 vaccines.</para>
<para>A staged rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine is expected to commence in mid-to-late February this year; that is a number of weeks away. It has been an incredible period of flourishing scientific and technological advances and something that all of us as Australians should feel very proud of. Now is not the time to discuss or talk about unproven medical treatments. It's time to encourage vaccination for all in Australia, including members of parliament, and we need to support this as we go forward. If anyone wants to access medical information, I recommend authorised websites from the government. If they want to access information via Facebook, I suggest they follow the Australian government's Department of Health for their information.</para>
<para>Australia already has one of the highest rates of vaccination and vaccination reporting in the world. According to the most recent figures, 95 per cent of Australian children aged five years and over and over 97 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children aged five were fully vaccinated. This is something worth noting, because more than 95 per cent of children aged five in Australia having been vaccinated is quite extraordinary, and it is the highest rate in the history of this country. It's something I know the Department of Health has been working very diligently to achieve. Even more impressive, Indigenous rates of vaccination are even higher than the overall rates, and this is something to be congratulated and lauded as we try to protect our most vulnerable children. Judging by these figures, Australian families clearly listen to the science, as we all should, when it comes to immunisation and keeping one another healthy and safe. It is a collective responsibility.</para>
<para>However, there are number of vaccines we know that are under-reported and potentially unreliably reported to the AIR, particularly in relation to adolescent and adult vaccinations, hence the requirement for this bill. For example, the vaccinations against herpes zoster and pneumococcal only have about a 40 per cent reporting rate, while seasonal flu vaccinations generally see only a 50 per cent reporting rate. This is simply not good enough. If providers are providing a vaccine, they should be required to report the provision of that vaccine. The current shortfalls in the voluntary reporting regime could put Australians at risk, as knowledge of full vaccination history may prove vital in an emergency, when treating and managing an individual's health and wellbeing. It's also important for our data with regard to the health of our public health community. This bill will therefore ensure that patients and their doctors have access to reliable, streamlined and comprehensive information on patients' immunisation history. It's about empowering individuals but also about the safety of the community. Not only will this be a vital tool in the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine; it will have lasting benefits that enhance Australia's ability to combat the flu season and other diseases in years to come. Unfortunately, we know we haven't seen the back of pandemics. We know this is likely to be a new normal for the world.</para>
<para>This bill is an important part of the Morrison government's broader COVID vaccine and treatment strategy. It will provide a legislative framework for a comprehensive monitoring and surveillance plan so that any vaccine provided to Australians will be tracked to ensure ongoing safety. That is a commitment our government makes to the Australian community—that is, we will continue to monitor safety.</para>
<para>From the outset of the pandemic, the Morrison government has viewed the rapid discovery, production and administering of a COVID-19 vaccine as a paramount priority, but we will not let safety take a back seat in this country, and that is very, very important to the delivery of an outcome with regards to COVID in this country. Indeed, it was just over a year ago that Australian scientists were the first to grow the COVID virus outside of China, and this was critical in the development of trials for vaccines around the world.</para>
<para>The Morrison government has otherwise been at the forefront of the global effort to find a successful vaccine and treatment to stop the spread of COVID-19. We have a very diversified portfolio with regards to vaccine development and we've been engaged in multiple agreements with regard to global research and vaccine development. Indeed, as a government, we have invested $363 million to support various types of global research. At the same time, we've invested more than $3.3 billion in vaccine candidates and currently have four separate agreements for the supply of COVID-19 vaccines.</para>
<para>As we know, there are currently large rollouts taking place internationally, and it's very important that we continue to monitor post-market outcomes to ensure that we're monitoring for safety as these vaccines roll out around the world. It's not yet known fully the effect that the COVID-19 vaccines have on prevention of transmission, and we await this data with bated breath. We've also put almost $2 billion towards the mammoth COVID-19 vaccine rollout to help hospitals, GPs and pharmacies administer the vaccine in coming months.</para>
<para>The Morrison government is otherwise making way for a swift and seamless rollout for the COVID-19 vaccine. For example, we've just passed through the House this afternoon our proposed amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act to enable the secretary of Health to consent to the importation and supply of registered or listed therapeutic goods that do not have their registration or listed number on the label. As I said this morning in my speech, we know the Pfizer vaccine in particular requires minus 70 degrees storage, and that can make it impossible to have the registration number affixed to the label. So it's a small but important change that shows how committed this government is to the smooth rollout and how much detail is required for the mammoth undertaking with regard to vaccination of our population in a safe and effective way but, importantly, in a free and voluntary way.</para>
<para>The vaccine rollout is truly a once-in-a-generation logistical undertaking, perhaps only comparable to war campaigns. It has many important moving parts, which must all come together to ensure its success. The AIR is just one of the many important moving parts that we need to deal with.</para>
<para>It should not be lost on any of us that when the COVID-19 vaccine rollout is delivered it will constitute one of the greatest scientific and humanitarian achievements of human genius. In a little over a year, the world has been able to devise and begin mass production of COVID-19 vaccines. As a medical researcher and public health professor, I cannot tell you the incredible speed with which this has occurred. In fact, I wrote an opinion piece in September last year but was unable to find a recipient to publish it, because I was told by the media they thought it was far too early to be talking about vaccine rollouts. All I was doing was getting the conversation going, but it does show how quickly that this change has occurred, where we're now poised to roll out a number of different safe and effective vaccines across Australia. In a little over a year, we've been able to devise and begin mass production, including—we're about to commence—production and manufacture by CSL in Melbourne, which is a wonderful undertaking to ensure that we provide security for our sovereign risk of mass production of vaccines. We condensed a process that would ordinarily take the better part of a decade. This is truly miraculous, and the men and women who've worked to achieve this deserve every accolade.</para>
<para>The Morrison government knows that in the time of COVID, this is national security. A successful COVID-19 vaccine rollout is only one true key out of this pandemic; it's equally important from a health, economic and societal perspective. That is why the Morrison government is strengthening the vaccine rollout framework, which includes these important amendments to the AIR proposed in this bill. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is always delightful to follow the member for Higgins talking about medical matters. I thought we wrote the opinion piece that we couldn't get published, and indeed that was the case.</para>
<para>It's something that I love talking about—immunisation. I was interested today to hear the Prime Minister, when he was giving his eulogy following the death of Doug Anthony, talk about Doug Anthony having had diphtheria as a child and describe diphtheria as 'the pandemic of the age'. It wasn't. Diphtheria is a bacterial infection, and the organisms that cause it are always with us. Every child now has diphtheria immunisation as part of their triple antigen immunisation. It is remarkable that, in a very short space of time, infectious diseases such as diphtheria, polio, tetanus and whooping cough virtually became a thing of the past because of our continuing immunisation program. It is vitally important that we continue with advances in immunisation to prevent our children and our population becoming victims of infectious disease.</para>
<para>Australia has led the world in this. I and, I am sure, the member for Bowman, the member for Higgins and the member for Lyne, David Gillespie, have lived through this in our medical careers. We have seen dramatic changes in medicine due to immunisation, in relatively recent times.</para>
<para>Of course I support this bill, the Australian Immunisation Register Amendment (Reporting) Bill 2020. I congratulate the government on bringing it forward.</para>
<para>I really want to convey the message of how important immunisation is and how important it is that we continue with modern advances in immunisation, to provide health protection for all our population. In my medical lifetime, we've virtually eradicated bacterial meningitis because of immunisation against infections with bacteria such as <inline font-style="italic">Haemophilus influenzae</inline> and pneumococcus and meningococcal infections. And this has occurred in my medical lifetime—indeed, in the last 20 to 30 years. I, as a paediatrician, used to virtually always have a child in our medical ward at Campbelltown who was being treated for bacterial meningitis. In the 1990s, with the development of bacterial immunisations, this has virtually disappeared, which has saved numerous lives and prevented major disability.</para>
<para>Sir Norman Gregg, an Australian eye doctor, was the first doctor in the world to describe congenital rubella, which caused major problems in newborn infants if mothers were infected in the first three months of the pregnancy, with blindness, deafness, intellectual disability, congenital heart disease, growth failure et cetera. It has virtually disappeared from the modern developed world, but we know that rubella is always in the community and, unless we keep up our immunisation, it is going to recur. Recently, Professor Ian Frazer has developed immunisation for the virus that causes cervical cancer, and we hope one day to see a world free of cervical cancer and prevent the deaths and the multiple problems that cervical cancer causes. So Australia has actually led the world. I think we can congratulate ourselves on our past history and our current history of dealing with infectious disease.</para>
<para>This bill, of course, makes it mandatory to record immunisations across the board, but, in particular, initially with the COVID-19 vaccine and flu vaccine, and later with our other vaccinations. Our vaccination rates in our children really lead the developed world, and we need that to continue. Our First Nations people's childhood immunisations are now over 96 per cent, which is pretty remarkable and will prevent a lot of illness and death in our Indigenous population.</para>
<para>We are now improving immunisation availability for our older generation, with immunisations for pneumococcal infection, which causes severe, sometimes fatal, pneumonia, particularly in elderly people. We now have immunisations available for herpes zoster, which in young people causes chickenpox and in older adults causes shingles. So we're improving the availability of immunisation all the time, and this new legislation will improve our records of immunisation, which are very important.</para>
<para>I don't know how many children I've seen whose parents couldn't tell me, up until fairly recently, whether their children's immunisations were up to date when I've asked them. The Australian Immunisation Register has been very important as part of improving parents' ability to have their children immunised and as a record of those immunisations. The point's been made quite adamantly that this is a register of mandatory reporting; it is not mandatory immunisation. However, I believe that this will be a way of further improving our immunisation rates and, in particular, getting our more disadvantaged people to have immunisations that will improve immunisation rates in not just young people but also older people.</para>
<para>This legislation does include penalties for a lack of reporting, and as a health professional I think that is very important. The vast majority of health professionals are very diligent about their recording and reporting of immunisations, but we know there have been instances where that has not happened, and I think it's very important that health professionals are updated on ways of improving their immunisation recording. So I fully support the legislation from that point of view.</para>
<para>I have concerns about some of the data collection and the data companies that are being made data partners for this. I have some concerns about a single booking portal because I think that could be quite difficult for older people. I think this is something that will need to be modified over time, but the data is very important. Our health data is really a valuable asset for future health care, and I was very concerned when the government in 2016 sold off some of our health data, particularly the breast cancer registry, to a private company, Telstra Health. I am concerned that Accenture has been made the data partner for the data collection for our COVID-19 response and for the Immunisation Register; I hope that that will not be privatised in the future.</para>
<para>I think it is absolutely remarkable that we've been able to develop COVID-19 vaccines in such a short period of time and, in particular, the new technology involved in immunisation production, the messenger RNA vaccines. We know that the vaccines we will be getting now will not be the best ones for COVID-19. They will be developed in the future. It does appear that the messenger RNA vaccines are good because they are not only very effective but also easily modifiable. As mutations in the COVID-19 virus occur, it is very likely that new immunisations will need to be developed in the future, and the messenger RNA vaccines appear to be the easiest to modify. Whilst we've apparently got a relatively small number of the Pfizer mRNA vaccines being delivered to Australia, I think that we may need to relook at vaccine availability through the Moderna company, which has a messenger RNA vaccine that doesn't have to be kept at such a cold temperature, and that may be very important for a big country like Australia, particularly for rural and remote communities.</para>
<para>I think the government is still being quite unclear about the vaccine rollout. We need to make sure that we are updated as soon as possible about how the vaccine is going to be rolled out and how GPs, hospitals, rural and remote communities, nursing homes, those with disabilities, those living on the street and other remote Australians are going to be offered the vaccine. We also need to know how pharmacies are going to be supported with the vaccines and how we are going to make sure that the most disadvantaged Australians have easy and early access to the vaccination technology.</para>
<para>My personal view is that we also need to look at how we are going to quarantine people, particularly those who are coming from countries that have a high instance of some of the newer mutations, which may be more infectious, and how we're going to manage them in the future. Many things still need to be made clear. But it is absolutely remarkable that Australia has done so well. I congratulate the government on their science based approach to managing the pandemic. We are now in the next phase, the immunisation phase. It does appear very unlikely that we're going to get herd immunity, because, in the initial steps, we're not immunising children or pregnant women. But we do know that these newer vaccines, both the Pfizer vaccine and the AstraZeneca vaccine, will be very effective in preventing severe illness. It's very important that we get both vaccines rolled out as soon as we possibly can.</para>
<para>I will be lining up at the first available opportunity to get this vaccine. It is very important that we all do this in as short a time as possible. I have enormous faith in our health system, as I'm sure the member for Bowman, who is here in the chamber today, does as well. Australia has led the world in a whole range of public health projects, from immunisation to child development, to managing a whole range of different health problems, from infectious diseases to the diseases of modern life, the so-called lifestyle diseases. We have led the world, and we'll continue to do so.</para>
<para>The importance of a rapid vaccine rollout means that, within Australia, our borders can be opened more effectively and kept open. We know that the more people coming in from overseas with the virus, the more difficult it is to keep our quarantine systems working well, and that is something that requires a great deal of thought. This year will still be a difficult year in terms of international travel, but vaccination will help to a degree, particularly with those countries that have very low instance of the virus. So it is very important.</para>
<para>I would stress that the vaccination for COVID-19 will not be mandatory. The only thing that will be mandatory will be the reporting and recording of it so that people know who has been vaccinated and who hasn't. This may have some importance in healthcare settings, hospitals and rapid diagnosis of the illness. But it is very important that this is a voluntary vaccine and remains so, and there's bipartisan support for that.</para>
<para>I congratulate the government on many of the things they have done to bring this forward and in managing the COVID-19 epidemic. But there's still much we don't know—and 2021 is not going to be a normal year. We know that there will be things we will learn about the virus; we're all learning as we go. It's very important that people understand that it will not be situation normal for a long period of time. With widespread community vaccination, I'm hopeful that we'll get back to at least a more open society. But, for the time being, pandemic measures are here to stay. It's very important that our community is given as much information as possible about the planning and about what the future is going to be. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Australian Immunisation Register Amendment (Reporting) Bill 2020. I'm very happy to follow Dr Mike Freelander, the member for Macarthur, and another doctor the member for Higgins. They made very sensible contributions following on from the shadow minister for health and ageing, the member for Hindmarsh.</para>
<para>It is just one year ago—a year since the world changed for everyone—that COVID-19 first appeared in Australia, in late January 2020. It is one year—the equivalent of about one week of home schooling, for those who have had the joy of that—but a long time ago. It is obviously a very serious pandemic, and in that time Australians have picked up many new skills, not all of them willingly. The ability to work from home will hold us in good stead for some productivity gains and some family-life balance. Home schooling children is not something I would recommend, as the father of two boys, even though I was a school teacher in another life. We've learnt how to keep our social distance, and as we've heard from our health experts, that 1.5 metres has given us a much better flu season. We've learnt how to wash our hands for at least 20 seconds with soap regularly; how to wear a mask when necessary; how to monitor our health much more than we have perhaps been used to, particularly men, I would suggest; how to have Zoom meetings and the like; and how to hold COVID-safe activities. We've got a bit more to do on COVID-safe activities in terms of making our community strong, but I'm sure that we will get there.</para>
<para>We have been lucky in Australia. We've been lucky that we're an island continent and lucky we've had some great leadership. In Queensland, I've been very glad to see the work of the very capable Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, and the health ministers—previously Steven Miles but now the wonderful Yvette D'Ath—and also the Chief Health Officer, the unflappable and always thorough Dr Jeannette Young. They have done an incredible job making difficult calls at tough times, I know from personal experience, making difficult calls to keep all Queenslanders safe. I'd also commend Minister Hunt and the former Chief Medical Officer Dr Brendan Murphy, and all of the Commonwealth officials who have done so much to keep Australians safe. The role of our leaders has been more obvious in the last year than usual, I would suggest. Australians have relied on their guidance and the correct information. Largely, Australians have trusted their state and federal leaders and followed the health advice given to them. We've been a compliant lot, even with the personal sacrifices of not being able to attend funerals, weddings and other family functions, parties and all those sorts of things. We've heard the tennis players here for the Australian Open say that Australia is the envy of the world in its response to COVID-19. As I said, we are a lucky country, perhaps a little bit lucky. It's been a horrible one year on. One year ago Australia was on fire, and that kept away a lot of tourists who perhaps would have been here, and we could perhaps have had a swirl of COVID-19 that would have been an extra challenge. As I said earlier, the professional leadership in the health sector is what I particularly want to call out.</para>
<para>But I will point out my disappointment that some so-called leaders in their communities have been spreading dangerous misinformation. Obviously the chief culprit, as we've seen in the last few days, is the member for Hughes, who seems to have made spreading misinformation an art form, an art form that is dangerous for people. We know that Australians listen to their political representatives, particularly as the mainstream media fracture. We know that they listen to Facebook messages. We expect our political leaders, especially, to know about what is going on. Australians don't expect that their political leaders are being dangerous or careless or are deliberately spreading misinformation. It's especially dangerous during a pandemic, because when people are scared they are tempted to cling to simple falsehoods as a way of making sense of the chaos.</para>
<para>It was especially disappointing that the Prime Minister chose not to condemn the member for Hughes on Monday, when he had an opportunity to do so in front of the press gallery at the National Press Club. The standards you walk past are the standards you accept. All the Prime Minister would say on Monday is that you don't go to Facebook for COVID information and that the member for Hughes was doing a great job. Obviously, when the Prime Minister made that statement, he had his own media people devoted to putting out Facebook messages. In fact, the way that most people have been getting up-to-date information about the ever-changing COVID restrictions is not by waiting for the newspaper but by going to social media. No doubt the people in the electorate of the member for Hughes have been doing that.</para>
<para>In Queensland, the Premier's social media channels have been a great source of information about local cases, because they're immediate. You need to know, 'It was that restaurant.' There was a restaurant that was 100 metres from my office. We needed to know exactly which restaurant was involved and at what time you could have been affected so that the tracing process could take place. We needed to know when the testing centres were open and what the restrictions were. We needed to know all of those things. We needed to get information out quickly. My own social media channels have endeavoured to inform my constituents in Moreton about changes to restrictions in the local area and to provide information about the pandemic as immediately as it has come to hand—accurate information. People should be able to expect that their federal or state representative is giving them credible information. I saw the member for Higgins and the member for Macarthur, both respected doctors, making much the same comment. The member for Higgins particularly spoke about how necessary it is for Facebook information to be accurate. The member for Hindmarsh said much the same thing.</para>
<para>Right before I came into the chamber to speak, I went to the Facebook page of the member for Hughes. This page has 86,000 followers. So 86,000 people are seeing his information directly, and many of them then share that information with their followers or tell their friends about the information—the misinformation—supplied by the member for Hughes. I know that. I am a member of a Facebook group connected to my home town of St George in western Queensland, and they regularly receive this information. A couple of people send this information on like it's the gospel truth, like it's handed down from a health department. Because it's coming from a member of parliament, it must be true. I went to that webpage before I came in here at 5 pm, just half an hour ago, and right now it contains a whole lot of information on hydroxychloroquine and other things. After a couple of days spent talking about misinformation and the Prime Minister huffing and puffing about calling the member for Hughes, that information is still going out to 86,000 people.</para>
<para>Obviously, the member for Hughes's misinformation isn't confined to medical information. After the storming of the Capitol in Washington, the member for Hughes and his mate the member for Dawson—another superspreader of misinformation—were claiming it was a false-flag operation. It was an attack on one of the world's oldest democracies, where people died. As an Australian, I would say it is one of the most important democracies. But that misinformation wasn't condemned by the Prime Minister either. The member for Dawson and the LNP senator Matthew Canavan have also chimed in, supporting the member for Hughes. The member for Dawson has been spreading medical misinformation by sending Queenslanders an open letter addressed to the Queensland Chief Health Officer, Dr Jeannette Young, the most experienced chief health officer in Australia, with incorrect assertions about hydroxychloroquine. Today, on public social media, Senator Canavan was also backing the member for Hughes.</para>
<para>Why won't the Prime Minister do more to pull his team into line? The Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer actually felt the need to comment on the member for Hughes's prolific social media—no doubt paid for by the taxpayer—by saying that he didn't want to give prominence to 'non-scientific ideas'. A vaccine expert has labelled the claims of the member for Hughes as appalling and destructive. When the shadow minister for education had the opportunity to do so this morning, she called out the member for Hughes on his alarming misinformation. The standard of misinformation being spread by the member for Hughes is dangerous. It can cause death to those who follow it. The assertions of the member for Hughes go beyond being misleading; they are getting very close to being unhinged.</para>
<para>Let's look at some of the dangerous assertions he has made. He's accused our chief medical and health officers of 'crimes against humanity'. He's promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine, against scientific evidence. He has engaged in conspiracy theories about big pharma, saying that this is all a conspiracy, because the vaccine will make more money for big pharma than his favourite remedy, hydroxychloroquine. He asserted that hydroxychloroquine didn't get approval in Australia as part of some anti-Donald-Trump conspiracy by the TGA and the chief health officers and that it would be approved after the United States election—which it hasn't because there's not enough evidence to support that it works.</para>
<para>I have faith in the TGA. I support the government 100 per cent on having faith in the TGA. It's extraordinary that these are the assertions of a federal member of parliament on his Facebook page right now—someone who is being paid by the taxpayer to represent his community, someone who the Prime Minister actually appointed to the Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources Committee.</para>
<para>We know that vaccines will play an important part in allowing the world to combat and/or live with COVID-19, and that's why the Australian Immunisation Register is so important. I stress again that this is nothing to do with making vaccines mandatory; people still need to make their own choices in consultation with their treating physicians. Making sure Australia understands who has had these vaccines is what this legislation is about.</para>
<para>Without a vaccine, we can't hope to have open borders and the freedom of international travel—something that is crucial to Queensland, the Sunshine State, and particularly to North Queensland, which has been hammered by the lack of international tourists. Vaccines won't be successful if there is not an uptake by the public. We need to give people confidence in our testing processes and, ultimately, in the vaccines that will be available. We need to encourage people to get the vaccine. It is a waste of taxpayer money to spend a fortune on advertising campaigns when a member of parliament is spreading unscientific misinformation.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister, after question time today, forced into a corner, finally had to acknowledge the dangerous rhetoric of the member for Hughes—and I do commend him for that. Unfortunately, I don't think the Prime Minister has gone nearly far enough. As I said, at five o'clock today this information was still being pumped out to the Australian public. The misinformation is still on the member for Hughes's social media. He hasn't taken it down. It is still misleading people. The Prime Minister should demand that the dangerous misinformation—and there is a tonne of it—should be taken down from his social media channels immediately. That's what a true leader would do.</para>
<para>I also take this opportunity to thank the wonderful researchers that we have here in Australia for their tireless work during this pandemic. We really appreciate your efforts. In particular, I want to mention the scientists at the University of Queensland, who came oh so close, and some of the other Brisbane laboratories. I won't go through all of them. I know some of those scientists and I thank them for their incredible efforts.</para>
<para>I support this bill and Labor supports this bill because it's crucial that the government's broader COVID-19 response be based on science. It needs to defend science and it needs to actively counter the misinformation campaigns coming from the government's own ranks that are putting at risk the health of all Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAMING</name>
    <name.id>E0H</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome the contributions from both sides in this important debate on the Australian Immunisation Register Amendment (Reporting) Bill 2020. This is an opportunity to talk about vaccinations and immunisation schedules more broadly. Australia has a unique record worldwide for high levels of immunisation coverage. The great work by ATAGI to approve vaccinations in a prompt fashion, fund some of the most expensive vaccines in the world and make them available rapidly is something Australia can be truly proud of. So my intervention today is necessarily brief.</para>
<para>I am a medical practitioner who has worked to introduce new drugs into this country, including, remarkably, the three non-viral treatments have been explored for COVID-19. I led the first trial of azithromycin in Australia after a brief series of case studies in donovanosis introduced that drug to Australia back in 1992. So I know very well the issues in introducing a new drug as a treatment. Azithromycin is now a breakthrough and recommended standard treatment for an ocular disease. Of course, we know that science moves carefully, cautiously and slowly. The observation I simply want to make today—and I do depart from some of my medical colleagues in this respect—is that continually screaming at contrary views may feel good but it won't make them go away. My belief is that it actually amplifies them. It is important to put a line in the sand about the importance of science, but you aren't going to succeed in muzzling people in this chamber. In a vibrant, strong civil democracy you need to accept that there are contrary views. There were contrary views on Australia Day last week. They are not going to be muzzled. Those views are here to stay, and I support both sides.</para>
<para>On immunisation, you are right: there is a scientific consensus that brought this great nation to where it is today. There is an antiscientific undercurrent and it needs to be called out, but that needs to be done respectfully and it needs to be done with evidence. What I am frustrated about is the reluctance by the other side to engage the evidence. If those opposite sense something is misinformation, spell it out in detail. Don't accuse someone with broad slander in an effort to silence, because I am just telling you—through the chair—they will not go away. They are not going to go away. I can tell you that someone who has a page of 86,000 will rapidly have 96,000 after a completely unnecessary exchange in this chamber. Unlike the Labor member, I speak as someone who has worked on approving new breakthrough treatments for this country.</para>
<para>I will tell you the information that the Labor MP doesn't have. I know the percentage of Australians who are going to accept COVID vaccination when it becomes available. It is around 75 per cent of young Australians in their 20s and around 75 per cent of Australians over the age of 60, but it falls to around 60 per cent for Australians in their 40s and 50s. There is a very significant core of Australia in that age group that has genuine reservations about the COVID-19 vaccine. That needs to be addressed clearly and with information, not with broad and personal attacks on people with whom you don't agree. If you want to attack someone, attack them with the science. That means reading scientific papers.</para>
<para>An opposition member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAMING</name>
    <name.id>E0H</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am being heckled by a Labor MP who has never read a peer-reviewed scientific paper from start to finish in her short career. She needs to read more science.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hold a sec, everyone. The member for Bowman will just pause for a moment. The member for Kingston seeks the call.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Rishworth</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to say that the member for Bowman is misleading the House. I have actually published in the <inline font-style="italic">Journal of Applied Psychology</inline> a randomised control trial looking at eyewitness identification, so he can withdraw his mistruths, because he has misled the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member has made a point, but it is not a point of order in the debate. The member for Bowman has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAMING</name>
    <name.id>E0H</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I accept the interjection and, yes, she has published one paper, so that is great. Now she needs to read more and incorporate them in the debate rather than make personal attacks. The point is: if you wish to place someone on a pedestal and engage in attacks that don't have a basis in science, you need to compete against antiscientific ideas with scientific debate, and you are not doing that. You are personally attacking people, and that is why these efforts will be futile. If you feel it is information, establish it and make the case, but respect that there is a large proportion of Australians with differing views. If you continue to regard them as deplorables, you will continue to struggle to have high levels of vaccination. Our job is to build consensus through science and through respectfully opposing these views, not attempting to silence people. All you do is feed the fire and make the problem worse.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I agree with some of the contribution just made by the member for Bowman. To some extent, I agree with the core argument that I think he was just trying to put—that when we are faced with people expressing antiscientific and false information and putting it out into the community then it is incumbent on people who have been elected to this parliament as leaders of the community to address that. As I understand it, that was at the core of the member's proposition. That is absolutely correct; unfortunately, until recently it hasn't been done enough. But where I do take issue with the member for Bowman on is his illustrating his own point—that personally attacking others without knowing what you're talking about is a bad way to go about persuading people—by personally attacking a member of the chamber without knowing what he was talking about.</para>
<para>I will return to what I intended to speak about in my contribution, and that is the way debate about the vaccine has caused me to reflect on a theme that I've spoken about a number of times in this chamber, as have many of my colleagues. It is a theme that I know is pretty dear to the heart of the member for Warringah. It's about what makes good politics and good politicians and how people should behave. To some extent, it flows from the slightly contradictory contribution of the member for Bowman. But first I want to say a few things about immunisation, because the contributions before some of the most recent ones were thoughtful and considered contributions by members of this parliament from both sides of the chamber, Liberal and Labor, about the importance of science and, in particular, the importance of immunisation. They were proud contributions about the world-leading role that Australia has played for many, many decades in the field of public health.</para>
<para>I often come into this chamber to listen to Dr Freelander, the member for Macarthur, make contributions on legislation and issues that relate to the medical profession and public health. When he raises concerns and when he praises legislation, you can be sure that his is a thoughtful and valid contribution that comes from someone who has not only had extensive previous experience in the medical profession but continues to practise while he also serves his community and this nation. I want to take this opportunity to adopt a lot of what Dr Freelander said, because I certainly couldn't say it any better. I also want to do what the member for Macarthur did and put on the record that I will be taking the COVID vaccine as soon as I am able to and as soon as I appropriately reach my place in the priority queue. I have been vaccinated for the flu. Because of my particular health circumstances, I've also had the pneumonia vaccine. I've spoken to my GP about suitability of the COVID vaccine for me with my particular medical circumstances. She's assured me I can take it, so I will be taking it.</para>
<para>When I have spoken on social media or publicly about the need to call out conspiracy theories and to assure the Australian public that Australia's TGA process and our vaccine rollout are safe and robust, I've been asked a number of times, 'Well, would you take the vaccine then?' I want to make it abundantly clear that the answer is yes. Of course it's yes. This legislation makes the register mandatory, but it does not make having the vaccination mandatory. I join with the Minister for Health, the shadow minister for health and every reasonable-thinking, science-believing person in this chamber and encourage all Australians to have the vaccine. It's not a magic bullet. It's not going to mean that, as a community and as a country, we are all safe from COVID, that the borders are all going to open so we can travel overseas and that some of the things that we're all desperately waiting for will happen. But it is a really important step.</para>
<para>People that are 10, 15, 20 years younger than me probably have no idea what polio is. But a former leader of the Labor Party had polio as a child. Effectively, it doesn't exist, certainly in this country. I remember as a young child having a mumps reaction and having to go to hospital for an operation. I had to be put in isolation because my sister had rubella, or German measles. That effectively doesn't happen in this country anymore—I was going to say it's a few decades, but it's quite a few decades since I was a child—because of vaccines. It's really important that the sentiments that have been expressed by government, opposition and crossbench members of this place continue to be expressed. It's a significant public health issue for COVID but also more broadly. I endorse the rollout of the vaccine and endorse the statements of the shadow minister for health. Of course we want to see this vaccine rolled out as quickly as possible and as safely as possible. We want to make sure that the most vulnerable get access first. We want to make sure that Australians know that the rollout is happening in a methodical way and that doctors, pharmacists and staff at nursing homes and disability support services are assured that the rollout of the vaccine will be efficient.</para>
<para>I hope that there are four million vaccines rolled out by the end of March, but I also hoped that the rollout would have started in January, as the Minister for Health said in September last year, and we haven't seen that happen. I caution the government: every time you say something is going to happen and it doesn't, it adds to the feelings of concern in the general public and undermines a little bit the faith in the government and its ability to roll out this really important public health measure. It's important that the information given, not just from random backbenchers but from the Minister for Health and the Prime Minister, is as accurate as it can be every time and is about public policy and not about politics, because this should not be about politics.</para>
<para>I want to finish my contribution by reflecting on how the debate we've been engaged in for quite some time now—and really, unfortunately, we appear to have inherited from America some of the really dangerous trends that emerged under the Trump regime—can go to undermining the community's faith in politics, democracy and government. We know that, before the COVID pandemic hit, trust in politics and trust in government had declined disastrously over the previous two decades and less than half of the Australian public expressed trust in politics and politicians. We really needed to work hard to regain that trust. There are a lot of really decent people in this parliament who want to do that.</para>
<para>Because of the way during the pandemic the state governments and the federal government have cooperated—apart from perhaps the way the federal government talked about Victoria for a while, but we'll put that aside—there has been a return of trust. The most recent surveys and polling suggest that Australians are now expressing a trust in government and politicians that hasn't been seen for a long time. One of the really important challenges that we as parliamentarians face—and it doesn't matter whether we are in government or opposition—is to gently hold and retain that trust. Perhaps one of the silver linings of one of the most disastrous periods in Australia's recent history is that we have an opportunity to gently hold, retain and build that trust. Part of doing that is the way in which we individually as parliamentarians and as political parties conduct ourselves.</para>
<para>In his contribution the member for Moreton talked about how he had used social media during the COVID lockdowns to inform his community of the new restrictions and the new measures. That's absolutely what I as the member for Dunkley did. I know that it's absolutely what most members of this parliament did. When we couldn't go out to see our constituents, when there were no community events and when our constituents couldn't come to us, social media—whether we like it or not—became a lifeline of communication. And those of us who lived through weeks and weeks and months and months of lockdown—as did our communities—know that people were on social media in numbers and at a volume that they weren't before, because that's where they went to get information, because it was spontaneous.</para>
<para>So those of us who had thought about it and wanted to be part of building trust and serving our communities treated our social media in much the same way that we would treat this parliament. We tried to treat it with respect. We tried to put out information that wasn't political, that wasn't conspiracy theories, that was grounded in fact, that came from the federal government, the Chief Health Officer, the state government, the Chief Medical Officer, and we wanted to do our best to reassure our communities and give them the right information.</para>
<para>I can't speak on behalf of my colleagues in this place, but I can say that as the member for Dunkley I know that my community valued that, because they tell me almost every day. Now that we are out and about, people come up to me and say thank you for that. They would be saying it on Facebook at the time and sending emails. That was about building that trust and holding it gently in my hands because I've got the privilege of doing it. That's why members of this place using their Facebook pages to put out what aren't contrary views but are, as the member for Bowman described it, antiscientific undercurrents, using their Facebook pages at a time of fragility, a time when people were scared, a time when people were sitting looking at social media just to try to work out what was going on in the world, as a means of building their own profile by exploiting the way those people felt, is wrong.</para>
<para>Calling that out isn't, with respect to the member for Bowman, personal attacks on individuals. It's hard to say that this behaviour is wrong without naming the individuals who are behaving in that way. That's why I have called out the member for Hughes and others and said it has to stop. That's why I asked the Prime Minister to ask for it to stop: because of the immediate urgent need for it to stop, and for public health reasons, but also to be part of a better politics and a better parliament.</para>
<para>That's why I think suggestions that have come from my colleague the member for Warringah and others about codes of conduct for parliamentarians, why training for parliamentarians in ethics and understanding that we have competing roles and some of them are party political, some of them are local political, but a big part of it is being a parliamentarian and serving the public good, and knowing how to balance them and when to balance them, is really important. This is our opportunity, and legislation like this gives us the opportunity to talk about why immunisation is important. We have to grab it and leave a legacy for the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Australian Immunisation Register Amendment (Reporting) Bill 2020. We live in a wonderful country in Australia. All of us know that, but it's during this pandemic that people have a new-found appreciation of what they knew in their DNA. What a wonderful lottery we won when we were born or came to this country, because not only do we have the freedom of speech, association and travel—up until recently—we were gifted a wonderful public health system, clean water, and also a really good vaccination program.</para>
<para>A bit like the member for Dunkley, I remember lining up as a schoolkid getting jabs in the arm or getting a polio vaccine on a little spoon under the tongue. That was my first experience. When you look at the history of vaccination, it was one of the great public health initiatives around the world. So many illnesses that create great morbidity and suffering and even death have been modified by it.</para>
<para>With the pandemic, we've obviously had to ramp up a lot of systems, and utilising and improving on the existing Australian Immunisation Register is part of that response. As you know, there is a register that exists. Most people do have their vaccination history recorded on it, because it is a very handy public health measure to have both for your own personal medical history and for efficacy of producing herd immunity and protecting everyone from whatever the infectious disease is. With the COVID vaccine rollout, it's very important that we do maximise the efficacy of this and get all the providers of the vaccine to record it in this register so we can keep a track of who has been vaccinated and levels of vaccination to judge response, efficacy and all those sorts of things.</para>
<para>It's really important that people understand this data has been collected for some time. There is a very secure computer system that the government controls, and individuals have their privacy maintained with this system. It's not going to change. If we want to go to your immunisation history statement, you can print it out from Medicare online, myGov or the Express Plus Medicare mobile app. So it's controlled by you—only you and the government controlled computer record system. If you do not want that being in contact with you and you don't want lots of correspondence, you can inform the system. All the disclosure is at your control.</para>
<para>There are allowances in this legislation to make sure that the vaccine providers—not the manufacturers but the people delivering the service, whether it's going to be through a pharmacy, a hospital, a general practice or an outpatient clinic—record the vaccination, because, as you know, in the pandemic there will be two vaccinations. All the vaccines that are being rolled out in Australia require two injections.</para>
<para>So there's no ambiguity, I might say a few words about the current situation—lest I say, not controversy. I want to reiterate: one of the benefits I bring to this House and this parliament is using the knowledge from my extensive medical career, because a lot of this is very technical stuff. Vaccines have a long history of delivering massive public health benefits, and this vaccine program will do the same for the nation. Everything about this disease is evolving at such a rapid rate, but I want my constituents and my colleagues, both on the opposition benches and here, to know that I'll be lining up for my vaccine, like the member for Dunkley. When my turn comes, I'll be accepting a vaccine. Some of you are probably a whole lot healthier than me, so I'll be really welcoming receiving the vaccine. That is the best thing.</para>
<para>We are blessed that we've had a great response. We controlled our borders, which has protected us in a way that other countries weren't able to be. We've got a wonderful public health system—with contact tracing, managing outbreaks and getting our economy going again—and the vaccine program will be part of that. This bit of legislation is improving our existing systems, but it's important that when people get the vaccine they make sure it's recorded. You'll get the info when you're in hospital or when you're sick at other times in the years hence. It'll always be there for you to check and for your GP to see on your My Health Record and know what you've had. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First of all, I would like to start by thanking the people of Warringah and the Northern Beaches for their amazing hard work and sacrifice in holding at bay and in check so quickly the outbreak that broke out around Christmas time. I do acknowledge how hard that was and the sacrifice that came, especially for our local businesses, and I do continue to advocate for better support for those businesses, but this was necessary. I was so incredibly proud of the level of testing, the level of compliance and how hard everyone in the Northern Beaches and Warringah worked to keep that outbreak in check. I would also like to thank the health minister for responding to my calls to liaise with me in relation to having more testing centres. I think that clearly translated into high testing rates and being able to work together on issues of concern as they came up in the community.</para>
<para>I'd like to speak on the Australian Immunisation Register Amendment (Reporting) Bill 2020. This is really important legislation at this turning point in Australia in dealing with the health crisis of COVID. The main point of the bill is to create a requirement for recognised vaccination providers to report to the Australian Immunisation Register information relating to vaccinations they administer and vaccines they are notified about that were given outside Australia. It's vital that we know who has been vaccinated, especially in circumstances of limited availability of vaccines as we are seeing emerge globally in response to COVID-19. Currently there's no statutory mechanism by which the Commonwealth can require vaccination providers to report vaccines administered. Vaccination providers are encouraged at the moment to report all vaccines administered to the AIR; however, as reporting is voluntary, not all vaccines administered are reported, and it is really important this legislation amends that situation.</para>
<para>Reporting to the AIR is maintained at high levels, and the data entered is sufficiently reliable for the administration of childhood immunisations due to a number of existing policy and program settings which encourage reporting. I know it's been some years, but I'm of the generation with the blue book for our children and the regular trips for immunisation. But it has seen the drop of so many illnesses and the protection of our children, so it really does reinforce how lucky we are in Australia to have such a strong vaccination program.</para>
<para>Records of vaccinations for teenagers and adults are less reliable, and that is where it becomes so crucial for COVID. Given the significant cost of public vaccinations, improving record keeping by mandating reporting of vaccinations is both medically and financially prudent. This bill will introduce a requirement for those who administer vaccinations to report vaccinations for COVID-19 and influenza vaccinations from 1 March 2021 and all other national immunisation programs from 1 July this year. This bill will introduce civil penalties for providers of vaccines who don't comply with reporting requirements. It is so important that we have a high uptake of the vaccine.</para>
<para>Last month I conducted a public online event with one of my esteemed constituents from Warringah, Professor Mary-Louise McLaws. She's a professor of epidemiology, healthcare infection and infectious disease controls at the University of New South Wales, and she stressed very clearly the importance of a high uptake of vaccination in the population. These vaccines are not 100 per cent foolproof; they require a high level of uptake so that we multiply and maximise their benefit.</para>
<para>It is concerning that yesterday Newspoll released a poll that showed there were about 75 per cent who planned to get the vaccine, but it did still leave 25 per cent of those questioned who indicated they would not. So clear messaging matters. We need to influence the 25 per cent. The data from the government indicated that the goal was to vaccinate at least 80 per cent of Australians, which means we need to influence that 25 per cent. Facts matter, and it's important that as parliamentarians we provide the right information to our constituents. I urge the people of Warringah: if you have any concerns about the vaccine, go to your health professionals; get health professionals' advice in respect of it. That was something that Professor Mary-Louise McLaws stressed very clearly. It is really important that people turn to their health professionals for that information.</para>
<para>There's been a raging debate about members of the backbench disseminating false information. I can only reiterate my call for there to be a higher professional standard for members of parliament. Information and facts matter. We saw in the aftermath of the US election how far misinformation can lead people. In that sense, whilst I support freedom of speech, freedom of speech comes with responsibility. So it is important. Facts matter.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank all members who spoke on this important bill, the Australian Immunisation Register Amendment (Reporting) Bill 2020. The Australian government is committed to providing all Australians with access to safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines as soon as available. A safe and effective vaccine available globally will dramatically improve health outcomes and societal wellbeing, and facilitate economic recovery. Mandatory reporting to the Australian Immunisation Register, the AIR, will enable the monitoring of immunisation coverage and administration, which is key to ensuring vaccination course completion, as well as assisting with any adverse event reporting. This bill will ensure the AIR is a complete and reliable national dataset, and it will deliver improved reporting to the AIR to better inform vaccination projections, purchasing, delivery and program performance, and analyses of vaccine effectiveness and safety.</para>
<para>While the government strongly supports immunisation and will run a strong campaign to encourage vaccination, it is not mandatory and individuals may choose not to vaccinate. There may, however, be circumstances where the Australian government and other governments may introduce border entry or re-entry requirements that are conditional on proof of vaccination.</para>
<para>This bill will benefit the health of Australians through more-complete reporting of vaccinations. Over time, it will increase vaccination coverage rates and the effectiveness of vaccination programs, and support the health system by informing policy for the NIP and service delivery at the local level.</para>
<para>On behalf of the health minister, I would like to thank key stakeholders and the broader public for the valuable feedback they provided during the public consultation. That helped inform the development of this bill. Once again, I thank members for their important contributions on the bill. I commend it to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>90</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>90</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Intelligence and Security Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>90</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>90</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZP</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Speaker has received advice from the Prime Minister nominating a member to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act 2001, Ms Hammond be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>90</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>90</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6606" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>90</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZP</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind the House that the original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Barton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words, and, if it suits the House, I will state the question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. I give the call to the member for Ballarat, in continuation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was speaking in relation to the National Redress Scheme and the very important amendments that the member for Barton has moved to try and actually get the scheme to live up to the promise that every member of this House made to survivors of institutional child sex abuse—that we would actually put in place the scheme that the royal commission recommended. I stated—in relation, particularly, to the issue of funders of last resort—that Labor's amendments will seek to ensure that governments act as funders of last resort where people would otherwise miss out because institutions are defunct or do not have the capacity to join the scheme. Equally, we think it's really important that there be the capacity for early payment under the scheme.</para>
<para>Finally, Labor's amendments are calling on the government to establish an advance payment scheme for people who are elderly or ill. As I said in my contribution previously, we've had instances of the scheme taking at least 12 months—in one case, 17 months—just to resolve an application, and many of these applicants are incredibly unwell and are incredibly distressed, and becoming increasingly so as they age, and the notion of an advance payment could be similar to a scheme that's currently being used in Scotland, which has been well received by survivors over there.</para>
<para>Given the decades and years that many survivors have waited for a chance at redress and justice, it is vital that people don't die waiting. People deserve to see that the institutions that have done them so much harm are held to account. They deserve to know that eventually they were believed, they are seen, they were taken seriously and the institutions that allowed this abuse to occur—and to be perpetrated not only once or twice but to continue, often for years and years—actually do acknowledge the harm that has been done.</para>
<para>Of course, changes have been made to this scheme before. Labor supports the changes the government made to charities law last year to prevent organisations getting government grants and removing charitable and tax deductibility status if they refuse to join the scheme within six months of an application being received. However, these changes will not guarantee that people will get access if an institution remains recalcitrant and refuses to join, or if they deliberately restructure their affairs to avoid the obligation to join and to hide assets. In these rare cases, we are calling on the government to consider placing a levy on such institutions, in order to cover the cost of redress and to collect funds from these institutions through the tax system if needed.</para>
<para>Survivors should not miss out on the opportunity to get redress because an institution refuses to take responsibility or does all it can to avoid taking responsibility. This National Redress Scheme is about assisting those who were done enormous harm, who had their trust violated and who've been forced for most of their lives to live with their trauma in silence. It has done enormous damage, and it has done enormous damage to people who live in my community and in the communities that many of us represent.</para>
<para>The scheme has the potential to do much good, but too many are being left waiting or being left with too little. I urge the government to support Labor's very sensible amendments. They are amendments that all members of this place should support, because they deliver on the promises that every one of us made, here in this House, to the survivors of institutional child sexual abuse: that we heard them, we believed them, we understood how deep the harm was to each and every one of them and to their families, and that they deserved, through redress, to have an opportunity—a small opportunity, at that—to actually live out the rest of their lives in the knowledge that that acknowledgement had been made, and with some small financial assistance to try and help them through what has been a life of great loss: lost opportunities to get educated, to get a career, to work in business—to actually live the lives that so many of us have.</para>
<para>So, with that, I ask the government to support Labor's amendments. And I again call on the government to listen to the survivors, at the very least.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are days when there aren't many times when you can be too happy about what goes on in this place. The performance and the farce of politics can make Australians feel very distrustful at the way our parliamentary system works. It can make them feel like nothing meaningful gets done here. But there are good moments in this place. One of the proudest moments of my life was when the Gillard government established a royal commission into the institutional responses to child sexual abuse. For so many Australians that piece of legislation was a lifeline. It was an acknowledgment that the heinous abuse, which had fallen on deaf ears, was worth investigating.</para>
<para>My god, it was worth investigating: 15,249 individuals contacted the royal commission to report child sexual abuse. And, of those, 7,382 reported sexual abuse in religious institutions. That is probably the tip of the iceberg. A single case is too many, but the ripple effect of such widespread abuse is too much to comprehend, if you think about the impact on a child and the life not lived, the mental health struggles, the drug dependency and the breakdown in trust between child, parents and those they're meant to trust. The royal commission found that the appalling response of institutions to allegations of child abuse often led to a continuation of that sexual abuse by the perpetrators, and all the while institutions turned a blind eye.</para>
<para>I remember being in this building when those opposite, led by the then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, were decrying Labor's attempt to establish a royal commission. In fact he called it a witch-hunt against the Catholic Church. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's only a witch-hunt if the allegations are unfounded. Instead, the royal commission found that these religious institutions were a hotbed of vile predatory behaviour that went unchecked for too long.</para>
<para>I know there's absolutely nothing that can make up for the abuse that children faced. But that doesn't mean we can't try to right some of the monumental wrongs that were committed against these children. Among the recommendations of the Labor-established royal commission was a national redress scheme. It was a great initiative, so that survivors of child abuse could receive financial compensation from the institutions which had completely failed in their duty. The legislation for this scheme passed in 2018 with Labor support.</para>
<para>But, as with all great Labor ideas, this scheme has been left to wither by neglect and inaction on the part of the Prime Minister, a prime minister who talks the talk but refuses to walk the walk. He made a big and heartfelt speech in this place on the anniversary of the national apology to sexual abuse survivors, but beyond that the Prime Minister has shown no real interest in the substance of assisting survivors. His inaction after the announcement, the press conference, the photo op, all indicate that one should be concerned about the level of care properly funding this scheme. He's too busy running for cover, for people like the member for Hughes, when we should be facing up to this problem.</para>
<para>The royal commission estimated that 60,000 survivors would need access to the redress scheme over a 10-year life, but as of January 2021 the scheme had only received 9,232 applications and made 5,487 decisions. At this rate it is going to take over 30 years for the 60,000 payments to be made. Why has there been so little interest in the scheme, you may ask? The answer is, as it always is, mismanagement and pathetic, weak enforcement by this government. In 19 months since the commencement of the scheme a mere fraction of the projected numbers of survivors have received redress. Too many are waiting. Many are ill or dying and many have missed out altogether.</para>
<para>Make no mistake: this redress scheme is another step in addressing the reluctance of institutions to weed out paedophiles. Making sure the scheme works effectively isn't just a matter of administration. It's a moral obligation, one that the government is not upholding. The slow rate of application tells us a couple of things. First, the scheme is difficult to navigate, inadequate and too hard. At estimates in October the Department of Social Services said the average processing time was between 12 and 13 months. In some cases these individuals have waited decades for recognition and for justice, only to find that their efforts have been stymied at the final turn. The second reason for the slow rate of application is that some institutions are simply not signing up to the scheme, despite being named in applications for redress by survivors. I find it reprehensible that the same institutions which have completely failed to protect children now have the hide to deny victims compensation at the final frontier. It's disgusting. Giving access to compensation is the least they could do for people whose lives were impacted in their care. Therefore, Labor supports several amendments to this legislation. We supported the changes the government made to the charity laws last year to prevent organisations getting government grants and to remove charitable status if organisations refused to join the scheme within six months of an application being received. Those changes were a good move, but they don't go far enough. They do nothing to guarantee that people will get access to compensation if an institution simply refuses to join the scheme or if it restructures its assets to avoid paying out survivors.</para>
<para>Labor is calling on the government to place financial pressure on these non-compliant organisations in the form of rare but, to be fair, targeted levies. The levies would cover the cost of redress to individual survivors, who must not miss out on redress simply because an organisation feels it shouldn't have to pay redress or doesn't want to pay it. Too many refuse to admit what was going on. Too many are refusing to make amends for the harms they caused. So my challenge to the Prime Minister is: it's up to you to show survivors whether you're on their side in this fight or you back the institutions dragging their feet. The victims know Labor is on their side. We've always been on their side.</para>
<para>I recall my time before coming to this place, when an apology was given in the Victorian parliament. I remember meeting a gentleman when I was out on the back balcony of the Victorian Parliament House. I went outside to have a cigarette after listening to some powerful stories. This man was sitting there—tattooed, with earrings. You could see he'd done it pretty tough. He was clutching with both hands the letter he had received. I said to him: 'Bit of a tough day, mate?' He said, 'Yeah,' but this certificate, this acknowledgement by Premier Bracks and Minister Garbutt was recognition that what he had said was true. Finally, after decades, someone had listened to him and believed him, and it was showing that what he'd said was right. I'll never forget that fellow's face, and I'll never forget talking to him about the pain and the suffering he went through. It is after doing those things that you sit there and think: 'We have to commit, as a nation, to doing better. We must stamp out these heinous crimes.' We must fight to ensure that the victims who have had these horrible things done to them are given the support, the recognition, the help and the compensation that they deserve.</para>
<para>The government needs to step up and provide a guarantee that it will act as funder of last resort. This is not letting institutions off the hook by any means, but it's acknowledging that through unavoidable circumstances some institutions don't exist or don't have money to pay these survivors. Labor's reasoned amendments will protect the rights of survivors so they can claim the compensation they so justly deserve. If the government has decency and compassion, it will support and endorse these amendments. In line with this, the government needs to establish an early-payment scheme like the one used in Scotland. This would ensure that many survivors who are ill or elderly don't die waiting for redress.</para>
<para>This is a matter of our moral compass—what is fair, what is just. People deserve to see these institutions who have done them so much harm held to account, and they need to know that we see them. They need to know we hear them and they need to know that we believe them. An early-payment scheme would assist in this healing process. Survivors in Scotland have received it well.</para>
<para>The inadequate payments the scheme gives to survivors is another cause of concern. There is a $150,000 cap on payments, pushing people towards civil suits because they can get potentially more compensation for what they have suffered. Obviously, it undermines the fundamental purpose of the scheme, making it easier for survivors to achieve redress, to avoid complex litigation. Unbelievably, the scheme is using prior payments such as those given to members of our stolen generation to justify lowering out payments of redress. That is a completely separate and distinct issue. People can be abused by more than one institution in different respects. To this, Labor's amendments would lift the cap on redress payments from $150,000 to $200,000. That was recommended by the royal commission. The amendments would also ensure that prior payments that do not relate to institutional child sexual abuse are not deducted from the redress scheme. It is common sense and it is a matter of decency. What seems to be the never-ending issue with the government's distraction from this scheme is there are strong calls for the redress assessment matrix to be remade.</para>
<para>The Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme found that the existing assessment matrix fails to recognise the life-long harm to victims, limiting exceptional payments to penetrative abuse only. This is a major difference from the recommendation of the royal commission, which found grave harms can be caused by other forms of sexual abuse too. It can only be read as a callous cost-cutting exercise by the government to limit the amount that needs to be paid out. Labor's amendments will require the minister to remake the matrix to properly recognise the impact of abuse when calculating redress payments.</para>
<para>Finally, the limited one-off payment for psychological counselling support goes against the recommendations of the royal commission. In many cases, people have been provided with as little as $1,250 to cover future counselling and psychological support. That is paltry, it is insulting and it goes against the very spirit of the apology to survivors. The royal commission recommended ongoing support be provided, not one-off payments. I have met plenty of survivors during my time in this place, and I am very much aware of the trauma they face—$1,250 doesn't cut it. Counselling should be available through a survivor's life, not capped to save institutions some money. If a hypothetical company neglectfully exposed its workers to harmful chemicals, it would be required to cover the cost of the physical treatment that the workers incurred. The same principle should be applied to these institutions. They perpetrated the harm on these children who, in many cases, bear physiological scars for the rest of their lives. The institutions should be responsible for providing the psychological support to these survivors.</para>
<para>There is no reason the government should not support these amendments. There should be a two-year review so we can see that the improvements are actually being made. This is a government that can be held to account. This is what happens in a democracy. We need leadership on this issue, leadership like that shown by Prime Minister Gillard. It is sorely lacking at the moment. This needs to be addressed now and quickly, so I am urging the government members: look at your moral compass. Is this the right thing to do, not supporting Labor's amendments? No, it is not. You shouldn't be doing it for any other reason than to support the victims who have paid such a high price—the ones who are still here, the ones who bear the psychological and physical harms from years of abuse from people they trusted. Support these amendments because it is the right thing to do. At a time like this, these people who have suffered, these children, these victims, should be our focus. Our focus should be on doing what is right for this nation and what is right for those people. So I urge the government again, please, look at your moral compass, support Labor's reasoned amendments and do this as quickly as possible.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate>Oxley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020. I'll be offering my remarks today for the survivors and some of the groups I've had the privilege to meet. I say it's a privilege because I want to start my remarks today by acknowledging the bravery of so many Australians who have spoken out and given voice to many in the community who don't have a voice. When we sit in this chamber and have the honour of representing our communities and all Australians, I think sometimes we forget that one of our primary focuses as members of parliament is to be a voice for those who don't have a voice. I am so pleased that the member for Barton, the shadow minister, is here today to support my remarks. I acknowledge her amendment, but not only that; I acknowledge her lifelong commitment to giving voice to those who don't have a voice.</para>
<para>I know the speakers today have covered a lot of ground and it's important that we outline exactly why we are supporting these important amendments today. This is the first week of parliament's return. I attended the church service on Tuesday morning and heard sermons and readings from the Old Testament and the New Testament about hope—hope for 2021. I don't think it's a bridge too far if I say that the hope of survivors is that their voices are heard and the justice that they deserve is delivered in 2021. I pledge today to offer my continuing support to all of those Australians who have suffered so much and have bravely spoken.</para>
<para>As a member of the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, it's been an honour to hear the evidence from so many people—so many groups and so many different Australians—as they gave voice to what they have lived through. I feel extremely blessed to have had a comfortable and safe upbringing, with loving parents, in a safe and comfortable family environment. One of the things I have been most challenged by was listening to all of the evidence that was presented to us. The words that I speak in this chamber can't do justice to what people have been through. So I really was very, very keen to speak on today's legislation and to offer a couple of suggestions from my humble position as the member for Oxley.</para>
<para>We know that the bill is largely administrative in relation to the operation of the National Redress Scheme. It has a whole range of mechanisms which we of course support and endorse. But we don't think it goes far enough. We'll be making suggestions for practical and ongoing solutions, through the amendment process, that I hope many on the other side will agree with. I'm fairly confident they will agree. It's about having the courage of their convictions and joining with Labor to support the practical and sensible amendments that we're putting forward, such as increasing the maximum payment to $200,000, as recommended by the royal commission; ensuring that prior payments are not indexed when calculating a redress payment; ensuring that prior payments which do not relate to institutional child sexual abuse are not deducted from redress; introducing an advanced payment scheme for elderly and ill applicants similar to the one, we heard, is operating in Scotland; ensuring that governments act as funders of last resort for all institutions with no formal links; guaranteeing that the review of an offer of redress will not result in an offer being reduced; and providing ongoing psychological counselling and support for recipients of redress. What does that all mean? It means that survivors have access to support, that survivors have timely advice and information and also that the pain and trauma that they have gone through is recognised. Our amendments also require the minister to publicly name an institution and cease any Commonwealth funding; to remove the charitable and tax deductibility status of an institution—there was some debate about that for a while, and we did see the government acknowledge that; and to process applications as though an institution is part of the scheme and levy the institution for the cost of redress if it does not join the scheme within 12 months.</para>
<para>As we've heard from the member for McEwen, I really want to ask all members of the parliament to join with Labor members to ensure that these practical and sensible amendments can be delivered.</para>
<para>I want to acknowledge and recognise one of my constituents who contacted me. For the purpose of this debate, I will call the constituent Carl. Carl was in his late 50s and contacted my office recently, distressed and frustrated, having been told, back at the start of the National Redress Scheme in July 2018, that he could receive compensation and support within six months. Carl has had to wait for over three years, and he still hasn't heard about the progress of his compensation. Carl is one story, but every story is important. They've had to, obviously, live with the psychological and physical trauma for so many years from a system that badly let them down and, to be honest, they now feel that this government is letting them down. He was told that one of the two organisations would be in contact with him and provide him with the opportunity of help with access to the compensation. Both organisations have made no contact with Carl, although he's repeatedly tried to reach out over the last two years. So think about that. Think about someone on their own, not sure of the system, perhaps struggling with a number of social and health issues, having to try and negotiate with and talk to the institutions and some organisations that they're fearful of. That's one brave Australian, if you ask me. One of those two organisations haven't even signed up to the scheme.</para>
<para>I believe it's absolutely the government's responsibility to ensure the welfare and mental and physical wellbeing of all the Australian people. Our amendments don't solve every single problem, but what the amendments we are asking the government to support tonight do is ensure that those stories are addressed, that the redress the government promised is delivered and that the redress that survivors called for and fought for is delivered. I think they deserve nothing less.</para>
<para>There are a number of other issues I want to touch on tonight—just some practical advice, information and evidence that I have picked up during my work on this issue with the committee from some of the survivors and some of the organisations that I have heard from. This includes practical things, like the letter of offer and correspondence. I spoke with the shadow minister today about this. Currently, this can only be mailed out, not emailed. There's some argument as to why that would be the case. But, when you think about it in terms of how we do our tax, about myGov or about Medicare claimants—if you're living in supported or shared accommodation, you may not have access to your own mail. I won't get into the arguments about Australia Post; that's a separate argument. There is no mechanism for people who, for example, are worried about people reading their mail. I understand that some older Australians or other people are uncomfortable with that. But what I would like from the bureaucrats that are listening to this tonight and from the minister who is monitoring my speech in their office not far from here is a commitment that, for people who want that option, it could be provided to them safely and securely. It may not sound like the biggest issue in Australia, but the people that I've spoken to who are fearful about government and normally fearful about mail because it may be a bill or it may be bad news need another form of communication. When I questioned the department about this, they said that it was a good idea and they were looking into it. I really hope they are. Sometimes you hear government bureaucrats say these things and you don't hear much about it again. So tonight, in the Australian parliament, I'm just asking that, if you get one thing out of my speech tonight, it's that that becomes a practice so that people can have that practical advice. When I've spoken to survivors, they're fearful, waiting for the letter. We've just heard about my constituent who I've named Carl being worried about what was going to be in the letter. He hasn't got the offer just yet. For those people who are worried about what's going to be in the letter and whether it will be bad news, I just ask that an electronic process be considered.</para>
<para>There's also counselling and support for family members. This is another big issue that I have spoken to survivors about. As one survivor said to me, 'It really is a team effort, getting to the end of getting an offer.' It's a struggle; it's a battle—all of these words are used. Normally, if you're lucky, you'll have a team and a supportive family; not everyone does, but a number of survivors rely heavily on their carers and supporters, so I'd like to see more support for family members so that maybe they are not impacted. It is that team effort that survivors rely on, so I would call on the minister and the government to show more support for family members connected to survivors and, following on from that, counselling services as well. You cannot access specialist trauma counselling that takes you on the journey and builds the background, rapport and understanding of different needs. Instead, some survivors are referred to a small list of providers. That means they have to explain the situation and why they're calling. I think this needs to be a streamlined process in terms of offering support and counselling.</para>
<para>I see the member for Lingiari here. I can only imagine what it's like in remote and regional communities, where it is another step further, where those options aren't available. I know we've had our challenges with COVID, and, for survivors, it's been another layer they've had to deal with, but if we can look at how to re-imagine and deliver counselling support services, it would go a long way.</para>
<para>We know the numbers are way down on where they should be in terms of the 60,000 survivors. We know that we are behind on where we should be. I think that we are forming some practical suggestions tonight. I've offered my own suggestions that I hope the government and the minister will follow up. There are a whole range of issues that I know we'll continue to deal with. But I conclude my remarks tonight by saying to all of the survivors and all of the support people around those survivors: We're not going to forget you. We will not leave you behind. If I have anything to do with it, I'll continue to speak out, and I'll continue to make sure that your voices are heard.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SNOWDON</name>
    <name.id>IJ4</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It gives me great pleasure to be able to participate in this debate. I commend those who have made a contribution. I thank our shadow minister for her fine words earlier on this afternoon. Labor is supporting this legislation, although we are moving a set of amendments. Clearly, survivors have waited for so long and have been through so much. We need to fix this legislation. We made a commitment to deliver redress that was timely, redress that does not retraumatise and redress that does not leave survivors missing out.</para>
<para>In the 19 months since the scheme's commencement, only a mere fraction of the projected number of survivors have received redress. I note that many have used the available figures. It's now time for us to get this redress scheme back on track and delivering on its promises for survivors, and that's why we're introducing our amendments. As we know and as you've heard already, the scheme that was ultimately rolled out has not fully realised the recommendations of the royal commission. It has failed to deliver on the promise of redress.</para>
<para>Labor's amendments will better reflect the reality of survivors and the spirit of the original recommendations. We want to work constructively with the government, as evidenced by the contributions made this afternoon. We want to get this scheme working and delivering for survivors. I'm not going to repeat all of the amendments, but I will commend them because they make significant proposals and changes that will have a dramatically positive impact upon the delivery of justice to the survivors and will address the recommendations of the royal commission.</para>
<para>I want to refer to one institution in particular that is not part of the Redress Scheme. I refer to the Retta Dixon Home, a home that was run by the Australian Indigenous Ministries, AIM. In January this year AIM was barred from participating in this scheme by the federal government. It says that the church group does not have the money to pay its potential clients. This institution housed members of the stolen generation, Aboriginal children, from 1946 till 1980. The royal commission in 2014 through its inquiries laid bare allegations of horrific sexual, physical and mental abuse at the home. I will go through a couple of them to remind us of the dastardly nature of the abuse that occurred in this institution, and I know in many others.</para>
<para>A child at Retta Dixon who suffered seizures was allegedly tied up like a dog to a bed and fed on the ground with an enamel plate. One girl allegedly had faeces rubbed in her face, was tied to a clothes line and was deliberately burnt with hot water. Residents testified to seeing a male house parent force-feed a baby until the child choked. The inquiry heard that some children were raped so badly that they were taken to hospital for treatment but were watched by their abuser to make sure that they didn't alert authorities. One man told of having as a boy to wear nappies to school to stop the bleeding after being sexually assaulted. Other children were allegedly flogged with a belt until they bled. One woman said she had persistent hearing problems from repeated beatings around the head.</para>
<para>No funder of last resort has been identified for Retta Dixon Home survivors. That means that no state, territory or federal government has stepped up to guarantee any compensation payments ordered through the scheme are fulfilled. How can this be justice? I want to pause for a moment to acknowledge the work of many people who did get a private settlement in 2017 from an action that was taken in 2014 in relation to abuse that occurred at Retta Dixon. But not all the residents were party to this legal action. It was a private settlement. It had nothing to do with this government, although the government was a party. It was done in spite of this government's inaction and dithering. In the case of Retta Dixon it is also clear that some more claimants want to be done and some other support that was recommended and promised has not been done. Again, Retta Dixon is just one example of the failures to get the National Redress Scheme working sufficiently and in a timely manner.</para>
<para>I said earlier that Retta Dixon has been excluded from the scheme. One of the appalling aspects of the current Retta Dixon saga is that it appears that the effective operating group of Retta Dixon, which is the AIM, which I referred to earlier, may indeed have funds within its group so that it could join the NRS. Yet this operator has currently been allowed to claim it doesn't have the funds to join the scheme and thereby allow the claimants to be compensated. We know that there are at least 13 applications for redress that are now stuck in administrative limbo, with no funder of last resort identified.</para>
<para>What is key, though, is that a major law firm has now been engaged in some individual civil matters regarding Retta Dixon, and they are underway at present. One of these matters is an application being heard in the Supreme Court in Darwin this Friday, 5 February. The question the court is being asked to determine is whether the incorporated entity, AIM, Australian Indigenous Ministries Pty Ltd, is a related entity of the unincorporated AIM, Aborigines Inland Mission, that ran the Retta Dixon Home over the several decades during which the abuse occurred. That has severe implications for the way in which this organisation may have dealt with these victims of child abuse. It is also worth noting that, overall, Retta Dixon Home's operating group is in fact a thriving organisation across Australia, yet in January 2021 the operator could offer nothing more than a verbal apology for the abuse that occurred. If the outcome of the court application is favourable, it could well mean the incorporated AIM entity is held legally liable for the failings of the unincorporated AIM. This case is being seen as determining which of these entities should ultimately be held financially responsible for responding to civil claims for historical abuse.</para>
<para>Now, this is a Christian organisation. I go to church. And here we have an organisation which could well be hiding in another entity funds which should be available to pay compensation to victims of that institution's abuse. This would be laughable if it weren't so shocking. Sadly, unless the government supports the amendments which we are proposing, it will by its inaction demonstrate that it appears to be on the side of operators protecting organisations that could well have funds to pay the claimants. Even if we assume this is not the case, the government clearly has no ability to organise any other way to provide a settlement for the claimants. That is why the amendments which have been proposed by us should be supported by the government.</para>
<para>While the government dithers or avoids any action, claimants are dying. Yesterday my office spoke to another legal firm that has Retta Dixon claimants who have died while waiting for their just recompense. How can any reasonable person deny the rights that these people have and should have had—haven't had, sadly—to just compensation? This is a significant failure of the NRS. I personally know many of the people who were in Retta Dixon and I know many who have passed. It is so sad. We are left sitting in this parliament, trying to implore the government to do the right thing and support the amendments that we are putting up as a positive and constructive way of dealing with this outstanding issue, yet the government won't support us. What can their reason be? What is it that prevents them from seeing the justice in these proposals and accepting the propositions within them to make sure people who are denied justice get their justice and get the compensation which they so richly deserve?</para>
<para>I was, as an adjunct to this contribution, going to refer to the stolen generation. What we know is that there were over 2,000 Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory who were stolen over a period. I won't go through the reason, but what we do know is that many who were stolen were like those at Retta Dixon, physically, emotionally or sexually abused, and yet there is no Commonwealth compensation for members of the stolen generation. Why not? We, Labor, are committed to compensation for the stolen generation, a compensation scheme for survivors of the stolen generation in Commonwealth jurisdictions—the Northern Territory and Jervis Bay.</para>
<para>At the last election we undertook to address this issue of providing compensation and came up with a positive scheme to address it. We also said we would establish a national healing fund to support healing for the stolen generation and their families, and we said, because we need to address the current malaise, the current problem of high rates of Indigenous children currently in out-of-home care, that we would convene a national summit on First Nations children in our first 100 days. Why can't the government do it? Why is it? They can't address the issues of compensation, and they won't fix the NRS. That's a sad indictment on this government and something they should be ashamed of.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In speaking here on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020 it is an honour to follow the member for Lingiari, who has followed this issue deeply during his long career in this place. The member for Lingiari is, as members know, the only person serving in this place who gave his first speech in the Old Parliament House. And, during his time in this parliament, he has worked to serve the most disadvantaged. His powerful speech today, telling some of the stories of those who were abused, is just another of his many contributions towards serving the people he represents and addressing the issues of deep disadvantage. He will be sorely missed when he leaves this place at the next election.</para>
<para>I spoke in December about some of the institutional abuse stories, about the accounts of Lars and his brother Willem, about Imelda and about the institutions here in the ACT. I did so aware of the risk of retraumatisation that always occurs with these stories, and I acknowledge those who had the bravery to share their stories with the royal commission and allow the royal commission to include those accounts of what had happened to them in its final report. Those accounts are heartbreaking. It is shocking, mind-numbing almost, to imagine these things being done to young children.</para>
<para>Perhaps one of the most shocking things past the stories is the statistics reported in the royal commission's report on the percentage of church figures behind alleged abuse over the period 1950 to 2010. There were four orders which had allegations of abuse against more than a fifth of their members—the Brothers of St John of God, 40 per cent; Christian Brothers, 22 per cent; Salesians of Don Bosco, 22 per cent; and Marist Brothers, 20 per cent. The incidents ranged from Jehovah's Witnesses to Knox Grammar and included those from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds. The abuse ranged across Australia, as survivors knew when they began calling for a royal commission as early as the 1990s. There were voices speaking out about the dangers of abuse and challenging the government of the day to do something about it by setting up a royal commission, but it was slow to take effect. The survivors simply weren't believed as they should have been. It took the Gillard government to establish the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Nobody now, I think, imagines that the establishment of the royal commission was a mistake.</para>
<para>It's been 19 months since the commencement of the redress scheme and only a small fraction of the projected number of survivors have received redress. Too many are waiting, many are ill, many are dying and some have missed out altogether. As of 15 January 2021, there were 9,232 applications lodged, 5,487 decisions made and 4,660 applications finalised. At the current rate, according to the member for Barton, it would take 32 years for the estimated 60,000 people eligible for redress to receive a payment, and those delays are just another form of trauma. The Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme heard that for one survivor it took 17 months to finalise their application. The Department of Social Services said in the first half of 2019 the average processing time was eight months. In October, the department advised the average processing time was between 12 and 13 months. That's just not good enough given we are dealing with some of the most vulnerable people in Australia.</para>
<para>Therefore, Labor will be moving a number of substantive amendments, as the member for Barton has foreshadowed. We'll be moving to institute a levy on organisations that do not join the scheme. As I noted in my speech last year, Labor supports the changes the government made to charities law to prevent organisations getting government grants and removing charitable tax deductibility status for organisations that refuse to join the scheme within six months of an application being received. If institutions continue their recalcitrance, if they deliberately restructure their affairs to avoid the obligation to join by hiding assets then we believe the government should consider placing a levy on some institutions to cover the cost of redress and collect funds from those institutions through the tax system. There are only a handful of organisations that were named in the royal commission report but have not indicated they intend to join the scheme—the Australian Air League, Boys Brigade New South Wales, Jehovah's Witnesses, Lakes Entrance Pony Club Incorporated, Kendra Communication, Fairbridge Restored Ltd.</para>
<para>Labor will also be moving amendments to ensure that the government steps up and acts as a funder of last resort—for instance, in the case of Retta Dixon Home in the Northern Territory, which was referred to by the member for Lingiari—to ensure that no-one misses out because institutions are defunct or because they don't have the capacity to join the scheme. Labor is calling on the government to put in place an advance payment scheme for people who are elderly or ill, as has been put in place in Scotland. We are calling on the government to increase the cap on redress payments from $150,000 to $200,000, as recommended by the royal commission. The royal commission listened to the survivors; we the parliament should listen to the royal commission. The cap should be $200,000, and payments not related to institutional child abuse, such as payments to the members of the stolen generation, should not be deducted from redress payments. Labor's amendments will also cover the necessity for ongoing psychological counselling and support for survivors. As anyone who has worked with people experiencing deep trauma knows, one-off payments are often insufficient; counselling frequently needs to continue for decades, if not for a lifetime.</para>
<para>I thank the hard work of the royal commission and acknowledge the important advocacy of the member for Barton and others on this side of the House. We need to make sure that the royal commission's report is fully implemented and that survivors get the assistance they need in a timely fashion.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The National Redress Scheme was created in response to recommendations by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The royal commission listened to thousands of people about the abuse they experienced as children. The abuse happened in places where children were thought to be safe, protected and cared for—schools, churches, recreational sporting clubs and institutions with the purpose of providing care. The horrors that emerged from the royal commission were nothing short of a national disgrace.</para>
<para>Before I get onto the substance of the debate, I might with the indulgence of the House mention a matter of some concern to me, which is related tangentially to this issue. The website Etsy is popular with people looking for interesting things to buy. They are often handmade or handcrafted. Unfortunately it has also been hosting outrageously unacceptable goods from sellers that perpetuate the sexualisation of children, and it has been far too slow in shutting such sellers down. Examples include the sale of child abuse and incest themed products, such as T-shirts sporting slogans and images begging fathers to violate their daughters. They are beyond disgusting. Australian fashion designer Anna Cordell pulled her wares from Etsy and has launched an online petition demanding that Etsy remove these sellers. As of a few hours ago, nearly 17,000 Australians had signed, and I am one of them. Sexualising children perpetuates their abuse. Children should never be regarded as sexually desirable. The nation's institutions, including governments, failed our children in the past. We must demonstrate that we have learned and we must not fail our children today. Etsy must shut these sellers down immediately. If it fails to do so, the full weight of relevant state and federal authorities should be unleashed upon it.</para>
<para>As of 15 January this year, the Redress Scheme had received 9,232 applications, had made 5,487 decisions and had finalised 4,660 applications, including 4,620 payments totalling around $385 million. In June, we know that there were more than 512 applications on hold, waiting on institutions to join the scheme. The Morrison government, frankly, has had plenty of time to make the National Redress Scheme more efficient and to roll out redress to the eligible survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. At the current rate the government is moving, it will take 32 years to complete the Redress Scheme. Many victims will have died by then, some from old age. These delays amount to neglect, they add to the trauma, and they are entirely avoidable and unnecessary.</para>
<para>The anxiety that many survivors experience at the possibility of missing out altogether due to their age or perhaps their illness is a further form of trauma. The slow rate of applications indicates the scheme is difficult to navigate, inadequate and hard to find. Survivors have spoken of the difficulty in preparing an application. The Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme heard that for one survivor it took 17 months to finalise their application—and that is only the time taken to complete the application. Then there is the processing, which, on average, according to the Department of Social Services, was taking eight months. That's on average. Many take much longer. Last October the Department of Social Services said in estimates that the processing time of an application was now 12 months. It's disgraceful. This is not the way survivors of child sexual abuse should be treated.</para>
<para>Survivors have waited decades and endured pain and suffering arising from crimes perpetrated against them as children. The prospect of justice is in sight but, agonisingly, just out of reach—and entirely because of the mismanagement by the government. I do support the National Redress Scheme as part of an apparatus that seeks to heal the wounds, but the system is failing too many survivors. It is the government's responsibility to know where the system is failing and why, and, most importantly, to fix it.</para>
<para>Labor supported the changes that the government made to charities law last year to prevent recalcitrant organisations that failed to join Redress from getting government grants and remove their charitable and tax deductibility status. However, these changes will not guarantee that survivors will get access if an institution remains recalcitrant and refuses to join, or if they deliberately restructure their affairs to avoid the obligation to join by hiding assets. The cases are rare but they are growing. Labor is calling on the government to place a levy on such institutions in order to cover the cost of redress and collect funds through the tax system if needed.</para>
<para>Survivors should not miss out on the opportunity to get redress because an institution refuses to take responsibility. Many applications are in limbo because institutions that are the subject of applications are now defunct or have no present-day links or entities. In other cases, applications for redress cannot be progressed because the institution itself does not have the financial capacity to meet obligations under the scheme. A notable example is the Retta Dixon Home in the Northern Territory. This is where the government needs to step up and provide a guarantee that it will act as a funder of last resort where there are no linked institutions that can take responsibility. No survivor of child sexual abuse should ever miss out on access to redress because the institution ultimately responsible for the abuse has folded or simply cannot afford to pay. Labor's amendments will seek to ensure that governments act as funders of last resort when people would otherwise miss out because institutions are defunct or do not have the capacity to join the scheme.</para>
<para>Labor's amendments also call on the government to establish an advance payment scheme for people who are elderly or ill. This could work similarly to the successful system used in Scotland, which has been well received by survivors and ensured that proper redress and justice was granted to survivors who otherwise faced the prospect of dying before receiving their redress payment. When processing takes months or perhaps years, that's a worthwhile investment. People deserve to see that institutions that have done them so much harm are held to account. They deserve to know that, eventually, they were believed, they were seen and they were taken seriously.</para>
<para>Another major issue with the design and implementation of the scheme is the inadequacy of redress payments. The current $150,000 cap on the redress scheme is inadequate. It pushes people towards civil processes and away from or outside of the scheme. Anecdotally, we are hearing that survivors can get more generous payments, while receiving these payments in similar time frames to the scheme. This issue is undermining the fundamental purpose of the scheme, which is to make it easier and quicker for survivors to access payments and support. Redress payments are also being significantly reduced because of prior payments. The joint select committee heard an instance in which a payment was reduced from $50,000—$50,000, for child sexual abuse—to $20,000 because the survivor had been awarded a payment of $15,000 years prior. For example, prior payments to stolen generations survivors—a separate issue entirely from institutional child sexual abuse—are being used to reduce redress payments.</para>
<para>The government's reduction in redress payments when it becomes aware of a survivor's payment for previous inflictions is shameful. It is particularly outrageous given the cavalier way in which this government has allowed literally hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to be handed to multimillionaire CEOs and executives under JobKeeper loopholes. This is a government that chases down every dollar in overpayments made to poor people and survivors of child sexual abuse but is happy to give truckloads of cash to its rich friends without a second thought. The mind boggles at the hypocrisy and the cruelty.</para>
<para>According to the interim report of the joint select committee:</para>
<quote><para class="block">DSS advised that as at 7 February 2020, 449 payments had been adjusted due to prior payments, with the average value of the adjustment being $34 574.02. DSS also confirmed that the maximum adjustment made was $150 000 which reduced the redress award to zero.</para></quote>
<para>To that end, Labor's amendments would lift the cap on redress payments from $150,000 to $200,000, as recommended by the royal commission. Labor's amendments would also ensure that prior payments are not indexed when calculating a redress payment and that prior payments which do not relate to institutional child sexual abuse are not deducted from redress payments—for example, payments to members of the stolen generations for having been stolen.</para>
<para>The redress assessment matrix has also been widely criticised. As the joint committee found, the existing assessment matrix arbitrarily links the amount of redress awarded to the physical type of abuse perpetrated, and this 'fails to recognise the lifelong harm that any sexual abuse has on a survivor'. The report further states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Of grave concern was the decision to limit the payment of exceptional circumstance to penetrative abuse. This approach fails to acknowledge the harm caused by other types of sexual abuse.</para></quote>
<para>This was a noted departure from the original recommendations of the royal commission. One survivor stated, 'I don't know how they came up with the matrix.' If the royal commission recommends something and the government decides to do something else, surely the least that survivors deserve is to be told how the government came to that decision to do so.</para>
<para>Labor's amendments will require the minister to remake the redress assessment framework so that it recognises the impact of abuse when calculating redress payments, as recommended by the royal commission. The limited one-off payments for psychological counselling and support are contrary to the recommendations of the royal commission. Where are concerned that in many cases people are being provided with as little as $1,250 to cover future counselling and psychological care. The royal commission recommended that ongoing support should be provided. Imagine suffering child sexual abuse and being told that you've got a cap on the amount of counselling you can be provided with. It beggars belief. The royal commission report states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Many survivors will need counselling and psychological care from time to time throughout their lives.</para></quote>
<para>Further:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Counselling is not necessarily needed continuously throughout a survivor's life.</para></quote>
<para>But it should available throughout a survivor's life. Child sexual abuse is a life sentence. Counselling should be available on an episodic basis, as needed. To that end, Labor's amendments will ensure that necessary ongoing psychological counselling and support will be provided to survivors.</para>
<para>Often we hear a claim from the government that it cannot make changes to the scheme on its own, that it needs the support of the states and territories. Of course, agreement is needed for certain changes. But so is leadership and so is action from the government. But so far we have seen too little. Improvements will not happen in a vacuum, just as this scheme and the royal commission that was asked to make recommendations on it did not happen in a vacuum. They happened because there was real leadership from the top, leadership from former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Rome was not built in a day, and neither will a successful national redress scheme be. The government has had years to get its act together, but it continues to fail to act. This is a government riddled with inertia. The legislated two-year review of the scheme is due to report soon. We know from talking to survivors that the issues reflected in Labor's amendments have been raised as part of that review.</para>
<para>Only the government can move amendments that have financial impacts. That is why Labor will put forward a series of amendments that require the minister to investigate changes and report back to the parliament. This is a sensible and flexible approach for the government. There is absolutely no reason why the government should not support those amendments. It is in the best interests of survivors all over the country. It is in the best interests of Australia's national integrity and reputation to be able to acknowledge its shortcomings and work to correct its past. Most importantly, it is in the best interests of the survivors of child sexual abuse.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to acknowledge the member for Barton and the other speakers and thank them for giving a voice to the survivors and their families. I'm a proud and practising Catholic, so I've been troubled deeply by the way in which young people were placed in the care of our church, and other churches and organisations, by the Commonwealth—by governments—which failed them dreadfully. A lot of wrongs have been done; a lot of hurt has been caused. Although we cannot undo those wrongs, although we can't erase the hurt that's already been caused, we should compensate the victims, those whose lives have been marked in some way. That is something that we can do. In some cases their lives have been totally destroyed. It is now well beyond time to begin righting those wrongs.</para>
<para>I've got a short period of time now, so I want to paint a picture for those listening, and tomorrow I'll continue and call on the government to act. Back in 2014, more than six years ago now, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse travelled to the Northern Territory. They went to hear evidence from surviving Aboriginal people who had as children been housed at the Retta Dixon Home in Darwin, which some speakers have already mentioned. These were mixed race children, part of the stolen generations, that the government forcibly took from their families and institutionalised between 1946, when the home opened, and 1980, when Retta Dixon was shut down. For those listening, maybe at home, out on the road or wherever, the last thing I want to do is retraumatise people, but in painting this picture of Retta Dixon I will be mentioning some heinous acts that were performed so that others listening understand the gravity of the situation and why the Commonwealth needs to act.</para>
<para>Hundreds of kids who were put into Retta Dixon were abused in horrific ways—physically, emotionally and sexually. They stayed at the home until they were 18 years of age. The centre was run by AIM, formerly the Aborigines Inland Mission and now called the Australian Indigenous Ministries. They have the same acronym, AIM. The royal commission heard appalling evidence of abuse by the adults employed by AIM to run the Retta Dixon Home—adults who were charged with caring for these children. There was evidence of children being chained up like dogs, a baby force-fed until it vomited, children whipped with electrical cords or sexually punished, a girl who was stabbed with a can-opener until she bled, another girl who was punched so hard her nose broke and who was left for days without medical treatment. Kids who wet the bed would be undressed and paraded in nappies in front of the other children—humiliated. They were molested and they were raped, both by adult staff, one of whom was widely known by all the children as a serial rapist of children, but also by some of the other kids, who had themselves been molested.</para>
<para>These witnesses painted a horrifying picture at the hearings that were held in Darwin. Many of them wept for the entirety of their evidence. They spoke of how, understandably, the abuse they'd suffered marked their entire lives. It destroyed their relationships with partners, with their kids and with their families. They told of how, decades later, they still lived in fear and still suffered from nightmares. They recounted their inability to reconnect with their parents and siblings once they were released. They spoke of their depression, their drug addiction and alcoholism, and the suicidal ideation that they grappled with as a result of the demons that they carried.</para>
<para>I want to take a moment to highlight the incredible bravery of those witnesses who came forward to detail what they had endured. It was unspeakably difficult for them to do that after decades of living in shame and silence. I want to take a moment to pay tribute to the dozens and dozens of other victims who we did not hear from at the royal commission—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! It being 7.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. The member will have an opportunity to continue his speech tomorrow.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>101</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gilmore Electorate: Roads</title>
          <page.no>101</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In regional communities in my electorate on the New South Wales South Coast our roads are very important to us. They are certainly very important to me. Since being elected as the member for Gilmore I have worked hard to advocate on behalf of the local community for improvements to our roads. I have taken every opportunity to bang the drum on all sorts of road projects. Even before that I was standing with the community for years on projects like the new Nowra bridge, the Jervis Bay Road intersection, the Milton-Ulladulla bypass and the Currarong Road. I have been delighted to see some success in these campaigns.</para>
<para>Our Fix it Now campaign pushed for the government to bring forward its promised funding for the Princes Highway. This groundswell started in the community. Thanks to the community and local groups, like the Milton-Ulladulla bypass joint committee, we've finally seen $400 million in federal funding brought forward to build the Milton-Ulladulla bypass. That project is now moving ahead. I know it will make substantial improvements to the everyday lives of the communities in Ulladulla and its surrounds.</para>
<para>Another project the community and I have worked hard on is securing a flyover for the Jervis Bay Road intersection. It's a notorious intersection, so it is critical we get it right. It was clear that the community would not accept a roundabout. It just wouldn't have worked. Thanks to the work of the community and local group Vincentia Matters, the New South Wales government announced the flyover in November last year. What fantastic success.</para>
<para>Another notorious road, Currarong Road, has also seen the fruits of this community labour. We have fought together for years to fix this road that has seen far too many crashes and far too many fatalities. In October $3.6 million in joint Commonwealth and New South Wales government stimulus funding was committed to finally fixing this road. Well done, Currarong Community Association and all the local people who fought hard for this.</para>
<para>In June last year I could not have been more delighted to attend the turning of the first sod on the new Nowra bridge. It was made possible with $155 million in Commonwealth funding. My family was there for the opening of the old Nowra Bridge and the second bridge that followed. It was a special occasion for me to see the work on the much-needed new bridge get underway. Once again this was years in the making. It is a project that I championed for a very long time and now it is becoming a reality.</para>
<para>I have been immensely proud of the role I have played in getting these projects off the ground no matter how long it took. My point is that these commitments and these road improvements don't happen overnight. Ever since I was elected I have stood in this place countless times to advocate for these projects and to bring forward federal funding. I have yelled from the rooftops, 'Fix it faster.' But it feels like on the South Coast that story never ends. I am really excited to see the new Batemans Bay bridge nearing completion. It is such a critical project and hugely important for the community.</para>
<para>We still need to work on the duplication of the highway, and there are many upgrades needed on the Princes Highway south of Jervis Bay. I won't stop fighting for these improvements, but today I want to get the conversation started on the next major project—the Nowra bypass. I said back in June at the Nowra bridge sod turning that now is the time to start the conversation on the bypass. The bridge is fantastic for local traffic but it isn't enough. While the bridgeworks are going on, traffic in Nowra is pure chaos. It takes at least 20 minutes longer in peak hour to get across the bridge. During the school holidays or on long weekends traffic can be backed up for hours. Let's hope there are no accidents.</para>
<para>I don't expect that the funding for the Nowra bypass will be announced tomorrow, but I am putting governments at all levels on notice that I'm on Team Nowra Bypass. I have proven that, when it comes to advocating for our local infrastructure, from government or opposition, I won't go away until I secure that commitment. I look forward to working closely with the Nowra community on this vital project. I know that together we can achieve anything. I am confident that the Nowra bypass will be no different.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Uluru Statement from the Heart</title>
          <page.no>102</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROADBENT</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
    <electorate>Monash</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The heart of this nation is good, but it needs healing. For us to move forward and be the best that we can be, its foundations have to be put right. The custodians of this land for over 60,000 years formed a cradle which nurtures the younger nation of 240 years. It's time to formally acknowledge the past, seek forgiveness and accept the generous invitation to walk together, expressed in the Statement from the Heart. There is deep listening to be done on the part of settler people, and we must listen carefully because the voice of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is quiet but rightly resolute. The call for truth and justice can no longer be ignored. We need to listen humbly to what is wanted and needed by the First Peoples. Once and for all, we need to put matters to rights honestly, and, if we do not, we remain a diminished nation and we cannot truly move forward. There is so much to gain and nothing to lose.</para>
<para>The Statement from the Heart is a gift of great grace and goodwill, and the nation is blessed to have it. The wisdom and spiritual strength of our First Peoples is found in their voice, which needs to be heard in the governance of this land at all levels. To include their voice in national policy development gives us all a chance to benefit, and I welcome it with open arms. Australia must fold the Statement from the Heart into the heart of the nation.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>102</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last year was a very tough year for many Australians. I have seen and continue to see people in my community under pressure. Some businesses have been forced to close for periods due to the pandemic. Obviously travel has been restricted, disrupting many industries. Some frontline and essential workers have put themselves at risk just by showing up for work during the pandemic. Some still are to this day, and I thank them. Other workers have managed to get by with the help of JobKeeper, a wage subsidy that Labor called for very early during the pandemic. Sadly the JobKeeper subsidy was slashed on Monday this week by $100 for some and $200 for others and is set to cease altogether next month. Many workers relying on the JobSeeker subsidy are worried right now about how they will put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. This is a premature withdrawal of support for businesses and workers, because many Moreton businesses are still doing it tough, especially those sectors where international travel is an essential component. Businesses who rely on international students are being hammered right now.</para>
<para>The Morrison government, rather than extending the JobKeeper subsidy for suffering businesses, has introduced legislation that will actually make workers worse off. It's hard to believe that in the middle of a pandemic, when workers are already struggling to make ends meet, the government would actually cut people's pay. Sadly, this is consistent with the Morrison government's approach to looking after workers in general. Eight years of flatlining wages growth is directly linked to eight years of coalition government. The legislation introduced by the Morrison government late last year will cut workers' pay. It will have a devastating impact on working families who are already doing it tough. In particular, the Attorney-General's legislation introduced in December will suspend the better off overall test for two years for any business that has been affected by COVID-19. The better off overall test is designed to protect workers' conditions. For example, if there is something in an agreement that cuts penalty rates at some point, the employer will need to increase the base rate of pay to compensate for that so the worker won't end up worse off, hence the name 'better off overall test' or BOOT.</para>
<para>The government is suspending the better off overall test for two years. So, for two years after the legislation is passed, any agreement that cuts penalty rates does not need to increase the hourly rate. This leaves workers worse off. It is effectively a pay cut. We've seen this play before. It happened under John Howard. At that time it was called the no-disadvantage test. That test was also suspended for a period. The problem is there are still agreements in place today, in 2021, in workplaces from that Howard era suspension. Even though there is a technical expiry date to the suspension, if the employer hasn't agreed to a new agreement, the current agreement, which leaves the worker worse off, persists. How is that for a Howard legacy?</para>
<para>The Morrison government's new version, the new legislation, will have a lasting impact on the pay that workers take home and on their working conditions. If penalty rates disappear but hourly rates stay the same, it will also impact on the working shifts that people need to cover. Obviously, if you abolish something called the better off overall test, guess what? Workers will be worse off. Pay cuts are bad for workers and bad for the economy right now. For Australia to recover from the COVID recession, we need people who have money and we need to give them the confidence to spend that money in local businesses. Instead, the Morrison government want to make work less secure and they want to cut the take-home pay of Australians. The government want to have their cake and eat it, too. They say the economy is doing well, so well that businesses no longer need JobKeeper, but then they say the economy is doing so badly they need to cut the pay of workers. They can't have it both ways.</para>
<para>2020 really was a tough year—a year to be grateful for the workers who kept everything going in the frightening early days, weeks and months of this pandemic, when we didn't understand everything. I particularly want to give a call-out to the supermarket workers. Who would have thought they would be essential workers? Obviously there are the cleaners, who, to this day, are making our workplaces safe. Truck drivers, nurses, pharmacists and so many others are making this new COVID world a liveable place. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those workers for their sacrifices, for putting their own health at risk and for keeping the country going. I will not forget. Labor won't forget. I will fight for your rights at work for fair conditions and for a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. That is something that Labor and unions will always fight for.</para>
<para>I know Australian workers can't trust a Liberal government when it comes to wages and conditions. It's in the DNA of coalition governments to change their conditions at work. Some things never change and, sadly, the attack on industrial relations under the Morrison government is another example of that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia Day, Migration</title>
          <page.no>103</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ARCHER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As another Australia Day has come and gone, it again provided an opportunity to reflect on and embrace the diversity of our community. The lead-up to 26 January and the day itself can be painful for some Australians and not a cause for celebration. It's important to consider the impact European settlement has had on the lives of First Australians and, indeed, how lives were so dramatically disrupted. I would like to ensure that we honour our Indigenous heritage, recognise our shared history and work together to heal the hurt of the past and reduce ongoing inequalities. I am committed to finding a way that we can be a more inclusive Australia.</para>
<para>For so many of us here, no matter our thoughts on the day itself, I think we can all recognise that the occasion is still an opportunity to reflect on the way our community embraces diversity and migrants. As a member of parliament and in my previous role as a mayor, I've had the great privilege to take part in citizenship ceremonies where we welcome people from all corners of the world. This experience was undoubtedly even more powerful this year, as we contemplated what it means to live in Australia in the midst of a global pandemic. One of the most common themes I hear from Northern Tasmania's migrant community is how desirable our region is to live and raise a family in. This is demonstrated in the eagerness of new Australians to contribute to our shared community, whether that be through the workplace, schools, neighbourhood centres or sharing culinary or cultural experiences.</para>
<para>One fantastic example is the work of the Launceston Nepali Cricket Club, which, through a combined community effort, has found a new home ground at Brooks High School and is now playing A grade in the Tasmanian Cricket League for the first time. I'm proud to support this emerging club, with its vision and drive. Members of the club are so appreciative of the opportunities that are presented to them through living in a community like Northern Tasmania. It's interesting to note that, according to the 2011 census, there were just 59 Nepalese born residents living in Mowbray. Today, there are closer to 2,000 Nepalese living throughout Launceston. The work of the Nepalese community underlines the wider migrant story in Northern Tasmania. For generations, we have witnessed the strong work ethic of new Australians in employment or through their own small businesses, as well as a tremendous sense of community that enriches us all.</para>
<para>I'm continually motivated by what migrants bring to a society which can often be decidedly different to that of their home country. A few months ago, I was honoured to be invited by the Multicultural Council of Tasmania to talk with some local migrants to break down any perceived or real barriers that may exist, so they could have their voices heard. Ensuring engagement and participation in all levels of government is important to our democratic process, and it was a valuable experience for me.</para>
<para>Similarly, I've been engaging with members of the Migrant Resource Centre's THRIVE program. I've learned so much from these wonderful young people about the challenges they've faced and their hopes for the future. It's been uplifting to hear about the work they're doing in running school-holiday programs to engage new migrants in the community and tell the stories of the resilience of our Northern Tasmanian migrant communities, particularly during the pandemic. I'd especially like to recognise Obeth and Asiyeh, two members of this group, who so proudly received their citizenship this Australia Day.</para>
<para>I also recently enjoyed spending time with the Women's Friendship Group, primarily involving Hazara women from Afghanistan. I was so inspired by their resilience, sense of grace and hope about life in Australia. In my role as a community representative, I'm continually moved by stories such as those of the Hazara women and the circumstances that have led them to seek a better life. In turn, so many migrants are equally lifted by our democratic process and how they have such open access to members of government at all levels. It's a further way to reflect on our democracy. As Australians, we often enjoy a robust discussion about politics. It can become particularly vigorous through social media commentary—there's no doubt about it. But when we go to the polls, we value and protect our non-violent democratic process and the orderly transition between parliaments, and we should all be very proud of that.</para>
<para>I know that migrants are also so grateful for the support of devoted volunteers who are working in our community to help new Australians settle in Northern Tasmania. I'd encourage others to find the opportunity to speak with migrant communities about what it means to come to Australia and to make them feel welcome. However you chose to mark Australia Day, I ask that everyone reflect on the contribution new Australians have made for generations. They have helped shape who we are and the diverse community to which we all belong.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Travel Industry</title>
          <page.no>104</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tonight I wish to talk about travel agents and the tourism industry. COVID-19 has impacted many people, and it's been tremendously tough for so many Australians. But we're not out of the woods yet, and there are a number of parts of our economy for whom COVID and the economic repercussions are simply unfinished business. Travel agents, whilst not the only group, are certainly doing it very tough at the moment. They've told me, in my electorate and more broadly, that they want a return to normality—and don't we all. They know that for them there can be no return to normal until our international borders are opened, until we have the vaccines and until state borders can be opened on a consistent basis.</para>
<para>So the Morrison government has unfinished business for travel agents and related jobs in tourism. There has not been enough support. The travel agency industry and the broader travel industry are not out of the woods, and no amount of soothing words from our Prime Minister can replace the need for action. By May 2020, travel agents had all client itineraries cancelled, and the clients wanted refunds. The commissions that had been made for work already done had to be returned. This is the income of small-business people, of family businesses. It's their mortgage; it's their self-managed super fund; it is their savings. They had regained some hope of domestic travel, but, of course, with borders closing between states, this is a precarious affair.</para>
<para>Travel agents and the broader tourism sector are appreciative of JobKeeper, but tonight there are two things I say to the Morrison government on behalf of travel agents and the broader tourism industry. The first is: 'Please oh please, do not stop JobKeeper on 31 March.' The industry is grateful for JobKeeper, but travel agents and their employees in the broader tourism sector are not out of the woods. The second thing is that the government has announced the $128 million Consumer Travel Support Program. That sounded good, and for some it has been useful. I don't stand here complaining about every aspect of it. But the government may not realise it has created false hopes for travel agents.</para>
<para>I'll just go into some detail at this point, on behalf of travel agents and the tourism sector. There are different ways for a travel agent's turnover to be measured. There are at least four ways in the travel industry that accountants have done it. Unfortunately, the Australian tax office—on, I believe, the advice of Austrade—has picked one interpretation of turnover, which then triggers the pro rata grant. But it hasn't realised that there are other ways. The industry has been applying turnover on the G1 part of their BAS statement, and the problem is that a lot of smaller agencies are missing out. They're getting a far smaller amount, and the $128 million is not getting out to the people who desperately need it, the people who are hanging on by their fingernails.</para>
<para>Specifically, travel agents in my electorate and around Australia are telling me that one of the design flaws is this ambiguity around what accountants advise agents to put in their BAS statements. Many agents have input total transactional value. That's the value of the whole chain of the ticket sales in one trip. The ATO guidelines have said that, to get this grant, the turnover has to be put in. But there is a manifest range of different interpretations of turnover entered by travel agents in the G1 field of their quarterly BAS statements. The net result is that a few agents have perhaps received more than was predicted by the government, but most are getting underpaid, Mr Morrison. Seventy per cent of the agents are small businesses, and they only have a month or two of financial sustainability. Tailor Made Travel in Mount Gambier are in a dire situation. Tracy-Ann in my electorate has told me about the problem of 80 per cent of the sole traders and the home based agents being women; they are in trouble. There's Nutch from the electorate of Hughes in New South Wales. The money that they are able to get isn't even covering the cost of the accountants they use to try to get the support they deserve. There's Rosemary in Niddrie. There's Nathan at Travel Associates. They want security, they want a return to normality, they need JobKeeper beyond 31 March and they need this BAS inconsistency sorted out now.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>104</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHARMA</name>
    <name.id>274506</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There was exciting news this week for those that follow the energy transition that's underway in Australia. The Clean Energy Regulator estimates that in the year 2020 a record seven gigawatts of renewable energy capacity was installed in Australia. This figure of seven gigawatts beats by 11 per cent the figure of 6.3 gigawatts for 2019, which was in itself a record. It was the solar installation boom that drove this new record, despite COVID-19 restrictions impacting upon rooftop solar installations for part of the year. One in four Australian homes now has solar, the highest uptake of household solar in the world, and over 4,000 homes in my own electorate of Wentworth have it. In 2019 Australia deployed new renewable energy capacity at least 10 times faster per person than the global average and four times faster per person than China, Europe and the United States.</para>
<para>In 2020 Australia invested $7.7 billion, or almost $300 per person, in renewable energy. Again, this places us ahead of countries like Canada, Germany, Japan, Korea, New Zealand and the United States. Australia now has the highest solar power capacity per person of anywhere in the world, with 644 watts per person, and the highest wind and solar capacity of any country outside of Europe, with 804 watts per person. Over the last quarter of 2020 the share of renewables in the National Electricity Market exceeded 30 per cent, another first. In 2020, in another record, we had 53.6 terawatt hours of electricity generated from renewables, including rooftop solar, in the National Electricity Market. That is 16 per cent higher than the previous record set in 2019.</para>
<para>I think the important lesson from all of this is that the progress that's underway is not linear; it's exponential. For instance, in the six years from 2007 to 2013, when the policy imperative to switch to renewables was just as high but the technology was not as cheap, not as widely available and not as commercially competitive, we managed to install 5.6 gigawatts of renewable energy in total. Last year, in just a one-year period, we installed seven gigawatts.</para>
<para>The story is positive elsewhere too. In the year to June 2020 Australia's emissions fell by three per cent, reaching their lowest level since 1998. Our emissions are now nearly 17 per cent below 2005 levels. If you want to compare that figure to elsewhere, the OECD average for emissions reductions across the same period is around nine per cent. In New Zealand it's one per cent. In Canada it's less than one per cent. As members would know, our Paris emissions reduction target is to be 26 to 28 per cent below our 2005 levels by 2030. The year is 2021, and we are already down 17 per cent on our 2005 levels. We are more than halfway there. It's clear to me that we will meet our Paris emissions reduction target and that we will do this without the use of Kyoto credits, which I hasten to add were legitimately earned by virtue of the fact that we beat our 2020 target by 459 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent.</para>
<para>This energy transition underway in Australia—and it is a remarkable story of transition—is not being driven by government fear, it's not being driven by taxes and it's not being driven by the exhaustion of fossil fuels. Like nearly every major economic and energy transition we have been through in our history as a species, this transition is being driven by the availability and the affordability of new technology, by commercial imperatives and by consumer appetite.</para>
<para>Fundamentally, I'm an optimist about our ability as a species, as humans, to overcome the challenges placed before us, be it Thomas Malthus's prediction that famine was an inevitable part of the human condition and would permanently limit the population of the earth—when Malthus wrote this in 1798 the world's population was 800 million, and today it's 6.7 billion and on average much better nourished and better fed—or the worries in the 1990s about the rapid depletion of the ozone layer. Today, the hole in the ozone layer is the smallest since it was first discovered in 1982. This is not an argument for complacency, but it is an argument against the counsels of despair that we hear too often in this debate.</para>
<para>Based on our ingenuity and innovation, I believe that getting the world to net zero emissions by 2050 is achievable. I'd like to see Australia do it. I'd like to see us do it sooner if possible. But, as the Prime Minister said in his Press Club address earlier in the week, we need to focus not on the what but on the how. It will be the commercial availability of technology that drives this—our success in engineering new industrial methods, our ability to create renewable liquid fuels, our vision in re-engineering our transport system, our success in creating new carbon sinks in the soil and elsewhere. These are practical challenges, but we have overcome challenges of this sort many times in our history. If we solve for these challenges, we solve for net zero, so let's focus our efforts here.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Democracy</title>
          <page.no>105</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WATTS</name>
    <name.id>193430</name.id>
    <electorate>Gellibrand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the opportunity arises tonight, just a few minutes before the adjournment, I thought I might take the opportunity to say a few words about recent events in Washington DC and the violence we saw at the Capitol Building there. I, like many members of this chamber, have enormous love and affection for what some of you might think of as our big brother democracy in the United States.</para>
<para>Australia sometimes has a complex relationship with the United States. The United States contains things that both inspire and horrify the Australian mind, but I like to think of it in terms of that great US poet Walt Whitman, and to paraphrase him, he used to say: 'I can contradict myself very well. I contain multitudes.' And the United States does contain multitudes. It's a great inspiration to us all.</para>
<para>The violence at the Capitol Building I think is also a lesson to us. Something like that doesn't happen overnight. It's the result of an accumulation of actions and an accumulation of neglect of the norms and democratic values that we share with the United States. I was watching that over the Christmas break, over the summer break, and reflecting on the lessons for the Australian community from that incident. What I took from it was that we all in this country need to treat our democracy a little bit better, and by 'all' I mean members of parliament and this institution, certainly, but also all of us as citizens, as full participants in our democracy. It's too easy take our democracy for granted, to take the norms that make our democratic system work for granted—the shared respect that a lot of the institutions that we rely on in our democracy need in order to work.</para>
<para>I was listening earlier in this adjournment debate to the contribution of the member for Monash, a principled, heartfelt contribution in recognition of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and thought it's incumbent on me to stand up and recognise that contribution. I've done that in the past for the member for Monash, actually. He and I disagree on many things, but it is one of the great privileges of my time in this parliament to have an office that is next door to the member for Monash. He is significantly senior to me in experience, both in a parliamentary sense and in a life sense, and I value his counsel enormously and think the contribution that he makes to this building is something that I certainly value enormously and want to put on the record here today. Incidents in the United States recently did make me think of the comments of a recently departed great Democrat of this world, John Lewis, a great champion of democracy, who said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Democracy is not a state. It is an act, and each generation must do its part to help build what we called the Beloved Community, a nation and world … at peace with itself.</para></quote>
<para>It's a good thing for us to take away and work on in the Australian democracy here.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>106</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 3 February 2021</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Llew O'Brien)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 10:00.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>107</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rankin Electorate: Local Legends Awards</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to speak today about the celebration of selflessness that we conduct each year in my community in the southern suburbs of Brisbane, the northern half of Logan City. The Local Legends Awards that we put on each year, this year for the seventh time, have now recognised 499 different locals for the extraordinary work that they do in our community to look out for each other and look after each other. When you think about the year that we have all just been through in local communities right around Australia, it has never been more important that we recognise that we are part of a community, that we exist to look out for each other and look after each other, and to recognise that, if anybody is at risk of falling behind, then our responsibility as people, as Australians, as members of communities, is to make sure that we help them along. That is what the Local Legends Awards are all about.</para>
<para>Typically we get together at Logan diggers, hundreds of supporters, nominees and nominators and a lot of other people, to celebrate the selflessness of our local community. This year that wasn't quite possible because of restrictions. So we made a difficult decision to recognise the 82 people and groups in a slightly different way, and I want to acknowledge them today in the parliament as well. There are too many to mention, obviously—82 this year—but I would mention Brian Roberts, from Logan Brothers Rugby League Club, who runs the Old Boys there and does so much for the local community; those working in the domestic violence area of YFS Logan and providing other kinds of COVID support out of YFS; John and Jill Devaus, from Daisy Hill Neighbourhood Watch; Henk La Dru, Sam Luteru and Treye Warburton from ADRA Community Centre Logan Central; Alison Gentles, who organised the Woodridge Wanderers, a local walking group that builds people's connection to each other while they stay fit and healthy as well; Charlie and Jenny Bennett, who run the Logan Support Group for MS; Dave Mellsop and Tom Linskey, from Meadowbrook Golf Club, who organised an all-abilities golf program at our local golf club; and the Timoteo family, who have done so much for the Logan House Fire Support Network.</para>
<para>There are too many to mention in the limited time that I have today, but I acknowledge them all. What these people show is that, when it comes to selflessness and looking after each other and looking out for each other, this is how we roll in Rankin. This is the sort of thing that makes our community such an extraordinary place. We have our share of challenges but we have well over our share of quite amazing people and organisations who are so selfless with their time and do so much to enrich our community, and I want to thank and acknowledge them.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Robertson Electorate: Australia Day Awards</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs WICKS</name>
    <name.id>241590</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to congratulate some outstanding Central Coast residents who were recently recognised as part of the 2021 Australia Day honours list. Pearl Beach resident Dr Denise Fleming was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for services to women in business through a number of important roles. Dr Fleming was a former chairwoman of the Special Olympics and the founder of a management and global coaching business. She has also served as a director of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and the Darling Harbour Authority. I congratulation Dr Fleming.</para>
<para>Narara local Alfred Britton was awarded an OAM for services to the environment and conservation. Mr Britton was a co-founder of the Friends of Strickland State Forest and has volunteered for a number of local environment organisations, including the Narara Creek Catchment Bush Care Group. He has also served as an ecology supervisor for the Forestry Corporation of New South Wales. Congratulations, Alfred.</para>
<para>Stephen Clark was awarded the Order of Australia Medal for service to the Central Coast. Stephen became the Gosford City Council town crier in 1990 and continues to serve as the town crier for Central Coast Council. In this role, Stephen assists in leading citizenship ceremonies, he MCs events and he welcomes special guests to our beautiful region. He's also been a governor and member of St Philip's Christian College foundation board and an elder at numerous churches on the Central Coast. I have known Stephen for many years in his service to community, and, in fact, I played in a church band with him when I was just a young teenager. I do congratulate Stephen as well.</para>
<para>A number of other Central Coast locals were recognised with meritorious awards as well. Stephen Durnford was awarded the Public Service Medal for his work in building regulation, while Glen Howe of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service was awarded the Australian Fire Service Medal in recognition of his over 40 years of service to the brigade. He is the Central Coast group captain and has assisted with numerous local incidents, including major bushfires. During the 2019-20 bushfire season, he led the forward operational response for the Three Mile fire to protect properties at Kulnura, Mangrove and Spencer, and he's been a member of the District Senior Management Team for over 25 years. I really do thank him for his tireless work and leadership. Meals on Wheels volunteer Paula Hardwick received Citizen of the Year. She has assisted the organisation for over 20 years and recently increased her volunteering to several days a week to ensure some of the most vulnerable members of our community have nutritious meals and crucial social support during COVID-19.</para>
<para>It's this commitment to supporting those less fortunate that really epitomises the Australian spirit, and I want to congratulate each and every one of those worthy recipients. Your service, your dedication and commitment to our community has really helped to make the Central Coast the very best region in the very best country in the world.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Barton Electorate: Australia Day, St George District Cricket Club</title>
          <page.no>108</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 26 January, which is a very fraught day in our Australian story, I attended a number of ceremonies. Firstly, I went to the WugulOra ceremony at Barangaroo, a cleansing ceremony and part of the official Australia Council celebrations. I then had the privilege to attend two citizenship ceremonies in my electorate, one in Bayside and the other at Georges River. It is such a privilege, and I know all of us do it, to be able to attend these ceremonies and to share such a personal moment with our newest citizens: the beginning of their new lives in Australia. I've always said that it is an honour to represent Barton, one of the most culturally diverse electorates in the country—although my colleague the member for Watson might dispute that! We share a very similar demographic. I told the people at the citizenship ceremonies not to forget their language, their culture and their stories, because that is, in fact, what enriches us as a country. I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the way in which the citizenship ceremonies I attended incorporated the story of First Nations people, recognising its sacred place in the Australian story. I rounded the day off, on 26 January, by speaking in a panel at the Dendy in Newtown, where the film <inline font-style="italic">Australia Daze</inline> was screened. It depicted 26 January in 1988.</para>
<para>I also want to pay homage to the St George District Cricket Club. On 16 December I was delighted to attend the launch of St George District Cricket Club's Hall of Fame, located at the Norm O'Neill indoor facility. Kevin Greene, who is the mayor of the Georges River Council, is also a keen cricketer and officiated at that ceremony. The year 2020 marked the club's 100th season in the New South Wales premier cricket's first-grade competition. The Hall of Fame saw 16 new inductees from the club's first 50 years. I had the great privilege of meeting three of these inductees: Brian Booth, Warren Saunders and bowler Keith Francis. Nine of these inductees played test cricket for Australia. I want to congratulate the inductees and their families, as well as club president, Georges River mayor, Kevin Greene, on this auspicious occasion. It was truly a great morning—COVID-safe, and a great morning tea as well.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Horticulture Industry</title>
          <page.no>108</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've sung the national anthem a few times in the last week, and I increasingly love these words: 'We've golden soil and wealth for toil, our home is girt by sea, our land abounds in nature's gifts of beauty rich and rare.' My electorate of Mallee epitomises this anthem, except for the bit about the sea; we're girt by the Murray! For those who have never been to Mallee, I can assure you it is beautiful—rich red soil as far as the eye can see, with the extraordinary Murray River winding through its perimeter, and the bluest skies in Australia.</para>
<para>Historically, there have been many who have seen not just the beauty of this unique country but the opportunity for wealth. The horticulture industry is evidence of many such opportunities. Indeed, the fruits and nuts produced in the red dirt along the Murray River are among the region's most valuable exports. In my role as member for Mallee, I have met incredible multigenerational farmers. Recently I had the pleasure of meeting Darren and Anne-Marie Minter, of Minter Magic in Iraak. Five generations of Darren's family have toiled the dirt in Iraak for almost 100 years, and there is no sign that Darren is slowing down anytime soon. In fact, he is expanding. Like many growers, Darren has learned to adapt and take opportunities with both hands. The Minters are famous for their asparagus, which is exported around the world and found on our local supermarket shelves. The biggest challenge for Darren's business and for others in the hort industry is workforce. Darren's answer is to diversify away from labour-intensive crops like asparagus and move into crops that can be harvested by machines, such as almonds. Such decisions face many growers around the country. Providing growers with legal, sustainable sources of low- and semi-skilled workers for seasonal work is something I'm passionate about achieving.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Tourism Industry</title>
          <page.no>108</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Ten years ago we had Cyclone Yasi. It was a very bad cyclone, but it was nothing compared to Cyclone Larry, which came before it. It was a disastrous cyclone 10 years ago. In the 10 years since, Dunk Island, the biggest tourist resort in North Queensland, employing some 200 people throughout the tourism season, has been closed down. Elandra, the next biggest resort, which employed nearly 100 people, is also still closed down. This is devastating for Mission Beach. Mission Beach has a 30- to 40-metre-wide white-sand beach and sea islands. Behind it is dense jungle. Cassowaries are regularly seen on the beach. Helen Wiltshire, one of the four top artists in Australia, lives there. Helen Mirren made her name running along the beach without any clothes on in the first movie of its type. Diane Cilento, Academy Award winner and a former wife of James Bond actor Sean Connery, lived there. A Prime Minister of Australia had his winter home there; his wife, Zara Holt, lived there.</para>
<para>All these famous people went there because it is the most beautiful place on earth. You have waterfalls. You have jungle. It is not rainforest—we call it scrub—but serious jungle. You have cassowaries walking along the beach. You have the ocean. You have the islands. You have everything there. And the two resorts that realised this great thing are closed down. Hinchinbrook Island was the great dream of Keith Williams. He was the greatest tourism developer in Australia's history by a long way. The Gold Coast was made by Les Thiess and Keith Williams—and maybe Bruce Moore. There are now one million people living on the Gold Coast. Keith Williams chose to go to Cardwell—and it is closed. The state government says, 'It's got nothing to do with us,' the local council says, 'It's got nothing to do with us'—and they're probably right to some degree—and the federal government says, 'It's got nothing to do with us.' Well, whose responsibility is it? There are 2,000 people at Mission Beach. They have no sewerage, limited water supply and no access to the sea. Whose fault is it? The penguins of Antarctica? Maybe it's their fault! Dunk Island— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Employment</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The past 12 months have been an incredibly difficult time for a great many Australian workers. More than a million lost their jobs or had their hours reduced to zero thanks to the economic devastation wrought on their employers by COVID of course. Millions more lived under constant threat of redundancy or were trapped working from home during what has been a very stressful lockdown for many. The Morrison government understood this hardship and the suffering. This government responded with $251 billion in direct economic stimulus—the largest investment of its kind in this country's history. I haven't fact-checked this, but I would suggest that it's probably one of the most generous packages provided to a community around the world.</para>
<para>We created the JobKeeper program to save more than 700,000 more jobs and introduced the JobSeeker supplement to help those who are out of work through the hardest of times. We invested a record $5.7 billion in mental health services, because we know how difficult this has been for so many people, expanding access across the country and delivering targeted support to the hardest hit areas. That and much more is what this government did to look after Australian workers.</para>
<para>What did the union movement do? What did the so-called champions of working Australians do? They poured millions of dollars of workers' money into the election coffers of the Labor Party. At a time when workers needed practical workplace support more than ever, almost $5 million of their hard-earned money went instead into their union bosses' favourite political party while another $2½ million was spent by the unions themselves on their own pro-Labor political campaigns. Meanwhile, these same union bosses at the ACTU had the gall to ask the government for cash for a workers awareness campaign.</para>
<para>It's very clear where these union priorities lie: it's politics first, workers a distinct second. To no-one's surprise, among the worst offenders were Labor's old mates the CFMEU. You would think the CFMEU would need every dollar it could to pay its $19 million worth of fines, but, no, they still managed to find more than half a million dollars a year to bung into the Labor Party's coffers. Just last week we saw the culmination of this abuse of trust placed in the unions by Australian workers with the broadcast of an unprecedented, shameful and dishonest piece of advertising which was just so insensitive, given what's been going on in the last couple of weeks. This government is all about looking after workers, because the Labor Party have abandoned them.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Watson Electorate: Lunar New Year, Cheng, Maria, Canterbury Hospital</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In my electorate in my part of Sydney not only the Chinese community but the Vietnamese and Korean communities always celebrate lunar new year, and the rest of the community celebrates it along with them. It's probably universally agreed that the year of the rat was a sorry disappointment, and people are very much looking forward to the year of the ox. I wish a happy new year to everybody who'll be celebrating, including in my local area where we've had to change how we'll do things—no longer the big lion dance; it'll now be a smaller noodle market.</para>
<para>One of the community organisations, which has always served the local community well, based in Campsie is the Chinese Australian Services Society. CASS run everything from child care through to aged care. They recently lost one of their most dedicated staff members. Maria Cheng sadly died in December last year, too young, after a relapse of cancer that she thought earlier she'd beaten.</para>
<para>Most notably, Maria was instrumental in CASS establishing their first residential aged-care facility in 2015, a facility which I've been a long-term supporter of. It is critical and part of people feeling dignity in the final years of their life if as many things as possible that surround them are familiar. To have aged-care facilities that are built for purpose for people with different cultural backgrounds is a wonderful legacy of CASS as an organisation and Maria Cheng as an individual. She worked selflessly for better outcomes for her community for over a decade. Because of this, her impact will be felt for a long time to come.</para>
<para>Also in my local area I want to refer to our hospital, Canterbury Hospital. For over 90 years Canterbury Hospital has served our community as our most trusted local institution. In its first year of service fewer than 600 patients were treated at the hospital, but now it looks after more than 100,000 patients a year. In the next 10 years the population that it serves is expected to grow by just under 40 per cent. The 800 staff who work there are getting the pressure of increasing workload with facilities that were simply not built to cope with the demand.</para>
<para>Canterbury hospital desperately needs an upgrade. The last time it was upgraded was in 1998. The local state MPs, Sophie Cotsis, Jihad Dib, Jo Haylen and I have all called for the state government to redevelop the hospital. We need a modern, fit-for-purpose facility that can meet the current and future health needs of our population, create good secure jobs and act as a major stimulus to the local economy. People in our part of Sydney deserve good health care as much as anyone else.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Brisbane Metro</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VASTA</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
    <electorate>Bonner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased to share with the chamber that we will be seeing some boots on the ground soon as the Brisbane Metro project kicks up a gear in 2021. The Brisbane Metro is being delivered by the Brisbane City Council and supported by the Morrison government with $300 million in funding. This city-shaping project will transform Brisbane's public transport network to get people home quicker and safer, with easy links to existing bus and train services. The depot and four stops will be located in my electorate of Bonner. I am pleased to see work progress this year, which is creating 2,600 jobs through its design and construction phase. It's the kind of public transport network we have envied in major cities around the world, and now Brisbane's modern all-electric metro system will become the enviable infrastructure for the rest of the country. The network will operate along the existing busway from Eight Mile Plains through to Roma Street and the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital to the University of Queensland. The best part is there is no timetable needed, with turn-up-and-go services every couple of minutes and 24-hour operation on weekends.</para>
<para>I recently caught up with the Brisbane Metro team, who provided an update on the Rochedale depot site. The depot will be located on School Road, and with initial site clearing nearing completion the design and construction contract will be awarded by the end of this month. Following this we will see some more site preparation and early works ahead of main construction later on in the year. The Rochedale depot site should wrap up main construction by 2023, which will be just in time for the delivery of the metro vehicle fleet. The fleet will consist of 60 all-electric high-capacity vehicles that will integrate seamlessly into Brisbane's existing busway operations. These world-leading vehicles are being built by HESS in partnership with Brisbane based supplier Volgren and electric infrastructure experts ABB. These manufacturers will deliver Brisbane a vehicle with zero tailpipe emissions and state-of-the-art flash-charging infrastructure. What a tremendous outcome for future planning and environmentally friendly public infrastructure. Once completed, the Brisbane Metro depot site will be one of the largest and most technologically advanced in Australia. It will house the stabling and maintenance for the 60 metro vehicles and it will feature advanced charging infrastructure, staff facilities and the capacity to grow the electric fleet in line with future population and service growth.</para>
<para>The Brisbane Metro will revolutionise public transport in my electorate of Bonner. I'm very excited to keep the community updated on when we'll be able to see this new service in action.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banks Electorate: Lions Club of Lugarno, All Starz Performing Arts Studio, East Hills Junior Rugby League Club</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to be able to speak today about Lugarno Lions and the incredible work they do in our community in Banks. Since 1974, Lugarno Lions have raised more than $3 million for community projects in our area. Year in and year out, the members of Lugarno Lions go above and beyond to do so much work for our community. This year was a difficult year, of course. Because of COVID-19, Lugarno Lions weren't able to hold the annual Spring Festival, which is such a massive event every year, usually at Gannons Park. It couldn't be held this year, but the Lions went on, nonetheless, to go through a range of different activities to raise funds for our community. They still held their Christmas raffle and still did so many other activities. They've been a great supporter over the years of the Autism Community Network, a wonderful group in our community that works with families with kids with autism. They've helped out the Riverwood Air League over many years and many other great local non-profit organisations. To the president, John Slack, and to everyone at Lugarno Lions: thank you so much for what you do for our community.</para>
<para>All Starz dance studio in Peakhurst is one of the most renowned dance schools anywhere in Australia. Many hundreds of students are there, and it was great on 18 December to attend their annual presentation. Belinda Agostino and Priscilla Severino have done a remarkable job with All Starz and have won the small business of the year award in previous years because of the strength of their classes there. With more than 800 students, many of whom have gone on to perform nationally, it is a tremendous community there at All Starz. Congratulations to All Starz on another great year.</para>
<para>On 28 November I attended the East Hills Bulldogs Junior Rugby League Club presentation at Smith Park in East Hills. It was great to present the Banks Outstanding Sporting Achievement Awards. It was good to see the president, Mark Smith, the secretary, Kristy Lee, and the rest of the committee who have done such a great job at East Hills. East Hills is one of the backbones of the Canterbury-Bankstown rugby league community. It has been around for many, many decades and has been a breeding ground for some of the great stars of the past. To Mark Smith and everyone at East Hills rugby league: congratulations on a great year.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for Banks and welcome him back to the parliament.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Sydney: Environment</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not the first time I've spoken in parliament about the outrageous proposal to build two incinerators in my community, but, unfortunately, I have to do so again because these proposals remain on foot. One of them was defeated before, but they're not taking no for an answer. The Next Generation proposal for an incinerator in my community was rejected by the Independent Planning Commission of NSW, and it is now being appealed to the Land and Environment Court. I think the House needs to be reminded of what the independent commission said about this outrageous proposal. They said, 'The human health risks cannot be appropriately managed,' and that they were 'not satisfied that the project's emissions would not impact on water quality, particularly given the proximity to residential properties'—residential properties in Western Sydney. Too many people seem to think that Western Sydney is a dumping ground for the rest of Sydney. Whether it is radioactive waste in Kemps Creek or these two incinerators, it always comes down to dumping problems in Western Sydney, which is home for so many people. The people of Minchinbury, the people of St Clair, the people of Erskine Park, the people of Horsley Park and the people of Cecil Park should not have to put up with these incinerator proposals.</para>
<para>I'm informed that the Land and Environment Court will hear from the public in a conciliation conference on these proceedings, and I'm using this speech to encourage concerned residents to make themselves available and make their views known to the Land and Environment Court by sending an expression of interest by email to legalservices@planning.nsw.gov.au, with 'Next Generation' as the subject heading, by 11 February. In doing so, the Land and Environment Court will be under no illusions that we are against both of these proposals. They are both bad. The first proposal is bad, and the second proposal is no better. Our area, particularly around St Clair and Erskine Park, already puts up with smells and noises from various facilities, and we do not want these two incinerators in our community. I make it very clear that the campaign to stop these will go on to the end. These incinerators will not be built if we have anything to do with it. We will campaign, we will protest and we will make sure that the companies proposing these two incinerators are under no illusions that no PR, no spin and no nice advertising campaign will convince us that our community should have to put up with these ridiculous, offensive and outrageous proposals for Western Sydney to be the dumping ground for these two incinerators.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There being no further constituency statements by honourable members, the next line of business will be called upon.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>111</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jeffery, Major General Hon. Philip Michael, AC, AO (Mil), CVO, MC (Retd)</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>General Michael Jeffery was a soldier, a governor, a governor-general, a patriot, a statesman—somebody who was deeply concerned with and interested in Australia, its history, its institutions and its future. I'm delighted to have the opportunity to pay tribute to him.</para>
<para>General Jeffery's career is well known. He left school at 16 to join the RMC at Duntroon. He served in the SAS, becoming its commander, and did tours in Malaya, in Borneo, in Papua New Guinea and in Vietnam, where he was awarded both the Military Cross and the South Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. Later when he came home, as I say, he went on to head the SAS. He was our national counterterrorist coordinator. He was promoted to major general and commanded the Army's 15,000-person 1st Division and rose to be assistant chief of the general staff. Between 1993 and 2000, he was governor of Western Australia.</para>
<para>In 2003, because of some of the controversies that had surrounded General Jeffery's predecessor, Peter Hollingworth and had ultimately led to his resignation, John Howard was looking for a person to restore public confidence in the office. He wanted to find a person who had a proven track record of service and who had already discharged the role of being a vice-regal representative with great distinction. He could have done no better than choosing Michael Jeffery, who really restored public confidence to the office.</para>
<para>In many respects, General Jeffery was a formal and austere man, but he was very compassionate at the same time. As Governor-General, he discharged his duties impeccably. He was a great believer in Walter Bagehot's dictum about the monarchy—that the monarchy has three rights: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn. As a special adviser to the then Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, at the time of some royal commissions that were being established, I was told very clearly that General Jeffery was a stickler for precision, in terms of terms of reference and in terms of the presentation of documents to him in the context of executive council. So extra care and precision were taken in preparing letters patent for his signature. In fact, it was well known among government circles that General Jeffery would often send ministers back to reconsider matters from time to time if he thought that the balance wasn't right. He took his constitutional duties as Governor-General very seriously. He was in no sense a rubber stamp. His period saw the last years of the Howard and the beginnings of the Rudd government. It was not a period of constitutional controversy, and that was a good thing.</para>
<para>Today, in my remarks, I particularly want to focus on some work that General Jeffery did subsequent to leaving office as Governor-General and particularly his contribution to the discussion and debate about our Constitution. I think this is a perhaps less well-known aspect of General Jeffery's contribution. When General Jeffery was Governor-General he was invited to become the patron of a new organisation, the Constitution Education Fund Australia. I was there at the birth of the Constitution Education Fund Australia. In the wake of the 1999 republic referendum, a group of largely constitutional monarchists, like myself, who had been involved in that campaign took the view that Australians would benefit from knowing more about our Constitution. All of the data tells us that Australians know far too little about our constitution, and that this is particularly the case with younger Australians. And if people don't understand our Constitution and our system of government, how can we have an informed debate about changing it at some point, if people wish to do that? Indeed, from my perspective, the more people know about the system, the less they will want to change it, and I think that's a good thing.</para>
<para>The Constitution Education Fund Australia was the brainchild of Kerry Jones, who remains its executive director. She managed to attract a whole range of highly distinguished Australians to be involved in the organisation, both serving on the board of the Constitution Education Fund and participating in its work in substantive terms. She got people who had been involved on both sides of the republic debate, and that was very important because the organisation has no particular view on the republic debate itself. General Jeffery, when he was Governor-General, became patron in particular of the Governor-General's Prize, a $10,000 undergraduate essay competition on a topic of significance related to the debate about Australia's Constitution. It is awarded every year, and has been since 2004. That is a really significant thing that he did. It's a really significant prize and a significant way of encouraging more people to understand the Constitution.</para>
<para>In 2014 he became the chair of the Constitution Education Fund Australia, occupying the role from 2014 to 2019. I want to read something that General Jeffery had to say about the importance of people understanding the Constitution and about CEFA itself. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I firmly believe that all Australians, young and old, those born here and those who have come from other lands, should have a broad understanding of the system of government that has made our country one of the most successful democracies in the world. I hope that you will consider either participating in, or supporting this cause. By doing so you will be helping to give all Australians—especially our leaders of tomorrow—a greater appreciation of a system of government and a Constitution that has played a vital part in making Australia a country of which we can all be rightly proud.</para></quote>
<para>To that I say: hear, hear! General Jeffery has been succeeded as the chair of the Constitution Education Fund by the Hon. Robert French, the former Chief Justice of Australia, and I think that indicates the quality of the organisation and the quality of the people involved.</para>
<para>During General Jeffery's term as the chair of the Constitution Education Fund, he and Kerry Jones came to me and asked me to be the parliamentary patron of what is now the Australian Constitution Centre. They had had a dream for several years to establish a place in Canberra that people—particularly school students—could come to as part of their visit to Canberra and understand in a memorable way something about the history of the making of the Constitution and the way in which the Constitution itself has been applied by the court and the way it operates in institutions such as the parliament. General Jeffery was hugely helpful in terms of securing funding for the Constitution Centre, which was opened in 2018, and I want to acknowledge the work of former Attorney-General George Brandis, former arts minister Mitch Fifield and former education ministers Simon Birmingham and Dan Tehan, who were involved in the initial funding and then further funding of that centre to create a truly memorable and interactive experience for students coming to visit the High Court, as part of their year 5/year 6 Canberra experience, but also for Australians more broadly who are interested in something of the constitutional history of this country. The fact that he lent his name to and that he was an advocate for this, I think, gave great standing to a proposal that many had favoured getting off the ground for some time.</para>
<para>I said earlier that General Jeffery was an austere man, and he was very formal in his presentation. I've had the privilege of meeting several vice-regal office holders, both in office and subsequently, and for the most part they are a reasonably relaxed group of people. General Jeffery was not that. He was always addressed as 'General Jeffery'. But that formality in some respects belied a great sense of compassion. That sense of compassion came out on the second constitutional issue that I wish to talk about that he was involved in, and that was his interest in the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. General Jeffery had had a long experience in the military of working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. He had been involved in establishing NORFORCE. Remember the famous Bush Tucker Man, Les Hiddins, of ABC fame? General Jeffery commissioned him to go out, as part of the establishment of NORFORCE, and to collect information about bush tucker in order to extend the survival of troops that might be in northern Australia. He saw that the rest of the country had a lot to learn from Indigenous Australians, from our First Nations people, from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.</para>
<para>Several years ago, he wrote a chapter in a book that was edited by Damien Freeman and Shireen Morris, called <inline font-style="italic">The Forgotten People</inline>. The chapter is called 'The legacy of ancient Australia for modern Australia'. The purpose of that collection of essays was for constitutional conservatives, of which General Jeffery was clearly one, to come together and demonstrate that those of us who are constitutionally conservative can believe in constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in a substantive and not just symbolic way. In his chapter, General Jeffery praises the traditions—what he borrows from WEH Stanner as the high culture of Aboriginal people, their knowledge of land and their sense of family. He acknowledges both his own experiences and the experiences of the country in dealing with it. He then makes some important observations, which I want to quote today. He said: 'The time has come for the Australian nation to consolidate reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. Such reconciliation must be full and dignified, and I believe this can be achieved through a process that involves both constitutional and non-constitutional reforms. But the success of such recognition requires the same characteristics I mentioned in 1994: mutual understanding, respect and the capacity for compromise. Sometimes I feel that debates about recognition focus almost exclusively on what the Australian nation can do for its Indigenous people. For my part, I'm particularly interested in what Indigenous people have to offer contemporary Australia. A number of aspects of traditional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures could possibly be incorporated into contemporary Australian life and lead to far better outcomes for us all.' That's the basis upon which he participated in the debate.</para>
<para>I should note that, about 10 days before the Uluru statement in May 2017, an article appeared in <inline font-style="italic">The Australian</inline> by Stephen Fitzpatrick titled, 'Conservatives back "tangible" change model' for Indigenous recognition, where General Jeffery and Sir Angus Houston both backed the idea of a consultative mechanism—effectively a precursor to the voice that is mentioned in the Uluru statement as part of a package involving constitutional recognition. Often people think that the Uluru statement is a document of the Left. It is not that at all. Many of the ideas that underscore the Uluru statement actually came from Indigenous leaders engaging with constitutional conservatives like General Jeffery.</para>
<para>I want to finish by quoting his contribution at the end of his chapter about the importance of constitutional recognition in a substantive form. He said, 'Since 1967, the Australian parliament has had the power to make laws with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It's vital that the Australian parliament and all jurisdictional parliaments work in close consultation with Indigenous people in passing laws affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in order to identify new or better ways to ensure the restoration of pride, dignity and self-esteem, and that the gap is really closed. The need for consultation must be recognised as an integral part of the full recognition of our Indigenous peoples. We must commit ourselves to doing all of this in a way that continues to uphold the fundamental integrity of the Australian Constitution that has served the nation so well for over a century.' That's a very significant contribution from a very significant Australian. General Jeffery was, in any respect, one of the great military, vice-regal and cultural figures of the early part of this century. He leaves a great legacy. To his wife Marlena and their family, may his memory be a blessing.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I start by acknowledging the contribution that was just made by the member for Berowra, who, in a really fine contribution, honoured a great Australian in a way which certainly illuminated aspects of his life for me and for the country. It was a really fine contribution in this place, so thank you. For those of us in the class of 2007 and those of us in the class of 2004, Major General Michael Jeffery was the first Governor-General that we were introduced to as fresh-faced members of parliament. When we were in that queue lining up to shake his hand, the man we met was quiet—'austere' was the word that the member for Berowra used, and I think that's fair—but also a man of enormous authority and enormous dignity. Major General Michael Jeffery was the first career soldier to be Australia's Governor-General, and what a decorated career as a soldier that was. He was deployed in Malaya on secondment to the British Army. He was deployed in Borneo. He was deployed in Papua New Guinea, a country for which he formed a particular affection, like me, and a country which became a very special place for Michael Jeffery because it's also the place where he met and married his wife, Marlena. He was deployed in Vietnam where, as the commander of an infantry company in Operation Hammersley, he was awarded the Military Cross for his bravery and for his valour.</para>
<para>Major General Jeffery was the Commander of the Special Air Service Regiment in Perth and then, as Major General, the commander of the 1st Division of the Australian Army. In every sense he was a soldier's soldier, but his career, both in the Army and beyond, was so much more than that. I can remember talking to the current Chief of the Defence Force, when he was the Chief of Army, about why it was that people made a decision to join the army. If you want to go to sea, you join the navy. If you want to fly, you join the air force. But what was it that made people join the army particularly? He said that the basic platform of the navy is ships, the basic platform of the air force is planes but the platform of the army is people—the army is the people's service—and that was an idea which sat very well with Michael Jeffery. He was a people person and his life was about the service of people.</para>
<para>As a senior officer in the Army, he saw that married quarters for married personnel were in an appalling state and quite bravely, in a way which he was recommended not to do because it might affect his career, he went out and advocated for change in respect of those facilities. The result of his efforts led to the Defence Housing Authority. Later, as the Governor of Western Australia, he became aware that there was a sewage leak next to the Wiluna primary school, in the town of his birth. He got on the phone straightaway and had that leak fixed. He was a person who was always caring about others.</para>
<para>Major General Michael Jeffery served for 12 years in vice-regal office and he did so with distinction and honour. There is a delicate line to be walked, for those who serve in vice-regal office, with respect to the management of their own personal opinions, and it was a line that he walked with the utmost discretion, always on the appropriate side. However, one should not confuse that with an idea that Major General Michael Jeffery was anything other than a deeply thoughtful human being, and the contribution that we've just heard from the member for Berowra absolutely bears that out. He argued, for example, for the inclusion of Aboriginal history education in the curriculum of the schools in Western Australia. On leaving vice-regal office, he knew that one of the great challenges that would face humanity was how we were going to feed the human population into the middle of the century, how we were going to manage our water resources. So he established Soils for Life, knowing that in the most practical way soil quality was fundamental to the kind of agricultural production which would be required in order to meet that challenge.</para>
<para>Michael Jeffery was a man who was very humble. It's a repeated message that's come through in all of the eulogies about him. According to one of his staff, during his time as our 24th Governor-General he regarded himself as the nation's 'thankyouer-in-chief'. It says something about him that he was always interested in the contribution and in what others were doing, rather than in himself. His granddaughter said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Despite his capacity to walk with kings, the humbleness of the boy from Wiluna never really left him.</para></quote>
<para>It says a lot about Michael Jeffery. It says a lot about where his thought life was. It wasn't about his ego and it wasn't about his self; it was about others. The others who mattered most in his life, of course, were his family, and it is to them that our thoughts are most keenly directed at this moment: to Marlena, his wife, to his children and to his grandchildren. They will be feeling an enormous sense of loss and pain right now, but they can gain comfort from the idea that from their family came a remarkable Australian. Vale Major General Michael Jeffery.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge the fine words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Corio, and know that he said them with warmth and sincerity, with his usual genuine self when it comes to speaking on matters such as this. I think across the political divide we can all agree that Major General Michael Jeffery was a fine Australian. When I went to the recent Soils event, the member for Barton also spoke very eloquently about Michael Jeffery. It doesn't matter what your political persuasion, no matter what your station in life in Australia is, he has affected us all in one way, shape or form. We've lost one of our best and bravest with the passing of the former Governor-General.</para>
<para>Major General Michael Jeffery was not only a great Australian and respected military leader; he was someone who knew the importance of regional Australia. I and certainly the member for Dawson, beside me, know how important that is in the context of the country people we serve, because Michael Jeffery was one of us. He was one for all Australians. Australia could not have asked for a better soldier, a better statesman or a better person to advocate for the rural sector. I know how much importance he placed on being Australia's first National Soils Advocate. He was a man of the land. He loved the dirt and he wanted to improve it in every way possible. He hailed from Wiluna, in Western Australia, as the member for Corio has just indicated, and he never relinquished his early passion for agriculture and the healthy landscape on which it depends.</para>
<para>He was Australia's National Soils Advocate from October 2012 to August 2020, when he stepped aside due to ill health. This position was created as the dedicated specialist role to promote the importance of soil health, which underpins this country's agricultural industry. If you've got good soil and you've got good water management then country Australia benefits, all the nation benefits, as does our exports. It is a crucial role: overseeing delivery of soils research, development and education and finding new ways to boost soil management so it can improve nutrition and fibre quality. That's what Michael Jeffery was all about. It was a role about which he was passionate, because he knew the value of the land and its integral connection to Australian farming.</para>
<para>By championing soil health from Parliament House to the paddock, he successfully changed attitudes towards soil sustainability. Indeed, he energised change on farms right across Australia, and we are seeing the benefit of that now. We are seeing the benefit of the sorts of things that he had been championing all his life. Farming is set to expand from the $61 billion gross value of production this year to a $100 billion turnover in less than a decade from now, because our soil and water strategies will hit the mark. I know that in 2030 when—not if but when—that happens that will be a legacy, too, of his life. We cannot thank him enough for his service to this country, and we appreciate the attention he gave to agriculture, especially through his dedicated attention to promoting better soils and sustainability. I know I'm talking about soils a lot, but it was just one component of his life—just one portion of a life well lived—but it is an important one for me as a regional member.</para>
<para>His legacy will also be perpetuated through a new award named in his honour. The General Jeffery Soil Health Award was announced at the inaugural Parliamentary Friends of Soil function that I mentioned earlier, where the member for Barton spoke very eloquently. I know how important soil health is to the member for Barton, being a proud Wiradjuri woman. We know that Indigenous Australians looked after this land for tens of thousands of years. I know that this special award, this significant honour, was also very much appreciated by his family and indeed by General Jeffery himself. His name will live on not only for his significant contribution to Australia but also through this biennial award and the protection and preservation of one of our most precious resources—the very land beneath our feet.</para>
<para>There is much more work underway to build on this wonderful legacy. This year the government has a strong focus on agriculture and the environment. The 2021-22 budget will incorporate the resources needed to build a National Soil Strategy. Again, that is largely thanks to the work that Major General Michael Jeffery did. The Prime Minister confirmed this in his recent address to the National Press Club, and I know that he too shares this vision. This strategy will include practical actions and focus on the development of a national monitoring program to assess the condition of Australian soils research and development—again, things which were championed by Michael. The strategy will help with implementation, capacity building and extension work.</para>
<para>Soil husbandry is not a new concept. Bodies include the New South Wales Soils Conservation Service, which, over decades, has given a real practical lead in dealing with erosion and how to boost soil quality. Major General Jeffery—I called him Michael a minute ago, but we really should honour the man with his proper title—was a humble man, he was one of all of us, and he liked to be called by his Christian name. The pomp and ceremony was part of what he did as Governor-General and so much more, but he was very much a down-to-earth and plain-speaking man. From 2012 he was one of the original board members of Soils For Life, later stepping down from the chairmanship so he could focus on his prime-ministerial employment as Advocate for Soil Health. In his message as he left that chairmanship role he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We have worked hard to share regenerative principles and practices. We have supported change to farming practices to include carbon in our precious national asset the soil. Soil carbon benefits include resilience and food security, plant nutritional quality, improved water filtration and reduced erosion and nutrient run-off.</para></quote>
<para>Another founding member of Soils For Life, Alasdair MacLeod—and this is an interesting point—has likewise worked long and hard. We have seen him step forward just in recent weeks. Mr MacLeod chairs a group which owns Wilmot Cattle Company based at Ebor in the New England region. This business has now sealed the sale of carbon credits to global technology company Microsoft. That's a big step forward. Again, it's another thing that Michael Jeffery championed. In announcing the sale, Wilmot said it was 'focused on grazing management to build a resilient landscape, countering drought, especially by ensuring that they were not overgrazing'. So this focus on soil health is delivering payment for carbon sequestration—all of which, no doubt, will deliver even better soil management practices in the years and decades to come. Good care for our soils is delivering so much now, and there is so much more to come.</para>
<para>I also recognise the outstanding leadership of Michael Jeffery not just through the Armed Forces but also as Governor-General. He led by example. As the Prime Minister said, he was a man of faith, integrity and decency. I join with all members in extending condolences to his wife, Marlena, and his family. His legacy will live on, and it will keep building not just through a reward structure but because reliable water and fertile soils are, I believe and he believed, the pathway to our nation's future. Regional growth is highly reliant on quality soils and water. We all know that. Today we see regional growth leading our national economic recovery through COVID-19. Former Queensland Governor the Honourable Penny Wensley AC is our new National Soils Advocate. I welcome her. She builds on General Jeffery's work. We thank her for the way she is honouring the legacy of Michael Jeffery. I thank all members for their contributions on this very important condolence motion. Vale a truly great Australian.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to add to the contributions made by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Corio and others about the remarkable life of Major General Michael Jeffery. I first met Michael Jeffery in 2003 as a relatively new member of parliament. He was appointed Governor-General after what was clearly a very difficult and controversial period for the position of Governor-General given the way in which his predecessor resigned. It was up to Major General Michael Jeffery to restore normalcy to a very important office. He did that with the professionalism and dedication to duty that he had exhibited throughout his entire military career.</para>
<para>My memory of him in that very significant role is of civility, curiosity and a rather dry sense of humour. He held to the maxim that it's important to adhere to protocols in such positions. He was quite formal in his approach to engaging with members of parliament. But behind that official presentation, that visage, was a very humorous man who was always interested in talking about matters he had an interest in beyond his military career.</para>
<para>His career was one of great success. He left home, Perth, at the age of 16 and attended the Royal Military College Duntroon. He served our nation in Malaya, Papua New Guinea and Vietnam, where he was the commander of the 8th Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment and where he was awarded the Military Cross and the South Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He continued in his many roles in the military until he was appointed Governor of Western Australia in 1993. He held that important post for seven years, after which he was involved in establishing a think tank to consider medium- and long-term policy challenges that confronted this nation. He was a man of curiosity beyond his military career, and that was on display whenever we had the chance to discuss matters with him. In his role as Governor-General, he played an important part in restoring that office after a very turbulent period. He took to that task with the professionalism and dedication to duty that was a hallmark of his career.</para>
<para>He was also appointed, by the then Gillard government, as the Deputy Prime Minister just mentioned, as the first National Soils Advocate. He had a deep interest and concern for the environment and, as an advocate, he met many people, from the parliament to the paddock. He was engaged in that role, talking about ensuring that our environment could be improved, and his legacy will live on in that role as well.</para>
<para>I extend my condolences to his wife of more than 50 years, Marlena, his three sons and daughter and his seven grandchildren. Vale Major General Michael Jeffery.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I ask all those present to do so.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Honourable members having stood in their places—</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That further proceedings be conducted in the House.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 11:04</para>
<quote><para class="block"> </para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>