2021-03-15 46 1 5 House of Reps 0 1

Monday, 15 March 2021

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Petitions Committee 1 Report 1 10:01 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I present the 23rd report of the Petitions Committee for the 46th parliament. PETITIONS 1 PETITIONS National Disability Insurance Scheme 1 Trade with China 1 Telecommunications 1 COVID-19: Vaccination 1 Australian Centre for Disease Control 1 Health Care 2 COVID-19: Australians Overseas 2 Superannuation 2 COVID-19: Travel Restrictions 2 COVID 19: Australians Overseas 3 COVID-19: Australians Overseas 3 Temporary Graduate Visas 3 COVID 19: Australians Overseas 3 International Development Assistance 4 Climate Change 4 COVID-19: Travel Restrictions 4 Immigration 4 Vaccination 5 Cashless Payment Systems 5 COVID-19: Health 5 JobKeeper Payment: Tourism Industry 5 Skilled Visas 5 COVID-19: Australians Overseas 6 COVID 19: Australians Overseas 6 National Broadband Network 6 Small Business: Insurance 7 COVID-19: Australians Overseas 7 COVID 19: Australians Overseas 7 Climate Change 7 Superannuation 7 Rural and Regional Services: Health 8 Health Care 8 Australia Day 8 Superannuation 9 Overseas Students 9 Australian Constitution 9 Australia Day 9 Immigration Detention 10 Falun Gong 10 PETITIONS 10 PETITIONS Responses 10 10:01 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I present the following 15 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented: Australia Day 10 Partner Visas 11 Citizenship 12 COVID-19: International Travel 12 COVID-19: International Travel 13 Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme 13 Temporary Graduate Visas 14 Parliament 14 Leaders' Pledge for Nature 15 COVID-19: Visitor Visas 15 Telecommunications 15 Telecommunications 16 Samoa: Human Rights 17 Prime Minister 18 COVID-19: Travel Restrictions 18 PETITIONS 19 PETITIONS Statements 19 10:01 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn Mr Speaker, it's been nearly a year since the implementation of strict COVID-19 lockdown laws that impacted us all in different ways. Half of the petitions and ministerial responses that I present today regard COVID-19 and reflect the impacts of the pandemic still being felt throughout the nation a year later. The rest request action on a range of other diverse topics, indicating the genuine concern Australians have for their neighbours, their loved ones, and the environment. The committee's important role is to facilitate a passage for people to express these concerns. Practically, this involves: checking that each petition complies with the standing orders, including making sure the petition request relates to an issue on which the House has the power to act; publishing compliant e-petitions on the website to collect signatures; presenting petitions to the House; facilitating the receipt and presentation of ministerial responses to petitions; and updating petitioners on the progress of their petitions. The committee takes an impartial view on petition topics and does not provide comment on or engage in debate on the issues raised. In this way, we can facilitate the path of petitions through the House on the range of diverse topics mentioned, regardless of politics or opinion, and encourage direct citizen engagement with the parliament. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I look forward to further updating the House on the work of the committee. BILLS 19 BILLS Sex Discrimination Amendment (Prohibiting All Sexual Harassment) Bill 2021 19

Sex Discrimination Amendment (Prohibiting All Sexual Harassment) Bill 2021

First Reading 19 Second Reading 19 10:04 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Sex Discrimination Amendment (Prohibiting All Sexual Harassment) Bill 2021 is critically important. So many women and men around Australia are saying enough is enough today and are marching for justice. It is baffling that these amendments have not already been implemented and even more so that the government did not take up my invitation some weeks ago to present it themselves. Kate Jenkins, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, summed it up nicely in her foreword to the Respect@Work report tabled last year: Sexual harassment is not a women's issue: it is a societal issue, which every Australian, and every Australian workplace, can contribute to addressing. Workplace sexual harassment is not inevitable. It is not acceptable. It is preventable. Sexual harassment is not illegal in all circumstances. Many are not adequately protected, nor personally liable, for sexual harassment, in particular MPs—members of parliament in this place—and judges. In 2008, the Australian Human Rights Commission submitted that the act should be clarified so statutory appointees, judges and members of parliament were adequately protected, as well as personally liable. The Prime Minister, following the inquiry into the former High Court Justice Heydon, called those allegations 'very disturbing and very concerning'. Shockingly, much of what Dyson Heydon did was not 'illegal' under the current legislation due to the nature of the employment arrangement between judges and their associates. This year, we have heard of allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault of very grave nature 'occurring' in this place. While some of those instances were assaults and are therefore covered under criminal law, it is important to recognise the enabling conditions that can contribute to assault. Sexual harassment must be prohibited in all circumstances. We need to talk about it and we need laws that support victims. The legislation as it stands is not good enough to protect all in their workplaces, and we need this amendment. Respect@Work The Respect@Work report delivered by the Australian Human Rights Commission to the government in March 2020, a year ago, had 55 recommendations. Three have been partially implemented. The foreword to that report states that Australia was once a leader in prohibiting sexual harassment. It further states: However, over 35 years on, the rate of change has been disappointingly slow. Australia now lags behind other countries in preventing and responding to sexual harassment. The Australian Human Rights Commission survey in 2018 found that one in three people experienced sexual harassment at work in the last five years. Those statistics should be shocking. The Human Rights Commission also found that 'the current legal and regulatory system is simply no longer fit for purpose'. The amendments presented today go some way to addressing the gaps in advance of broader reform. Based on data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in the last 12 months: 1.6 million people were sexually harassed, the majority of which were not formally reported; 201,000 people were allegedly sexually assaulted; police were notified of 23,000 of these assaults, just over 10 per cent of the cases; and approximately 5,000 people were convicted of sexual assault. This has a dramatic impact on the health and wellbeing of the Australian population and even translates into an economic impact. To give the coalition a fact that speaks to its focus: Deloitte found that workplace sexual harassment costs the Australian economy $3.5 billion annually, including approximately $2.6 billion in lost productivity. We need legislative reform to urgently address this issue. Parliament The allegations we have heard this year from Ms Higgins and others of their harassment and even assault here in Parliament House reinforce the need for a change to the legislation. Grace Tame, the Australian of the Year, has told us that the most powerful thing we can do for victims is to talk about the incidence of harassment, grooming and assault. It is empowering and it encourages others to come forward to tell their story. It helps to prevent further incidents of abuse. And it reduces the stigma on victims, shifting the shame to the perpetrators where it rightly belongs. Conclusion Creating legislation to make sure that MPs and judges are held to the same standard as others in their workplaces is important. To the members in this place, it is our job. To the government, adopt this bill and demonstrate a commitment to integrity and reform. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. If you fail to adopt this amendment, you are endorsing sexual harassment in our workplace. You are saying MPs should not be held to the same standard as others. This amendment has been recommended in various forms by the Law Council, the Human Rights Commission and the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs since 2008. The people of Australia are tired of words, they want action. It has been on the to-do list for too long. It's time to make this change now. In the spirit of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we need to tackle inequality in the law with one piece of legislation at a time. What better place to start than the Sex Discrimination Act. The SPEAKER 10000 Is the motion seconded? 10:10 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I second the motion. It is a pleasure to second this vital and overdue bill from the member for Warringah, and I commend the member's leadership and initiative. It's this kind of initiative that, regrettably, we haven't seen from the government to amend this bill themselves. As the member for Warringah pointed out, a mere three of the 55 recommendations from the Respect@Work report that Sex Discrimination Commissioner Dr Kate Jenkins handed to the Attorney-General over a year ago have been implemented. Three out of 55 is quite simply appalling. I'm certain Australians will not tolerate similar treatment of any recommendations that come out of Dr Jenkins's next review of workplace culture here in Parliament House. This bill corrects a glaring gap in the Sex Discrimination Act. The act specifies the circumstances in which sexual harassment is prohibited. Unfortunately, it's drafted in a way that excludes statutory appointees like MPs and judges from being protected from or liable for sexual harassment. For over a decade, inquiries and reviews have pointed this out and called on successive governments to amend the act to expressly include MPs and judges. A decade of no action is also quite simply appalling. Since I arrived in this place, it has, sadly, become clear to me that the government has essentially no interest in advancing integrity policy and reform in this country. For example, last October I introduced the Commonwealth Parliamentary Standards Bill to this House. That bill would establish a code of conduct for all MPs and their staff that prohibits the mistreatment and harassment of any person in this workplace, including sexual harassment. That bill would also establish an independent parliamentary standards commissioner, who would confidentially handle complaints from MPs and their staff who've been mistreated, and would put the needs of victims first. I asked the Attorney-General on numerous occasions last year to allow me to debate that bill, but I was refused. This afternoon, tens of thousands of Australians will march in the streets to tell the government that they're fed up with inaction on important issues like this. Just imagine if the government had actually tried to progress the work a year ago when the Respect@Work report was handed over to the Attorney-General. Just imagine the position we'd be in to respond to the horrific allegations that have surfaced over the past months if the government had been courageous enough to debate the Commonwealth Parliamentary Standards Bill. Just imagine if this bill brought today by the member for Warringah was debated and enacted. How long will it take for the government to realise that bills like these are not political show ponies or dog whistles, that bills like these are real, urgent, evidence based reform that would make our workplace safer; that bills like these would start to restore the respect and trust that Australians have lost in this government and this institution? I commend this bill to the House and I call on the government to debate this and other integrity bills that are before the House without delay. The SPEAKER 10000 The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 21 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Banking and Financial Services 21 10:14 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the final report of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry highlighted widespread misconduct across the financial sector; (b) the Commissioner, the Honourable Kenneth Madison Hayne AC QC, made clear that primary responsibility for misconduct in the financial sector lies with the institutions concerned and their boards and senior management; (c) the final report made specific note that the transparency and internal governance processes of a number of financial institutions did not meet community standards; (d) after a request from the Treasurer on 1 August 2019, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics has run an inquiry into the review of the four major banks and other financial institutions which seeks to review the financial sector's implementation of recommendations from the Royal Commission; and (e) IFM Investors is an Australian investment management company which is wholly owned by 27 Australian superannuation funds and which manages $148 billion as of September 2020; (2) is disappointed that IFM Investors has refused to provide information to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, including the: (a) reported $36 million bonus to a single fund manager; (b) severance payment and terms for staff alleged to have engaged in sexual harassment; (c) details and terms of bonuses paid by IFM Investors to their executives and fund managers, paid from Australian's compulsory superannuation; and (d) deliberate attempt to launder transparency and accountability of the use and misuse of Australian's compulsory superannuation by keeping information confidential from the Parliament of Australia; and (3) calls upon the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics to use its power to compel evidence and documents from IFM Investors to ensure transparency and accountability and to ensure that IFM Investors is acting in the best interests of ordinary Australians, not fund managers. The banking royal commission was called by this government some 24 months ago. I must confess that, while some people love Beethoven and others a good ballet, I've always loved finance. My first job was lifting reinforced metal for Smorgon, now ARC, but my second job was at the Credit Union Services Corporation. I always from that point forward remember marvelling at the extraordinary contribution that finance has made to our modern society. The payment system and credit creation alone create 90 per cent of our financial sector in our economy. The financial services sector remains one of humanities great achievements. It has driven more growth, more innovation and more prosperity than any other invention that we have managed thus far to come up with. So many of our achievements can be traced back to finance. Often we find that inventions—for example, the telephone—were invented hundreds of years before they became commercialised. The difference was not that the invention was better 100 years later but rather that the inventor had access to capital. The steam engine has a similar story. When Pitt the Younger was asked how it was that Great Britain prevailed over Napoleon in the Napoleonic Wars, the parliament expected him to reply, 'It was Nelson.' Instead he replied, 'It was the government bond market.' Literally, the bond market allowed the United Kingdom to outspend Napoleon and the French. In The Wisdom of Finance, Mihir Desai is able to demonstrate better than I ever could that the modern world in which we live would not be possible without modern finance—everything from insurance to hedges, forwards and leverage. All these things make our lives inextricably better and possible. We would not be able to drive a car without insurance, because without insurance we would be in the prospect of being responsible for the financial outcome of an accident or a crash every time we had one. Insurance allows us to derisk our lives. Most of the protections that existed for customers in engaging with their banks have been systematically undermined, however, by modern society over the years. Common law rights that existed for customers are now encoded in law. Even ASIC, which quite frankly is very much part of the problem that consumers now face in the financial sector, admits that the consumer law reforms of the late 1990s under the Howard government were counterproductive. Who would have guessed that laws such as CLERP 8 and CLERP 9 that force financial sector providers to produce hundreds of pages of PDSs would not be read by consumers and would be taken by them as signs of important examples that the product that they were using or that they were about to purchase must be credible because the paper on which it came was glossy and thick enough. We know now that the laws that we introduce to protect consumers have actually done the opposite. So, when some in this place insisted that the answer to the problems in banking was more lawyers, I was slightly sceptical. What is another few hundred million dollars thrown at a royal commission to see if lawyers that created this problem could somehow undo it? After all, those Portsea mansions don't pay for themselves. What was uncovered at the Hayne royal commission was disturbing. We saw a culture that had developed under the very laws that we had sought to use to protect consumers that allowed bankers and the financial sector to instead rip consumers off. They were no longer working in the interests of their customers but were working in the interests of themselves and their bonuses. But what was not uncovered was even more disturbing. The House committee has been reviewing the financial services sector and post-Hayne implementation. What we have discovered is a cesspool of self-interest and consumers being denied their basic rights. If I did not believe that lawyers and regulators had created these problems in the first place, I would be demanding a royal commission now into those parts of the financial sector that the Hayne royal commission, for whatever reason, decided to ignore. Indeed, Counsel Assisting Rowena Orr's lack of curiosity in this regard was striking. She kept Catherine Brenner in the stand for three days to go through emails sent to and received from ASIC, yet, when superannuation funds presented themselves at the Hayne royal commission and freely admitted to spending tens of millions of dollars on corporate hospitality to benefit no-one but themselves, counsel assisting simply moved on. She did not feel that it was worth investigating any further. What we have found is a superannuation system that Australians are forced to contribute their money to, without being asked if they would like to do so. The system spends $400 million on advertising, promoting itself, even though it doesn't have a problem actually getting people to buy its product, because we have legislated that people are forced to buy it. We have been told that, if this parliament dares to exercise its sovereign right to change and make laws, the superannuation system will unleash hell upon this parliament. We have found corporate marketing, as disclosed at the Hayne royal commission, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, and other superannuation funds that feel that they are above the law and therefore do not have to answer those questions. As we stand here today, we have no idea how much money the superannuation sector spends on corporate marketing to the benefit of themselves and their mates and to the disbenefit of their members—they simply refuse to disclose to this parliament how much that is. We had the unedifying example of a Queensland superannuation fund donating money to a political party. When the regulator, Helen Rowell from APRA, was asked how this was in the best interests of members and therefore not in violation of the law, she answered it was not a material amount of money. So we now have regulators in this space—perhaps some of them have been beneficiaries of the tens of millions of dollars that we have thus far discovered being spent on corporate marketing—who are determining what parts of the law they will and will not actually regulate. They have taken it upon themselves to decide what this parliament meant and what laws from this parliament they will impose on superannuation funds. So the members no longer have the protection of the law, and nor do they have protection of the regulators. One has to ask why. Why would a royal commission not find this slightly curious and worthy of investigation? We had the unedifying example of the head of Industry Super Holdings, an industry super association, telling us that they don't make political donations. The only problem was that the party that had received those political donations had declared them to the Australian Electoral Commission, so they were caught out. In their answer back to the committee they told us that they don't make political donations, that they didn't think the moneys they had given over to a political party had been disclosed and so therefore their answer stood. That is the attitude of superannuation funds and associations in Australia today. They think they can break the law as long as they don't get caught. And then we have regulators who decide that superannuation funds haven't broken the law enough for them to impose the law on them. Then we have the situation of Industry Super Holdings. Technically, they are outside the law. They don't have to comply with the best-interests test, which this parliament has imposed on superannuation funds but APRA has decided not to actually enforce, for reasons that they can never properly explain, other than the fact that they feel it's not material. We have ASIC determining that they will persecute—and I use that world advisedly—real estate agents while ignoring the head of Industry Super giving financial advice across Channel 9, Channel 7 and other news. We have IFM refusing to come to a committee of this parliament and disclose how much it paid out an employee for sexual harassment charges. We have situations where super funds are paying The New Daily and paying the ABC, but they won't disclose how much they pay the national broadcaster and its economics editor. This is— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Is the motion seconded? A government member interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 The question is that the motion be agreed to. 10:25 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser What a bogus, ideologically-driven and self-indulgent motion this is. This member for Mackellar's motion is based upon a completely misrepresentative notion that this government called the Hayne royal commission, when in fact the government voted against it 26 times. It was a royal commission this government never wanted, and that is crystal clear from the fact that this government is dragging its feet in implementing its recommendations. What we have in this motion is a complete misrepresentation of the financial services sector by calling to account a part of the financial services sector that is outperforming the average and providing great benefits for its members. This government, as it has shown through its actions over the last two years, does not want to put into place basic recommendations that the Hayne royal commission made, which are absolutely overdue and which would respond to some absolutely heartbreaking instances of malfeasance, malpractice and abuse of vulnerable people. This government, after two years, has implemented only around a third of the recommendations of the royal commission. Yet we get this motion which calls into question organisations that were given a clean bill of health by that very royal commission. Instead, what we have is a backbench of those opposite which calls into question a core election promise that those opposite made in the lead-up to the last election—to respect the SGL increase that both parties took to the last election. Instead, what we have is every galah opposite with a policy—their own random policy—on superannuation, but no-one with a clue. Let's look at IFM and some of the bizarre accusations made by those opposite. IFM came out of the Hayne royal commission, as did the industry sector overall, with a clean bill of health. That was not the area of the financial services sector that the Hayne royal commission said needed attention. Indeed, IFM has cooperated greatly with the House economics committee. They've answered dozens and dozens and dozens of detailed questions. They have appeared before the committee multiple times. Have any other fund managers been called? No. That reflects the fact that the House economics committee is being used for ideological fancies. Let's look at the industry sector as a whole. Let's take a step back. Industry super funds delivered an average of two per cent long-term outperformance over retail funds. Yet those opposite spend all their attention on little ideological ploys to try to bring— Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Order. The member for Goldstein will cease interjecting. Dr MULINO 132880 the industry funds into the public eye. ISFs have performed outstandingly in terms of short-term and long-term returns. So this is not based on any kind of substance. This motion is based upon those opposite trying to use the House economics committee and trying to use this chamber to misrepresent a significant part of our financial services sector, to try to hide the fact that this government has done almost nothing to implement royal commission recommendations that are absolutely essential and overdue when it comes to those parts of the sector that were found to be most in need of reform. What are they looking at instead? They're looking at this bizarre, fanciful notion of housing instead of super. Those opposite are obsessed with the rhetoric of choice, but what they're really creating is not choice. They're setting up a false choice—that you can have a house or you can have super—when, sensibly, the Australian public understands that they deserve both. What about public policy experts? What about those who see this as an absolute joke of a policy not founded in any kind of commonsense microeconomic analysis? What about Sally Loane, CEO of the FSC, who said early release for housing would be 'counterproductive and further inflate house prices' and would 'simply mask the underlying cause of unaffordability'? Is there a holistic approach? Is there a demand side approach? No. What about Michael Sukkar—who I don't usually agree with—who said that this is a classic example? The classic example was the Howard government's $7,000 First Home Owner Grant, which may as well have been given straight to developers. So what we're going to have is those opposite trying to get first homeowners bidding against first homeowners, cashed up to the gills in an economy where there's too much credit. What a joke of a motion. (Time expired) 10:30 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I'm proud to support the member for Mackellar's motion on this important subject, because in the House Economics Committee we look at issues that directly affect Australians, and what we know is that we have had a royal commission led by Kenneth Hayne into misconduct in the banking and financial services sector. He did a job, but he didn't do the whole job. Sadly, after he handed down his report, we have seen time and time again clear consequences of where there wasn't a full investigation into some parts of the financial services industry, where there has been conduct that's been covered up and where there has been a failure to take action. Now we are simply seeking to shine a bright light in dark places. Let's look at the simple facts. While the royal commission gave so-called industry funds a clean bill of health, that isn't now the view of ASIC, who is taking direct action against REST Super for engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct. Laws have to be brought before this parliament to change the requirements, because industry super funds were deliberately reactivating low-balance inactive accounts. As a consequence, they were rolling over money, taking insurance premiums and fees for members with money that should have been rolled into the Australian Taxation Office. And of course we see the ongoing laundering of money through one of their major wholesale funds called IFM Investors. I don't dissuade or discourage the use of such funds, but when they are directly connected to the retirement savings of Australians they have the same degree of accountability as, of course, super funds of all persuasions—retail, industry and government funds. But when we have put questions to IFM Investors about simple information, like those on the reports and the allegations of bonuses, paid for by Australian retirees and retirement savings of Australians, of up to $36 million—which is not a number I came up with but the number that one of their former employees boasted about as part of legal proceedings—and when we simply want to know what are the structures of those payment systems, IFM Investors will not answer to this parliament. We want to know: How much money? What are the maximum bonuses paid? This parliament has asked the question; IFM Investors refuse to answer it. When we ask the big banks, they give us that information. When, to their credit, we ask industry super funds or retail funds, they give us the information. But IFM Investors will not, and it's simply unacceptable. We know on the public record that at least bonuses of nearly $13 million have been made, and what we know is that the structure of their bonus systems are directly proportionate to their activity, so where does it end? Members on the other side of this chamber come into this parliament and complain about the bonuses of other corporates, and that's fair enough—there should be a proportionate relationship between the activity and the outcome. It takes money to hire people of talent, but can anybody say that out of the retirement savings of millions of Australians a single fund manager could be given $36 million in bonuses and that that passes not just a pub test but even the Labor Party's own test they impose on the rest of the community? We know that the former member who spoke went on—and I'm sure the ones who will follow will go on—long rants of defence trying to distract, because they don't want a proper focus or scrutiny on these organisations because they're part of the structure, the ecosystem, that funds the modern Labor Party. But the reality is we need accountability in this place. If centralised and organised capital being used for ends and they want to make a virtue of it then they need to back it up with responsibility and accountability. Finally, I know that the former member for Fraser gave a lengthy criticism of the principle that we want to prioritise homeownership. Make no mistake: I absolutely support homeownership for all Australians. Nobody is saying homeownership should come at the expense of superannuation, but we are saying that the biggest financial decision any Australian makes is to buy their own home. If anybody in this chamber wants to make an argument that that isn't the case, they're free to do so. The second-biggest decision is superannuation, but, currently, the law is socially engineered in favour of super at the expense of homes. Young Australians are paying the price, and those opposite ought to be ashamed of themselves. 10:35 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I'm the current member for Fenner and the former member for Fraser, unlike Daniel Mulino, who is the current member for Fraser. It's a matter which sometimes causes confusion in this place. Confusion is also clearly present in the minds of those listening to Liberals taking credit for a banking royal commission that they voted against 26 times. The coalition speakers on this bill have all cast votes against a banking royal commission. The current Prime Minister called it a 'reckless populist whinge'. At least Malcolm Turnbull had the honour to stand up and say that he was wrong in opposing a banking royal commission. I haven't heard that from the current Prime Minister. The delays in the banking royal commission caused excessive pain for the victims of misconduct in the financial sector, and no-one now thinks that the banking royal commission was a mistake. Yet now we have the coalition attempting to go against the first recommendation of the banking royal commission, which was that responsible lending laws not be watered down. We've seen the House Economics Committee delay hearings with the major banks. The committee put the hearings off for almost six months when the pandemic hit, a time when the banks were deserving of increased scrutiny. Now we have this ridiculous motion on IFM, which has been assisting the House of Representatives Economics Committee since 2019. IFM appeared on two occasions over 12 months, and its parent company, Industry Super Holdings, has appeared once. IFM answered almost 100 questions for the committee in writing and responded to many more during its appearances. That, of course, comes at a cost to IFM. The cost of complying isn't paid by the individual Liberal members; it is paid by the Australian mums and dads who have their money in investments held by IFM. That's an administration cost. The party that rails against red tape has ended up imposing an administrative burden on superannuants. There are many asset managers out there—BlackRock, Perpetual, JP Morgan, AllianceBernstein, First Sentier, Pendal, Credit Suisse—but the committee hasn't called any of those. Why not? Because they're not part of industry super. What we have here is a motion which symbolises the Liberals' continued culture war against industry super, a system set up not only by unions but by unions working with employers. If there's one thing those opposite hate more than unions, it's unions working collaboratively with business. That's what industry super is. Industry super has managed to achieve much better returns than its retail counterpart because of one simple fact: it's not paying a profit. All of the returns are going back to members. IFM has worked with the committee, despite the fact that the Hayne royal commission made no findings against IFM and did not call on it to appear. IFM's chair, Greg Combet, was appointed by the Prime Minister to the government's National COVID-19 Commission. IFM meets all of its regulatory requirements. As has been repeatedly explained to the committee, if IFM were to provide commercially sensitive information, which its competitors are not required to do, it would be placed at a competitive disadvantage. The losers from that wouldn't be the staff of IFM. The losers would be the people whose money is being invested by IFM. This is not about the royal commission. This is about a petty, vindictive, ideological campaign by the Liberal members of the House of Representatives Economics Committee against industry superannuation. I'm not sure they have thought through what the impact would be if they were to go to their friends in the private sector—if they were to go to some of the commercial funds managers that I've mentioned—and ask them for the sorts of commercial-in-confidence information. I close on the member for Goldstein's continued campaign for Australians to have to choose between owning a home and retiring with dignity. He has been attacked most recently by former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who said: "Diverting even more savings into housing is simply just going to bid up the price of housing … I mean, that is, honestly … the worst possible argument." The former Prime Minister has said: "Politicians and public servants have a compulsory 15.4% super contribution … …   …   … … isn't it … somewhat patronising … to say that working people … should … settle for nine and a half?" The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Cowan, Mrs Edith Dircksey, OBE 26 10:40 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) 12 March 2021 is the 100th anniversary of Edith Cowan's election to the seat of West Perth in the Western Australian Legislative Assembly, making her the first woman elected to any Australian parliament; (b) Edith Cowan was an extraordinary and tireless advocate for the rights of women and children, and she sought and won election to the Legislative Assembly in an effort to strengthen those rights; and (c) in addition to her elected office, she was also a campaigner for women's suffrage, a major contributor to many social welfare organisations and a noted jurist; (2) recognises Edith Cowan's remarkable legacy, which is commemorated in the names of Edith Cowan University and the federal electoral division of Cowan, as well as in artistic works such as the play, With Fire in her Heart: The Edith Cowan Story, a retelling of her life which premiered at the 2021 Perth Fringe Festival; and (3) commits to upholding Edith Cowan's contributions to Australian civil society by working to further the rights of women and children in all spheres of Australian life. I'm really happy to stand here and put forward this motion to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the election of Edith Cowan, the first woman to be elected to any parliament in Australia. Edith Cowan was born on Glengarry Station in 1861. Her mother died at a very, very early age, and she grew up in a boarding school. At the age of 15, she was orphaned when her father was sent to the gallows and hung for the crime of shooting her stepmother in a drunken rage after having squandered the family's finances on alcohol. Edith Cowan was married at the age of 18, and she became prominent in the women's suffrage movement throughout Western Australia. She was an advocate for public education and the rights of women and children, including children born to single mothers. She was the first woman to serve on the board of education. She founded the Children's Protection Society in 1906, which helped establish the Children's Court. She later became a justice of the Children's Court in 1915. She co-founded the women's service guild in 1909. She established the state branch of the National Council of Women in 1911. She helped establish the King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women and was a member of their advisory board in 1916. She became a justice of the peace in 1920. Her legacy is long. She did so much in the cause of women and children throughout her life. In 1921, she decided to run for the Western Australian Legislative Assembly. It was a big undertaking for her, and it wasn't well received by many of the members of the Western Australian public, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can tell you that. They argued that she should be at home looking after her children, despite the fact that her youngest of five children was 35 years old. She won her seat in West Perth running for the Nationalist Party in 1921, where she, ironically, defeated the incumbent Attorney-General, Thomas Draper, who was the one who actually introduced the legislation that allowed women to stand for parliament in the first place. Edith Cowan's legacy cannot be understated. Her portrait appears on the $50 note. She has a university named after her, Edith Cowan University, of which I am a proud three-time graduate, and, of course, the electorate of Cowan named after her, and it is an absolute honour to represent an electorate that is named after such a formidable woman. I had the pleasure, during the couple of weeks of the Perth fringe festival, to attend a play called With Fire in her Heart, which was written by Trevor Todd about the life of Edith Cowan. That play was written at the Peter Cowan Writers Centre, which is housed in Edith Cowan House at the Edith Cowan University campus in Joondalup and is named after Edith's grandson, Peter Cowan. The play With Fire in her Heart tells the story of Edith Cowan through the eyes of her grandson, Peter Cowan. Watching the play brought many, many emotions for me. It not only portrayed Edith as an incredible and remarkable humanitarian, a champion of the rights of those less fortunate than her, but also portrayed her own struggles in her life, particularly her personal life, with the death of her mother at such an early age, being sent to boarding school, the death of her father under such tragic circumstances and the kinds of challenges that she had to face becoming a member of parliament. When she first got elected, she won by a very, very small margin, and I cried at that bit, because I know exactly how that feels. Even my husband, who was sitting next to me, had a little something in his eye during the times of the play where her husband was portrayed. He was such a wonderful support for her and for her aspirations to enter parliament as well. I note that Edith Cowan served only one term. She lost her seat in 1924 and ran unsuccessfully in 1927. I think there's something to be learned in that. How interesting it is that such a trailblazer of a woman, such a trailblazer for women's rights and for women's position in parliament, lost her seat after only one term, because today women on all sides of politics are overwhelmingly represented in marginal seats and have to fight really hard to keep their seats. We tend to say we'll give winnable seats to women, but those winnable seats are often the marginal seats. So perhaps on this day we could recognise and remind ourselves that it's a good thing for all political parties to nominate women in seats that they can hold for a little bit longer than just one term. It's especially fitting that I speak on this motion today and that the 100th anniversary of Edith Cowan's election fell on Friday, as we have tens of thousands of women today marching to demand justice, fairness and an end to discrimination, harassment and violence in their workplaces, in public spaces and in their homes. I think about Edith Cowan and what she would have done. What would Edith Cowan have done if she were here today? I think she would have been there. She would have been right here in this place, right there raising her voice in a collective shout, demanding to be heard. It's also fitting that Edith Cowan's 100th anniversary of being elected came at the end of the week of International Women's Day, where the theme was 'Choose to Challenge'. We no longer have the luxury of choice, if ever indeed we had the luxury of choosing to challenge. Today we are compelled to challenge, as Edith was. We are compelled to speak out, as Edith was. We don't get to choose anymore. It is no longer a choice. We cannot stay silent, just as Edith could not. She had no choice but to run for politics, to see the change that she wanted to see for the rights of women and children. Today we have a moment and an opportunity to honour the legacy of Edith Cowan, to honour the legacy of a woman who stood against all odds—a remarkable and formidable woman who would not be silenced, who did not see challenges, but saw a responsibility to be there, to be at that table, to speak, and who refused to stay silent, not for herself but for those who did not have a voice. We have a moment. We have a moment today, right here, in this place. Let's not squander that moment. Let none of us walk out of here today feeling that we had squandered the opportunity to challenge. Let none of us walk out of here today feeling that we did not take up that responsibility to challenge, because we can no longer stay silent—enough is enough. We are compelled to speak out. We are compelled to join the voices of tens of thousands of women across Australia to speak out against discrimination, against harassment and against violence towards women and children. Edith would have wanted that. Edith would have wanted us to be here today and to speak out against these injustices. Let's do it for Edith. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Order! Is the motion seconded? 10:50 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin I second the motion. I thank the member for Cowan for moving this important motion. I also thank her for extending the hand of friendship, particularly over the last four weeks. It may not be apparent to those who look on to the political world, but it is quite possible for people who have different political views to actually be friends and like each other. Last Friday, I had the honour of commemorating Edith Cowan at a roll call of organisations which Edith had either founded or was actively involved with throughout her life. As I stood at the memorial clock which was built in her honour at the entrance to Kings Park, I saw and met with representatives from organisations that continue to do so much good in our community—organisations like the RSPCA, Ngala, the Red Cross, the National Council of Women, the Karrakatta Club and Girl Guides. Edith Cowan's legacy is not confined to history; she does not sit silently on the back of the $50 note. Her story does not start and end with being the first woman elected to an Australian parliament. Edith's achievements, her voice and what she strove for continue to echo in our community today. We see it in women serving in parliaments across Australia. We see it in generations of children who were born safely at King Edward Memorial Hospital, and we see it in the women, like me, who were able to enter professions because of the passage of the Women's Legal Status Act. One hundred years ago, Western Australia was still recovering from the effects of the First World War. Women had been granted the right to sit in parliament only in 1920. Edith's decision to run for the seat of West Perth was made only a month prior to the election. She faced harsh criticism for running for parliament, with many in the community viewing parliamentary representation as a man's job. Winning by just 46 votes, Edith put her success down to the support of women. In an interview two days after her election, she said: I did not want to contest the election, and certainly would not have come out if it had not been for the earnestness with which the women asked me to. It was the loyalty of women to a woman that won the election for me, and it is in no way a personal success. It is a victory for them. It would be four months following her election before Edith would deliver her maiden speech. The usual decorum and silence observed when a member delivers their maiden speech was dispensed with for Edith, with many of the male members in the House rudely interjecting throughout. Edith said in that speech: It is a great responsibility to be the only woman here, and I want to emphasise the necessity which exists for other women being here. …   …   … … it has been fairly proved in this House to-day that women can and do stand by women, and will stand by women in the future … Edith would go on to say: The views of both sides are more than ever needed in Parliament to-day. If men and women can work for the State side by side and represent all the different sections of the community, and if the male members of the House would be satisfied to allow women to help them and would accept their suggestions when they are offered, I cannot doubt that we should do very much better work in the community than was ever done before. Edith was determined that she was not going to be a momentary parliamentary novelty; she was there to get things done. Her contributions throughout her three years in parliament would be many and varied, from advocating for mandatory registration and training for nurses, to supporting taxation incentives to create employment in the south-west. But Edith's time in parliament was also marked by constant derision by many in the parliament. In fact, the WA government didn't even want to undertake the work to put in a female bathroom at Parliament House because of the cost. This meant Edith would walk to her home nearby to use the bathroom. Yet Edith strove on as a strong voice and as a strong representative for her community. Edith was not afraid to call out the government when she thought they were getting a policy wrong or to make her voice heard on matters of importance. In 1921, Edith was the only woman in the chamber, a sole voice in that place seeking to change how society saw the role of women in society. The job was tough, but so was she. She had to be. One hundred years later, the job of being a member of parliament is still tough, as are plenty of other jobs and professions. But surely the product of 100 years of progress should not see us still asking the question as to whether women are strong enough to do this job or, indeed, any other job. Surely what we should be questioning is whether the so-called toughness we are being called on to exhibit is justifiable, whether it is right or whether it serves any legitimate purpose at all. To want respect in a workplace, to want to be free from harassment or assault in your workplace—or in the world more generally—has nothing to do with whether you are tough enough. This is simply a prerequisite for a just and humane society. Over the past few weeks, I have reflected, as I think many of us here have reflected, on the culture of this place and society more broadly. I have listened to the views and stories of many people from this place and others and I, like many, have been distressed, angered, despondent and conflicted. I have been reminded of the girl and young woman I once was. The one who was smart but wanted to be smarter; the one who had friends but wanted to be a cool girl; the one who spent years suffering from anorexia and depression because she wanted to be perfect and have full control; the one who did things, allowed things to be done to her and had things done to her that, quite simply, made her feel the shame that so many victims-survivors talk about. One hundred years ago, as Edith fought to have the Women's Legal Status Bill passed, the question before parliamentarians was whether women should be allowed in the professions. Today the question must be: why is it that we still have workplaces where sexual harassment and assault exists? And why do we have workplaces where women still have to adapt their behaviour and adapt their mode of operating to get their work done and their voices heard? It is clear that there is a need for cultural change in society and in parliament. Women and men marching across Australia today are rightly demanding changes: changes that ensure people feel safe reporting incidents of sexual assault and harassment; changes that empower and ensure bystanders call out inappropriate behaviour when they see it; and changes to our processes and systems and even—dare I suggest it—to our criminal justice system, because it is clear that the status quo is inadequate in dealing with complaints and crimes of sexual assault and harassment. We must preserve the pillar of our justice system that a person is innocent until proven guilty, but we need to ensure that in so doing we do not re-traumatise victims-survivors and that we do not send mixed messages about whether they should come forward with their stories. There is a vacuum at the moment, one which is being filled in the most vile and unsatisfactory way, one which neither helps victims-survivors nor those who have been accused. Most importantly, we must change the types of behaviour and attitudes that lead to harassment and assault. I recognise that in workplaces, particularly in politics, where the power hierarchies are so deeply embedded, it may be easier said than done to change the culture. This is why we as members in this place have to lead by example and reflect on our own behaviour. It is why we must listen to the voices of others, put aside our own inherent biases and prejudices and ways of thinking and engage in a truly genuine nonpartisan process, not one that is carried out via a polemical tit-for-tat or the vile anonymous sewer that inhabits vast portions of social media. We must refuse to accept that just because it has always been this way it should continue that way. Personally, I refuse to accept that an acceptable response to all of this is to suck it up, toughen up, move on. That may have been the way that I and others learnt to deal with things but, while this may work for some and on some issues, it does not serve everyone and it certainly doesn't lead to the change we need. To the next person who thinks about telling me or someone else to toughen up, suck it up or move on, I say: just don't. It's a special honour to serve in this place. As we go forward, let us do so with Edith Cowan's voice ringing in our ears and spurring us on to make real change. 11:01 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor It's an absolute pleasure to follow both the member for Cowan and member for Curtin today—two great friends from Western Australia and two great women. I want to echo the things that they have said, but I will take this debate into a different direction, if I may. I'd like first to pay tribute to the suffragette movement in Australia that not only led change in this country but then travelled to the UK and led change around the world. It is the centenary of Edith Cowan's election, and that was only possible because of the work of Australian women. It's a week since International Women's Day. I stand here with many sisters around the parliament, with independents, with Labor colleagues, with a female minister at the table this morning. I want to help celebrate the women that are in this parliament and mark how women came to be in this parliament. I want to do so on the back of International Women's Day and on the back of that hashtag, #ChooseToChallenge. I want to challenge the women who are in this chamber today to continue to challenge, as I asked young people in my electorate to do last week on International Women's Day. I reminded them of the suffragettes' journey, I reminded them of Edith Cowan's election 100 years ago, but I also reminded them of the things that need to be in place to continue to ensure that we increase women's representation in this parliament. Of course, I followed the former member for Lalor, former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, into this place. I reminded those young people last week that there was a brave decision made by the Labor Party in Victoria to ensure that two safe seats in Melbourne's western suburbs went to women; that only women would stand for preselection in those seats. That decision delivered to this parliament both Julia Gillard as the member for Lalor and Nicola Roxon as the member for Gellibrand—the first female Prime Minister in this country and the first female Attorney-General in this country, a very proud history for women in the western suburbs of Melbourne. I said to the young girls that I was talking to last week: 'You must continue. You must take up that gavel and choose to challenge. You have to get into this fight.' It is an important day. A hundred years since Edith Cowan was elected to parliament, we have the March 4 Justice happening here today. It is an important moment. I believe it is a moment that will bring further change to ensure gender equity. I believe women will unite to say that we want this gauge to move further than it has already moved, particularly in the areas around sexual harassment and sexual assault. There is not a woman in this building that has not thought about these issues deeply. I firmly believe that, but I also want to draw the House's attention to something absolutely pivotal. I speak of Julia Gillard and her entry into this parliament and the history of that and the decisions it took to get that momentum. I look at this side of the chamber, and I see us bringing more and more women into the parliament. Proudly, I see two sisters sitting to my right. This can't stop. And, I have to say on this important day that, while I have been in this place, I have watched the number of women in the government in this chamber reduce. They have gone backwards. Today of all days, everyone and every woman in this building needs to pick up that fight and say that we need more women, not fewer women, in this place. So I call on members opposite—not just the women, but also the men, who sit on the benches opposite—to think long and deeply about how they can change the face of this parliament. It's through your preselection processes. I firmly believe that we're marching for justice today because although women may sit on the benches in this place, they need to feel safe so that they can speak out. They need to know that they are safe in their position and that their position in a ministry is safe, regardless of what they say about gender equity, sexual harassment and assault. 11:06 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid We stand at a critical point in our nation's history. As thousands gather not far from where we are right now, the message being sent is loud and clear: we are not doing enough. When one in six women experience physical and/or sexual violence from a live-in partner from the age of 15, we must ask ourselves: what are we doing wrong? When 25 per cent of women experience emotional abuse from a current or previous partner, we must ask ourselves: what are we doing wrong? When one woman is killed every nine days at the hands of a partner, we must ask ourselves: what are we doing wrong? Clearly, we are doing something wrong. Living free of violence is everyone's right, and reducing violence is everyone's business. We must continue to make reducing violence a priority. All forms of violence against women and children are unacceptable in any community and in any culture. Just over 100 years ago, women were not allowed to be parliamentarians. That was until, after much campaigning, a change to the law and a successful election in 1921, Edith Cowan became the first woman elected to any parliament across Australia. It is so important that women are represented at all levels of government because women can bring a broader range of issues to the table and research suggests that women use different methods to problem-solve. That can only make us stronger. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg said: As women achieve power, the barriers will fall. As society sees what women can do, as women see what women can do, there will be more women out there doing things, and we'll all be better off for it. While Cowan's time in parliament was short, her contributions still benefit women today, for it was Edith Cowan who pushed legislation allowing women to be involved in the legal profession. She was one of the first people to promote sex education in schools, and she succeeded in placing mothers and fathers equal in the eyes of the law in relation to wills. I entered parliament to make a difference. I gave up a successful career as a psychologist, with a small business and a healthy work-life balance, to be in this place. I am away from my four children more often than I want to be. I did not come to Canberra to protest. I came to Canberra to legislate. I came to advocate, but, ultimately, I came to improve the lives of people. Since being elected, I have been advocating strongly for the issues affecting women. As co-chair of the parliamentary friends group for ending violence against women, I understand that we must be having these conversations, not just with adults but with young children too. Edith Cowan was the first to push for sex education to be taught in schools, and she was right to do so. However, 100 years on we must keep going. Children should be taught about protective behaviours in preschool. It should be compulsory. Consent, relationship skills and awareness of coercive control should be taught to school-age children. Just over 100 years ago, women could not even be members of parliament. Now our parliament, government, ministry and cabinet are richer because women who stand in this place are contributing to our nation. Only recently Senator Payne achieved a significant milestone as the longest continuously serving female senator, a milestone I am sure Edith Cowan knew to be possible but certainly a long way off when she entered the parliament. Today the gender pay gap is at a record low and female participation is at a record high. Sixty per cent of all jobs recovered, after being lost during the lockdowns at the height of the pandemic, have gone to women. I sometimes wonder what Cowan would make of today's parliament. Would she be critical? Would she have suggestions on how to do things better? I'm sure she would. But there is no doubt we have come a long way. Today, girls can grow up knowing they can be anything, because Edith Cowan was told she couldn't but she did anyway. As Margaret Thatcher said, don't follow the crowd; let the crowd follow you. It's time we got moving. 11:11 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley It is serendipitous that the first speech I give in this chamber upon my return from parental leave, after the birth of my twins, is a speech about Edith Cowan, who was elected 100 years ago on the weekend, and that I give it on the day of the March 4 Justice in Canberra. I know many if not all of us on this side of the House will be marching down to the grass as soon as we take our leave from this chamber. I think Edith Cowan would want to know that, 100 years on, we still fight for and advance her legacy. If anything, it's disappointing that we have only gotten this far. Let's take stock of where we are. Edith Cowan was a trailblazer. She dedicated her life to promoting and advancing the rights and welfare of women and children, guided by her belief that economic independence and higher education were an avenue of hope, something we still fight for, day in and day out, in this place. She also argued for the need for women in leadership, rather than just their right to see it—a debate we continue to have today, 100 years on. When she stood as a Nationalist candidate for the Legislative Assembly in West Perth, her election pamphlet, in accordance with the practice of the day, referred to her as Mrs James Cowan, after her husband. At least we've got rid of that! Despite being endorsed by the conservative party of the day, Edith Cowan felt that domestic and social issues were not being given enough attention. She campaigned on her impressive community service record and said that we all needed to 'nag a little' on social problems. Here we are, 100 years on, nagging still. Cowan won a surprise victory, winning by 46 votes. She defeated the Attorney-General, who had actually introduced the legislation that enabled her to stand. That's politics! In 1921, at the age of 60, she became the first woman elected to an Australian parliament. The fact that her presence in the chamber was uncomfortable for some members was evident in their refusal to even accord her the tradition of silence for her maiden speech, even when she emphasised the necessity for more women in the chamber. And yet, here we are today, still talking about the culture of this place and what needs to be done for more women to feel more welcome. As a parliamentarian, Cowan admirably pursued her policy objectives without concern for electoral consequences—how novel—or the favour of her party colleagues. She always voted in a way that would benefit, or at least not discriminate against, women and children. That is an absolute credit to her. She fought for the motherhood endowment and she defended the idea of a housewives union. It sounds like she belonged on our side, to be honest. She argued for the right of wives to access the arbitration court. She also pressed for sex education in state schools, a debate we are somehow still having in 2021, and she chastised the minister for railways for the one-shilling pram levy imposed on mothers who were travelling to the city for their shopping. The minister interjected during that debate—it got pretty rowdy—but agreed to withdraw the fee that same day. She successfully introduced and passed without amendment her second private member's bill, the Women's Legal Status Bill. It was radical at the time. It allowed women in Western Australia to practise law and other professions for the first time, and as a lawyer myself, 100 years down the track, I thank her. In introducing the Women's Legal Status Bill, which stated that no person could be disqualified from any public, civil or judicial function by sex, she paved the way for our current sex discrimination laws. Two years after her death, the Edith Cowan memorial clock was unveiled at the entrance to Perth's Kings Park, believed to be one of the first civic monuments dedicated to Australian women, built in the face of persistent opposition which has been characterised as representative of the gender bias operating at the time. While a memorial clock is nice, the real monument to Edith Cowan's legacy is in this place, right here, with the member for Cowan, the member for Lalor, the member for Warringah, the member for Curtin and the member for Reid. It is only because of the trailblazing work of women like Edith that we all stand here today, and I think we owe it to her, to her legacy, to take our part in that ongoing legacy and fight for those same principles that she fought for a hundred years ago. It is at the same time horrifying and galvanising that, a hundred years on, we must still fight for those principles—that, today, those principles are still at stake—but they are, so we do. We march on, we march out of this place and we march down to the grass and we stand with women from across the country, who ask us as their elected representatives to speak for them in this place. This isn't a political issue; this is a critical issue, and we are at a moment of reckoning across the country. It is we in this place who must listen to our people and must act to make sure that it actually means something to them back in their homes. 11:16 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein As the only man speaking on this motion I'd like to thank the member for Cowan for moving it today, because it is a significant milestone that deserves to be acknowledged. I'd also like to thank the members for Curtin, Reid, Lilley and Lalor for also speaking on this important motion to honour Edith Cowan's legacy. She was the first woman to be elected, representing West Perth in the Western Australian Legislative Assembly, and a proud Nationalist, which is a wonderful legacy. When I draw on the Australian political biography of Edith Cowan and her legacy, I make similar remarks to those of the member for Lilley in the fact that she campaigned on her community service record, the need for law and order and for women in parliament 'to nag a little'. Of course, we would never use that term today, and nor should we, because all forms of justice have to be fought for and go against the status quo. It's one of the reasons I'm such a strong supporter of free speech—because you always have to be able to speak truth to power. But, more critically, she fit within the long legacy of Liberal women and was particularly a fan of John Stuart Mill, who, with his wonderful wife, Harriet Taylor Mill, wrote The Subjection of Women as part of the Liberal tradition of advancing equality for all people, including women. Some of my biggest political heroes are women. Many of them are not household names. It's common to refer to somebody like Margaret Thatcher, who made a considerable contribution. But there are others, like Republican turned Democrat Pauline Sabin, who had the courage to choose principle over partisanship, from her pursuit of addressing violence against women caused by the excessive indulgence in saloons to recognising the shortcomings of the response and leading the charge to repeal prohibition in the United States. I actually have a distant relative, Katharine Stewart-Murray—again, somebody who may not be well known—who was a Scottish Unionist and member for the electorate of Kinross and West Perthshire. She has a number of legacies, but the one I'm most proud of is her attempt to topple the Chamberlain government, of which she was part, because of his appeasement of Adolf Hitler and because she was a strong supporter of Churchill in the formation before the Second World War. Of course, history proved her right. It was courage that led her to stand up. The electorate I represent is named after one of Australia's most significant suffragettes, Vida Goldstein. While Vida would have had philosophical differences perhaps from me and my party, her commitment to justice is no different. She fought for the right of women to vote and to stand for parliament, and she was the first to then stand for parliament in the British Empire. She fought for women to buy property and to enter marriages on the same terms as men. She didn't just inspire Australian women; she also inspired international suffragettes, including Emmeline Pankhurst, and the movement in the United Kingdom. Like many in this place and at this time, I cannot attend the March 4 Justice rally today, as commitments preclude me from doing so, but we should never lose sight of the fact that that does not mean that any of us lack solidarity with the objectives of greater justice and addressing issues of equity and equality. Australia should be a nation where all people are treated safely and justly. There is no place for harassment or violence in any part of the community, including the workplace, because they diminish the dignity of people and strip them of their agency. I continue to say that the foundation of liberalism is empowerment, and great liberals have always supported emancipation, empowerment and liberation, just like the people of Goldstein, and I follow in that tradition. I'm also proud to see that the inquiry into conduct in this place is led by a proud Goldstein constituent, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins. I can understand some Australians look at this place and question whether it will ever change and whether there are those inside it who are listening. That comes with frustration and anger. As I said at the time, whether we have to go through a postal survey to deliver marriage equality or not, the cause of human progress and justice has never been delivered on a silver platter. Good causes must be fought for. As hard, sometimes, as it is, it is a privilege to be part of that change that gives future generations a better and more just world than the one you inherited. For those who seek equality and justice outside this place, you have allies in this building on all sides of the chamber, regardless of their partisanship and whether they are there with you in person or in spirit. Now, of course, is a time to honour Edith Cowan's legacy. It's a legacy that we should be proud of as a country but it's also a call to action for the future: to stand, to fight, to lead. Edith Cowan took those steps and, of course, we encourage all members in this place to continue that legacy and journey. 11:21 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I thank the member for Cowan for the opportunity to reflect on the life of a truly remarkable parliamentarian, Edith Cowan. I also thank the member for Curtin and the member for Reid for their heartfelt words. By doing so, we all share the story of another trailblazing Australian woman who challenged the establishment, challenged her colleagues and challenged accepted practices. When sharing her story, we do so in the passionate hope that others will be inspired and follow in her footsteps. Right now there is a lot of frustration and a great deal of disappointment, anger and disempowerment. To those of you feeling frustrated and demanding change, many gathering outside this building as I speak, I encourage you to take heart, take courage and take inspiration from the life of Edith Cowan. As others have mentioned already this morning, Edith Cowan was the first woman to be elected to any Australian parliament, winning election to the legislative assembly of Western Australia on 12 March 1921. At the time, voting was not compulsory, but, interestingly, in her electorate of West Perth more women than men turned out to vote, delivering her a slim victory of just 46 votes—an epic example that every vote counts. If anyone hasn't read her maiden speech, please do so. I encourage you to, because it's clear from the outset that her intention was to bring a female perspective to decision-making. Her speech covered a broad range of topics, focusing on welfare, health and social justice. Here are some excerpts that, for obvious reasons, warm my heart. She demonstrated an independent spirit from that very first speech: I was sent here to uphold law and order and constitutional government, and it will be my desire to assist in carrying out these objects in a proper and satisfactory manner; while in the discharge of my duties here I shall be responsible only to my own constituents … There are too many here to-day who are possessed of the old party spirit which seems ever to exist, but I cannot see why we should drag party into things that concern the whole of the State. It was definitely her continued and sustained reference to the need for both genders to be represented in the parliament that dominated her speech. She saw a future where men and women worked collaboratively for the betterment of all. Here are some more prophetic words from the woman herself, words that ring true even today in 2021: The views of both sides are more than ever needed in Parliament to-day. If men and women can work for the State side by side and represent all the different sections of the community, and if the male members of the House would be satisfied to allow women to help them and would accept their suggestions when they are offered, I cannot doubt that we should do very much better work in the community than was ever done before. Unfortunately, the torch that was lit by Edith Cowan and passed to generations of women that followed, from many sides of politics, seems to have dimmed in recent years. The behaviour and attitudes on show over a century ago still ripple through our political discourse. Edith and the many women supporting her would have hoped that 100 years on the ambition of young Australian women would be to follow in their footsteps, to lift that torch and carry it forward. But, unfortunately, the opposite seems true. In a recent survey of 2,000 young Australian women aged 18 to 25, zero per cent expressed an interest in politics as a career. I was shocked, and I will work hard to change that. Looking at the events of the last month or so, I have to say: who could blame them? But I want young women in Warringah, and indeed across Australia, to aspire to work here, for politics to be a safe, welcoming and admirable career path. We simply need more women in this place. In this 46th Parliament, there are 45 women in the House of Representatives, just under 30 per cent. In the Senate, the numbers are better, amounting to nearly 50 per cent. The reality is that Australia is still the fifth-worst in the OECD for inequality and political participation, above only Lithuania, Japan, Israel and Hungary. I therefore commend groups like Women for Election Australia, who aim to inspire and equip women to run for office and sustain them once elected. I wish them all the best in their endeavours to inspire and equip 2,000 women to run for political office in 2022. If Edith Cowan could do it 100 years ago and make substantial change, imagine the possibilities now. Enough is enough. Don't wait for the change. Be the change. Make your voice heard. Make your vote count. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Broadband 33 11:26 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I move: That this House: (1) recognises that Western Sydney is Australia's third largest economy, and accounted for more than half of Sydney's population growth from 2012 to 2018; (2) notes that: (a) jobs growth in Western Sydney has been increasingly limited to population-driven sectors like construction, which have been hit hard by COVID-19; (b) there is a jobs deficit affecting Western Sydney's growing professional workforce, which is forced to commute long distances for employment; (c) a fast, reliable internet connection is basic infrastructure that is needed to attract new businesses and industries, and therefore essential to promoting jobs growth in Western Sydney; and (d) NBN's recent announcement of 130 'business fibre zones' includes four zones in suburbs on Sydney Harbour, but only one in Western Sydney, in Parramatta; and (3) calls on the Government to urgently improve NBN connectivity for businesses and households to support sustainable jobs growth in Western Sydney. I live in Australia's third-largest economy, Western Sydney, accounting for more than half of Sydney's population growth from 2012 to 2018. In fact, 52 per cent of Sydney's population growth was in Western Sydney. In 2018, there were 1.12 million employed residents in Western Sydney, bigger than the workforce in Adelaide and the workforce in Perth and about 10 per cent shy of Brisbane. Fourteen point five per cent of those workers were knowledge workers, a greater proportion than Adelaide, Perth or Brisbane—an extraordinarily skilled workforce and one of the largest workforces in the country. But we have a jobs deficit in Western Sydney. Our growth in jobs is fuelled almost entirely—in fact, 80 per cent—by growth in population. The population grows, construction grows and that's where the jobs come from. But take out population growth jobs and there's very little else going on in Western Sydney. We have a jobs deficit that is large now and is growing. Around 300,000 workers leave Western Sydney daily—that was in 2018. They commute to the city—sometimes for an hour, an hour and a half or two hours one way—to get to work. Optimistic projections say that job deficit will grow, by 2036, to 420,000 people. If it continues at the current rate, there will be 560,000 people commuting an hour or more to get to work every single day. We need to do something about this, and we need to do it now. One of the basic things that this government could have got right in the first place is the NBN. In my area of Western Sydney, I have people who don't even get 10 to 15 megabits per second download. They're more than 1.2 kilometres from the node, living in the capital of Western Sydney, and they've got 10 megabits per second, not counting the dropouts, which are daily—in fact, hourly. This is just not good enough. It's not good enough. When I put this motion in, the NBN had announced 20 business fibre zones, of which only one was in Western Sydney, and it was in Parramatta. Since then, they've announced another 20, including in Guildford-Yennora, Silverwater, and the surrounds of Homebush and Lidcombe. But this is still a drop in the ocean when you look at the size of Western Sydney and the sheer number of people who will be working from home. In 2018 the department of communications estimated that by 2026 the maximum Australian households made up of two adults and two children would need was 49-megabit download speeds in peak times, but the NBN and the government have got this wrong so many times. The department of communications, if you remember, said that in 2016 a download speed of 25 megabits would be enough. Now they're saying that in 2026 a download speed of 49 megabits will be enough. Let me tell the House that it's not just the speed you have; it's what your competitors have. We're slipping down the rankings; we're 60th now in speed. When we've got countries across the Ditch to the east and to the north with gigabit download speeds, that's who we have to compete with. Now, with proper NBN speeds, it doesn't matter which country you're sitting in when you're working. We know that already. The biggest businesses in Australia and the biggest businesses around the world have fragmented workforces spread across the globe. If we're going to sit on 49 megabits per second in five years time and our competitors are dealing with gigabits, we're just not going to be there. We need better than this. We know now that the government have realised that they could have actually used fibre for less than they paid for copper; they finally released the report that shows that. We know they could have done that, and they didn't. We know they held to copper for political reasons too. It's really time to come to the party here and acknowledge that fibre is the way to go and make sure that every household gets it and not follow the government's current plan which says that only people who can afford a high speed get fibre and everybody else stays with copper. That is not good enough for Western Sydney. It's not good enough given our growth rate and it's not good enough given out jobs deficit. If they want to get serious about doing the right thing by Western Sydney, they'll deliver fibre to every household and they'll do it now. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 Is there a seconder for the motion? Mr Stephen Jones A9B I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:31 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde As much as I have great respect for the member for Parramatta, I'm not going to stand in this place and be lectured to by those opposite about their cut-rate NBN that they rolled out and that was constructed and designed on the back of a beer coaster. The approach cost millions, and it would have taken more than six years longer to complete and left millions of Australians behind during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the latest published data, if the corporate plan under Labor were undertaken, in June 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, there still would have been well over 1.2 million homes and businesses that could not order a service. That's 1.2 million people who would have missed out but who, under the plans that the government put in place, actually had access to the NBN. I think that's a great testament to the work that we as a government have done. Even on their own numbers, Labor would have still left millions of Australians behind when broadband was needed most. In contrast, our approach has been to ensure that the NBN has been efficiently and economically delivered right across Australia. Today there are currently 11.9 million premises ready to connect, and over 99 per cent of Australian premises can now order an NBN service. More than eight million premises have already been connected to the NBN, and today 70 per cent of homes and businesses are on 50-megabit-per-second plans or higher. That is frequently the contrast in this place between the government and those opposite: we actually deliver for the Australian people, and those opposite talk about it. It's because of this government's approach that we've seen the NBN be there for Australians when they needed it most. That happened almost overnight. Nobody saw that coming. That happened when we had to adapt to the way we worked, learned and accessed vital services and when we had to keep in touch with our families. It is the NBN rollout that this government has put together to fix up the back-of the-envelope job that those opposite did that has actually delivered for Australians. If the NBN had not been rolled out with the speed and purpose that it had under this government using all available technologies, millions of premises throughout Australia may have languished on ADSL speeds of eight megabits per second on average or endured the lockdown with no internet service at all. I know that in my electorate of Forde, with the problems we were having in getting access to ADSL in the rapidly growing areas of my electorate, those new areas are now directly connected to the NBN, with fibre to the premises—they're not on copper—and that those services are working very, very well. Again, it's under this government that we have delivered for the Australian people through the rollout of the NBN. I'm pleased to note that the member for Parramatta did acknowledge, in her contribution, that there are in fact 22 business fibre zones across Western Sydney, covering some 66,000-odd businesses. These cover electorates across Western Sydney. The business fibre zone network, in general, has also been very well received in my part of the world, where businesses are now seeing the opportunity to connect to high-speed fibre to continue to deliver the services that they need to deliver to grow their business— Ms Owens E09 They won't get the NBN till March 2022! Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Member for Parramatta, I'll take the interjection, but we listened to your contribution without interjections, so I'd appreciate the same— Ms Owens interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 Order, please! The member for Parramatta, if you could have the decency to let the other member speak. Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Here's the beauty of that comment: it's this side of the House that is actually delivering for the Australian people. Those opposite talked about it. It still wouldn't have been here. It wasn't going to arrive by 2022; it was going to arrive by 2025-26, I seem to remember. Once again, I can safely stand in this place and say that it is the Morrison government that is delivering for the Australian people. We do what we say we're going to do; the other side just talks about it. 11:36 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I thank my friend the member for Parramatta for raising this important motion. I also thank the Chief Government Whip, but they had to get a member from Brisbane to talk about Western Sydney. This is critical because we're at a point in time when we are recovering; we're trying to rebuild from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. For us as a nation, this requires a lot of activity. We often hear people talk in this place about the importance of Western Sydney. We talk about it as a centre of population and economic growth, which it is. In my capacity as the member for Fowler, which is next door to the member for Werriwa's seat, I have the great privilege of seeing firsthand the great work that our communities are doing to achieve strong economic and also cultural growth throughout Western Sydney. I've seen the benefits to our community of what we can achieve when we work together. Essentially, our work is to make sure that our areas remain competitive and continue to grow and prosper, taking advantage of the abundant economic opportunities we have in our region. The NBN is one of those crucial aspects of infrastructure that unlock that potential for areas such as mine. It also includes the understanding that we must have adequate industry growth profiles in Western Sydney, particularly in relation to events, manufacture, construction, transport, logistics, professional services, retail and health. They are all subject to significant growth if we can provide the right infrastructure, and much of that comes through being able to use the NBN. That's why it is so critical in terms of the rollout in Western Sydney, because, after all, this is the third-biggest growth centre in the country at the moment. It is an area where we want people to be able to get jobs and to be able to work closer to home, because otherwise we won't be able to build trains long enough or roads wide enough to get people to and from the CBD of Sydney. This is a major development that's occurring. It's all very well that people want to chant the benefits of the Western Sydney airport, which will be good, as will its neighbouring aerotropolis, but only if we properly resource it to make sure it works effectively. It's got to be very much a strategic development, one that requires a whole-of-government approach, a willingness from all levels of government, quite frankly, to be able to work together for the best outcomes. To put this in perspective, as I said a little earlier, Western Sydney is the third-largest growth centre in the country. More than half of Sydney's population growth between 2012 and 2018 occurred throughout Western Sydney. We need proper investment. We need an ongoing commitment to build public infrastructure but also to support our universities and our vocational education, our TAFE centres, out there, to build the roads and the rail lines to guide the development of Western Sydney airport to establish the logistics and, importantly, the sporting, the artistic and the tourism facilities, all of which Western Sydney can offer and can prosper in with the right investment. And that does very much impact on rolling out a fast broadband network. The other thing which is also impacted by this motion is our reliance on small business in Western Sydney. We need to create local jobs and retain those jobs, and small businesses are a crucial aspect of this. As the member for Parramatta said, there'd be more activity with people working from home. They can only do that if they have access to high-speed internet. That is another growth area, but a growth area for employment, because, regrettably, we're not going to have another major steelworks or another hypo industry. Growth in Western Sydney will be largely generated by the prosperity of small business. The Western Sydney airport and its neighbouring aerotropolis will play a key role in underpinning this growth and expanding the region. It is set to be one of the largest infrastructure projects in the country and it will bring significant jobs—there's absolutely no doubt about it. One of the priorities I know the member for Werriwa and I have often spoken about is that, if local residents are given the opportunity to have priority of employment there, it will generate local employment, it will generate jobs and our community will prosper. 11:42 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling I'm pleased to speak on this motion today. I think all of us in this place would certainly acknowledge the importance of internet connectivity and of keeping up technological change. The degree to which we use our devices—I hope I won't get pinged for using props—the mobile and iPad, certainly makes them essential tools of trade in modern Australia and around the world. It is important that this Morrison government remains focused on keeping pace and providing Australians, at home and in their businesses, with the technology that is needed for modern Australian life. I do want to turn briefly to the motion itself and an inaccuracy. The motion claims that there is only one business fibre zone in Western Sydney, and I want to point out that that is incorrect. There are in fact 22 business zones across Western Sydney and the Blue Mountains, and these cover an expected 66,353 businesses. NBN Co announced the first 130 business fibre zones on 22 September 2020 and a further 110 zones on 26 October. Indeed, in my own electorate of Stirling, the NBN rollout has been very much welcomed. One hundred per cent of premises are now in areas ready for service, with 99 per cent ready to connect, and overall take-up is now at 75 per cent. A little on business fibre zones themselves: back in September last year, Minister Fletcher announced $4½ billion for NBN network investment which will give up to 75 per cent of fixed line premises across regional and metropolitan Australia access to faster broadband by 2023. As part of this initiative, NBN Co is investing $700 million over the next three years to provide 90 per cent of all Australian businesses with access to symmetrical business-grade fibre at no upfront cost. NBN will provide CBD-equivalent wholesale enterprise ethernet pricing for around 700,000 businesses located in 240 business fibre zones. This will reduce wholesale pricing by up to 67 per cent for businesses outside major cities. It will include 85 business fibre zones in regional centres and 14 health precincts, with at least one in each state and territory. Transforming the access to and affordability of business-grade fibre and increasing competition and choice is critical to our economic recovery from COVID-19. This is indeed a game changer for small and medium businesses. It will boost productivity, will foster innovation and will allow for small and medium businesses to embrace opportunities for growth. The enterprise ethernet service that, as I mentioned earlier, will be available in these business zones is NBN's highest-quality business-grade service, providing businesses with a choice of symmetrical speeds from 10 megabits per second to close to one gigabit per second. Businesses located within all 240 business fibre zones are now able to request a fibre upgrade from their retailer. For areas not located within business fibre zones, NBN Co has established a $50 million fund to facilitate the creation of further zones in partnership with local governments and other organisations. As did the member for Forde, I want to pick up and challenge those opposite for Labor's record on the NBN. Indeed, I have a confession to make: I, as do some others in this place, like to drink beer. I do, however, draw the line—I deliberately restrain myself—at picking up a pen and attempting to nut out complex mathematical equations on the back of a beer coaster. But, unfortunately, that was the approach from those opposite. Ultimately, under their plan, the approach would have cost billions more and taken up to six years longer to complete, leaving millions behind, particularly during coronavirus, when so many of us needed to work from home and, indeed, school our children from home. By contrast, this government has delivered the NBN efficiently and economically when Australians needed it most. Overnight, when we had to adapt the way we lived and worked, this government was there with a strong NBN plan, and this will assist our economic recovery. 11:47 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Western Sydney is home to just over 2½ million people and is continuing to be one of the fastest-growing population centres in the country. Western Sydney is also Australia's third-largest economy, contributing over $1 billion to Australia's gross national product. It is critical that, as this large contributor to the economy, we aren't neglected by the federal government. However, over the last eight years, that has consistently been the case. Industries like construction and manufacturing are vital to Western Sydney's sustainability, yet these industries don't have the backing of the state and federal governments, especially during the pandemic. It's time that transport infrastructure was provided to meet the demand and not leave those who live there waiting in traffic queues or on overcrowded railways and buses. The extension of the railway to the south-west and to the airport is critically important to the success of Western Sydney airport as well as the coming aerotropolis, with industries like aeronautics, advanced manufacturing and logistics supporting gate-to-plate agriculture and ecommerce fulfilment. However, Werriwa has received nothing under the Urban Congestion Fund. A land corridor is already reserved for this project and would easily and quickly connect the airport to Liverpool, Campbelltown and the rest of Sydney via the existing rail network. This vital infrastructure must be funded and built, linking the south-west's major population centres of Liverpool and Macarthur to the airport and the aerotropolis from day one. Given that the airport is five years away from opening, it needs to be done now. However, it looks like Western Sydney will have to wait until beyond the sustainability threshold before the government realises something is wrong. The lack of planning and neglect in Western Sydney needs to change. The other critical area that must be addressed is fast and reliable internet. A report released last month confirms what Australians already know: the government's decision to dump Labor's full-fibre NBN was completely motivated by politics, not by economics or the interests of Australians. The leaked figures reveal the coalition government knew back in 2013 the original fibre rollout could have been delivered for tens of billions of dollars less than they publicly claimed. Evidence from the government's own reports looking into Labor's plans revealed that our fibre rollout would have been cheaper than the $57 billion copper rollout that was delivered. Former Prime Minister, then Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull said Labor's full-fibre plan would be wasting well over $50 billion. If there was anything wasted it was Australians' time, money and patience. Placing 68th in the global internet rankings sounds like a waste of time and money to me. It's laughable how far this government will go to oppose Labor, even when it knows what it's doing is wrong. However, it's no laughing matter. Just ask my constituents. The majority get no more than 26 megabits per second. That would be a good speed if the year were 2007. Suburbs like Cecil Hills, West Hoxton, Horningsea Park and Long Point had been waiting patiently for years to connect to the NBN. When finally they were connected to the NBN, they got decade-old speeds at 2021 prices. That's over 20,000 people and hundreds and hundreds of homes. People in my electorate are tired of the same old dropouts that have been occurring for the last 10 years. Families in Hinchinbrook are constrained by slow speeds, and their closest node is 10 kilometres away, in the Liverpool CBD. Their internet speed isn't fast or strong enough for them to use their devices without bandwidth stress. There are also issues with connecting the NBN in the first place. Tim Dardanian is just one of my constituents who have had consistent NBN issues. Tim is currently only able to access ADSL technology through Telstra, which is of a substandard quality. The pandemic has exposed how the NBN has short-changed people like Tim. While families were forced to work and study from home, that was not possible for people like Tim. Prior to the pandemic, 70 per cent of workers in Werriwa worked outside the electorate. Now, with more people needing to work from home, the speeds that they can get are just not acceptable. Labor led the charge for faster internet speeds on fibre to futureproof our internet, but this government prefers to play politics. As a result, Australians have been saddled with a second-rate NBN that's slower, more expensive and less reliable. Australians have the right to expect better. I call on the government to not only fund the South West Rail Link but also urgently improve NBN connectivity in my electorate. 11:52 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid The member for Parramatta is entirely mistaken. There is not one business fibre zone in Western Sydney; there are, in fact, 22 business fibre zones across Western Sydney and the Blue Mountains, covering an expected 66,353 businesses. NBN Co announced the first 130 business fibre zones on 22 September 2020 and a further 110 zones on 26 October. This information is readily available on the NBN website. This includes business fibre zones in my electorate, Reid. In bustling Burwood and Ashfield, there are 4,106 business fibre zones. In the Homebush-Lidcombe area, there are 4,205 business fibre zones, and in the busy manufacturing hub of Silverwater there are 1,446 business fibre zones. In September 2020, Minister Fletcher announced a $4.5 billion NBN network investment plan, which will give up to 75 per cent of fixed-line premises across regional and metropolitan Australia access to ultrafast broadband by 2023. This will occur via a continuation of the multitechnology model of this government. This is the same model that has been used to deliver this enormous project efficiently and economically and in time for the extra demands placed on the network due to COVID-19. As part of this initiative, NBN Co is investing $700 million over the next three years to provide 90 per cent of all Australian businesses with access to symmetrical business-grade fibre at no upfront cost. NBN Co will also provide CBD-equivalent wholesale enterprise ethernet pricing for around 700,000 businesses located within 240 business fibre zones, reducing wholesale pricing by up to 67 per cent for businesses outside major cities. This will include 85 business fibre zones in regional centres and 14 health precincts, with at least one in each state and territory. Transforming the access and affordability of business-grade fibre and increasing competition and choice is critical to our economic recovery from COVID-19. This is a game changer for small and medium businesses. It will boost productivity, foster innovation and allow small- and medium-sized businesses to embrace opportunities for growth. The Enterprise Ethernet service available in those business fibre zones is NBN Co's highest-quality business-grade service, providing businesses with a choice of symmetrical speeds from 10 megabytes per second to close to one gigabyte per second, prioritised traffic and enhanced 24/7 customer support. Under the Business Fibre Initiative, businesses located within all 24 business fibre zones are now able to request a fibre upgrade from their retailer, and works are underway or have been completed in response to orders already received. For areas not located within the business fibre zones, NBN Co has established a $50 million fund to facilitate the creation of future zones in partnership with local government and other organisations. This government will not be lectured to by those opposite on the NBN and certainly will not be lectured to by those on the other side about supporting small business. Labor's back-of-the-beer-coaster approach would have cost billions more, taken up to six years longer to complete and left millions of Australians behind during COVID-19. By contrast, this government has delivered the NBN efficiently and economically when Australians most needed it. There are currently over 11.9 million premises ready to connect. Over 99 per cent of Australian premises can now order an NBN service. More than eight million premises have already been connected to the NBN. Today, 70 per cent of homes and businesses are on 50-megabyte-per-second plans. Under this government, NBN was there for Australians. It stood up to the test of COVID-19, and it will continue to be a driving force in our strong economic recovery. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. BILLS 38 BILLS Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020, Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2020, Export Control Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019, Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020, Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019, VET Student Payment Arrangements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2020, Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Refunds of Charges and Other Measures) Bill 2020, Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2020, National Collecting Institutions Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021 38

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

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2020

Export Control Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019

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

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020

Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019

VET Student Payment Arrangements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2020

Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Refunds of Charges and Other Measures) Bill 2020

Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2020

National Collecting Institutions Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021

Assent 38 COMMITTEES 38 COMMITTEES Australia's Family Law System Joint Select Committee 38 Report 38 11:57 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Improvements in family law proceedings: second interim report. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ANDREWS HK5 by leave—The 1973 bill to establish the Family Law Act was based on a series of principles, including that the financial dispute between the spouses should be resolved as quickly and finally as possible and that the whole process should be performed with dignity, relative privacy and as little expense as possible. Regrettably, some of these objectives remain elusive almost half a century after the introduction of the Family Law Act. Throughout the course of this inquiry, four issues have been raised continually in submissions and hearings: extensive delays, excessive legal costs, the difficulty of enforcing court orders, and timely and fair resolution of family violence allegations. People find themselves in the family law system because of a breakdown of a relationship. For the most part, they are ordinary families who entered a marriage or relationship with the best of intentions but, for various reasons, find it difficult or impossible to sustain. They are generally of ordinary means with little apprehension that the breakdown of their relationship can result in very substantial legal fees. And, if parents suffer financially, so do their children. While legal advice is necessary to ensure that the interests of the parties are properly considered and fair fees are charged, lawyers and other professionals should not be profiteering from the financial and emotional stress of a relationship breakdown. That is contrary to the principles of the Family Law Act and the principles upon which it was based. The maxim 'Justice delayed is justice denied' has been applicable to the Family Court for many years. Hundreds of Australians have told the committee of the emotional and financial strains of being trapped in seemingly endless processes of multiple court appearances, ongoing delays and confidence-sapping years of unresolved litigation. To their credit, the current leadership of the courts has made considerable efforts, despite the challenges occasioned by the COVID-19 restrictions, to reduce backlogs and hasten proceedings. This has involved a greater use of judicial registrars, the practice of call-over of cases and the creation of a special COVID court list. The committee is of the strong opinion that these measures should be incorporated into the ongoing operation of the court. Accordingly, the committee has recommended an increase in the number and in the role of the registrars. Complaints about excessive legal costs are not new. Almost 30 years ago, Justice Michael Kirby observed: 'Something appears to be seriously wrong in the organisation of the provision of legal services in this community when charges of this order'—in the case he was referring to, of some half a million dollars—'can be contemplated, still less made.' Judges have made similar complaints in a series of more recent cases. In 2014, Justice Loughnan observed that 'a forest of trees has been killed' in one case before him. A year later, Justice Bennett stated that there was something askew in the proportionality of the wife's representation when her retention of senior counsel had contributed in no small part to the wife being left with nothing more than a modest business and an unpaid debt to her legal advisers. The committee has heard evidence of legal costs nearing or exceeding the total value of the assets of the parties. In 2017, Justice Benjamin said: … the consequences of obscenely high legal costs are destructive of the emotional, social and financial wellbeing of the parties and their children. It must stop. The committee concurs. These practices must stop, wherever they occur—hence our recommendations to cap fees in property disputes, introduce a proportionality requirement in Family Court costs generally and to ban so-called disappointment fees. Unless approved by a judge or a registrar in exceptional circumstances, the committee proposes that legal fees in property matters be capped at $50,000 or 10 per cent of the parties' identified property and superannuation, whichever is the higher. This cap will not include mediation or arbitration. Secondly, the committee recommends that there be a requirement for proportionality of costs in all family law matters. And, thirdly, the majority of the committee recommends a prohibition on the use of disappointment fees, adopting the comments of Justice Benjamin: … I have grave difficulty in endorsing, as fair and reasonable or proportionate, terms in fee agreements which provide for barristers to be paid for doing nothing. The third significant cause of complaint to the committee concerned the fact that many court orders are simply ignored by parties and not enforced by the courts. This is an injustice which brings the court processes into disrepute. Accordingly, the committee recommends the establishment and funding of a registrar-driven national convention list to deal with parties breaching orders of the Family Court. This would involve the appointment of additional registrars to ensure that all contravention applications can be triaged within 14 days. The committee also recommends that the Australian government review the act to consider whether additional penalties should be included to deter the contravention of orders, including specific penalties for repeated noncompliance. As detailed in the first interim report of the committee, a series of issues relating to family violence were raised in many submissions to the inquiry. The committee has made a series of recommendations about the subject, including the need to have a consistent definition in Commonwealth, state and territory legislation and more streamlined and consistent procedures for investigating claims and determining applications. The committee has made 29 recommendations in this second report. Important other proposals include the implementation of procedures to enable the court to investigate claims of a party wilfully misleading the court and accreditation of professionals in the family law system. There are also a series of recommendations about making the family law system less adversarial. This second report represents the committee's final and concluded views on the matters contained in it. However, the committee has had insufficient time to consider several issues relating to child support that were raised in many submissions. Accordingly, the committee will conduct a further short inquiry into these matters, utilising the evidence already provided to it, before tabling a third and final report. I thank my colleagues on the committee, some of whom are in the House today, for their constructive and thoughtful consideration of often very complex issues. I also thank the members of the secretariat for their untiring and professional assistance to the committee. I commend the report to the House. 12:06 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton by leave—I speak today on the tabling of the second interim report of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. Before I do so, I'd like to particularly commend the chair of the committee, the member for Menzies. I don't think there is a more disparate group of cats in this parliament than was on that committee, but he managed to herd us together. I say, with all respect to some of my fellow committee members, that he managed to herd us together very well and did an exceptional job. I again commend the member for Menzies for his great work. This report details the committee's views on the family law system and makes 29 important recommendations. We do so after receiving over 1,700 submissions from organisations and individuals with direct or indirect experience of the family law system. We conducted 12 public hearings and 13 in camera hearings. More than 40 hours of evidence from 85 witnesses was heard during the in camera sessions. I thank each of the submitters and witnesses, who provided the committee with very valuable evidence to consider when compiling this report. Thank you to the secretariat for undertaking that compilation because much of the evidence, I know, was distressing and many of the witnesses were presenting information in a highly charged state. For many witnesses, the process of giving evidence before the committee was very daunting, particularly because of comments made by the deputy chair prior to the inquiry commencing. The deputy chair publicly declared that women lie about domestic and family violence in Family Court disputes. I am pleased that the committee unanimously concluded that false allegations are actually not prevalent. I don't think an inquiry was needed to come to that conclusion; nonetheless, I welcome the committee's finding. The report makes a total of 29 recommendations to improve the family law system, and I particularly welcome more funding for legal aid commissions and community legal centres; funding for an additional 25 to 30 registrars in the family courts to address backlogs and delays; a mandatory accreditation scheme for family report writers; the urgent release of an exposure draft of legislation to address the current misunderstanding of equal shared parental responsibility; amending the Family Law Act to reflect the impact of family violence on property settlements; expanding legally assisted family dispute resolution; the recommendation that the Family Law Council be reconstituted; and continued funding for non-legal support services for all victims of family violence. These are all sensible recommendations that will improve the family law system. Each recommendation I listed had already been made in previous inquiries and reports. Those recommendations are collecting dust on the shelves in the Attorney-General's office right now. We didn't need this inquiry to know that these are all measures that will improve the family law system; we already knew what to do. This parliament knew what to do. There has not been the will from this coalition government to do it. There have been 67 previous reports and inquiries into family law. I think the member for Menzies was on one of those back in the early 1990s. Just the two most recent reports collectively made 93 recommendations to improve the family law system. The 2019 Australian Law Reform Commission report into family law has still not been responded to by the Morrison government. We were told in Senate estimates that the Attorney-General had the government response to this report on his desk 17 months ago. What happened to it? Obviously responding to the most comprehensive review into family law commissioned by his own government isn't a priority for the Attorney-General, despite him implementing the biggest structural reform on the family law system since the Family Court was established way back in 1976. I'd like to just touch on that. The Attorney-General rammed through his bill to merge the Family Court of Australia with the Federal Circuit Court last month. He didn't listen to the overwhelming calls from experts, academics and advocates that it was a really bad idea. He didn't wait for this committee to table its final report. He pushed through a bill that was designed to abolish the only standalone specialist family law court. Had the Attorney-General waited for this committee to report, he would have received further evidence given to the committee of the harm the merger will bring to families navigating the family law system. I'm greatly saddened by the abolition of the Family Court of Australia, but now more than ever the family law system needs to be well resourced and strengthened. I urge the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister to actually read the committee report, to read the 29 recommendations and to read the additional comments by Labor members of the committee. Don't just receive it; actually read it. Many of the 29 recommendations in this report are not new. They have been recommended by previous inquiries and previous reports. There is no reason to delay implementing these recommendations. In fact, the work should have been started years ago. The family law system has been neglected for far too long. I urge the government to urgently implement these recommendations. There should be no more inquiries and no more reports into the family law system until the current government addresses and implements the recommendations already made. 12:12 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 41 12:12 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 41 BILLS National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020 41

National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020

Second Reading 41 12:13 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Whitlam has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 12:13 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore I rise in continuation on the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. Across Australia lending is up 10 percentage points. Where is the problem that responsible lending laws are causing? Perhaps that's the wrong question to ask. Perhaps the better question to ask is: what problems are responsible lending laws solving? I have that answer. A couple of months ago, after the government made this announcement, a group of local financial counsellors came to see me. They were genuinely and seriously concerned about the consequences of this legislation. Among others were representatives from the Shoalhaven Women's Health Centre and Lifeline South Coast, who deal with vulnerable locals on a daily basis. They all told me about the work they do to help people who have gotten into desperate financial situations because of irresponsible lending. What they were most concerned about was the impact on the mental health of their clients. The Shoalhaven Women's Health Centre helps women in a range of vulnerable circumstances, including domestic and family violence, financial abuse, relationship breakdowns, disability, mental health and chronic health issues. This means they often have very little, if any, disposable income, and many of them are overwhelmed with debt. That is with these laws in place, where financial counsellors can help these women hold creditors accountable when that's needed. They have recourse if creditors behave badly, and they can work with these women to get their heads back above water. I just want to share some of the case studies that the health centre spoke with me about so you can see the real human face of what these laws do and what the harm will be if they are removed. One client they are working with has an intellectual disability and has been diagnosed with a mental illness. This client was coerced by a so-called friend into going into a local store to take out a cash loan as a favour for them. Once they had left, the client handed the money from the loan over to the friend, who has not been heard from since—heartbreaking actions of one friend taking advantage of another, yes, but where was the responsible lending from this institution? Where have they fulfilled their obligations under the responsible lending laws to make sure this loan was suitable for that person? Did the customer even have the capacity to understand the contract that was in front of them? Could they afford to repay it? Their only income is the disability support pension. They were already in arrears on their electricity and phone bills. They had no capacity to repay this loan. What will happen to this lady now? What would happen without responsible lending obligations? Another client, who fled domestic violence and left all her belongings behind 10 years ago, used a 60-month interest-free option to purchase whitegoods to set up her new home. Even now, 10 years later, she is sent unsolicited credit cards in the mail by the same lender. These can be activated at any time with no inquiries and no checks to see if she can afford it. In yet another case, the client's son took out a $5,000 loan with an interest rate of 43 per cent per annum. His mother, who is on an age pension, was put down as a guarantor. When her son stopped making payments, the lender started to direct-debit money from his mother. She couldn't afford it. With the help of the Financial Rights Legal Centre, the women's health centre was able to argue that, had the lender made proper inquiries, they would have known she could not afford those repayments. They managed to get her taken off as guarantor. But what would have happened without these protections? Lifeline also told me about one of their clients who was experiencing both financial and emotional hardship due to an unmanageable level of debt. Lifeline's financial counsellors deal with people who are totally overwhelmed by debt every day. They spend time helping their clients deal with unscrupulous lenders, which the current laws allow them to do. They told me about one of their clients who was unemployed, has mental health issues and is on the disability support pension. The client went to a retail store to buy a laptop on a payment plan. She had a budget of $1,000 and she was sticking to it, until the salesperson told her she had been approved for $10,000 on the payment plan. The client, sadly, experienced an episodic period of mania and spent the money that she couldn't afford to repay. By the time she sought help from Lifeline, she couldn't meet the repayments and was experiencing high levels of stress and anxiety over the debt. She should never have been given such a high level of credit. Yes, she also acknowledges that she shouldn't have spent it. But, as you can see in each of these cases, the people involved were not coming from strong positions of clarity and consideration. They were vulnerable, and they were taken advantage of and left in terrible situations. Lifeline told me how many of their clients have identified with suicidal ideation because of their despair over unaffordable debt. As Lifeline rightly pointed out, the South Coast has a high level of unemployment and low income levels. In fact, 27.9 per cent of households in the Shoalhaven reported their gross income as $650 or less, compared with the national average of 20 per cent. This makes our community especially vulnerable to financial harm. The consequences of these reforms will put people at risk of homelessness, repossessions and bankruptcies. We know that financial strain can harm people's mental health and, as Lifeline said, can lead to suicide. Vulnerable people in our community are already experiencing this under the current framework. The royal commission showed this. It proved it. Tony in my electorate has been dealing with the unscrupulous conduct of a bank for 30 years. In 1985, he was given a simulated foreign currency loan and agreed to pay five to six per cent interest to build his factory near Nowra. What he didn't realise was that this was in the middle of Australia's foreign currency loan scandal. Before long, he was paying 50 per cent interest on something he had agreed to pay five per cent for. Tony says he didn't know about the risks. It ruined his business and has had a profound impact on his life and that of his family. He is still dealing with that. William from Milton also says his bank so badly mismanaged his superannuation that it cost him and his wife over $800,000. They too are still seeking appropriate recourse many years later. They too have experienced undue harm to their health and mental health, because financial matters have strong impacts on consumers. Where is the help for people like Tony and William? It was meant to be in the royal commission, but the government has squandered it. Removing these protections puts people at more risk of harm and is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. It won't help to protect our financial system. It puts the whole system at risk and is completely counterintuitive. The Treasurer is also proposing changes to small-amount credit contracts and consumer leases. Once again, the government is ignoring the recommendations of their own review from 2016, which recommended capping payments at 10 per cent of a consumer's income. The proposed laws would double this for employed people, meaning that consumers could be paying up to 40 per cent of their monthly income in payday lending fees. The proposed laws would also see enforcements spread across two different regulators, ASIC and APRA, but APRA does not have a consumer-facing mandate. Their role is to make sure banks don't make lending decisions that destabilise the bank or the financial system. Another concerning change in this bill is the way it deals with business loans. The changes will exempt any business lending from protections, regardless of the proportion of the loan that is for business purposes. Right now, a loan would have to have the predominant purpose as the business, but that bar has been removed. This just opens the door for even more exploitation of families through sham business loans. I share the concerns of consumer groups and financial counsellors like those at the Shoalhaven Women's Health Centre. Without these laws in place, there is no deterrent for lenders to give loans to people in precarious financial situations. There will not be adequate avenues for consumers to take action when a lender has acted against their obligations. It risks leaving people in my electorate with a lifetime of debt they cannot repay or, worse, homeless, distressed and suicidal. This bill will harm local people. It will harm vulnerable Australians. It will hurt our economy and hurt our financial system. It goes against the recommendations of the banking royal commission. It goes against the government's own review of small-amount credit contracts. It goes against common sense. I hope the government can take another look at this. I hope they will look at it from the point of view of those locals I mentioned earlier—from the point of view of those who are most vulnerable in our community and who are most at risk from these changes. I will always be standing up for them and doing all I can to make sure their voice is heard. I want to thank all the financial counsellors and other advocates who have contacted me with their concerns about these changes, not only for bringing some of these issues to my attention but for everything they do every day to help and protect those who are most vulnerable in our community. The work you do is so tough, but it is so important and it is making a difference to the lives of local people. 12:23 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to make some brief comments in support of the second reading of the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. Obviously, the flow of credit in our economy is vital for economic growth: getting capital through the arteries and veins of the economy to the businesses and the households that need it. If we're a society that doesn't support people being able to borrow money, then we're limited to our equity capacity. That's obviously a spectacular handbrake on economic growth and creating jobs and a better life for all Australians. It's equally important that there be a balance in place not only so that we have mature, flowing credit and capital markets but also so that people are protected from potential exploitation. I think these amendments are sensible and are going to make sure that the balance between those two objectives is right. During my adult life, there have been two major economic shocks or challenges that we've faced in this country, but of course both were global. One was the global financial crisis and the other is what we've faced in the last 12 months because of the coronavirus pandemic. Both times we have seen how surprisingly robust the financial sector is in this country. It is actually something to proud of. There is bad conduct and behaviour that occurs, and we should be making sure that we find that when it happens and that appropriate punishments are in place so that there is a disincentive to seek to take advantage of people. But, by and large, I would say that we're very well served by the mature financial sector that we have in this country. We certainly saw during the global financial crisis our four major banks become four of the largest by market capitalisation for a period of time there, because they were able to stand strongly, with some balance-sheet-underwriting support from the Commonwealth, of course. But they didn't need to be bailed out. They were protected and they survived and they were strengthened through that process. Equally, in the last 12 months, we've seen the resilience of our financial sector. So the reforms in this bill are quite timely because it is important that we encourage our financial sector to support lending and provide lending, and I think there is reasonable evidence that, in certain categories of lending, things have become too restrictive, and that's leading to people who might have been able to access finance and capital not being able to do so and subsequently limiting how they can grow their businesses and grow our economy and create jobs. Clearly, the amendments here are designed to apply these restrictions back to the small amount credit contracts and consumer leases and other credit products. Banks will continue to be regulated by APRA, as we heard from the previous speaker, and new lending standards for non-bank lenders will be introduced that will maintain consumer protections while reducing the compliance burden for both lenders and borrowers. High compliance burdens only lead to higher costs, and we in the Liberal Party know that we need appropriate levels of regulation, not unnecessary levels of regulation, and, if they are preventing banks and institutions from lending money when they otherwise would have, then we should strongly consider why that regulation is in place. Why is it necessary and why are we preventing people from accessing the capital that they need? There are some key reforms here that extend to small amount credit contracts and consumer leases. We're introducing a cap on costs that will limit what a lessor can charge. We're facilitating the introduction of a cap on the amount consumers can devote to leases. We're requiring the SACCs to have equal repayments and equal-repayment intervals in order to prevent SACC providers from artificially extending a loan. We're prohibiting SACC providers making unsolicited SACC invitations to current and former customers, prohibiting door-to-door selling of consumer leases and introducing broad anti-avoidance provisions to prevent SACC and consumer lease providers from circumventing the law. I also make the point that the Australian Financial Complaints Authority is one of the key institutions that the government has to provide consumers with protections and avenues to address issues that might arise for them in dealing with financial institutions. To briefly digress, I had an experience with them recently, with a constituent who had had money—a substantial amount of money—transacted out of their account without their authorisation or knowledge. We were able to work with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority to achieve a complete resolution of that matter, and the entirety of the funds that had been removed were restored to the gentleman's account. That, to me, was an excellent example of the institutions that we've got that protect consumers, and particularly the smaller parties in the relationship between a big financial institution and an individual borrower. That was an excellent experience for me, and I'm glad that we've got AFCA in place to help ensure that consumers are protected and that financial institutions are following the laws. That is the case with APRA as well, and ASIC and all of the government integrity institutions that we've got this country. As I said at the outset, this is about making sure we get the balance right between protecting vulnerable people and ensuring that credit is flowing to the maximum capability, safely and fairly, within a rules based structure, so that we've got mature financial markets that are supporting businesses to grow and create jobs. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House. 12:30 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I too rise to speak against the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, because we on this side of the House believe it will be a very damaging bill for Australians and the Australian economy. If there's one thing that the current health and economic crisis has taught us, it has been that it's vital that we focus on long-term reform and not chase short-term gains, as is being done through this particular bill. Chasing short-term gains is precisely what this bill does. The government wants to remove key responsible lending protections as an attempt to simplify Australia's credit framework, but this will have a disastrous effect in the long term both for the economy and, more importantly, for individuals' livelihoods. The changes proposed by this bill will shift responsibility from where it is, with lenders, to the borrower. It will reduce protections for borrowers if credit decisions are made on the basis of incorrect information, for example. It's important to note that recommendation 1.1 of the Hayne royal commission explicitly warned against amending this framework. So what does the government do? It ignores one of the key findings of its own royal commission. But we shouldn't be surprised by that, because the government always opposed holding a royal commission. It only held one very, very reluctantly following pressure from this side of the House and from media and following a widespread outburst of community support. The government claims that these reforms will enhance credit supply for businesses and for consumers by removing barriers, but let's not forget that there are a range of other barriers to business like business certainty, investment and credit demand because of government policy uncertainty and economic conditions. We've got one of the lowest rates of wage growth in the history of this country, low productivity and, of course, high unemployment. If you want to remove barriers, those underlying foundations are the things you have to fix to get a good economy going so people can borrow and can pay their loans back. Responsible lending obligations are a very important part of safeguarding both the individual and the economy. They were introduced as part of the reforms to credit law, which were undertaken by the Rudd government in 2009, which established a nationally consistent framework for consumer credit known as the credit act. The act sets out responsible lending obligations so the lender has obligations and the borrower has obligations which require lenders to assess whether a credit product is unsuitable for a customer before providing that product to the customer. The provisions of the credit act are also enforced by ASIC. The government is claiming that responsible lending obligations are causing significant constraints to credit supply. But statements that we hear—media announcements and data released publicly by UBS and some other members of the industry, for example—show that there is limited evidence of any problem with credit supply. In fact, Treasury's own submissions to the Hayne royal commission, which was made in 2018, suggested that responsible lending laws actually enhanced, rather than detracted from, macroeconomic outcomes. So it's no surprise that industry groups—the Banking Association, the Customer Owned Banking Association and the Australian Finance Industry Association—are publicly very supportive of these reforms. After all, they're the ones that stand to gain from them. But consumer groups led by Choice, for example, have expressed strong concerns about this bill. They're concerned about the relaxation of lending standards, which will allow lenders to make more loans that are unsuitable for vulnerable borrowers. Consumer groups are also concerned that reforms to payday lending protections don't go far enough. As reported on the ABC this weekend, more than 33,000 Australians and 125 community groups have signed the open letter against this bill. We share these concerns on this side of the House, and many experts feel that axing safe lending laws during a pandemic is extremely risky and would fuel an already overheating housing market. As Eliza Wu, an associate professor of finance at the University of Sydney, said, 'These reforms could sow the seeds of the next housing boom and'—very importantly—'the next debt crisis.' Have we really learnt nothing from the global financial crisis? If people can easily get unaffordable loans because of the changes, it will have dire consequences in the future. Australia already has one of the highest levels of consumer debt per capita in the world. This bill will give banks and credit suppliers a licence to entice people into even more debt. This reform would mean that banks and other lenders would not need to do the same degree of verification and checks and balances, for example, to make sure that loans are affordable and suitable for people, depending on their income. According to recent data, at the moment two in five Australians are already struggling to pay their bills during this COVID pandemic crisis. So, if people turn to easy credit to get them through a crisis, it could lead people further and further into financial hardship. What's worse, the laws are being wound back at a time when Australia's housing market is running hot. Property analyst CoreLogic says the market is in one of its strongest growth phases on record, and experts consistently warn that Australia's high household debt is a big risk in a recession. Low interest rates allow people to borrow big. As long as we have measures in place that assess and verify that people can afford to repay the loans, disaster can be averted. If this bill passes and interest rates increase by the slightest bit—and we can expect that to happen; at some stage in the future, interest rates will increase—people will then find themselves in extreme hardship and will be unable to pay their mortgages. The coronavirus recession has left 1.4 million Australians in mortgage stress. Almost 100,000 could default after JobKeeper ends. We don't know how many people could lose their jobs when JobKeeper ends, but the number is likely to be high. Now we hear and see that the government wants to make it easier for people to borrow more money than they can afford to pay. Uniting Communities is an organisation located in my electorate in South Australia. I've met with them on a number of occasions. They do amazing work to support very vulnerable people. Uniting Communities contacted me back when this bill went out for public consultation. They were already concerned then. Uniting Communities are deeply concerned about the harm that will be caused to Australians if consumer credit protections are diluted. They said to me that they felt this bill may potentially lead to a whole-economy debt disaster. To illustrate the potential danger, they told me about a case study and the story of one of their clients, a woman called Kelly. Kelly was receiving the DSP, the disability support pension, and living in Adelaide with her husband and three children. Kelly had lived with her disability all her life. She faced family violence in her marriage. Kelly depended on her husband to access financial service providers due to her disability, and, over time, Kelly experienced financial abuse. Kelly had received a settlement sum for a compensation claim before she married. The proceeds were used to pay off his car loan and his credit card. Kelly was told that this was necessary so that they were eligible to get a home loan. Kelly and her partner then purchased a home. After a few years, Kelly's husband became interested in purchasing a new car. Kelly objected to buying a new car and told her husband that they were struggling to meet their home loan repayments and could not afford a car loan. He insisted, and the finance broker at the car dealership filled in the car loan application. The car loan was later found to be unsuitable, as Kelly and her husband could not make repayments without substantial hardship. Kelly's family were living below the poverty line and getting assistance from agencies, including the Smith Family. They were getting emergency food relief hampers from them. The car loan came to the end of its term but had a balloon balance that Kelly and her husband just could not afford. The car loan provider again contacted her husband, to enter into a new contract to finance this outstanding balloon balance. Kelly didn't want to sign the new credit contract, as she knew this would mean they would struggle to meet their home loan repayments, which were far more important than the car to Kelly. However, Kelly and her husband still owed money on the car—the car that her husband owned and drove. Due to the financial pressure that this family felt—and the pressure that Kelly felt and the experience that she had at home, being pressured to sign—Kelly attempted to leave the situation, because it was one of financial abuse. Kelly was afraid for her safety and of what might happen when she protested. When she did protest about the loan, the domestic abuse would escalate. In the end, Kelly signed the credit offer under duress. The matrimonial money was directed to making the car loan repayments. Prioritising the car loan in turn resulted in their home loan going into arrears, as payments were not being made, and Kelly received a notice of default. There is no doubt that the stress and danger these changes could pose for vulnerable people like Kelly is significant. It can snowball and ruin people's lives—not for a short period but for the long term. There are other examples in my electorate. Karen Cox, CEO of the Financial Rights Legal Centre, has said: Watering down credit protections will leave individuals and families at severe risk of being pushed into credit arrangements that will hurt in the long term. This bill proposes to remove the existing responsible lending obligations and replace the current practice of lender responsibility with borrower responsibility. As a result, vulnerable people like Kelly, who have found themselves in an even more vulnerable position since COVID, will suffer. We can't let this happen to vulnerable Australians. 12:43 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Credit for the most awkward photo opportunity of recent years must go to Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and that moment when he was accepting the Hayne royal commission report. It was very clear that Treasurer Frydenberg wanted to wrap his arms around Kenneth Hayne and get a full endorsement for his economic policies. He didn't get that, and he hasn't returned it. Despite the government saying at the time that they received the royal commission report that they would act on all its recommendations, there's now a bill before the House—the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020—which sees the Morrison government going against recommendation 1.1. That's it. The first recommendation of the Hayne royal commission—don't water down responsible lending laws. What are we doing today? We're debating the Morrison government's attempt to water down responsible lending laws. Did the big banks ask for it? No. It doesn't look as though they did. From all accounts, it appears to be an ideological frolic from the Morrison government in reducing consumer protections. This is the very same coalition that fought against sensible reforms to protect consumers against financial misfeasance, put in place by the Rudd and Gillard governments. I remember being here in this place while then shadow Treasurer Hockey railed against the responsible lending changes that were being put in place by Labor. What do responsible lending laws do? They ensure that lenders assess whether a credit product is suitable for a customer before providing that product to the customer. Those provisions are enforced by ASIC and have not caused a great choking off of credit supply. Indeed, if you look at what's happening with credit at the moment, we have an Australia in which the level of household debt is among the highest in the world. Is Australia really in need of more irresponsible lending? Do we need to further increase the debt ratios of Australian households? Right now, we have some of the highest auction clearance rates on record. Housing markets, particularly in our big cities, are going gangbusters, making it more difficult than ever for young people to get into the housing market, yet this government says the answer to all that is more irresponsible lending, watering down the standards, and taking the responsibility away from the borrower and putting it on the lender. It's always the way with the Liberals. Give them a chance, and they will resort to that old 'caveat emptor' approach. They think the job of deciding whether lending is responsible shouldn't fall on the multibillion-dollar institution that is extending the funds. No, they say it should fall on the mums and dads—the same mums and dads who were victims of Storm Financial's collapse, leaving them not only with no savings but sometimes with debts that lingered for decades. The very behaviour of big financial institutions that led to the Hayne royal commission—and, indeed, in the United States, the sort of poor behaviour that preceded the global financial crisis—is now being encouraged by the coalition. The watering down of financial protections that we see from the US Republicans that caused so much damage to the United States' financial system is now playing out here in Australia. For lack of any clear economic agenda and for lack of a plan for boosting productivity and increasing wages, we have instead the coalition dipping into their ideological top drawer, looking to do the bidding of the big financial institutions against the interests of regular Australians. What do the consumer groups say about this? A letter from 122 organisations and 97 prominent Australians last year urged the federal government not to go ahead with its watering down of safe lending laws. Supporters of that letter included the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Council of Social Service, Anglicare, religious groups, community groups, and legal and family violence associations from across Australia. As Alan Kirkland, the CEO of CHOICE, has said: Without safe lending protections many Australians will be exposed to the terrible lending practices we saw in the lead-up to the global financial crisis. Fiona Guthrie, CEO of Financial Counselling Australia, said: Many people are struggling financially at the moment and the last thing they need is to be loaded up with more debt. Financial counsellors see at first hand the harm caused to people and families when they struggle to make repayments. She went on: We cannot in good conscience sit by and let these laws go through without doing what we can to stop them. That's also why financial counsellors from around Australia are writing to their local politicians … Karen Cox, the CEO of the Financial Rights Legal Centre, said: Before safe laws were introduced, lenders regularly sold unaffordable loans to people, including pensioners, people on Centrelink payments and casual workers, who they knew would never be able to repay the loans. As she pointed out: It's beyond belief that less than two years after the royal commission made this its first recommendation that the Government wants to go directly against it. The real risk is that we change the incentives for lenders: we remove or weaken penalties for breaching safe lending laws, and then we see an increase in irresponsible lending. These changes will reduce verification requirements for lenders, replacing the current practice of lender responsibility with borrower responsibility. There will be two separate enforcement regimes, with enforcement of lending standards staying with APRA for authorised deposit-taking institution lenders but moving to ASIC for lenders that are not authorised deposit-taking institutions, separating the enforcement regimes and again creating a risk of multiple standards and the watering down of protections for consumers. There's going to be an exemption of business lending from protections, regardless of the proportion of the loan that is for a business purpose. That replaces the existing predominant purpose test designed to prevent avoidance. So, if you just ensure that a small share of the loan is for business purposes, you've taken yourself out of the financial protection regime. But we know that many small businesses operate as family businesses. Indeed, if anyone knows that, it should be the coalition, because they put the word 'family' in next to 'small business' in their portfolio and in the title of the ombudsman. They ought to know the way in which these loans can be intertwined. They ought to be standing on the side of small and family businesses. But yet again the coalition have found themselves—as when they voted 26 times against a banking royal commission—standing on the side of the big banks, not on the side of mums and dads, and standing on the side of large financial institutions, not on the side of Australians who need protection. Academics have warned about the risk posed by these changes. Eliza Wu from the University of Sydney says these reforms could 'sow the seeds of the next housing boom and the next debt crisis'. Treasury's own submission to the banking royal commission said: There is little evidence to suggest that the recent tightening in credit standards … has materially affected the overall availability of credit. So there's no case being made for it by Treasury. There's no case being made for it by consumer groups. We're in an economy in which lending for housing has increased, house prices are booming, consumer credit is broadly available and many economists are warning of the danger to the economy of a crushing household debt burden, the risk that too many Australian households could be exposed to excessive debt. The Treasurer said that the events that preceded the royal commission were, in his words, 'appalling'. Indeed, as the member for Whitlam pointed out, the Treasurer confected concerns about a teenager with Down syndrome who was sold life insurance by an unscrupulous, commission-hungry bank salesman. Yet, when that young man's father wrote to Treasurer Frydenberg and begged him not to scrap responsible lending laws, he never even got a response. Treasurer Frydenberg is willing to cry crocodile tears for past victims of banking misconduct, but he's not willing to listen to those victims when they say, 'Don't water down responsible lending laws.' The industry will, of course, accept it. They'll take anything that reduces their responsibilities to do lending checks. But they're not out there demanding it. This is not a core demand from the industry. And consumer groups, such as the Consumer Action Law Centre, have told stories about the clients that they assessed. The Consumer Action Law Centre give a case study of a woman whom they call Silvia, whose only source of income is the pension, who has no savings, who suffers from depression and has had past issues with addiction, and who has done all her banking for the last 20 years with the same big four bank. The case study says: Earlier this year, Silvia went into her bank branch in the outer suburbs of Melbourne and took out a $25,000 loan, which was secured over her home (which she previously owned outright). Silvia says that she had originally asked for $20,000 and told the bank representative that she wanted it to pay off $5,000 she owed on her credit card, and to do some home improvements. Silvia recounted that the bank representative asked her some questions about her finances, and then the representative told her she was going to receive a $25,000 loan—$5,000 more than she asked for. She felt that they didn't really give her a choice about getting a loan for a lower amount. Silva needed to pay $133 a fortnight, 14 per cent of her pension, at a time when she was already having troubles making ends meet with her groceries, home and contents insurance and health insurance, when she was already living from one cheque to another. The case study goes on: While Silvia managed to make the repayments, the loan was causing her a great deal of stress. She has attempted suicide because of stress. The loan repayments were direct debited from her account a few days after her pension is paid each fortnight. The real reason Silvia didn't miss any repayments is because she still had the loan funds to pay for things. She spent most of the loan funds already, and she only has $7,000 left. Silvia complained to the bank, claiming the loan was provided in breach of responsible lending laws as it was larger than the loan she requested and the repayments were causing her financial hardship. The bank acknowledged that it could have been more prudent in advancing the funds, and offered to waive all future interest on the loan, and refund any interest already paid. What would have happened to Silvia without responsible lending laws? Without responsible lending laws, the bank could have simply told her to go away. They wouldn't have had any obligations. Silvia, a pensioner who suffers from depression and who attempted to take her own life, would not have had the protection of responsible lending laws. This bill before the House, mark my words, is the kind of bill brought before the parliament by a government with no agenda. They have no plan for rapidly vaccinating Australia. At a time when the vaccine rollout is occurring apace in countries like Britain and the United States, it is falling behind in Australia. The Treasurer told us last year that the state lockdowns of the economy were costing $4 billion a week, but, now, as a delayed vaccine rollout prevents a full reopening of the economy, the government is refusing to take responsibility for the economic cost that it is inflicting, not to mention the health risk that exists for vulnerable Australians. Over the weekend, we saw fresh outbreaks of COVID, and it points to the urgency of moving ahead with the vaccination. But, at the same time, Australia needs a government with ambition, a government that acts, as the governments of Curtin and Chifley did at the end of World War II with the full employment white paper that said: 'Let's not just put the place back the way it was in 1939. Let's do better and aspire to full employment and aspire to increasing homeownership.' The Morrison government stands for nothing. It has no agenda, it is lacklustre and this bill before the House reflects all that is rotten with the government today. (Time expired) 12:58 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt It's often said by observers of federal politics in Australia for some reason—reasons that I clearly can't understand—that the government parties here are the parties of good economic management, that somehow they have a better approach, a sounder approach, to economic management. This bill, the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, demonstrates everything that is wrong about this government's approach to economic management and in particular that intersection of economic management and consumer protection, because, if there is one topic that has been discussed time and time again in this place since I was elected in 2016, it would have to be the need for a banking royal commission—a banking royal commission that was called for for years and years, a banking royal commission that the Labor side of the parliament voted for time and time again, a banking royal commission that the government voted against time and time again. But eventually they were dragged kicking and screaming by Labor and the baying masses of the Australian people saying: 'It is time. We need this royal commission.' And the royal commission was finally held. Then, of course, it was all too hard for the government to bring about the legislation to implement the recommendations of that royal commission before the 2019 election, despite offers of cooperation from our side of the House to make that happen. One of the key recommendations out of that royal commission is about making sure that we have appropriate consumer protection and responsible lending obligations on our banks. It's a key recommendation, right up there: 1.1, right at the top. Here today, we have legislation before this parliament. It's not implementing the recommendations, no; it's doing the precise opposite. Two years after we got this recommendation from the royal commission, the government is now legislating the opposite thing to what that royal commission recommended. The government likes to fall back and say, 'Oh, well, there are protections that will be applied through APRA regulation,' but that fundamentally misses the point, because there's something else government likes to talk about, and the banks mentioned this too. They said: 'Well, we're not going to lend money irresponsibly. We're not going to give money to people who can't repay it and in a way that may cause them financial detriment, because, of course, it's our money that we're lending them. We don't want to do that. That would be against our own interests.' Of course, in making that statement the government and the banks seem to completely overlook all of the behaviour that had occurred for the decades leading up to the royal commission and why we held the royal commission in the first place. Amazingly, it would appear the government now thinks that the banks will not do the same thing that they did before when these requirements are removed. There is a critical and important distinction—I know it's somewhat difficult for the government to understand this distinction, but it is a distinction nonetheless—between APRA regulation and ASIC regulation of responsible lending laws. The distinction is this: the purpose of the responsible lending regulations in the APRA regulation is to make sure that the bank doesn't lend money in such a way that the bank can't get back its own money. Notice I didn't mention 'consumer' or 'borrower' in that statement. That's because it's got nothing to do with the consumer or the borrower. This means that, if the bank is confident that if the borrower does default and can't repay then the bank will get the money back by selling that person's house, that meets the APRA requirement. That's fine, because the bank got its money back. It's about prudential regulation. It's about the stability of the financial system and the bank. The ASIC consumer protection element of responsible lending is about making sure that the borrower is not put under such financial stress by taking out the loan that they would not only be unable to repay it but also be unable to properly live whilst repaying that loan. It's to make sure that the borrower is not put in an extortionate position of not being able to put food on their and their children's tables because of having to repay that loan, and that they don't end up losing their house, which is the house that their family is living in. That is what the government is trying to unwind in the name of economic recovery. Well, just explain to me this, government: how much of an economic recovery are you going to get when people start losing their houses? That is not an economic recovery; that is literally undermining the foundation of the Australian economy. It's hard enough as it is. Why would you go about making it worse? The government also says that this is going to help credit supply to business. This is curious for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is that, as part of the government's economic support package in response to the coronavirus pandemic, it is now—and has been in some other guises—offering low-interest or deferred-interest loans to business. But what business tells us—and, in fact, what business was telling us back at the time of the bushfires when a similar scheme was introduced—is that business isn't interested in taking on yet more debt in an economically uncertain time. All the government is actually doing through this legislation is creating even more uncertainty in the area of credit supply to the nation. It's creating more uncertainty. It's already got the uncertainty that is the coronavirus pandemic, and now it's making it worse at a time when business isn't saying, 'We want to borrow money.' Businesses are finding it hard enough as it is. The last thing they want is more debt. Where they do want to borrow and get access to credit, the government has now put in place many different schemes to do so. It announced a new scheme just recently. Why does it now want to put the owners of those small businesses, their families and their homes at risk by enabling them to borrow money when it would be inappropriate to do so? I just want the government to think about that for a minute. I want all Australians to think about that. As I said, we spent years in this place trying to get a royal commission up. Going directly to this point, the royal commission came out with recommendation 1.1: make sure that we've got appropriate protections and make sure that we don't have unfair lending practices. We saw what happened in the decades leading up to this, in the government's response during the coronavirus pandemic and in the government's response when it was elected in 2013. How could it unwind all of Labor's reforms, which were designed to protect consumers and strengthen—and I say strengthen, not make harder—the regulation of the financial system in Australia? Our financial system is actually, overall, a pretty good one. We have the benefit of Labor's great superannuation policy, another policy the government is trying to dismantle before our very eyes. The government is undermining confidence in the superannuation system and trying to convince people that there shouldn't be increases in the amount of compulsory superannuation. It's all consistent. Since they were elected in 2013, those opposite have wound back the protections that Labor tried to put into the system. That's only one part of this legislation. There are some other interesting protections in this legislation. They go to the issue of payday lending. This is a really important part of what we are discussing here today, not only because of the way in which payday lenders—for those who don't know—effectively use extortionate interest rates over a short period to capture people in desperate need of financial assistance. They get them locked into a cycle of financial reliance on one payday loan after the other and then ramp it up to pay the interest costs. It looks like a small cost because you're only going to borrow it for a month. But, lo and behold, when you can't repay it, wham, that interest is capitalised. Now you've got to borrow the principal plus the interest and pay it within one month. Another month goes by and, wham, the interest is capitalised again. Now you've got to repay that, along with the principal, and on it goes. Quite frankly, it's unconscionable. I say that because it is unconscionable! Under the existing protections for borrowing, if you were to go into a bank and say, 'I want a personal loan, as a consumer,' the bank would not be allowed to capitalise the interest. That's actually unconscionable under the ASIC legislation. They're not allowed to do that. But, with short-term or separate loans, they can get away with it. This legislation is designed to fix that, in part, just a little bit. It's not really a great job, but they're getting there. They're learning slowly. They're getting somewhere. What's quite interesting is this: the government had actually already prepared legislation on this for the last parliament. They prepared it, sent it out for consultation and got feedback on it. Labor said: 'This is a great idea. We've been saying you should do this for quite a while.' Then it just got slipped into a pocket somewhere. It sort of disappeared. The Senate has looked at this legislation and—this may surprise some—Labor members of that Senate inquiry said: 'Look, this legislation is not great, but we're not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We support this legislation. We think it's a good idea. We think you should go further, government, like your original legislation, but we'll support this.' On the other hand, the government members of that committee—remember, this is government legislation—said they didn't support it. They didn't support their own government's legislation, even though it had support from Labor. The executive proposed the legislation, the opposition said, 'We'll support you,' but the government's own senators didn't support it. That probably tells you everything you need to know about this government. So here we've got similar provisions dropped into this bill to provide some protections to consumers, some caps on the nature of this payday lending that can go on. I think there's a very strong argument to say that those protections are not strong enough; however, we will support them because we're not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We welcome their inclusion in this legislation today. I mentioned before some curious rhetoric coming from the government about how removing some of the regulatory responses to ensure appropriate consumer protection is going to free up capital for business and credit lending for business, and that the government's already got some other programs. I mentioned one of those programs, where they're going to allow for low-interest deferred repayment loans. They will, fortunately, unlike their policy response during the bushfires, allow these loans to be used to consolidate existing debt. That is a good thing for our small business community. But let's just put that in the full context. The full context of this announcement is that in just 13 days time the JobKeeper payment will cease under this government. On 28 March there will be no more JobKeeper under this government. Meanwhile, across Australia, thousands of businesses relying on JobKeeper and the 1.1 million employees that they employ will miss out. They will be left high and dry. We've had varying reports from Treasury that over 100,000 people—others estimate up to 250,000—will lose their job as a consequence of the removal of JobKeeper. We're going to see a situation where businesses, with only 13 days to go until JobKeeper comes to an end and with no clarity from government—they've announced a loan scheme and they've announced a scheme to fly you to a handful of places you might not want to go to anyway or, in the case of Western Australia, are already full. That scheme supports aviation, and that's good, but it's not actually going to support any of the businesses in those areas. They've announced those schemes and they've sort of left it open that they might look at some other stuff. Well, with 13 days to go, those businesses relying on JobKeeper need to get some serious advice now. They're in a situation where they won't be able to provide sufficient notice to any employees that they may need to make redundant as a consequence of them not getting JobKeeper or any other support from this government come the end of March. We need to look at that in this context because when those employees are made redundant—those employees who are also financial consumers—they're the ones who are going to need protection from the banks to make sure they also don't get in over their heads, that they don't those put up their house as collateral at risk of losing it. When we had proper protections in place, those protections would have made sure that that couldn't happen. But under this legislation that the government is bringing forward right now, when many Australians—over 100,000 of them—and business owners are going to find themselves at their most financially vulnerable, they're not going to have any protection when it comes to borrowing in Australia. 13:13 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I thank the member for Burt for his insightful contribution. I am pleased to have the opportunity to put on record my concerns about this bill, the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. This bill makes several changes to existing consumer credit legislation, but the headline here is the amendments remove responsible lending obligations for most consumer credit contracts and potentially expose consumers to significant harm. This is in direct contradiction of the first recommendation of the banking royal commission. It really takes something for a government to go to the expense—very reluctantly, I must say—of actually setting up a royal commission, promising to implement the recommendations and then, at the first opportunity, seeking to unwind the very first recommendation of that royal commission. This essentially represents a massive gift to the big banks from the government, who cannot be trusted. They show us time and again that they cannot be trusted when it comes to financial sector regulation. Labor are referring this bill to a Senate inquiry once it goes through the House and will settle a final position on the bill following that inquiry, but our overwhelming disposition, from the tenor of the debate on this side of the House, is to stand with Australian consumers in opposing this bill as it stands. It really says something that we've had Labor member after Labor member standing up to speak on this bill in this place on behalf of consumers, on behalf of Australians, and the government members are nowhere to be seen. They're so eager to support this legislation that they're nowhere to be seen. Anglicare Tasmania in its submission to the Senate inquiry into the bill stated: … there should be no weakening of current consumer protections and the Parliament should vote against this Bill in its entirety. Anglicare has the largest team of financial counsellors in Tasmania. They support people to avoid and manage debt, they negotiate with creditors and they understand their legal rights and responsibilities. This is an organisation that knows what it's talking about. It has people in the field every single day dealing with vulnerable Tasmanians who are in debt up to their neck, and they are saying: 'Don't do this. It will hurt people.' Anglicare Tasmania works every day with people who will be most impacted by this legislation, and they should be listened to. It has warned that passing this bill will result in more Australians being pressured into loans that they are unable to repay. I understand, like many on this side of the House. We come from fairly modest upbringings. My parents would take short-term loans—enter rental agreements for a new fridge or whatever—and then they'd have to try and pay them off. It always costs more in the long run, but they were so desperate to get the appliance that they went into these loans. I understand the appeal of these things, especially when salespeople are out there saying: 'Do this. You can have a new appliance—a new fridge, a new TV, a new whatever. Give your family what they deserve.' It's a very seductive proposition. When you're hoping for a better life and somebody's there saying: 'It's there, right in front of you. It's just a few short dollars a week,' it's very easy to grab onto it. A drowning man will grab onto anything, and he'll bring the next person down as well. It's our job as legislators in this place to ensure that we put protections in law to ensure that vulnerable people don't get into those positions. This legislation will remove many of the tools that financial counsellors use to assist people affected by inappropriate lending conduct. The Tasmanian Council of Social Service, TasCOSS, also strongly opposes this bill. TasCOSS is the peak body for the community services sector in Tasmania. It advocates on behalf of Tasmanians on low incomes, especially those who experience vulnerability and disadvantage. TasCOSS argue that weakening consumers will lead to greater financial hardship that will hamper rather than support Australia's economic recovery. I know the argument on the government benches is that this will see investment flow into business. That's what they're saying this will do. Well, it won't. It will exacerbate vulnerable people and vulnerable businesses getting into more debt than they currently have. The CEO of consumer rights group CHOICE, Alan Kirkland, has raised similar concerns to those of TasCOSS, saying that the timing of these changes is way off. He says: Australia already has the second highest level of personal household debt in the world. Loading people up with even more debt will make it even more challenging for households already doing it tough. It so happens that the member for Bruce on this side of the House has prepared a report. He's used his, I think, Christmas holidays to write this very detailed report. He's done a lot of research. It's all proper research. It's not a political document in terms of rhetoric. I'll briefly go through some bullet points. One is that household debt as a share of GDP in Australia is 119.4 per cent; we have the second-highest rate of 43 countries studied by the Bank for International Settlements. Another is that 37 per cent of Australians, more than one in three, admit to struggling to pay off personal debt, and this government wants to make it even easier to get into debt. Finally, as of 2016, Australians owed $2 trillion in private debt. I quote Richard Yetsenga, the ANZ chief economist: … this pandemic has dialled up the risk profile of the economy because the most indebted sector — households — no longer have the buffer provided by future interest rate cuts." That's where we are at the moment. We are already massively in debt, at both the private and the public level, and this government wants to make it even easier for vulnerable people to get into debt. This has the potential to cause real harm, and not in an abstract sense. I'm talking about real people in real homes, in our neighbourhoods and in our communities, who will be harmed by this. It will affect children. It will affect pensioners. It will affect people who are least able to look after themselves. As the member for Whitlam pointed out in his contribution to this debate, almost every Australian either is now or has been a bank customer. When things go wrong in that relationship, the effects can be devastating and life-changing for the customer. And it's never the banks that suffer. They have the power in the relationship. They always have the power in the relationship. The ordinary customer must rely on the law to protect them, and this legislation rolls those protections right back. This is what I don't understand. We know what happens when consumers are not properly protected when dealing with the financial services industry. We know because we've just had a royal commission to tell us. We've just had witness after witness—more than 10,000 submissions to the Hayne royal commission—tell us about the costs to consumers, about what happens when the industry gets it wrong. That's 10,000 ordinary Australians who put their trust in a bank or a financial services institution and came out poorer for it at the other end. Many years ago, when I was a journalist, we dealt with a gentleman who had buildings. He was a small developer. He was servicing his loans. His business was going well. The bank that he did business with was sold to a big bank. The big bank did a profile and decided: 'We don't want to do loans to small development businesses anymore. Call in those loans.' So they called in his loans. He was surprised; he'd been meeting all his obligations with no trouble at all. He said: 'Okay. Fair enough. Things happen.' He said, 'I'll need to sell one of those properties in order to release the capital so I can pay the loan.' They said: 'No, you can't do that. We put caveats over your properties. You can't sell them.' So he had no access to the properties in order to be able to sell them to meet the loans that had been called in. In the end, the bank sold those properties under him for an absolute song. He was massively into debt and, of course, went bankrupt. He was a successful businessman; he had done nothing wrong. And just because of the conduct of a bank, he went bankrupt like that. That's one of the sorts of stories—one of 10,000 stories—that went to the Hayne royal commission, and this government seems to have learnt nothing from that. It's the first recommendation from the royal commissioner. The banking, superannuation and financial services royal commission identified the need for stronger, not weaker, rules and oversight of financial services. It's hardly surprising, because we know just how little weight this government really gave to the banking royal commission. It was absolutely dragged into that royal commission. They voted against it 26 times. There were votes in this place 26 times about setting up a banking royal commission, which Labor had called for consistently. On that side, the government side, they voted against it 26 times. They absolutely did not want a banking royal commission until they were dragged into it, until they just could not get out of it anymore. They've been reluctant about it ever since. They said it was 'a waste of time'. And now they're walking back from Commissioner Hayne's first recommendation: to leave responsible lending obligations alone. It took bravery and courage for victims of bank misconduct to come forward to the royal commission. They did so because they wanted to protect their fellow Australians from experiencing what they went through. It was too late for them. They've lost their homes; they've lost their businesses. They've been through it all, but they presented evidence to the royal commission to help other people. What a slap in the face for the government to say to those brave Australians who fronted that royal commission, 'We're going to ignore the very first recommendation from that royal commission.' Barely one-third of the 76 recommendations of the royal commission have been fully implemented two years after the government received the report. What an absolute crawl! They've failed to introduce the compensation scheme, which would provide relief to the victims of financial crime. When it comes to rorts and rip-offs in the banking system, this government has never been on the side of ordinary Australians. Those opposite were dragged kicking and screaming to the royal commission. They've done hardly anything over the two years since to really implement its recommendations, and they're ripping away the very first recommendation in this legislation. They've never cared about looking after Australians. They've never cared about really tackling bank misconduct. They believe that if you let the banks do what they want it's good for business. It doesn't matter if there's human collateral damage down the road. It doesn't matter if people lose their homes and businesses. That's just collateral damage. That's just the cost of doing business. The human wreckage that is left behind from this sort of legislation is just the cost of doing business. After years of inaction, this government is using the pandemic as an excuse for everything. Those opposite have used it as an excuse to cut Australians' pay and to cut superannuation and now are using it as an excuse to undermine protections in the banking sector. In the current environment of high levels of unemployment, reduced income and the winding back of COVID-19 support measures, which come to an end on 31 March, introducing weaker consumer protections will result in more Australians being saddled with harmful debt or experiencing significant financial hardship. It will not support our economic recovery. Supporting families, supporting small businesses and supporting workers should be the highest priority for this government, particularly at a time of greater community vulnerability due to the impacts of the pandemic and the winding back of the support measures. Instead, this government is leaving hardworking Australians exposed and vulnerable. Imagine what it's going to be like when JobKeeper comes to an end at the end of this month and people who are currently getting a certain level of income drop back to a JobSeeker rate. They'll still have bills to manage and repayments to make. Imagine, in those circumstances, being told by some spiv on the high street: 'You can get an easy loan. We'll wind back the protections.' In your heart of hearts, you'd think, 'Yes, I'll pay that back.' You'd be so desperate to do it. At the end of this month we're going to have a lot of people in this country suddenly bringing a lot less income into their households, at the same time as this government wants to bring in legislation which makes it easier for them to access credit which could harm them significantly. It's a recipe for disaster. Unaffordable debt has a detrimental effect on physical and mental health, family wellbeing and the ability to pay for essentials such as groceries and electricity. People struggling with debt have been found to suffer from depression and suicidal ideation more often than those without financial problems. This legislation threatens to make harm worse and make Australians worse off, not better. I certainly do not commend this bill to the House. 13:28 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, but I should say that my heart is not in this speech. My heart—probably like the member for Griffith's, I would imagine—is outside this chamber right now, marching for justice around Parliament House. But, nevertheless, some of us do have a job to do, albeit for a short time. Sadly, this bill removes responsible lending obligations for the majority of consumer credit contracts. Let me just remind the House that in 2009, partially in response to the global financial crisis, the Labor government introduced the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. That bill introduced a range of measures around the conduct of credit providers, including requiring them to abide by a set of responsible lending obligations. It's bizarre to think that that legislation took until 2009. These responsible lending obligations require that credit providers make reasonable inquiries about a customer and assess whether a credit product will be unsuitable for a consumer. The obligations were designed to protect the consumer, and I was very proud that Labor brought them in. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 53 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Christchurch: Attacks 53 13:30 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Today is the second anniversary of the Christchurch massacre. I vividly recall the horror of that day, the pain and the loss of families, and the shared grief of New Zealand and Australia. To our eternal shame, the murderer was an Australian. The brutality, the inhumanity, stunned the world—an atrocity in any place, but unspeakably so in a place of worship and reflection. It also struck many Australians that those who were murdered were, just like our community, people from all backgrounds: locals, students, immigrants and visitors. Yesterday in Victoria was the Islamic Council's mosque open day. I visited a mosque in Dandenong. It was wonderful to see the whole community welcomed—Australians in all their diversity. Multicultural Australia is modern Australia. It was an act of terror that was committed, but to suggest it was a lone act of terror would insult the memory of those who died. It was fuelled by hate speech and the noxious far-Right political ideology of white supremacism. The then Leader of the Opposition spoke powerfully: Not all right wing extremist hate speech ends in right wing extremist violence. But all right wing extremist violence begins with right wing extremist hate speech. Words have consequences and plant the seeds for violence. Right-wing extremism is still on the rise in Australia, as it is around the world, and the government must do much more to act on right-wing extremism and hate speech and make sure that such an atrocity can never happen here. Rotary Oceania Medical Aid for Children 53 13:31 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Recently I met with Harold Sharp OAM, a past district governor of Rotary in the Berowra area and chairman of the Rotary Oceania Medical Aid for Children, to understand more about ROMAC's work. ROMAC commenced in March 1988 out of the actions of an Australian Rotarian who, with a group of surgeons, visited Labasa in Fiji. They discovered childhood mortality rates as high as 25 per cent, caused by the lack of medical and surgical facilities and skills. ROMAC, which is run entirely by volunteers, enlists assistance from medical experts, hospitals, nurses, physios, pathologists, radiologists, airline sponsors and other supporters. Today, ROMAC provides surgical treatment to around 50 children from Oceania every year. Vincent, a two-month-old from the Solomons, required urgent surgery to correct a blockage between his oesophagus and his stomach. Mourine, a 14-year-old girl from a small island in the north of the Solomons—where they live a subsistence life, without electricity—had a massive growth on her neck and chest. Verzi, a 15-year-old girl from the Solomons, in 2015 had rheumatic fever which eventually meant she needed a valve in her heart replaced. ROMAC's work has brought hope to over 500 children like Vincent, Mourine and Verzi, from more than 20 developing countries. Rotary members from districts across Australia provide rostered support on a daily basis for over 10 months, taking the kids grocery shopping, showing them how to use Western appliances and accompanying them to medical appointments. Thank you, Harold, for all the great work that you and ROMAC have done and continue to do to provide support and medical care to children in our Pacific family. Christchurch: Attacks 53 13:33 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise to echo the sentiments of my friend the member for Bruce, who spoke before me. Today marks two years since the evil attack on people in worship, practising their religion, at a Christchurch mosque. Fifty-one of our New Zealand neighbours were slain that day while attending Friday prayers, at the hands, shamefully, of an Australian—a fact that brought this horrific and evil attack, which hurt our very, very dear friends, so close to home. In remembering this event, and given it was committed by one of our own, we in this House must recommit to tackling extremism wherever it is found. Just two days after those events two years ago, I joined many locals in coming together at the Virgin Mary Mosque in Hoppers Crossing. Many there that day had probably never been to a mosque and never considered it, but that day was about our community coming together to support one another in the shadow of the tragic and evil event. Yesterday, we also gathered at our wonderful Virgin Mary Mosque—in better circumstances, I must say—to celebrate the wonderful contribution that our Muslim community makes to the city of Wyndham. I want to thank Sheikh Abdullah, the committee and the community for their warm welcome yesterday, for the prayers they offer for all of Australia and for the contributions they make to our great community. International Women's Day 54 13:34 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm Last week we marked International Women's Day. For me, this time of year has always been about celebrating the achievements of women but also, and just as important, challenging us to do and accomplish even more. So this year I decided to meet with and share the stories and achievements of some of Chisholm's incredible women in the hope that it would inspire other local women and girls to dream big, work hard and make the world a better place. Today, with the same purpose in mind, I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge these women in parliament: Helen Gunther, an incredible volunteer for the Nunawading Toy Library; Dilnaz Billimoria, advocate and community leader, particularly on ethnic and interfaith issues; Dr Michelle Cotter, principal of Avila College and lifelong educator; Jennifer Brosnan, local businesswoman, entrepreneur and founder of Women of Whitehorse; and Dr Ranjana Srivastava OAM, cancer specialist, scholar and award-winning author. These are amazing women that we want to acknowledge. Western Australian State Election 54 13:36 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt It's my honour to stand here today to congratulate the Mark McGowan WA Labor team on their tremendous victory in the state election on Saturday 13 March just gone. It is a testament to the way in which the McGowan government has approached government in the state of Western Australia, particularly over this last year during the COVID pandemic. They knew it was important to prioritise keeping Western Australians safe. They knew it was important to make sure that they prioritised keeping Western Australia strong by keeping our resources industry and our construction industry powering ahead to support the state and the nation whilst keeping Western Australians safe from harm, in particular with their strong border—the strong border that Clive Palmer and Scott Morrison wanted to bring down. Western Australians spoke strong and sure this weekend when they re-elected the Mark McGowan Labor government. In the electorate of Burt that I represent, I am so proud to have been able to stand with, support and see re-elected the member for Armadale, Dr Tony Buti MLA; the member for Southern River, Terry Healy; the member for Thornlie, Chris Tallentire; the member for Jandakot, Yaz Mubarakai; and the member for Cannington, Bill Johnston. Not only that, but we saw the election of Hugh Jones in the seat of Darling Range. Hugh Jones, who spent 30 years in the Navy, will be an excellent contributor to the state parliament of Western Australia. I say congratulations to them all. Reid Electorate: Chinese Australian Services Society 54 13:37 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid Australia is one of the most successful multicultural communities around the world, and Reid is home to over 40,000 people who have Chinese ancestry. Two weeks ago I had the great pleasure of congratulating the Chinese Australian Services Society, better known as CASS, on their 40 years of providing outstanding service to our community. Australia has a long and proud tradition of welcoming migrants from around the world. Immigration, from China in particular, to Australia dates back more than 200 years. Today we have more than 1.2 million Australians of Chinese ancestry who have chosen to make Australia their home. By providing a comprehensive range of social and welfare services across the life span, CASS has provided settlement services, education, vocational training, social and recreational activities, aged care and child care, and they serve their community so well. Chinese Australians are an integral part of our diverse multicultural society, and we value their contributions to our nation. In the Year of the Ox, we can reflect on the Chinese community's resilience during times of hardship, particularly during the last year, which has been challenging. For four decades, the efforts of CASS have provided important services and support to the Chinese and Asian Australian communities. I take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude for their commitment and service to our community. Western Australian State Election 54 13:39 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth Every Australian is fortunate that Mark McGowan was re-elected Premier of Western Australia. He is the most experienced member of the national cabinet, and the result on Saturday was a huge endorsement of his achievements as Premier. But, in the world of the Prime Minister, he would probably want me to come in here and congratulate him. If you read the West Australian, you would read this: ScoMo takes credit for LABOR Premier's massive victory I don't remember the Prime Minister coming over to campaign for either side during the state election. In fact, he hasn't been to Western Australia for some 18 months. A simple 'Congratulations, Mark' would have been fine, but instead we have this Donald Trump style claiming credit, in an election that the Prime Minister definitely did not win, for a Labor victory. When the Prime Minister does eventually come back to Western Australia—and I note that he has cancelled his own planned cabinet meeting that was due to take place in Western Australia after the Perth bushfires—maybe he could apologise to the people of Western Australia for helping Clive Palmer in the High Court. He is no friend of Western Australia, and he needs to listen to the people of the west. This was the people of Western Australia speaking as one and saying, 'Give us clear plans for jobs, support our tourism industry, make sure that you invest in our schools, make sure you invest in our hospitals—and we do not want the member for Tangney's ridiculous Roe 8 road to nowhere.' Members of Parliament: Staff 55 13:41 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said: You will make a difference in the world, but not immediately. Your first obligation is to find something you like doing, because if you like doing it, you'll do it well. I love my job and I have the best job in the world, but it has been a particularly difficult few weeks. The Prime Minister said, in his own International Women's Day speech, it has been 'traumatic' here in parliament, and being in Canberra I can tell you that everyone has felt shocked, distressed and sick that a young woman who was a staffer could experience sexual assault in what is a second home. This should never happen. Women and men should always feel respected, protected and listened to. We all want to ensure that Brittany Higgins is the last person who has to go through this in our workplace. I support the independent inquiry into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces led by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins to address the cultural and structural changes that need to happen. Indeed, all of us across parliament are very focused on this, and, hopefully, it will be our parliament that shows leadership in the future on these very important issues, as we continue to work through how things will be and must be different. Mayo Electorate: Australia Day Awards 55 13:42 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I'd like to congratulate all the 2020-21 recipients of Order of Australia medals from around our nation and note my gratitude for all they have done and all they do for our community. In particular, I'd like to mention two recipients from my community who have been recognised for their long and valued service to Mayo. The first is Winnie Pelz of Yankalilla, for her significant service to arts administration and to the community. Ms Pelz is a South Australian artist whose passion for art began at a very early age and led into a lifelong career in art teaching, practice and administration. The second is Pat Chigwidden of Victor Harbor, for her service to local government and to the community of Victor Harbor. Pat served for 18 years as an elected member of the City of Victor Harbor and she is a long-time volunteer in the community, from the visitor information centre to the Victor Harbor Town Pride group. With respect to Pat Chigwidden, I would see her everywhere when she was an elected councillor, and I'm sure every member of this place bumps into their councillors quite regularly. Pat would be at everything. Thank you, Pat, for all you do. And thank you, Ms Pelz. I warmly congratulate both recipients on the well-deserved recognition of their achievements in service of our community. Suicide 55 13:44 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax As societal scourges go, is there anything graver than suicide—than the propensity for people to take their own life? The most recent year for which the Australian Bureau of Statistics has published data is 2019, when there were 3,318 deaths by intentional self-harm. That's over nine people every single day, well over double the national death toll on our roads. This is a difficult issue. It's highly sensitive, and it's one that I believe certainly unites every single member in this chamber, weighing heavily on their minds. It was a humbling honour to attend a local launch of The Way Back program, hosted by the PHN in Cotton Tree. I was delighted to see Open Minds, a local mental health service provider, taking responsibility for rolling out The Way Back locally. To all those who work in this sector: thank you so much for working together, collaborating and keeping the issue of people at the centre. March 4 Justice 56 13:45 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I've just come from the women's March 4 Justice—thousands of women from around Australia came to parliament to have their voices heard, to stand up for equality and to say loudly: gendered violence, sexual assault and harassment should have no place in our society and should have no place in this parliament. I was there to listen to the speeches and the testimony of women like Aminata Conteh-Biger and Brittany Higgins. They spoke not only for themselves but for millions of women. I was there to stand with these women and to acknowledge and understand the challenges and the injustices they face every day. I was there because men need to be there, standing alongside women who are calling for respect, for equality and for basic safety at work, walking home at night and in their relationships. We need to change the culture in this place—the laws, the structures and the workplace standards. Whether issues are raised within our government, our Labor Party or any party, it doesn't matter. If there are claims of bullying, harassment or sexual assault, we must listen, investigate and act, not politically spin with the craven hope that these issues will disappear with the next news cycle. There is a spotlight on the hill today, shining brightly on some dark places. Let's keep that spotlight shining right here. Let's do everything we can to make the change that is necessary in this place. Biloela Community Resource Centre Extension 56 13:47 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn On Wednesday last week, I had the pleasure of cutting the ribbon and opening the Biloela Community Resource Centre extension. The Community Resource Centre provides access to resources and facilities for people who identify as having physical, psychological, intellectual and social needs. It is also a place for the professionals and organisations that assist them to utilise the facilities. As a result of the increase in community demand, the Biloela Community Resource Centre has reached capacity. Thanks to the Community Development Grants program, we were able to provide $750,000 of the $850,000 needed to do these extensions. I thank the Banana Shire for providing the other $100,000 to complete the task. The project included construction of the extension to the existing building, reconfiguration of the existing space, a fit-out and the landscaping. I'd like to thank all the team for making this centre such a wonderful success: the management, the volunteers, the Banana Shire, the architects and the builders. It was on time and on budget. March 4 Justice 56 13:48 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I return to this chamber today after giving birth to my baby boy. I am here on a day of power and I am here on a day of ager. There are women outside this building, there are women and men all around this country and in my electorate, and they are furious. I honour them by bringing their voices into this chamber. I hear you. I believe you. We must change. This place—our culture and our secrecy—has failed the women of this country. We have failed the women who have been raped, assaulted and marginalised. This is not a political problem to be managed away for the evening news. It doesn't matter which party we represent; we must change and we must do more. Prime Minister, I say to you: you are the most powerful person in this place. You should be leading the change. If you think you've done enough, you could not be more mistaken. If you could listen to Brittany Higgins speak out there and think you've done what needed to be done, you could not be more mistaken. Change is coming. You should be leading it. If you don't, if you can't get with what needs to happen in this country, the women here and the women outside will change it for you. Keilira: Telecommunications Infrastructure 56 13:49 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Keilira is a very small community in the south-east of South Australia in my electorate. It has been visited by bushfires no fewer than three times in the last six years, and it's a mobile phone black spot. In the wake of the most recent Keilira bushfire, I spoke about the desperate need for a phone tower—particularly as I heard sobering stories of triple 0 calls that just failed at critical times. So I was incredibly relieved, to be truthful, that, in round 5 of the mobile Black Spot Program, Keilira was allocated a tower, to be built in partnership with Optus. My relief turned to confusion when I heard subsequently that, in a completely separate process, the South Australian state government was going to partner with Telstra to build a Telstra tower right alongside the Optus tower. So we'd gone from no mobile reception to, effectively, twin towers at Keilira. I'm here to say that, after a deal of discussion and negotiation, the two telcos have—and I congratulated them for this—got their heads together, and, as a result, we won't see the wanton waste of taxpayer funds on creating two towers at Keilira. We'll have one tower, but that one tower will have co-located services of Telstra and Optus. It's a great outcome and a win for common sense. March 4 Justice 57 13:51 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I rise today on behalf of the 55,000 women in Lilley and the 100,000 people who just marched across this country—marching for justice—to ask: 'What happens now?' This is a government that is now infamous for its inaction in the face of direct demands for action; a government that loves to pivot to an inquiry in the hopes that the media will just blow it all away in the course of days; a government that would love to investigate things ad infinitum rather than actually get something done; a government that has made 19 reports into aged care since 1997, 11 since the Prime Minister was Treasurer or PM himself, and yet only now says that something must be done but has yet to spell it out; a government that has looked into disability, has made a royal commission into disability, and, when it was written to six months ago asking for an extension, has not even got back to them; and a government that had a national inquiry into sexual assault last year and was given 55 recommendations and has maybe generously implemented four. The government needs to tell 55,000 women in Lilley and 100,000 people across the country what it is going to do now. Systemic issues are not created in a vacuum. They are created in lethargy. They are created in apathy. They are created in malaise. The PM might say that he doesn't hold a hose, but today he doesn't hold a microphone either. I guess they are not quiet Australians anymore. headspace Burnie 57 13:52 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon Last week, Burnie's new headspace facility was opened officially. This means that young people aged between 12 and 25 years from the greater region of Burnie no longer have to travel to Devonport in order to access mental health, alcohol and drugs education and vocational support. Input, trust, leadership and guidance from one's peers are incredibly powerful things when it comes to managing issues around mental health. So, when I was speaking with the members of the Youth Reference Group—in fact, to all the staff at the centre—I could tell straightaway that this facility was really going to make a difference to the lives of those who choose this service. Ashley Murphy is one member of the Youth Reference Group. Ashley said about the Burnie headspace: In a small town, people can unfortunately get used to services popping up, and then disappearing, but having a prominent service in the Burnie community that is so recognisable for what it does for young people—it signifies to those young people that the community cares. The opening of the Burnie headspace centre follows the upgrade of Devonport last year, and it fulfils the Morrison government's election commitment to improve access to headspace services for young people living right across the north-west coast of Tasmania. March 4 Justice 57 13:54 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I've just returned from the front lawns of Parliament House, where tens of thousands of Australian women and girls are gathered in a march for justice, in the hope that this parliament—those of us who sit in power in this House—might listen, that we might hear and that we might have some empathy for the messages being sent loud and clear to those that sit in this place. Women won't be silenced in Australia. We want to be safe. We actually want a safe workplace to come to, wherever we live, whatever job we do. We want to be able to go out at night, we want to be able to wear what we choose and we want to be able to conduct ourselves in the way that men in this country take for granted each and every day. We need a Prime Minister now that can actually listen. We need a Prime Minister that would confront this issue head on, not hide in his office, too busy to go out and meet women on his doorstep. I want to pay tribute today to every woman who stood up around the country. I want to pay tribute to the women and girls in my home town of Newcastle that are out marching today and to every brave woman who has shared her story. This trauma cannot count for nothing. You must act and you must act now. (Time expired) March 4 Justice 57 13:56 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins Everyone deserves to be safe in their workplace, but sexual harassment and violence don't just happen in the workplace; they have happened in every place in society since the beginning of time, and they have to stop. Every woman deserves the right both to feel safe and to be safe, wherever she is, always. The Women's March 4 Justice today highlights exactly that need for change. I congratulate every person that is marching today, whether it is here in Canberra or right around the country. We need to hear their sensible requests, but, more than that, we need to act on their call for action. The warm winds of change for women are now howling through the corridors of power, and it is not a moment too soon. That's why I implore the organisers of today's protest to reconsider their decision and meet with the Prime Minister today to enact change through government in the heart of our democracy. I encourage everyone to read the Respect@Work report undertaken by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, and called for by Kelly O'Dwyer, my predecessor. I'm pleased that the federal government has already committed $2 million to its implementation. I'd like to see more. I look forward to the government's formal response to the 55 recommendations of the report and to the independent inquiry into our parliament's workplace that the Prime Minister has asked Kate Jenkins to lead. The time for change is now. The time for us all to act is now. March 4 Justice 58 13:57 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Today the women of Australia said, 'Hear us roar,' and roar they did. They also said, 'Enough is enough.' They gathered in their thousands outside of this parliament and right around the country. We've seen real anger outside this building today and quite an extraordinary speech by a brave young woman, Brittany Higgins. Just down the road from here we saw Grace Tame, the Australian of the Year, deliver a powerful message again: that we have a scourge of violence and sexual abuse against women and children, and we need to do more about it. I appreciate the previous speaker raising the Respect@Work report. We haven't even had a government response. It was tabled more than a year ago. People do want an actual response. They don't want what we've seen in recent times, where women feel as though the message that they've given keeps falling on deaf ears. As Janine Hendry said today: We have already come to the front door, now it’s up to the Government to cross the threshold and come to us. We will not be meeting behind closed doors. I was proud to participate today, and I was very pleased that so many of my colleagues in this parliament were also there. Contos, Ms Chanel 58 13:59 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth I rise to speak in support of an incredible local constituent who is changing the discussion on consent education across Australia. Former Kambala student Chanel Contos has courageously highlighted what is an underreported scourge of sexual assault amongst our younger generation. It's an issue that desperately needs more resources and more attention. Chanel's petition for earlier sex education in schools, which began as an Instagram poll, has received over 35,000 signatures and over 4,000 testimonies from victims of sexual assault detailing their own experiences. What has been said is both harrowing and horrifying, and it's not confined to schools in my electorate; this is an institutionalised issue that clearly requires greater collective attention. Earlier this month, I spoke with Chanel by phone to discuss how government can better support more comprehensive and holistic consent education in our schools and at an earlier age. I have since put Chanel in touch with the New South Wales education minister and New South Wales members of parliament, and she's started a petition in the New South Wales parliament, supported by Liberal, Labor and Greens members of parliament. I want to thank Chanel for her bravery and her leadership in creating this petition, and I thank the many students who have come forward to share their own horrifying experiences. There is clearly much more to do, and I commend those schools that have recognised and acknowledged this and promised to do better in educating our future young men and women. The SPEAKER 10000 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 58 CONDOLENCES Somare, Grand Chief Sir Michael Thomas 58 Reference to Federation Chamber 61 14:20 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson by leave—I move: That the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of Grand Chief Sir Michael Thomas Somare be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 61 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE March 4 Justice 61 14:20 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Today here and in many cities across our country, women and men are gathering together in rallies both large and small to call for change and to act against violence directed towards women. It is good and right that so many are able to gather here in this way, whether in our capital or elsewhere, and to do so peacefully to express their concerns and their very genuine and real frustrations. This is a vibrant liberal democracy. Not far from here, such marches, even now, are being met with bullets—but not here in this country. It is a triumph of democracy when we see these things take place. Those who gather here today and around the country do so out of a sense of great frustration and great concern. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 Members on my left! Mr MORRISON E3L That is deserved frustration and concern, concern that I share and I believe the members of this House share. One in four women have experienced intimate partner violence since the age of 15. One woman dies every nine days at the hand of a current or former partner. Indigenous women are 34 times more likely to be hospitalised than non-Indigenous women. Notwithstanding the many achievements of our nation over many, many years, including in relation to the advancement of women, we as a nation must continue to take up this cause. Here at home, our job is still not yet done. It is far from done on all of these matters. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The Prime Minister will pause for a second. Members on my left will cease interjecting. When the Prime Minister has concluded his remarks on indulgence, I'll grant indulgence to the Leader of the Opposition. Similarly, I'd like him to be heard without interjection from anywhere in the House. Mr MORRISON E3L Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is not to suggest that good faith and genuine efforts are not being made whether by this government or the many governments that have preceded us. Those efforts are being made, but the outcomes still elude us. Those efforts are right, and they are being made right across the political spectrum with great support across this chamber and the other. An agenda for the advancement of women, in particular, taking into account action to prevent violence against women, is a common cause of this parliament, I believe. It was the Gillard government that commenced the first national action plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. That plan was supported by the coalition in opposition and has been taken up in government. Since 2013 we have committed more than $1 billion to reduce violence against women and their children in the action plans that have followed—boosting frontline services; providing safe places; having prevention strategies for implementation in communities, workplaces and homes; having targeted support for Indigenous communities; and having counselling services provided through 1800RESPECT. There are many more initiatives, and we are now working together on the fifth national action plan, with funding and effectiveness increasing as each plan moves through the agreement process. These plans not only draw together the unity that I would hope this parliament has had until now and I hope has into the future, but also draw together the unity of the state and territory governments themselves, working now through the national cabinet process and previously through COAG, to draw together the actions of the national action plan. This is a common cause, and we must not let our frustration with the failure to achieve so many of the results we would hope for to undermine the unity needed to continue our shared progress. So I acknowledge the frustration and share the disappointment of what has yet not been achieved. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 Members on my left. Mr MORRISON E3L To those who gather outside this place today an invitation was offered for a meeting with me here today—a good-faith action. But I respect the right of organisers to choose not to meet. That is their right, and I respect their right. But, if we were to meet today, I would advise them of the following in relation to the matters that they have been raising by virtue of the petition as I understand it. We agree that all cases of gendered violence should be referred to appropriate authorities in a timely manner. Police are the appropriate independent authority to investigate all matters of domestic and family violence. As terribly difficult as it must be, going to the police and making a statement is the only way to achieve justice and to ensure that the perpetrator can no longer harm anyone else. Further, the Australian government is committed to ensuring all Australian workplaces are safe and free from sexual harassment and assault. The government commissioned the Australian Human Rights Commission's Respect@Work. In the Women's Economic Security Statement in the budget, $2.1 million was provided to implement a number of the Respect@Work recommendations, and the remaining recommendations of the report in detail of this work are being led by the Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Senator Stoker. One billion dollars has been allocated since 2013 to prevent and respond to violence against women and their children, with bipartisan support, and that includes a $340 million investment to support the fourth action plan. $20 million has been included for the 1800RESPECT line, and $18.8 million for the Stop it at the Start campaign, which is designed to engender greater respect right across our community. The government, in relation to the issues raised on gender equality, has already announced an independent review into the Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, which will be led by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Kate Jenkins. The Australian government took an active role in the development of the ILO convention on violence and harassment and its accompanying recommendation. The Australian government tabled the convention and recommendation in the parliament in December 2020. The government is now undertaking a law and practice assessment. All states and territories have now provided their input, which is under consideration with a view to completing the assessment in 2021. In relation to the events that have led, I believe, to the actions that we've seen today and in the weeks leading up to this, the government, working together with the parliament, has already announced an independent review into the Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, led by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, and I thank all of those across this chamber and the other chamber for working with us to put this inquiry into place. I wouldn't want to prejudge the outcomes of any recommendations of that inquiry. It's an important piece of work that we all share in. We have already acted to establish an independent and confidential 24/7 telephone service to support current and former Commonwealth ministerial, parliamentary and electorate office staff and those who have experienced serious incidents in any Commonwealth parliamentary workplace. This support line, 1800APHSPT or 1800274778 will be staffed 24/7 by professionals. This is just a first step, and I look forward to the recommendations so that the government can take further action. The government understands and shares the frustrations of women and men across this country who want to see women safe in their workplace. They want to see them safer in our community. They want to see them safer in this building and want them to see all of their aspirations achieved in this country, as they should. This is Australia's ambition. This is my government's ambition. And I look forward to achieving a unity of purpose across this chamber and the other, to those ends, working also with our state and territory governments. The SPEAKER 10000 The Leader of the Opposition, on indulgence. 14:29 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Not so much a tin ear as a wall of concrete. We had, today, women gather around Australia with a few very clear and unambiguous messages. Hear us roar: the Prime Minister needs to listen—to listen to what women are saying about what is happening in this building and outside. They said, 'Enough is enough.' What I saw outside was passionate women who are angry. They are angry about what's happened to them. They are angry about what has happened to their mothers, their grandmothers, their sisters, their daughters and their granddaughters. They are crying out that this is a moment that requires leadership. It requires leadership from this Prime Minister, and we are not getting it, Prime Minister. We need an independent inquiry into the allegations that are being made against the Attorney-General. We know from former Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson that that would be an entirely appropriate thing to do. Frankly, for a government that had an inquiry into a kitchen renovation of a former Prime Minister long before she was in parliament, I find quite frankly incredible some of the arguments that are being used by this government to reject that proposition. The fact is that day after day more information comes out, such as, over recent days, James Hooke's remembrances about what he said with the woman at the centre of the allegations and conversations he says he had way back in the early 1990s with the current Attorney-General. These are all issues that require examination because the idea, as the Prime Minister has said, that we can just move on, that what has been happening over recent days and weeks can be unseen and unheard, is just not fair dinkum. It can't be. That is why people are angry and frustrated. That is why we need to do better. All of us need to do better—all political parties, all businesses, all workplaces, our entire society—because sexual assault and these issues are about the power imbalance in society. That's what it is about. That's why women are demanding change, and they're entitled to get it. Outside of this chamber we heard a magnificent speech by Brittany Higgins. I say to the Prime Minister: listen to it. Listen to what Brittany Higgins had to say. Because he wasn't there, I will help him out. She said this: I watched as the Prime Minister of Australia publicly apologised to me through the media, while privately his media team actively undermined and discredited my loved ones. She went on to say: I have read the news updates every day at 5 am because I was waking up to new information about my own sexual assault through the media. Details that were never disclosed to me by my employers, information that would have helped me answer questions that have haunted me for years. A reported sexual assault happened just metres from the Prime Minister's office. We know that multiple ministers were informed. We know that, for example, the Special Minister of State would have been informed at the time that something had happened in that office. We know that one member of the PM's staff knew two years ago. A second member of his staff said it would be raised with his chief of staff two years ago. A third member of his staff knew the alleged perpetrator was dismissed two years ago. A fourth member of his staff checked in with Ms Higgins after Four Corners last year. We know that a former Prime Minister and a former Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party have said very clearly that it's not credible that this information wouldn't have flown up the chain. We know that the Prime Minister, when I have raised questions in this House about these issues, appointed his former chief of staff to do an inquiry about what his staff knew. All he has to do is ask them, but we had an inquiry by the same person into the sports rorts fiasco that took a couple of weeks. It's now been more than a month and we still have not had any information here. The Prime Minister correctly pointed out that the respect for and treatment of women has been an issue for a long period of time. He's right at that. He raised the issue of the Australian Human Rights Commission. They produced a report, Respect@Work, more than a year ago, and the government hasn't even bothered to respond to the recommendations. You wonder why people are frustrated and come all the way to Canberra to demonstrate that anger. What happened during that week was that, on the Thursday, the government gagged debate to get rid of the Family Court of Australia. What priorities were there that said, at a time when gender violence was an issue and when family violence was an issue, that you'd get rid of the court designated to deal with those issues? How has it been helped by that? But that was this government's priority. Its priority throughout all of this, as with everything, is political management. 'I don't hold a hose,' has become, 'I don't have an inquiry,' never taking responsibility for the high office that the Prime Minister holds. Women are asking that he fulfil that responsibility, and this parliament deserves it. Women need to feel as though they can come forward with complaints that they have. The fact is, though, that the Prime Minister has made statements like, 'At this stage there are no matters that require my immediate attention.' Really, Prime Minister? 'Nothing to see here—just move on'? As Brittany Higgins said, also outside—and I'll conclude with this: I had these suspicions confirmed when the media exposed a long list of people who knew what had happened to me. A list that seemed to grow by the day as truths about internal reviews, Senate committee submissions, office cleans and witness accounts were all unearthed. I've seen two powerful women speak in recent times. Those speeches and those women give me great hope for Australia's future. One is Brittany Higgins with her extraordinary speech today, which reinforced to me the courage it took in order to come forward. The second, of course, is Grace Tame. The two are connected. It was seeing Grace Tame at the Australian of the Year commemorations and hearing her powerful speech, on the theme 'Let Her Speak', that encouraged Brittany Higgins to come forward. Those women do all of us, as Australians, proud, but we need to do more than just listen. But that's a first step: just listen to what they're saying. Forget about the political management; just listen to what they're saying and then act, because we are in a position to act, but not by abolishing the Family Court and not by moving backwards but by moving forwards: to give proper funding to organisations that deal with family violence, to make sure women can be protected at work and to have industrial relations policies that defend the rights of women at work. Women should be safe in this House, but they should be safe wherever they are—wherever they are—whether it's at work, during a recreational activity or, of course, in the home. One thing that these tragic circumstances should do is to ensure that every member of this House does their best to act in order to make a difference. We're a great country, but the stain of violence against women and children is one that is on all of us. But we are in a position of power. We can use it to make lives better, and we should do just that. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 64 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:39 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The Minister for Industrial Relations, the Attorney-General, will today be represented by the Minister for Home Affairs. The Minister for Home Affairs, of course, is acting as Leader of the House. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 64 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE March 4 Justice 64 14:39 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister refuse to attend the Women's March 4 Justice address by Brittany Higgins outside the parliament today? 14:39 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question. I refer the member to my remarks earlier—before question time formally commenced today. I set out that I was very happy to meet with a delegation of those who are attending here in Canberra today. Indeed, I am sure they would have represented the views more broadly of those who are attending marches all around the country today. I would have been very happy to have met them in my office. That offer to meet them was provided in good faith, but I respect their right to decline that invitation, and I have set out, as best as I can in this place, the issues that I would have referred to and advised those who came. But, principally, I would have welcomed the opportunity to listen to the issues they would have liked to have raised directly. COVID-19: Economy 65 14:40 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is working to secure a more prosperous and safe Australia as we continue our recovery from the COVID-19 global pandemic? 14:41 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question. I thank her for her tremendous advocacy representing particularly the many in the tourism, hospitality and travel industries in the Gold Coast who we've been so able to assist over the course of the past year and going forward. A year ago, there were 169,000 cases of COVID-19 in total around the world and some 6,470 deaths. Today, there are more than 375,000 cases additional daily and an additional 20,000 deaths per day also. It has been quite an extraordinary year. A year ago today, the national cabinet met for the first time officially. This time last year, the borders had already been closed and the incident response centre had already been established, along with the activation of the Incident Response Plan in mid-January. From mid-January, the AHPPC, the medical expert panel, had been meeting daily. The National Security Committee was meeting regularly—and many times a day, on occasions—to direct the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. What followed, through the actions of the Expenditure Review Committee and the cabinet, was JobKeeper; JobSeeker; the cash flow boost; apprenticeship support; international freight assistance; domestic airline network support; 'ZooKeeper'; 'AquariumKeeper'; the RISE Fund, to support the entertainment industry; support for business events; $2,000, completed as recently as just the past week, of welfare payments additional to the supplement, to boost the national economy; support for child care, aged care, pathology services and mental health; private hospital support; critical medical supplies production; vaccines secured from across the world; and, most importantly, a domestic production capability established for the AstraZeneca vaccine to produce over 50 million doses. We're one of the few countries in the world that has such a domestic capability to produce that vaccine. We would not have a vaccination program were it not for the foresight of that decision. So now, a year later, Australia leads the world out of the global COVID-19 pandemic and the COVID-19 recession, and Australia is recognised. As I met with the Quad leaders for the first time on the weekend, that leadership and that experience here in Australia is recognised around the world. It is the same reason that we have been recognised with the election of Australia's candidate to be the next Secretary-General of the OECD in the former finance minister, Minister Cormann. It is why, at the G7, we join other countries in the G7+ dialogue later this year—because Australia is leading the way. The Australian way of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most successful in the world, and our government remains committed to continuing on that path. (Time expired) Minister for Defence 65 14:44 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is to the Prime Minister. How can the Prime Minister maintain confidence in the defence minister when she called Brittany Higgins 'a lying cow'? 14:44 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question. I'm pleased that the matter that she has referred to—the disgraceful slur on Brittany Higgins, as I called it at the time—has been apologised for and withdrawn and that there's been a formal settlement, I understand, between the parties. Of course she should never have said it. I challenge those who are putting these matters forward here in this place— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The Prime Minister will pause. I ask that people stop interjecting. I'm trying to listen carefully to the questions and the answers to check that they're within the standing orders and the Practice. Every time someone interjects, they might feel better, but it actually prevents me from hearing the answer. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L If those opposite want to provide a Hansard of what is said in their offices on a daily basis then they may be in a position to cast stones. I would simply say this: this was a statement that should never have been uttered, whether in a private office or elsewhere. I am pleased that the minister saw to it that that statement was unconditionally withdrawn and apologised for, and that apology has been accepted. COVID-19: Economy 66 14:45 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government is rebuilding the economy and supporting jobs in regional Australia as we recover from the COVID-19 global pandemic, including through increased support for our aviation sector and, by extension, the tourism sector? 14:46 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina In the member for Dawson's electorate, the Whitsundays and Mackay areas were identified by Austrade as being severely impacted. Normally, at this time of year, they are awash with international tourists, but, of course, we know the reason they aren't. The global pandemic has taken such a toll on our economy and certainly the economies of those regional areas. They are going to benefit from the Tourism Aviation Network Support program. The CEO of Tourism Whitsundays, Tash Wheeler, had this to say: 'This is a fantastic package that really does go a long way to helping those regions, particularly here in the Whitsundays where we're so reliant on international visitation.' Every dollar spent on an airline ticket means $10 spent at the destination. This is creating jobs, opportunities and hope in those areas Austrade has identified. Planes in the air mean jobs on the ground. We said we would review the progress of the program, and we will. As with every single program and project along the way to address the coronavirus situation, we have made sure that it is scalable, temporary and targeted. We've tweaked, where necessary, particular programs. We have provided the widespread support where it's needed and when it's needed. On 28 March last year, the government announced an initial package to assist regional communities called the Regional Airline Network Support program. This wasn't about regional airlines specifically. It was about those regional communities, many of which but for the RANS program would not have received vital aviation support through getting in frontline medical personnel, face masks, respiratory devices and personal protective equipment. They would have literally been left high and dry but for that RANS support. We provided it, and, of course, we extended the program. We extended the Domestic Aviation Network Support program because we knew that we had to support those airlines, those communities and, most importantly, the workers. Thousands of jobs and workers have been protected under the aviation support that we have provided. We will go on supporting those workers, because they are important, they are critical and they are essential, and so are the communities that they serve through their airports and, indeed, their health services. I compliment the health minister and the regional health minister for what they have done in this regard. We will go on doing it. We will go on providing the support measures needed as we suppress the virus and get the vaccine rolled out. Members of Parliament: Staff 66 14:49 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat My question is to the Prime Minister. Today Brittany Higgins said: I watched as the Prime Minister of Australia publicly apologised to me through the media, while privately his media team actively undermined and discredited my loved ones. Prime Minister, is this true? 14:49 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I've no knowledge of that and I would never instruct that. I would never instruct such a thing. I would never do that. The apology that I offered in this place to Brittany Higgins was sincere and was genuine, and I'm happy to restate it. Sex Discrimination Amendment (Prohibiting All Sexual Harassment) Bill 2021 66 14:50 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister. To quote Brittany Higgins, 'The system is broken,' and, to quote your own words just now, you want to see people safe. You have the power, being in government today, to make all Australians, especially members of parliament, liable for and protected from sexual harassment in the workplace by supporting the sex discrimination amendment bill introduced into the parliament this morning. Will you do so? If your answer is 'we're working on it', that is not good enough. The SPEAKER 10000 The members holding up those placards will put them down, and the attendants will collect them. The Prime Minister has the call. The member for Clark will resume his seat. 14:51 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question. Of course the government is committed to ensuring that Australia's legal frameworks are effective in preventing and responding to sexual harassment. The question of how best to address sexual assault, though, which is the subject of your bill, should be informed by the findings of the inquiries that have been announced into sexual assault allegations. The issue of sexual harassment was also, as has been noted earlier today, the subject of the Respect@Work report and the Law Council of Australia's recent national action plan. Although the government appreciate the member's efforts, we note that the draft bill goes beyond the recommendations of those documents. We would be happy to keep the member informed of the government's progress on our consultations and possible legislative reforms. Economy 67 14:51 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the Morrison government's strong and decisive economic management continues to help ensure our economic recovery is now well underway; and is the Treasurer aware of any actual alternative policies? 14:52 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Braddon and acknowledge his experience as a small business person and a farmer and with more than 20 years of service in the Australian Defence Force. The member for Braddon and others on this side of the House understand that the Australian economy's recovery is on. The recovery is on. We've seen the unemployment rate fall to 6.4 per cent. We've seen our AAA credit rating being maintained. We've seen business and consumer confidence go back to pre-pandemic levels and we saw economic growth of 3.1 per cent for the December quarter, the first time since records began that Australia has enjoyed two consecutive quarters of more than three per cent growth—more than three per cent growth for two consecutive quarters. Australia's economy has outperformed all major advanced economies around the world over the last 12 months. That is something that 25 million Australians can be proud of. And, right around the country, there are success stories of businesses getting back on their feet and graduating off JobKeeper, like Derrico Cycles and Mead Con constructions that I visited in Devonport with the member for Braddon recently. Both are off JobKeeper and both used JobKeeper to keep their staff. In the case of Mead Con construction, they have taken on four new apprentices. This is the recovery that is on. I'm asked if there are any alternative policies. I'm not aware of any alternative credible policies—no credible policies. But I am aware that those opposite have never seen a tax increase that they haven't loved and a spending increase that they haven't liked. The reality is that, at the last election, they took to the Australian people $387 billion of higher taxes that the Australian people have not forgotten—on your superannuation, on your income, on your housing, on your savings and on your businesses. Do you remember when the member for McMahon told the Australian people, 'If you don't like our policies, don't vote for them'? Well, they took him literally. Remember when the member for Rankin described the hardworking small business people across the country as 'the top end of town'? Do you remember when the member for Maribyrnong described retirees as being on the back of their yachts? That's what the Labor Party said about hardworking people across the country. The Leader of the Opposition was back at it again last week when he refused to confirm that he would support our legislated tax cuts. Only we on this side of the House support lower taxes and a stronger economy. Members of Parliament: Staff 67 14:55 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley My question is for the Prime Minister. Today Brittany Higgins said: … the media exposed a long list of people who knew about what had happened to me, a list that seemed to grow by the day … How can the Prime Minister maintain that he didn't know about a reported sexual assault just metres from his office for nearly two years, when so many other people inside this government knew and when Malcolm Turnbull, Peta Credlin and Julie Bishop all say it is implausible that the Prime Minister didn't know? 14:56 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I could say that I wasn't aware of this until 12 February because it is true. That is the simple truth of the matter. We have already heard today in reports that have been printed on news.com of any number of what seem to be events that may have occurred in relation to members opposite that they apparently don't know. I can simply say this about these very sensitive matters. They are sensitive matters and they are traumatic matters. We see that evidenced in the great frustration and, indeed, anger that is outside of this place today and in so many other places. That is genuine and it's accepted. But, in this place, if we are to take successful action to address the very issues that are being raised, then the way that that is achieved is not by the political weaponisation of these things but by dealing with them honestly and sincerely and together, and I would invite the opposition to take that course rather than the alternative, which seems to be the approach that they are going down. People in this place live in glass houses. COVID-19: Vaccination 67 14:57 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister please update the House on the global state of the coronavirus pandemic and how the Morrison government's response plan and domestic vaccine manufacture will help protect Australian lives and livelihoods? 14:57 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Chisholm, not just for the question but in particular for her support for mental health and for Chinese Australians in the early phase of the pandemic, when there were many challenges that that community in particular faced. The global challenges remain. We are fortunate in Australia today. Only one new case has been reported, announced by New South Wales yesterday, but there are no additional cases in either New South Wales or Queensland following on from the single case in each state which was announced over the weekend. Those measures which they are taking, with our support, are helping to ensure that containment continues. So far, across Australia, this year, there have been zero lives lost. Today there are zero people in ICU or on ventilation around Australia for COVID-19, and there have been 44 days without any cases this year. At the same time, the global pandemic continues. We've seen over 37 million cases this year alone and over 850,000 lives lost. Whilst the numbers have dropped significantly since mid-January, we've seen an uptick in the last week, sadly, so we need to be ever vigilant. That's why our plan in particular of containment, testing and tracing, and distancing, on top of our border restrictions, has been fundamental. But we also have to continue with the vaccination program. In particular, we've so far ensured that potentially life-saving vaccinations have been provided to 437 aged-care facilities. Forty thousand aged-care residents have been given potentially life-saving vaccinations. In total 164,000 Australians, and those numbers are growing every day. But, fundamentally, without the source and supply of approximately a million vaccines a week from CSL—a decision we made in August of last year—Australia would be in a difficult position. We know that global competition is intense, on a scale we've never before seen with regard to vaccines. Despite that, we've been able to bring numbers into Australia and begin that program, to see that ramp up, to see that growth, to see those lives being protected. But as we go forwards, as we bring on board a sovereign vaccine manufacturing capability, the like of which is available to few other countries, we give ourselves the capacity to vaccinate the nation, to provide that certainty and that pathway out. That is about saving lives and saving livelihoods. Attorney-General 68 15:00 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Why won't the Prime Minister establish an independent inquiry into the sexual assault allegations against his Attorney-General, which would consider the alleged victim's own words and the testimony of James Hooke and others? 15:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook There was one rule of law for every single Australian in this country. Opposition members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L Those opposite may jeer about that. They may heckle about that, but this is a fundamental principle. Every single Australian faces the same law as any other Australian. I've heard the arguments that have been put by others as to why there may be an inquiry here, referring to the Heydon case. That case related to a workplace matter regarding a justice while they were in that job, and it related to a workplace issue that hadn't been considered by the police. So there is no parallel between that situation and the alleged actions of something that occurred over 30 years ago. If those opposite believe that allegations that have been closed by police should be the subject of extrajudicial inquiries, then I am puzzled as to why they have never suggested that one be made against one of their own members of their own front bench. I am puzzled about that and I am puzzled about the double standard. The government at the time sought no such inquiry in relation to those matters— Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for McEwen and member for Isaacs! Mr MORRISON E3L and nor did the opposition suggest one. But that individual indeed put himself forward to be the Prime Minister of this country on two occasions, and I stand by the words of the then Prime Minister Abbott when he dealt rightly with that issue at that time. So those opposite may want to suggest that there should be one rule of law for one Australian and a different rule of law for another and that trial by media should be the way that this country should operate. The Attorney-General has announced that, in private capacity, he is pursuing a defamation action against those that have raised those issues. That matter will be considered where it should, in a court of law. The arguments will be made, the evidence will be presented and that matter can be rightly addressed through our courts, where it should be. That is the approach which I think best addresses the matter. Women's Economic Security 69 15:03 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. Will the minister please advise the House on the Morrison government's commitment to improving women's economic security and on how increasing women's workforce participation is an economic and social priority? 15:04 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I thank the member for Reid for her question and commend her for the leadership she shows in her community for so many young women, and I've had the chance to see that on several occasions. Women's economic security is at the centre of so many aspects of their lives—their independence; the choices they make for themselves, their families, their children and their parents; and their identity, health and wellbeing. The Morrison government recognises that, central to this, is increasing women's workforce participation. So it is an economic and a social priority. The 2020 Women's Economic Security Statement—and we built on that package of measures from the 2018 Women's Economic Security Statement—coming in the middle of the COVID pandemic did many things, including bringing women back to work, and we've succeeded in more than 90 per cent of women being re-employed as we come out of COVID. It's a $240 million package over five years, and it's focused on five key priority areas, repairing and rebuilding women's workforce participation and further closing the gender pay gap. That's narrower than it's been for a while, but we have more work to do: greater choice and flexibility for families to manage work and child care; supporting women as leaders and positive role models; responding to the diverse needs of women; and supporting women to be safe at work and safe at home. So the 2020 statement is a plan to equip and enable our economy to support women. I want to highlight a couple of areas, in particular addressing the barriers for equal representation in STEM, something the minister for industry has fought hard for. As part of that statement, the industry minister's Women in STEM and Entrepreneurship program, Girls in STEM and Women in STEM Ambassador roles have enabled so many young women to shoot for the stars, helping address that underrepresentation in this critical area. Similarly, in my own electorate, I was in Griffith in the Riverina recently for part of the Mid-Career Checkpoint program that the Minister for Women in the other place is undertaking. I sat around a table with skilled women in an accounting firm. They step away from their career—mid-career—and it's about how they get back, how they contribute and how they take on the skills. To see them encouraged and supported and contributing was incredible to see, and that's just one of the programs that's coming out of our Women's Economic Security Statement. There are many others: Boosting Female Founders, focusing on supporting women in regional and rural areas, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, women with a disability and first generation migrants. These plans leave no woman behind. As we come out of COVID with JobMaker and JobTrainer, as I said, 90 per cent of the jobs held by women have come back. We've had 800,000 jobs come back in just the last eight months. (Time expired) Attorney-General 69 15:07 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to the Prime Minister. When deciding whether the Attorney-General was a fit and proper person to remain in his role, why did the Prime Minister listen to the Attorney-General but not bother to read the alleged victim's own words? 15:07 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question, because the events of that week were as follows. On the Wednesday of that week, I became aware that an anonymous set of allegations had been forwarded to a number of members: two members of this House, the member for Curtin and myself; and to Senator Hanson-Young and to Senator Wong. On that Wednesday, those documents had not arrived at my office. They arrived at my office late on the Friday afternoon here in Canberra. They were not electronic documents; they were formal documents. Opposition members interjecting— Ms Ryan interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The members on my left! The member for Lalor is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L They arrived in my office in Canberra on Friday afternoon. I was in Sydney on Friday afternoon. On the Wednesday, at the suggestion of the department secretary and the deputy secretary of the department, I contacted the commissioner of the Federal Police, because I had been advised that the member for Curtin had passed these documents to the AFP liaison officer and this was now a matter with the Federal Police, and for that to be referred as necessary to whichever jurisdiction may be involved in any investigation. I sought from the commissioner a briefing at that time on what the contents of those allegations were. I did not have them; they were not things that I could read at that time. I asked the commissioner whether it was appropriate for me to now raise those matters with the Attorney-General, which I did, and he vigorously denied those allegations on the matters that were raised in those documents. In addition to that, the commissioner of the Federal Police advised all members of this place that, where we receive such documents, they should be forwarded to the Federal Police, because they are the appropriate and competent authorities to determine the veracity of any allegations. That is exactly what I did because I believe that the police are the appropriate authority to test such materials. I did not have a formal copy to read on the Wednesday, and, on the Friday, my formal copy was immediately forwarded to the Federal Police, where it should have been forwarded. I have been briefed— An opposition member interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L I have made no copies of these documents. The documents were provided to the Federal Police, and I was briefed on the contents of those documents by the police commissioner. So, based on that, I raised the matter with the Attorney-General, and that's where the matter stands. Domestic and Family Violence 70 15:10 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. Will the minister please advise the House on the Morrison government's commitment to reducing family and domestic violence, including through the new Stop it at the Start campaign? Ms Burney 8GH You should be ashamed of yourself. The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Barton, the minister has the call. 15:10 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I start by recognising every woman in every town gathered around Australia demanding change. Whether it's on the lawns of Parliament House, in my own home town of Albury, at the school gate, at the water cooler or the traditional owners caring for country, this parliament has heard them. Their voices have been heard. Change is happening, and the Morrison government is helping to drive that change here in our workplace where we must lead by example. People have every right to feel safe and supported in their workplace, and, just as importantly, they have every right to feel safe in their own home where there is never an excuse for family or domestic violence. Last year the Morrison government delivered a $150 million domestic violence response package to respond to the changing needs through COVID in addition to our $340 million record investment in the fourth national action plan, and we're developing the next national plan because we're not standing in one place; we're getting on with what we know we need to do. We're consulting carefully about that plan, due in 2022. We know that early intervention is key for a future where Australians can feel safe in their own home, in their communities and online, and in which Australian men grow up respecting the women in their lives. To mark International Women's Day last Monday, Ministers Payne and Ruston in the other place launched the third phase of our national primary prevention campaign to reduce violence against women and their children. It's called Stop it at the Start. The campaign is now rolling out across television, cinema, online, outdoor digital and social media. It's getting a very good response. The part that is often mentioned to me is where fathers are standing watching their sons play football and one says, 'Stop playing like a girl,' which is something that as I grew up would have probably been quite a normal thing to say at the sidelines of a footy match but certainly isn't now. It's questioning that. It's having those conversations. This campaign is a central part of that. It challenges disrespectful attitudes and behaviours, which can often be learnt in childhood and, if left unchecked, can escalate to violence. It encourages adults to unmute themselves and empowers them to take actions that will have a positive influence on the attitudes and behaviour of young people. Taking action can seem to be overwhelming, but, if we all take small steps such as talking to our children about respectful relationships, it will add up to positive change for Australia. I encourage everyone to have a look at the suite of resources on respect.gov.au and remind people of the independent review that is happening in this parliament now—the change that I said is happening—and the dedicated number, 1800APHSPT, for independent, anonymous and confidential help. Mr Morrison E3L Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 70 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Members of Parliament: Staff 70 15:13 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Just to correct the record— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 Members on both sides, the Prime Minister has the call. Mr Morrison E3L in a previous answer: as I've consistently advised the House, that date which I referred to, I misspoke and said 12 February, but 15 February is the date. I simply misspoke. MOTIONS 71 MOTIONS Prime Minister 71 15:14 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately—That the House calls on the Prime Minister to immediately: (1) commission an independent inquiry into the sexual assault allegations against the Attorney-General; (2) provide a full explanation of his Government's response to the reported sexual assault of Brittany Higgins in the Defence Minister's office in March 2019; (3) act on the Australian Human Rights Commission's Respect@Work report; and (4) improve support for programs that prevent gendered violence. We heard today that the Prime Minister allegedly says that the document that contains the information from the person who's made allegations about the Attorney-General he did not read. It was forwarded on to the AFP without him having a copy of it, which is his excuse, consistent with the fact that he is tone deaf and consistent with the fact that he refused to listen to the words that were said by the women who spoke outside at the March 4 Justice today. Anyone who knows anything about the Prime Minister's office should be, quite frankly, horrified about the national security implications of the fact that a document such as that can come into the PMO, be forwarded to the AFP and not have a copy or a record of it kept in the Prime Minister's office. It is just not credible, just as it's not credible, as Peta Credlin, Julie Bishop and Malcolm Turnbull have documented, that no-one told the Prime Minister about what had occurred—the reported sexual assault just metres from his office—until the Monday when it was reported on news.com.au. This is in spite of the fact that at least three ministers had been informed of this. This is in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister has someone who was at the time the chief of staff to Senator Reynolds working in his office. This is in spite of the fact that we know that multiple people in the Prime Minister's office knew. This is in spite of the fact that the parliament even had occurrences such as the cleaning of Senator Reynolds's office on the Saturday when it was scheduled to be cleaned on the Sunday under normal circumstances. All of this occurred, and yet no-one told the Prime Minister anything at all. But it gets worse than that, because journalists were making inquiries to the PMO on the Friday, and still, all weekend, no-one said anything to the Prime Minister. No wonder Brittany Higgins feels let down. No wonder Brittany Higgins gave such an extraordinary statement outside, where she said: I had my suspicions confirmed when the media exposed a long list of people who knew what had happened to me. A list that seemed to grow by the day as truths about internal reviews, Senate committee submissions, office cleans and witness accounts were all unearthed. Brittany Higgins also said— 15:18 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I think the Leader of the Opposition's had a fair go. I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 10000 The question is that the Leader of the Opposition be no further heard.

The House divided. [15:22]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 62 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Broadbent, RE Chester, D Christensen, GR Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Hamilton, GR Hammond, CM Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 58 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Clare, JD Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Keogh, MJ King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Mulino, D Murphy, PJ O'Connor, BPJ Owens, JA Payne, AE Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thwaites, KL Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 15 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Vamvakinou, M Buchholz, S Burns, J Coleman, DB Byrne, AM Evans, TM Chesters, LM Goodenough, IR Smith, DPB Hastie, AW Gosling, LJ Hogan, KJ Claydon, SC Howarth, LR Dick, MD Laming, A Rowland, MA Landry, ML Kearney, G Marino, NB Khalil, P Morton, B Neumann, SK O'Brien, LS O'Neil, CE Porter, CC Thistlethwaite, MJ Wood, JP Perrett, G

Question agreed to.

 15:25 The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 15:25 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I do second the motion. We've got a Prime Minister that doesn't hold a hose, and apparently he doesn't hold an inquiry either. I say to the Prime Minister— 15:26 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the member for Sydney be no further heard.

The House divided. [15:27]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 62 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Broadbent, RE Chester, D Christensen, GR Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Hamilton, GR Hammond, CM Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 58 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Clare, JD Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Keogh, MJ King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Mulino, D Murphy, PJ O'Connor, BPJ Owens, JA Payne, AE Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thwaites, KL Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 15 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Vamvakinou, M Buchholz, S Burns, J Coleman, DB Byrne, AM Evans, TM Chesters, LM Goodenough, IR Smith, DPB Hastie, AW Gosling, LJ Hogan, KJ Claydon, SC Howarth, LR Dick, MD Laming, A Rowland, MA Landry, ML Kearney, G Marino, NB Khalil, P Morton, B Neumann, SK O'Brien, LS O'Neil, CE Porter, CC Thistlethwaite, MJ Wood, JP Perrett, G

Question agreed to.

 15:28 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to. 15:28 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin What is this government trying to hide from? Why not call the inquiry? Why won't he have an independent inquiry— 15:29 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the question be put.

The House divided. [15:30]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 62 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Broadbent, RE Chester, D Christensen, GR Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Hamilton, GR Hammond, CM Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 58 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Clare, JD Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Keogh, MJ King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Mulino, D Murphy, PJ O'Connor, BPJ Owens, JA Payne, AE Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thwaites, KL Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 15 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Vamvakinou, M Buchholz, S Burns, J Coleman, DB Byrne, AM Evans, TM Chesters, LM Goodenough, IR Smith, DPB Hastie, AW Gosling, LJ Hogan, KJ Claydon, SC Howarth, LR Dick, MD Laming, A Rowland, MA Landry, ML Kearney, G Marino, NB Khalil, P Morton, B Neumann, SK O'Brien, LS O'Neil, CE Porter, CC Thistlethwaite, MJ Wood, JP Perrett, G

Question agreed to.

 15:31 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be disagreed to.

The House divided. [15:32]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 62 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Broadbent, RE Chester, D Christensen, GR Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Hamilton, GR Hammond, CM Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 58 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Clare, JD Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Keogh, MJ King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Mulino, D Murphy, PJ O'Connor, BPJ Owens, JA Payne, AE Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thwaites, KL Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 15 PAIRS Andrews, KJ Vamvakinou, M Buchholz, S Burns, J Coleman, DB Byrne, AM Evans, TM Chesters, LM Goodenough, IR Smith, DPB Hastie, AW Gosling, LJ Hogan, KJ Claydon, SC Howarth, LR Dick, MD Laming, A Rowland, MA Landry, ML Kearney, G Marino, NB Khalil, P Morton, B Neumann, SK O'Brien, LS O'Neil, CE Porter, CC Thistlethwaite, MJ Wood, JP Perrett, G

Question agreed to.

 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 77 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:34 The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Warringah has indicated to me that she wishes to make a personal explanation. 15:34 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have been misrepresented. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the member wish to make a statement? Ms STEGGALL 175696 Yes, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 00APG You may proceed. Ms STEGGALL 175696 During question time, I raised the topic of sexual harassment and questioned the Prime Minister on the government's support of the sex discrimination amendment bill. In his answer, he said that my efforts go beyond the Law Council of Australia's recent national action plan. This is not correct. While I acknowledge that the amendments go beyond Respect@Work—only in that they deal with all aspects of public life, not just the workplace—they do not go beyond the recommendations of the Law Council of Australia's national action plan to address sexual harassment in the legal profession and they are aligned with the recommendation of the 2008 Senate inquiry to include a general prohibition against sex discrimination and sexual harassment in any area of public life. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 77 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 30 of 2020-21 77 15:35 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 30 of 2020-21, entitled Effectiveness of the planning and management of veteran centric reforms: Department of Veterans' Affairs. Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018. DOCUMENTS 77 DOCUMENTS Presentation 77 15:35 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BILLS 78 BILLS National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020 78

National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020

Second Reading 78 15:37 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 15:37 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to continue my speech on the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. I point out that Labor, when in government back in 2009, had brought in measures that were designed to protect the consumer. They only applied to consumer credit contracts, not to credit contracts for a commercial purpose, like small business lending. Commercial credit is primarily regulated by state governments. When Labor brought in those protections, that was a good thing to do for consumers. They required the lenders to take some responsibilities—not drastic measures, but just turning their mind to the person in front of them, rather than to the credit profits that would flow to the person providing the credit. The Treasurer announced in September last year that the government would remove responsible lending obligations for most consumer credit products. The Treasurer's rationale was that the RLOs were damaging the supply of credit. The changes in the bill before the House today mean that lending decisions would be regulated by APRA for authorised deposit-taking institutions—that is, banks and credit unions. APRA's mandate is primarily concerned with ensuring systemic stability by ensuring the banks do not make lending decisions that destabilise the bank or the financial system. APRA does not have a consumer-facing mandate, as every politician in this place would know. Lending institutions that are not authorised deposit-taking institutions will be regulated by legislative instruments set by the Treasurer and enforced by ASIC. What the government is seeking to do with this bill before the House today is to have consumer lending regulated by three separate sets of rules and two different regulators, depending on the nature of the credit provider and the credit contract. It doesn't sound like sensible reform to me, as was mentioned by the member for Whitlam. And, not surprisingly, these changes directly contradict recommendation 1.1 of the banking royal commission. Royal commissioner Hayne said that responsible lending obligations should not be amended. It also contradicts the Treasury's own submission to the banking royal commission, which noted that appropriate responsible lending laws could enhance rather than detract from macroeconomic outcomes. Consumer groups are very concerned that watering down the rules to protect consumers will result in significant consumer harm. The Consumer Action Law Centre said in their submission to the Senate inquiry: Confusingly, ASIC would remain the regulator for bank misconduct such as unconscionable conduct and misleading and deceptive conduct, but not lending conduct. This overlap of conduct and prudential oversight will be confusing and inefficient. It will not be competitively neutral, and it will create conflicting regulatory objectives for APRA. The Law Council of Australia noted in their submission: 25. Under this regime, non-bank lending to consumers will not be judged by whether unsuitable outcomes for consumers result but rather by whether: (a) the systems and processes conform to the criteria in the regulatory declaration; and (b) the assessment of suitability was made in accordance with those systems and processes. 26. Respectfully, the Law Council submits that this does not represent a simplification of RLOs, but rather makes enforcement of the standards complex and difficult. It would also make it highly difficult for a consumer to assess whether or not their own lender has breached the non-ADI standards. Banks are also confused about these regulatory changes being championed by the Morrison government. Suncorp Group Ltd said: Suncorp believes there is a lack of regulatory alignment between ADIs and non-ADIs which compromises consumer protections by incentivising credit applicants to use non-ADI lenders who have simpler credit assessment standards and less regulatory oversight. These changes may have an even more sinister impact. Several stakeholders told the Senate committee that they were concerned the bill would negatively impact victims-survivors of family violence and leave them exposed to the risk of continued and increased financial abuse. Labor senators on that committee said in their dissenting report: When responsible lending obligations (RLOs) are correctly implemented, they can help to prevent economic abuse because the lender will make reasonable enquiries about each applicant's financial situation, the accuracy of information provided and suitability of the loan. This process is an effective mechanism to expose undue influence, imbalance of bargaining power and the underlying dynamic behind economic abuse. As Ms Dacia Abela, senior lawyer for economic abuse at WEstjustice, a member of the Economic Abuse Reference Group, told the committee: If this bill is passed, we expect an increase in the number of loans being approved in circumstances of economic abuse, and victims-survivors will have reduced options to seek an individual remedy against those lenders. Whilst lenders will still be expected to consider the affordability of a loan, the bill removes entirely the requirement for lenders to make reasonable inquiries of the borrower's requirements and objectives. This represents a missed opportunity to identify red flags of economic abuse. In regard to APRA being a body for consumer lending, Ms Abela went on to say: Lastly, and importantly, APRA has probably not had to think much about how family violence intersects with financial services, whereas bodies such as AFCA and ASIC are developing practices and knowledge of how to deal with family violence issues. So APRA would effectively be moving into new territory with virtually no knowledge of or set practice in the area. We know that it is crucial that professionals working with victims and survivors of family violence understand the complex dynamics of family violence. We heard much about that during the debate in this parliament when the government pushed through their bill to abolish the Family Court of Australia. I can't believe that the Morrison government still does not understand that family violence is complex—that perpetrators will try to game every law and regulation they can find to maintain control over their victim. The Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues don't need to walk very far today to hear from women who have been in this very situation. I know they were busy at lunchtime, but today there were people who gathered outside this building because they were angry and they wanted to talk about this situation. Many of those women who gathered on the front lawn of Parliament House today would be able to tell the Morrison government firsthand what it's like to suffer financial and economic abuse due to the actions of a former partner. If only we had a Prime Minister or a Treasurer or a Deputy Prime Minister who could find the time to go outside and listen to those women. There is nothing more important than the Prime Minister listening to the women of Australia. I hope he has got that message. Sadly, we know this government has form. They don't listen to the experts. They don't listen to stakeholders. And they especially do not listen to women. It would be hard to hear the voices of the women in the Liberal Party, there are so few of them. Despite what the coalition government says, it is abundantly clear that this bill before the chamber is not designed to benefit consumers. It will actually overwhelmingly benefit the lending market, banks and lending institutions. The government claims that the primary purpose of these amendments is to provide timely flow of credit to the Australian economy. But at what cost to real people—at what cost to consumers? We've seen the same approach by the Morrison government to economic recovery measures that have been introduced. Last week, the government announced a tourism support package, which has gone down like a lead balloon—I won't quote Phillip Coorey on this occasion! The announcement allowed for a great photo op for the Prime Minister, pretending to pilot an aeroplane, waving a ticket to nowhere. But, beyond that, it will do nothing for the one million Australians who will be taken off JobKeeper in less than a fortnight's time. The tourism support package will give Australian travellers access to 800,000 half-price airfares to a limited number of destinations around Australia that, strangely, seem to be in marginal seats or in seats that the coalition need to win at the next election. There is only one eligible destination in Victoria and only one eligible destination in the most populous state, New South Wales. There are four eligible destinations in Queensland, but Queenslanders will not benefit from the half-price airfares if they're travelling within Queensland, and I know—being married to someone from Cairns—how desperate that area is at the moment. On visits up there recently, it has seemed that every other shop is on reduced hours or is boarded up, almost. Sadly, we saw this government—even though they're in coalition with the Nationals—forgetting regional centres. They've been almost completely ignored. There are a million Australians on JobKeeper and two million Australians who can't get a job or the hours they need to work to support their loved ones. Support for the tourism industry is welcome, but the announcement from the Prime Minister was nowhere near enough and it will be no substitute for a JobKeeper payment. Cutting JobKeeper too soon is a ticket to unemployment for too many Australians. It's estimated that between 100,000 and 200,000 Australians will join the unemployment queue when JobKeeper is cut. It is too soon to be cutting support. It is too soon to be cutting JobKeeper. Many Australians were hoping for an extension of JobKeeper or some other kind of substantial support. What the government has announced is a measure that will be very targeted to a limited number of destinations and will only benefit businesses in those destinations if the people travelling there have the spare cash to spend— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 Order. The member for Moreton should return to the substance of the legislation. Mr PERRETT HVP and I suspect that many won't. We know, from the Labor Party's competent management of the economy after the global financial crisis where we brought in legislation such as that before the chamber right now, the importance of not pulling back on support too soon—and, Deputy Speaker, that was my longwinded approach to that point. Australia came out of that crisis well. The American economy did not fare so well during the global financial crisis. They initially spent huge sums of money to rescue their ailing banks and stimulate their economy. That worked well. But, as soon as they thought the economy was starting to turn around, they pulled back spending—in particular, spending aimed at supporting the poor and the unemployed. That turned out to be a disaster for the United States. Their growth slowed and it led to deeper structural problems in their economy that persist today. We do not want to follow that example. We know how to implement economic recovery, and it's not to pull back support too soon. And that is what I fear the coalition government is doing. JobKeeper will stop in just a couple of weeks. There is nothing that will replace that support for those who still need it, and there are many Australians who still need that support. This bill will do nothing to support Australian consumers through this COVID recession, and I cannot support this bill. 15:49 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne The royal commission into misconduct by the banks was a once-in-a-century examination of the behaviour of Australia's financial sector. The Greens were the first party to push for it in parliament. We moved in the Senate to establish a parliamentary commission of inquiry. We managed to get bills and motions passed, including ones that came down here to the House. And then, under pressure, the government agreed to hold the royal commission into the banks. It clearly didn't want to do it, because not only have the big banks been some of the most generous donors to the government but there's also the revolving door: people come out of the big banks, come into the government and go back out again, and we've seen that time and time again. So the government was forced—forced—to take action to wind back some of the excesses of the banks. When that scrutiny was applied—because the parliament, led by the Greens, pushed the government to do it—what did the independent inquiry say, when it looked into the illegal and unethical behaviour, in the pursuit of ever bigger bonuses and ever bigger profits, by the big banks? The royal commission uncovered a trail of destruction. Businesses had gone under, households were upended and lives were destroyed. After receiving over 10,000 submissions, after 68 days of hearings with over 130 witnesses, and after sifting through all the tales of woe and misery that people in this country suffered because the big banks were interested in doing nothing more than making a profit, the very first recommendation of the royal commission—recommendation 1.1—was that the existing responsible lending laws, which mean banks can't lend people more money than they have the capacity to pay back, should not be amended. That's recommendation 1.1: keep the restrictions on the banks that stop them from going out and engaging in predatory behaviour, where they find people who clearly don't have the capacity to enter into a loan, encourage them to do it and sign them up. Why? Because the bank makes money out of it. It's no accident that this was the very first issue addressed by the royal commission, because it goes to the heart of the privileged role that banks have in our society and the sort of responsible behaviour that must accompany this privilege. Having the authority to take deposits and write loans against them is what sets banks apart. They get a licence to do it, under law, in a way that everyday people can't. They get a licence to do it, and it's what makes them so powerful. So it is no surprise that the parliament has previously said, and the royal commission has said: 'Don't let them abuse that power. Don't let them abuse that power by writing loans that they know people can't pay.' This is why there were responsible lending laws. If that's not clear enough, let me quote the commissioner's own words. Commissioner Hayne was unambiguous: My conclusions about issues relating to the NCCP Act— that is, consumer lending— can be summed up as 'apply the law as it stands'. It couldn't be clearer. That's the first recommendation of the royal commission. So what's this bill doing? It's doing the exact opposite of what the royal commission recommended and repealing those laws so that the banks can go out and start making huge profits through unconscionable behaviour that up till now would have been illegal. So it's trying to make legal what at the moment would be outlawed behaviour by the banks and what the royal commission into the banks said should be outlawed behaviour by the banks. This bill is ripping up the responsible lending laws that Commissioner Hayne said should be enforced as they stand. This bill confirms that the government never had their heart in the royal commission. They only did what they were dragged to do by this parliament. They established it to quell a bit of a backbench revolt, because certain members of the backbench knew that what the Greens and all of the others in this parliament were saying was right: that we needed a royal commission into the banks, because the banks had engaged in unconscionable behaviour where they abused the power that they had. Now this is happening under the cover of a pandemic. Can you believe it? The government are using a pandemic that apparently we've recovered from it and are world leading in, according to the Prime Minister. But notwithstanding that apparently we're on the other side, so we can afford to cut JobKeeper and JobSeeker—we've got to cut people's payments, because apparently that part of the pandemic is over—apparently we're in so much trouble that what we need to do now is to give banks back the power to write loans that people can't pay, just so the banks can make some big profits. This bill would remove the responsible lending obligations for consumer loans greater than $2,000, and it would ultimately make it easier for the banks to lend someone $2 million than it would currently be to lend them $2,000. Under this bill, the vast majority of borrowers would not be provided with the most basic of consumer protections, which is that the product being sold to them is fit for purpose. That's all the law says at the moment: if you're going to write someone a loan, it's got to be fit for purpose. This removes that. Instead of having a specific conduct regulator—that is, someone who can regulate the conduct of the banks, ASIC—resourced and empowered to oversee the suitability of a loan from the perspective of an individual customer, it's going to rely on APRA, whose role is to look after the financial system as a whole. Many people may not understand the significance of the difference between ASIC and APRA. APRA's responsibility is not to look after consumers. That's the end of it. That's the basic difference. Their responsibility is just to ensure the financial system stays stable. If banks make more profit out of this, APRA may well say, 'Oh, well, this is good for the banks.' It is not looking after the consumer. The government has instead picked a regulator whose responsibility is to look after the banks. As is befitting of this government's ideology, this bill will just leave people to fend for themselves. It's just designed to let the banks get on with writing loans as big as they possibly can, whether it's good for people or not. The big four are treated as too big to fail, so for them the risk of default barely registers. They know the government will step in and give them a handout if they ever get in trouble. So basically this is subprime dreaming. This is to let the banks squeeze whatever profits they can out of consumers while they can. If and when the music stops, it'll be someone else's problem. It'll be left to the taxpayer and the public to pick up the tab when we see a repeat of the GFC. That's what is worth remembering. We are seeing these laws because bank behaviour got out of control. That's why we put restrictions on the banks, and we saw that with the global financial crisis. Again, it was left up to the public to pick up the tab while the banks enjoyed all the profit and none of them suffered any consequences, and the executives went on to enjoy millions of dollars in bonuses. When we wound it in a bit and said, 'No, actually you can't write loans for people who are not going to be able to afford them,' that offered some protection to people in this country, and now this government wants to rip it up. This bill is an insult to the victims of the banks and it is rewarding the banks' rapacious behaviour. It's the latest example of this government using COVID as a cover to wind back protections for individuals and give even more power to the big corporations and the superwealthy that donate to the government. They're trying it on with the repeal of responsible lending obligations, which will give banks a licence to engage in predatory lending, and they're trying it on elsewhere with industrial relations legislation which will entrench insecure work and keep wages low. They're trying it on with this bill, which will also water down requirements for banks to ensure, before they write loans, that those loans are fit for purpose. When, in this parliament, all of the people across the political spectrum except for the government agree on something, it should tell you that the measure that people are lining up behind has the support of the people in this country. That's what we saw here. We saw a few government backbenchers speak up and everyone else across the political spectrum agree that we needed a royal commission into the banks because they were engaging in terrible behaviour, including predatory lending. When that royal commission reported and said, 'Keep some of the existing protections,' and the government said it was going to abide by and implement the recommendations of the royal commission, some people probably believed it. Some people probably went to the last election thinking the coalition government was going to honour its word when it said it supported the royal commission and was prepared to implement its recommendations. And now barely is the ink dry and the government wants to give back to the big banks at the expense of the Australian people. We cannot allow that, and that's why we will be opposing this bill. 15:59 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise to speak against this bill, the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, and again call on the government to abandon this effort to wind back responsible lending obligations. I acknowledge this bill contains some amendments designed to improve consumer protection in smaller credit products, but the main part of this bill will remove the obligations for lenders and the protections for consumers put in place after Australia's last recession. Responsible lending obligations have become a core part of our credit regime. According to Treasury, approximately $34 billion in consumer credit that is subject to these obligations is issued each month. They require a lender to do basic due diligence about a person's capacity to pay back a loan. They work to protect against cowboy lenders and predatory loan sharks and to prevent Australians falling into the debt trap—saddled with debt they can't afford to repay. And, while they don't stop all unsuitable lending, they give lenders a standard to uphold and consumers an avenue for redress. What this act would do is remove responsible lending obligations from all forms of credit except small amount credit contracts and consumer leases. This effectively removes these obligations from loans of over $2,000, such as mortgages and personal loans—the everyday debt that is a staple of our economy and involves the biggest financial decisions we make in our lives. As an Independent MP I represent only the interests of my constituents, and them alone. With them in mind, I look carefully at each bill before me to decide how to vote. I ask my constituents: is this good for you? I ask the organisations that support them: does this reform take us forwards or backwards? What I hear from my constituents is concern. What I hear from social and legal services, from churches and from consumer groups in my electorate is alarm and disbelief. And what I see as a person trained in evidence based decision-making is a case not yet made for winding this back. I've consulted widely with my community on this bill, and my constituents are united, of one voice, in telling me to oppose this bill. This is what they're saying. Judith Beach of West Wodonga says: It feels like it will make some of our most vulnerable people even more vulnerable to credit problems and to allow banks to return to the situation highlighted in the royal commission into banking. Isabel Mary Dean from Euroa says: Responsible Lending was addressed in the Banking Royal Commission but seems to have been ignored by Banks and Government, let alone the even less regulated lending bodies. Rolling back the already poor or flexible level of lending responsibility seems a very bad move. Alex McMillan from Tarrawingee says: I would like to urge you to vote against the lessening of credit lending responsibilities as the economy is surging and the housing market is booming. Lessening the onus on credit providers seems to be pandering to profits not to the care of people. Neil Barclay says: As a TAFE legal studies teacher I spent many years supporting/explaining these improvements to protect the vulnerable young and adults putting their toe in the water wanting to access finance … No vote from me Jacinta Ludeman from Oxley simply said, 'Against.' These constituent concerns are echoed by social justice, and legal and welfare organisations in my electorate. They've called on me to vote to strengthen, instead of repeal, safe lending laws. Hume Riverina Community Legal Service and Upper Murray Family Care tell me: We already help people in our rural and regional communities who rely on emergency food relief because they can't make ends meet and others who are homeless because they are unable to afford rent as well as their loan repayments. We also see people being chased by debt collectors, and the extreme stress and anxiety this causes. We believe a change will lead to more debt, more bankruptcies, and more home repossessions. Clients we have been assisting have voiced their disappointment with the move to rollback the laws. Sandra Blake, a respected and experienced financial counsellor currently working on the Small Business Bushfire Financial Counselling Support Line, tells me this about responsible lending obligations: Banks and other lenders have and do breach these laws, but there has been some deterrent and form of redress for people when that happens. The Government is planning to remove these protections in the middle of a recession, when it is more likely than ever that people will be more vulnerable to being taken advantage of by lenders. I thank my constituents for engaging with me in good faith on this significant piece of legislation and sharing their personal stories, which have informed their well-founded views. The problems with this bill start with its title, specifically the part in brackets, 'supporting economic recovery'. The government says this reform is a key part of the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, seeming to claim that 'reducing the time and cost associated with the provision of credit' will make a material difference to getting back on track, yet there is no evidence that responsible lending obligations are holding us back. Across our country, our economy is rebounding at a rate that would have shocked the Treasurer when he first announced these reforms, in September last year. In December the total number of new loan commitments reached record highs, rising 8.6 per cent in a year to $26 billion, according to the ABS. The national accounts showed our economy expanded by 3.1 per cent in the December quarter, and last week the OECD upgraded our economic growth forecast to 4.5 per cent. The Treasurer himself said our economy was 'outperforming all major advanced economies' in 2020 and that the OECD points out that 'our level of economic growth is closing in on our pre-pandemic level'. This is fantastic news. With the government's other COVID-19 fiscal interventions, there is no shortage of credit being issued. But—and here's the point—I would say to the Treasurer: if you were intending to rely on COVID-19 to justify these reforms, your rationale has completely evaporated. My electorate was economically battered by the 2020 trifecta of bushfires, COVID and border closures. I'm in constant contact with employers and businesses that have weathered these storms. They are grateful for the dramatic economic interventions of this government. They care, as I do, about business growth and creating steady, well-paid jobs. More than that, we care about the welfare of employees, the future of their children, and the young families so important to regional growth. Safeguarding these people from unsuitable debt strengthens the fabric of our society and therefore our economy. It is with them in mind that I am particularly worried about how removing these protections might affect my constituents wanting to buy their first home. The pandemic has seen a surge of tree changers lured to our regional towns by affordability, lifestyle and newly found working-from-home arrangements. We're thrilled to welcome these new families, but there's a consequence. The consequence has been that locals are competing with Melbourne buyers with significantly more purchasing power. The property market is running hot, and prices are skyrocketing. According to Domain's latest house price report, over the past year median prices have risen 13.7 per cent. In Wangaratta it's 13.1 per cent, in Myrtleford it's 13.4 per cent, in Euroa it's 17.11 per cent and in Bright it's a stunning 22.8 per cent. This is already locking local first home buyers out of their town. Young adults who grew up in Beechworth or Bright can no longer afford to buy there, even if they have two steady incomes. Our median household income is 22 per cent lower than the Australian average, which sets us even further back. We have in our hands a perfect storm of our young people overextending themselves, taking on more debt than they can afford, to get a foot into a real estate market that shows no sign of slowing. When I think about the removal of these responsible lending obligations, I think of our young families, who have already made so many sacrifices to scrape together a deposit only to find out it's just not enough. How easy it would be for them to take a risk, a risk they can't afford, optimistically hoping that something will work out. We know that Australians will walk over hot coals to pay off a mortgage, sacrificing other essentials like doctors' appointments, getting the car serviced, late fees on credit cards and school books, just to keep a roof over their heads. This can have long-term impacts, like draining their emergency funds or affecting their future credit score. Where will this leave them? This is exactly the situation which responsible lending obligations try to avoid. It's not just bureaucratic red tape; it's a handbrake on incurring the type of debt that could lead to bankruptcy, ruin mental health and jeopardise relationships. Of course, housing affordability won't be fixed by this law. But I'm sounding the alarm that higher levels of debt may become a fact of life for my constituents. Coupled with the uncertainty of the labour market and with JobKeeper stopping and JobSeeker being cut, at this moment we need more protection, not less. This bill looks set to pass the House today, yet I cannot, in good conscience, support any legislation that would leave vulnerable people in my community saddled with bad debt, nor legislation that directly contradicts the very first recommendation of perhaps one of the most far-reaching royal commissions of our time. I urge the government to abandon these reforms. It's not too late. And I urge my Senate crossbench colleagues to take heed of the 33,000-signature strong open letter endorsed by Choice, ACOSS, the Consumer Action Law Centre and 125 community organisations. They're calling on us to strengthen, rather than repeal, these safe-lending laws and oppose this bill, put forward with the flimsiest of rationales—a bill that will do far more harm than good. 16:11 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo For some Australians, credit is a totally ordinary, mundane thing. They know their financial circumstances, their credit score and their superannuation strategy. They know how to deal with bankers, lenders and brokers. If there is something they don't understand, many of them have someone who can help: an accountant, a financial planner or parents and friends who are financially literate. For those Australians, getting into trouble is something that only happens with a significant life-changing event, such as a divorce or a death in the family, and they usually know what to do when that happens. But that's not everyone. Many people in our community, in my own community of Mayo, are not financially literate. They don't understand credit and risk or have a budget. For many of those people, credit is a terrifying thing. They know how easily they can get into trouble. They've seen it happen to family members, to their friends or to neighbours. They've seen the terrible, enduring consequences that come from a loan going bad. They've seen people lose their homes, lose their rental properties, lose their relationships and lose their families. They also know it's necessary risk. There is no way that they can buy a home without credit—without a mortgage—or a car. And sometimes things go wrong and you just need a loan to cover a few bills until you're back on your feet. For people who aren't financially literate, dealing with a lender can be stressful and anxiety ridden. They don't understand credit. They can't tell when they're getting a bad deal or when they're being taken for a ride. They have to place their trust in someone who may or may not be ripping them off. If you've read the submissions and the reports of the Hayne royal commission, you know that these fears are justified, because many Australians were, in fact, being ripped off time and again. For these people, consumer credit protections are the only thing that can actually prevent this from happening. It's not enough to keep them completely safe but it's something; it's some protection, and it's better than nothing. So you can imagine how these people would be feeling when they hear the government wants to strip away these protections. You can imagine that these people, my constituents, would be feeling frustrated that the government is looking to undo the first recommendation—the first recommendation!—of the banking royal commission. They don't care about macroeconomic benefit to growth or private net capital investments. What they care about is losing their home and their future financial security, and ensuring that there's some protection so that their kids won't be ripped off by a dodgy lender or lose their credit rating. I accept that there are complexities to this. The majority of borrowers in Australia are financially literate and they can handle credit well and don't require government intervention. They can access credit. Notably, Australia's household debt-to-income ratio has increased at a faster rate and to a higher level than most countries in the decade to 2018. As long as lenders act ethically, with integrity and decency, most people will be fine. But there are situations in which some people need protection. The policy challenge is that there is no silver bullet, not one thing that offers everyone the protection that they need. So we protect some people in the minority by strictly regulating products aimed at them, such as payday loans and consumer leases. But we don't do a very good job with these protections, and, for years now, members in this parliament have wanted to see change and tightening of the rules—even the government's own draft legislation brought into the parliament would be a good start. But at least right now there are some protections, and there are wraparound services such as financial literacy programs, counselling and zero-interest loans available. However, these are limited and they're not always easy to access, particularly if you're in a regional area. So I can certainly understand the efficiency argument against the system we have; however, I don't think the government's approach on this is right. In all honesty, I could support a bill where there was greater emphasis on protection and support and funding, but there isn't. This bill just rolls back responsible lending obligations and strips away protections for the vulnerable. It places responsibility for unaffordable and unsuitable loans on borrowers, leaving them with fewer ways to combat the bad lending behaviour we heard about in the Hayne royal commission. It actually beggars belief. This is royal commission's first recommendation, and the government wants to take it away. The bill removes the ability to access remedies for loss and damages suffered due to unscrupulous behaviour and implements watered-down reforms to payday loans and leases recommended by the small amount credit contract review in 2016. This bill would allow an employed person to contract to pay up to 40 per cent—nearly half—of their net income every week to payday lenders and consumer lease providers, or up to 20 per cent if the person is receiving Centrelink benefits. Consumer advocates know what this means for vulnerable people who present to them, needing relief for basic expenses like food because their incomes have been eaten up by repayments and then late fees on unaffordable loans. I can't vote for that and I won't vote for that. I would really encourage the government to take a long, hard look at this piece of legislation and actually assess who this bill is here to help. It's certainly not vulnerable Australians. (Quorum formed) 16:21 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I rise to make my contribution to this debate on the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. With regard to regulation around lending, obviously both the availability of credit and the protection of consumers are incredibly important. To the people that I represent, the ability to have credit and be treated respectfully and within the law is incredibly important. Firstly, I'd like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. The bill forms part of the government's economic recovery plan and amends the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009, known as the credit act, to support the flow of credit to the economy and introduce additional protections for consumers accessing high-cost credit. To improve the timely flow of credit, the bill amends the credit act so that the existing responsible lending obligations apply only to small amount credit contracts and consumer leases. The reforms remove the one-size-fits-all approach, which has unduly slowed down the time it takes for consumers to gain loan or credit-limit approvals, from the assessment of all other types of credit. The new lending standards will align with APRA standards and require lenders to have sound credit-assessment and approval processes to assess consumers' capacity to repay debt without substantial hardship. The bill ensures sufficient consumer protections are maintained. Consumers will continue to have access to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority in the event that they have individual disputes with the financial institution. The bill also extends the best-interest obligations, which will apply to mortgage brokers from 1 January 2021, to other credit assistance providers to ensure credit assistance providers act in the consumer's best interest. The bill also introduces new obligations for providers of small amount credit contracts and consumer leases, to support improved financial inclusion while balancing the need for continued access to these products. The reforms include imposing a cap on the total payments that can be made under a consumer lease, requiring small amount credit contracts to have equal repayments and equal repayment intervals, and strengthening penalties to increase compliance with the law. The bill will also allow the National Consumer Credit Protection Regulations 2010 to set the maximum amount of income a consumer can allocate towards repaying their lease. I commend this bill to the House. 16:24 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite The Morrison government has named this bill the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, but this flawed bill does not protect the vulnerable from financial hardship. Instead it exposes them to unscrupulous and predatory behaviour. Schedule 1 of this amendment removes responsible lending obligations from most consumer credit contracts. In other words, it gets rid of regulations that exist to ensure or safeguard the rights of the client. What is worse is that this bill flies in the face of the first recommendation of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. Remember, the banking royal commission was established in response to the disgraceful practices of the banking sector, which have led to anxiety, suicide, an escalation in the cost of housing, homelessness, predatory behaviour—the list goes on. The banking royal commission states that the National Consumer Credit Protection Act should not be altered to lessen the safeguards that ensure responsible lending, and there is very good reason for the inclusion of this recommendation. It serves to enshrine protections in our lending laws to make sure that loans are affordable, suitable and ethical. Importantly, it puts the welfare of the vulnerable front and centre. So why would you remove it? It makes sense. To introduce this legislation shows a lack of compassion and insight into the lives of our most financially vulnerable. The Morrison government says that the removal of such a safeguard is required to free up the ability to get a loan and to stimulate the economy, but borrowings are at an all-time high. So the message is that these safeguards are not an impediment to getting a loan. We don't need to free up the system, and we certainly don't need to expose our most vulnerable Australians to predatory and unscrupulous behaviour. The Labor government introduced the National Consumer Credit Protection Act in 2009, and there were two key reasons for these responsible lending laws. The first is that irresponsible lending leads to extreme personal hardship. This, sadly, occurs too frequently, at no fault of the borrower. It is often linked to family violence, abuse and other devastating life challenges. The second reason is structural and was in response to the global financial crisis. Irresponsible lending introduces weaknesses into the economic system. These weaknesses can have devastating impact, as we saw with the global financial crisis. Put simply, irresponsible lending generates bad debt. At low incidence, bad debt generates economic drag and lowers prosperity across the country. At moderate to high incidence, bad debt causes economic collapse and decimates prosperity across the country—the exact opposite of what we want during COVID. Even the officials from this government's Treasury department agree. These Treasury experts sat before the banking royal commission and very clearly explained that the laws the government are now trying to cancel serve to protect our economy. The Treasury department submitted this to the banking royal commission: There is little evidence to suggest that the recent tightening in credit standards, including through APRA's prudential measures or the actions taken by ASIC in respect of RLOs, has materially affected the overall availability of credit. The department also noted: … to the extent that firms are correcting lax credit assessment practices, there has likely been an improvement in the credit quality of marginal borrowers. So, in summary, the government's own department said that credit standards and safeguards had not affected borrowings and had instead improved the integrity of the system—had protected the right of marginal borrowers. So it's incomprehensible to suggest that this draft legislation before the House today would have a positive impact on wellbeing or the prosperity of Australia. It will not. Two clients of my community law centre, the Barwon Community Legal Service, clearly show the absolute importance of retaining responsible lending requirements. Sally has two children to her de facto partner, John, who had a gambling problem and was very controlling with money. John wanted a new vehicle, but his credit rating was poor and he was unable to get a loan. After several weeks of coercion, including physical and emotional violence, they went to a car dealership and John negotiated a purchase while Sally stayed outside. When it came time to sign the contract, John brought Sally into the store and explained to the car dealer that she would be the borrower, and they proceeded to complete the paperwork, with Sally not asked one more question. That lender issued Sally a $25,000 loan at 20 per cent interest per annum, via its own finance company. The car was registered in John's name and Sally never drove it. Sally only had her learner's permit. After they separated due to the ongoing family violence, John took the vehicle and left Sally with the debt. Sadly, this government and the PM are introducing this legislation, which will expose vulnerable women like Sally to abuse. It's about time the Prime Minister listened to women. Today the Prime Minister let women down. He did not attend the March 4 Justice. He turned his back. But the Barwon Community Legal Service stepped up. They helped Sally. They argued that the finance provider had breached responsible lending laws by not making inquiries or verifying information despite clear signs of coercion. Eventually, after a complaint to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, the debt was waived. This waiver would not have been possible and could not have been achieved without the responsible lending laws that this government intends to remove with the bill before this House. Then there's Ahmed, another client of the Barwon Community Legal Service, who was deep in debt from business and personal loans and was looking for a way out. He signed up for a course with a private college on the promise that he would earn an extra $1,000 a week after completing the qualification. When he couldn't afford course payments, they offered to organise finance for him. Ahmed got a phone call from someone who asked for all his bank statements and other details. The caller, a finance broker connected to the college, applied for a loan on Ahmed's behalf at a rate of 22.9 per cent interest, using extremely inaccurate information. The course wasn't as advertised, and Ahmed was left with a loan of $30,000 to repay, on top of all his other debts. Barwon Community Legal Service stepped in and helped Ahmed make a complaint to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, on the grounds that both the broker and the lender breached responsible lending laws. Ahmed eventually accepted a settlement from the finance broker. The lender wiped $22,000 of the debt and allowed Ahmed to repay the remainder at a rate he could afford, without interest. Like Sally, Ahmed is extremely thankful that Barwon Community Legal Service was able to advocate on his behalf. Without responsible lending laws, this would not have been possible. I'd like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hugely committed team at Barwon Community Legal Service. The work they've done for Ahmed and Sally and thousands of others across my electorate is beyond commendable. They witness and fight the harm brought about by inappropriate lending practices and other social ills on a daily basis. In the last financial year, Barwon Community Legal Service saved clients over $350,000 in waived, renegotiated or revoked debts arising from breaches of the very legislation this government is rushing to water down. This service runs a tanker ship on the smell of an oily rag and makes our country a better, fairer and more compassionate place. So my heartfelt thanks go to the Barwon Community Legal Service. The Barwon Community Legal Service bears witness to the harm caused by irresponsible lending. The Treasury has testified to the significant and negative economic impacts of irresponsible lending. But the Morrison government still has the gall to claim this bill will do Australia and the Australian economy good. What absolute rubbish! It will not. This bill scraps responsible lending obligations and exposes customers and the economic system to huge risk, and this bill is in direct contradiction to the banking royal commission recommendations. It makes absolutely no sense. Labor does not support this bill, which will harm Australians and the Australian economy. We say no to any effort to strip back responsible lending. We say no to the Morrison government on this legislation. Instead, we stand with Treasury and community legal services, we stand for the banking royal commission recommendations and we stand with Sally and Ahmed and every Australian who relies on every MP in this chamber to do the right and the decent thing and protect them from harmful, irresponsible lending practices. It's time the Morrison government stepped up and took responsibility. It is the role of federal government to protect our most financially vulnerable. I urge this government to do its job and not pass this harmful legislation. 16:35 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise today to contribute to this debate on the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. This is a deeply worrying bill. It continues the Morrison government's ongoing strategy of using COVID-19 as a cover to ram through damaging measures in its Liberal Party agenda. They've used it to try to slash the pay and conditions of some of Australia's lowest paid workers by trying to remove the better off overall test. They also used it to slash service standards and time frames for critical public services like Australia Post, and now, today, they're at it again. This time they're using the coronavirus as a justification to tear down hard-won consumer protections for vulnerable Australians. This bill will wind back responsible lending obligations—the safeguards that were rolled out to address predatory lending practices. If removed, unscrupulous credit providers will once again be free to pressure customers into taking unmanageably large loans even if they know that their customer won't be able to keep up with the repayments. It will also swing the door wide open for companies to gouge consumers who take up small loans or consumer leases. This is shameful, it's disgraceful and it demonstrates that the Morrison government has learnt nothing from the shocking litany of egregious behaviour we saw time and time again in the banking royal commission. We shouldn't be surprised, of course. The Liberals never wanted an inquiry into the banks, after all. In fact, they fought it, tooth and nail, right to the bitter end. Indeed, this Prime Minister voted against a royal commission not once, not twice, but 26 times, and this track record says a lot about whose side our Prime Minister is on. Make no mistake, when he voted against the banking royal commission, Mr Morrison voted against vulnerable Australians, and now it's more of the same. This bill is a win for the banks and indeed many companies that offer consumer credit, but it will be a dreadful tragedy if it proceeds. It will be the death of a fair go for mums and dads and the elderly Australians who can't compete with predatory lending tactics. The Morrison government argues that these changes are necessary to keep credit flowing. I'd argue that, if you need to lumber customers with loans that they can't afford in order to be profitable, then the problem isn't with the law; it is with your business model. No-one wins when thousands of Australians default on their loans. We learnt this the hard way during the global financial crisis. Indeed, this is the very reason these protections were brought in in the first place. Australia's national peak consumer group, CHOICE, has rightly pointed out that the livelihoods of millions of vulnerable Australians are now hanging in the balance, and it has led a vigorous community campaign against this. Already, more than 23,000 Australians have signed an open letter to the federal parliament urging us to maintain the current protections, a call that has been backed in by 125 charities, unions, academics and financial counsellors. Now it's time for the parliament to listen. I urge the Morrison government to stop putting the interests of financial services ahead of the interests of the Australian people. I'd like to go through a few of the specifics of the bill. As I mentioned, it does two main things. Firstly, it removes responsible lending obligations for the majority of consumer credit contacts. These obligations simply require financial services organisations to make reasonable inquiries about a customer and then use this information to assess whether a particular product is right for them. This is a sensible and reasonable provision. Banks have all the data and enough actuaries to know what debt people can comfortably manage. They shouldn't be allowed to sell them products that they cannot afford. If this bill proceeds, this will be allowed and indeed made worse. The burden of risk will be placed squarely on the shoulders of the borrower. Of course, we know what will happen. We've seen how this story ends. Free from their legal obligation to act ethically, many operators will undoubtedly make choices to benefit themselves and not their vulnerable customers. As Fiona Guthrie from Financial Counselling Australia pointed out: … weaker lending standards mean people will be loaded up with as much debt as possible. There is significant profit to be made in pushing borrowers to the edge. What a disgusting proposition! The Morrison government say these changes are necessary because the current restrictions are hurting the supply of credit, but even their own department won't support them on this one. Indeed, these changes directly contradict Treasury's own submission to the banking royal commission, which said the responsible lending obligations were working well to protect consumers and safeguard the economy. That's right: they were working well. This is backed up by the Commissioner of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, Sean Hughes, who flatly rejected claims that responsible lending has had an impact on economic growth. If this bill proceeds, it will free up the banks to aggressively push credit onto their customers. The second set of measures proposed in the bill relate to small amount credit contracts—more commonly known as payday loans—as well as consumer leases. These changes ostensibly respond to the government's own SACCs review, which it commissioned back in 2016, but they fall unacceptably short of the recommendations in that review. For example, the review recommended capping payments at 10 per cent of a customer's income, with a separate cap for small amount credit contracts and consumer leases. The result of the changes is that as much as 40 per cent of people's pay packets could soon be eaten up in payday lending fees. That is going to be legal with the passage of this bill. The SACCs review also said that fees for consumer leases should be capped at four per cent of the retail price of an item. In contrast, this legislation sets four per cent fees as the base amount that can be charged, plus delivery fees, plus installation fees, plus establishment fees—up to 20 per cent. The end result? Consumers could be paying the equivalent of annual interest rates in excess of 100 per cent. This is horrendous, and it will open the floodgate to egregious price gouging and drowning debt stress for those who can least afford it. Labor has been alarmed by this bill from the beginning. That is why we sent it to an inquiry in the Senate. While the inquiry won't report until next month, the feedback from the submitters so far has been loud and clear. Indeed, it has received more than 100 submissions to date, with the vast majority rightly panning this legislation and blasting the government for lacking the moral fibre to back the interests of vulnerable Australians over those of the banks. I've also been contacted by a number of people in my community, in Newcastle, about this bill. I'd specifically like to give a shout-out to Jonathan, who works as a financial literacy project officer for the Salvation Army's Moneycare service in Newcastle. Jonathan wrote to me to warn of the dire circumstances should this legislation pass. He noted the large power imbalance between consumers and the providers of financial products, and he said that many people in the community simply don't have the resources needed to effectively make complex financial decisions. He also warned me of the dire outcomes that can result when people are pressured into taking on financial products that that are unsuitable, unaffordable and leave them worse off. Jonathan told me the story of a Bien, a 20-year-old Congolese born refugee. When he was 19, with only six months of work under his belt, Bien signed his first significant financial contract, on a ute. Unfortunately, it wasn't fair and it wasn't sustainable. The salesman pressured Bien heavily into taking the loan but didn't explain what it would mean for him. As a result, Bien signed the contract expecting to pay $19,000 for the vehicle. But the terms of the contract meant he would be required to pay a total of $48,000—on a minimum wage. Within six weeks of taking on the loan, Bien defaulted on his repayments. Soon after, understandably, massive stress set in. Bien wasn't eating or sleeping, and he withdrew from his social life. Feeling silly, embarrassed and hopeless, he reached out to a friend who referred him to the Salvation Army. Thankfully, they were able to hold the lending organisation to account and get a good outcome for Bien. How did they do this? By using the very provisions that this bill now seeks to trash. Bien's story shows clearly why we need these responsible lending obligations and what a disaster it would be if this bill was passed. Debt can have terrible impacts beyond our financial lives. It can hurt our relationships, our work lives, our health and, indeed, our very sense of self. It can quickly drag people down into despair. It can lead to an ever-worsening cycle of debt when people try to stay on top of things by taking out loans in order to pay off other loans. Not everyone has the financial skills to understand the long-term impacts of their financial decisions. But the banks do know how much debt people can manage. They should never, ever be allowed to give people loans that they know the customer simply cannot afford. Of course, the Morrison government knows very well that this legislation puts people like Bien at risk of falling into desperation and despair. They won't admit that they know. In fact, they deny there's even a problem. But they're not telling the truth. Do you know how I know this? It's because it's not just peak bodies that have been warning the government about this; indeed, Treasury advice uncovered by a freedom of information request shows that the Treasurer was warned in March that dumping responsible lending obligations would harm consumers. Yet, this is exactly what he has proposed four months later. He really should be ashamed of himself. In summary, this legislation sends a clear message to the financial services sector. It says that, despite the appalling exploitation of Australian consumers revealed by the banking royal commission, the Morrison government will continue to use the federal parliament, this very House and chamber, to do the bidding of bankers. It says they have no qualms with introducing legislation that reduces transparency and shifts the burden of risk from the lender to the consumer. It says that the government simply isn't on the side of Australian borrowers. Well, let me assure you that Labor is on the side of vulnerable Australians, that we are on the side of justice and that Labor is very much on the side of a fair go in this nation. The government should withdraw this legislation immediately. (Quorum formed) 16:52 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley There's something about this government that I struggle to understand. It's true that we all come from our own backgrounds and experiences. It's true that the families we were born into, the schools we attended and the institutions that we have worked for have or that have shaped our lives have all influenced not only the lives we've led but also the way that we view the world. It's inevitable, and it's fair enough. But what most people try to do, even if it's just occasionally, is to step outside of their own world and their life experience and try, just for a moment, to put themselves in the shoes of people who haven't led the same life they have. That's what I struggle to understand about a lot of members of the current government. If members of the government took a moment to stop and genuinely listen to the stories of the lives of people—people who weren't born into a family that could afford to send them to a private school; who weren't born into a family that had multiple investment properties from which they could live; who weren't born into a family where there were two parents at home; who weren't born into a family where there was any parent at home who had a job; or who weren't born into a family that thought nothing of being able to pay $40,000 a year to send them to an elite school so that they could make the right connections and have the right friends to be able to ascend to positions of power—then we wouldn't have to be standing in this parliament debating pieces of legislation like this. Perhaps they should come to my electorate and meet some of the hardest-working people you will ever come across. They are scraping from pay cheque to pay cheque but, even worse than that, scraping from shift to shift, never knowing when the next shift is going to come; not knowing necessarily how much they're going to get paid for that shift, because it's for a different employer or a different labour hire company; never knowing whether or not they're going to be able to pay the rent, put food on the table or buy a netball top or a pair of footy boots for their kids; and absolutely vulnerable to predatory financial institutions because they're so desperate for a bit of extra money just to get by. That's who the Treasurer should spend some time speaking to, and then maybe he would understand why it is that members on this side of the chamber—even those of us who have never had to go to a payday lender or have been fortunate enough to always be able to tick all of the boxes to get a loan no matter how stringent the rules are—are standing here to say this sort of legislation causes harm. Maybe we should step back for a moment and stop talking about the technicalities of what financial institutions can and can't do and about lending laws, and just focus for a moment on the health impacts of financial stress and living day to day in that precarious world. We have in Frankston in my electorate—just round the corner from my electorate office, in fact—one of the new mental health services that, to their credit, the current government has funded as a result of the increase in mental health stress during the pandemic. It's called a Head to Health site. It involves both being able to attend at a clinic—in this case, it's the Young Street medical clinic—or being able to access mental health assistance online. The Australian government's Head to Health website notes the following: Mental health and financial safety are strongly linked. Experiencing a mental illness can add to financial stresses, and financial stresses can add to a mental illness. The Senate inquiry looking at this legislation heard from organisations that represent everyday people who are in financial stress because they're in underpaid and low-paid jobs and have fallen prey to either predatory payday lenders or loans that they can't, and never were going to be able to, repay. The representatives of those hardworking, decent Australians told government and opposition members alike: Should lending standards reduce as a result of the repeal of the RLOs this is likely to create greater overindebtedness. The impact of unaffordable debt on individuals, families and communities is immense. Community lawyers and financial counsellors speak to people every day who are struggling to pay their debts, while trying to juggle other expenses like energy bills and groceries. Over-indebtedness can result in significant longer-term impacts on individuals as it affects their capacity to provide for housing, health, education and retirement. The submission to the Senate inquiry went on to say: Debt can also have a harmful effect on relationships with family and friends, increase isolation and exacerbate mental health issues. Studies have found that people with unmet loan payments had suicidal ideation and suffered from depression more often than those without such financial problems. I'm sure there are members of this chamber who have, at periods in their lives, had financial stress. There may well be people in this chamber who have had financial stress caused by a loan that they couldn't service. If there are, they should be calling on that experience and calling on their humanity to oppose this legislation. It's just almost inexplicable that the government would choose to call this bill 'supporting economic recovery'. Whose economic recovery is this legislation supposed to be supporting? The evidence to the Senate committee at the end of last year was that there was no lack of available credit. Whose economic recovery is being supported by going against the first recommendation of the royal commission into banks and the financial services sector? It was the first recommendation. This government, under this Prime Minister, voted time and time and time again against establishing a royal commission into the banks and financial institutions. We know that they got dragged kicking and screaming, and this Prime Minister reluctantly announced such a royal commission. Then we heard over and over again words that sounded like commitment to the inquiry. When the final report was tabled, we heard words from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that sounded a lot like commitment to the recommendations of the inquiry. But we haven't seen the action. The Treasurer's own implementation schedule for the recommendations of the royal commission isn't written on paper, because it's online, but it isn't worth the internet that it's written on. He hasn't come close to following it. The real truth—not the words but the real truth—of the government's commitment to making sure that Australians don't have their lives, their families and their physical and mental health ruined by the actions of the big banks is in their walking away from the first recommendation of the royal commission. I almost can't work myself up to get angry, because it's just sad and disappointing. Today has been a day of disappointment. Today has been a day where women's rage and distress and hope have been dashed by a Prime Minister and a government that know the words but don't have the actions and that weren't brave enough to go and listen—really listen—to Australian women calling for gender equality and real systemic response to endemic domestic violence and sexual assault in this country. Today is a day when the Prime Minister, on indulgence at the start of question time, gave a speech which one can only imagine he thought would justify his pronouncement from on high that he couldn't be seen to go out to address a rally of thousands and thousands of Australian voters, most of whom happened to be women, but that three or four of them could come to his office and listen to what he had to say. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 The member for Dunkley is now straying from the topic of the bill before the House, and, whilst it may be an important matter, this is not the appropriate place for that discussion. Ms MURPHY 133646 Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and I'm getting there. I'll get there. It's because the Prime Minister wouldn't listen, and here we have legislation that is in exactly that vein. You have financial services representatives, community legal centres and individuals taking the time and effort to make submissions and give evidence to this government through a Senate committee about why this legislation should not go ahead, and it's almost as though the Prime Minister refused to go out and listen to them. It's almost as though the Prime Minister's attitude is 'I'll tell you what you need, and what you need is what I've got to say'. It flows through this entire government, and it starts with where I started. If you are a government that believes that you rule the country—you don't govern the country and you don't lead the country, but you believe that you rule the country—because your privilege has led you to a life that means that you cannot even comprehend the life that other people have to lead, then you don't listen and learn from other people and do what they need. There is a difference between people who grew up being told they were the conquerors of the world and people who grew up understanding that they were going to need to conquer the world. I'm here to be a voice for people who grew up knowing that they were going to have to work to conquer the world, and so are my Labor colleagues. That's why we won't support this legislation which makes it easier for those institutions that are the conquerors of the world to take advantage of people who are just working day to day to conquer the difficulties that are put before them. Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed) 17:09 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I rise to speak on the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020 and to support the amendment moved by the member for Whitlam. The key features of this bill, as others have discussed, are removing the existing responsible lending obligations and instead applying APRA's lending standards for most purposes for most lenders, including non-bank lenders not currently covered by APRA; enforcement of these lending standards staying with APRA for ADI lenders but being with ASIC for non-ADI lenders, creating two separate enforcement regimes; reducing verification requirements for lenders, replacing the current practice of lender responsibility with borrower responsibility; and exempting any business lending from protections regardless of the proportion of the loan that is for a business purpose, which replaces an existing predominant purpose test designed to prevent avoidance. The reform is also accompanied by some additional consumer protections and changes to the small amount credit contract and consumer lease protections, for which responsible lending obligations will remain—changes that do not line up with the recommendations of the government's own review of payday lending laws—and also by a requirement that debt management firms hold an Australian credit licence. Responsible lending obligations were introduced as part of the reforms to credit law undertaken by the Rudd Labor government in 2009, which established a nationally consistent framework for consumer credit. This government is now removing key responsible lending protections as part of an attempt at a so-called simplification of Australia's framework. The changes will shift responsibility from lenders to borrowers, reducing protections for borrowers in the event that credit decisions are made on the basis of incorrect information. Recommendation 1.1 of the Hayne royal commission was explicitly against amending this framework. On 25 September last year, the Treasurer announced the government would remove RLOs from most consumer credit products, except in relation to certain small amount credit contracts and consumer leases. The justification for these changes was that the current regulation is damaging the supply of credit. In his words, the removal of RLOs would 'increase the flow of credit to households and businesses'. He went on: As Australia continues to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is more important than ever that there are no unnecessary barriers to the flow of credit to households and small businesses. Responding to this announcement and the Treasurer's words, Consumer Action Law Centre CEO Gerard Brody said: The Commonwealth Bank recently said that the flow of credit is above pre-COVID levels and that lending is growing at a strong pace. These are hardly the words of a sector crying out for laws to ease lending restrictions. Last month, Financial Counselling Australia released its Save Safe Lending survey. Some of the key findings of this survey of their financial counsellors—and they would be no surprise to many—are that 97 per cent of financial counsellors surveyed think that responsible lending laws should remain, and 92 per cent of financial counsellors surveyed think that, if the laws are repealed, financial counsellors can expect to see many more clients with unaffordable debt. In their summary of this report, Financial Counselling Australia concluded: Under current laws, financial counsellors are able to seek redress and help for their clients who experience irresponsible lending. If the laws are axed, financial counsellors will find it much harder to assist, leaving some of the most vulnerable members of society with debts they will struggle to repay. Following on from this, in January I received a letter from a constituent who happens to be a financial counsellor for the Salvation Army, working with one of their local financial counselling services, and she was greatly concerned by the changes proposed in this bill. She wrote: 'I see many vulnerable clients as part of my role as a financial counsellor, including those impacted by physical and mental ill health, job loss and relationship breakdown, and others who are not skilled in basic money management. Many of our clients take out loans because they are in desperate situations.' She goes on, 'Even with the existing protections, I have seen vulnerable clients lent money when they realistically could not afford the repayments on many occasions.' She went on to share the story of Albert, whose name has been changed. He took out many small loans to make ends meet and, already in a vulnerable position, was repeatedly lent money that he could not afford to pay back. These repayments quickly became unmanageable, and the overwhelming stress of his debt exacerbated his pre-existing mental health issues. Albert attempted to take his own life. He was then referred for financial counselling, and the Salvation Army were able to provide relief for many of his loans due to the current responsible lending laws and the obvious unaffordability of the repayments for a person who was the recipient of a Centrelink benefit. The point that she's making is that, without these lending protections in place, without the existing laws that this legislation is removing, his only option might have been bankruptcy. At the height of the pandemic, on the Central Coast in my community, there were 36 jobseekers for every job vacancy and there were 4,902 businesses with 18,734 employees supported through JobKeeper—just in my electorate, on one part of the Central Coast. We see many people in a situation like Albert's where financial distress leads to a mental health crisis and then suicidal ideation. Sadly, this link is well established. In this economic recovery, when communities like mine and others across the country, communities built on tourism, hospitality and retail that have really borne the brunt of COVID-19, are only just getting back on our feet, the government does something like this—when we've already got vulnerable people at financial risk, in distress, who might be more exposed through this. I met with a financial counsellor in my electorate who works at one of the community centres, and I sat in on a financial planning session that he had with a young parent who, like many, was fleeing family violence. She was there grappling with her bills. She had all the bills there and she was looking at how she could pay her rent, which was over $400 a week; how she could pay her utility bills; and how she could pay her phone bill to at least keep being connected with people. These are the people who are at risk in our community who will be more vulnerable because of this bill. The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry released its report back in 2019. Recommendation 1.1, which I referred to earlier, stated: The NCCP Act— the National Consumer Credit Protection Act— should not be amended to alter the obligation to assess unsuitability. This amendment bill from the government flies directly in the face of this recommendation and its intention. Even the Treasury department said that appropriate responsible lending laws could enhance rather than detract from macroeconomic outcomes. It doesn't make sense for individuals and it doesn't make sense for our economy. I will turn now to more of the mental health impacts of this legislation. It is clear that this legislation as it's drafted has the potential to have a significant impact on the mental health and wellbeing of many Australians, as the member for Dunkley mentioned earlier. As I said, in this patchy recovery, we've seen a rise in insecure work, and, instead of the government looking to strengthen employment and address underemployment and job security, they're exposing those in financial distress and vulnerable borrowers to greater stress by removing these RLOs. In a news report last month, financial counsellor Kane Johnson, who works at the National Debt Helpline, day to day assisting people in financial crisis, was blunt about the impact these changes will have. Kane said: The most important thing is … people's lives that are going to be impacted … With these laws in place we get calls on a daily basis from people so stressed they can't sleep, their mental health exacerbated, a huge impact on their lives … and that's with these protections in place. He went on to say: It's just going to happen on a much wider scale if these laws are eradicated. The Prime Minister has consistently said that mental health and suicide prevention are a No. 1 priority of this government, and I believe him. I believe that he's genuine in this. But this legislation has the potential to harm the mental health of many Australians. As pointed out by Financial Counselling Australia in a media release on their Save safe lending report: These changes will harm individuals and families and are the last thing Australia needs as we chart a path to economic recovery. More debt is just a recipe for disaster. Before I came to this place, I worked for 15 years in mental health and nearly 10 years as a specialist mental health pharmacist at Wyong hospital in my electorate on the Central Coast. I saw firsthand the very real consequences of financial distress, mental health crisis and suicidal ideation. It is clear from the response to this amendment from financial counsellors that the removal of these laws will increase the risk of people experiencing financial distress and, in turn, increase the very real risk to their mental health and wellbeing. The National Suicide Prevention Adviser's interim advice recommended that the government should: Develop a Commonwealth process for reviewing new policies or initiatives to ensure they assess any impacts (positively or negatively) on suicidal risk or behaviour. I wholeheartedly agree, and I think the government should adopt this. They should cast a mental health lens over this legislation, which is being introduced at the very same time that the government is winding back JobKeeper, cutting JobSeeker and closing Centrelink shopfronts in communities like mine on the Central Coast at Ettalong, making it harder for people to get the help they need. Last November, the government released the Productivity Commission's final report from its inquiry into mental health—five months after the government received the report, so missing any opportunity to respond in the October budget. Why I mention this is that, in the final report, the estimated cost of mental ill health in Australia each year—and this was recognised as a conservative estimate—was around $200 billion to $220 billion. This is, from the PC report, the estimated cost of the impact of mental ill health in Australia each year. This report has 24 recommendations and over 103 actions. And how does the government respond? They announce a House Select Committee on Mental Health and Suicide Prevention to review the report, which was worked on for over two years. This committee's first report, the interim report, is due on 15 April, and the final report is due in November. Again, this misses the opportunity after the May budget to respond to the mental health crisis in Australia. As I said, the government missed the opportunity to respond in last October's budget. It can't waste this opportunity by doing nothing in the May budget while it waits for another report. As a former mental health worker—someone who has seen firsthand, from working in mental health acute adult-inpatient units, the impact that financial distress has on individuals, on relationships, on families and households—I see the very real risk. As I said, the Prime Minister has said his No. 1 priority is mental health and suicide prevention and to work towards zero suicides. But well-meaning strategies, reports or committees won't help lift mental health and wellbeing in this country if the government continues to introduce legislation which makes it easier for people in financial distress—vulnerable borrowers—to enter into more debt. No amount of funding for mental health services or projects or programs will help reach the towards-zero target if the government continues to introduce legislation which undermines the financial security of vulnerable Australians. The Black Dog Institute, at the very start of the pandemic, identified those who were most at risk of mental health problems associated with the pandemic, and they've mentioned that the common consequences of disease outbreaks include anxiety, panic, depression, anger, confusion, uncertainty and financial distress, with estimates that upwards of 25 to 33 per cent of the community would be experiencing high levels of worry and anxiety during this pandemic. We heard from Lifeline recently that, on one Saturday in February, they had the most calls in their 58-year history—the most calls—from people in crisis seeking urgent support. And what is this government's response? A confetti of announcements, sprinkling a little bit of money on a project here or a program there, while, at the same time, their whole legislative agenda as to industrial relations—like the legislation that we discussed in the House only in the last sitting—removes protections for gig workers or makes them more exposed or at risk. We know the very real risk of financial distress, mental health crisis and the consequences of that. So there are enough concerns to suggest that removing the RLOs will increase the financial risk for people who are already facing financial distress. This pandemic has led to upheaval and uncertainty for so many Australians, especially those with pre-existing mental health problems. The recovery is a chance to build a fairer Australia and to give everybody the chance to live in a society that encourages and supports people's mental health and wellbeing. This legislation does the exact opposite. (Quorum formed) 17:28 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on this bill, the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, and to support the second reading amendment moved by the member for Whitlam. I was also pleased to be present in the chamber for the contribution of the member for Dobell. It's always of interest to hear what the member for Dobell says, particularly when she brings to this place the experience and passion she had for her previous work. I think any members opposite who had regard to her contribution would be prompted by her reminding them, as she reminded all of us on this side of the House, that this is a debate about people. In particular, it's about the vulnerabilities that people can have. We have a government that talks a big game when it comes to mental health, an issue that we are all committed to advancing. But those words will continue to ring hollow if they are not matched by action, and this is an area where that action is required. In this place and this building today, it's hard to be hopeful. This is a government that, throughout its time in office, has been bereft of a vision for Australia and for Australians. It has been obsessed with managing the tactical questions that come up from day to day. From time to time I convinced myself that that led to a dynamic that could on occasionally be positive—that members of this government would do the right thing when they had exhausted all other alternatives. We have seen that time and time again. Indeed, we saw that as they stumbled into calling the royal commission that ultimately led us to the propositions that we are debating right here and now. They got there in the end, dragged kicking and screaming, due to the advocacy not only of consumers, the bravery of advocates and the consistent advocacy of my parliamentary colleagues but of members within their ranks who thought that this was an issue that could not continue to be ignored. Now, though, there appear to be no brave advocates within the ranks of the government or, indeed, amongst some of those on the crossbench who continue to vote with the government consistently despite having said they would approach issues on the basis of their conscience, a matter that the member for Whitlam outlined in respect of the member for Hughes and his background on this issue. But we have seen today in this place, in the most shocking manner, that this is a government that from time to time will fail to do the right thing even when it's staring them in the face. It will fail even to listen. It's a government that's not listening to the voices of Australian women. It's a government that won't enable debate on the most serious of issues in this place. It's a government that in this case seems to be thumbing its nose at the first recommendation of a royal commission it itself called. The first recommendation, recommendation 1.1, of the Hayne royal commission explicitly recommended against amending the responsible lending framework, but this government—now that courageous voices are no longer found within its ranks when it comes to these issues—seems to be determined not to do what's right on the basis of ordinary Australians but to do the bidding of the banks in circumstances where it seems the banks have invented the problem that this part of this legislation is designed to solve. My colleagues have gone through the evidence, and the evidence is wanting. The evidence that is before us is that which has been presented by advocates and that which came before the royal commission. I think we should reflect on the royal commission before any of us passes judgement on the bill before the House. There were 10,000 submissions to the royal commissions—10,000 difficult stories which those of us who have the capacity to respond to must respond to. We must not ignore their stories, as members of this government turned their backs on the voices of millions of Australian women today, but we must honour them and think about how we can do justice to a lending system that does the right thing by ordinary Australians—starting, of course, with the recommendations of the government's own royal commission. There were 10,000 stories. The member for Whitlam, the shadow minister, acknowledged this. Not all the most powerful stories were contained in the 10,000. There are more and, sadly, I'm very confident there will continue to be more. We have a chance to make that number smaller by doing the right thing and supporting the amendment proposed by the shadow minister. Government members who, once again, don't seem to have had a lot to say in respect of this legislation should reflect on that when they come into this place shortly and vote on it. They should reflect on those 10,000 stories. They should ask themselves how many more they are interested in hearing and think about the words of the member for Dobell about the people that are at the core of this responsible lending regime and doing the right thing by them, rather than extending a licence to people who, quite frankly, in too many cases, don't warrant it. There were 10,000 stories, 68 days of hearings over nearly two years and 130 witnesses who bravely, in many cases, gave their evidence and told stories that were difficult to tell. That led to this first recommendation—all of these stories, all that evidence by one of Australia's most eminent jurists—to keep the responsible lending laws as they are. It shouldn't be a difficult proposition. Indeed, when this report was handed down, the Treasurer, the member for Kooyong, promised to implement the recommendations. There's a whole other story about how he is going about implementing the breadth of those recommendations, and my colleagues the member for Fenner and the member for Whitlam have unfortunately had many opportunities to advise the House and the wider community on the utter lack of progress in attending to this responsibility—although I guess it's consistent with the sort of progress he has had more broadly in his role. But to simply ignore recommendation 1.1, to go in the face of it, is quite extraordinary, even by the standards of a tone deaf and visionless government. I think it's worth going back to where this story began, before the royal commission, when the Rudd government—a government with a sense of the possibilities for Australia and a sense of the responsibilities of national government—introduced these obligations as part of reforms to credit law to establish a nationally consistent framework, the credit act. This sets out responsible lending obligations—those obligations which require lenders to assess whether a credit product is unsuitable for the customer before that product is to be provided to them. There's an argument that's been put forward, although not with any vigour, in this place, in Australia's parliament, that these obligations are causing constraints to credit supply. That's not something that there's any particular evidence for, and there's a broader debate to have about that. But what we're seeing here is a government that is allergic to the evidence and indifferent to the views of those who are speaking on behalf of those most directly affected. I touched before on those 10,000 submissions to the royal commission. Some weight has to be attached to a response of that nature, some weight must be attached to the 130 witnesses and some weight has to be attached, surely, to the findings of the commission. This is a government, however, that won't listen to the voices of ordinary Australians and won't listen to the experts. The consumer groups have expressed in the strongest possible terms their opposition to the reforms—the reforms contained, of course, in the first schedule of the bill which is before the House. I should also note—and this is not something that I'm particularly going to direct my remarks towards—that very serious concerns have also been expressed by these groups that the reforms put forward which go to protections in respect of payday lending don't go far enough. Again, this has been one of those other issues where members of the present government have failed to understand what is happening in communities. They've failed to understand exploitation. They've failed to listen and have only been dragged to it kicking and screaming. I think it is incumbent on them to reflect on whether they have gone far enough in this regard. I think members opposite could also, as well as having regard to the royal commission and to the voices of ordinary Australians, have regard to the submission of their own Department of the Treasury to the Hayne royal commission, which suggested, again, that responsible lending laws enhanced rather than detracted from macroeconomic outcomes. You'd think that the Treasurer would be mindful of this sort of advice from his own department when he comes into this place puffed up, telling his version of a good news story. But, in this regard, as in so many other aspects of his performance in this role, he is only interested in a version of the truth that suits his purposes, and generally they are the purposes of the day, not the long-term vision for recovery that Australia so desperately needs and not, indeed, the vision for recovery that I have noted that the secretary-general elect of the OECD seems very keen on. If only he had been keen on those sorts of reforms and that sort of agenda when he was the finance minister for Australia, when he set our country on precisely the opposite agenda! So perhaps former Minister Cormann, Secretary-General Elect Cormann, can have a chat to his former cabinet colleagues about the right way forward, about a green recovery and a green transformation. How ironic that someone as responsible as he could make that argument! Mr Stephen Jones interjecting— Mr GILES 243609 Thank you, member for Whitlam. That was where I was going. This man—the man who talks now as the representative of an organisation that has been determined to convince its members about the necessity of a path towards inclusive growth—is the same person who proudly described low wages as a deliberate design feature of the architecture he was proud to hold in place. I hope the new Mathias Cormann speaks to his former colleagues and advises them to reconsider. Again, when we think about the issues that we're concerned about here, they can't be divorced from the wider economic agenda, or lack thereof, of this government and, in particular, its agenda. At a time when wage growth is at record lows and when our economy is more dependent than ever on consumption, the plan is to drive people who may be vulnerable further into debt, rather than to increase their spending power through labour market reforms that are actually good for working people. It's quite extraordinary to see the priorities that this government puts forward. For these reasons, I'm very proud to stand with the member for Whitlam and support his second reading amendment. In fact, it's very difficult to understand how any responsible member of this place could argue with that proposition, although, only a couple of hours ago, we saw members opposite deny even the prospect of debate on the most straightforward motion—responding to, without a hint of criticism, the movement and the moment that is Australian women demanding action and equality. This, I think, is a matter that is less all-embracing but equally straightforward. Why wouldn't members opposite stand up for respecting the findings of Commissioner Hayne? Why would they want to weaken Australia's credit laws and deny the purpose for which they have been enacted? And, instead of looking after mates, why won't they focus on passing legislation and on engaging more broadly in actions that will support an economic recovery for all Australians—the people that the member for Dobell was speaking about, the people I represent, and the people who are expressing their concerns in my electorate and in electorates right around the country about the human impact of these changes, should they be enacted? There is a choice facing Australians, just as there is a choice facing members opposite. They can take a step back. They can reconsider this. They can look at the work that has been done for them by Commissioner Hayne and honour the contributions of the thousands of Australians who have bravely told their stories. They can reflect on their responsibility to those Australians and to their former colleagues. I think of Senator Williams. I wonder what he's thinking right now. It was almost his life's work to have that royal commission established, and I'm sure he would have been proud to see its recommendations. But, as soon as he's no longer in the other place, we see those recommendations discarded. I ask members opposite to think about that when they cast their vote on this matter. Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed) 17:45 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin This legislation, the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, effectively reverses legislation introduced by Labor over a decade ago. That legislation was enacted in response to the very concerns that consumer groups are now raising about this legislation, consumer groups who have seen the problems in the past and know what to expect if this legislation is adopted by parliament. The legislation, as other speakers on this side have made clear time and time again, even flies in the face of the banking royal commission recommendation that the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 'should not be amended to alter the obligation to assess unsuitability'. It is fiercely opposed by the very community groups that every day are left to deal with the consequences, and, not surprisingly, it is the subject of a dissenting Senate report from both Labor and the Greens. Indeed, I suspect the only reason that the Senate committee recommended adoption of this legislation was that the government had the numbers on that committee. At a time when COVID-19 has shattered the Australian economy, when there are two million unemployed or underemployed people throughout the country, when JobKeeper is nearing an end, when other government COVID support measures are being phased out, when credit card debt in January was at $21 billion and when unemployment conditions are less secure than ever before, lending laws should not be relaxed. Indeed, they should be tightened because irresponsible lending ultimately will cause additional financial harm to people already struggling to make ends meet. In a media release issued jointly by CHOICE, the Consumer Action Law Centre, the Financial Rights Legal Centre and Financial Counselling Australia, the authors make this absolutely clear. In that media release, which was issued only on Friday. Alan Kirkland, CEO of CHOICE, says: This report ignores the clear economic evidence: that the housing market is already overheating and removing safe lending laws will push home ownership out of reach for many more Australians. We already see high levels of mortgage stress in states like Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania. Giving more power to the banks in these circumstances will be bad for people who are already struggling to repay their mortgage and bad for people trying to get into the housing market. Gerard Brody, CEO of the Consumer Action Law Centre, says: One bad loan won't break the bank, but it can definitely break the borrower. That's why we need to keep our safe lending laws – without them, the regulator focus will be on the stability of banks, not the protection of borrowers. He goes on to say: The Government's plans will dismantle our effective and sound financial services regulatory framework. The reality is that the prudential regulator, APRA, does not provide individual consumer protection. It focuses on whether loans cause a credit risk to the bank, not on whether loans are affordable to individual borrowers. The same press release goes on to quote Karen Cox, the CEO of Financial Rights Legal Centre: This plan to roll back responsible lending was concocted as a knee jerk response to the pandemic related recession. Now we are facing record lending levels and runaway property prices. It's time to drop this crazy plan and avert a potential debt disaster. It then lastly quotes Fiona Guthrie, the CEO of Financial Counselling Australia: The effect of irresponsible lending on everyday people is enormous; it sends too many people into debt spirals which often leads to financial stress, family breakdown, mental health issues and even homelessness. Indeed, Fiona Guthrie issued a press release today on this very subject. Attached to the press release were several case studies from around Australia highlighting the impacts of what poor lending does to consumers. The press release says: Financial counsellors are at the front line, witnessing the harm that is caused by irresponsible lending. This bill will exacerbate financial stress, family breakdown, mental health issues and homelessness. Rather than refer to one of the examples provided by Fiona Guthrie, I'll provide my own example of a recent case in my own electorate. Several weeks ago I was contacted by a relatively new arrival to this country who had a wife and, from memory, four children to support. This person had a stable job and was on basic pay, but he couldn't make ends meet, with a mortgage to pay, with a motor vehicle lease purchase contract that he had committed to and with normal living expenses for himself and his family. He simply wasn't earning enough to pay his everyday bills. He was behind in his payments and was facing repossession of his car and, even worse, losing his home. His motor vehicle repayments, in particular, were dragging him down. I asked this question: where was the responsible lending and the scrutiny in respect of his case, where the motor vehicle dealership could have looked more carefully at his financial situation before allowing him to commit to the repayments that he made? I referred this person to a friend, a former financial counsellor and adviser, who looked at his case exhaustively. They were not able to help but made it clear that he should never, ever have been allowed to get into the situation he did. But he did so because, in my view, he was vulnerable to the fact he was a new arrival, didn't necessarily know the laws of this country well and perhaps didn't understand Australian life as well as he might have thought he did, which ultimately got him into the mess that he's now in. What is the government's justification for this legislation, particularly given that the banking royal commission didn't recommend it—in other words, there's no call from the royal commission; in fact, as I said earlier, it recommended the opposite—and that so many experts have already argued against this legislation as well? It is that the changes will simplify lending laws, make credit easier to get and increase credit supply throughout the country. However, that particular view is not supported by all. In their submission to the Senate inquiry, the Law Council—and I'm referring to laws being made simpler and easier to understand—said of the legislation: … the Law Council submits that this does not represent a simplification of RLOs, but rather makes enforcement of the standards complex and difficult. It would also make it highly difficult for a consumer to assess whether or not their own lender has breached the non-ADI standards. That's what the Law Council said in respect of supposedly making it easier. It actually makes it more complex. With respect to it being a measure to help release more money into society, Maurice Blackburn in their submission pointed out to the committee that there is not a need for this bill as it is seeking to solve an issue that simply doesn't exist. Maurice Blackburn point to some data. I quote the data that they refer to: The total value of new loan commitments for housing and the value of owner occupier home loan commitments each reached record highs in October 2020. …   …   … Commitments for the construction of new dwellings rose 10.9 per cent … …   …   … The value of new loan commitments for fixed term personal finance rose 4.3 per cent in October, seasonally adjusted. The government is saying that we need to have more money out there in society because it will help stimulate the economy. It is saying that people cannot get credit and this is restricting the ability of the economy to grow. But the stats simply don't support that argument. In fact, the reverse is happening. What is notable about this legislation is that the underlying argument for it is to speed up economic recovery by releasing more private money through loans and extending credit. Unsurprisingly, therefore, this legislation is being backed by many of the business associations, whose members will obviously benefit from the easing of credit. If the government wants to boost the economy, it should continue to do what has been proven to work and what it has been doing over recent months with respect to the COVID stimulus package—that is, ensure that people on low incomes have money in their pockets to spend. If they have money in their pockets to spend, they won't need to resort to credit. If they don't have the money in their pocket, then they will be forced to try to secure credit which they simply cannot afford. This will slowly take them further down in terms of their ability to survive financially. What was the Morrison government's response to that argument? It was to cut the JobSeeker supplementary payment. Now it comes back with a proposition that it will increase JobSeeker permanently by a measly $25 a week. It is simply not enough. It will not lift people out of poverty. It will ensure that they continue to struggle through life, and it will ensure that, because they are struggling, they will try to access money through credit that they simply cannot afford. Of course we want people to have money for the things that they need to get on with their life, but this is not the way to do it. The reality is that there are better ways for the government to manage the economy and support people on low incomes than to simply make access to credit much easier. The arguments in favour of this legislation—and I believe it was initially intended to boost the economy during COVID-19—simply don't stack up, and they will not stack up in the months ahead as the economy reverts to a more normal economy. As I said earlier, unsurprisingly, the Labor members on the Senate committee that looked at this bill did not support the recommendation that it be passed. Indeed, they moved a recommendation that the bill not be passed. They also made the very sensible point that the Senate should immediately pass the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2019 (No. 2), which probably would make a difference to people's ability to manage their financial affairs. It is clear that this legislation does not have the support of the broader community. It is clear that this legislation will only cause more hardship and suffering for people who are already doing it tough. As we on this side of the House have said, it should not be supported. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Whitlam has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

The House divided. [18:03]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 61 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Broadbent, RE Chester, D Christensen, GR Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ (teller) Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Hamilton, GR Hammond, CM Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Price, ML Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 60 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Katter, RC Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Mulino, D Murphy, PJ O'Connor, BPJ Owens, JA Payne, AE Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thwaites, KL Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 14 PAIRS Buchholz, S Burns, J Coleman, DB Byrne, AM Evans, TM Chesters, LM Goodenough, IR Thistlethwaite, MJ Hastie, AW Dick, MD Hogan, KJ Claydon, SC Howarth, LR Clare, JD Laming, A Smith, DPB Landry, ML Kearney, G Marino, NB Neumann, SK Morton, B O'Neil, CE O'Brien, LS Perrett, GD Porter, CC Vamvakinou, M Wood, JP Rowland, M

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

 Third Reading 99 18:10 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is leave granted for the third reading to be moved immediately? Leave not granted. 18:10 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay. 18:11 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam I want to return to some of the questions that are immediately before the House in schedule 1 of the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, which seeks to overturn the very first recommendation of the Hayne royal commission, recommendation 1.1, in which the royal commissioner, Commissioner Hayne, made it very clear that the responsible lending laws—those provisions within the national consumer credit protection legislation that the bill now before us proposes to amend—should be left alone. He did this for a very good reason, and I want to return to some of the history that led to the royal commission and to these provisions which are before the House at the moment. I want to particularly focus on the circumstances facing bank customers in rural and regional communities, because in speeches given at the second reading stage I heard the member for Mayo, the member for Corangamite and the member for Indi give very moving addresses which went to examples from their own communities—examples from consumers and from consumer groups. Members in the House may not be moved by examples that have been given by the member for Mayo, the member for Indi and the member for Corangamite, but I was. Perhaps, however, members would be moved by the story of a gentleman who dedicated the latter part of his life to having a royal commission established and to having these laws improved and protected. I'm talking about a farmer, originally from South Australia, by the name of Williams. This farmer walked into a Commonwealth Bank branch in Inverell looking for a loan of $200,000. When he walked out of that bank he ended up with a loan, denominated in Swiss francs, of $675,000. Of course, given the fact that the loan was denominated in Swiss francs, very quickly, when the Australian dollar was dramatically devalued against the Swiss franc, a loan of $675,000 blew out to $1.5 million. The farmer lost his farm and his marriage, and he ended up living for a considerable period of time in a caravan. The gentleman that I'm talking about is well known to all members on that side of the House because he used to sit in their party room. His name was Senator John 'Wacka' Williams. He was absolutely passionate about his experience and the experience of farmers like him not being repeated. So he campaigned for a royal commission. The royal commission found that these laws were absolutely critical to ensuring that inappropriate loan products were not sold to unsuspecting farmers. You see, the loan that was sold to Mr Williams—Senator Williams as he was—was done prior to the introduction of these provisions within the national consumer credit act. Had these provisions been included, that loan probably couldn't have been sold to him, and, if it was, not only would he have been entitled to personal compensation but the bank would have been liable to huge fines for breaches of this provision. So I guess the questions that I have for the minister are: has he consulted with members of the National Party, and do members of the National Party give the minister full support for these changes to the national consumer credit laws? Does the National Party support rolling back the consumer protections that have been so important to protecting the livelihoods of the rural families that they pretend to represent? Does the National Party back the Liberal Party, or does the National Party keep the spirit of John 'Wacka' Williams alive? It's an important question, because I'm sure that there are members and constituents in rural communities all throughout the country who are looking very closely at their National Party representative. The minister responsible is not a member of the National Party— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Minister Evans, on a point of order? Mr Evans 61378 It's on relevance. The honourable member is speaking as if this is the consideration in detail debate, rather than to the suspension. Questions like that can be put to the responsible minister in the next stage of the debate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Yes. Could you please be relevant, member for Whitlam. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B The reason that standing orders should not be suspended is that these matters need to be addressed in full. The government has sought to ram this legislation through the parliament without due consideration. The Senate report was far from conclusive on this. We had three separate reports. If you read in detail the evidence that is included and adduced in the majority report from the Senate committee, you'll read that all the evidence goes one way and the recommendations go the other. So this matter should not be rammed through the parliament without due consideration. For these reasons, the government's motion should be rejected. We should not be rushing headlong into passing this bill that is before the House. There are other reasons why we shouldn't be doing this. Anybody who's been reading the papers over the last few weeks, anybody who's been following the news over the last few weeks, would be aware that we are in the middle of a housing price boom. Housing prices are going through the roof. There are a lot of consumers out there who are very anxious, if not heartbroken. They turn up to an auction week after week after week, and they are unable to even meet the opening price, let alone the closing price. When we see that we are at the beginning of a housing price bubble, this is the very last moment and a disastrous time for us to be looking at loosening the lending standards and rushing a bill such as this through parliament. There is no good time to be removing the responsible lending laws. There is no good time to be rejecting the very first recommendation of the Hayne royal commission. But this is the absolute worst time to be doing that. For this reason, the government's motion should be rejected. 18:18 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the question be now put.

The House divided. [18:23]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 62 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Broadbent, RE Chester, D Christensen, GR Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Hamilton, GR Hammond, CM Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 60 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Katter, RC Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Mulino, D Murphy, PJ O'Connor, BPJ Owens, JA Payne, AE Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thwaites, KL Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 14 PAIRS Buchholz, S Burns, J Coleman, DB Byrne, AM Evans, TM Chesters, LM Goodenough, IR Thistlethwaite, MJ Hastie, AW Dick, MD Hogan, KJ Claydon, SC Howarth, LR Clare, JD Laming, A Smith, DPB Landry, ML Kearney, G Marino, NB Neumann, SK Morton, B O'Neil, CE O'Brien, LS Perrett, GD Porter, CC Vamvakinou, M Wood, JP Rowland, M

Question agreed to.

 18:26 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the motion moved by the assistant minister, the contingent motion, be agreed to. Question agreed to. 18:26 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move: That this bill be now read a third time. 18:27 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam Schedule 1 of this bill that we are considering rolls back the very first recommendation of the Hayne royal commission. Recommendation 1.1 of the Hayne royal commission was to leave the national consumer credit protection standards in place. I think the House needs to know where the National Party stands on this, because in the second reading stage we heard some very powerful speeches from members representing rural and regional Australia. We saw members talking about stories from consumers and consumer organisations about the harms and potential harms associated with relaxing consumer credit laws. We know that members of the National Party have been historically very outspoken on this issue. We know that former senator John 'Wacka' Williams dedicated a large part of his time in the parliament campaigning against improper lending practices, campaigning in favour of a royal commission into the banking and finance system, and campaigning to ensure that the responsible lending laws stayed in place. We know that members of the National Party threatened to cross the floor when this government had voted 27 times to oppose the implementation of a royal commission. We know that several members from Queensland who are in the chamber right now threatened to cross the floor because of the subject matter that is before the House right now. So the question that the minister needs to answer is: is this National Party policy or is this Liberal Party policy? Is the National Party 100 per cent behind the matter that is before the House today? Is every single National Party member going to vote in favour of this Liberal Party proposition or are members of the National Party going to keep the spirit of John 'Wacka' Williams alive? He's the man who lost his family farm, the man who lost his marriage and the man who lived in a caravan for several years because these laws did not exist, and the man who has called on every one of his National Party colleagues to do the right thing and oppose these laws. So the question for the minister and the question for all of the National Party people is: are they going to vote with their conscience, or are they going to vote for the Liberal Party? 18:30 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move: That the question be now put. An opposition member: What? An opposition member: Did the debate just finish? Mr Burke DYW I rise on a point of order. I appreciate this would normally be put immediately, but, just to assist the House: if this motion is put and not withdrawn, we will have two divisions. If this motion is withdrawn, we will have one and we will have it immediately, on the third reading. It's up to the government. I'm just inviting: if you wish to withdraw that, we will go immediately to the third reading because there are no other speakers. If you want two divisions— An opposition member: We're offering to speed it up for you guys! Mr EVANS 61378 Noting there are no further speakers, I withdraw. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that this bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. [18:35]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 62 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Broadbent, RE Chester, D Christensen, GR Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Hamilton, GR Hammond, CM Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Kelly, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 60 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Katter, RC Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Mulino, D Murphy, PJ O'Connor, BPJ Owens, JA Payne, AE Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thwaites, KL Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 14 PAIRS Buchholz, S Burns, J Coleman, DB Byrne, AM Evans, TM Chesters, LM Goodenough, IR Thistlethwaite, MJ Hastie, AW Dick, MD Hogan, KJ Claydon, SC Howarth, LR Clare, JD Laming, A Smith, DPB Landry, ML Kearney, G Marino, NB Neumann, SK Morton, B O'Neil, CE O'Brien, LS Perrett, GD Porter, CC Vamvakinou, M Wood, JP Rowland, M

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 COMMITTEES 104 COMMITTEES Environment and Energy Committee, Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee 104 Membership 104 18:39 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that members have requested to be supplementary members of certain committees. 18:40 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane by leave—I move: That: (1)Dr Haines be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the Australian Local Power Agency Bill 2021 and the Australian Local Power Agency (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021; and (2)Mr Wilkie be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the Ending Indefinite and Arbitrary Immigration Detention Bill 2021. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 104 BUSINESS Rearrangement 104 18:40 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move: Motion was unavailable at the time of publishing. Question agreed to. BILLS 104 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 104

Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021

Second Reading 104 18:41 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021, extends the operation of certain measures that were put in place at the height of the COVID-19 economic recession, changes that concern the Corporations Law. Schedule 1 of the bill allows companies to hold virtual annual general meetings and to execute a range of other governance activities using electronic means until 16 September 2021. Without the passage of this bill, this measure would otherwise expire on 21 March 2021. This measure and other measures reduce the ability of shareholders to hold company directors to account through questions and votes at physical AGMs; however, as COVID-19 border restrictions may continue through 2021—though we all hope that will not be the case—Labor sees the sense in this measure continuing. Schedule 2 is an entirely different matter. Schedule 2 extends a COVID-19 measure which will permanently weaken Australia's continuous disclosure laws and the misleading-and-deceptive-conduct provisions. We opposed that provision, which was put into place by regulation during the height of the COVID-19 recession, and we will be opposing it again. Under the pre-COVID continuous disclosure regime, which was introduced by the Howard government in 2001, companies and directors were required to disclose publicly any information that was not generally available and that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of a company's share price. If a company or company director failed to comply with these obligations, they could face a civil penalty action either by shareholders or by the corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. However, a director was not liable for a civil penalty proceeding for breaching those obligations if he or she took all reasonable steps to ensure that the company complied with its disclosure obligations and, after taking those reasonable steps, believed that the company was complying with its obligations. Under the temporary COVID-19 regime, which schedule 2 would make permanent, companies and directors that fail to disclose price-sensitive information, either at all or in a timely fashion, are only liable to shareholders for that failure if the company or director acted with knowledge, recklessness or negligence. That means these changes would make it easier for companies and directors to get away with failing to provide price-sensitive information to the market. As the government's explanatory memorandum puts it, they would reduce the amount of time entities and officers must spend on assurance that they have complied with the continuous disclosure and misleading and deceptive conduct laws. In other words, the changes at schedule 2 would make it easier for companies and directors to get away with withholding information from, or providing misleading information to, the market and shareholders. The only reason the government has given for making the changes in schedule 2 is the asserted need to protect Australian companies and directors from the risk of opportunistic class actions. The changes in schedule 2 would put the interests of individual company directors above the interests of mum-and-dad investors. This is an important point. Every member of this House would remember the campaign that the coalition waged in the lead-up to the last election, where they alleged that they were championing the interests of mum-and-dad investors. It now appears that the very government that purported to champion these interests has dropped mum-and-dad investors like a hot, mouldy potato. These measures are anti shareholder—or, more accurately, anti small shareholders—and pro director. Large institutional investors always have an advantage. They have many means at their disposal, such as large research units and ongoing investor briefings, to interrogate company directors and hold them and their companies to account. Small mum-and-dad investors don't. It is for this very reason that small mum-and-dad investors are reliant on these continuous disclosure obligations. Our great concern is that these proposed changes will ensure that we have, built into our company law, a 'don't ask, don't tell' culture. It is absolutely against the interests of small mum-and-dad investors, and this schedule to the bill should be rejected. By way of background, both of these measures were introduced by the government as temporary measures. We were deeply concerned by this second measure in schedule 2, and we opposed it at the time. If ever there was an argument for putting this in place as a temporary measure, there is certainly no argument for making it permanent. The government is quite simply choosing the interests of directors over the interests of shareholders in a company. That is untenable, and we will not be supporting it. We know the government backbenchers have been agitating for this change for some time, in some mistaken belief that there is somehow a whole bunch of invalid, vexatious claims being made via class actions. There is no evidence at all to substantiate this claim. What there is evidence of is that this change will harm small mum-and-dad investors. The government, I'm sure, will say in its contributions that it has the support of the business community. That is simply not true. It is true that the Business Council of Australia—that is, big business—is going to support it. Of course the Australian Institute of Company Directors is going to support it because the government is choosing the interests of directors over shareholders. But not all business organisations are supporting it. A 2020 survey of 195 senior company executives, conducted by the law firm King & Wood Mallesons, found that only 21.5 per cent of executives thought that the temporary changes to continuous disclosure laws should be made permanent. That is to say that nearly 80 per cent of company executives said that it was a bad idea. That was only one year ago. I'm sure that, if asked today, those same company directors would say it's still a bad idea and that it should be rejected. There is also strong opposition from the Australian Shareholders Association, who described this new bill as 'a curate's egg'. They have concerns but understand that there is some merit in the virtual AGMs. The chair of the Australian Shareholders Association, Mr Alan Goldin, had this to say: I personally dislike the virtual AGM that allows chairmen to effectively dodge any real questions and offer any answer they like as there is no comeback… Until 15 September … Then we return to the real world of directors and management being held accountable once a year to their owners— the shareholders. He personally dislikes them but can understand that there is perhaps an argument in favour of them, but he does not support changes to director liabilities and describes them as a 'bad' change, saying: BAD is the change in continuous disclosure regulations. "Previously if there was any failure to keep the market informed under the current 'Continuous Disclosure' rule, it was a simple black and white situation, don't tell shareholders something material and the Company and its Directors were liable. This was great for shareholders because they do not have insider or special interest knowledge and all they know is what they are told and what they read." What Mr Goldin is saying, quite simply, is that the existing arrangements are pro shareholders; the government's changes are against the interests of shareholders and they should be rejected. He says—his words, not mine: So the new instruction to management from Boards could be, if you want to keep some information to yourself or exaggerate a bit just make sure you don't tell me so no one can sue me— that is, don't ask, don't tell. That is the culture which is going to be legislated for if this bill passes the House. It should be opposed. Another argument that has been put forward by the government is that, somehow, if this bill passes the House, there will be a reduction in premiums paid for director liability insurance. That was put to the test by the Senate committee which inquired into this bill. The Insurance Council of Australia punted that out of the park. It said there can be no hope that there will be a significant reduction or any significant change in insurance premiums as a result of this change. Evidence from the Insurance Council indicated that a best-case scenario would result in little or no change to the price of directors and officers insurance. In the short to medium term, at best, there would be no change. The government's arguments for doing this, when held up to scrutiny, quite simply dissolve, and for these reasons they should be rejected. For these reasons, we are moving a second reading amendment in the form that has been circulated in my name. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes that the Government's measures in Schedule 2 of the bill would strip shareholders of their rights to be adequately informed, damage Australia's corporate governance regime, and allow company directors to get away with failing to disclose important information; and (2) further notes these measures could damage Australian investment and hurt Australian investors and retirees." I foreshadow that at the third reading stage we will be moving a substantive amendment to separate schedules 1 and 2 of the bill. As we've said, we can support and are willing to support the provisions for extending the arrangements for virtual AGMs; we can see the case for that. But we do not support and will not support the provisions for dissolving or reducing the director liability requirements. With those remarks, I thank the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Is the amendment seconded? Ms McBride 248353 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 18:55 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Imagine my shock—imagine everyone else in this chamber's shock—that the Labor Party would oppose efforts which make it deliberately mischievous for litigation funders to be able to turn our court system from one focused on justice to one focused on profit for themselves and for the lawyers that represent them. Imagine my shock when you go through their AEC returns and the same people who benefit from and prey on the misfortune of those with low incomes, the poor and those who have faced challenges also happen to be those who profit from the current law that the Labor Party is seeking to oppose amendment of. Imagine my shock when those same lawyers, those same firms, who take advantage of the misfortune of Australians and profit from it might also be some of the most significant donors to the Australian Labor Party. Imagine my shock at the motivation of those members opposite, particularly when they sit in this chamber, when they stand in this chamber, and talk about how they worry about a culture of 'don't ask, don't tell' within Australian companies. Yet when the member for Mackellar moved a motion in this chamber this morning, calling out major superannuation funds that choose to keep information secret—not just from their investors, because we know that on the public record they have complained about the secrecy that sits at the heart of these funds, not just from the fund members who invest money in super funds that is then laundered into wholesale funders and who can't get accountability while they pay their fund managers fat bonuses, but imagine when they won't even answer questions to this parliament. If you want to see 'don't ask, don't tell', just look at what happens in the superannuation industry, where big super actively harvests members' funds for fees and bonuses and then refuses to reveal them to the Australian public. Just look at what happens when fund managers caught up in cases of alleged sexual harassment are boasting to their victims about $36 million bonuses for themselves—the silence on the other side of this chamber. It's not just the bonuses that they brag about in bars late at night but the publicly reported $13 million bonuses collected by single fund managers from Australia's retirement savings. When this parliament and the committees that represent it ask questions—not just about the bonuses but their structures—it's not just that they refuse to answer, engaging in their own 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, but also that members of the Labor Party, on the other side of this chamber, run interference to try to help block the release. And then they come into this chamber, where we are proposing sensible laws to stop the abuse of people who try to use courts for profit and not for justice, and attack sensible legislation which would enhance the opportunity for all Australians to be treated fairly and with dignity. That is the tragedy of the modus operandi of the opposition and the legislation and how they view it. It is not about what they think they can do to empower the Australian people; it is what they can do to empower themselves. The Australian people see this. Deep down, they will not take action unless it helps themselves—at the people of Australia's expense. The measures in this legislation are very straightforward. As we know, at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, because we were unable to bring people together for investor meetings and shareholder meetings, we provided a legal vehicle for those meetings to be held virtually and online. And, while this government has a very proud track record of rolling out vaccines, we are not at the end of that journey, and returning to business as normal is not an option. But this is only a temporary measure, and it's a temporary measure not just because we want Australians to come together but because we know that, when the channel through which people can communicate is limited, it favours the boards against investors. We want to empower investors and Australians to make their decisions and hold boards accountable. Even with this legislation, it will still be greater than for superannuants, and investors in Australian superannuation funds can hold many of their funds accountable because they report not to their members—despite the best efforts of this government and legislation—and not to independent directors but, ultimately, to themselves. Then, when this parliament asks basic questions to hold them accountable for the law that compels Australians to give them money, they refuse to answer them. We want to make sure that Australians can hold their corporates to account, but we have to make sure that we can operate in an environment throughout the COVID-19 pandemic so that measures can be appropriately taken. The other provisions in this legislation relate to continuous disclosure rules, which are not viable for civil penalty proceedings unless companies have acted with knowledge, recklessness or negligence in failing to update the market. The reason for them is simple. We have seen how provisions which have been put in acts which are designed to improve accountability for companies have been used and abused recklessly by law firms and investors who want to turn our system of justice into a system for profit. Let's not mistake what happens when they manipulate our court system for their own ends. It comes at the expense of vulnerable Australians who have a legitimate case for a class action. When they win that case, the money is taken by law firms who seek to use it for their own profit motive. Mr Gosling interjecting— Mr TIM WILSON IMW Members, including the member for Solomon on the other side of this chamber, claim that they're standing up for workers and standing up for vulnerable Australians, but all they see is an opportunity to enhance the situation for themselves. Even worse than that, those same firms then take that money and donate it to create laws and to foster laws to protect themselves and their interests, and to harvest and to profit from the most vulnerable Australians. It's not for accountability; it's for profit, so that they can pay their bonuses. And then we see in this chamber the member for Whitlam and, I'm sure, other members who will follow him opposing legislation because they know that it will undermine the revenue streams that their paymasters in the union movement and in the law firms take at the expense of vulnerable Australians. We see this time and time again. It is a pattern of behaviour from the modern Australian Labor Party. They use the law to buffer the profits of financial interests associated with them and then scream, 'Outrage!' when people seek to inquire how those funds somehow seamlessly transfer money to the campaigns and the activities of the allies of the Labor Party on the other side of this chamber. Of course, in a free society, people should follow the law, but that doesn't excuse the unethical conduct of those opposite. It also means that people on this side of this chamber have a responsibility to call it out. Those opposite should support these changes in law because they're good changes. They should support these changes in law because they enhance the power of Australians to be treated fairly and with decency. More critically, they stop the use and manipulation of courts for profit over justice. That is what courts should be used for—not political gains and not commercial profit, but justice. And we're going to call an end to that racket right here. 19:05 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021, is about undermining democracy and undermining transparency and accountability for Australian shareholders in companies—it's as simple as that. This bill is undoing a law that was put in place by the Howard government to provide more transparency, more accountability and more democracy, so we got better decisions from boards and more accountability to shareholders in the past. Yet this government wants to undermine that in the name of class actions and insurance costs for companies around directors' liability increasing, when there is simply no evidence of that at all. So, once again, what appears to be occurring here is that an ideologically driven campaign from the backbench of the government has forced the minister, the Treasurer, into amending a very important law that provides democracy and accountability and information for Australian shareholders. What this bill is doing is undermining the viability of and the information and accountability that goes to mum and dad investors who are shareholders in companies, to people who run their own self-managed superannuation funds—self-funded retirees. They're doing it tough enough as it is under this government. Since COVID hit, interest rates have been so low they're not making returns on their investments at all. Self-funded retirees are doing it tough. They've been forgotten about by this government in all of the support packages that have been put together. Yet the government wants to make it more difficult for self-funded retirees to get information and hold boards to account for those companies that they've invested in. Well, that is undermining democracy in Australian companies. Schedule 1 of this bill allows for companies to hold virtual annual general meetings and execute a range of other governance activities using electronic means until 16 September 2021. This is a temporary measure that was put in place by the government during COVID and which Labor supported. It was due to expire on 21 March 2021. But, given that COVID is continuing and given that our borders sometimes won't be open, Labor will be supporting this particular measure on a temporary basis. However, we are worried about the reduction in transparency and accountability, particularly around shareholders being able to ask questions and have votes on issues with boards at annual general meetings. The Senate report into this bill quotes the International Corporate Governance Network, which observed: … we encourage regulators to ensure that shareholder rights are not infringed so as not to restrict their ability to hold companies properly to account. Certain minimum shareholder rights should be guaranteed to allow for robust challenge of boards and management through interactive and unmoderated questioning or statements made by shareholders to have meaningful dialogue on contentious proposals. So it is important, if this measure is passed, that there is a mechanism, through those online networks, for shareholders to continue to ask those important questions when it comes to annual general meetings and holding boards to account. So Labor supports this, on the basis that it is a temporary measure to get us through COVID. Schedule 2 is the real controversy in this bill. Schedule 2 undermines what are known as the continuous disclosure obligations, which exist in corporate law—obligations from boards to shareholders about material information and when it was discovered. These are laws that were put in place by the Howard government, introduced in 2001. Companies and company directors were required to disclose publicly any information that was not generally available that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of a company share price. If a company or a company director failed to comply with those obligations, they could face a civil penalty action either by shareholders or by ASIC. However, a director was not liable for a civil penalty for breaching those obligations if he or she took all reasonable steps to ensure that the company complied with its disclosure obligations and, after taking those reasonable steps, believed that the company was complying with its obligations. Under the temporary COVID regime, which schedule 2 would make permanent, companies and directors that fail to disclose price-sensitive information, either at all or in a timely fashion, are only liable to shareholders for that failure if the company or directors acted with 'knowledge, recklessness or negligence', all of which can be very, very difficult to establish. So what we are seeing here is a watering down of those laws put in place by the Howard government to ensure that directors couldn't dud their shareholders by not disclosing vital information which could materially affect the price and the value of shares in the market. What shareholder in a company, what mum and dad investor or what self-managed super fund operator wouldn't want to know about information that may materially affect the share price of the company that they are invested in as quickly as possible? Yet this particular change undermines the strength of that guarantee, written into law and existing in Australian law since 2001, for Australian shareholders. So in that respect they are undermining the democracy and the information and transparency and accountability, that is so important to shareholders around the operation of their companies, and the material information which all shareholders have the right to know about. In the Senate inquiry into this particular bill, there was deep concern that was presented by a number of submitters—most notably, the Australian Shareholders' Association. The representative body of the group of Australian shareholders expressed deep reservations on the regressive nature of this reform. But it says everything about the operation of this government and the ideological campaign that's been run by backbenchers around this issue that this government completely ignored the wishes of shareholders and instead, once again, sided with their mates on big bonuses in big companies—the directors of these companies. I want to read to you some of the evidence that was presented to the committee, and some of that is deep concern from shareholders and legal practitioners about schedule 2. Their view is that it is 'unnecessary' and 'turns back the clock … leaving shareholders at risk of a return to the darker days of the distress of high legal costs to individuals or groups of shareholders pursuing redress'. The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors said: If shareholders are required to prove a subjective standard (the mental state of the disclosing entity) rather than the current objective standard of materiality, this will make it more difficult for shareholders to hold companies to account. The proposed changes to the continuous disclosure rules could therefore adversely affect the balance between companies and investors, and work to undermine market integrity. And that's important: they could undermine integrity in the operation of Australian companies. Let's not forget that those opposite don't care about integrity. They don't care about integrity at all, in everything that they do. We've seen that in a host of policy areas in this parliament, whether it goes to sports rorts, whether it goes to the operation of committees or whether it goes to the way that they've handled the allegations that have been raised by Ms Higgins. Integrity doesn't matter at all to those in this place— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The minister, on a point of order? Mr Howarth 247742 The member is not being relevant to the bill at all. I'd ask that he refer to the bill and bring it back to the bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The member for Kingsford Smith may wish to return to the bill. Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 I am being entirely relevant to this bill, because it's been identified by a number of submitters to the Senate inquiry into this that the issue of integrity is an important one and that this bill will undermine the operation of integrity when it comes to transparency and accountability for shareholders. I'm simply making the point that, when it comes to integrity, this government has poor form—most notably in the fact that it's been promising a National Integrity Commission for well over three years now, and what have we got? Nothing. It's yet to present anything to this parliament. One of the arguments that this government makes in respect of the undermining of the continuous disclosure obligations is the issue around insurance. It's their belief that if these laws are passed there will be insurance savings for companies throughout Australia. They often point—and the member for Goldstein pointed to this—to the notion of class actions. The evidence points to the fact that, again, this is another example of the coalition astroturfing, making something up when it's simply not an issue, because less than one per cent of actions in the Federal Court are shareholder class actions. It is well under one per cent. That means that well over 99 per cent of actions in the Federal Court don't relate to this issue. So how can it be said that there's a problem if it's less than one per cent? The other point is that this notion that there will be savings in insurance that come from this bill was completely blown out of the park by none other than the Insurance Council of Australia when they presented their evidence to the Senate committee. They said that, in a best-case scenario, this would result in little or no changes to the price of directors and officers insurance. In short, in the short to medium term, at best there will be little or no change to D&O premiums. That's the view of the Insurance Council, the representatives of insurers: that this would make very little difference to that issue of savings around insurance. So that issue is again blown out of the water and is another example of this government astroturfing and trying to make up things that are simply not there. But we all know that the government backbenchers have been agitating for these changes for some time. Australian shareholders benefit from these strong continuous disclosure laws, and all Australian shareholders will be harmed if these changes get through. The rules don't just protect retail shareholders; they make Australian businesses stronger and more attractive to investors. These changes would put the interests of a small number of company directors above the interests of mum and dad investors, self-funded retirees and large institutional investors. And that's why there is this strong opposition to the change from the Australian Shareholders Association, from certain law firms and from the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors. And it's a matter of public record that ASIC and the ACCC have advised the government that the pre-COVID continuous disclosure and misleading and deceptive conduct provisions should be retained. ASIC, for example, told Treasury that the pre-COVID continuous disclosure laws are a fundamental tenet of our markets and are particularly important during times of market uncertainty and volatility. So all of the arguments that the government has raised in respect of this bill have been shot down by people who've made submissions to the Senate inquiry into this bill, but most importantly they've been shot down by the representatives of shareholders. That is the representatives of mum and dad shareholders and of self-managed super funds. They're the people that we should be thinking about when we're discussing these laws. 19:20 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth The Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 makes two suites of changes to the Corporations Act. Schedule 1, which we've been discussing this evening, extends from 21 March to 15 September this year the expiry date of the temporary relief allowing companies to use technology to meet regulatory requirements to hold meetings such as AGMs, distribute related materials and validly execute and witness documents. Schedule 2 of the bill permanently introduces a fault element for our continuous disclosure laws so that companies and their officers will only be liable for civil penalty proceedings where they have acted with knowledge, recklessness or negligence in failing to update the market with price sensitive information. Allow me to turn first to schedule 1. This relief was originally introduced on 5 May 2020, using a temporary instrument-making power which was inserted into the Corporations Act as part of the government's response to the coronavirus crisis, and was subsequently extended. While this relief currently expires on 21 March this year, in just under a week's time, the rationale for its introduction remains. COVID-19 continues to cause uncertainty and associated public health orders continue to be introduced from time to time which restrict movement, meetings and large gatherings. It's necessary for the continuation of business that companies be able to plan with certainty, to host meetings and to execute documents without necessarily having to physically meet. The relief in this bill, the adjustments in the provisions in schedule 1, ensures that companies can get on with business while cooperating with public health orders to ensure that the COVID-19 risk remains abated. Schedule 1 contains enhancements to the temporary relief previously introduced as a result of feedback and consultation. These enhancements ensure, amongst other things, that companies are required to meet the same substantive regulatory standards regardless of whether a physical, virtual or hybrid meeting is held. It allows shareholders to opt in to receive hard copies of meeting related materials. It also allows that whether company officers physically or electronically execute documents, including things such as deeds, via signature or witnessing the application of a company seal, such execution will be valid, which means that the rights and the obligations contained in those documents will remain enforceable. The provisions in schedule 1 also improve the technology and neutrality of other regulatory requirements related to meetings and document execution. These improvements are all consistent with the recommendations of the interim report of the Senate Select Committee on Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology. In addition, the government is also proposing permanent reforms that will continue to allow companies to electronically sign documents and send meeting related materials electronically to be in place when this temporary extension ends. The government is also proposing to conduct an opt in pilot for hybrid AGMs, or annual general meetings, which will allow shareholders to choose to attend meetings either in person or virtually. This pilot will commence when the extension to the temporary relief ends on 15 September 2021, with the aim of this pilot being to encourage companies and shareholders to engage with technology with a view to considering whether future permanent reforms are needed to allow companies to effectively use technology to engage and interact with their shareholders. Schedule 2 to this bill will amend our continuous disclosure laws so that companies and their officers will only be liable for civil penalty proceedings where they've acted with knowledge, recklessness or negligence with respect to updates on price sensitive information to the market. What schedule 2 does is make permanent the temporary relief that was introduced by the government in response to the coronavirus crisis on 25 May 2020 and subsequently extended until 22 March 2021. Why are these reforms necessary? I know those opposite disagree with the need for these reforms. What these reforms are intended to do is reduce to the threat of opportunistic class actions enabling businesses to allocate resources to where they're most needed, to improving efficiency, to hiring new workers, to growing, to investing and to make it easier for businesses—and particular company directors—to focus on those decisions that will make it easier for business to grow and create jobs for the economy. These reforms will mean that company directors and senior office holders, rather than spending a disproportionate amount of time taking defensive measures to mitigate the threat of opportunistic class actions brought against them, will now have time to focus on what the proper purpose of the business is, which is growing, producing and employing. The threat of class actions has also made it more difficult for companies to release forward-looking guidance to the market. Without a high level of protection, companies and company office bearers may choose to withhold forecasts of future earnings or other forward-looking estimates, thereby limiting the amount of information available to investors. This is a long-overdue step in controlling the rise of baseless and costly litigation that mostly benefits for-profit litigation funding groups, most of which are based offshore. As Ashurst's partner Ian Bolster, a leading class-action practitioner, said recently: Australia has a "class action friendly environment" where the lack of regulation for litigation funders had incentivised the rise of flimsy cases that bully corporations into settling. Everyone is entitled to their day in court but it shouldn't be a vehicle for funders to profit, it should be a way for people to access justice. Since class actions first became a reality in Australia in 1991, almost 30 years ago, the amount of class actions has grown dramatically, particularly shareholder class actions. The Australian Law Reform Council noted as well that, of these shareholder class actions, 28 per cent of the litigation proceeds went to funders, 15 per cent went to legal expenses—so almost half of the proceeds are going to litigation funders or the lawyers—and only 55 per cent went to affected shareholders. Federal Court data also shows that, contrary to what the member for Kingsford Smith said earlier, the number of class actions in Australia is actually on the rise quite dramatically; the number of class actions in Australia has tripled over the past 10 years. If you look at the insurance market for directors and officers liability insurance, you see that the risk is increasing. The standard premium for directors and officers liability insurance rose 75 per cent on average in 2019 and 88 per cent on average in 2018. So what schedule 2 will do is amend our continuous disclosure laws so that companies and their officials will only be liable for civil penalty proceedings where they have acted with knowledge, recklessness or negligence with respect to updates on price-sensitive information to the market. This will not alter the existing administrative penalties regime issued by ASIC, so ASIC can continue to issue infringement notices without proving knowledge of recklessness or negligence. Infringement notices can continue to be used for less serious breaches as a fast and effective regulatory response that is both proportionate and proximate in time to the alleged breach. This standard is also retained for ASIC's other nonpecuniary enforcement tools, such as requiring a disclosure of information to the market or obtaining a court order, which will ensure that the regulator, ASIC, can continue to enforce compliance with the law but without entities facing class actions where they've acted honestly and without negligence. Schedule 2 also introduces the same standard of liability for misleading and deceptive conduct where an entity or an officer has allegedly failed to provide an update with price-sensitive information to the market. This ensures that those who bring class actions for an alleged failure to update the market must prove that a company or officer has acted with knowledge, recklessness or negligence, whether they bring the action under continuous disclosure or under misleading and deceptive conduct provisions. The introduction of this fault element for private actions will more closely align Australia's continuous disclosure regime with the approach already taken in comparable jurisdictions, including the United States and the United Kingdom. The threat of class actions has skyrocketed in recent years, and it has made it considerably more difficult for companies to release reliable forward-looking guidance to the market. Without a high level of protection, companies may choose to withhold forecasts or other forward-looking estimates, thereby limiting the amount of information available to investors and lessening the amount of information available to regular shareholders and the market. Raising the liability standards so that companies only face civil penalty actions where they have acted with knowledge, recklessness or negligence will allow companies and their officers to confidently provide guidance to the market without exposing themselves to the risk of opportunistic class actions. Reforming these obligations will also allow businesses to allocate resources towards improving efficiency and output, making it easier for businesses to invest, to create jobs and to ultimately grow the economy, which surely is the goal of all of us here. I commend the bill to the House. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 111 ADJOURNMENT March 4 Justice 111 19:30 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs Today, on the lawns outside this parliament and in demonstrations across our nation, tens of thousands of women and their supporters marched and spoke for justice. They were powerful, they were eloquent, they were courageous and what they said needs to be heard, which is why the decision of the Prime Minister to refuse to come out of hiding and walk the short distance to hear directly from the thousands who came to this place to call for justice tells us so much about what kind of leader he is. This Prime Minister thinks he should be thanked because the women marching for justice today were not shot. If this Prime Minister, his Minister for Women, his deputy and all the other senior members of his government had any courage at all, they would have gone out to hear directly from the thousands of women who came here to speak to them. They would have seen what real courage is from these women—women like Brittany Higgins, who has done so much to expose the toxic culture towards women in this place at great personal cost to herself. But, because this government refused to even listen to what those at the March 4 Justice were saying, I want to recount inside this place just a few examples of what was said outside so that those powerful words spoken outside this place, which this Liberal government refused to hear, can be permanently recorded in the official record of this parliament and perhaps one day Liberal Party ministers might think to read them. Let me start with what was written on just a few of the placards outside today. On one were the stark words, 'Stop raping women,' on another, 'Enough is enough,' on another, 'Women should be safe in the House,' on another, 'My story is not your sideshow,' on another, 'I'm female, I'm angry and I vote,' on another, 'Stop making excuses,' and on another, 'I don't hold an inquiry, mate.' It's also clear that this Prime Minister did not want to hear from Ms Higgins, so let me repeat a little of what she said outside today. Ms Higgins said: I was raped inside Parliament House by a colleague and for so long it felt like the people around me did not care about what happened because of what it might mean for them. It was so confusing because these people were my idols. I had dedicated my life to them. They were my social network, colleagues and my family. Suddenly they treated me differently. I was not a person who had just gone through a lot of changes, I was a political problem. …   …   … My story was on the front page for the sole reason that it was a painful reminder to women that it can happen in Parliament House and can truly happen anywhere. Ms Higgins is right. If a woman cannot feel safe from rape in Parliament House, a veritable fortress ringed with security cameras, with entrances protected by armed guards and with Federal Police officers on duty inside, where can women feel safe? How strong is the rule of law if it isn't able to protect a young woman working in the ministerial wing of Parliament House? This Prime Minister has become increasingly hysterical in invoking the rule of law in his attempts to prevent an independent inquiry into the allegation of rape against his Attorney-General. It is particularly galling that the same government that has undermined the rule of law time after time now seeks to hide behind that doctrine. Until a few weeks ago, I can't remember this Prime Minister having any great interest in the rule of law. To the contrary, in September 2018 the Prime Minister was trying to define what he stood for and he said: Remember, my value is: we look after our mates. It's very clear the Prime Minister has made looking after Liberal Party mates his main focus—not looking after women, not looking after the country and not looking after the rule of law or justice but looking after his political mates. Queensland: Infrastructure 112 19:34 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert Why is it that, every time the Queensland Labor government wants to build a project, we can't get the outcome that the community wants? We, as elected representatives here, in other places and in state and territory governments, come to these places to represent the views of our communities and fight for their needs, but there's one word that the Queensland Labor state government doesn't seem to understand or even know: consultation. They don't consult the community on their plans; they tell people what they want instead of asking what they need. Recently, in Townsville, we've seen this with a massive social housing development that's going on. It was slammed through with whatever design the government department wanted—the local state members didn't even know what the plan was—all under the guise of a state election. Now we're seeing it again with the Townsville Northern Access Intersections Upgrade. This is a major project, worth more than $100 million, and the federal government is putting in more than 80 per cent of these funds. It's a key upgrade that duplicates the Bruce Highway, to the north of Townsville, between Veales Road and Pope Road, including the building of a new bridge over Black River. Tragically, too many people have lost their lives on this road. It's been a hotspot for crashes because the intersections have not been up to standard. So it was very good to see the contracts signed for the design phase earlier this year, because we all thought it would be a safer road—safer for our young people, safer for people to drop their kids off at school. But, under the dark shadow of the state election, the Queensland Labor government put up on its website the map of the design of the road, to tell the community what it had come up with, but requested no feedback, and the beginning of local submissions fell on deaf ears. Of course, when you duplicate a major highway, it requires thought to be given to crossings to the other side of the road and overhead. Most of us are familiar with the traffic lights and overpasses, but instead this design has two U-turn facilities. It was when residents of Black River saw these designs that the emails and phone calls started coming in. The U-turn facilities mean that people turning onto the road but needing to travel in the opposite direction will have to move to the right-hand lane, checking that there's no fast traffic approaching from behind, and get into the far-right, U-turn lane before it's too late. It just doesn't seem safe. This has been a major cause for concern for residents for quite a while in multiple community meetings that have been held at the location. Close to 100 people have attended and raised their concerns. I couldn't find one person who was happy with this design. I couldn't find one person who felt that they had had their consultation or had their voice heard. One of the biggest players in this area is the Black River Pony Club, with its members. This is a thriving community of families who love horses and horseriding. During the week and on the weekends, the highway is flooded with horse floats. These are difficult to manoeuvre in the best of times, but now the members that go to the pony club will have to do sharp U-turns that are going to make it much more difficult and quite dangerous. I know that highly qualified engineers and designers have been involved. I know that there are design standards and rules that govern road lengths and stopping distances, but still my constituents are telling me they don't feel confident about driving on this road or about letting their kids drive on this road. They say they'd rather have the road stay the way it is. So I can't just sit back and not raise their concerns with the people who make these decisions. The decision-maker in this case is the state transport minister, Mark Bailey, because this map was uploaded to the website just before the state election. Minister Bailey has not responded to any concerns. He has not written back to anyone. He has not spoken to the residents. We started a petition that went to the Queensland parliament, requesting that our voices be heard. I call on the state Labor minister to do the right thing: listen to the community concerns and act upon them. I invite him to come back to Townsville and speak with locals. Give them the respect they deserve. Give them the voice they must have. Members of Parliament: Staff 113 19:39 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond Earlier today, thousands marched here in Canberra, outside Parliament House, at the March 4 Justice rally. I was honoured and proud to attend the rally and to march with the protesters and my Labor colleagues. At the march, we saw Brittany Higgins speaking so bravely. She rightly said that the system is broken and that enough is enough. Across the country, thousands of women and men marched to make their voices heard. In my electorate, in northern New South Wales, locals were also marching for justice, in Mullumbimby and Lismore, and I commend them. They marched because enough is enough. These countrywide rallies were an expression of the frustration and anger about continued inequality. Women must be safe and free from violence and discrimination at all times. It is time to focus on achieving equality and justice for all in our society. People are rightly angry at this government. We have the Morrison government constantly acting only in their own political interest, whether it's their inaction and gross negligence in not providing support and justice for Brittany Higgins, their failure to stand down the Attorney-General and instigate a judicial inquiry into historical rape allegations against him, or their failure to act over the defence minister's highly offensive comments and gross negligence in relation to Brittany Higgins. Today, thousands marched around the country, including in my region on the New South Wales North Coast. All will be heard. They will not be silent any longer. Today we were marching for all women, because the fact is we are always, all of us, stronger together. I know it's frustrating to so many that change can often take so long. But we are now having a national conversation about women's rights, safety and access to justice. These are important conversations. We must keep speaking out so there are changes to improve women's lives. I know that sometimes they're hard and distressing conversations, but they're important. As Senator Penny Wong, our leader in the Senate, has said: I've described this as a time of searing national reckoning, a reckoning demanded by the courage of so many, of Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins and many more. To find our way through this requires listening and it requires action. Leaders have to listen, even to messages some don't wish to hear. We have to support those who have the courage to come forward, and we have to change the culture, in our parliament and across the nation. You see, change needs more than talk. And as the Leader of the Opposition said today: 'All of us need to make sure we listen more. We hear the concerns that people have raised and those concerns put forward today. We need to listen and respond.' We all marched today for every woman throughout the nation, because every single woman in this country has the right to be safe and to be treated with respect. Together, we must all fight for justice until there is justice for all. Today we saw yet again a lack of empathy, concern and respect from our Prime Minister, who could not even be bothered to attend the rally. He didn't even have the courage to attend. I implore the Prime Minister and his government to listen to those who marched and to listen to those calling for action. But this is a government that's only concerned with its own agenda and its own political interests, never ever the nation's interest. I recently condemned the Prime Minister in parliament for his disgraceful behaviour regarding the treatment of Brittany Higgins. I will say it again, and I will repeat those words: as a former police officer, I'd like to remind the Prime Minister and his government that rape is not a political problem to be covered up. Rape is a crime. I simply cannot fathom that not one person in that ministerial wing fulfilled their legally binding duty of care to Ms Higgins. Instead of giving her compassion and support to get justice, they just cut her adrift. She's been totally denied justice. It must stop. Their cover-ups and their denials must stop. The Prime Minister again chooses politics and acting in his own interests, denying all knowledge and saying, 'No-one told me.' Of course he knew. He walks in here every day and insults an entire nation by pretending he didn't. The cover-up just continues. The Prime Minister has failed to provide empathy, support and respect for Ms Higgins. We have the Morrison government, as I said, constantly only acting in their political interests. There is no leadership and no support from this government. This is one of the many reasons that women and men and so many people have had enough. So I'd like to thank everyone who marched today and acknowledge them for their courage and for raising their voices loud and clear. Enough is enough. We won't be silent anymore. March 4 Justice 113 19:45 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass As I stood in a sea of thousands of women and men today on the lawns outside Parliament House, the voices were loud and clear and frustrated. Systemic inequality is a problem in our society that we can no longer ignore or look to deal with next week or next month or next year. The message from women around the country today was loud and clear: we are sick of this and we want action now. As a woman and as a sexual assault survivor myself, I absolutely stand with these women who marched today, and in recognition that this is a problem of entrenched inequality in our society. We have this incredible opportunity to harness this groundswell of women's voices and to listen to them and try to drive some change. Though perhaps this issue found its footing while looking inward at Parliament House and the culture here, it has presented an opportunity for a wider conversation about our society as a whole, because the challenges we face here are representative of what is happening in every corner of the country, in people's workplaces and in their homes. It's no secret that I am a survivor of child sexual abuse, and I have spoken on this topic many times in this House. I am horrified by the number of women who reach out to me with their own disclosures after I speak up. When one in five women have experienced sexual assault in their lives, these messages are not surprising, but they are deeply distressing. This is a national crisis, and women must have their voices heard. Like my colleagues on both sides of the House, I am in a position of privilege as a federal representative in the Parliament of Australia. It is in this place that I can represent the views of my constituents and what matters to them, and my constituents are telling me that they want to see change. They want to see some movement on the dial of structural inequality, and, for that to happen, we need to listen. It's important to point out that, while our government has taken many positive steps, investing funds to address a variety of issues that fall under this banner of inequality, what we are talking about now and what we are talking about with these marches today is not about funding or about support as much as it is about driving cultural change. We have to have those difficult conversations, and the time to have them is now. We need to lean in. I'd like to quote Tasmania's own Grace Tame, who we all know was crowned Australian of the Year just a few months ago. At Tasmania's March 4 Justice in Hobart today, Grace spoke of the need for the voices of women across the country to be heard. She said: Evil thrives in silence. Behaviour unspoken, behaviour ignored, is behaviour endorsed … the start of the solution is quite simple: making noise. All members in this House have a responsibility to approach this discussion with intention. This is an issue that cuts across the political divide—and it should cut across the political divide. It ought to be above politics but has, sadly, already become highly politicised, and it is my fear that this is a barrier to change, because it is that kind of tribalism that we have to break down so that everybody can participate and can engage in this process without fear. This is a national conversation, a difficult one, a painful one, but one that is long overdue, and I will continue to use my voice and my privileged position in parliament to bring on change so that the girls of today and the women of tomorrow are no longer a statistic in the conversation about gender inequality and sexual violence. I'd like to finish by adding that, while the media intensity surrounding these issues over the last six to eight weeks has been needed, it has also been very traumatic for survivors of sexual abuse. The spotlight can trigger a range of emotional responses for survivors, which is why I have raised with the Prime Minister the need for increased support services for survivors, and I am hopeful of some further investment in this area. Lastly, from my speech on gender inequality a little over a year ago, the following bears repeating. To my own three daughters and to the women and girls of Australia, I say this: stand up, make your voice heard and keep fighting for change. And to everyone else I say: if you want to see change, let her speak and listen to her voice. Fowler Electorate: Pensions and Benefits 114 19:49 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I'd like to use my time to talk about what is likely to occur with the end of JobSeeker payments later this month, particularly the impact it will have on an area such as mine, where disadvantage is over-represented. As I have previously discussed in this House, Fowler has been found to be one of the most disadvantaged electorates in the nation. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, that is borne out when applying the socioeconomic index, an index which takes into account several factors, including education levels, type of work, rent, English competency, disability and family status. I'm proud of my electorate. I'm proud of the colour and the vibrancy and, in particular, the cultural diversity, which does set us apart. But, sadly, my area is not a wealthy community. As a matter of fact, the average household income—and I mean household income, not individual income—is just over $60,000 a year. There are several reasons why Fowler is over-represented in disadvantage, but one factor is that my community accommodates the settlement of the largest number of migrants and refugees. We are a very welcoming community to that extent, and I'd like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the great work of various charities in my community, like St Vincent de Paul, the Salvation Army, Food Angel, Inspire Church, Liverpool Neighbourhood Connections, Meals on Wheels, Turbans 4 Australia, Community Action Services and the many private and church-run soup kitchens, which do an enormous amount of good in our community. They do a lot of the heavy lifting which would ordinarily be a government responsibility. Last month, data was released by the Department of Social Services which puts in perspective the added strain that the end of JobKeeper payments will have on my community. The data was analysed by The Guardian Australia, and it shows that the hardest hit areas will be working-class suburbs and regional communities. In fact, Fowler was found to be the third-worst affected area, with my community set to lose $3½ million in assistance. For many, the JobSeeker payment has been a lifeline. The removal of the remaining coronavirus supplement by the end of the month will add further hardship and strain to an already struggling community. Its removal at such a critical time is, I think, unconscionable. We have people who are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and put basic food on the table, and this government thinks that an increase of $50 a fortnight to the Newstart allowance does the job. This increase is insufficient and quite frankly it is an insult to those who are struggling on a day-to-day basis. Economists and social service groups have warned that returning those who are now relying on JobSeeker payments essentially back to the Newstart level will not only hurt Australians but be harmful to our economy. Economist Nicki Hutley highlights the gravity of the decision when she notes that the economy is already feeling the effects of the withdrawal of the initial $550 coronavirus supplement, which was applied in the early period of the pandemic. As she puts it, it is the final nail in the coffin and it will have a massive impact on spending. If this government is serious about giving people some sort of dignity, there must be a willingness to legislate a permanent appropriate increase to the Newstart rate. A rise of $50 a fortnight simply won't cut it, particularly in communities like mine, and it is not going to lift people out of poverty. Dr Cassandra Goldie, the chief executive of the Australian Council of Social Service, knows that there are clear economic reasons for ensuring that people have enough to cover the basics. The most important is that this is a matter of basic human need. The removal of the supplement by the end of the month will put basics rights at risk for many Australians, particularly impacting on those in my communities. We are a wealthy nation, and it is unacceptable for any Australian to live in poverty. Electric Vehicles 115 19:54 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney Australia and the world's commitment to respond to climate change is leading to incredible changes in technology, showing our ingenuity and demonstrating the role new technology will play. We are seeing this most dramatically in the energy sector, with renewable sources having so quickly become the most cost-effective solutions to so much of our future energy needs. Today I want to speak about one area of technological potential where change is coming more slowly in Australia: the use of electric vehicles. While EV sales saw significant growth in Australia before the pandemic, the market share remains just 0.75 per cent of new car sales. Nineteen per cent of Australia's greenhouse gases come from the transport sector. If we are to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, which surely must become our goal, this sector must be a focus of our work. The average age of cars on the road today is just over 10 years. Working back from 2050 means that, to reach net zero, we need to adopt the goal of reaching close to 100 per cent electric or other low-emission vehicles in the new car market by the mid-2030s. Adopting such an ambitious target would provide an important signal to the car industry and would give them the certainty they need about Australia's intentions. Similar targets need to be adopted for other vehicles. State governments should be following the lead of the Berejiklian government and working to move to 100 per cent electric or low-emission bus fleets by the end of the decade. Many car manufacturers have announced their plans to phase out conventionally fuelled vehicles over the coming 15 years. Costs are coming down, and price parity should be reached in the second half of the decade. This is, however, not a case for relying solely on those market trends. The worst outcome for Australia would be for us to become the dumping ground for old technology as other markets expand in electric vehicles. I'm pleased that earlier this year the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction released the Future Fuel Strategy discussion paper. The discussion paper correctly points to the key priorities of expanding charging infrastructure, improving information to motorists, integrating EVs with the grid and supporting Australian innovation. The paper also highlights the value of targeting the commercial car market, which accounts for 40 to 50 per cent of new car sales. Commercial fleets can be early adopters of new technology and critically, because of more frequent turnover, can become an early source of EVs for the second-hand car market. If, however, we are to ensure the transport sector reaches net zero, there is much more that can and should be done. For example, many nations have provided some form of tax or direct subsidies to deliver lower-cost vehicles to consumers, with strong results. Early and short-term subsidies can provide a kickstart to more rapid growth while market prices trend down through technological and production innovations. We should be open to these approaches in Australia. At the federal level, it is time we removed the luxury car tax entirely from low-emission vehicles. At the state level, state and territory governments must look towards measures like lower rego and stamp duty and even toll relief for electric vehicles. What they should not do is follow the lead of the Victorian government in implementing new road charges on EVs while the market is so thin. The Victorian approach is a disaster for encouraging motorists to buy an electric vehicle. In the corporate fleet sector, we can improve the attractiveness of electric vehicles even further through tax changes. For example, currently any electric vehicle used in a workplace attracting FBT is at a tax disadvantage relative to conventionally fuelled vehicles because of the treatment of fuel. One way to address this is to provide EVs with a partial FBT exemption and to establish a different statutory method for EVs—essentially a discounted rate. The federal government should also institute accelerated depreciation rates for EVs, following the clear success of the instant asset write-off deployed during the pandemic. The rollout of the public charging network is improving every year, but this addresses only half the challenge. Most potential EV owners want to be able to charge their cars at home or work. Planning laws should be updated to ensure new homes, apartments and commercial buildings are EV ready with the necessary infrastructure. This will be far less costly than a retrofit in five or 10 years time. Finally, there is a clear intersection and overlap between state and federal governments on these issues. Coordination of a national approach is vital in this regard. Governments should therefore consider whether a new national taskforce that brings jurisdictions and industry together can assist in delivering a zero net emissions transport future. With the right support, Australia can be a leader in the rollout of low-emissions vehicles, be they electric or using other technologies such as hydrogen. It's time we make that so. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 116 NOTICES

Monday, 15 March 2021

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Rob Mitchell) took the chair at 10:30.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 118 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS National Broadband Network 118 10:30 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to highlight the incredibly poor state of Canberra's NBN infrastructure and call on the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts to commit to funding the necessary and vital upgrades our city needs. Yet again this government is abandoning our nation's capital, where we have some of the worst NBN in the country. The NBN designed by the last Labor government was supposed to be a transformational infrastructure project. If implemented as intended, all Australians would now have access to fast, reliable and workable NBN. Unfortunately, Labor lost government, and Tony Abbott set about destroying Labor's vision for this country. Top of his list was the NBN. By now we all know the story: instead of Labor's 21st century fibre-to-the-premises network, we got a mix match of technologies that doesn't do the job and includes ancient copper networks that simply do not work properly. What is the result of this for Australians? It is some of the worst internet connections in the world. Australia now ranks 61st in the world for band speeds. That is shocking. When you look at exactly how bad the internet is spread across the country, it becomes clear that Canberrans have some of the worst. Of every capital city in this nation, Canberra has by far the worst NBN infrastructure. Around 70 per cent of the network in Canberra is made up of the substandard fibre-to-the-node technology, including almost all of my electorate, where this building is located. No other capital city is nearly this bad. In September last year, Minister Fletcher and the NBN announced they would be investing a further $3.5 billion in order to fix the mess they've created over the almost decade of coalition neglect. The goal stated is to make the highest wholesale speed tiers currently offered by the NBN available to up to 75 per cent of homes and businesses. To date, the NBN has announced upgrades to suburbs in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia yet the ACT, with some of the worst internet in the country, hasn't had one suburb on that list. I wrote to the minister in early February and he is yet to respond to me. NBN Co have responded and I will meet with them but they have also failed to make a commitment to deliver decent NBN to our nation's capital. This is unacceptable, and I demand that the government take action to give our nation's capital better internet. This is really just unacceptable. I call on minister to ensure that the ACT is included in these upgrades so that our city is not left behind. Robertson Electorate: Services Australia 118 10:33 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I rise to update the chamber on the delivery of payments and programs by Services Australia on the peninsula in my electorate of Robertson. Last month, customers at Ettalong were informed Services Australia were required to vacate their current premises after the landlord received approval to redevelop the current site. I am advised Services Australia has been searching for an alternative property in Ettalong and surrounding suburbs for around two years but no suitable location has been identified. Whilst they continue to search for an appropriate premises, Services Australia are consolidating their Ettalong centre within the Woy Woy centre. Last month the Woy Woy centre was only the second location across Australia to enjoy a transformation that will ensure peninsula residents are offered state-of-the-art facilities. This will include upgrades to digital support facilities offering new appointment based services and tailored assistance for older Australians. It is one of the nation's first concept sites to test, explore and evaluate new service offers to improve the way Australians access face-to face-programs. I have fought hard to ensure the Central Coast and the peninsula are one of the first regions in the country to experience this new model. I am pleased to inform the chamber that staff from the Ettalong centre will be employed at the Woy Woy service centre to ensure support is maintained for peninsula residents. In addition, I am advised that Services Australia are currently seeking EOIs from local business and community groups to establish an Agent Service in Ettalong, which will provide face-to-face information and free self-help facilities to customers in Ettalong and will play a vital role in assisting customers to access government payments. Services Australia customers will be able to certify identification documents at the agent as well as photocopy, print and collect information products and brochures. The expression of interest has been extended until this Friday, 19 March, to give Services Australia the best possible opportunity to hear from suitable applicants on the peninsula. The organisation selected will be provided with all equipment required, a free all-hours wi-fi connection, an online training program with supporting materials and a remuneration package to be negotiated. The agent will be supported in their role by a Services Australia contact, who will make regular support visits and conduct reviews. I strongly encourage businesses and community organisations who may be interested to apply, and I look forward to this Agent Service being up and running as soon as possible to ensure customers in Ettalong can continue to access these services locally. Ensuring that Australians receive the service and support they need during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a key focus of the Morrison government, and we will continue to listen and deliver for all Australians. Residents across the peninsula and across the Robertson electorate can be assured that the government will continue to work to ensure that our locals have access to the best government services. Sandy, Aunty A, Lilley Electorate: Welcoming the Babies, Clean Up Australia Day 119 0:36 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley It is with a heavy heart I advise the House of the passing of Aileen Sandy, nee Dawson, a truly great northsider and Australian. Aunty Aileen was a beloved aunty, grandmother and mother and an active and respected elder in our community. Aunty Aileen was an ordained minister and, in September 2015, she founded the Past On The Fire Ministry, which had its open day at Zillmere Community Centre. Aunty Aileen had a phone ministry that would minister to anyone in Australia day or night, even in the very early hours of the morning, praying and counselling in their time of need. Aunty Aileen's work extended beyond her immediate community, assisting with the development of social, emotional and wellbeing spaces within Wantulp Bi-Buya College in Far North Queensland, assisting with addiction management, community development, and Indigenous mental health counselling. When influential people pass away, quite often we will erect monuments in their honour. But, when we look around for the monument to Aunty Aileen and the legacy that she leaves behind, all we need to do is look at her children—Jason, Wayne, Faylene, Sandy, Fred, Sammy, Sono and Otila—and the outstanding work that they continue to do for First Nations people within our community and for the benefit of us all. I'm excited to announce that Welcoming the Babies is back on for 2021. It's a proud northside tradition started by my predecessor Wayne Swan, and this year will be the 20th anniversary of the event and my very first time hosting it—and I've got two twins ready to roll! There will be lots in it for everyone, including an Easter egg hunt, bouncy castle, sausage sizzle, food trucks and coffee van, games and craft activities organised by local childcare centres, live music and a special visit from the Easter Bunny. Local icon Dagwood the Clown will also be making a very special appearance. Due to the cancellation of the 2020 event because of COVID and the federal election the year before that, this year we will welcome all Lilley babies born since 2019. It's going to be babypalooza! If any northsiders would like to register their child or their grandchild or a child in their care, please hop onto my website and register your baby so that I can welcome them myself. I hope to see lots of families come down to Mulbeam Park in Boondall on Sunday 28 March from 9 am for a morning of fun family entertainment. A few weeks ago, northsiders from Sandgate right up to Nundah participated in Clean Up Australia Day. I joined Linda, Neil and the Keep Sandgate Beautiful Association in Decker Park in Brighton, and I would like to give a special shout out to all the brilliant students from St Kieran's Primary School in Brighton and their excellent principal, Ben Gray, who were up at the crack of dawn to give our beautiful coastline some TLC. Thank you very much for your work. Fisher Electorate: STEPS Pathways College 119 10:39 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher It's great to see the member for Lilley back in the parliament—welcome back. STEPS Pathways College, in my electorate of Fisher, is an Australian leader in delivering residential training courses in life skills and independent living for people with intellectual disabilities. I recently had the honour of speaking at the college's graduation ceremony, where I met this year's terrific graduates, Alana, Alex, Clare, Kate-Lyn, Mel, Mitch and Sonia. Having completed their studies, all of these impressive young people are ready to build a new life for themselves and to make their own contributions to our community. On behalf of all members, I say congratulations and all the best for your independent futures. One of the many admirable things about STEPS is the way in which they embody their values of independence and self-sufficiency. The week after graduation, staff and students alike were out on the road on the Steps for STEPS fundraising walk along the length of our coastal strip. I met up with walkers at the stadium to make my donation and to help promote the event with Mark and Caroline, from 92.7 MIX FM, who were supporting the day. Well done to Mark and Caroline and the crew from MIX FM. This is just one of the many fundraising events that STEPS hold throughout the year to ensure that their organisation can provide the best possible ongoing training for students on the Sunshine Coast. I'm proud to say the Morrison government has also recognised STEPS' success and has chipped in to help the college grow and sustain itself. In 2019 I announced a grant of $190,000 to the STEPS Pathways College to fund the construction of two further apartments at their Murphy House facility. These are now complete and have increased the capacity of the college from 10 to 14 students. More accommodation not only means more individuals can benefit from the training but also it enriches the social experience for students and ensures that more ongoing funds are available to keep the college sustainable. I'm grateful to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme for joining me at the STEPS official opening, at the beginning of March, of those two new apartments. Though the weather was grey it couldn't dampen the enthusiasm of the many stakeholders, parents and supporters who came along to see the plaque unveiled and hear the minister speak. The highlight of the day for me was the wonderful pot that was handmade and presented to the minister by STEPS ex-student Ariana Nioa. I'm told this was a one-off, but I know a few people in our community would be very happy to get their hands on one. So, Ari, if you ever make more, let me know! Congratulations to founder Carmel Crouch, CEO Kerry Staines and all the team at STEPS for putting on such a great day, and you do such good work for community. Thank you, very much. Western Australia: Election 120 10:42 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth Every single Australian is fortunate that Mark McGowan will continue to lead the state of Western Australia, keeping the state that I love safe and strong. Australia is fortunate that Mark McGowan will continue to serve in the national cabinet and be the most experienced member of the national cabinet. We are fortunate that Roger Cook, Mark McGowan and the team will continue to lead the Western Australian economy. Western Australia is one-third of our land mass, our biggest exporting state and, objectively, the best state in Australia. Western Australians will continue to stand against this federal government when they get it wrong—when they get it wrong on stopping the spread of COVID, when they get it wrong in their tourism packages and when they get it wrong all the way to the High Court in supporting Clive Palmer. This election was Western Australians speaking as one voice, a message that every federal member, particularly those on the government benches, should hear. We want strong, decisive leadership, investments in health, education and infrastructure, and clear plans for jobs. What was the Prime Minister's take? In The West Australian the headline screamed 'Scott Morrison takes credit for Labor win'. The Prime Minister doesn't hold a hose and he's not the police commissioner but he did win the Western Australian state election, apparently. He's seriously out of touch with Western Australians. He is no friend of Western Australia. Even on the booths on Saturday I heard that. People will never forget, in Western Australia, that he and his team and his Attorney-General sided with Clive Palmer to put the health of Western Australians at risk. An election takes a team, and the energy and discipline of this team was first class. Congratulations to the campaign director, Tim Picton, his deputy, Ellie Whitaker, Guy Houston, chief of staff to the Premier, and his entire team. Congratulations to the party president, Carolyn Smith, Darren Moss, the WA unions and their members, and their volunteer members in particular. I want to try to say thanks to every member and volunteer worker on those campaigns, for every single campaign. I've got 45 seconds. Thank you to everyone who helped: Rebecca Stephens, Tony Buti, David Michael, Reece Whitby, Dave Kelly, Kim Giddens, Cassie Rowe, Lisa O'Malley, Don Punch, Mark Folkard, John Quigley, Bill Johnston, Paul Lilburne, Michelle Nelson, Christine Tonkin, David Scaife, Jodie Hanns, Gemma West, Hugh Jones, Lisa Munday, Stephen Price, Simone McGurk, Lara Dalton, Caitlin Collins, Yaz Mubarakai, Emily Hamilton, Matthew Hughes, Ali Kent, Divina D'Anna, Jessica Stojkovski, Roger Cook, Margaret Quirk, David Templeman, Lisa Baker, Michelle Roberts, Meredith Hammat, Barni Norton, Amber-Jade Sanderson, Simon Millman, Robyn Clarke, Katrina Stratton, Cherie Sibosado, John Carey, Kevin Michel, Jagadish Krishnan, Mark McGowan, Bradley Willis, Stuart Aubrey, Geoff Baker, Terry Healy, Jessica Shaw, Chris Tallentire, Chris Hossen, Hannah Beazley, Sabine Winton, Paul Papalia, Jane Kelsbie, Rita Saffioti and Peter Tinley. Goldstein Electorate: Schools 120 10:45 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein There has never been a better time to celebrate the bold and brave students across Australia who've weathered an educational storm like no other throughout 2020. The Goldstein medal is awarded to students in their second-to-last year each year at school in every school across the community of Goldstein, because we believe in honouring the service of the woman after which the Goldstein electorate is named, Vida Goldstein, and her commitment to freedom, service and respect. The medal ties Goldstein's young leaders to that legacy because of the value of those commitments. Vida Goldstein's legacy embodies these values as she was the first woman to run for parliament in the British Empire. She also had the courage and vision to fight for the rights of women to stand for parliament, to vote, to buy property and to enter into marriage on the same terms as men. She was, as we'd say, a marriage equality advocate of her time. It's a great honour to congratulate 2020's esteemed recipients of the Goldstein medal: Katie Gorvett-Page from Beaumaris Primary School, Nicola from Beaumaris secondary, Abigail Barden and Ruby Johns from Brighton Beach, Connor Mead from Caulfield Primary School, Milga Lynn from Caulfield South Primary School, Cleo Miles from Elsternwick Primary School, Miller Edwards from Gardenvale Primary School, Emma Gracie from Glen Huntly Primary School, Poppy Salabanks from Hampton Primary School, Jane Lee from Kilvington Grammar School, Myer Gold from Lavalla, Karleen Hun and Campey from McKinnon Secondary College, William Bowls and Ruby Druce from Sandy east primary, Jack Power from Sandy primary, Oliver Wensley from St Finbar's Primary School, Matthew from St Joseph's, Phoebe Bull from St Kevin's, Erin Fullyard from Star of the Sea College, Basel from Stella Maris and Jack Vincent from Wesley College. Each of these students reflects the best values of their community. Their positive engagement with schooling life and their commitment to their peers models the constructive community engagement that helps to build an ever stronger Australia. Ordinarily, of course, I would take as much opportunity as possible to present those Goldstein medals to students across the community but, because of COVID-19 restrictions in 2020, I could not. Where I did, I saw young, bright minds wanting to make a contribution not just to their school community but to the success of the nation. Never forget: the foundation of the success of this country doesn't come from the strength of Canberra; it comes from the citizen up. 2020 was a challenging year for everybody. We should celebrate the extraordinary perseverance and commitment students across Goldstein have shown during the pandemic. We should also celebrate the untiring work of our teachers, parents and guardians, who have all supported the adaptability and success of our education system despite disruptions. Once again, congratulations to the 2020 Goldstein medal recipients and those from previous years, and I look forward to presenting more in the years to come. Sneddon, Mrs Dianne 121 10:48 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter In every regional community you will find several people who might be described as community leaders, people who go above and beyond what might be expected of them, people who work tirelessly in the interests of their local community. Singleton's Di Sneddon is one of those people, and I was pleased to learn last week that she'd become the Upper Hunter New South Wales Woman of the Year. It's not Di's first award—far from it! In fact, in 2013 she was named Singleton's Citizen of the Year. Di is involved in just about everything. Everywhere I go in support of a good cause, Di is there too. There are many examples, but her work with the Red Cross, where she has been the recipient of a Humanitarian Partner Award, stands out. But Di is possibly best known for her many years at TheSingleton Argus, where she first worked after leaving high school in 1980. Yes, Di is a fully-fledged local! Di went on to become a long-serving editor of The Singleton Argus. There can be no doubt Di was not fully remunerated for the hours she dedicated to her role there. Both as a journalist and editor, Di used her position for the common good. She didn't just report on and oversee the news; she helped shape it. Her work with the Red Cross and newspaper came together in 1999 when the government decided Singleton's army camp would become host to 500 displaced people from war-torn Kosovo. Di was quick to realise that the men, women and children being given safe haven would need the support of the local community and that it would be important to ensure the community had all the facts. Di knew that misinformation or even a dearth of information would fuel community suspicion of and opposition to the safe-haven arrangement. She fought for special access to the camp for her local newspaper to ensure all the facts were known in the community and to foster local sympathy and support for the refugees. Di's efforts met with spectacular success and history now records how warmly the Kosovo people were received in the local community and, indeed, how generous Singleton residents were toward them. They donated toys and other goods and volunteered to provide English lessons. Local sporting clubs organised coaching clinics for the new arrivals and local musicians provided entertainment. The responsive residents made us all proud. The pride of the Kosovo people brought the best out in all of us. Di Sneddon made sure the community response was the right response. Without her leadership it could have been a different one. Misinformation causes both suspicion and anger. Again showing great courage, Di recently became part of a new community newspaper venture where she continues to lead and shape community attitudes. Di Sneddon is a local legend and is deserving of every accolade and award she has received. Congratulations on the latest recognition, Di. I'm proud to count you as a friend. (Time expired) Mallee Electorate: Apprenticeships 122 10:51 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Apprentices and trainees are the future of small businesses and industries in Mallee. My favourite days as an MP are spent travelling around the electorate and meeting up with small and family businesses and their tradies and apprentices. I recently put on a BBQ breakfast for local tradies, at dawn at Interlink in Mildura, with my colleague and former tradie turned federal minister Keith Pitt. We enjoyed a frank discussion with some local tradies from Qualia Wines about issues that are important to them and learned more about local industries that employ so many people. Last week, I also stopped by Casey's Truck and Tractor in St Arnaud. I was sorry to miss my good friend Bernie Casey, but it was a pleasure to meet his son Dale and his grandson Dylan. Dylan is the fourth-generation Casey working in the business and is one of several apprentices on their way to become diesel mechanics. Lachie, Ryan and Dylan are all showing the dedication needed to excel at their trade and Casey's is supporting them to be the best that they can be. The Morrison-McCormack government's Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements is making a difference to businesses like Casey's, with a 50 per cent wage subsidy for all new or recommencing apprentices and trainees. In October 2020, the Morrison-McCormack government announced that it would invest $1.2 billion to support 100,000 new apprentices or trainees through the subsidy. In a stunning show of confidence in the Australian economy, all 100,000 new apprenticeships were taken up by businesses in fewer than five months. In Mallee alone, there have been 627 new apprentices registered. Due to the overwhelming success of the subsidy, the Morrison-McCormack government is now lifting the cap on places under the program, extending the subsidy to a full 12-month period for new apprentices and trainees who begin before 30 September 2021. Robin Kuhne from Workforce Partners Australia is taking full advantage of this program. Robin works with industry to link them to new apprentices. They also employ their own apprentices who are contracted out to other employers to provide agile support. The business has supported the commencement of 65 new apprentices that will be eligible for the wage subsidy. That is 65 young people getting a start in their career and numerous businesses growing as a result. The government and Australian businesses are backing opportunities for Australians, particularly our young people. I thank every single business in Mallee that has taken on a new apprentice and trainee and encourage the rest to make the most of this opportunity while it lasts. Aged Care 122 10:54 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I rise today to speak to the horrific findings in the final report of the royal commission into aged care, and to the Liberal-National government's shameful legacy of neglect when it comes to our older Australians. The report and its 148 recommendations makes it absolutely clear: Australia's aged-care system is in crisis.Make no mistake, this crisis is due to the severe funding cuts of the Morrison government. The fact is this government has completely failed our older Australians. So many locals have told me constantly that this is a heartbreaking national disgrace and I agree with them. The commission heard that 20 per cent of Australians living in aged care are receiving substandard care and that about 50 per cent of those living in aged care are malnourished. We know that 685 older Australians have tragically died in our nursing homes due this this government's mismanagement of the pandemic. This is a government that's made savage cuts in the aged-care sector—$1.7 billion has been cut from aged care. Because of these cuts of the Morrison government more than 100,000 people are now desperately waiting for Home Care Packages. Many older Australians needing high-level care are now sometimes waiting up to three years. This is disgraceful. Because of these cuts, we have tragically seen the death of nearly 11,000 older Australians who were waiting for home care in their homes. In the past year 11,000 have died waiting for that care. Shamefully, the wait for older Australians to enter residential care has now increased to 148 days. This is a desperate situation. The royal commission heard so many stories of terrible neglect—heartbreaking stories about malnourishment, about mistreatment, about untreated wounds in many people in nursing homes. This government's legacy is disgraceful. It is completely unacceptable. Our older Australians deserve so much better. We have got to remember it was our seniors who built our nation. They worked hard, paid their taxes, raised their families, contributed to their communities. In their retirement they must have access to health and aged-care services when they need them. So many groups have called on the Morrison government to act but they just completely ignore it. It seems so many times that everything that this government is responsible for they refuse to take any responsibility for. I say this to the Prime Minister and his government: aged care is your responsibility. It is a federal government responsibility and you must act. Indeed, as one of the commissioners from the royal commission, Commissioner Briggs, has said, 'The government must step up and embrace its responsibilities for aged care'. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend our aged-care workers who do an incredible job in our aged-care sector. They need more pay and they need more support. Let's never forget the crisis in aged care is due to the Morrison government's severe funding cuts and wilful neglect. International Women's Day 123 10:57 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield The weekend before last I had the privilege of attending an event in my electorate to acknowledge International Women's Day. This event was held at the PCYC Hornsby Ku-ring-gai in Waitara in my electorate. It was an outstanding display of the capabilities, capacities and contribution of women, globally and in my electorate in Bradfield. It was an opportunity for women representing many different organisations and communities to connect and to exchange their ideas and their experiences. There was a rich array of activities which occurred as part of this event, including dance therapy, a Korean dance performance by Eun Joo Oh and a discussion about the services on offer to support women in my electorate. I congratulate the Rotary Club of Wahroonga, the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women's Shelter, the Women's Shed Hornsby Ku-ring-gai and the other organisations that were involved in coordinating this important event. I was very pleased to be at it. I note that the second round of the Morrison government's Boosting Female Founders Initiative was opened on International Women's Day. The aim of the program is to support Australian women establishing start-up businesses and to see female leaders successfully launch their ideas into the marketplace. The first round of the Boosting Female Founders Initiative in 2020 saw one deserving recipient in Bradfield, Ms Samantha Devlin, from Turramurra. Ms Devlin is the founder of The Footnotes Pty Ltd. That company's project, The Network Effect by The Careers Department, received $240,000 under the initiative. The project sees the development of a digital careers platform intended to develop customised work experience modules to build domestic and international school scalability and to leverage the school network as a vehicle to reach parents. I want to also acknowledge another constituent, Dr Edwina Tanner, who recently received funding under the business research and innovation initiative, a $95,000 grant, to further her research into real-time automated detection of whales using novel thermal sensor systems. International Women's Day is an opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of women, and I also welcome the success of these women business founders in my electorate. 11:00 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. MOTIONS 123 MOTIONS Video Game Industry 123 11:00 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) video games are a large and growing market—Australians spent $3.6 billion on games in 2019, more than double the amount they spent in 2012; (b) video gaming is a mainstream activity—two thirds of Australians play video games with an average age of 37; and (c) globally, the video game industry generates more than double the revenue of the music and film industries combined; and (2) recognises that: (a) Australia is home to a talented community of game developers and publishers, but proportionately the Australian industry is much smaller than its peers in New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom; (b) video game development provides remote working opportunities and jobs for the regions—in the UK, 55 per cent of video game industry employment is outside of London and the south-east; (c) the video game industry provides a variety of jobs—in Australia, 34 per cent are software programmers, 19 per cent are artists and 11 per cent are business or marketing professionals; (d) the skills developed in our domestic video game industry are transferrable into roles in adjacent innovative and growth industries like cyber security, software engineering and data analytics; and (e) video games could help drive the post-COVID economic recovery in Australia, creating jobs and expanding a significant export market. I'm pleased to move this motion in support of a high-skill, high-wage, high-growth industry that needs to be taken more seriously here in Canberra. Globally, this is an industry that has generated $250 billion worth of revenue in 2019. That is more than double the revenue generated by the global film and music industries combined. But here in this place, it's an industry that is often overlooked. Research from the Interactive Gaming and Entertainment Association, the industry peak body, shows that income generated by Australian games studios in 2019-20 totalled just $184.6 million. But this is potentially a billion-dollar industry for Australia and a source of jobs with skills that are transferrable into other high-wage, high-growth industries, like cybersecurity and software development. It could be a huge source of jobs growth and direct foreign investment into Australia as we begin our post-pandemic economic recovery. Labor has seen this prospect for some time. We established a $20 million interactive games fund in 2012 when we were last in government. The Abbott government abolished it after just six months as part of the 2014 budget. We all remember that budget shortly after them coming to power. It abolished that fund with only half the money spent. Since that time, the Australian video game industry has had no federal support at all—none. This is despite four separate parliamentary committees making bipartisan recommendations that the industry be backed in by government. Two Commonwealth agencies have also recommended federal government support for the industry. Austrade recommended that video game development be included in the refundable 30 per cent post digital and visual effects tax offset. Like things with the Morrison government, the states have been left to pick up the slack. Victoria, Queensland and South Australia all offer funding or tax incentives for video game development. Victoria, whose grant development program is now in its sixth year, has become the game development capital of Australia, thanks to the Andrews government support. In fact, half the industry is located in my home state of Victoria. I recently had the privilege to tour the studios of the Big Ant video game development company, makers of AO Tennis and Cricket 19, with the local member, the member for Macnamara. It is important to note today, given the events happening outside this building, that women are underrepresented in STEM generally, and the gaming industry is no exception. Thanks to groups like The Working Lunch, the Girl Geek Academy, Women Who Code and SheHacks, this is an issue that is being tackled head on. These groups do vital work to address female representation in gaming and STEM more broadly but there's much more that we should be doing to help them as leaders and as a government. This is an industry that we need to grow as an ecosystem. In 2019 global revenue from eSports—the viewing, the broadcasting of people playing games—was a $1.1 billion industry in itself and is expected to double by 2023. Unfortunately, in Australia, our share of that eSports revenue was just $5 million in 2019. We love our sports as Australians and during COVID-19, when holding live sports wasn't possible, many of the big leagues in the world switched to eSports tournaments. I know that V8 Supercars did with some success. PwC believes that, if we continue on this path, Australia's total eSports revenue could reach $12 million by 2024, but I think with the right federal support we could grow the domestic industry and take an even bigger slice of this global billion-dollar pie. Despite the Australian video game industry punching above its weight globally, we are at serious risk of losing this potential billion-dollar growth development industry. As Interactive Games and Entertainment Association CEO, Ron Curry, notes, 'Every other developed nation in the world has government incentive packages in place for game developers. Everywhere except Australia.' The UK and Canada both have generous tax incentives to attract developers and to build a competitive industry. Our neighbours across the ditch recently announced $10 million to support the industry and have a target of a $1 billion industry in New Zealand within 10 years. They've got the vision across the ditch; we need the vision here in Australia. The New Zealand industry employs roughly half the number of workers but produces double the revenue of the Australian industry; they aim high. Dylan Miklashek, the Brisbane head of the French mobile game company Gameloft, said in an interview with The Age recently: Our salaries and cost of living are similar to Montreal or Vancouver. But the cost of our studio, because we don't have these incentives, is 30 to 40 per cent more. … you can't be 30 to 40 per cent better than a studio that's in Montreal, which has that incredible ecosystem. We need the Australian government to back in Australian video game developers and the high-wage high-skill jobs they create. It is this disadvantage—a lack of government support that the Australian industry faces globally—that we have to address here in this chamber. That's why I established the Parliamentary Friends of Video Games with Senator McGrath in the other place and it's why I'm introducing this motion today. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the motion seconded? Ms Templeman 181810 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:05 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt It's a pleasure to contribute to this motion talking about the importance of the gaming sector, and I would like to slightly broaden my comments to include the creative industry sector as a whole. It is a great honour to have the South Australian Film Corporation based in my electorate and great companies like KOJO very involved in the postproduction and visual effects sector, which is of course what underpins the gaming sector and many others. South Australia has a great history and heritage in the creative sector, and we've got this unbelievable confluence of the creative sector coming together with other sectors like the defence sector and the cyber sector, where so many of these skills are required into the future. It's definitely going to be an enormous growth sector, and the most important thing for us in this sector is to make sure we're getting the workforce training right. And that's why we've got to talk about all these sectors in a combined way. It's very exciting in South Australia because the two major naval shipbuilding projects both have an enormous amount of workforce requirements and therefore training and expertise from the companies in the area of virtual reality. We've got both of the programs operating on effectively a virtual shipyard platform. So the submarines and frigates will effectively be designed with people who have the same skill set who are needed to contribute to the gaming sector. Instead of the old blueprints and the big sheets of paper on the boardroom table, everything is now in the computer, in the cloud, on the device that you might wear for virtual reality representation of all the different elements of these boats that are being built. So it's a really exciting time in South Australia for the gaming industry because we've got the workforce requirements that are dramatically increasing, and of course there will be a spectacular cross-pollination between the workforce requirements in defence, in cyber, in the film sector—streaming—and the gaming sector. I would like to give a quick shout-out to a couple of great companies from Adelaide, Mighty Kingdom and Team Cherry, who are already doing excellent work in the gaming sector. And I mentioned KOJO before. They are based at Kent Town in my electorate. There was a famous game called Mortal Kombat, and that movie has been made in South Australia. KOJO were enormously involved in the post-production, colouration et cetera of that, and I'm really excited about the premiere of that very soon. That's a company that is in an allied sector to gaming and is doing excellent work in developing that skilled workforce in South Australia to contribute more generally to the creative industry sector. There is already good support for the gaming sector from both the Commonwealth government and the state government. The state government in South Australia, which the mover of the motion mentioned, has a rebate scheme in place for gaming. Obviously these rebate schemes are helpful; I don't disagree with that. But also at the Commonwealth level we are doing a lot of things generally—tax incentives, R&D incentives, export market development grants et cetera—that are opportunities for the gaming industry to use that Commonwealth support to access export markets. I see a very exciting future for the gaming sector and probably the creative sector in this country and in particular in South Australia. As I say, we've got a whole range of things coming together at once that can provide some critical mass in this sector. It's a huge sector. As has already been pointed out, it's much bigger than the film and music industries combined. That's why we need the industry economies of scale and the workforce capabilities in place as well as support from the state and Commonwealth governments to see this industry grow. I'm very confident that it will. The mover mentioned eSports. Again, I know that in my home state, with the upgrade of the tennis facility on Memorial Drive, there's going to be the capability of holding major eSports events at that venue. We're building the venues and the infrastructure. We're making sure that we're training the workforce. The support is in place across the state and federal governments to give this sector, and the creative sectors more broadly, the opportunity to thrive. There are exciting milestones on the horizon. I can see this being a sector that is going to grow very significantly over the next few years and decades to come, and that's thanks to the support and the programs of the Commonwealth and state governments in South Australia and Australia. 11:10 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie One of the things that helped people get through the lockdowns was video games. This was a sector that was remarkably resilient throughout COVID, even as restrictions lifted. But I want to start by busting some myths about who plays video games. More than two-thirds of Australians play video games, including 62 per cent of all working-age adults. That's from the latest data from the Interactive Games and Entertainment Association. Seventy-eight per cent of players are 18 or older, and 50 per cent are women. Nearly 40 per cent of people are over 65, so get rid of the idea that this is just kids in their rooms avoiding doing their homework. One of the reasons people say they play games is because it contributes to their emotional wellbeing. Sixty-seven per cent say it helps maintain social connections, and, interestingly, around 42 per cent of people who are playing say it keeps their minds active. This is something I see played out in my electorate of Macquarie. I met Bruce recently in the Blue Mountains. He's in his 80s. He sees playing video games as a challenge. He's a former school principal. He gets that it keeps his mind engaged, active and sharp, especially as he has lost his wife and lives at home on his own. The other benefit that we know people have seen during COVID was revealed by Steven Conway, who is a senior lecturer in games and interactivity at Swinburne University of Technology. He says there's been an increase in people recognising that you can use games to improve your fitness and to be social. So let's be clear about the sector we're talking about: it appeals to a wide range of people. As much as I'm interested in the individual benefits of video gaming, it's the economic benefits that I want to focus on. It has huge potential for growth in our market—not as players but as developers. The last three Liberal governments have missed a massive opportunity to support this industry, and it's left us with an extremely small share of the global market, which is worth around $250 billion. The IGEA says game developers in Australia are unnecessarily disadvantaged. Every other developed nation has a government incentive package for game developers except Australia. I saw this with my own eyes when I visited Estonia, Finland and England in 2019. Scandinavia has deliberately set policies that expand its gaming industry, and it has expanded in a few short years. In Estonia, between 2014 and 2018, the number of game development businesses in this tiny country grew from 15 to 83 companies, and they began hosting major international game development conferences like Game Dev Day. They do hackathons for video games. They built a community that supports novice developers, which is something that we haven't nailed in Australia. In Finland I visited Angry Birds maker Rovio and talked about what had led their industry to take off. The last five years has seen the Finnish games industry almost breaking the two-billion-euro turnover barrier, with more than 290 games companies established—companies that really help each other out. And there's a public funding base, which allows risk-sharing and private investment in the games business. In the UK they use tax incentives to recharge the game sector. What's important to note, especially for my electorate on the outskirts of Sydney, is that more than half the jobs in the UK sector are outside London and the south-east. They're spread across the country. New Zealand has a package. Canada has a world-leading package. There are models around the world of what we could be doing, but we're doing almost nothing. In 2013 Labor launched the $20 million Interactive Games Fund, but it was shut down by the Abbott government the following year. We took another policy to the last election with a similar commitment. Two committees of this parliament have recommended support for the sector, but they have largely been ignored. There's some support at some state levels—in South Australia, in Victoria and a little bit in Queensland. Who would benefit from the growth in this sector? It's not just the games creators but it's also the software solutions people, the designers, the publishers and the advertising businesses. I had a local independent game developer in the Blue Mountains last year reach out to me, looking for support to get the marketing in place for a game he spent four years developing. The support and ecosystem is lacking. The universities can benefit from it with programs and modules directly related to the games industry. Of course, it flows over into cybersecurity and the film and animation sector. It creates jobs and it builds our exports. We are missing a huge opportunity. We need to see an absolute package of support for this sector from this government. 11:16 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper When I saw this motion, I was not surprised that the member for Gellibrand was a gamer. He falls right into the middle section there. An honourable member: It's a compliment. Mr CONAGHAN 279991 It is a compliment. I thank him for putting this motion on. You only need to look at today's The Australian newspaper article 'Richest 250 2021' where it says: Meet Laurence Escalante of Virtual Gaming Worlds, the fast car-obsessed new tech billionaire. He's a young Australian—once a Hungry Jack's burger flipper earning $5.95 an hour in his teenage years, now he's at the helm of Australia's tech unicorn success story and vaults into the business billionaire ranks for the first time. Sadly, despite being Perth based, all revenue is derived outside of Australia, mainly in northern America. This is why this motion is so important. That's only one of many, many stories. Regularly, even teenagers are making millions of dollars through their knowledge of gaming and through their knowledge of information technology. Even in my area, some time ago through the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme, approximately five years ago three businesses in my electorate applied for grants under that scheme and one of those was Port Macquarie David Kinney. He had a passion for gaming. David had an idea, but wasn't sure how to turn his dream into reality, but that all changed when he applied under this scheme and it provided support, including training, mentoring and income for job seekers who wanted to start their own business. He's now a very successful businessman who continues to engage and produce material for those looking in the gaming industry. In addition—and this is a very recent and wonderful program—I spoke to two young people in my electorate up in Coffs Harbour through the apprentice and scholarship organisation BUSY At Work. One of the businesses participating in the Commonwealth scholarship program is Tech Addicts. The director, Bec Donoghue, tells me that Tech Addicts is a Coffs Harbour business that builds, repairs and creates IT and technology solutions. They opened to serve the gaming community but soon opened a business arm that now provides support to businesses around the area. Bec was approached by Jen Smith, the regional scholarship coordinator of BUSY At Work. She was enthusiastic about being a part of the program. A 17-year-old Dane who I met is a scholarship recipient from the 2020 program. Last year, he completed his Certificate III in Information, Digital Media and Technology at TAFE, and now he is full-time employed in the area. Another recipient to receive the scholarship is Evan Mcdonald. Evan received his scholarship to study a Certificate IV in Digital and Interactive Games and has just re-applied to do the diploma. He is doing a paid internship working on social media presence, photography styling and website design with The Woodcraft Gallery in Bellingen. These are examples of this government's understanding and willingness to help businesses do what they do best, and that is operating and employing young people and getting them to succeed in life. But governments at all levels do need to do more. We have some very intelligent young people out there. We have kids who think of ideas that we could never imagine. As a proud father, I will give one very quick example. My 13-year-old came to me at Christmas time and said, 'Dad, I want to build a computer.' I thought it was a bit of a joke and said, 'You go and get a list of the parts and we'll talk about it.' Well, off he went and got a list of the parts, and he bought them online and built a computer. This is the pool of talent of young people that we have in our communities across Australia that we need to support. We need to work with them and engage them so that we can ensure that Australia is a leading nation, like the Netherlands and Switzerland, and ensure that there is a future for our young people. 11:21 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I'm very pleased to rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Gellibrand on the Australian gaming industry. But, before speaking to the motion on the Australian gaming industry, I want to put a couple of things on the record. The member for Gellibrand and I have had a couple of battles, we have had a couple of games—most recently in this building, when the Parliamentary Friends of Video Games had a competition here. One of the great local stories of the Australian gaming industry, Big Ant Studios—which I will come back to in a second—came and brought the Australian Open game, AO Tennis, which is one of my favourite games, and put it on here in this place. If memory serves me correctly, Deputy Speaker Rob Mitchell, I believe you were also there and competitive in AOTennis; the member for Chifley was there and was also competitive; and the member for Hotham was there—and she was slightly more competitive than the member for Chifley. The member for Gellibrand came in and, let the record show, he talked a very big game but didn't get the chocolates! Macnamara, which is the home to video gaming in Australia, rightly came out on top in AO Tennis. Macnamara is the home of video gaming in Melbourne. We have some amazing local producers and local stories, and I was proud to represent them on the court in that Parliamentary Friends of Video Games competition. Last week, the member for Gellibrand and I visited one of these amazing local producers, Big Ant Studios. Big Ant is a great local story. It started as a small operation with a few developers and it has consistently grown and grown because of the quality of Australian gaming. The quality of the product that Big Ant are producing means that they have grown and grown. They were recently acquired by French company Nacon, which is a reflection of the quality of the product that Big Ant have been producing. Some of the great games that Big Ant boast are the Rugby League Live series, the Don Bradman Cricket and Ashes Cricket series, the Australian Open, AO Tennis series—which I played and defeated the member for Gellibrand in—and many others. Ross Symons is the founder and is now the managing director or CEO of Big Ant. He is also a Carlton supporter, which I really respect and like about him. Big Ant are also now a major sponsor of the Carlton AFL women's team. So they are giving back to women's sport and they really are a part of the Australian sporting landscape. Walking through there and meeting some of the employees and seeing them turn the member for Gellibrand and me into video game characters was just brilliant. It was great to see the technology, the sophistication, no-how and skills of these local workers and local talents in our Australian gaming industry. Macnamara also has a number of others. We also have Sledgehammer Games, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Activision, one of the world's biggest gaming companies. They have an office in San Francisco and also an office in Melbourne. Some of the well-known titles include Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, Call of Duty WWII, and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare2, which is partly developed in Melbourne. The Arcade is the first not-for-profit collaborative workspace created specifically for game developers and creative companies, and they're based in South Melbourne. Also, PlaySide Studios is based in Port Melbourne, another of Australia's largest video game companies, and they can boast titles as Jumanji: Epic Run, The Lego Batman Movie and the Dumb Ways to Die series. So Macnamara clearly is the home of video gaming in Australia, but one thing that's coming loud and clear from the industry is that a little bit of support by government can turn into a whole lot of economic activity. If Australia is to compete on the international market of gaming, especially with the likes of Canada and other countries which are incentivising games, Australia needs to do better. Quite frankly, this government is not really supporting the industry as much as it could. A little bit of government investment would go a long way to create jobs and help build this wonderful local industry. Debate adjourned. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 128 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Tuberculosis 128 11:26 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) 24 March 2021 is World Tuberculosis (TB) Day, a day to commemorate precious lives lost and recognise the serious impacts COVID-19 is having on TB services globally; (b) TB remains one of the world's deadliest airborne infectious diseases, killing more than 4,000 people every day, among them 700 children, and close to 15 million people in the last decade; (c) COVID-19 is exacerbating inequalities, making it difficult to reach people with life-saving TB prevention and treatment; (d) five to eight years of global progress in the fight against TB is likely to be lost due to disruption of services resulting from COVID-19—1.4 million more people are likely to die from TB in the next five years if urgent action is not taken; (e) Australia committed to the targets agreed in the Political Declaration of the United Nations High Level Meeting (UNHLM) on TB in 2018; and (f) the UN Secretary-General's 2020 report found that progress in meeting the UNHLM targets on TB is far too slow to meet the 2022 deadline; (2) acknowledges that the: (a) Government's series of announcements of $1.1 billion to support global and regional COVID-19 response and recovery will save millions of lives; (b) Government pledge of $242 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund) will save millions of lives; (c) investment of $13.3 million from the Government in 2019 will support antimicrobial resistance and drug-resistant TB research in Pacific island countries; (d) Government's investment in TB research and development has resulted in the development of a new, 6 months, all-oral TB drug therapy thereby reducing the previous 18-month long treatment for drug resistant TB that consisted of multiple injections and thousands of pills; and (e) Government's investments in multilateral agencies such as the Global Fund has supported countries' responses to the COVID-19 crisis; and (3) calls on the Government to increase: (a) our TB investment in the Asia Pacific region to sustain routine TB services and safeguard the progress made so far; and (b) investment in TB research and development to meet the commitments made by Australia at the 2018 UHLM on TB. As the world battles with the COVID-19 pandemic, a silent and unspoken pandemic called tuberculosis continues to rage, killing more than 1.5 million people in 2019 alone, taking total TB deaths to more than 15 million in the last decade. In many countries, the COVID-19 pandemic is exacerbating inequalities and making it even harder to reach people with lifesaving TB prevention and treatment. According to the Stop TB Partnership, this could cause an additional 1.4 million deaths in the next five years if urgent action isn't taken. TB is both preventable and treatable, but the lack of resources is hampering access to the currently available treatments and the development of more effective treatments, diagnostics and vaccines. Global and Australian investments in TB are saving lives. For the first time in 40 years, we have new drugs for the multi-drug-resistant TB that can reduce treatment time from 18 months to six months, which is fantastic, but there's still a lot more that we need to do. We need faster diagnostic tools, shorter treatment regimes, and, most importantly, a more effective TB vaccine. Over the last 12 months, the world has come together to tackle COVID-19. In record time, we've developed effective vaccines, diagnostics and, to a limited extent, treatments. With global collaboration, political leadership and funding commitments, it is possible. We need a similar response to TB. Incredibly, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the introduction of the current TB vaccine, the BCG vaccine, highlighting the contrast in innovation rates to combat COVID-19 compared to other existing deadly diseases. Countries in our Asia-Pacific region have some of the highest rates of TB infections in the world and account for nearly half of all the cases of drug-resist TB and TB deaths worldwide. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, some of those countries are in the top 10 travel destinations for Australians and are major trading partners for Australia. TB has no respect for national borders. The reality is that, with modern travel, TB can be transmitted anywhere in the world in fewer than 24 hours. The distance between our outer Torres Strait islands and the coastal villages of the Western Province of Papua New Guinea, on a boundary to the northern part of my electorate, is fewer than four kilometres. The World Health Organization estimates there are roughly 38,000 TB cases every year in Papua New Guinea, but only 30,000 people are diagnosed for treatment, meaning that about 8,000 are either undiagnosed or unreported. I suggest that those numbers could be even significantly higher. TB is not a thing of the past or a problem elsewhere. It's very much a problem here and now in Australia. In fact, we had two Border Force officers in the last week or so diagnosed with TB from working up in the Torres Strait area, which is of concern. My own mother was afflicted with TB, and I know the profound impact it had on my family. Although the TB incidence rate in Australian-born cases is low, it's up to seven times higher in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Also concerning is a latent TB infection and reservoir of the TB epidemic. People with latent TB do not have symptoms and cannot infect others but can become ill and infectious when their immunity drops. There are an estimated one million latent TB infections, four per cent of our population, in Australia. The world TB clock is ticking and reminds us of the precious time we are losing and of the promises made to the United Nations high-level meeting on tuberculosis in September 2018, where countries, including Australia, pledged their support to end the TB epidemic. To mark the day, on 24 March, Results Australia is partnering with more than 40 local governments to light up red the town halls and public buildings, an act of solidarity for 1.5 million people who die from TB each year. A few hundred metres from us, Old Parliament House will be lit up to remind people in Canberra that TB is a current issue, and I'm certainly working on a site in my home town in Cairns. In many countries, including Australia, parliamentarians have shown cross-party support for the issue because we all agree that no-one should die of TB this century. It is a disease that has been neglected for too long. In 2021 it is critical for Australia to lead the fight against TB in the Asia-Pacific region, especially in the backdrop of COVID. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Is the motion seconded? 11:31 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I second the motion and will speak to it immediately. I am very pleased to second this motion, noting that 24 March is World Tuberculosis Day, which commemorates the precious lives lost to this disease and recognises the serious impacts that COVID-19 is having on TB services globally. World TB Day is an opportunity to remember the 1.4 million people who have lost their lives to tuberculosis in 2019 alone, reflect on our achievements and acknowledge the need for greater attention for one of the most devastating infectious diseases on the planet. TB remains one the world's deadliest infectious killers. Each day, nearly 4,000 lives are lost to TB and close to 28,000 people fall ill with this utterly preventable and curable disease. Global efforts to combat TB have saved an estimated 63 million lives since 2000. That's extraordinary. The member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, and I as co-chairs of the Australian TB Caucus acknowledge and thank our parliamentary colleagues for their bipartisan support and commitment to raising the profile and advocating for more investment into helping eliminate TB. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge and thank, especially, the member for Leichhardt, as it was his dedication and lobbying within his own government that helped secure Australia's pledge of $242 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. This global fund has saved, literally, millions of lives. Last year demanded that we have a collective focus on the COVID-19 pandemic and the emerging global health crisis. That has pushed the End TB program back and has put it at risk of not meeting the targets we expected. In many countries we're seeing resources for TB redirected to the COVID-19 response, and public demand for TB testing and treatment is also declining. Without urgent action, this has the potential to cause an additional 1.4 million TB related deaths over the next five years. A tuberculosis epidemic is raging in our nearest neighbour, Papua New Guinea. The country has the highest incidence of TB in the western Pacific region. It is currently experiencing 38,000 new cases a year. Multidrug-resistant TB rates are particularly high and especially so in some recognised hotspots, like Western Province, National Capital District and Gulf Province. Port Moresby General Hospital now has a dedicated ward for TB sufferers. Many of the TB patients in the Port Moresby hospital are young children, with reports that paediatric TB cases now make up more than a quarter of all cases in PNG. This is a tragic state of affairs, and it is crucial that Australia helps its immediate neighbour tackle this epidemic. These diseases are preventable, but what is needed to prevent them is funding. Given the proximity of PNG—I know the member for Leichhardt is acutely aware of the proximity of PNG to his own electorate—and the high prevalence rates in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in our Cape York region, Australia has a lot at stake to ensure that our neighbours in PNG are safe and that we are committed to ending TB in that nation as well. COVID-19 has demonstrated that no-one is safe until everyone is safe. It has also shown us that strong collaboration across countries, political commitment and funding can lead to rapid solutions for major health challenges, and we need a similar response to TB now. The 2021 World TB Day theme is 'The Clock is Ticking', and that reminds us that there is little time to lose if we're to live up to the promises that our leaders made at the United Nations high-level meeting on TB back in September 2018, where Australia pledged its support to end the TB epidemic. The government needs to continue and increase Australia's TB investment in the Asia-Pacific region in order to sustain work already being done there and to safeguard the progress that has been made so far. On behalf of the Australian TB Caucus, we want to thank our partners for organising 2021 World TB Day events, especially Results Australia for hosting the breakfast this year. We will be doing everything we can to eliminate TB. (Time expired) 11:34 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise in this chamber to support my good friend the member for Leichhardt on his motion to recognise World Tuberculosis Day, to be observed on 24 March, and to commemorate the lives lost from this dreadful disease. TB kills more than 4,000 people every day, among them 700 children. Close to 15 million people have died from TB in the last decade. It remains one of the world's deadliest airborne infectious diseases and the 10th most common cause of death worldwide, but it doesn't have to be. It is both preventable and curable. TB is one of the most common causes of death in many parts of the world, including Sub-Saharan Africa, parts of eastern Europe, South Asia and the Indo-Pacific region. Without an affordable diagnostic test and with the advent of multi-drug-resistant strains, worldwide efforts to curb the prevalence of TB still struggle. The journal The Lancet Respiratory Medicine published a study in 2018 which contained some chilling predictions. The study found that unless control efforts are stepped up tuberculosis will kill 28 million people between 2015 and 2030 and cost the global economy almost $1 trillion. The investigators based their estimates on a business-as-usual scenario in which progress continues on its present course. They noted that tuberculosis cost the world economy $616 billion from 2000 to 2015 and that economic losses in several countries in Africa and South-East Asia exceeded one per cent of gross domestic product—and we have to put this in context of COVID, where all of the world has pivoted to dealing with that deadly disease. The following 15 years are likely to be even more damaging. India is projected to lose $252 billion, and Lesotho and Mozambique face losing more than three per cent of GDP. The authors predicted that the overall cost of the disease will be $984 billion, almost a third of which will fall on Africa. Add to that the dual health and economic impacts of the recent COVID pandemic, and the negative impact particularly to the developing world is extremely concerning. While Australia has one of the lowest rates of tuberculosis, unfortunately it is far too common in our Pacific neighbours. We need to show leadership here. According to the World Health Organization, TB kills more people in Papua New Guinea than any other infectious disease. That's quite striking and extremely concerning. Due to the proximity of PNG, we know that this could easily become Australia's next health crisis, and that's why I thank the member for Leichhardt for his wonderful work in this area. He understands that it is particularly relevant to Far North Queensland where we have Indigenous communities more susceptible to TB. Australia's border is only four kilometres from PNG and there is significant travel between our countries in these remote communities—especially prior to COVID and this is expected to resume. But more than the health security risk of our closest neighbours, we have an international obligation to assist our Pacific neighbours, and I support the Morrison government's Pacific Step-up in this area. We are PNG's biggest partner in response to the rising threat of TB. In pre-COVID times I travelled with the member for Macnamara, who is here in the chamber, to PNG on a parliamentary learning tour with Save the Children, funded by the Gates foundation. While there, we visited clinics that're working to combat multidrug resistant TB and ensure proper screening and early detection. I was able to see firsthand how the assistance the Morrison government is providing to PNG is giving doctors and nurses the tools they need to reduce the recurrence of TB in their communities. In 2018 Australia committed to the targets agreed upon in the political declaration of the United Nations high-level meeting on TB. In 2020 a UN report found that progress in meeting these targets is currently far too slow to meet the 2022 deadline. This is very concerning. Further, in light of COVID it's possible we're going to lose five to eight years of global progress. More must be done. That is why the Morrison government has announced $1.1 billion of global support, as part of the COVID-19 response and recovery initiative, including a $242 million pledge to the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria, which will contribute to saving millions of lives. This is very important. I know it's a bipartisan supported initiative. In 2019 the government's $13.3 million pledge of support for antimicrobial resistant and drug-resistant TB research in the Pacific Island countries resulted in the development of a new TB drug therapy that is all oral and avoids having to use multiple injections and thousands of pills. These sorts of initiatives are incredibly important in these developing countries. I commend this motion to the House. 11:41 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I am very pleased to join my colleagues and previous speakers in supporting the member for Leichhardt's motion on this really important issue around tuberculosis. The member for Higgins is correct, she and I, and others, travelled to Papua New Guinea in 2019. We went to the Port Moresby General Hospital. We actually went to the children's TB ward in Port Moresby general. While the member for Higgins has spent a career and a lifetime in the medical profession and has spent a lot of time in hospitals, for me it was a visit that I'll never ever forget. Walking in to Port Moresby general was pretty confronting. It was basically the size of a basketball court, with bed after bed after bed of children who had contracted tuberculosis, and many of them drug-resistant tuberculosis. To see the efforts and the struggle that many of them had to go through over time was pretty heartbreaking. Some of those children had been in that ward for almost 12 months. That is a long time to get better. It is a long time to stay in one spot. It is a long journey to recover from this awful disease. I think one of the most devastating parts of tuberculosis is that it is preventable and it is curable. While these young children were forced to stay on this really difficult regime of medical treatment, many children never make it to Port Moresby General Hospital, many children never make it to that level of care and many children never make it. Australia is doing good work. Australia is doing good work in Papua New Guinea and the more the better in this case. I don't think that we should rest on what we've done but continue to partner with our friends and family in Papua New Guinea, in other parts of the Pacific and all across the world to bring an end to this awful, awful disease. I want to take the rest of my time to also comment on the other looming health challenge that is presenting itself in Papua New Guinea at the moment and that is over the last fortnight we have seen a spike in coronavirus cases in Papua New Guinea. To give you a sense of the scale of the issue—my friend Professor Brendan Crabb, from the Burnet Institute, has written a piece for The Conversation in the last 24 hours going through some of the issues—Papua New Guinea has only conducted 55,000 tests since the start of this pandemic. In Victoria alone, we've conducted over five million tests. That gives you a sense of the scale of the testing that's going on in Papua New Guinea. Seventeen per cent of those 55,000 tests are coming back positive. There is a massive shortage of testing going on, and the percentage of people who are testing positive for the coronavirus is extraordinary. This is far more widespread than what is being reported—and it is on our doorstep. As we have seen in the UK, Brazil, California and South Africa, where the coronavirus is allowed to spread it then forms mutations. The last thing we want to see on our doorstep is the devastation of the coronavirus in our own backyard, for our friends and family in Papua New Guinea, and another mutation of this virus in numbers that are inconceivable—and, to be frank, we don't even know the full extent of them. Professor Crabb mention that we have committed to the COVAX program, which is good, but there really is more that we need to do. The remoteness of Papua New Guinea and the remoteness of the population means vaccinating people is a huge logistical challenge. We are already seeing in Australia the difficulty of the logistics of rolling out hundreds of thousands of vaccines. In Papua New Guinea, that difficulty is multiplied tenfold. We need to be providing more PPE to people. We need to make sure the Papua New Guineans are armed with the best and most sophisticated information to help them. Most of all, we need to stand with them and help them through this really difficult time and this awful health crisis. 11:47 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I thank the member for Leichhardt for moving this important motion. We used to speak about diseases on rare occasions. A friend getting sick focused our gaze, certainly, but more broadly, barring annual discussions of flu shots or the constant battle to outsmart cancer, there wasn't a society-wide focus on any one disease. Of course, 2020 has up-ended that idea and now disease is the first and last thing we talk about with every conversation. It has taken a deadly disease to bring us out of our stupor. But what we forget is that other diseases with terrible mortality rates are circling the world at any one moment. The difference is that these other pandemics don't happen here; they affect people elsewhere. Many of these pandemics have cures and, in developed countries like ours, only appear in textbooks. But they are out there, they are deadly and they are devastating in countries with less money and poorly managed healthcare facilities. Tuberculosis is a case in point. Largely cured in Australia, it remains an overlooked threat around the world. As the motion declares, TB remains one of the world's deadliest airborne infectious diseases, killing more than 4,000 people every day. Many more people than Australia has lost to COVID in total are lost to TB every day. The exciting thing about TB is that we can treat it and deprive it of its pandemic status. The world has committed to bring TB under control through the leadership of the UN. Unfortunately, though, as with many health crises that hit undeveloped countries, the actions of the world are so often inferior to the words and ideals of the politicians and diplomats. Australia has a duty to help not just because the Pacific is one of the world's worst-affected areas. Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population continues to record TB rates around six times higher than the Australian-born non-Indigenous population. I'm proud to say that we are stepping up in Australia, in the region and around the world. Locally we have maintained our record of good TB control, after bringing it to heel in the mid-eighties. Since then we've sustained a low annual TB incidence rate of approximately five or six cases per 100,000 population. In the region, we're also stepping up. This government is providing over $21 million to the Queensland government to provide services through the national partnership agreement managing Torres Strait and Papua New Guinea cross-border health issues in the Torres Strait Islands, which includes the management of TB. Papua New Guinea remains our most significant bilateral TB investment with over $60 million provided since 2011. Additionally, Australia has committed over $47 million between 2018 to 2022 to the prevention, detection and treatment of TB through the Indo-Pacific health security initiative. But it is on the global front where we can have the greatest impact, as the dollars we contribute here are echoed by others to create an impressive multinational commitment to counter this disease. The government continues to invest in key multilateral, regional and bilateral programs to end the tuberculosis epidemic. At the recent 73rd World Health Assembly, Australia reaffirmed its commitment to ending the TB epidemic globally by 2030, in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the End TB Strategy. To date, Australia has contributed over $830 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, with a further $242 million pledged across 2020 and 2022. We have also committed $57.7 million to the World Bank's Multi-Donor Trust Fund to support countries' progress towards universal health coverage, including for TB services. As the motion discusses, next Wednesday is World Tuberculosis Day. We all commemorate the lives lost and commit ourselves to curtailing the future spread of this terrible disease. With COVID slowly coming under control, we must remember that there are other diseases out there that need our attention and need more focus after we have ignored them while fighting COVID. But COVID also remains with us. With resolve and dedication we can come together to fight pandemics and turn them around in a few short years. (Time expired) 11:52 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith World Tuberculosis Day is 24 March. Tuberculosis is such a scourge on our community that in this day and age we are still talking about it. Many Australians believe that this disease was eradicated in the 20th century, that we got rid of tuberculosis all around the world, but that's not the case. Tuberculosis is actually a disease that is rampant, and it is particularly rampant in poorer countries. We know that 4,000 people die from tuberculosis every day and that over 60 per cent of the world's TB cases are right here in our backyard in the Asia-Pacific region. Most of these cases are both treatable and preventable. Drug-resistant tuberculosis remains an ongoing public health crisis for our neighbours, particularly our neighbours to the north, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. I can recall when Labor was in government, as the parliamentary secretary for the pacific islands, I went to Daru, in the western province of Papua New Guinea, on the Fly River, and opened the new tuberculosis clinic, which was funded by the Gillard government. It's still in operation and still providing that vital service for those communities that live in that rural setting along the Fly River. It also has a boat that travels up and down the river providing outreach services for patients and bringing them back to the clinic for treatment. But more needs to be done. More needs to be done in our region and more needs to be done internationally. With the serious impacts of COVID-19, we know that broader access to TB services now is harder than it has ever been. We see across our region a common theme of TB and inequality, where a lack of nutrition, poor sanitation and unsafe working environments all contribute to the stark reality of tuberculosis in 2021. The COVID pandemic has seen these inequalities worsen and has raised further barriers to life-saving TB prevention and treatment. Across the world, the poorest households and the most marginalised individuals bear the biggest burden and are at most risk of contracting tuberculosis. Indigenous people suffer TB at a rate 270 times that of non-Indigenous populations. Migrants, the homeless, prisoners and people living with HIV are especially vulnerable to TB. When the poor are vulnerable, they try to access health care to treat their TB. It is no surprise that they become poorer as a result of the financial strain of the treatment required. That medical poverty trap can be seen across those individuals and groups that are particularly vulnerable to tuberculosis. Studies have shown that increasing financial pressure associated with TB treatment has meant patients were more likely to abandon treatment or have the treatment fail or simply, unfortunately, pass away. Aside from the pairing of poverty and TB, TB also leads to a lack of access to adequate health facilities, including fast diagnosis and effective medicines. We have been talking about trying to get tuberculosis under control for too long, for way too long. It's a primary health concern that is particularly pervasive in our region. The time has come for the world to get together to try and find a workable treatment for tuberculosis. The number of invasive drugs that people used to have to take has been decreasing but, surely, the world can put its mind to developing a workable vaccine for tuberculosis? We have seen how quickly the world has acted in response to COVID-19. Tuberculosis has been around for a much longer time and is much more deadly, particularly in poorer countries throughout the world. It is time that we apply the expertise, the know-how and the willingness that we have shown around a COVID vaccine to the development of a vaccine for tuberculosis, for better treatment and better access to healthcare services, particularly in those poorer countries, most of which, unfortunately, are in our region in the Asia-Pacific. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. MOTIONS 133 MOTIONS Economic and Social Measures 133 11:57 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I move: That this House: (1) recognises that after over 7 years of this Government, Australia is falling behind the rest of the world on numerous key measures of economic and social success; (2) notes that, in relation to: (a) the economy, even before the COVID-19 pandemic the Government had badly mismanaged the economy with reputable data and global rankings showing that: (i) real wages in Australia were 0.7 per cent lower in 2019 compared to 2013, with Australia ranked third last out of 35 OECD countries to wage growth; (ii) over 8 years of the current Government, Australia's productivity rate has been steadily declining, from 2013 when Australia ranked tenth among 34 OECD nations, to 2018 when Australia ranked fifth last; (iii) Australian household debt as a share of GDP sits at 119.4 per cent of GDP, the second highest rate out of 41 countries assessed; (iv) Australia is now the third most unaffordable housing market within the OECD; and (v) Australia is lagging behind in the jobs recovery from this recession; (b) education outcomes: (i) Australian children's educational outcomes have slipped in both national and international terms, with Australia slipping in science and mathematics outcomes; and (ii) OECD data confirms Australia has high tertiary tuition costs by global standards with the average annual borrowing by Australian students in tertiary programs rising by 36.7 per cent in just four years; (c) environmental outcomes: (i) Australia's rate of greenhouse gas emissions per capita has been the highest in the world; (ii) Australia ranks second worst globally for government climate policy; (iii) by 2018 Australia ranked 18 out of 25 of the world's top energy-consuming countries with sharp declines from 2014 and 2016; and (iv) Australia has the second highest level of biodiversity deterioration in the world; and (d) numerous other measures, Australia is falling behind and ranks poorly, for instance: (i) First Nations Australians have the lowest life expectancy amongst First Nations people globally; (ii) Australia now ranks only 8 out of 11 high-income countries for healthcare affordability; (iii) Australia now ranks sixth worst in the OECD for obesity rates; (iv) Australia's global ranking for the proportion of women in the lower house of the national parliament fell from a high of thirty-second place in 2010 to forty-eighth place in 2019, noting that only 23 per cent of the entire coalition Government party room are women; (v) Australia is ranked sixty-first globally for fixed broadband speeds; (vi) investment in research and development in Australia has fallen significantly as a percentage of GDP under the current Government; and (vii) Australia has become more corrupt under this Prime Minister, slipping to eleventh place on the Corruption Perception Index; (3) acknowledges that with a possible federal election this year, Australians have a right to question: (a) how well they are doing under this visionless Government; and (b) whose side the Government is on; and (4) condemns the Government for spending $1 billion of taxpayer funds on government advertising, racking up over one trillion dollars' worth of debt with nothing to show for it and wasting the economic recovery. This motion makes clear that Australia is falling behind the rest of the world and going backwards under the Liberals. I am old-fashioned, compared to the Deputy Prime Minister at least. I believe facts still matter and that the evidence is clear. In the eighth year of this tired, pointless government over there, we have got enough data in now to assess their actual record. How is Australia actually faring comparing to other countries? How are Australians actually doing in the eighth year of this government? The conclusions are stark. From independent, reputable data from the OECD and other international sources, we have global rankings—like the Olympics of developed nations—to see how we're measuring up. Are we progressing or are we falling behind? The conclusion—it is fair to say—is that Australia is less productive, more unequal, more corrupt, less happy, more indebted, less affluent and less trusting of public institutions than we were when this Liberal government was elected in 2013. Let's look at the economy. The government—the Liberals—love to claim they are great economic managers. 'We're leading the world,' we're told all the time. 'We're going great; it is tickety-boo.' It is simply not true when you look at the facts and scratch behind the marketing spin that the Prime Minister gives us. Have a look at wages. From when the government was elected in 2013 to six years later, 2019, real wages had fallen in Australia. In 2019, Australia sat—this is before COVID; they can't hide behind COVID—third-last place in the OECD out of 35 countries for wage growth. The government's only answer is new laws to allow bosses to cut wages further and to get rid of penalty rates. Look at housing affordability: while wages have been going backwards, we are now the third most unaffordable housing market in the OECD because prices have been rising much faster than wages. This is a disaster for society. We've seen house prices in Melbourne and Sydney go up by two per cent month on month. It is terrible. The only housing affordability policy this government has had was Malcolm Turnbull saying 'You should get rich parents to give you a deposit.' They've had no minister for years and, now that they have got one, it was probably better when they didn't have one. They have come up with their bathroom renovation scheme, which is their only answer. A bunch of nutty backbenchers are telling us that people should be able to withdraw their superannuation to buy a house. That's like pouring petrol on a fire. All that will see is house prices rise further. It's like getting a vacuum cleaner into your superannuation account and sucking the cash straight into the pockets of the guy selling the house. That's all they've got. Third worst in the world. Productivity: it's the special source of the economy and it's how much value we squeeze out of every hour and every bit of resourcing we put in. In 2013, when Labor left office, Australia's productivity was growing at 1.7 per cent a year. We were the 10th highest in the world out of the 34 OECD nations. Six years on under this mob before COVID—they can't hide behind COVID—Australian productivity growth was negative. It was the fifth last in the OECD. That's shocking. Household debt was 119.4 per cent of GDP—that is, the second highest out of 43 countries. Business investment went down 26 per cent under the Liberals, and 85 per cent of that decline was before the pandemic. You could use GDP per capita. Whichever measure you look at, it belies their claim, their propaganda and their myth that Liberals are great economic managers. It's not true. They say, 'We might be mean, nasty and fight each other, but we're good economic managers.' Well, it's not true. The government will hate this motion. It's full of inconvenient facts, and they don't like to deal in facts. They're desperate not to talk about their actual record of failure in their eighth year. The problem for the government is that no amount of spin or marketing will help. There's the $1 billion of taxpayer funded advertising that they've blown since they were elected. Not even any amount of idiotic photos of the Prime Minister playing dress-ups and building things—remember the chook shed? You could fit the whole WA Liberal Party into the chook shed now—with the daggy dad persona and the personal photographer will cover up their actual record of failure. As the motion shows, when you look at education, our kids are going backwards compared to the rest of the world in science and maths. Tuition fees are up by 36 per cent in four years for university courses. We're eight out of 11 high-income countries going backwards. Australia ranks 61st globally for broadband speeds. They stuffed the NBN and told blatant lies about its cost. On the proportion of women in parliament, only 23 per cent of the Australian party room are women. First Nations Australians have the lowest life expectancy. On every measure, when you look at the facts, not the spin and marketing, Australia has gone backwards under the Liberals. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Is the motion seconded? 12:02 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 12:02 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan I actually want to thank the member for Bruce for this particular motion. Why? Because he has given me a fantastic opportunity to speak against the motion by speaking about all the significant achievements of the Morrison government. It's unfortunate we've only got five minutes, because I am unable to list them all, quite frankly. There has been so much significant achievement by the Morrison government protecting Australians through the COVID pandemic and now leading the COVID-19 recovery. What we saw from the member for Bruce was a lot of ranting and posturing, quite frankly, but, honestly, the member for Bruce requires his own fact-checker just for him, because some of the stuff that he purports to represent is just so patently false. I'm very happy to go into that a little more in a moment, but we all know those people in our lives who refuse to grow up. Well, the member for Bruce is that in this place. The guy seems to be unable to graduate from student politics quite frankly, so he leads these ridiculous motions just so that he can rant and rave about facts that are simply incorrect. What are the facts? In 2020 the Australian economy outperformed all other major advanced economies. Let's say that again: in 2020 the Australian economy outperformed all other major advanced economies across the world during the COVID-19 pandemic. First of all, that's completely opposite to what the member for Bruce would have you believe and what he is trying to claim as fact, which it is not. The fact that Australia is world leading—why has that occurred?—isn't just luck, I can tell you that. It's good management by the Morrison government, the Prime Minister and others, including the executive team, as we went through the COVID-19 pandemic. Now our economy continues on its way up. Recently, the national accounts showed that, for the first time since records began, GDP growth has been above three per cent for two consecutive quarters and business confidence is at its highest level in 11 years. So, quite simply, what the member for Bruce put on the table and would have you believe simply isn't correct. Australia is in a much stronger position because of the Morrison Liberal-National coalition government. It would certainly have been in a weaker position if the member for Bruce had his way and we had $387 billion worth of extra taxes on the books when we hit COVID-19—that's for sure. The idea that Labor are better economic managers simply does not hold up to scrutiny. Let's look at a few of the portfolios that the member for Bruce mentions in the motion. On education, the guaranteed funding commitment of this government is an investment of $315 billion in schools over the next decade. This increases the average funding per student by 60 per cent over the decade from previous levels. On health, federal funding provided by the Morrison government for public hospitals will more than double when compared to what Labor were able to achieve. We all remember when they were in government and they couldn't even list lifesaving medicines for Australians on the PBS because fiscal constraints didn't allow it. Labor put $13.3 billion into health in 2012-13. It's now $29.9 billion. What a stark record that Labor members opposite should be absolutely ashamed of. We have our record on bulk billing as well. More Australians are now seeing their doctor without having to pay. Nearly nine out of 10 visits to the GP are now free, because this government is looking after all Australians. Nearly 143 million free GP services were delivered last year alone. From 2021, the Australian government is investing $110 billion over 10 years on infrastructure. We're upgrading major highways and we're busting urban congestion, including in my electorate of Ryan, with some really important projects, making public transport better, such as through the Brisbane Metro, and we're upgrading our airports. Importantly, we're not just busting congestion and getting people home to their families safer but also creating jobs right across this country. Our record on the environment is also something I'm incredibly proud of. Our emissions are lower than when we came to government in 2013. We beat our 2020 Kyoto targets by more than 459 million tonnes. The facts simply do not bear out what the member for Bruce is claiming. It simply shows the Morrison coalition government is working for all Australians and Australia is in a better place, economically and financially, because of the Morrison government. 12:07 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to second the important motion moved by my friend the member for Bruce. It's an important motion which reflects important work that he has done and highlights the dismal record of the Morrison government—the government previously led by Malcolm Turnbull and by Tony Abbott. I wouldn't say this very often, but it was interesting to hear the contribution from the member for Ryan, who announced with some fervour at the start of his contribution that he would struggle to detail all the wonderful achievements of this government in five minutes. I reckon he would have struggled to spend a minute of his time talking about this government's record. That's not his fault; that is the fault of the government. I'm going to touch on just a few elements which go to that and go to the alternative. Of course, members of the government are entitled to their views, but, as the member for Bruce and his work sets out, they are not entitled to their facts. They should also do us and the Australian people the courtesy of setting out their vision for recovery as well as justifying the decisions they've taken, rather than just hiding behind the good decisions of our state and territory governments, and I think they can look abroad for some guidance. We note that, this week, Mathias Cormann, a former minister in this government, has been elected as Secretary-General of the OECD. I've had the opportunity to consider the vision statement that he set out in support of his candidacy. He starts with a very interesting phrase—a phrase that the Prime minister will find familiar: 'I am ambitious for the OECD.' That is a familiar phrase, I think you will recall, Deputy Speaker Bird. If only, though, the Prime Minister were as ambitious for Australians as he is for himself, because that really nails it. This marketing man, with no concern for public policy, no concern for community and no plan to manage the economy, is really only ambitious for himself. The vision statement of Mr Cormann went on. He wants to lead an OECD, which is 'the world's centre of excellence for credible, evidence-based economic analysis, advice and policy guidance'. The OECD has provided us with much credible evidence-based economic analysis, all of which has been or is being ignored by this government to the detriment of our economic growth and our productivity growth and, most importantly, to the detriment of ordinary Australians, who rely on having a government that is on their side now more than ever. As we look to the future, this becomes even more stark. Mr Cormann's statement went on to talk about the importance of shaping policies for future prosperity and stability. He said: Through the OECD, we can come together to share ideas about our collective green recovery effort on our journey towards a low emissions future. As Secretary-General I will strive to make the OECD a place that inspires collaboration and action in support of a sustainable future. What an extraordinary statement for one of the architects of the disastrous and damaging climate policy this government has imposed on Australians today and Australians into the future. What an extraordinary indictment on the role that he has played to all of our detriment. The OECD itself has just issued an interim economic update, which makes concerning reading. It shows how far behind Australia is compared to the rest of the OECD in our journey towards recovery this year and next year. It sets out three priorities for what governments can do. Firstly, vaccinate fast. Well, we remember the Prime Minister telling us that we were in the front of the queue, yet every day we slip further and further back. Concerningly, the plans to manage the rollout don't seem to have taken into account the challenges around Australia's population distribution and composition more broadly. Secondly, invest fast. We know that, despite the rhetoric, this government's record when it comes to infrastructure investment is appalling. We've slipped from the top of the charts when Labor was in government to near the bottom, with no plan for recovery. This is particularly important in areas that I represent, that the member for Fraser represents and that the member for Spence represents—areas which need infrastructure investment to allow people to access opportunity and amenity in recovery. Thirdly, support people. This is a government that have left too many people behind. They were dragged kicking and screaming to a wage subsidy scheme. They've cut too many people out of JobKeeper and JobSeeker support, and even now they are moving to take supports away. I urge every member opposite to consider the report the member for Bruce has done and ask themselves whether they are proud of what they have done through this pandemic and beforehand. Australians deserve a government that is on their side, a government which sees this country as it is and has a vision for how it should be and will fight to get there—an Albanese Labor government. 12:13 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm The member for Bruce has moved this motion with absolutely no consideration for Australia's strong economic recovery. Last week, national accounts confirmed that a strong broad-based recovery is well underway. Australia's economy grew by a massive 3.1 per cent in the December quarter, having been outperformed only by the 3.4 per cent rise in the quarter preceding it. To date we have recovered around 85 per cent of the economy that existed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The coalition government's HomeBuilder package has driven investment, seeing a rise of 4.1 per cent. Our business tax incentives have seen business investment expanded by 2.6 per cent. Meanwhile, machinery and equipment investment has risen by 8.1 per cent. These are extraordinary numbers, and we are beating all forecasts. While MYEFO forecast an unemployment rate of 7.5 per cent in the March quarter of 2021, the RBA is now predicting the unemployment rate to be six per cent by the end of 2021. These economic indicators are strong and a sign that our economy is recovering. It's not just the national economy. All of Australia's states and territories have seen their economies start to grow again. This is fantastic. Sadly, through the COVID-19 pandemic, 1. 3 million Australians lost their jobs or saw their hours reduced. It is wonderful to hear that 94 per cent of those people are now back at work. The job certainly isn't done but these indicators are good. The Prime Minister and all members of his cabinet should be congratulated for their strong leadership during these tough times. Not only is Australia's economic recovery well underway, but the Morrison government is also putting the framework in place to drive the improvements in education which will see our country prosper well into the future. The Morrison government understands that Australia's fortunes tomorrow depend on the quality of our education system today, which is why we are continuing to deliver record funding for higher education and for Australian schools in all sectors. But we also know that funding alone is not the answer to improving student outcomes. To achieve sustainable results, we need to invest in long-term strategic reform in areas which are proven to have the greatest impact. That's where the 2019 National School Reform Agreement comes in. By working with the states and territories, we can deliver real and practical change for Australian students, lifting outcomes across our schools and across the nation. The focus is threefold: supporting students, supporting our hardworking teachers and building the national evidence base. We know that there is room for improvement in our education system. Australia can do better, but the way forward is by delivering increased funding and by working with our state and territory governments, whether they be Labor or Liberal-National. That's what we are doing. The member for Bruce can take pot-shots if he likes. We will just get on with the job. The upshot of our focus on the economy is that we can continue to guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on; we can continue to fund health and education at record levels; and we can deliver on plans that will see Australia remain strong and grow even stronger in the future. That's why it is so important to see that the coalition government, the Morrison government, is working for all Australians. 12:17 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I'm an economist by training and, from experience, I know all too well that, in this day and age, we're subjected to a blizzard of economic announcements. Every day there's some new statistic that we are bombarded with. But I also know all too well that it's so important to look behind all of these figures at what really matters. This government also knows all too well about the cacophony of economic announcements that are being put out constantly and it has have become the masters at cherry-picking all of these many statistics. Whether it's real GDP, nominal GDP, the participation rate or whatever it might be, this government has become masterful at cherry-picking and spinning all these numbers. What the government intentionally doesn't do is dig beneath the surface and ask which of these numbers really matter for people and which of these numbers really reflect what's going on in households in the communities that we represent. When you look beneath the many statistics out there and ask what's going on at the household you see that, for many years, our economy has been going backwards. Let's look at a basic measure of what's going on at the household level—real household disposable income. This fell by one per cent in the quarter leading up to March 2020. That's pre-COVID. So, before COVID hit, before we had to deal with any of that, our economy was going backwards according to a measure that really matters for households: how much disposable income they have got to spend on the things that matter to them. Indeed, even more scary than that, even more appalling than that, is the fact that with this measure real household disposable income was 0.5 per cent lower in that quarter than it was in December 2011. That's almost a decade. This government, now well into its third term, over its many years of governing this country, has seen real household disposable income—not stalling—going backwards. This is the worst performance we have seen on this very important measure since the Great Depression. We are not talking about COVID. We're talking about year after year after year of going backwards on this measure. We're talking about year after year after year going backwards on real wages. The worst performance on real wages we've seen under this government since records were kept. Let's not get caught up in all of the many, many statistics that this government can cite. Let's look at what's going on for real individuals and their wages. Let's look at what's going on for households, in terms of their disposable income. This government has failed. It's only population growth that's keeping many of our numbers at any respectable level. But, of course, population growth doesn't help a household. The fact that Australia is experiencing far faster population growth than other major OECD countries doesn't put food on the table. It doesn't lead to more dollars in your pocket. In fact, in per capita terms under this government's watch we had a major per capita recession in 2017-18. Again, well before COVID. And, of course, we've had a major one since COVID. Once population growth is stripped away this government's performance is appalling. According to the International Monetary Fund between 2013 and 2019 Australia's aggregate GDP grew by 15.7 per cent, that ranked third among OECD countries. But once you strip away population growth our ranking falls considerably. Once you take population growth out we grew, in per person terms, by just a little over five per cent. We were third last amongst major OECD countries. That's what people feel in their pockets. That's what people feel in terms of their living standards. We were barely better than Italy. The country of my birth I might say, but not a country whose recent governments inspire great confidence in terms of economic management. When you look at it in per capita terms, which matters to real people and tells you about what's happening in their lives, during the course of this government's administration we rank barely better than Italy. How do we fix this? Well, everybody agrees you only turn this around, you only see sustainable growth in wages and in household disposable income, if you fix productivity growth. Productivity growth under this government is low and it's falling. They haven't engaged in microeconomic reform. They haven't engaged in serious investment in infrastructure. They haven't improved business confidence to the point where they're undertaking R&D and investment. What we see is this government will spin numbers. They'll tell us all sorts of things about real GDP, nominal GDP, aggregate numbers of this and that but when it comes to what households are feeling, when it comes to measures that really matter—real wages and the real disposable income that households experience—things have been going backwards for a decade under this government and that's not good enough. 12:24 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The question before the chair is that the motion be agreed to. I give the call to the member for— 12:24 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash Monash. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Monash. Mr BROADBENT MT4 I know you're used to the former seat of McMillan, Deputy Chair, but it's Monash. I'm very pleased that that remarkable change has taken place, which we've worked on for many years—to have the seat changed from McMillan to Monash. To go from one to the other has been pretty good. Just looking at this motion by Mr Hill—and he is the member for Bruce, not that I didn't know that I was just checking whether you knew! I have got up to 41 negatives that he has accused the government of and, therefore, the nation of. Twenty-four negative statements and not one positive statement. When the world has faced one of the greatest calamities it has ever faced—international debacle; millions of people losing their lives; hundreds of millions losing their jobs, their livelihoods, their businesses, their opportunity; kids missing out on education right around the world. I stand here today and I look around this nation and I understand what Julian Hill is talking about when he talks about these negatives and that things were running a bit rough beforehand. But I've been here long enough to be under quite a few Labor governments and quite a few Liberal governments, and these somewhat broad accusations that affect the daily household lives of individuals—that's what we're here for, how this affects individuals and the opportunities they're going to get into the future. I have to say, if they're the negatives, why isn't there one dot in here of policy to say, 'As an opposition we think you're wrong, but this is what we'd do'? There are 24 negatives, no positives and no proposition. You'll reply, 'We'll lay that out, before the people of Australia, before the next election.' Don't come in here and just denigrate the nation, Julian. Don't come in here, the member for Bruce, and just say, 'Look, here are all the things I've written down that my staff have found to be wrong.' Don't go to the Prime Minister—and I say this to my constituents and others—and say, 'Here's the problem.' We know the problem. The members of this House are like ordinary people. They live the problems. We may be privileged, and I understand that. In the broader community we are privileged. But it doesn't mean we are not rubbing shoulders every day with the people we represent. It doesn't mean we don't work every day on their behalf. It doesn't mean we don't understand their goals, their goals for their children, their goals for opportunities not only for their young children but for their grown children. To see families now worrying about their 40-year-old children who don't have jobs, whose businesses are failing, I am concerned, like every member here. What will be the case in a month's time when JobKeeper starts to be wound back? What really will happen? It's not about what Treasury thinks might happen or what we gloss over on what might happen. In my electorate of Monash I am dealing with real people, real businesses, real jobs. I am rather proud of governments of this nation, both state and federal, in the way they have had to respond very quickly. Were they going to make mistakes? Amen, yes, they were. I say to everybody who wants to sincerely criticise the leaders of this nation: what would you have done on that day, at that time, when confronted with exactly the same propositions? What would the member for Bruce have done had he been in a leadership position when he was confronted with these propositions? Perhaps he wouldn't be sitting down spending hours a day working with his staff to find every negative to bring this nation down. I'm not going to do that. I'm going to build the nation up. I'm going to build my electorate up. I'm going to be proud of my state of Victoria and be proud of this nation as it fits into the world. Hopefully, we will be able to stand tall around the world and be a beacon of light for them to say, 'This is the way you should go if you want to manage your economy.' 12:28 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons The great irony of the member for Monash's contribution is he had five minutes in which he could outline the great positives of the economic performance of this government, and he used his entire five minutes to put down the report put out by the member for Bruce! It was an entirely negative speech from the member for Monash, full of rhetoric but there's nothing concrete in it. I would like to commend the member for Bruce for putting forward this motion and for the important research he has done that puts hard numbers to what we all know. I do take the member for Monash's point that we are dealing with real people facing real life situations, not just statistics. But the statistics, the numbers, are the broader picture of what is happening down at ground level. The numbers do not lie. These numbers show dispassionately, factually, without spin, without agenda, that Australia has gone backwards under eight years of Liberal government, eight years of Liberal mismanagement and gross economic incompetence. The research—the facts—rips away the veil. It exposes the Liberals as economic charlatans unfit to govern this country. We already know that the Liberals are a party lacking in both moral and ethical leadership, drowning in rorts and scandals, and with a Prime Minister unwilling to act because his office sits at the centre of the entire stink. Now, thanks to the member for Bruce, we can also put hard figures to the argument that the Liberals are also lacking in economic credibility. Despite the rotting stench that lies at the heart of this Liberal government, there are many in the community who, in the absence of this report, would hold their nose and say to themselves, 'The Liberals might be rotten, they might be cruel, they might be wrecking aged care and the NDIS, they might be literally stealing money from pensioners under robodebt, but at least they can manage the economy.' That's what people have been told for years—that the Liberals are the better economic managers and you can't trust Labor with money. That's the mantra we've all grown up with. It's been driven into people's brains as truth, but it is fairytale. This report—the facts—strips away this fiction. The Liberals are not better economic managers. The Australian economy did better under Labor. Australian workers and their families did better under Labor, and they will do better under Labor again. Since the 2013 election Australian wages, under a Liberal government, have either stagnated or fallen. The only reason the gap between women's and men's wages has narrowed slightly is that men's wages aren't rising. In real terms Australians now earn almost one per cent less than they did eight years ago. Think about that. Eight years ago you were earning a wage and eight years later you are earning almost one per cent less. It is unfathomable. Australia, under the Liberals, is third-last of the 35 OECD countries on wages growth. What a record! We have a new OECD secretary-general on the way, and I think he was the one who went on TV and said low wages growth was a deliberate feature of the economic architecture of this government. So hopefully the new OECD secretary-general is well placed to provide some advice to this government about how to get wages moving in this country. Under the Liberals, Australia now has the third-most-unaffordable housing market in the OECD. In Tasmania, my state, with the end of the National Rental Affordability Scheme we have pensioners literally being evicted this week and moving into cars and tents because there is nowhere to go. Just think about that. They have safe secure housing now but, because they can't afford the rent, which is going up to a commercial rent, they are being evicted—pensioners being evicted and going to live in cars and tents. It is an absolute disgrace that is happening under Liberal leadership here in Canberra and in Tasmania. Under the Liberals, Australia is less productive. Micro-economic reform and productivity are the key to growth. Under this government, Australia has gone backwards. When Labor left office Australia was the 10th-most-productive nation in the OECD. Eight years of Liberal mismanagement has seen us slip to fifth-last. We need to do better. (Time expired) 12:33 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley I have literally just run into this chamber after being out the front of Parliament House at the March 4 Justice today. It's a march and a rally where women are asking for their voices to be heard. They're just asking for some acknowledgement, particularly from the Morrison government and the Prime Minister, about the experiences that too many women have on the streets, in restaurants, in nightclubs, in their homes and in their workplaces that have their genesis in gender inequality and that manifest as harassment, assault and often, tragically, as rape. We are at a pivotal moment. We have been at pivotal moments in our history before, and we are at one now. As my colleague the member for Holt reminds me, and as others have said, it's a reflection point. This is a time not just to use the words 'gender equality' and not just to use the language of empathy; it's a time to live gender equality and a time to live empathy. It's a time to be kind to ourselves, to our neighbours and to everyone. If we don't grasp this moment in time, this reflection point, this tipping point, then we are destined to have another couple of hundred years in Australia of inequality and big sections of our community feeling that their day-to-day existence isn't seen. We know it's not just women. We know that our First Nations people have been struggling for centuries to have their history before white man acknowledged and their history since white man acknowledged. We know that people in our communities with disabilities have been waiting their entire lives to be seen for the value that they bring to our communities and to their families and for government to not just talk about them when it's politically expedient to do so but to do the hard work to make sure that people who are living with disability get to live lives of fulfilment, just as those of us who don't have a disability do. We know that people who are gay, lesbian and transgender are still struggling to be accepted. They don't want everyone else to live the lifestyle that they live. They don't want everyone else to all of a sudden say, 'Okay; I'm gay now,' or 'I want to celebrate you the way you celebrate you'; they just want to be allowed to go about their lives and love who they want to love and be who they want to be and celebrate the way they want to celebrate without being told that they're wrong or evil or corrupting—just the way I'm free to go about my life without being told those things because I'm straight. That's what gay and lesbian and transgender people want. We know that people of colour in our community, from First Nations through to the waves and waves of immigrants that have made our country a magnificent multicultural community, just want to be heard and accepted within a community that too many times still, unfortunately, judges others. I was at an International Women's Day event in Frankston North on Thursday when one of the amazing young women who spoke at that event said, 'Why can't we just love each other more? Why can't we just be loved?' At another event that same day, a young man, who must have been about 12, at a gender equality forum said, 'Why do we all judge each other so much?' If those young people can ask those questions, why can't our government not only ask those questions but also genuinely dedicate itself to be part of the answer? We just need to be kinder to each other. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E09 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Gas Sector 140 12:38 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I move: That this House: (1) acknowledges that gas:    (a) will be central to our ongoing economic recovery;    (b) is a crucial input in our manufacturing sector, which employs over 850,000 Australians; and    (c) provides the firmed electricity generation needed to balance Australia’s record levels of renewable investment; and (2) calls on all Members of the House to support the Australian gas sector and the important role it plays in creating jobs, providing affordable energy and reducing emissions. I will start off by talking about renewable energy. Australia is leading the charge in the surge to renewable energy. Our CO2 emissions in Australia are at their lowest level since 1995 and we are 19 per cent below 2005 levels. It is a remarkable outcome and it takes to task those who say the government is doing nothing. It is just simply not true. Since 2007 Australia has invested $35 billion in renewable energy, and my state of South Australia is more than 50 per cent renewable on the electricity grid now. New solar and wind are being constructed at 10 times the global average and more than twice as fast as the next quickest nation in the world. These are remarkable outcomes. But, while this is admirable, the faster we go, the harder it gets. You need to have some understanding of the way the electrical grid system works to get your head around this. Renewable energy works quite well when there is a diverse mix of energy across the grid. 'If the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow' is a phrase we've heard a lot. When you come to that point of time you need something to fill the gap. The more intermittent electricity you have on the grid the fewer the days of the year those who supply on-demand electricity can make a profit on their investment, on their powerhouse, if you like. If a coal-fired power station, for instance, goes from being able to sell its electricity at a profit from 365 days of the year down to 200 days of the year, 100 days of the year or, as happened in South Australia with the closure of the Northern Power Station, about 70 days a year, it gets to the point where the profits it makes on 70 days a year, or 50 or 20 or whatever it might be, are just not high enough to keep its doors open. So they leave the industry. They leave the electrical generation grid. What is there then to fill that gap? In Australia, there are a number of options. One that is getting a lot of attention at the moment is battery backup. There have been some significant investments in battery backup—in South Australia too—but battery backup is still, by my calculation, probably about 10 times as expensive as it has to be to affordably fill that gap. It's very, very good for frequency modulation and it's very good for instantaneous response, but to build enough battery to be able to supply one, two, six or eight hours of electricity to power virtually the whole grid would be way beyond the scope of any economical suggestion. The government, through Snowy Hydro, is investing in Snowy Hydro 2.0, and that will make a significant difference. It will be the biggest battery in Australia and it will be efficient. But there are only so many Snowy Hydro 2.0s that you can build, and we need something else to fill the gap. In South Australia, indeed in Australia, we are blessed with abundant gas supplies. I am a South Australian, and Moomba, the Cooper Basin, is largely in my electorate. It has been one of the predominant suppliers into the eastern gas market for the last 50 years, and there's a lot of gas left there. It's a place where the gas industry excels and where, despite a lot of the knockers from elsewhere, fracking has been successfully undertaken through most of the last 40 years or so. You need the gas to fill the gap when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. We need to understand that gas is not an enemy but an enabler of renewable energy. You need something to fill the gap, and you can't keep building renewable energy unless you've got that something to fill the gap. The most economical, most sensible and most environmentally friendly is gas. Through government policies, we have seen a reduction of 40 per cent in gas prices across Australia. Largely, we've moved legislation but haven't had to enact it because companies have pulled themselves into line. The gas industry in Australia underwrites our fertiliser manufacturing industry. It underwrites our manufacturing industry generally. Gas is a great industry for Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E09 Is the motion seconded? 12:44 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I second the motion. I am very pleased to rise today to speak on this motion. I welcome this opportunity to share the experience of the Northern Territory, specifically my home of Darwin and Palmerston, and our experience with the gas industry. The Territory, of course, is home to significant gas reserves, and adjacent waters also have significant gas reserves. Darwin is the home to important facilities, including the massive and lucrative INPEX Ichthys LNG project. It's worth noting that it's one of Australia's largest resource projects, worth around $60 billion. It's also the biggest investment that the Japanese have ever made overseas. The onshore processing facility is located in Bladin Point in Darwin, and the facility includes processing trains to produce LNG and LPG, along with storage tanks and a loadout jetty. This is supported by an offshore logistics hub, which supports the wider project, including floating production, storage and offloading facilities. So far, 1,100 Territory businesses have secured contracts and purchase orders related to this massive project. INPEX is a major employer in Darwin, in my electorate. Over the life of the project, there will be around 600 jobs created to run the facilities in Darwin, and $2.6 billion will flow to the Northern Territory government in tax revenue. The flow-on effect from this in Darwin and Palmerston is immense, with money supporting countless local businesses. All of this is a real consequence of the Northern Territory government having the foresight to create the right environment to not only promote but welcome investment in this important space. I want to acknowledge the former chief ministers Clare Martin and Paul Henderson for their work to secure that investment. There are even more opportunities that are ready and waiting for us to take up. Japan is poised to become a major customer for Australian hydrogen. Japan has declared that it will become a hydrogen economy by 2030 and will need 300,000 tonnes of the gas a year to make that happen. Just as Australian coal helped Japan rise from the ashes of war to become a great global economy, now Australian hydrogen gas can help keep Japan as a great global economy, creating more long-term, stable Australian jobs into the bargain. But the ongoing opportunities from gas to our jobs and economy are still at significant risk. The risk is not necessarily from the straw man that those opposite love to put up. The risk is not from excessive state or territory government regulation; the risk is from the very government that those opposite serve. This is a government that provides no policy certainty in this important space. Over eight years this government has had 22 energy policies. It's hard to believe but it is true. If it's not true, those opposite have their chance to speak to that later. What is the ultimate effect of this muddled and disorientated collection of policies? What are we left with? What are the investors left with? Well, it's confusion in private investment for new gas operations. When confusion reigns, uncertainty is not far behind. The lack of certainty that is a product of 22 energy policies in eight years is hurting industry and impacting people every day. I only hope that the efforts of the member for Grey in bringing this motion forward will prompt a rethink among those opposite, and I hope he's got some support for that rethink. Without a clear plan to address climate change and protect jobs, the government is dooming future generations to play catch-up with the rest of the world due to this ongoing policy uncertainty. So I call on the government to end the uncertainty, dispel the confusion and act. Our communities and Australians jobs cannot be protected without that firm action. Labor wants to see a proper energy regulatory framework with certainty. We want to be able to generate much more investment in renewables so that we can give traditional industries and households the certainty of their energy supply. This lack of policy certainty from the government, with 22 energy policies in eight years, has been very confusing for private investment and has hindered its efforts to fund new gas operations. It's up to the government of the day—and right now that means those opposite—to provide a solid and robust investment framework so that private investment can flourish in all forms of energy generation. 12:49 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay In my electorate of Lindsay there are over 600 manufacturers employing over 6,000 people. Across Australia, our national manufacturing industry supports over 850,000 jobs. I want this number to grow, particularly in Western Sydney, empowering Australian manufacturers to create and sustain more local jobs. I was proud to bring the Prime Minister to Lindsay to meet with many of our local Aussie manufacturers, transforming the factory floor into a roundtable at Plustec in Emu Plains, who manufacture high-quality Australian-made windows and doors. The Prime Minister heard directly from local manufacturers directly how our national policies are being implemented on the ground. Our local manufacturers SpanSet, Grant Engineered and RKR Engineering and so many more create and sustain local jobs that support local families and make our community such a great place to live, work and stay. But to be competitive and to create more local jobs, Australian manufacturing needs affordable, reliable energy. As we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, it is critical that we deliver long-term support for our manufacturers, and gas will play a key role from creating plastics for essential PPE to the fertiliser used in our food production. The government's plan focuses on unlocking supply, improving the efficiency of transportation and empowering consumers to get the best price. Under this government, gas prices have dropped in the domestic market. Wholesale gas prices on the East Coast during 2020 were around 40 per cent lower than prices in 2019. We're continuing to implement measures that will put downward pressure on energy prices, helping local manufacturers in my electorate of Lindsay and right across Australia. John, from ACO Australia in Emu Plains—in Lindsay—joined me and the PM at our manufacturing roundtable. ACO uses gas predominantly to power their rotomolding plant, manufacturing items for use in the construction industry. John noted the recent decrease in gas costs has improved the efficiency of his business. This is part of a consistent drop in gas expenses over the last year, going from almost $10,000 per month in early 2020 down to around $7,000 earlier this year. John told me that this is allowing ACO to invest more back into their business and this is what it is all about—investing in business and creating more local jobs. This is how delivering affordable, reliable energy gives manufacturers in Australia the certainty so they can scale up and expand. The importance of energy costs is well-known across all industries. I was pleased to have the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor, with me in Penrith to meet with manufacturers and other local businesses. I have being doing this a lot to ensure our local manufacturers have a say. We can then look at how our national policies are affecting our local businesses. The minister and I had a wide-ranging discussion on all things energy because we know how important it is. In February this year, the Australian Energy Regulator released its draft determination for the default market offer for 2021. The government introduced the default market offer in July 2019 to protect customers from excessively high standing-offer contracts and to make it easier for customers to shop around and compare prices. This has delivered meaningful impacts for local households and businesses. Compared to before the introduction of the default market offer, a family in St Mary's could be saving up to $802 per year on their electricity bill, while a hairdresser or cafe now could be paying up to $3,300 less per year on their electricity bills. For families, this means more money back into pockets. And for the 15,000 small and medium size businesses in Lindsay, this means they can invest more in their business, grow, expand and support more local jobs. This is just one of the ways the Morrison government's committed to driving down energy prices, supporting Australian households and businesses, not just now but into the future. The future of our manufacturing industry in Western Sydney is full of potential. The minister for industry and I got to see this firsthand at SydWest Global Connections Tech Startup Accelerator Program at Western Sydney University's Launch Pad. The government committed $250,000 to establish this program, focusing on supporting start-ups that have the potential to grow and create more local jobs. This is what it is about because when we're backing our local industry, when we are backing our local small businesses, our economy is strong, and that is what I will always be doing for our community in Lindsay. 12:54 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley The importance of the Australian gas sector can't be overstated. The sector plays an important role in creating economic growth, and in increasing our export and income earnings. I believe it will play a critical role in the post-pandemic recovery. The motion before us today has highlighted that the sector provides 850,000 jobs, as well as electricity, manufacturing for feed stock, and heating. The sector also provides significant impacts on Australian households. As we just heard from the member for Lindsay, despite all her roundtables and show-ponying with ministers, we're yet to see some real reform in this sector. We know that the gas sector has an important role to play. On this side of the chamber, we know that it will play a critical role in meeting our target of net zero emissions by 2050. As we know, the government doesn't commit to this, so it's important that, from our side of the policy process, we support and get the settings right. What really matters when it comes to the gas sector's role in our economic recovery are the workers in the sector—something we are yet to hear about today—and the right of the Australian people to access affordable and reliable gas. This is where I take exception with the government, where they talk about their so-called gas-led recovery in their plan. It has failed. We've seen that this government have been unable to deliver the well-functioning, transparent and efficient east coast gas market necessary for Australians accessing an affordable and reliable gas supply. The government have failed to solve this crisis and deliver affordable gas to Australian users, especially gas-intensive manufacturers. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the member for Lindsay, who has left the chamber, I simply say that all the roundtables and all the ministers visiting her electorate is irrelevant, unless there is real reform and unless manufacturers see the benefit. This has placed a countless number of jobs and the whole industry at risk, at a time when this country simply cannot afford to lose any more manufacturers. I simply say to the government: you've had eight years while you've been in charge of this portfolio and these policy matters. Where is the reform? It's not good enough to say it will be in 10 or 15 years. Where is it? The government has also failed to include any policy in its gas-led recovery that will immediately boost the number of jobs, even though this is essential, as I said, to help Australia get out of recession. The government has failed to deliver an energy policy, as we've heard from the member for Solomon, that will bring down prices, provide certainty to the industry and make it easier for business to proceed with planned gas generation. I'd love members opposite to walk into any business in Australia and ask, 'Have your energy prices reduced?' I know what the answer will be. They complain about this all the time. The government's lack of meaningful and consistent energy policy also represents a significant missed opportunity to create new jobs from the industry's growth. We know that gas is central to this country's economic recovery, but Australia's economic recovery must also capitalise on the huge potential of renewables in the energy sector—energy-intensive manufacturing and the new and emerging industries, creating that important pathway of net zero emissions by 2050. Firming up gas generation supplies will be critical to capitalising on renewable energy opportunities. It's important that we develop gas reserves, subject to independent scientific assessments and effective environmental regulation. I want to pay particular credit to my union, the Australian Workers Union, led by, at a national level, Daniel Walton, and in my home state of Queensland, the state secretary, Steve Baker, for their fierce determination and their advocacy to governments across all political persuasions to deliver the critical reform that we need. We also need to put downward pressure on gas prices, including sensible measures to expand the east coast gas pipeline network, as I've said, and we need to do a thorough analysis to ensure that this benefits consumers and the broader public. Another way we can ensure Australians aren't paying more for gas is by maintaining effective mechanisms for ensuring LNG exports don't put upward pressure on domestic prices. It's important that we support gas-intensive manufacturing industries, like chemical and fertiliser production, so they can grow and provide local jobs. I want to use my time today to urge the government not to waste this opportunity and to harness the gas sector in this moment to grow our economy. Listen to the advice of the Australian Energy Market Operator, who says that gas will continue to play an important role in power generation as other technologies emerge. As projects come online with the nation-building renewable energy and large-scale storage projects, let's make sure we're being smart about how we balance renewables and still get the most out of the gas sector. 12:59 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls I want to acknowledge the member who has put this on the table. It is a fantastic motion by Mr Ramsey, who has spoken about gas and put it on the agenda because it is so critically important for the electorates that have a very strong reliance on manufacturing. In my particular area, it tends to be with food manufacturing—SPC, Campbell's soups, Kagome soups—and it goes into steel manufacturing, and there's Unilever and all the milk processors. They're all heavily dependent on gas but other forms of energy as well they're very reliant on; they're big energy users. Gas is seen as this transitional energy source as we go to an area of cleaner energy, but right at the moment we need dispatchable sources of energy. We need energy when we need it, and sometimes intermittent energy sources let us down. When we have food manufacturing, we cannot afford to go without energy when we need it. This is why gas is so critically important. So I acknowledge the member for Grey for putting this on the table. The 850,000 people who are supported through the manufacturing sector are very relevant, certainly when you go into my electorate of Nicholls. We've had a number of round tables, going back to 2016 or 2017, where the price of gas was going through the roof. Industry leaders came to the electorate office needing to impart their experience to make sure that their voices and situations were heard in Canberra. Now we see that the policies of the coalition have, essentially, brought down the prices of gas and electricity. So I think it's a little bit selective of the previous speaker to say that our policies aren't working. We must also acknowledge that gas has a great opportunity to be the transitional form of energy we need, and our industries will be highly supportive of us if we can get there. The crucial nature of food manufacturing throughout the Goulburn Valley is part of the agricultural chain that exists within northern Victoria. It fits hand in glove with the agricultural sector. It's as critical as the farmers. It's as critical as the support that we offer. It's as critical as the water that we make available for our irrigation within the Goulburn Valley. At the end of the chain is this food manufacturing, and if one part of this chain falls over it's goodnight for everybody. So we have to look at the crucial role of cheap, affordable, reliable and flexible energy, and that's gas. Right at the moment, as we all push to where we want to be into the future, which is a cleaner environment, as we transition towards that space, we have to acknowledge the incredible role that gas is going to play. I would suggest that in my electorate we're probably talking about 15,000 to 20,000 people who would be directly or indirectly employed through agriculture, food manufacturing and associated industries. It's an absolutely incredible part of northern Victoria. There are some 13 different milk manufacturing, milk processing, factories. Then there are all the fruit and vegetables and Unilever. It is an incredibly complex situation. Right at the crux of all of these industries, right at the crux of all of these families, is the ability for them to have a flexible, affordable, reliable energy source, and, at the moment, that energy source is gas. We understand there will always be those who simply consider gas in the same vein as coal. They wish to be selective with their facts about the emissions associated with the production of gas. They wish to be selective with their figures around the true cost of renewable energy. I sometimes think we need to get this debate back on an even keel, to have some common sense and reality and practicality around this debate and stop being so political. 13:04 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter If you could extend me a little bit of latitude, I am conscious of the fact that while we participate in this important debate Brittany Higgins is on her feet addressing the rally outside. I'd like to acknowledge and thank her for her courage and her activism. I'd like to express my sorrow for her experience and wish her the very best into the future. But life goes on inside the building. This is an important debate. I congratulate the member for Grey, because he has been able to bring a group of people together from all political persuasions to talk about the importance of gas. In this country the gas sector remains a bedrock of the Australian economy, both in consumption terms and in export terms. It's our second biggest export earner. We use it domestically to generate electricity and to power our manufacturing plants. We use it as a feedstock in just about every product we use in our daily lives, including personal protective equipment that we relied upon so much during the COVID period. It keeps us warm in our homes. I see some Victorians here; Victorians are the biggest per capita consumers of gas in the country. In fact, I think the biggest consumers of gas in absolute terms are the Victorians, and yet they are so reluctant to get gas out of the ground. We use it to cook our food, and we use it to heat our water. Gas provides 25 per cent of our energy consumption. I'm not talking about electricity consumption now. I'm talking about energy. I'm talking about the planes in the air, the cars on our roads, what we consume in our homes and what we consume in industry. By comparison, oil is 38.7 per cent and coal is 29.9 per cent, so, at 25 per cent, it's a big part of our energy supply. It will be an important part for many, many decades to come. Importantly, only 37 per cent of that 25 per cent is used for electricity generation, highlighting what I said earlier. This debate is not just about electricity generation, as important as that is. This debate is about what we rely upon gas to do in our broader communities. As our coal generators age, they won't be replaced—it's highly unlikely that anyone is going to build a new coal generator in this country. There are those who are hopeful, but I don't think the numbers stack up. In New South Wales 90 per cent of our electricity generation comes from plants that are 30 years old or older, so we've got a problem coming. Renewables are important, but we can't rely on renewables only. To get more renewables into the system, we need more synchronous or firming power. The best, quickest and most cost efficient way of doing that is to get more gas electricity generation into the system. An email in its integrated system plan tells us that to 2040 we will need between six to 19 gigawatts of firming power—that is, between three and 10 Liddell coal-fired power stations. Where do people think this power is going to come from, if we don't get more gas out of the ground and start generating more electricity with gas? The ACCC tells us that we've got problems: we've got a lack of gas, we've got a lack of connectivity and we've got a lack of competition in the gas pipeline sector. We need to get more gas out of the ground. There will be some communities who don't want it extracted near prime agricultural land, and that's fine. There are plenty of areas where it can be extracted without any threat to agriculture in this country. We should be extracting more. That's why I so strongly support the Narrabri Gas Project in New South Wales. It's why I support the Hunter Gas Pipeline, which will bring more gas from South-East Queensland through the Hunter Valley, fuelling new industrial opportunities and bringing more competition to the network in that part of the world. In the Hunter region, we will lose our coal generators over time. We've got an abundance of renewable projects in the pipeline, but we will need the gas. We've got two important gas peaking stations in the pipeline. One is from AGL at Tomago and one is from Snowy Hydro in Kurri Kurri. I'm very hopeful we achieve at least one of them. I'll certainly be working on behalf of the community to make sure we do, so that we can remain, in the Hunter, the engine room of New South Wales. 13:09 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn Firstly, I would like to thank the member for Grey for bringing this motion forward. It is essential that we do address the issue of energy and how we get our energy at the cheapest rate. I would like to thank the member for Hunter. I agree with most things he said. Although, I do disagree with him, I think there is room to build a coal-fired power station in the eastern states: Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. As the government, we are focused on delivering affordable, reliable, secure energy for hard-working Australians. Gas will be central to our ongoing economic recovery—and it was seen as well through this COVID-19 pandemic. It has kept our exports and our local gas users supplied with good, cheap, affordable power, which is fuelled by gas in a lot of situations. So gas-fired recovery is a key component to the Australian JobMaker program when we're looking at manufacturing. Manufacturing needs cheap, reliable electricity. Gas can supply most of this. A strong gas company will help re-establish a strong economy. It supports our manufacturing sector, which currently employs 850,000 people. It used to employ a lot more than that. However, because electricity prices have not been able to compete with overseas industries that figure has fallen to 850,000—as it stands now. It's an essential input for the production of plastics, PPEs and fertiliser. Gas is the main supply of that energy, along with the northern oil, in my electorate, who use natural gas to recycle waste oil. They process up to 300,000 litres every day. Gas is essential for that operation. Increasing gas supplies, to help continue to put downward pressure on our energy prices, is essential. Gas provides flexibility and reliable, affordable energy. It's not about competing with renewables. It works in conjunction with renewables. It complements renewables. Gladstone is currently producing natural gas from its three natural gas facilities on Curtis Island—for domestic markets, but also for exporting. There are three major companies in Gladstone headed by Santos, that's an Australian company; Shell, who we all know has been around for a long time; and ConocoPhillips and their partners. They spent $80 billion building those three gas plants on Curtis Island. As a government we want to ensure our long-term domestic gas market at a good price, an international competitor price. Under our government gas prices have dropped in the domestic market. Even before COVID-19 there was a reduction in the domestic price of gas across Australia. These prices continue to fall. Lower gas prices are also driving down wholesale electricity prices, so they work hand in hand. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's, ACCC, latest gas inquiry reports have shown that the gas has fallen significantly in 2020, presenting a significant shift in the market pricing. These price reductions are good news for Australian householders, industry and jobs. There are approximately 200 jobs on each Curtis Island plant—600 jobs in total—but they do have shutdown crews who work continuously around the clock to keep those gas plants up to scratch. This will help build our robust and competitive gas industry, allowing gas producers and users to thrive on cheap markets that must be competitive with overseas countries. All lower prices are benefitting all Australians. We will support the infrastructure in the gas fields. That takes us into a moving forward position, which should benefit all Australians. 13:14 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne We are all focusing on keeping our industrial systems going, particularly manufacturing. Everyone realises Australia's vulnerability without our own manufacturing sovereign capability. It is obvious to everyone involved in the energy system. The member for Hunter actually spoke common sense—coming from a member of the ALP; Hallelujah! What has happened to the rest of them? They have gone missing in action. They have swallowed this nonsense that we can replace our fossil fuels at the drop of a hat and rely on temporary wind blowing, the day-night cycle, monsoon periods and wet and cloudy weeks—like the month or six weeks where we had 600 mills of rainfall on the North Coast of New South Wales—to replace the form of energy that is available around the clock. The last time society relied on the weather or the flow of water through creeks and mills was in the 1700s and 1800s. How the modern industrial world happens is because manufacturing is powered by oodles and oodles energy, and that has come out of the use of fossil fuels. We know that this is having an effect on the atmosphere that we all breathe and the climate. So we have to do it in the most efficient way. Gas is part of that efficiency, because it has a lower footprint than burning coal. But so does other forms of technology, like modern coal-fired power stations. Many are in the seat of the member for Hunter, and he understands the practicality and the reality of keeping Australian manufacturing going, let alone losing it because our prices for our energy are too high. We have bucket loads of gas in our country, in our offshore areas, and we have developments happening. People have to realise that it's not a bad thing. It delivers fertilisers for our farmers. For all the plastics and lots of other things that are manufactured, gas features as one of the ingredients or the feed stock for it. So we need it and we need it cheap and plentiful; otherwise, we won't make stuff in this country. It is US$2.52 for a unit of gas in America. It has come down considerably in Australia but it's still around $7, $8 or $9. So you can't run a baseload system on gas. You can use it in a gas-peaking plant, where you get paid an absolute motza because the market gets shorted by people who have a variety of assets and they get a lot for their electricity. But, for that portion of the electricity that never varies, that doesn't drop below a certain amount, you need a baseload system. Gas is really part of the recovery and is essential for our industry and for everyday things in life. We cook with it. We heat with it. Countries freeze. Look at what happened to Texas. They had a big freeze and they lost 50 per cent of their natural gas because it all froze in the pipelines. The place froze and electricity was like it is in Australia regularly—it went to over $5,000 for short periods of time. But the important thing is gas is not bad. Gas is essential. We can get it out of the subterranean places on this earth quite safely. There is a flush of salty water when it first happens in natural gas fields or in coal-seam gas, but all the water doesn't run to the bottom of the earth and we don't die in gas plumes. It's well managed in Australia. We need to support the project that the member for Hunter was talking about, the Narrabri gas fields. New South Wales needs to have gas nearby where manufacturing can happen. You need a pipeline to get it there. So the Hunter gas line will be important to keep the engine room of New South Wales and Australia, the Hunter manufacturing precinct, alive and well and producing stuff for this nation. So I commend the member for Grey's motion about the importance of gas, but we have to make sure that we secure it for us here in Australia rather than exporting it all. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E09 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Proceedings suspended from 13:19 to 16:00 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 146 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Ethanol 146 16:01 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy We are probably the only country on earth now that does not have ethanol mandated into our petrol tanks. Every other country on earth is aware of the fact that more people die from motor vehicle emissions than from motor vehicle accidents. That is said by the senior professor in this area in Australia, Jonathan Streeton, who gave the evidence in the smoking case in Australia, and by every other world health authority person. So they are doing it to save lives. Here in Australia, we obviously don't worry about how many people die because of the super fine particles, because there isn't a very good burn with conventional petrol. It has no oxygen in it, so it doesn't burn properly. If you put ethanol in it, ethanol is 30 per cent oxygen, so you get a much better burn and you don't get the fine particles. There are 13 carcinogens in petrol. Those fine particles come out coated in carcinogens. Is it any wonder that, if you move to Forbes or Parkes in New South Wales, inner Sydney, your chances of dying of lung disease or heart disease double? That's not my opinion; that's the opinion of the Journal of the American Medical Association in the United States. (Time expired) Braddon Electorate: Schools 146 16:02 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon Over the past few weeks I have had the pleasure of officially opening two new school redevelopments. Where the focus has been on STEM, both Burnie's Leighland Christian School and the Devonport Christian School received federal funding under the Capital Grants Program. This investment by the Morrison government reflects our ongoing commitment to today's students and that we are willing to back them to ensure they are equipped with the skills they will need for the jobs of the future. If the students at Leighland Christian School and at Devonport Christian School reflect the students right across the nation, then our nation is, indeed, in good hands. Their excitement to embrace the new technology, their willingness to learn and to challenge themselves across the STEM subjects is impressive and infectious. No longer is science, technology, engineering and maths something that's taught from a textbook. It's hands-on and immersive. Congratulations to the principals, Elizabeth Scheu and Chad Smit, who were at the head of the support staff and the parents of these great children as they attended to play an important part in the children's education at the opening ceremonies. Today we're making your students' journey through the educative process positive and exciting, ensuring they are ready to take advantage of every opportunity that's ahead of them. Rural Flying Doctor Service 146 16:04 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons One of the great pleasures of my electorate is the sheer number of events. On Sunday was the Rural Flying Doctor Service and the Truck Owners and Operators Association truck run, which unfortunately I could not get to because I was on the plane coming here, where truck drivers and truck owners across Tasmania raised funds for the RFDS in its 60th year. Many trucks converged on Longford in my electorate and more than 70 trucks from across the state took part, between them raising $25,000. I was happy to make a small donation. I was sorry I was not able to get to this great event. Some terrific people went along. Glenda and Mick Emerton from Sorrell, which is near me, had heard about the truck run on Facebook and were delighted to be able to attend this wonderful event. To all who participated in the truck run, congratulations. It's a fantastic event to get behind. I'm looking forward to hopefully being there next year with parliamentary sittings notwithstanding and—touch wood—an election out of the way. I look forward to hopefully getting along next year as the member for Lyons in 2022. On that note, in my electorate, with Bream Creek Farmers Market, Longford Market, Evandale market, New Norfolk Market, there are so many things to get around to. If anyone wants to take note of half-price flights, come to Tassie and have a great time Science 147 16:06 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson If scientific research is going to inform government decisions, government needs to have confidence in that research. There are more and more people, eminent people, including our former chief scientists, who have raised the alarm on our research and on the need for it to be properly tested. The call from many in the farming communities of Central and North Queensland is coming. I have met with 10 organisations and more than 20 individuals who say we need an office of scientific review. The problem is evident when you look at work of Retraction Watch, a team of science writers who put together a database of compromised research, finding more than 20,000 papers have been retracted. A former Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, referred to their work in documenting dodgy science in the 2019 speech when he pointed out that the basic structure of peer review is showing signs of strain. In Australia, 247 research papers, some associated with the most reputable universities, were found to have been compromised. Some senior scientists claim that's just the tip of the iceberg. Professor Peter Read, who was sacked for questioning the quality of peer review, is also calling for an office of scientific review to test, check and replicate science that is relied upon for public policy purposes. As the former chief scientist said in reference to scientific work, the people who pay—the taxpayers and governments—are no longer prepared to take us on trust. We need to check the science that is being relied on for public policy. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 147 16:07 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I rise today to talk about the government's failure to list life-changing medications on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Over 400,000 Australians suffer from chronic migraines. I met recently with Tina from Morphett Vale, who is just one of these individuals. Tina told me about her experience of chronic migraines. She suffers on average 15 migraines a month. This impacts her social life, her quality time with her family and of course her work. She has benefitted from preventative migraine medications that have been made available to her in trials and other forums, but despite in 2019 the pharmaceutical benefit advisory committee recommending that Emgality gets put on the PBS, the government failed to act. They refuse to list this drug that could change the lives of those thousands of Australians. This is despite the Minister for Health claiming he is serious about listing every PBAC recommendation. The only thing standing in the way of this serious migraine prevention medication is the Morrison government. It is time that this government actually does what it says it's going to do—that is, actually list this important medication—because Tina, along with thousands of other Australians, will benefit significantly. Their lives will improve, and this will be critically important to them. Cowper Electorate: Oasis Day Program 147 16:09 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper Last Saturday I had the pleasure of attending the opening of the new Oasis Day Program facility run by Macleay Options. Macleay Options have been a part of the Kempsey fabric for nearly 60 years and they operate within the provisions of the Commonwealth and the New South Wales Disability Services Act. The Oasis Day Program centre caters for all clients who are looking to increase their social engagements. But what it's actually providing is quality care, job opportunities and dignity to their clients in a fun, loving and caring environment. I would like to thank the CEO, Michael Milicevic, and the GM, James Mainey, and the board of Macleay Options for their hard work and, in the words of Betty Green, the vision for the future for Macleay Options. The new building is testament to that vision, the work, the care and the dedication of everyone, including all of the wonderful hardworking staff. The centre will continue social and community participation centre based activities and workshops, life skill programs and therapies, and each client will be able to choose the programs and activities they attend that suit them. Well done to you all. I look forward to coming with you on your next journey. Oxley Electorate: Cineplex, Redbank 147 16:10 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I rise today to talk about a local small business owner in the electorate of Oxley. Sam Catalano is the proud owner of a family-run business, Cineplex at Redbank. It's a great independent movie theatre that people in my community love. Unfortunately, Sam's business and his employees are now doing it really tough. When COVID-19 brought mandated closures to entertainment providers, the independent cinema business became one of the industries in the country worst hit by the pandemic. Just like business owners in the tourism and hospitality sectors in Queensland, Sam's business has seen a huge drop in revenue—around 70 per cent—and with the continuing blows like capacity constraints and loss of film supply, Sam's small family-owned business is struggling to stay above water. Right now, Sam and those who work for him are afraid of what's going to happen when JobKeeper runs out at the end of month. He's not sure if he will be able to keep his door open or be able to keep his employees on the payroll. Family-owned businesses like Sam's deserve an answer: does this government care about an industry that injects more than $250 million into the Australian economy each year or not? Once again, I call on the Morrison government not to turn its back on small businesses. It's time to come up with a clear plan to extend JobKeeper or find another way to support hardworking Australians who have done everything right and just want to stay afloat. Stirling Electorate: Karrinyup Leave No Trace Scout Group 148 16:12 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling I'm sure that we all remember the magic of being a kid, when exploring a tiny parcel of bushland was an incredible adventure or when building a cubby house with mates on an endless summer school holiday filled our souls with boundless joy. I'm very pleased to report to our federal parliament that that magic is alive and well on the faces and in the laughter of the kids who are eight to 11 years old with the with the Karrinyup Leave No Trace Scout Group. This group reached out to me and I visited them last week, because they wanted a new portrait of the Queen to take pride of place in their hall and an Australian flag. We spoke about the importance of having pride in our nation and its key symbol, our Australian flag. We spoke about being a good community member and about helping our neighbours in need. I would like to thank Scout leaders Jamie and Sahar for welcoming me and for the job you did on leading your peers in the pledge. I also thank Scout leaders Mark; Corrine—Flamingo; and Afsana—Falcon; as well as Damian and other parents for the essential work that you do in fuelling the imaginations and nurturing the life skills of our next generation. Thank you to Karrinyup Leave No Trace Scout Group for letting me participate in y our wonderful parade last week. I look forward to visiting you again soon, and I congratulate you for everything that you do in our local community within Stirling. March 4 Justice 148 16:13 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner In more than 40 events across Australia today, tens of thousands of women gathered to call for independent investigations into gendered violence, full implementation of 2020 Respect@Work report, additional funding for gendered violence prevention and a federal gender equality law. Outside this building, more than 5,000 people rallied. Some Canberrans shared their stories and their frustrations with my staff and myself. These are their words. From Cath: 'I was assaulted and I was not anywhere I shouldn't have been. I'm here because it's time.' From Robyn: 'Enough is enough. It's been enough for a very long time.' From Therese: 'Having to console a 19-year-old girl who has been raped that her outfit had nothing to do with what happened to her shouldn't be needed. Politicians need to respectfully listen and engage. They need to respect and to meet us halfway.' From Joan: 'I'm just profoundly sad and very angry that a lot is happening still and for the silence of our federal government.' And from Beth: 'I'm 11 and I have had enough of harassment. I'm really angry with harassment. We have to let women be safe.' For all those who marched today, thank you. It's time we in this building listened and acted. Nicholls Electorate: Fruit Industry 148 16:15 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls Thank you very much. Last Tuesday I met with a group of fruitgrowers from the Goulburn Valley to discuss the lack of seasonal workers and the impact that's having on their businesses. The account given to me by one grower, Dash Sherif, puts it in a nutshell: 'This year, on average, pickers at my farm are picking nine bins of plums and apricots a day at $55 a bin. The average worker is making $495 a day. Picking starts around 6.30 and they knock off just after lunch. One farm manager sitting around the table picked 14 bins the previous day.' You can work that out for yourselves. The workers are aware that there is a substantial shortage of pickers around at the moment. Now this so-called exploitation of the worker has turned into exploitation of the farmers. Now the fruit pickers who are available are, more or less, standing there telling the farmer how much they want to pick the fruit off the trees. So up to $65 a bin is now being put; otherwise, the fruit doesn't come off. These orchards, at the moment, are effectively manicured. The trees have been grown to be shorter. The crop, the yields, are the best—less apples, less plums, less fruit goes into fill each and every bin. This failure from the Victorian government to supply fruit pickers for our harvest has been the greatest failure that I have ever seen of any government, ever. And now we have this exploitation of the farmers, it just rubs further salt into the wound. Holt Electorate: Oromo Ethiopian Community 148 16:16 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt Members of Melbourne's Oromo Ethiopian community continue to be concerned by ongoing political tensions in Ethiopia. According to Human Rights Watch, in 2020 the security and human rights situation in Ethiopia deteriorated as Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed struggled to retain order amidst growing unrest and political tensions. The government postponed scheduled national elections in March 2020, citing COVID related health risks. National elections are now due to be held on 5 June 2021. However, the local Oromo community does not believe that these elections will be free and fair and, as a result, two of the most popular political parties, OLF and OFC, have pulled out of the election. Since the terrible assassination of popular Oromo singer Hachalu Hundessa, which triggered protests on 29 June 2020, heavy-handed security response and large-scale property destruction has taken place in Oromia. The Oromo community around the world remains deeply sceptical, distrustful and frustrated about what is happening. There are two people who have been imprisoned, in particular, Bekele Gerba and Jawar Mohammed, for some period of time. The Oromo community also wants release of those two individuals, who are suffering and have been on hunger strikes, and others who have been held by the Ethiopian regime. Advance Cairns 149 16:18 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt Last week I had the pleasure of attending a gala event to mark the 20th anniversary since the establishment of advocacy group Advance Cairns. Advance Cairns has grown to be one of the most fierce and effective advocacy groups in Queensland. In fact, the Advance Cairns footprint covers 26 local government areas across a wide range of industries and sectors. Many of you here might have run into one of its leaders or members, over the years, during the annual pilgrimage to Canberra. I know that the sight of orange ties and scarves in the halls of this building have sent shivers down many a government minister's spine. The gala evening last week was attended by more than 280 people, including business, industry, community and civic leaders across the region. The keynote speaker and VIP guest on the night was none other than Qantas CEO Alan Joyce, who doubled as my date! This had pulling power for Advance Cairns through research, hard work, knowledge sharing, collaboration and advocacy. The Advance Cairns influence can be seen in a variety of initiatives that have positively shaped Cairns in the wider region. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the current executive chairman, Nick Trompf, former CEOs and current and past board members for the amazing work they've done in shaping our city and region. Dunkley Electorate: Infrastructure 149 16:19 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley I rise today to ask the Prime Minister to deliver for the community of Dunkley the promises that he has made. On 6 February 2019—not last year but the year before—the Prime Minister came to my electorate, specifically to Skye, to announce $30 million to upgrade intersections at Ballarto Road. As was reported in the Frankston Times on 11 February 2019, exactly what those upgrades would be had not been finalised. Well, it has still not been finalised. The government hasn't handed over any money to the state government to upgrade Ballarto Road and commitments made by the state government on Lyrebird Drive can't go ahead until the Prime Minister does more than make promises for my community; he needs to actually deliver. In the dying days of that 2019 election, the Prime Minister and his government announced $38.5 million for three—count them: three—commuter car parks in my electorate: Seaford, Kananook and Frankston. Frankston is to have half state and half federal government funding. The state government is ready to go. Where's the federal government? Where's the money for Kananook and Seaford commuter car parks? There is a lot of work to be done in public transport and car parking across the electorate. We're just asking the Prime Minister to deliver what he promised. Moore Electorate: Ocean Reef Marina 149 10:29 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore The Ocean Reef Marina redevelopment is the single biggest project in my electorate and is expected to generate a billion dollars in gross development value. It will create significant economic development within Perth's northern suburbs through residential, commercial and hospitality uses. This landmark project, which has been proposed since the 1970s, has overwhelming public support as it will have a positive impact on amenity, local employment and housing values. The project, which covers an area of 65 hectares, has been the subject of the most stringent and extensive environmental and heritage assessment processes. Despite this, the Save Ocean Reef Citizens Association recently instituted legal proceedings under section 9 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act to bring construction work at the marina to a halt. I'm pleased to advise the parliament that my colleague the federal Minister for the Environment decided, on 11 March last week, to reject the application in support of the wider community's wishes. This means that DevelopmentWA, the WA state government agency responsible for delivering the project, can continue with the civil construction works uninterrupted, protecting several hundred local construction jobs. I am pleased to support the local community in ensuring that this signature project proceeds. NBN Connection Box 149 16:22 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie For months, Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury residents have had to run to their NBN boxes when lightning flashes, because the boxes are being fried. The count for some families is up to eight replacement boxes. But there's an even more worrying and more serious issue: fire and scorching of the NBN box that sits inside our homes at the end of a fibre-to-the-curb connection. First, we had one report in Glenbrook of scorch marks on a desk. Then we had another of smoke in Hazelbrook and photos of a black burnt hole the size of a 10c piece on a kitchen bench. Then I met Brian McGuire in Windsor Downs. Brian brought me the cord that connected to his NBN box. It's black. It's meant to be clear everywhere. He says it's lucky it wasn't resting near something flammable, because he reckons the sparks that must have come out of the box could set something alight. Brian knows what he's talking about. He's an electrical engineer with masters qualifications and experience in lightning tests on high-voltage transformers and for aerospace applications, so, when Brian tells me he's worried that all NBN does is replace his burnt box with an identical one, I believe him. When he tells me it's dangerous, I believe him. I'm worried that this is a tragedy waiting to happen and that a lightning strike will lead to much worse than just a scorched kitchen counter. Like me, Brian has written to the minister and we both want action before it's too late. Mackellar Electorate: Northern Beaches Women's Shelter 150 16:24 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar Throughout COVID-19, we have seen cases of mental health, domestic abuse and hardship skyrocket. Frequently, it is the case that our marginalised communities suffer most and the organisations that help those who have fallen through the cracks are put under even more pressure. It is a tragic fact that, although we live in one of the most beautiful areas in Australia, we have some of the highest rates of mental health problems in this country. I'm particularly touched by the work of the Northern Beaches Women's Shelter in their efforts during our time of national crisis. The staff there acted with great dedication and were a stabilising force during our darkest days. When some of our communities' most vulnerable needed a helping hand, they stepped in. During this challenging time it was clear that on the Northern Beaches there are many unsung heroes. The honest truth is that those working at the Northern Beaches Women's Shelter are really the backbone of our community. They have helped countless numbers of people, often sacrificing so much in the process. These are truly selfless volunteers, motivated by a commitment to others. They do not engage in virtue signalling but prefer to get results by simply helping people. Their work frequently goes unrecognised, but the reality is, without these volunteers, the fallout from the pandemic would be significantly worse. It is only during times of hardship that our true values come to the fore. What I was proud to see was those timeless Australian values of mateship, helping one's neighbour and self-sacrifice come out. Fraser Electorate: Australian Bosnian Islamic Centre 150 16:25 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser Yesterday afternoon I was delighted to join with many members of my community at the Australian Bosnian Islamic Centre, a large mosque located in Deer Park in my electorate of Fraser. The Bosnian community has deep roots in Melbourne and established this beautiful place of worship in 1993, almost three decades ago. I'm always very grateful for the warm and generous welcome that I receive from the community at the Deer Park mosque. Yesterday was particularly special. Firstly, it was the Islamic Council of Victoria's Mosque Open Day. I'd like to acknowledge the ICV for their outstanding leadership in establishing this wonderful initiative. It enables Victorians from all walks of life to visit a mosque and to better understand the faith of Victorian Muslims. Yesterday was also a deeply solemn occasion. We marked the second anniversary of the barbaric and heinous attacks on peaceful worshipers at Christchurch mosques. We remember the 51 men, women and children who were murdered that day. Labor stands in solidarity with New Zealanders on the anniversary of this devastating tragedy. I was grateful for the opportunity to express my solidarity with Fraser's Muslim community at the Australian Bosnian Islamic Centre yesterday and I do so again in this House today. Members of Parliament: Staff 150 16:27 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby Over the past month we've heard a range of deeply distressing accounts from women across the political divide about appalling criminal behaviour and the failure of this place to respond appropriately. I honestly don't believe there is a woman in any part of Parliament House who has not been deeply shock and moved by the accounts that we have heard. It's the responsibility of all of us as elected members and senators, men and women, to work together to make sure every single person who works in and around Parliament House is safe. That's why today I want to implore all current and former staff members of members and senators to please participate in the review that's underway. I want to implore all current and former members of the House of Representatives and senators to do the same and anyone else who thinks they have something to contribute to this critical review. The review is independent. It's being run by Australia's Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, who has extensive experience in this area. It has been commissioned by our government in consultation with the Labor Party, with the presiding officers, with the minor parties and the Independents. The aim of the review is to ensure that all Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful and that our national parliament reflects the best practice in the prevention and handling of bullying, sexual assault, sexual harassment and any other inappropriate behaviour. Ultimately, my message is: we all deserve to be safe in our place of work. Adelaide Electorate: Vietnamese Boat People Monument 151 16:28 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Earlier on this month I joined the Vietnamese association and the South Australian Vietnamese community for the official unveiling of the Vietnamese boat people monument in my electorate of Adelaide. I'd also like to acknowledge the presence there on the day of Mr Tony Zappia, the member for Makin, who attended with me. This is a very important monument, on the banks of the River Torrens, dedicated to our migrant refugees from Vietnam who fled Vietnam in the seventies and made their home in South Australia. Many told of the trials and tribulation of their journey in rickety boats coming to South Australia, and this monument depicts that. There was enormous effort and work put in by the Vietnamese community to raise funds to build this monument as a reminder for generations to come of the hardships they went through to get here, after enduring a war for many, many years in their own homeland, of how happy and wonderful they feel to be here in Australia and as an acknowledgment of the welcome they received here. I'd like to acknowledge the Hon. Tung Ngo, MLC, for his hard work on the committee; Minh Thai Nguyen, the co-chair; Trang Vu, general member; Tai Nguyen; Dang-Thao Nguyen; and Long Quoc Ha of the committee. They all worked tirelessly. I would also like to acknowledge the sculptors, the artists, the architects and the designers—Judith Rolevink, Tim Thomson, Tony Rosella and Ash Badios. (Time expired) Lyne Electorate: 2021 Gresford Show 151 16:30 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne Country shows are part of the rich tapestry of life not only in the Lyne electorate but around the nation—and how good it is that country shows are back in action! I attended the Gresford Show on the weekend, with my wife Charlotte. It was great to see the whole community involved. The Colts cricket club cooked breakfast, the Scorpions footy club ran the barbecue, the canteen was run by the Paterson River Pony Club, and the Gresford P&C and the local RFS managed traffic and parking. I want to pay a special tribute to the new president, Mick Kealy; his vice-president and ringmasters, Josh Evans and Paul Dooley; the secretary, Rosalie Lawrence ; the treasurer, Angus Uren; Leona Clements and Verity Lawrence. I would like to give a special mention to Dan Maroulis and his team, who manned the bar. I would like to thank the retiring Gresford showgirl, Rowena Dillon, and Emily Lazelle, who was crowned the new junior showgirl. This year we saw some innovation, with online entry used for horse events. Trevor Bird and his team explained that the digital format ensured that the day ran smoothly. I would like to thank Ross Beaney and his family, who manned the gatehouse, Penny Evans, who did the most amazing COVID-safe set up and check-in; and all the team who made 2021 a resounding success. Congratulations to all those community groups who contributed to a wonderful day for the thousands of people who attended the 2021 Gresford Show. Shortland Electorate: Petroleum Exploration Permit 11 151 16:32 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I want to thank the hundreds of my constituents who have signed my petition opposing the renewal of petroleum exploration permit 11. In all my time in politics, I have never witnessed such a powerful community campaign and such overwhelming support against a proposal. In particular, I thank the people of White Bridge, Dudley, Redhead, Blacksmith, Swansea, Caves Beach and Catherine Hill Bay, who have contacted me in very significant numbers to register their opposition to this project. The people I represent are truly fortunate to be surrounded by water—Lake Macquarie, the Pacific Ocean, Lake Munmorah and Budgewoi Lake. Any development that in any way could damage these special waters is just not on. Locals don't just care about our magic natural environment though; they know this project makes no this makes no sense from an economic perspective either. This is a project that makes sense from an environmental or economic point of view. It will endanger thousands of local jobs that depend upon tourism, hospitality and accommodation. PEP 11 is a project with no friends. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that Labor opposes it and would revoke it in government. And even the Prime Minister has belatedly come on board. It is time for Minister Pitt to bury it. If he doesn't, this is a case of the Prime Minister saying one thing in the Hunter and doing another thing in Canberra. Swan Electorate: Gibbs Street Primary School 151 16:33 Mr IRONS HYM Swan Last week I visited Gibbs Street Primary School, in East Cannington in my electorate, as they were the recipient of a grant through the Morrison government's Local Schools Community Fund which provided $30.2 million in 2019-20. The fund is an application based process open to all eligible schools—government, Catholic and independent. It is designed to benefit students in their small community by contributing to small-scale projects and their associated costs at the local school level. Funds are paid by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, who pay the funds to the approved authority of a school. The Commonwealth made payments for approved projects in January 2020 and February 2020, and all successful schools should have already received their funds. The Gibbs Street Primary School applied for funding to purchase and install EduTouch interactive LED panels in classrooms. This technology offers different ways of reaching and teaching students. It allows the teacher to interact with students better, to use a multimodal form of teaching, and to provide more entertaining ways to teach and a better way to learn and get the lessons, facts and objectives across to the students. They enable the school to have the latest technology for the teacher to deliver the curriculum through digital technology. The school principal, teachers and students praised the Morrison government's grant of $19,950 and look forward to the fantastic educational outcomes that will be delivered through this technology. March4Justice 152 16:34 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara The change is made by those who show up and today around the country thousands of women and men showed up. They showed up to express their anger, their frustration and their sadness at what has happened in the past and demanded what needs to happen in the future. I acknowledge that there people on all sides of this place who did show up. I was in awe of the thousands who did, as I joined them today outside this place, but, unfortunately, the Prime Minister did not show up. One person who did was Brittany Higgins. As she spoke so eloquently and powerfully to address the crowd, I couldn't help but be reminded of the choice that confronted her those few years ago. That choice between her career and reaching for justice. Brittany Higgins, unfortunately, felt that reaching for justice was too far away—an impossible choice. But no more is she hesitant, no more is she reluctant. As we saw today, she was powerful, present and absolutely fierce in her pursuit of justice. We wish her well. Change needs to happen. We all need to be a part of that change—not just on this side of the House but all of us. Groom Electorate: Oakey Show 152 16:36 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom This weekend I had the pleasure of opening the 113th Oakey Show, a wonderful event. The whole event was a testament to the incredible resilience and spirit of the Oakey community, with crowds and competitors embracing the return to show season—as we have seen all throughout our region. It was especially heartening to see the number of entries in the field crop competition, which made such a strong return this year with many farmers across the Toowoomba region experiencing their first decent harvest in years, thanks to recent rain. While it was an overwhelmingly joyful day there was one sad note. It was the last time that Oakey Show attendees would hear the booming voice of iconic announcer Angus Lane. Angus, who lives in my electorate, has been the voice of shows across Australia for the past 30 years. If you think of shows you will hear his voice in the background. He was awarded a medal of the Order of Australia and recognised as a Queensland great for his service. It was very clear from his final words on Saturday how much these community events mean to him. I wish him all the best for his remaining show engagements. The Oakey Show is looking towards a bright future. It was fantastic to see the first sod turned on a new pavilion. This pavilion was funded under a grant from this government and will provide a modern facility for important community events for many years to come. Congratulations go to show President, Judy Byers, and all of the volunteers and sponsors. Oakey continues to thrive no matter how many challenges have been thrown in its way, and there have been a few. I'm so proud to be this town's representative in parliament. March4Justice 152 16:37 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta Today thousands of women rallied around the country to express their anger and frustration at so little action for so long about gender violence. It's not surprising really when one in five women have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15. There are five women in this room right now, so look around. One in five—that's the number that we're talking about, 1. 7 million women. We can't really address this until we ask the next question too which is: who did it? Since the age of 15 1.7 million women have been sexually assaulted. So when we look around we must also see men who did it. It has to be that way. That must be the case. It's a question we don't actually ask. We don't concentrate on the victims and we don't actually ask: how is this happening in our society in 2021, that 1.7 million, one in five, women have been sexually assaulted since the age of 15? These are extraordinary numbers and it's even more extraordinary when you realise that of those women half didn't seek any support at all—none. No support. They were silent. Until today when they raised their voices and we in this parliament are obligated to listen. We are obligated to listen to that roar of pain and recognise that this has gone on far too long. Mental Health 153 16:39 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin Earlier this month 100 volunteers came together, despite storm warnings, to sit in quiet contemplation at the iconic North Cottesloe Beach, emulating Andrew Baines's painting Consideration of Contemplation. Volunteers pulled on their bathers and headed down to the beach for an early start, at 7 am, where they participated in guided breathing exercises followed by 20 minutes of meditative reflection. During this, spectators and professional photographers captured the living art and shared photos via social media to raise mass awareness of the not-for-profit mental health research foundation Meeting for Minds. Meeting for Minds is taking a fresh and innovative approach to researching mental health by working with people who have a lived experience of mental illness. They are also working on projects with institutions in my electorate—the University of Western Australia and the Perron Institute. During the pandemic taking care of our mental health has become a priority for many of us, with a larger number of Australians accessing mental health services and seeking help with feelings of isolation and loneliness. Braving a storm to sit and independently reflect on our place in the world as a community is a wonderful metaphor for the importance of taking a moment in our lives to consider our own mental health and standing together with those who suffer from mental illness. National Disability Insurance Scheme 153 16:41 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair As I conduct my weekly mobile offices and phone calls with constituents, it has become clear that there is a lot of angst, fear and concern amongst those living with disability and those in the disability sector about the independent assessment processes this government has brought in. They are very sceptical and cynical of the fact that this is a proposal that could end up being funding cuts by stealth. Last Saturday I was doing a mobile office at Booval Fair in Booval in Ipswich, and parents again raised this independent assessment process. We've received emails and phone calls from local parents. These are parents who often had to battle for years to get the packages they need for their kids, and they're genuinely concerned about a process where there's been minimal consultation—really tokenistic consultation—by the minister involved. What they've done is outsource this, in terms of private contracts, for these people to engage in what is really annual auditions to get the funding they need for those living with disability. This causes parents of those living with disability tremendous concern. They should have concern, because this is a government that cut $4.6 billion out of the sector, in terms of the NDIS, and put $1.5 billion back. I call on the Morrison government to do the right thing: abandon these sinister and stealth plans to cut funding for the NDIS and allay the concerns of so many people in the Blair electorate. Community Services 153 16:42 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I'm glad we're talking about disabilities, because something I've been fighting for, for Tamworth, is a disability transport hub. I'm glad that we have secured in excess of $600,000 to go towards building that. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander, politics is made up of about10 per cent politics and about 90 per cent public service, and, if you get the public service part wrong, you don't have to worry about the politics part. Down here it's probably the other way around; it's probably about 90 per cent politics and 10 per cent public service. But back home overwhelmingly people just want you to deliver. One of the metaphors for delivery—I'm from the hills, the real hills. We always thought that we were just forgotten about, like hillbillies—is a place called Weabonga. Weabonga is a village, not what you do. We managed to get them a new mobile phone tower, which is great. They said to me last time I was there that they needed a hall. Their old hall had fallen down. It's an old gold-mining town. We have secured over $80,000 to give that community a place to go again. You think it's not important until you go out there to see them. You think no-one's going to turn up, until you see about 30 people standing around. I believe that if you can deliver for Weabonga then you can deliver for so many other places. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 It sounds like a good motto for life. COVID-19: Arts and Entertainment Industry 153 16:44 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle The COVID pandemic has changed the way we all live, and it has hit some aspects of life particularly hard. Without doubt, one of those is our ability to enjoy arts and cultural activities. These are not marginal activities nor optional extras. They are the core of our lives socially, culturally and, for hundreds of thousands of Australians, economically—because it's their life work—yet an estimated 65 per cent of full-time-equivalent jobs in live entertainment and cultural industries were lost in 2020. Revenue now remains at one-third of 2019 levels, and for those who rely on international custom it's less than 10 per cent. Many operators report their capacity to support staff is entirely dependent on JobKeeper. The week before last, it was good to share a beer and listen to a couple of up-and-coming bands with Labor leader Anthony Albanese at Mojos, a live music institution in Fremantle. Unfortunately, Mojos, like many arts and cultural businesses, is focused with sharp apprehension on the cliff that is approaching because the Morrison government, ignoring all the warnings and all the evidence, is yanking away support. I cannot understand why this government is so blind to the enormous value of arts and cultural organisations and workers in this country. Artists and their work—their music, stories, theatre, dance, film and the full spectrum of visual arts—should be acknowledged, supported and cherished, not left scrabbling for survival, not left rolling towards disaster. Geeves, Dr Richard (Dick) OAM 154 16:45 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I wish to pay a tribute to Dr Richard Geeves OAM, who passed away on Saturday 18 July 2020 at the age of 95. Dr Richard Geeves was a well-known local GP who worked tirelessly for many years serving my community after seeing service in World War II in Papua New Guinea. Early in his medical career, Dr Geeves realised there was a gap in care services provided to older people. He was made the honorary community physician at Hornsby Hospital and set up a multidisciplinary team that became the first of its kind, a geriatric rehabilitation service. In 1985 Dr Geeves set up a 26-bed rehabilitation ward and established a 60-bed transitional care and respite home on the hospital grounds, a testament to his advocacy and fundraising. A pioneer in dementia care, Dr Geeves set up the first dementia-specific daycare centre in 1989. The Richard Geeves Centre continues to provide respite care today. Dr Geeves served the community in many capacities, including as charter president of the Pennant Hills Rotary Club from when the club was chartered in 1960, remaining a member until the 1980s. David Firth, the president of the club, alerted me to his passing. Dr Geeves was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in 1990 and a Centenary Medal in 2001 for his community services. Dr Geeves's enormous contribution continued when he retired to Tasmania. A memorial service was recently held at the Thornleigh Scout Hall. I want to extend my condolences to Dr Geeves's family, including his five sons. He will be remembered for his selflessness, his compassion and for his contribution to dementia care. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for member statements has concluded. MOTIONS 154 MOTIONS Taxation 154 16:47 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) during the pandemic the wealth of Australia's billionaires grew by 25 per cent; (b) the Prime Minister's 2020 Budget contained $99 billion a year in subsidies to big corporations and the very wealthy; and (c) one in three big corporations in Australia pays no tax; and (2) calls on the Government to ensure the big corporations and billionaires pay their fair share of tax. Big corporations and billionaires in this country have too much power. That is corrupting democracy. And they are also not paying their fair share of tax. One in three big corporations in this country pays no tax at all. During the pandemic, while everyone else was doing it tough, billionaires grew their wealth by an eye-watering 25 per cent in this country and, because they are not paying their fair share, everyone else is left to pick up the tab. That's the reason everyone has to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send their child to a public school or why the cost of going to see a doctor and the out-of-pocket expenses keep going up and up. How is this system allowed to continue? How is it that the big corporations and billionaires are allowed to have so much power? They make donations to the Liberal and Labor parties. As a result, the rules get written in their favour, and we don't take the action we need to tackle the long-term problems in this country. That is why politics is working for the big corporations and billionaires but is not working for everyday people. I want to tell you a tale of three private jets. Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg billed taxpayers $5,000 to take the Prime Minister's private jet to Sydney for Lachlan Murdoch's 2018 Christmas party. Matthias Cormann has flown on mining and gas magnate Nev Power's personal jets a few times and then Nev Power got appointed to lead the gas-fired COVID recovery. Gina Rinehart flew Barnaby Joyce and other coalition MPs on her private jet to a lavish wedding in India to meet her business partners. These three stories about private jets show us why Australia is not going to do the sensible thing and recover from the pandemic by tackling the long-term problems our country faces by investing in job-creating, nation-building, planet-saving projects. Instead these billionaires and big companies make super profits, amplifying the climate crisis. They ship the bulk of their profits offshore, tax-free, and they keep the major parties on a drip-feed of donations, so the government has outsourced the recovery instead of having a government led investment in nation-building, planet-saving, job-creating projects. The government has just tipped well over $100 billion a year into corporate welfare. Instead of creating jobs directly, we've handed billions of dollars to big corporations and billionaires and crossed our fingers that it will all work out okay. JobMaker hiring credits and JobKeeper for companies that are already paying dividends, instant write-offs for big corporations and fuel tax credits for coal and gas companies—the list of corporate subsidies goes on and on. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:50 to 16 : 54 Mr BANDT M3C Before the suspension I about to say that two million people either have no job or do not enough work—and it's going to get worse in a couple of weeks time when JobKeeper is cut—and workers who do have a job aren't expecting a pay rise for years. But, while everyone else suffers, the billionaires and big corporations are making out like bandits. The wealth of billionaires grew an eye-watering 25 per cent during the pandemic—from $267 billion to a record high $357 billion during the pandemic. There were also 48 more billionaires in 2020 than there were just three years earlier—just shy of a doubling of billionaires in the last three years. So, not only is their wealth growing rapidly but, like cane toads, they are multiplying out of control as well. Gina Rinehart doubled her wealth, to $29 billion during the pandemic. Twiggy and Clive jointly increased their wealth by 141 per cent during the pandemic, while everyday people suffered lost jobs or pay cuts at worst or no pay rise at best. Kerry Stokes, through Sevenwest took millions in JobKeeper, made millions in profit and cut the pay of his staff by 20 per cent and just put in an order for another private jet. While we were locked down the billionaires got rich off us. While we try to stop the climate crisis, the billionaires make it worse. While we pay tax, the billionaires and the big corporations get handouts. Meanwhile, one in three big corporations pays no tax, including many that are making the climate crisis worse, with the Australian Tax Office singling out the oil and gas industry as—and I quote the ATO here—'systemic non-payers of tax'. While everyone else deals with rising public school fees and the high cost of going to the dentist, big corporations pay not tax and send their profits offshore. And, not only are they tax dodgers; now the government wants to give them extra public funds as well. Well, the next election is closer than you think. The Greens could be in balance of power. Because we don't take donations from the billionaires and big corporations, we will make them pay their fair share. The DEPUTY SPEAKER G86 Is the motion seconded? Mr Wilkie C2T I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 16:56 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein It's wonderful to speak on this motion put by the Marxist member for Melbourne. I think he is the leader of the Greens at the moment but I'm not quite sure. It depends on what is happening at different times of the day, but let's go with that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER G86 I remind the honourable member to address the member for Melbourne appropriately. Mr TIM WILSON IMW As far as I am aware I have addressed him The DEPUTY SPEAKER G86 I think you just used an epithet to describe him. Mr TIM WILSON IMW The Marxist member for Melbourne? He has a PhD in Marxist sociology, if I understand correctly. So I shall continue to call him as such. As I said it is wonderful to speak on the Marxist member for Melbourne's motion, because the coalition agrees that the billionaires and multinational corporations should pay tax. In fact, we've taken a lot of measures to make sure that multinational corporations do pay tax. But, of course, they don't want to talk about them. They want to deceive and mislead the Australian people into believing that they're the great crusaders, that they are the ones standing up for the Australian people—Don Quixote style—when in fact it is just an imaginary allegation that they are making. At every point this government, the Morrison government, has been standing by Australians and expecting multinationals to pay their tax as part of the Australian tax landscape. Since 1 July 2016— Mr Gosling interjecting— Mr TIM WILSON IMW I know the Australian Taxation Office data is inconvenient for the member for Solomon but it's kind of important. The actual hard data exposes the myths which are at the heart of the position put forward by the Marxist member for Melbourne. But when has truth been let get in the way of the Marxist ideology? Truth is a fungible thing. The DEPUTY SPEAKER G86 The member for Goldstein will address the member for Melbourne appropriately. Mr TIM WILSON IMW The member for Melbourne? The DEPUTY SPEAKER G86 Yes. Mr TIM WILSON IMW He has a PhD in Marxist sociology. The DEPUTY SPEAKER G86 He is not described in anything I have seen as the Marxist member; he is the member for Melbourne. Mr TIM WILSON IMW As I am the member for Goldstein. The DEPUTY SPEAKER G86 Indeed. Mr TIM WILSON IMW Regardless, the facts don't stand up for the member. The reality is that ATO data has shown that there has been $20.6 billion in tax liabilities against large public groups, multinational corporations, wealth individuals and associated groups since 1 July 2016—and that was to 31 December 2020. So, despite the allegations and the Don Quixote style claims of there not being any taxes paid, the evidence simply does not stack up. Of this, $13 billion in liabilities was raised from multinationals and large companies alone. Let's not misunderstand: the member is pandering to prejudices that he thinks exist within the Australian community. He does so because he thinks it is strategically smart play for the Greens and their Marxist ideology, because they think that, if they divide the community against Australians, somehow it will not be a problem. Did he speak on the motion this morning in parliament when we merely asked for one of largest investment funds in Australia to give details about the $36 million bonuses they have been paying to fund managers? No. He was silent and nowhere to be seen. Of course, had it been someone who wasn't bankrolling either the Australian Labor Party or the Greens, he might have somehow had an issue, but the reality is that, when it came to the test of standing up and speaking in parliament against Australians' retirement savings being given to wealthy fund managers, he resiles. Deputy Speaker, you are sitting there— The DEPUTY SPEAKER G86 Order! Mr Bandt M3C Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member made an insinuation that someone was bankrolling me and my party, which is completely untrue. I ask him to withdraw. There is absolutely no basis for that. If he has any evidence, he can put it. I ask him to withdraw. Mr TIM WILSON IMW Politely, the— The DEPUTY SPEAKER G86 Is this to the point of order? Mr TIM WILSON IMW I withdraw. Mr Bandt M3C Because you know it's not true. The DEPUTY SPEAKER G86 Order! The member for Melbourne will come to order. The member for Goldstein. Mr TIM WILSON IMW The Marxist member for Melbourne has promoted mistruths in his speech today because he is not interested in the future of this country and seeks to divide Australians against those who want to invest in this country and contribute to creating jobs and raising revenue. If the Marxist member for Melbourne were prepared to get up and call out $36 million made to single fund managers, he might have credibility. Instead, he sat there in silence and will continue to sit there in silence. The whole ecosystem of the Left political spectrum is entirely dependent on putting the interests of wealthy fund managers and wealthy investment firms against the interests of young Australians who want to buy their own homes. And this is where they fail Australians at every single point. (Time expired) 17:02 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner At the outset, I thank the member for Solomon for agreeing to trade places in this debate so I can perform my House chamber duty. It is a pleasure to follow the member for Goldstein, who was attacked over the weekend by his former leader, Malcolm Turnbull, who described the member for Goldstein's campaign for young Australians to be poorer in retirement so they can overheat the housing market as 'the craziest idea I've heard'. He went on to say: Isn’t it … somewhat patronising for people who benefit from 15.4 per cent super to say that working people should settle for 9.5 ... This motion goes to the weakness of the Australian economy and the rise in inequality. The member for Melbourne refers to an increase in the wealth of Australia's billionaires by 25 per cent. It turns out, member for Melbourne, that the problem is worse than that. Bloomberg has a billionaire tracker which provides a daily update of the aggregate wealth of billionaires across different countries. I checked it on the way to the chamber. According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, in the 12 months to 14 March 2021, the wealth of Australia's billionaires rose 76.8 per cent. Australia's billionaires have had a terrific pandemic. At least a dozen of them have benefited from the government's JobKeeper program. As a result of holding significant stakes in firms that received JobKeeper, they increased their profit and then paid out dividends. Among them are Gerry Harvey and Solomon Lew. In the case of Gerry Harvey, he doesn't think he should pay back the $3.6 million that his head office received, because it's 'a tiny amount'. This 'tiny amount' is larger than the amount that most Australians will earn in a lifetime. That's how out of touch Gerry Harvey is. He then went on to say that he will pay more than that amount of money in increased tax. I have news for Gerry Harvey and other highly profitable JobKeeper recipients who are refusing to repay the taxpayer: that's how the corporate tax system works. When you make a bigger profit, you pay more tax. But that doesn't mean you get to keep corporate welfare that you never needed. We have seen across Australia a raft of firms receiving JobKeeper that they didn't need. Shoe seller Accent received $45 million in JobKeeper, paid its CEO a $1.3 million bonus and paid $65 million in dividends—with $11 million going to Brett Blundy, an Australian billionaire who's recently taken up residence in Monaco. The Accent Group has seen a 60 per cent increase in profits on pre-COVID levels. K2 Asset Management has doubled its profits yet got half a million dollars in JobKeeper. You can only imagine what Prime Minister Morrison would be saying if a welfare recipient had received $500,000 they didn't need. The Prime Minister, who designed and oversaw robodebt, would be chasing after that welfare recipient and demanding the money back. After all, that's what the government did demanding money back, through an illegal scheme, from people who didn't owe the government anything. Yet when it comes to large firms receiving JobKeeper, the government has refused to ask for the money back. There are some firms that have done the right thing. Adelaide Brighton Cement is one of those who've paid back JobKeeper it didn't need. But too many firms have failed to do the right thing. I've urged the Auditor-General to look into the problems, and he's now said he'll launch an inquiry, but we need corporate Australia to step up and do the right thing. We need corporate Australia to live up to their own corporate social responsibility statements. When the Prime Minister is challenged on this, he uses the oldest cliche in the right-wing handbook. He calls it 'the politics of envy'. Prime Minister, this isn't about envy. This is about fairness. This is about the fact that at the end of this month you're going to cut off Cairns tourism businesses that desperately need JobKeeper from that lifeline. Jeff Borland says up to 250,000 jobs could go. If the government took a firmer line with firms getting JobKeeper who don't need it, then firms that do need it could get the benefit when they need it. 17:07 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The past 12 months have been one of the toughest years in living memory for very many Australians. It's been the worst recession we've faced in many decades and since the JobKeeper subsidy was introduced, a year ago, almost four million workers employed by more than one million businesses have received more than $90 billion in payments. That's been very necessary, for the most part. As the member for Fenner pointed out, it hasn't been necessary for all of those businesses, but, for the most part, it kept workers connected to their employers and kept businesses afloat. If at the end of this month the Prime Minister decides to turn off that JobKeeper, businesses that are exposed in the tourism industry are going to find it very difficult indeed. JobKeeper needs to be extended in a targeted way to make sure that we keep businesses afloat, to get us through the vaccine rollout and, in the case of tourism businesses in my electorate in Darwin, get us into the dry season. That's what needs to be done, and you could fund it by making some of those businesses that the member for Fenner just mentioned give back the JobKeeper that they just did not need. We knew on this side that we would need to support businesses and workers, and that's why we pushed those opposite, the federal government, to make JobKeeper happen and make it available to Australians. Sitting suspended from 17:09 to 17:11 Mr GOSLING 245392 Not all Australians are equal, and we know that from those opposite in the way that they hand out billions in subsidies to big corporations and the very wealthy. About $100 billion a year in this government's October budget went to subsidies for the big corporations and the very wealthy. We know that, during the pandemic, as the motion from the member for Melbourne notes, the wealth of Australia's billionaires grew by up to 50 per cent. That actually makes me quite ill. Whilst many were going and dipping into their super, their retirement savings, to keep their businesses afloat and keep their families going, billionaires grew their wealth by up to 50 per cent. It's true, as the member for Fenner mentioned, that many, many billionaires in this country became exponentially more wealthy. It's fair to say that the corporations they were running, or that they own significant amounts of, did not need that level of support that was provided by JobKeeper, especially considering that one-third of Australia's biggest corporations pay no tax. None. That is extraordinary and evidence that under those opposite, the coalition federal government, not all Australians are treated equally. If you're very wealthy, if you happen to be a billionaire, you'll do pretty well. They won't make you pay back JobKeeper, if you've been using that assistance from the Australian taxpayer to pay your dividends and executive bonuses. They're not interested in reaping back some of that money, which would keep some businesses afloat, come the end of this month, when small businesses in Australia will go to the wall and when Australians will lose their jobs. Will the funding that could be taken back from those companies that made huge profits and didn't need JobKeeper? That funding could literally keep heaps of small businesses around this country afloat. But those opposite—the coalition federal government; the Morrison government—aren't interested in doing that. They would rather just keep looking after their billionaire mates. That is not politics of envy; that is a fact. They are going to throw small business under a bus, because they refuse to make those big corporations pay any tax at all and refuse to take back the JobKeeper payments that some of these companies don't need in order to help those small businesses that do. I think it's a national shame. As the member for Fenner also mentioned, they hounded people in my electorate, in all honourable members' electorates, under the robodebt scheme for owing money when they really didn't owe money. The people who owe money are these companies that didn't need the JobKeeper and they need to pay it back. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER G86 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Road Safety 158 17:15 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I move: That this House: (1) notes that the Government is providing record funding for road safety measures around the nation through the: (a) $2 billion Road Safety Program delivering low cost road safety improvements such as better road markings, shoulder sealing, new barriers, better signage and other technologies building on the $500 million Targeted Road Safety Works Program; (b) $12 million for the Road Safety Innovation Fund to support road safety research and the development of new technologies; (c) $4 million Road Safety Awareness and Enablers Fund, with 20 projects already underway to improve education and promotion of road safety matters; (d) $8 million Driver Reviver Site Upgrades Program; (e) $5.5 million for a new Road Safety Data Hub, to better collate data on a national level and inform future infrastructure investment decisions; and (f) broader $110 billion infrastructure pipeline, upgrading roads across Australia; and (2) recognises there is more to do but congratulates the Government for its commitment to improving road safety around the nation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER G86 Do you wish to second the motion? Mr Pearce 282306 I would and reserve my right to speak. 17:15 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I am pleased to move this motion today to highlight the significance of road safety and road safety improvements but also the work that we have done as a coalition over the past few years. It's very sad that, in 2020, 1,106 people lost their lives on our nation's road, and, in 2019, 1,188 lost their lives. If we look at the very sad figure of 908 deaths due to the pandemic, it's very easy to say that every year we have a pandemic of road safety deaths. With more and more families taking their annual holidays within Australia, this government fully understands the need to create a safer road network so these families can travel to their destinations in the knowledge that not only will they get there safely but they will arrive home safely. This has been a bipartisan approach through the road safety committee, and I'd like to thank the member for Kingsford Smith, the deputy chair of the road safety committee, for what we achieved over the past 12 months. As a former police officer, I have witnessed the real impacts that these horrendous motor accidents can have on families and friends and first responders. In dollar terms, it costs our economy around $3 billion a year, but, in emotional hurt, it is completely unquantifiable. I would not wish to see another Australian or family or first responder have to continue to suffer these consequences, and that's why I acknowledge and applaud the record funding applied by this government to road safety measures around the nation. It is essential, however, that these programs—and the funding for these programs—are carried out concurrently to achieve the most effective result in reducing the road toll. All of these are relied on upon each other and none are more important than the other. Firstly, I recognise this government's contribution of $2 billion for the Road Safety Program, which is delivering low-cost road safety improvements such as better road markings and shoulder seals, new barriers, better signage and other technologies to build on the $500 million targeted road safety works. Secondly, I recognise the government's contribution of $12 million for the Road Safety Innovation Fund to support road safety research and development of new technologies. In support of that, there is $4 million for the Road Safety Awareness and Enablers Fund, with 20 projects already underway to improve education. Education is one of the biggest things for our youth—teaching them through school that a vehicle can be a weapon, educating them on the consequences of their driver behaviour. Other programs include the $8 million Driver Reviver site upgrades and $5.5 million for the new safety data hub. That was one of the biggest things that came out of the road safety committee inquiry—that we need to share our data with each other. If we don't share data between hospitals, between doctors, between governments—state, territory, federal—then we won't get the best picture to develop the best program of road safety improvements. More broadly, the government is providing $110 billion infrastructure pipelines for the general upgrading of roads across Australia. As I speak, works have been carried out already for the $1.8 billion Coffs Harbour bypass, in addition to $191 million for the Fixing Local Roads Program and $140 million for the Safer Roads Program. By any measure, the level of funding for road safety programs and measures by this government is record breaking. There is no doubt about that. But I will go back to the need for a bipartisan approach by both sides, because we cannot afford to lose over a thousand people a year to road safety, year on year. The DEPUTY SPEAKER G86 Is the motion seconded? 17:20 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore Yes. I will always take any opportunity to talk about the importance of road safety to my electorate of Gilmore on the New South Wales South Coast. The Princes Highway is our main connection to each other and to the rest of New South Wales. Almost everyone who lives on the South Coast drives on it daily. The Princes Highway is also the corridor that brings us our life blood—the tourists. For many of our communities there is one road in and one road out of our villages, and they are all connected by the highway. We also feel it acutely when something goes wrong, which I'm sad to say happens all too often. We feel acutely the swell that happens during holiday times, when the number of cars on the road triples or more, and we fear the terrible accidents that come with it. Our roads are tested a lot. It can be a difficult task to maintain these roads. In the Shoalhaven alone, the council has 1,771 kilometres of council-serviced roads to maintain—a huge ask. But road safety is also never too far from the minds of local people. Only this last week I was at one of my regular mobile offices where I met a driving instructor. He was talking to me about how important the state of our roads are, and I couldn't agree more. Our driving instructors do an incredible job, giving local drivers the skills they need to stay safe on our roads. Thank you to each and every one of you for your efforts. They do not go unnoticed. I am always delighted when I hear that more road funding has been allocated to the South Coast to help with the mammoth task of keeping people safe on our roads. I've been proud to help secure funding for critical road safety programs that our community has championed for years, like, for example, the long-awaited Currarong Road upgrade. I was also pleased to hear only this month about some further funding for projects such as moving the Tuross Head bus stop to a safer spot on the highway, which is something the Tuross Head Progress Association and community have fought hard for. Commonwealth funding will also go towards projects like upgrades to the Princes Highway between Stephens Creek and Cockwhy Creek, south of Termeil. These are welcome projects, absolutely, and I'm glad to see them moving forward. But the reality is that the work to improve our roads is a long way from being finished. I'm regularly contacted by local people who want to see more done to improve local roads. One lady, who was sadly involved in an accident at Bewong, contacted me about the state of the highway where her accident occurred. Heartbreakingly, only the month before, a gentleman had lost his life in almost the same spot. She doesn't want to see more accidents happen here, but the response from the minister simply quoted figures about all that the government is doing to improve road safety—much like this motion. Several members of one Conjola family wrote to me with their concerns around the turn into Murrays Road, Conjola, from the Princes Highway. Again, there have been several terrible accidents at this intersection, and the families who live on a few properties nearby want action taken to address the risks. They were assured by the New South Wales government that road safety is a top priority. The government agreed to install an additional warning sign, but there was no commitment beyond that to improve road safety here. It isn't just our highway either. Grant lives in a remote part of Termeil, accessible mainly by roads maintained by the Forestry Corporation. Old Coach Road was heavily impacted by the Currowan bushfire and has required some significant maintenance works to address safety concerns since then. I wrote to the minister responsible in December but, after many follow-up attempts, I have not had a response. Grant remains seriously concerned about the state of this road. A sign has been put up saying, 'Dry weather road only. Not suitable for two-wheel drive vehicles'—not much comfort for local people who rely on it and have been waiting for action for over a year. The government likes to pat itself on the back, but figures and assurances don't mean much when people are losing their lives on our roads. We hear it all too often: 'There are simply too many black spots on the Princes Highway and there are far too many accidents.' I ask the government to stop the talk, stop the congratulations, and get on with the job of fixing local records. Proceedings suspended from 17:25 to 17:30 17:30 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid I rise to speak about road safety. Road Safety is something that affects us all. Any death or serious injury from a road crash is one too many, and I know this only too well. My own grandfather died in a motor vehicle accident at a very young age while he was travelling from Newcastle to Sydney. It affects the whole family and cuts the life off of someone way too early. Every Australian plays an important role in keeping our roads safe by not driving under the influence of alcohol or illicit substances or speeding. But we can all do better to improve and keep our roads safe. In 2014 on the Central Coast a young boy named Tom McLaughlin, who was four at the time, died in a pedestrian accident. His parents, David and Michelle, set up Little Blue Dinosaur Foundation, a charity that sets out to improve road safety for children. They do an incredible job of that by conducting campaigns that go across the country via local government areas to educate parents and teachers and the whole community about road safety. The Australian government is leading the way when it comes to road safety. The federal government has committed $500 million to targeted road safety upgrades to deliver small-scale road safety improvements that have a big effect on road safety right around the nation. Improvements such as new barriers, audio tactile road markings, better signage, better road surfaces and shoulder sealings are relatively low-cost but deliver significant improvements to the safety of the road. This is why the Australian government has built upon the $500 million targeted road safety with our $2 billion Road Safety program. This new $2 billion Road Safety program is rolling out now. The $2 billion is split into three six-month periods running from 1 January this year until 30 June 2022. The funding is committed on a 'use it or lose it' basis. That means that if a state or territory cannot spend its allocation in each period, it will be reallocated to a jurisdiction that can spend it. The Road Safety program together with the government's very popular Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program is expected to support more than 10,000 jobs at a time when we need them most. The new program is supporting low-cost road improvements and in urban areas supporting the separation of cyclists and other vulnerable road users from the traffic. This shows the benefit of infrastructure delivery—supporting our economy with jobs and investment but leaving a lasting legacy that will serve Australians into the future. To ensure the Australian government's infrastructure investment in road safety is supported by data, we have also committed $5.5 million over four years to establish a national road safety data hub. The states and territories are required to report key data to the federal government as a key condition of the Road Safety program, which will feed into the hub's design and cooperation. The federal government also supports using innovative solutions to improve road safety. Innovation will take the form of road safety management initiatives, new technologies and products, delivery techniques and research that better informs policy development. These initiatives will support the safe system approach into making road safety business as usual for all road users. Long-term, the Road Safety Innovation Fund aims to reduce harm and trauma in crashes on Australian roads through supporting a shift in the way we address road safety challenges. The intention of the program is to contribute to a safe and sustainable road transport system towards Vision Zero: zero fatal and serious injuries on our roads by 2050. The Road Safety Awareness and Enablers Fund provides $4 million over four years, from 2019 to 2020, for grants to fund road safety awareness education and collaboration initiatives. Twenty projects have been funded aimed at reducing road trauma in Australia. They include rural and regional road safety; promoting and raising awareness on the impacts of speeding; driveway safety; sharing the road; and combatting fatigue through the expansion of the Driver Reviver program. Although more work needs to be done, between 1980 and 2019 Australia's annual road fatality rate reduced from 22.3 to 4.3 deaths over 100,000 people. We have come a long way in our quest towards zero, but we have much further to go. 17:35 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I thank the member for Cowper for this motion. Road safety was front of my mind in my electorate over the recent Labour Day weekend. Thousands of visitors descended on the north-east to soak up our beautiful autumn weather and attend COVID-safe festivals, events and gourmet experiences, including the Tastes of Rutherglen, the Tallangatta show, the Mighty Mitta Muster, and Upstream: Festival of Art + Culture. One thing that unites these events is that everyone used roads to get there. When our visitors headed home on Monday, traffic was bumper to bumper, from Bright to Myrtleford and from Yea to Mansfield. Frustrations boiled over and some dangerous behaviour occurred. Road safety niggles became problems. The need for upgrades could not be made more clear—improvements like left-turning lanes on the Maroondah Highway in Bonnie Doon to enhance safety and improve traffic flow, or widening the Midland Highway between Benalla and Mansfield so that people can safely overtake. We need to accelerate these upgrades. North-East Victoria is ready to meet the post-COVID domestic tourist boom, but we need safe and reliable roads to do so. Roads to Recovery, the Black Spot Program and the Bridges Renewal Program are important, but we need more. The government should expand the eligibility criteria and size of these programs to fund more shovel-ready infrastructure projects for safety and to boost our economic growth. As the Hume Region Local Government Network has said, the scale of economic damage wrought by the 2020 bushfires and the pandemic requires substantially augmented funding in these key areas to help regional communities not just to recover but to build back better and position themselves for the long term. Yet, with its much hyped infrastructure and road safety focus, I'm left asking: when is the government's delivery of its flagship election promise to the people of Indi—the McKoy Street intersection upgrade? It's been almost two years and absolutely nothing has changed. It's only a matter of time before an accident happens, and the government really needs to get on with it. There's no shortage of road safety projects that the government can fund right now in my electorate, which the mayors of our nine local governments put to the Treasurer just last month. For example, the Wangaratta-Whitfield Road is the gateway to the gourmet food and wine district of the King Valley and a vital escape route in emergencies. It needs widening and improvement to meet growing tourism and agricultural traffic. The mayor has warned it will take a major collision or perhaps, tragically, a fatality to prompt the government to spend money to upgrade it. Let's prove him wrong. The Benalla-Whitfield Road upgrade will seal the last six kilometres of this gravel road, where traffic has doubled in two years, and it is also a school bus route. This will secure better accessibility in the King Valley, which is crucial during emergencies. The Alexandra-Thornton-Eildon rail trail link will give road cyclists a dedicated trail so they can get off the busy main roads and access the district's premier tourist attractions of the GRVT and Lake Eildon. The Skyline Road Tourist Precinct would seal 18 kilometres of road between Bonnie Doon and Eildon to provide a new iconic touring experience. This will improve safety and connectivity and the return on investment would be huge. Safe roads are important for our $49.9 million per annum cycle tourism sector. Over 100,000 people visit the north-east to cycle each year. It's incredible, isn't it? Lycra-clad visitors, local commuters, everyday families and people on e-bikes from Tawonga South to Felltimber Creek are a regular sight on our roads. Bike-crazy Alpine Shire locals have joined the Amy Gillet Foundation on the Live, Drive, Ride Like a Local campaign, which aims to build respect between all road users. I want to acknowledge Mark, Fiona, Doug, Nick, David, Phil, Daniel, Sam, Cooper and Helen who starred in the video and everyone involved with this public safety campaign. Whether it be on two wheels or four, at the end of the day the most important part of using a road is getting home safely to our families. That's something we all share. I commend the member for Cowper for this motion. As a cyclist and as a motorist, I really encourage the government to do more on road safety. 17:40 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I would like to thank the member for Cowper at the outset for this motion, because it's a very good story that we as a government have to tell about the record funding we are providing for road safety right across the country. Road safety affects each and every one of us. For many of us it has affected family and friends at very personal levels. Each and every one of us at each level of government, and every Australian, plays an important role in ensuring the safety of our people on our roads. I'm pleased to note that the Morrison government has made significant investments in road safety policy and infrastructure upgrades since 2019. But it's also worth reflecting on the value of these investments over a long period of time, under successive governments of all political persuasions. Between 1980 and 2019 Australia's annual road fatality rate reduced from 22.3 deaths per 100,000 people to 4.3 deaths per 100,000 people. A major contributor to this was a halving in the number of fatalities on the Pacific Highway since the commencement of the Pacific Highway upgrades, in particular between Sydney and the Gold Coast. But I'd say the upgrades between Brisbane and the Gold Coast contributed to that as well. Under its upgrade program there have been 49 per cent fewer fatalities on the Bruce Highway and 30 per cent fewer fatal and serious injury crashes at Black Spot Program sites. One of the important things that I see in representing my electorate of Forde is continuing to work to secure funding for road upgrades across my electorate. I believe that's been one of my most important achievements to date. We know that people want to get home safely to their friends and family. They don't want to have to worry about their children or loved ones driving on dangerous roads. Just last week, I was very pleased to go and check out some of the new safety works on Beaudesert-Beenleigh Road between Tamborine and Wolffdene. These works are part of a $13.2 million commitment by the Australian government for road safety works between Tamborine and Wolffdene. The works on this part of the road include drainage upgrades, kerb realignment, road and shoulder widening, installation of guard rails and motorcyclist under-run protection, vegetation trimming and tree clearing. In addition to Beaudesert-Beenleigh Road upgrades we are also doing the same road safety upgrades on Beenleigh–Redland Bay Road, which is an increasingly busy subarterial road. Other federal government road safety contributions in my electorate include $37.5 million, matched by the Queensland government, to upgrade the Mount Lindesay Highway at Munruben. This will make the highway safer by widening it from two to four lanes, the installation of safety barriers, the provision of new northbound and southbound bridges over Norris Creek. There's $20,000 to the Ormeau driver reviver program, which is run by the Ormeau lions, who do a terrific job. There's $900,000 in road safety upgrades in Bethania. This joint project with Logan City County will see the signalisation and traffic safety improvements at the Albert Street and Station Road Logan River off ramp at Bethania. This is a very dangerous intersection. I visited there a couple of weeks ago. It was quite obvious from the damage on the fences around that intersection how dangerous it is. It is extraordinarily difficult to cross from either side of the road on both car and foot. There's $96.3 million for the M1 motorway exit upgrades of exists 41 and 49, matched by the Queensland government. These will see duplication of these overpasses. I'm sure the member fro Moreton, who is here in the chamber with me, will be very pleased on the upgrades to the M1 occurring at Eight Mile Plains, Springwood and Underwood—jointly funded I might add by the Commonwealth government and the state government. Those works are progressing at a pace. Our government is committed to $30 million under the Urban Congestion Fund to upgrade the Beenleigh park and ride commuter car park. This will make it easier for people to use our rail network and will help ease congestion and ensure consumers get home sooner. Across the country, this government is investing over $2 billion in road safety. Together with our Local Roads and Community Infrastructure plan, it is expected to support some 10,000 jobs. These infrastructure upgrades and the Australian government's commitment to $500 million of targeted road safety upgrades will continue to deliver for our communities right across the country—just another example of the Morrison government delivering for you. 17:45 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I'm pleased to speak on the motion moved by the member for Cowper acknowledging Commonwealth government funding for road safety measures. But let's be clear: this motion is a list of announcements for road safety measures by the Morrison government, and we know that the spin merchants in this government are all for announcements but not so strong on the follow-up. Leaving aside the fact that delivery of road safety is different from announcements of road safety, this government is shameless when it comes to spending money in LNP seats or in marginal seats they are targeting. They did it before the last election, with their multibillion-dollar program to deal with traffic congestion. Eighty-three per cent of the $3 billion Urban Congestion Fund was announced to be spent in Liberal Party seats and Liberal Party target seats before the last election. The $115 million targeted to fix Brisbane traffic hotspots is earmarked to fix nine elections, all of them in LNP federal seats. Well hello Deirdre Chambers, what a surprise! The Morrison government has form when it comes to mishandling taxpayer money. There was sports rorts, the $100 million community sports fund, which was allocated by a colour-coded political spreadsheet. There was regional rorts, the $220 million Regional Jobs and Investment Packages, where ministers overturned departmental advice, including giving $5 million to a meat processing business linked to a coalition donor. There was pool rorts—$10 million for the North Sydney Olympic Pool from the Female Facilities and Water Safety Stream Program, which was meant to go to regional projects. I'm not from Sydney, but my understanding is that North Sydney is not part of regional Australia—and the list goes on. I will just go back to the infrastructure announcements made before the last election. On 1 May 2019 the LNP announced that they would fund 13 new congestion-busting projects across south-east Queensland. Included in the projects was the removal of the level crossing at Boundary Road in Coopers Plains in my electorate of Moreton. Sadly, there was no time frame for the delivery of this project when it was announced. On 24 July 2019, during question time, I asked the infrastructure minister when this crucial project would be commenced. Without answering my question, the Deputy Prime Minister said he would be happy to come to Moreton to have a look at the dangerous crossing. That was 20 months ago and I'm still waiting. I even wrote to the minister for infrastructure on 30 July 2019 formally inviting him to Moreton to inspect the crossing. He is still a no-show. It is coming up to two years since the Morrison government announced they would fix this dangerous crossing in Moreton, and they haven't even bothered to come and look at it. They are all there for the announcement but missing in action when it comes to delivering. The inland rail is the Deputy Prime Minister's pet project—and I think the member for Bonner is hot and heavy for it as well! The inland rail project is planned to end in Acacia Ridge in my electorate of Moreton, 37 kilometres from the port of Brisbane where most goods that are being transported need to end up. The only way goods can get from Acacia Ridge to the port is by truck. This could mean 3,000 A-double road train trips on suburban roads in my electorate every day. There are currently four million truck movements through Acacia Ridge per year. Under the coalition plan, this could increase to 11 million truck movements per year by 2040. How will that impact on Acacia Ridge residents and suburbs? The people I have been doorknocking in Acacia Ridge are angry about the coalition's misjudged boondoggle. They're angry that more huge trucks will be using the roads around their homes and businesses. They are angry that there will be more noise and particulate matter in the air. Some of the air pollution will be linked to the 1.8 kilometre-long trains carrying New South Wales coal, electorate. Queensland federal LNP members have proposed that some tunnels be built to the port. It will have above-ground trains in Moreton but tunnels in the coalition seats, according to The Sunday Mail. This thought bubble would cause more problems than it would solve. Leaving aside the cost of building the tunnels to the port of Brisbane, the tunnels will need to be much bigger than the Cross River rail tunnels. Those double-stacked 1.8 kilometre-long container trains need very, very large tunnels. There will be above-ground train lines connecting the tunnels in my patch, and then ventilation shafts above ground. The tunnels won't stop the noise and air pollution from double-stacked 1.8 kilometre-long container trains that will need to go through suburban areas to get to the tunnels. The tunnel fantasy is merely a distraction from the government's problem of having an inland rail boondoggle that ends in my electorate of Moreton, 37 kilometres from Moreton Bay. As I've said previously, there's a much simpler solution. The inland rail should bypass Brisbane and go straight to the port of Gladstone, a deepwater harbour. It would save money and keep the suburbs of Moreton family friendly. That's my commitment to the people of Moreton, not this inland rail boondoggle. Let's go with the original plan: Toowoomba to Gladstone. (Time expired) 17:50 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I'm very pleased to speak in parliament to share how the Morrison government's record funding for road safety measures around the nation is improving roads in my electorate of Bonner. Rebuilding our economy as we recover from the global coronavirus pandemic means building more roads, rails and bridges. Now is the time to look at the infrastructure projects to create jobs, manage our growing population and deliver flow-on spending to local communities. Nationally, the Morrison government is investing $110 billion, over 10 years, on infrastructure, which is already supporting 100,000 jobs on worksites across the country. In Queensland, and, importantly, in my electorate of Bonner, this nation-building infrastructure includes major highway and road upgrades. One of the most well-known congestion-busting upgrades is the M1 Pacific Motorway Gateway merge, which has been a sore point for commuters for years, and I thank the honourable member for Forde for his ongoing support of this project. The southbound upgrade has made a tremendous difference to motorists in Bonner. As the northbound upgrades continue, we know the end result will be a smoother congestion-free commute. Another exciting infrastructure project underway is the Brisbane Metro public infrastructure, which will help take cars off busy roads in South-East Queensland. The Brisbane Metro is being delivered by the Brisbane City Council and supported by the Morrison government with $300 million in funding. The 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, and I'm very excited to see work progress this year that is creating 2,600 jobs through its design and construction phase. In my many years as the member for Bonner I have been proud to deliver funding to fix dangerous intersections and blackspots on local roads. It goes to show, when multiple levels of government are willing to work together, we can get the job done. Thanks to my colleagues at Brisbane City Council, working alongside the federal government, we have some great road projects ready to start construction. In fact, this week, construction will get underway on the Chelsea Road and Rickertt Road intersection at Ransome. I was delighted to deliver $6 million of federal funding towards the safety upgrade, which was jointly funded with and will be delivered by the Brisbane City Council. This intersection had been a cause for concern for many years, and the petition I ran alongside the community helped fight to deliver funding to get this much needed safety upgrade underway. As part of the works to improve safety and reduce congestion, upgrades will include installing traffic signals at the intersection to improve the overall operation and safety for all road users, constructing right-hand-lane turns on all four approaches to improve traffic flow through the intersection, installing signalised crossing facilities to improve safety and access to pedestrians and cyclists, and providing improved safety and connectivity to the public and active transport options. Another project due to get underway this year is the Newnham Road and Wecker Road intersection at Mount Gravatt. The Morrison government delivered $12 million towards this project, which will also be delivered by the Brisbane City Council. This project was jointly funded with Brisbane City Council for much needed safety upgrades: between 2014 and 2019 there were 18 crashes reported and countless near misses. Thanks to the petition I ran, we were able to deliver this funding to get the safety upgrades underway. Construction is scheduled to get underway in mid-2021, with work to be completed during mid-2022, weather permitting. Over the weekend I joined Councillor Steven Huang at Rochedale to chat with residents about the upgrades to the Rochedale roundabout, which is heavily congested and outgrown by the needs of the new housing developments in the area. To be able to share with all corners of my electorate how this government is delivering on our road projects, it makes my job worthwhile. When people tell me there's a problem, I listen. When they demand action, our government delivers. Thanks to my supportive colleagues, every road upgrade I have fought for has seen funding delivered by this Morrison government. With the backing of our local government, we are getting Bonner families home sooner and safer. 17:55 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Every government funds black spot work. Every government funds the Roads to Recovery program. Every government funds bridges improvement. In my experience since 2007, that has been the case. I want to congratulate the Somerset Regional Council in my electorate, who have undertaken the Bridges Renewal Program, particularly after the 2011 and 2013 floods. That's seen tremendous improvement in terms of road safety in the Somerset region, particularly for the bridges and crossings, such as Walshes Crossing up near Kilcoy and towards Mount Kilcoy. The bridge across Cressbrook Creek was washed away, near Toogoolawah. Gregors Creek bridge was washed away in one of those floods I referred to down near Harlin, as did the Redbank Creek bridge near Esk. This has made a huge difference in terms of the work that has been done in the region, in terms of jobs and in terms of road safety. One of the things that's so clear about this government is that they are great at photo opportunities but not so good at the follow up. The member for Bonner was talking about the $110 billion. The trouble with that is that—the government makes those announcements and says in its budget that's what they are doing—they don't always do it. I can give you three examples locally in South-East Queensland where the government really needs to look at doing much better. The first example is the final section of the Ipswich Motorway, from the Oxley Road roundabout through to the Centenary Highway interchange. That's what we used to call that particular part of it. Of course, this government, until recently, opposed upgrades to the Ipswich Motorway from Dinmore through to Darra, but, finally, just a few short years ago, they agreed with the Queensland government to do part of the Darra to Rocklea section. I urge the government to stop boasting about what it does and actually spend some money to fix that blunder road from Oxley Road roundabout all the way on the Ipswich Motorway. They should three-lane it and put service roads on it. That will make a big difference to the 100,000 vehicles a day and the people who drive them between Ipswich and Brisbane. It's about time the government got on to that job. Another example of a road safety issue in my electorate is, of course, the Warrego Highway between Dinmore through to Helidon Spa near Toowoomba. The government has put money aside across the forward estimates, and so has the Queensland government, but there is a shocking crossing there across the Warrego Highway called the Mount Crosby Road interchange. I've talked about it a number of times. During the course of the last year or so, the state government talked about a survey with the Warrego Highway and the Mount Crosby Road interchange upgrade. There was $22 million agreed to by the state and federal government in relation to it. If you can find someone who thinks the current proposal is a good idea, you're looking pretty hard, because I can't find anyone. Even at my mobile office last Saturday, I got a number of people who came and saw me to say that the current proposal is inadequate and that we should spend more money out of the money that has been allocated. They should fix the bridge. It's currently one lane each way. The proposal is not to touch the bridge. The off-ramps are terrible—talk about safety. Traffic banks up on the 100 kay stretches both sides of the Warrego Highway and Mount Crosby Road interchange in the evening and the mornings. It needs to be done for road safety purposes. Stop boasting about what you are doing and actually do that. The third local issue in South-East Queensland is on Cunningham Highway. It's the 4.75 kilometres between Warwick Road at Yamanto through to Ebenezer Creek. That includes the Willowbank interchange outside the RAAF Base Amberley. Since the Howard government, governments of both political persuasions have spent money on the RAAF Base Amberley, about $1.3 billion, but the road needs to be fixed. The Warrego Highway is on the Infrastructure Priority List by Infrastructure Australia. The Cunningham Highway is also a priority initiative. It's really, really important. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17 : 59 to 18 : 12 Mr NEUMANN HVO As I was saying before the suspension, the Cunningham Highway is a pinch point for interstate freight along the western corridor. We're talking about a cost to the taxpayer of $45 million per year. In terms of congestion, it really is terrible in the mornings and the evenings, and people stage their exits and entry onto the RAAF base at Amberley and the aerospace precinct surrounding it as a result. I call on both the federal government and the state government to work together in terms of the business case and then the funding that's necessary there. It's really critical for people in Ipswich and also people in Brisbane and the many thousands of people who work on the RAAF base at Amberley. If you want to talk about road safety, Ipswich Motorway, the Warrego Highway, the Mount Crosby Interchange and the Cunningham Highway really need road safety issues addressed. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. COVID-19: Travel Agents 165 17:13 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I move: That this House: notes that: on 28 March 2021 the Government intends to cease the JobKeeper scheme, despite widespread calls from economists and businesses alike to extend the scheme as the economy continues to suffer; travel agents have been pleading for more targeted support given the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on their businesses, and the brutal reality that there is no snap-back for their industry; the Australian Federation of Travel Agents, the peak body representing the nation's travel industry, has highlighted multiple flaws in the Government's $128 million support package for embattled travel agents, which has provoked confusion and uncertainty; and travel agents say they'll be forced to close because the Government's support package is so poorly designed it won't help them; acknowledges that Jobkeeper has been a lifeline for travel agents, and has allowed them to keep their doors open to continue to assist their clients with refund recoveries and those seeking to return home; and urges the government to:       (a) listen to the travel sector and respond to their calls for more targeted support to help them survive the detrimental impacts of COVID-19; and       (b) extend ongoing support to those sectors of the Australian economy who are most impacted by COVID-19 and who will be amongst the last to recover. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 Is there a seconder for the motion? Ms Thwaites 282212 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Ms CLAYDON 248181 Today I put forward this motion on behalf of travel agents across the country, but most particularly in my electorate of Newcastle, because this industry has indeed been decimated by COVID-19. I have heard from dozens of local travel agents who have been pleading for targeted support, given the very disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on their businesses. There simply is no economic snapback for this sector. There are now more than 600,000 Australian jobs tied up in the travel and tourism industry, and they need continued support. The package of subsidised flights announced last week is way too narrow, and only the aviation sector will benefit. There needs to be carefully targeted support to help travel agents who are struggling. It's not just Labor saying this. I note that the Australian Federation of Travel Agents, the peak body representing the nation's travel industry, has highlighted the multiple flaws in the government's $128 million support package for embattled travel agents. That package has provoked a lot of confusion and uncertainty. The more recent announcement on cheap airfares—make no mistake—whilst attractive to small numbers of consumers, is not the panacea that travel agents have been asking for. On Friday of last week, one of my constituents, Janelle, an independent travel agent, contacted me, extremely concerned about the impact that the end of JobKeeper payments is going to have on her business and, indeed, her family. Janelle said, 'I have a consistent and loyal customer base and spent 2020 cancelling bookings, cashing refunds, applying for credits, basically advocating for my clients and offering my clients the support and service they expected from me.' Fast forward to 2021, Janelle says: 'I'm again chasing refunds and credits and seeking extensions due to continued border closures. Receiving JobKeeper meant there was some income for the hours of work involved with each and every booking. JobKeeper has kept my family going through a very difficult year. The mortgage and bills could be paid.' Janelle is seriously worried right now. She's thinking, 'What happens on 28 March when the government's intention to cease the JobKeeper scheme kicks in despite all the widespread calls from economists and businesses alike to extend the scheme?' The economy—and this sector, in particular—is still suffering. She doesn't have any of that comfort right now. Another local independent travel agent in my electorate reached out to me just a few weeks ago about her own dire circumstances. She noted that, while the JobKeeper payment hasn't covered her wage or costs over the last nine months, it has enabled her business to survive. But, as we know, the government is intending to stop the JobKeeper scheme in just a few weeks, and this will leave Janelle and my other independent travel agent with no alternative but to close their businesses. That's the worry that both those women have. The poorly planned and poorly delivered COVID-19 Consumer Travel Support Program has gone no way to assist either of my constituents. Janelle's business didn't qualify at all, and my other constituent's business only qualified for $1,500 and that nowhere near covers the hundreds of unpaid hours she's spent assisting her clients with refund recoveries and helping those seeking to return home. It also does nothing to ensure her business is positioned to still have its doors open when travel recommences. The health department secretary, Professor Brendan Murphy, warned that international travel may not be an option for more than a year. The government needs to extend targeted support now. (Time expired) A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 18:19 to 18 : 30 18:30 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan I rise today as a member of the great state of Queensland because this issue is particularly important to my home state as we are, after all, a tourism state. We rely on both international and domestic tourism in key economies, particularly in Brisbane but also the Far North, in Cairns and Townsville and, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know well, on the Sunshine Coast and the Gold Coast. I am proud that, as a member of the Morrison government, I can speak, as part of this motion, about the significant support we have given to Queenslanders during the COVID-19 pandemic and recession to save lives and to save livelihoods. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Proceedings suspended from 18:31 to 18 : 42 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 I was regaling the chamber with the significant support that the Morrison government has given to Queenslanders to save jobs and to save livelihoods, particularly in the tourism sector. Over the last 12 months, the Morrison government has provided more than $28.5 billion in economic support to Queensland businesses and households, including through programs like JobKeeper, which has helped significantly in the tourism industry, and other programs like HomeBuilder. As the member for Newcastle, who moved this motion, rightly pointed out, JobKeeper has been a lifeline for many businesses, including travel agents, but not just travel agents, across a range of industries. In my own electorate of Ryan, more than 5,000 businesses used JobKeeper to keep their head above water. I spoke to one of the many business owners who used JobKeeper—their business is in Chapel Hill—and they said to me, 'It saved my bacon.' I'm constantly speaking with local businesses that have now transitioned off JobKeeper and are thriving once again because of the economic recovery that is being led by the Morrison government. Across Queensland we've seen more than 560,000 workers come off JobKeeper since September. We're continuing to inject the support that is needed to continue our economic growth. Recently I met with Lloyd from Fresh Homes who, thanks to the HomeBuilder program, is having to put on more staff, both in my electorate but also in Townsville, where the demand for new builds is experiencing a significant uptick, mainly through first home buyers. We know it's a tough time for tourism businesses and we are continually adapting our support as a government in order to provide the spending where it is needed. Last week we announced 800,000 half-price plane tickets to 13 key tourist locations that have been affected by the border closures, because we know that for every $4 spent on an airline ticket it means $10 spent at the destination. But this shouldn't be a solo effort—and this is the main point that I wanted to make in speaking to this motion—because it is up to all levels of government to aid the recovery, particularly in the regions where tourism is particularly vital. Unfortunately, in my home state of Queensland, and in your home state, Deputy Speaker Wallace, that isn't what is happening. Not all levels of government are pitching in and putting their shoulder to the wheel to ensure the economic recovery happens. We've seen that our premier, Premier Palaszczuk, is happy, at a moment's notice, to shut down the borders for weeks, sometimes months, on end—sometimes for quite a while—when there have been only one or two COVID cases. She was happy to take the lead in the run-up to her election, using border controls as a political tool yet now, when those ramifications are starting to be really felt by the tourism industry, she is nowhere to be seen. She is not willing to stump up the support, not only to the federal government has that been surprising but to the other states— Opposition members interjecting— Mr SIMMONDS 282983 I hear the Labor members interjecting. Let's look at the facts. The Morrison government has delivered three times the amount of economic support of the state Labor government in Queensland. Okay, it is a different level of government, so I understand the Labor members want a different comparison. How about this: despite being in charge of Australia's tourism state, Premier Palaszczuk has delivered the lowest level of economic support of any other state or territory government—the lowest. So despite being willing to jump on border closures at a moment's notice, particularly for political purposes, she has watched all of those bookings, all that confidence seep away from the tourism industry because of the policies that she has put in place. She is delivering the lowest assistance as a percentage of state gross product of any state or territory in the whole of Australia. It is absolutely disgraceful. It's disgraceful behaviour and, now the impacts of her policies are being felt, she ducks for cover behind the federal government and tries to blame us. It is an absolute disgrace. If Labor really wants to help tourism operators, they will get on the phone to Premier Palaszczuk and get her to stump up as much cash as the other states. 18:46 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I proudly stand in support of this motion which urges the government not just to listen to the travel sector and support the travel agents but to also ask for extending ongoing support to all those areas of the Australian economy that continue to be impacted the most by COVID-19 and are, unfortunately, now the last to recover. It is only now13 days until JobKeeper is withdrawn by this government on 28 March yet there are 1.1 million workers employed by businesses that are relying on receiving that JobKeeper payment. Indeed, the government's Treasury predicts that 100,000 people will lose their jobs when JobKeeper is withdrawn at the end of the month. Some other experts believe this number may be as high as 250,000 people. JobKeeper has been vital in keeping people not just in work but connected to their employer. That's why Labor suggested this policy in the first place. But alas, whilst the government did implement it, it left crucial gaps in many areas of the economy and now, in a time when we're still experiencing the downturn of the COVID pandemic, while international borders are not just closed but clearly will be closed for a long time to come, this government sees fit to see those JobKeeper supports withdrawn from the businesses relying on them, their employees who are relying on them and their families who are relying on them. I've been making a bit of a campaign out of this and have been making numerous posts, speeches and videos on my Facebook page. I have been saying that I will be raising this issue in parliament. Many businesses and individuals have come back to me with how JobKeeper being withdrawn is going to affect them. I was asked to put a word in for a business that didn't qualify for the second round of JobKeeper just because of one random good month despite all the other months being down. I was asked to stick up for sole traders who had invested years into their trade and were likely to die off because tourism was their livelihood. I was asked to stick up for mum-and-dad businesses that need support right now, more than ever, after a year now of dealing with COVID. I was asked to acknowledge that, for so many businesses across the country, it's been super tough staying strong and listening to the government rhetoric that apparently 'everything is back to pre-COVID' when in reality so many people and businesses are still struggling. Airlines, airports, unions and aviation businesses have spent the last 12 months calling on the Morrison government to provide more support for Australian aviation. Instead, the Morrison government denied support to airports, denied JobKeeper to dnata workers, allowed Virgin Australia to fall into administration and stood by as Qantas sacked 8½ thousand workers. The tourism sector, which will supposedly benefit from the announcements made last week, say the package isn't good enough. While the extra help is of course welcome, loans are no substitute for responsible, targeted and temporary extension of JobKeeper for the sectors and communities that are still hurting due to international border closures. Mr Rees, the director of the Cairns Adventure Group, said, and this is a message: JobKeeper ending is a tragedy for employee confidence in this region. The Tourism Transport Forum's chief executive, Margy Osmond, said: ... we don't think it's going to go far enough to save the jobs we had hoped to see secured at the end of March. The CEO of the Council of Small Business Australia, Peter Strong, said: [The package] won’t save all the jobs at risk ... Graham Turner, the managing director of Flight Centre, said: Superficially there is not a lot of benefit to us in the travel industry. Australian businesses deserve better out of this government. The cinema industry is suffering because it has gone through a whole period of having to close and then having restricted customer numbers because of spacing requirements, but, also, all of the big movie houses and production companies have deferred their major releases, which is what they rely on to be able to make their money, especially over the crucial summer school holidays. We are still experiencing outbreaks in Australia. The state governments have stood up, done the hard work, listened to the health advice and done the right thing by their people to keep them safe, yet the government thinks now is the appropriate time to withdraw support, when we are not just still experiencing the economic effects but also still experiencing the health effects of the COVID pandemic as it spreads across the country. With 13 days to go, businesses now don't have time to take proper action when the government was promising them support but is now giving them nothing. 18:51 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I have a lot of sympathy for this motion from the member for Newcastle because I understand her concern for travel agents in particular and the fact that the government is withdrawing JobKeeper at the end of this month. I don't know how many people are going to lose their jobs once JobKeeper is withdrawn. One job is one job too many. Hundreds is far too many. Thousands is horrific. If you are in one of those families, you will be facing difficulties, and I admit we are still in most difficult times and it will affect every electorate in the nation. My heart goes out to the people who have survived on JobKeeper to this point and the businesses that have relied on JobKeeper to keep their staff going and achieve the things they needed to achieve to keep well engaged with their employees. Travel agents are in a unique position. For instance, in my electorate they are still managing $13.4 million worth of customers' investments in their overseas travel, and they have to be managed or they could be lost. On top of that, it affects 3,172 people in my electorate who have paid for overseas travel. Travel agents get their income from international travel. They get a tiny bit of income from interstate travel. The package that the government has produced, while its generous and, as the Deputy Prime Minister, said scalable, flexible and gives opportunity for change, I would encourage the government to consider further what they might do in that scalability and in that flexibility and in that generosity, as to how they may view travel agents. I will give as an example an events operator in my electorate. He supplies all the equipment for events to happen: the stages, the props, the chairs, the tents, and whatever. His business is down 90 per cent. He had a very difficult year last year and is facing an even more difficult year this year because the lack of confidence has stopped people actually investing money into a future event. They have pulled back, so he's just not doing any business, yet all his expenses—for his trucks, his insurance, the staff he still has left, his rent, his overheads—continue. That can amount to a lot of money each month. The government's package says, 'We'll give you a cheap loan to carry you through until the next point,' but, if you take that loan, you have to have the confidence that there's not going to be another lockdown and you will have to extend for another 12 months. So debt, whether it is owed to the federal government, the state government or your bank, is debt. At the end of this time are you going to take on a loan, line yourself up and, in three years, end up with a debt? I have been in business a long time myself. When you need to reinvest—your equipment may be out-of-date in three years time and you need everything that is new and efficient—the bank will say, 'We can't give you money because you already owe $200,000 to the federal government.' That's why Peter Strong said loans are not necessarily good for small business. I know government thinks they are, but I have lived that life. Debt is debt is debt. They know that. And people who run businesses are finally attuned to where they will be in three years; they have to be. Travel agents are going to have a very different time. They are different. They are important. They are a bit of glue in our community. And they will not have any income until we get back to international travel. That's what we have to face up to. So the flexibility is going to be important. There may be some people who need continuing support. It's up to the government of the day to look at individual situations and individual organisations. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this very important bill. 18:56 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley There will be 1,792 businesses and 5,515 workers in Lilley affected when JobKeeper is axed in 13 days. Arguably, no-one will feel the impacts of this more than our aviation and tourism workers. The 6,600 aviation workers in my electorate feel like a dark cloud is coming in over the airport and the federal government is taking away their umbrella. They know that, while international borders remain close for the foreseeable future, their employment is precarious. They know they could be tapped on the shoulder at any time and told that they are being made redundant—just like thousands of their former colleagues. What's the federal government solution to the impending storm? Half-price holidays to13 specific locations across Australia. Honestly, it is like taking the cast off a broken arm before it is healed and slapping a bandaid on it. Once again, this support is being given without any guarantee that employers will use the corporate wealth that they are receiving to retain their employees. According to the Tourism and Transport Forum, 300,000 tourism jobs or more could still be lost despite the package announced by the Prime Minister. The industry already lost 506,000 full-time jobs in 2020 due to COVID. I said back in August last year that the most important test for the Morrison government's management of this recession, and its aftermath, will be what happens to local jobs and the businesses which create them. The Prime Minister's thumbs-up photo op from the cockpit of a Qantas jet will not save jobs. Failing to provide a tourism targeted wage subsidy after ripping away JobKeeper won't save jobs. Encouraging tourism operators to take on more debt won't save jobs. Before coming to parliament this week I scheduled an urgent roundtable discussion with northside aviation and tourism stakeholders, seeking feedback from them on the government's package announced at the end of last week. The group unanimously agree that any support for tourism and aviation is welcome but feel that JobKeeper payments are better and should be maintained until we find out whether there is enough demand for domestic travel to keep our tourism and aviation industries afloat. Nobody is saying JobKeeper should go on forever, but surely we could have kept it open until at least the end of April to see if the half-price holidays package has the effect that the government seeks. The northside stakeholders I spoke to were also mystified as to why Brisbane had been excluded from the list of tourism destinations and why intrastate travel within Queensland has been excluded. It is bizarre that they will not give Queenslanders the opportunity to support fellow Queenslanders; it is what we do best. Excluding intrastate travel in Queensland not only excludes Queenslanders from travelling around our beautiful state but also means interstate travellers can't stop off in Brisbane for a few days before continuing their travel up north. Tangalooma Island Resort, just off the coast of Lilley, has experienced an 80 per cent decrease in day-cruise bookings. With JobKeeper ending, they desperately need ongoing support. The estimated COVID debt by 2030 is going to be, roughly, $2.7 trillion. But, apparently, including Brisbane as a tourism destination in the package would have been the straw that broke the camel's back. With 32 per cent of Queensland's tourism concentrated in Brisbane, adding Brisbane to the list would be a great investment to stimulate a massive boost to our hospitality, retail and tourism business owners who are still desperate for business. The International Olympic Committee has recognised Brisbane as a tourism hotspot, so why can't our federal government? I am ready to work with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to make sure Queenslanders get their fair share. I requested a meeting with the Treasurer. I am yet to hear anything. It's not too late to strengthen this package. We have already seen it done, since it was announced, with the addition of Adelaide and Darwin to the tourism destination list. We can still extend JobKeeper for another month or so, to make sure there is sufficient demand to bolster the tourism and aviation industry. We can add Brisbane to the tourism destination list and open up eligibility to include intrastate travel within Queensland. Let's do it this week. Let's do it before JobKeeper ends and before this package is rolled out. 19:01 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I thank the member for Newcastle for bringing this matter to the House and allowing me to share the stories I'm hearing as I speak with travel agents in the mighty Eden-Monaro. Jenny and Jim of Queanbeyan City Travel and Cruise were among the first to reach out. The Coopers have run their Monaro Street business for 32 years. This last year has been their hardest. They are determined to survive the challenges and continue to employ staff, serve their clients and contribute to the community. They are grateful for the government support they have received to date, including JobKeeper, but Jenny told me, 'We need it until the end of the year.' With just a couple of weeks left before JobKeeper runs out, Jenny and Jim have been waiting, hoping the government will hear the calls of their industry and do the right thing. The Morrison government keeps making the right sounds but, sadly for Jenny and Jim and many of their friends in the industry, they have failed to deliver. Last week the government rolled out half-price airfares to a number of destinations. That's welcome news if you're Qantas or Virgin or one of the towns announced, which Merimbula was, and you would think it would be welcome news for travel agents too. But, at this stage, it's just not clear. Right now, Jenny and Jim are waiting and hoping that the cheaper tickets can be purchased through travel agents. Jenny's real fear is that tickets can only be booked online via an airline's website. Surely local travel agents won't be left out and left behind? You can't be sure with this government, because they are all photo op and no follow-up. For the last 12 months, travel agents have been chasing refunds for their clients. Their businesses have been in complete reverse, chasing thousands of dollars in refunds and being charged an admin fee for the privilege. This government has left them scratching their heads, unsure of their future. The stress and pressure placed on local travel agents in this area is echoed right around the place. Lisa at Summerland Travel Merimbula has had to close her shopfront. She said, 'Having to close our shopfront after 38 years and operate remotely was not an easy decision, but it's the reality of a situation facing travel agents.' Like Jenny and Jim, Lisa's business has been part of the fabric of her community and she's working hard to be part of Merimbula's future. There's Jill at Helloworld Merimbula who's had to diversify her travel business and start selling gifts and homewares. Sadly, Mary at Twofold Travel in Eden didn't make it and has had to close the doors of her travel agency. The fear is that many others will have to do the same thing. I meet regularly with chambers of commerce, people who work across a range of businesses and industries. Whether it's the Tumut chamber, the Yass chamber or the Jindabyne chamber, the message is the same: they cannot afford to lose good businesses or good business people. That's what's at risk if the Morrison government doesn't extend JobKeeper beyond the end of this month. The fact that we're talking about it now, at this late stage, at a minute to midnight, is just cruel. It's cruel to the people who have been part of their local business communities for decades. These people deserve our support. Instead, they are feeling disrespected and ignored. A survey by the Australian Federation of Travel Agents makes it clear. Close to one in three businesses will shut if the JobKeeper wage subsidy is not extended beyond 28 March. More than half of the 1,500 respondents were unsure about their business future. And on this day especially, when thousands of women gathered on the lawn in front of this place, I say in a loud and very clear voice that women make up 80 per cent of the travel agent workforce—80 per cent. The sector's decline is having a disproportionate impact on female employment. The Prime Minister missed an opportunity today to change his rhetoric on fairness and justice for women. As 28 March looms, he faces another line in the sand. Strong communities and strong businesses need a plan. They need the confidence that flows from a government that is listening, seeking advice and making plans to help them survive and thrive. Jenny and Jim don't feel like this government is doing any of that. They are frightened about what will happen to the people in the industry they love and have helped shape. In the meantime, they will keep seeking the refunds their clients deserve, because that is the right thing to do. The big question is: will this government do the right thing and back these businesses and the 40,000 families they support? Extend JobKeeper, especially in our tourism industry and especially to our travel agents. Do it now. It's the right thing to do. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. National Waste Legislation 170 19:06 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney I move: That this House: notes: that in December 2020 the Government passed Australia’s first ever national waste legislation, the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020, through the Parliament and that this legislation implemented a waste export ban; and measures introduced by the Government to increase recycling, including the Recycling Modernisation Fund and the National Waste Action Plan; and commends the Government for providing national leadership on this important issue and for working with state and territory governments and industry to boost onshore recycling processing, providing economic reform and effective environmental management. I am pleased to move this motion which recognises the work of the Morrison government to transform the way in which Australia manages its waste stream. The government has set ambitious goals for Australia to take responsibility for our waste, to reduce plastic in our oceans and to support recycling. We are backing these targets with strong leadership, financial support—in fact, $1 billion—and new world-leading recycling legislation. Australians want to do the right thing and ensure the waste we generate does not simply end up in landfill or cause harm to the environment as litter or more serious pollution. Many of us of my generation saw the potential economic value of waste and recycling when we were just kids. For me, my first income-earning activity was collecting aluminium cans. I think I could get one cent per can at a recycling centre. I remember weekends spent scouring rubbish bins and collecting cans that had been thrown away as litter. Despite little interest in rugby league, football grounds like the local Henderson Park, home of the then mighty Newtown Jets, became a drawcard because of the bounty of drink cans that could be collected. Today, a new generation of young Australians is equally interested in recycling but perhaps for more altruistic reasons. In my own electorate I have been so impressed by the work of many school students who have campaigned hard to reduce plastics and their impact on the marine environment. This is an issue I have spoken about before in this parliament, because our world's oceans risk devastation if we don't reduce that waste—80 per cent of which is plastic that poses such a great threat to marine wildlife. Better management of our waste can fulfil these twin outcomes: protection for our environment while also utilising resources which will bring economic benefits. That's why I am pleased that Australia now leads the world in taking responsibility for our own waste. As the PM has said, it's our waste, so it must be our responsibility. We are the only country in the world that has banned the export of its unprocessed waste glass. We will shortly be banning unsorted and unprocessed plastics, tyres and paper and cardboard for disposal overseas. For too long, we were shipping out of sight and mind our own waste problems, often to nations that did not have proper stewardship. Too often, we saw that waste coming back—not as recycled products, but returned by ocean currents as litter on our own shores. The new approach is already bearing fruit. Since the ban was agreed, exports of plastic waste alone have fallen by about 5,000 tonnes per month. By accepting responsibility for our waste through the export bans, we are actually creating new economic opportunities for Australians. Our waste export ban is being implemented in a phased approach and began on 1 January this year for all waste glass. Over the course of this year, additional bans on waste streams will take effect for tyres and various forms of plastic. But our approach does not stop there. To simply ban waste exports would create problems in Australia if we were not to be matching that by expanding our own domestic recycling industry. That's why the government has committed $1 billion to drive the transformation of our waste and recycling businesses. This will generate something like 10,000 jobs and divert 10 million tonnes of waste from landfill. Backed by ambitious targets, our approach addresses the full gamut of the waste stream, creating new industries, promoting stewardship and the uptake of recycled products, addressing excessive packaging and also promoting textile and food waste. For example, $49.4 million is being spent to help halve Australia's food waste by 2030. Food waste costs the economy around $20 billion each year, and each year we waste around 7.3 million tonnes of food. This wastage equals about 300 kilograms per person, or one in five bags of groceries. This is far too much. All of us can play our own part, from the decisions we take in our homes to the support we provide to activities like Clean Up Australia Day. I want to thank the many hundreds of my local residents who were out collecting waste just a few weeks ago on Clean Up Australia Day. When we do so as individuals, it is important to know that governments across Australia are working alongside us to support our efforts to reduce the impact of waste, which is why I'm so pleased this government has made recycling and better waste management a priority. We can lead the world and, in doing so, leave future generations with a more sustainable economy and a better environment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Is the motion seconded? Mr Simmonds 282983 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 19:11 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'm glad to speak to the motion. I'm grateful to the member for Sydney. He is a person who understands the crisis facing our environment on multiple fronts. I suspect that he is at least occasionally concerned and frustrated by the shortcomings and underperformance of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, including in the area that is the subject of this motion. The reality is that for the first six years of this coalition government nothing whatsoever was done to improve Australia's waste and recycling outcomes. It was the decision by countries in the Indo-Pacific to stop accepting our waste that prompted this government, now into its third term, to implement the export ban. The current national waste policy and accompanying product stewardship framework was accomplished by Labor 10 years ago. For nearly seven years the coalition did virtually nothing to add to that work. Since 2018, we've had a Prime Minister who loves marketing. He loves packaging. There's been a push to use waste and recycling as a conveyer belt of shiny announceables that gives the appearance of environmental action, which in turn gives some Liberal members something they can cling onto in the otherwise scorched earth landscape of the coalition's environmental performance. We know they've done absolutely nothing about climate change. They've embarked on the self-harming demonisation of renewable energy. There's been a complete vacuum in relation to EPBC reform, coupled with departmental funding cuts in the face of a worsening extinction crisis. And there's been a wilful blindness when it comes to the impact of catastrophic fire and flood risks. That is quite a rap sheet. It's a record of serious neglect and incompetence. But, hey, look over there! We've passed a bill to ban the export of waste that other countries already refuse to accept! Never mind that we've failed to support the infrastructure required to recycle that waste, especially plastic! Never mind that product stewardship, government procurement, material standards and labelling have all been left untouched by the rolling sequence of coalition environment ministers—four ministers in five years! So, despite the government's strong desire to present its work on waste reduction and recycling as their lone environmental achievement, the reality does not bear that out. We know that three-quarters of the funding under the recycling investment plan announced two years ago remains unspent, including all of the $100 million loan funding through the so-called Recycling Investment Fund. We know that's why the government finally adopted Labor's policy and introduced some direct funding in new recycling infrastructure, which should have preceded the export bans and now comes two years late. We know that barely five per cent of the much vaunted contribution to the Pacific Ocean Litter Project has been provided, even though plastic trash remains a terrible health and environmental burden on Pacific islands. We know that waste overall has risen, even though the Waste Policy Calls for a 10 per cent reduction by 2030. We know that the rate of plastic recycling, in particular, has fallen. It's got worse—from 12 per cent to nine per cent, according to the national waste accounts—and the target for incorporating recycled plastic in packaging is badly off track. It's barely two per cent. Only last week, the business sector has pleaded with the government to stop sitting on its hands with respect to the elimination of harmful and unnecessary single-use plastic. That last point goes to the reference in the motion to the importance of the Commonwealth showing leadership in its collaborative work with the states and territories. That's one of the standard ways any federal government can achieve positive change and prevent our federation from going about tackling national changes in eight different ways across eight different state and territory jurisdictions. That should be how we go about tackling waste and recycling. We've seen a version of this already with the container deposit schemes. In 2019, Labor committed to leading a process that would deliver a national container deposit scheme. In the meantime, the states and territories went about implementing their own schemes. The Morrison government wasn't interested in that national leadership piece, and now we have those eight schemes either in place or forthcoming. They're not nationally consistent. What's the No. 1 national policy ask of the Australian Beverages Council? For a nationally consistent system—surprise, surprise. We face a similar issue right now with eliminating harmful single-use plastics, because everyone in the sector, in civil society, in states and territories and in local government are looking at this problem. As with the container deposit schemes, the states and territories are the ones taking action—South Australia, Queensland, the Northern Territory, and most recently WA. Where's the national leadership? It's going to be a costly mess for business. There are going to be complications and confusion for Australian households. That's the result when you take a hands-off approach at the national level. That's the problem when you leave the hard work to everyone else. The Morrison government should give up its cynical quest for some half-convincing environmental gesture and knuckle down to the difficult but necessary work of government. 19:16 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise with a great sense of pride and a strong voice for my constituents of Higgins who care passionately about recycling and waste and who care deeply for their environment. I rise to support the motion by my good friend and colleague the member for North Sydney. I'm proud the Morrison government has stepped up to ensure that, as a country, we take responsibility for our own waste. Our policies are delivering real outcomes not only for our natural environment but for our local economy, which is ultimately delivering the jobs of the future. The Recycling and Waste Reduction Act, along with the measures introduced by the Morrison government through the Recycling Modernisation Fund and National Waste Policy Action Plan are pragmatic and practical. They're what Australians have called for and are now what they have. Australia generates about 67 million tonnes of waste each year, but only 37 million tonnes are recycled. That's about half of our waste that's recycled every year. Only 12 per cent of the 103 kilograms of plastic waste generated per person in Australia each year is recycled, and this is mostly overseas. That's 103 kilograms of plastic waste per person. That is almost double each person's body weight. On Clean Up Australia Day recently in Higgins I attempted to collect a body-weight bag worth of plastic along Gardiner's Creek. I didn't quite get there. Lucky, waste seems to have reduced in Gardiner's Creek due to the great work of my local constituents—each year it gets better in Gardiner's Creek—but I did attempt to do it. This waste problem isn't unique to Australia, but it is a problem the world needs to face together for the safety of the planet. A European Union report estimates the production of virgin plastic will account for 20 per cent of global oil consumption and 15 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. These are looming problems, and we need to take decisive action. It's our duty and it's our responsibility. The Recycling and Waste Reduction Act works to end the 640,000 tonnes of rubbish, including plastic, paper, glass and tyres, that Australia ships overseas every year, mainly to China. As the Prime Minister has said, it's our waste, and it's our responsibility. To that end, we need to rapidly grow our waste and recycling industry to meet our growing needs. Banning the shipments of these types of wastes provides a moment in our history to pivot to build our own sovereign capability to deal with our own waste. Think of how we are saving on emissions by managing our waste at home, not shipping it off somewhere else for someone else to deal with. As Australians, we should all welcome the $190 million commitment for the new Recycling Modernisation Fund announced in the recent budget, plus the $60 million for the National Waste Policy Action Plan that will improve our waste data collection and halve our food waste by 2030—that's right; you heard me. As a mum with four kids, I know how bad food waste can be. We've got a worm farm at home, but we need to do more. I was very happy to launch the Fight Food Waste CRC, which has some of the funds going to help scientifically develop technologies to do better with our food waste. It will also provide the basis for those who design, manufacture and distribute products to take greater responsibility for the impacts of these products on the environment. These key changes not only reduce the amount of products that go to landfill but tackle the plastic pollution that goes into our waterways and oceans. We need to put an end to horrible developments like the great garbage patch floating in the Pacific off the US coast. Both the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act and the new Recycling Modernisation Fund will help give Australians confidence that, when they put their recycling bins out, their waste will be collected and recycled properly and responsibly, not simply dumped in landfills overseas. I'm proud to have been a strong voice in calling for a recycling and waste inquiry as a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources. This inquiry, which has just been completed, aimed to provide a bipartisan understanding of how we can build the sector to meet our country's growing demands. I commend the report due to be released in the coming weeks to all those passionate about keeping our planet healthy and safe. The Morrison government has led the nation in taking responsibility of our waste. It is working to help make sure that the states and territories collaborate and coordinate across these different legislative boundaries, and I welcome these developments. We need continued leadership and investment in recycling innovation and modernisation of our waste industry to be of benefit to not only our natural environment but our local economies through job creation for the 21st century. 19:21 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I too rise to speak on this motion. Recycling, waste reduction and establishing a circular economy will be vital in our fight to protect our environment, and I commend the member for North Sydney for raising this important issue in this private member's motion. However, recycling and waste reduction policies, as with all other important environmental policies, need clear leadership, and this is precisely what is lacking from this government. I say this because, as a proud South Australian, I have seen the potential of change in waste practice when a government presents a clear policy and message, just as previous state Labor governments did in my home state of South Australia. South Australia has a long and proud history of being a trend setter when it comes to recycling. In South Australia, we introduced Australia's first container deposit legislation in 1977. As a result of this policy, we led the nation in the recovery and recycling of beverage containers. In 2019-20, SA had an overall return rate of 76.7 per cent. SA was also the first place in the nation to ban lightweight, check-out-style plastic bags in 2009. The success of these initiatives meant that SA was unanimously on board when we became the first state to pass legislation banning single-use plastic products. I mention these examples because they demonstrate two important things—firstly, that there is a strong appetite and acceptance in the community to do more to reduce waste and to use recycled products, and, secondly, that with good leadership so much can be achieved. The question is: why isn't this federal government showing leadership on this issue? The world is facing an acute problem with plastic waste, especially in terms of the impact on our marine environment. Who can forget the images of floating plastic islands the size of small countries on our oceans, or marine life killed by ingested plastic? Waste and how we dispose of it is everyone's problem, but we look to our leaders to lead in this area. Unfortunately, in the case of recycling there is no leadership by this current government. Data shows that since 2016-17 Australia's recycling rate for plastics has dropped from an already unacceptably low 12 per cent to nine per cent, and total waste has risen 10 per cent, from 68 million tonnes per annum to a record 76 million tonnes. This flies in the face of the National Waste Policy targets of reducing overall waste by 10 per cent by 2030 and achieving a rate of 80 per cent average resource recovery from all waste streams by 2030. We need to do better than this if we're to get on top of this problem. In essence, we need to establish a circular economy in Australia. This will ensure that we are both reducing the amount of waste going into landfill as well as ensuring that we are recycling and repurposing as much waste as possible. This is more important than ever, since the waste export ban came into effect at the beginning of this year. The government needs to deliver a national plastics plan to increase recycling rates and reduce plastic pollution, reform the Commonwealth's sustainability procurement guide with actual targets for the use of recycled material and support wide-scale recycling infrastructure. We need to set national standards and specifications for the use of recycled content in capital works projects, especially road and rail, and baseline levels for recycled content in road construction. Without such measures, Australia's growing waste will inevitably need to be stockpiled or landfilled, causing continued damage to our environment. The waste and resource industry has long been calling on this government to show leadership in creating demand for recycled materials. This will underpin investment in the necessary infrastructure and innovation, and Australia could be a leader in this area, creating manufacturing jobs and fuelling our recovery out of the current economic crisis. This government is in its third term and 7th year and it has failed to make even the slightest improvement to the rate of plastic recycling. It's definitely failed to show leadership in this growing problem. Australians and our environment deserve better. 19:26 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid We are so fortunate in this country to have such an amazing natural environment. From dense rainforest to barren deserts, the sea to the bush, we are truly very, very lucky. However, with this great fortune comes great responsibility. We must protect our environment and ensure the next generation can enjoy it just as we have. A fundamental part of this responsibility is how we look after our waste. We know that Australians want to do the right thing and ensure that what they put in their recycling bin does not end up in landfill or cause harm to the environment. There is no point encouraging people to recycle if they can't even ensure it will be disposed of properly. The federal government has listened and is delivering. We are the only country in the world that has banned the export of unprocessed waste glass for disposal overseas, and we will shortly ban unsorted and unprocessed plastics, tyres, paper and cardboard being disposed of overseas. Since the ban was agreed, exports of plastic waste alone have fallen by around 5,000 tonnes per month. Australia's first ever waste and recycling laws put Australia's world-leading waste export ban in place and create unprecedented economic opportunities, encouraging best practice in product stewardship and protecting our marine environment. An over $1 billion transformation of our waste and recycling industry will create 10,000 jobs and divert 10 million tonnes of waste from landfill. This will turbo charge our waste management and recycling sector to recover and remanufacture waste materials. The federal government's investment in the Recycling Modernisation Fund and measures to support the National Waste Policy Action Plan will create 10,000 new jobs over the next 10 years by expanding Australia's recycling industry and infrastructure. The 10,000 job figure is based on jobs created by increased recycling onshore as a result of this export ban, construction related to investment in infrastructure and increasing the current resource recovery rate to 80 per cent by 2030 in line with the National Waste Policy Action Plan. Last year, environment minister, Sussan Ley, joined me in Reid for Clean Up Australia Day. At this event, I had a chance to speak with local community organisations like Our Living River, an initiative run by the Parramatta River catchment group to help make the Parramatta River swimmable again by 2025. Only a few weeks before that, I met with the youngest Riverkeeper Ambassador, Hannah Chalmers, who is a PLC Sydney primary school student and a descendent of Sir Edmund Barton. Hannah has won awards for her environmental app, the Green Elephant, and I have spoken at length in this place about the work that groups and individuals, especially our young people, are doing in Reid to protect our environment. I will continue to support their grassroots work. Each year 800,000 tonnes of clothing and textiles are discarded by Australians. That's an average of 31kgs of textiles per person annually at a national rate of 15 tonnes of textile waste every 10 minutes. This is simply too much waste. The federal government will host a national roundtable on textile waste, bringing together the fashion industry, retailers, re-use charities, fibre producers, researchers and waste management experts to stop dumping clothes in landfill. This will go a long way, with $350,000 also being invested to support circular threads, a new group to be led by the Australasian Circular Textiles. Food waste is another area where our society can do better. Each year, Australians waste around 7.3 million tonnes of food. That is about 300 kilograms per person. The federal government is committed to reducing Australia's food waste by 50 per cent by 2030. We are doing this not only because it will benefit our environment and our economy but because it is also the right thing to do. The government launched the National Food Waste Strategy in 2017 and in December 2020 added to that by establishing a pact called Stop Food Waste Australia. The purpose of this pact is to help industry drive change. One of its key actions will be to deliver a voluntary commitment program. Under this program, businesses will commit to reducing their food waste and will receive support to achieve their goal. I will continue to use my voice in this place to advocate policy change which protects our environment so we can leave it in a much better place than we found it. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:31