2021-03-16 46 1 5 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 16 March 2021

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

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Road Safety Joint Select Committee 1 Appointment 1 12:02 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate concurs with the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety. BILLS 1 BILLS Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 1

Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020

Returned from Senate 1 Treasury Laws Amendment (Reuniting More Superannuation) Bill 2020 1

Treasury Laws Amendment (Reuniting More Superannuation) Bill 2020

Consideration of Senate Message 1 12:03 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I move: That the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. Online Safety Bill 2021, Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 1

Online Safety Bill 2021

Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021

Second Reading 1 12:04 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I rise to speak on the Online Safety Bill 2021 and the Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021. Together, they seek to create a new online safety framework for Australians, 'a modern, fit-for-purpose regulatory framework that builds on the strengths of the existing legislative scheme for online safety'. Labor have a strong record, in government and in opposition, of supporting online safety measures for Australians, and we support the intent and the approach of these bills. From opposition we've sought to take a constructive approach to these bills. We support the measures in these bills to consolidate, update and enhance online safety laws for Australians. For many years, Australians have been protected by laws to support online safety, and it's important that these laws are kept up to date, particularly in a sector as fast-moving as the technology and internet sector. To a large degree, these bills represent regulatory housekeeping by consolidating various online safety laws that have evolved over time into one bill, with some updates in response to Lynelle Briggs's independent review of online safety laws, which reported to the government in October 2018. As the report of the Briggs review notes: Australia was one of the first countries to appreciate the threat to child safety afforded by the internet through excellent early work by then Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) which led to amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act in 1999 that established the legislative framework for online content co-regulation in Australia. The upshot was to extend the co-regulatory system for broadcasting to online content, with Australian content assessed and taken down if found to be non-compliant with national classification requirements. …   …   … The sorts of prohibited content the co-regulatory system seeks to constrain are illegal material such as child sexual abuse material, extremely violent and disturbing pornography, extremist propaganda, incitement to terrorism, and games that victimise and abuse children or encourage illegal activity. It also seeks to restrict access to content that may be suitable for adults, but not children… This is the overarching framework that has been in place for some decades now. Over 20 years later, the laws still sit under the Broadcasting Services Act, which is an act for the regulation of broadcasting services—television and radio services—rather than online safety. However, as the Briggs review also notes: The Enhancing Online Safety for Children Act was introduced in 2015 and renamed the Enhancing Online Safety Act in 2017 when its coverage was extended to certain adults … experiencing image-based abuse. That act sets the arrangements for the e-safety office and allows the eSafety Commissioner to administer the cyberbullying complaints scheme, which investigates serious cyberbullying of children; and the image based abuse scheme, which provides a reporting investigation mechanism for the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Labor supports the aim of consolidating online safety laws into a new framework. This bill retains and replicates the existing provisions of the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 that are working well to protect Australians from online harms, such as the non-consensual sharing of intimate images scheme. These bills reflect a modernised online content scheme to replace the schemes that are currently in schedules 5 and 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act to address harmful content like refused-classification material. These bills update various other elements, including setting new regulatory benchmarks—for example, by broadening the cyberbullying scheme to capture harms occurring on services other than social media; reducing the time frame for service providers to respond to a removal notice from the eSafety Commissioner, from 48 hours to 24 hours; bringing providers of app distribution services—app stores and internet search engine services—clearly into the remit of the new online content scheme; and establishing a specific and targeted power for the eSafety Commissioner to request or require ISPs to disable access to material depicting, promoting, inciting or instructing abhorrent violent conduct for time limited periods in crisis situations, reflecting the industry's call for government leadership on this issue. Labor also supports the new elements of these bills that go beyond regulatory housekeeping, including the creation of a complaints-based removal notice scheme for cyberabuse being perpetrated against an Australian adult; and the articulation of a core set of basic online safety expectations to improve and promote online safety for Australians. However, we are concerned about a number of aspects of these bills, and we have sought to be constructive in the way that we have expressed these concerns. Firstly, there is the government's delay and mismanagement of the process of getting a bill for a new online safety act before the parliament here today, which has substantive consequences. Secondly, there is the government's inability, after all of this time, to address key stakeholder concerns about serious, important and legitimate issues enlivened by these bills. The safety of Australians online is of real importance, and Labor will work with the government to iron out these concerns in these bills in time for the debate on this bill in the Senate. But, in the meantime, Labor will not oppose these bills in the House of Representatives, and we will support passage through this place on the understanding that government amendments will be forthcoming. We have been in good-faith conversations with the government, and we expect those good-faith conversations to result in further changes. I just want to articulate a little bit about the delay and mismanagement in the process that has brought the bill to the House today. The idea of an online safety bill has been around for 2½ years, since the Briggs review in October 2018 recommended a single up-to-date online safety act. Now the government has gotten around to introducing a bill to address this recommendation. But for almost two years the government has been spruiking this new online safety act in press conferences and media announcements as if it already existed. It's been a bit of a catch-all solution. In the lead-up to the May 2019 federal election, the Morrison government promised to introduce a new online safety act. In September 2019, the minister for communications spruiked the new online safety act in answer to questions about what the government was doing to keep Australians safe online, including in relation to the rise of right-wing extremism, online hate speech and racism in Australia following the Christchurch terrorist atrocity. A year later, in September 2020, the minister again spruiked the still non-existent online safety act in response to questions about what the government was doing to curb graphic content on social media platforms in the wake of a self-harm video on Facebook and TikTok. The minister's October 2020 op-ed on this topic kept the promise of a new online safety act alive, while Labor had been asking where it was, with the department at Senate estimates last year putting the delay down to 'pressures on drafting resources'. That's legislative drafting, not media release drafting. There seems to be an unlimited supply of that in the Morrison government. After all this time, the government still doesn't quite have it ready to go. During the Senate inquiry into the provisions of this bill, when asked about key operational aspects of this bill, such as the novel adult cyberabuse scheme, even the eSafety Commissioner referred to it as a 'sausage that is still being made'. After all this time, a number of stakeholders are concerned that the government introduced the bill into parliament on 24 February 2021, only eight working days after consultation on the exposure draft of the legislation concluded on 14 February 2021. The short time frame at the end of this drawn-out process—delay, delay, delay and rush, rush, rush—has undermined confidence amongst stakeholders in the government's exposure draft consultation process, with a number of people being concerned that submissions have not been considered properly. In evidence to the Senate inquiry into the bills, the department confirmed that 376 submissions on the exposure draft were received by the government and that the government had identified 56 issues that warranted further consideration by the minister as a result but that only seven amendments, of a technical nature, were made to the bill as a result of that consideration. Given the significant passage of time since the Briggs review reported, it's disappointing that the government has failed to provide a process that satisfies stakeholders that their concerns are being taken on board. There are a wide range of stakeholders who still have valid concerns with this bill. As the report of the Senate inquiry into the bills notes: Overwhelmingly, submitters and witnesses expressed support for the objectives and many provisions of the OS Bill … Most submitters appreciated the public consultations conducted by the department but raised concerns about matters that they argued have not been addressed … and which some considered long overdue for reform. Some of the concerns noted in the inquiry report are in relation to: the functions, powers and oversight of the eSafety Commissioner (Commissioner); the clarity and breadth of the basic online safety expectations (BOSE); services in scope of the online content regulation schemes; clarity and proportionality of the blocking scheme; the appropriate basis for the Online Content Scheme; the reduced response time for removal notices; and the public consultation processes associated with the bills. I should note that there are a number of other policy review processes in train from the government that have not been concluded but have a very significant and consequential impact on the operation of this bill. Just to take a few currently underway, we have the review of the Australian classification regulation, the results of which will have very significant implications for the online content scheme; a review of the Privacy Act 1988, which may well consider the implications of some of the deanonymisation provisions of this bill and its interaction with GDPR obligations that are imposed on Australian companies; the government response to the report of the Australian Taskforce to Combat Terrorist and Extreme Violent Material Online; and government responses to related parliamentary inquiries into online safety. We don't know either what those reports say or what the government's response to them will be, but they will have a significant consequence for the operation of this bill. This process has not been managed well in a policy development sense. I'll give you a flavour of the concerns that stakeholders still have with these bills. Google, in its submission in response to the fact that the schemes apply to a wide range of services, including messaging services and email, suggested: … the scope of the Bill be limited in scope to content sharing services, like social media and video sharing services, which have the principal purpose of helping people to store and share content with the public or other broad audiences … Sex Work Law Reform Victoria stated in its submission: … Part 9 of The Bill provides the eSafety Commissioner with enhanced powers to issue removal notices to take down BDSM and fetish porn with 24 hours, similar powers had not been used to target such content in the past and were not intended to be used to target such content in the future. It remains unclear why Part 9 has been drafted in a manner to give the eSafety Commissioner powers they don't intend to use. Twitch stated in its submission: … any scheme that justifies mandating the complete removal of a service on the basis of its non-compliance with notices should also take considerable steps to establish confidence that the service is demonstrating actual non-compliance … This concern has been raised by other large platforms who are concerned they could also be shut down overnight, despite their best efforts to comply with the law. Communications Alliance stated in its submission: … messaging services (e.g. WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram) are often end-to-end encrypted and may not offer an option for removal of individual parts of a conversation. Does this mean that user accounts would be required to be suspended, restricted or terminated when a complaint (that has been found valid) about cyber-abuse material has been received? It is not clear that wholesale suspension from a messaging service is a proportionate response to a report of bullying and harassment – especially given how nuanced and complex private conversations between adults can be. …   …   … Importantly, how would the eSafety Commissioner determine, in the context of a private communication between two individuals, whether a certain behaviour constitutes cyber abuse, without extensive knowledge of the context and background of that communication? …   …   … It is worth noting that the German Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG)[Network Enforcement Act] has refrained from including private messaging services in its scope. Finally, Electronic Frontiers Australia stated in its submission: EFA recommends that the eSafety Commissioner should regularly report on the outcomes achieved as a result of its actions, rather than merely the activities it has performed. Activity is not the same as effectiveness. These results should be specific, tangible, and beneficial. Any adverse effects experienced as a result of the eSafety Commissioner's actions should also be contained in such reports, so that Australians can accurately determine if the costs of the eSafety Commissioner's actions outweigh the benefits. Other significant issues of concern include how the bill interacts with the existing framework of safeguards put in place by the telecommunications assistance and access regime as well as other matters that interact with freedom of speech. Finding a balance between freedom of speech and protections against certain kinds of harmful speech is a complex endeavour, and we are concerned that this bill represents a significant increase in the eSafety Commissioner's discretion to remove material without commensurate checks and balances. Over the years, dominant digital platforms have developed robust policies to remove inappropriate content, including abusive content, but to ensure legitimate political speech remains. The question, in relation to the proposed adult cyberbullying regime, is: where will the eSafety Commissioner draw the line? During the Senate inquiry hearing, questions were put to the government about where and how the line will be drawn, but there is a real lack of conceptual and operational clarity around these elements. The sausage is still being made, it seems. It doesn't take much imagination to foresee a situation where, in the hands of an overzealous eSafety Commissioner, legitimate speech could be silenced, whether that of racial or religious minorities expressing outrage at racist speech or of women expressing outrage at sexual violence in the workplace. The line between adult cyberbullying and defamation and legitimate speech, for example, may not always be clear and may at times be the subject of intense political pressure. It's possible that notices could be used to silence important speech, be they opinions or allegations—for example, if they are considered to be offensive and harassing. Without strong procedural fairness and oversight in law, there's not much to prevent that from happening. The avenues for appeal may be difficult to access. Whilst supportive of a scheme for adult cyberabuse, Labor finds it curious that the government has made repeated attempts to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act on the grounds that it unduly restricts freedom of speech, despite the availability of defences in section 18D. It's now seeking to rush through a bill that empowers the eSafety Commissioner with discretion to determine matters of speech in relation to adult cyberbullying without greater checks, balances or operational clarity. It is worth recalling what some members of this government have had to say about section 18C and freedom of expression in the past. To quote Senator Hume's speech in the second reading debate: … what has become apparent is that the Racial Discrimination Act is a law that gave practical effect to making it unlawful to hurt people's feelings … this protection— of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination— needs to be consistent with the right of freedom of speech, which is the cornerstone of a strong and healthy liberal democracy. …   …   … Section 18C has been the only law in Australia and perhaps the only law in the world by which liability is determined exclusively from the standpoint of would-be victims. …   …   … Clearly, section 18C is stymieing legitimate debate that is potentially useful and healthy. To quote Senator James McGrath's speech: How we see 18C operate is a classic demonstration of the consequences of the government back in 1995 bringing in changes to the Racial Discrimination Act that have had the effect of shutting down freedom of speech. …    …    … It is offensive on so many levels that the left are using freedom of speech to effectively criminalise those people with whom they disagree. This is the challenge that is facing Australia at the moment. Or to quote James Paterson's speech: 'The way to beat racism is through debate, not the closing down of debate.' I will be interested to see those senators' speeches on this bill. Indeed, I'm interested in seeing the speeches of the members who have brought supposedly pro-free-speech private members' bills into this chamber. This government talks a big game about its 'expectations' of social media platforms, yet it has failed to do its job by updating Australia's online safety laws. While the government is right to expect digital platforms to offer more in terms of transparency, so too must government be prepared to provide transparency around its decision-making, particularly on important matters that engage with human rights. Labor believes that the government must consider further amendments to clarify this bill in terms of its scope and to strengthen due-process appeals, oversight and transparency requirements, given the important free-speech and digital-rights considerations that it engages. Online safety is of increasing importance to Australians as we spend more time online. That is why Labor will work constructively with the government to iron out concerns with this bill and to improve these laws in the interests of safeguarding the online safety of Australians. This bill is something of a missed opportunity, and there's more work to be done when it comes to keeping Australians safe online. While the bill gives a lot of power to the eSafety Commissioner, it doesn't empower the commissioner to respond to hate speech that targets groups. This is a bill that deals with speech that targets individuals. The eSafety Commissioner's own research found that one in seven Australian adults had been the victims of hate speech in the 12 months up to August 2019. Despite these shockingly high rates of hate speech, under this bill, hate speech can only be addressed by the eSafety Commissioner if the speech is also considered a form of bullying that meets the threshold of the adult cyberbullying scheme, for which the bar is intended to be high. We need to make the online environment safe for everyone. The negative outcomes we're trying to avoid by combatting individual bullying can occur just as easily when an individual is targeted as part of a minority group. Teenagers being targeted because of their sexuality are harmed by broad statements that vilify them as part of the broader group, as well as by bullies that target them as individuals. The failure to properly address the same harm in both forms is a serious flaw in this bill. This is particularly an issue when it comes to material that can radicalise people to commit violent acts. Yesterday we marked two years since the Christchurch massacre, two years since one of our own murdered 51 Kiwis at two mosques. We failed to have a serious conversation about the extent to which the Christchurch terrorist was radicalised on our shores by talking to Australians online. One of the things we did in the wake of the horrific event was to sign up to the Christchurch Call, led by the New Zealand government, which encourages governments and platforms to work together to combat violent extremist content. There is a broader conversation that we need to have in our society to address the online speech that leads to violent extremism. We should take the same approach as the Christchurch Call in this bill with respect to hate speech. As the Online Hate Prevention Institute stated in their submission: Bullying a child or an adult as an individual are covered, however, attacks on a group that includes that child or adult are not. For the most vulnerable, including those at elevated risk of suicide or self-harm due to online harassment, being targeted as part of a group is just as harmful and such content is as much a threat to online safety. Some of this content is the kind of hate speech which feeds into radicalization. And as Reset Australia, in their submission, acknowledge: … that dangerous, violent and hateful material must be taken down, and that an independent regulator must be empowered to do so … Labor has a strong track record when it comes to promoting online safety. Labor is deeply committed to keeping Australians safe online. In 2008, the Labor government delivered $125.8 million towards a cybersafety plan to combat online risks to children and to help parents and educators protect children from inappropriate material and contacts when online. In 2010, the Labor government established the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety as part of its commitment to investigate and improve cybersafety measures, releasing a report with 32 recommendations, each of which was endorsed and responded to by the Labor government. We've taken this issue seriously both in government and in opposition. Since 2013, Labor has supported government e-safety and online wagering initiatives in parliament, and the government has acknowledged the strong bipartisan support of the opposition in this area. Labor is proud to have led calls for the criminalisation of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. In October 2015, I was proud to introduce a private member's bill, which was seconded by the member for Griffith, to criminalise the sharing of private sexual material without consent. Shortly after that, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee established an inquiry into this very serious issue. Finally, in 2018, this became law as part of a government bill. Further, Labor senators supported the recommendations of the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee inquiry into harm being done to Australian children through access to pornography on the internet, which reported in November 2016, and the inquiry into gaming microtransactions for chance-based items, or 'loot boxes', in November 2018. Similarly, Labor members supported the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into age verification for online wagering and online pornography, which reported in February 2020, and I note the important additional comments of Labor members on that report. As Labor has done before, we note that the government has the benefit of a report of an expert working group, convened by the eSafety Commissioner and participated in by industry, which remains cabinet in confidence. Labor strongly encourages the government to reclassify the report and make it public so that the broad range of stakeholders supportive of online safety may have the benefit of the work in this area that has bipartisan support, so that we may all work together to keep Australians safe online. Australia has long recognised the internet as a governed space. Indeed, Australian governments have sought to regulate it. Twenty-five years ago, the Australian Parliamentary Library published a research paper entitled Can the Internet be regulated? Among others things, that paper noted that legislation that was considered by the Australian states and territories provided an incentive for establishing a code of conduct, and the then Australian Broadcasting Authority announced an inquiry into the regulation of online content services proposing the exploration of various strategies, including codes of practice, complaints procedures and education programs, in addition to devices for blocking or filtering certain materials, and offence provisions. Following that, early legislative reforms directed at regulation of the internet in Australia included amendments in 1999 to the Broadcasting Services Act which established a regulatory regime for internet service providers and online content. Other early legislative measures included the Cybercrime Act 2001 and the Spam Act 2003. In addition, the Office of the eSafety Commissioner was created a few years ago. In recent years, the government has stated that it is important to recognise that the internet is not 'the Wild West, where the rule of law and standards of decency shouldn't apply'. That is true. However, the question has long been not whether to regulate the internet but how best to regulate the internet? That, in many respects, is an unanswered question thanks to the process of mismanagement in bringing this bill before the House. The year 2021 has borne witness to some very significant developments in respect to the relationship of government with the internet. The deplatforming of US President Donald Trump was a particular flashpoint in this respect. Last year, many parents and carers received an urgent message from their children's school—I know I did—warning of a particular suicide video that was circulating on social media, which children were being exposed to. An ABC Four Corners investigation brought to light concerning reports of sexual assault in Australia facilitated by dating apps like Tinder. Further afield, public interest reporting around consent and content on the Canadian pornography website Pornhub forced that platform—seemingly overnight, with the flick of a switch—to clean up its act around what videos are uploaded and requiring verification of users' content. And, in 2019, Australia responded to the Christchurch terrorist atrocity with a law that put some of the practical challenges of internet governance back onto the platforms. For too long, governments and regulators around the world had seen all manner of crimes live streamed yet had failed to appropriately act. It is clear that we must be less reactive and more responsive when it comes to online safety. It should be reflected in a modernised online safety act as well as in the content of that act. It is essential that elected representatives set norms through dialogue, debate and a bipartisan commitment to keeping Australians safe online, as well as through well-crafted and carefully balanced laws. Labor supports steps to improve the online safety of Australians and to modernise regulatory frameworks. This is not a set-and-forget task. There is much more to do. Importantly, it is essential that law to improve the online safety of Australians is well crafted and well balanced when it's engaged with human rights issues. We acknowledge the efforts of government and industry and of civil society stakeholders who, in furtherance of this goal of enhancing the online safety of Australians, have made submissions to the process that the government has managed in bringing this bill before the House. Labor supports the objectives of this bill. We also acknowledge key and important concerns that remain outstanding. On that note, 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 notes: (1) it has been almost two and a half years since the 2018 independent review by Lynelle Briggs AO recommended a new Online Safety Act; (2) given the passage of time, it is disappointing that the Government has proved incapable of conducting a process that satisfies stakeholders on the range of serious and important issues the bill engages with; (3) submissions on the exposure draft of the legislation as well as to the Senate committee inquiry into the bill identified a range of concerns which remain outstanding; (4) the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications advised the Senate inquiry that it identified 56 issues that warranted further consideration by the Minister following consultation on the exposure draft, but only seven amendments of a technical nature were made to the bill as a result of that consideration; and (5) further Government amendments to the bill are anticipated to address concerns with the bill and should be shared for consideration ahead of debate in the Senate." The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the amendment seconded? Ms Rowland 159771 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Gellibrand 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. 12:32 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise today to support the Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 not only as the member for Higgins but as a concerned mother and former paediatrician. The last decade has seen the internet become an increasingly crucial centrepiece in all of our lives. It's brought us together for work, to learn and to connect more than ever. In this light, it is now critical, more than ever, that we work together to ensure the internet is as safe as possible so that everyone can enjoy the benefits of being connected without fear of the sometimes real risks of online connectivity. The internet generally and social media specifically are forms of communication that have been in transition. In some ways the net can be seen as the Wild West, with lots of opportunities—but with opportunities come unregulated challenges. The job of government is to get the balance right in legislation, and that includes putting online safety at the heart of decision-making but enabling opportunities so the world can flourish from the benefits of these online opportunities. This bill seeks to combat the evolving use of the internet in facilitating abusive social interactions, including the distribution of intimate images and cyberabuse, by amending offences in the Criminal Code which are specifically intended to prevent, deter and sanction—as well as educate and draw attention to the criminality of—this conduct. Many of us here in this chamber have heard stories about this, either from the news or our constituents, or may even have been affected ourselves. Some of us have fallen victim to some of these horrendous acts. As a parent, I look to the next generation, who are so incredibly reliant on digital connectivity for all things, from social life to study to work. But now it's reached right through the community—everyone from every generation—with more than 90 per cent of Australians connecting every day. When abuse through these services happens, it can seem inescapable for many. Unfortunately, some victims of these heinous crimes take their own life. This is not acceptable. We must do better. And that's what we're doing with this bill. It's not just for the generations here today but for future generations, those that come after us. The Morrison government is determined that the standards and the rule of law that we enjoy in our every day lives, as we walk around our communities, should also apply online. This is not just reasonable and sensible; it's practical. We need to pass this government's Online Safety Bill to ensure this can become a reality. The bill will strengthen the ability of the eSafety Commissioner to keep Australians safe when things go wrong online. I would like to take a moment to talk about the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant. As the eSafety Commissioner, she is head of the world's first esafety regulatory agency, and she is committed to keeping our citizens safe online. This is very important. This is a world first. No other country, to my knowledge, has legislated an esafety commissioner. Ms Inman Grant spent two decades working in senior public policy and safety roles in the tech industry, at Microsoft, Twitter and Adobe. She's worked in the US Congress and was Global Director for Safety, Privacy Policy and Outreach at Microsoft for many years. She's also global chair of the Child Dignity Alliance's Technical Working Group and a board member of the WePROTECT Global Alliance. This is a woman who really knows her stuff. This bill will provide new powers to the eSafety Commissioner to address emerging harms and hold industry to account for the safety of their products and services. The Morrison government is also acting on its commitment to increase penalties for the use of a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence, from three years up to five years. This will surely help deter many of these acts to begin with. The new Online Safety Bill will establish in law a set of basic online safety expectations for industry. This will help ensure it is transparent and easy to comprehend. In light of the excellent skills and experience of the eSafety Commissioner, these are very relevant changes. Along with these basic expectations, it will also require mandatory transparency reporting. This will empower the eSafety Commissioner to require online services to provide specific information about online harms, such as their response to material depicting abhorrent, violent conduct or even volumetric attacks, which is where organised digital groups seek to overwhelm a victim with abuse. Further, it will see a strengthened cyberbullying scheme for Australian children, along with a new cyberabuse scheme, which will see the removal of the serious forms of online abuse from the internet, backed up by civil penalties. There will also be new requirements for image based abuse content to be removed within 24 hours, and penalties for noncompliance. Yesterday marks two years since a shocking event occurred. Australians will not forget—simply cannot forget—what happened in the space of 36 minutes on 15 March 2019, when Brenton Tarrant, a far Right extremist, fatally shot 51 innocent people across two mosques in Christchurch. This was the deadliest terrorist attack in New Zealand's history. What was unique about this horrific terrorist attack was that it was live streamed on Facebook, highlighting the Achilles heel of such platforms when faced with the viral dissemination of extremely violent content. One can't unsee those images. The legislation before us will empower the eSafety Commissioner with a new rapid website-blocking power. This power can be used to block material depicting abhorrent violent conduct, in real time, during an online crisis. Enhanced information-gathering powers for the eSafety Commissioner will also help unmask the identities behind anonymous online accounts being used to abuse, bully or humiliate others. This part of the powers I'm sure many Australians and, I suspect, many in this House—particularly public figures—will be celebrating. These online trollings from fake or anonymous accounts can cause untold damage. They really do lower the tone of conversations that can be very empowering in an online space. For far too long and too often many victims of online abuse have been hurled at from behind troll accounts. This act is a warning to all trolls: the tables have been turned; the eSafety Commissioner is coming for you. TV and radio presenter Erin Molan was forced to take police action after an online troll bombarded her with a series of vile messages threatening the life of her unborn daughter. I would like to acknowledge Erin and to thank her for sharing her story so publicly and bringing this story to light so that we can understand how terrible some of this trolling can be. Erin Molan is a leading voice for this legislative change and recently said: This historical, legislative and social milestone is setting a standard that the rest of the world should—and I think will—follow. It is true that our Australian regulations and legislation are being looked to by the rest of the world, and we know this from the point that Mathias Cormann has been recently elected as Secretary-General of the OECD on a platform which included digital taxation, based on the fact that we have a very good record of work in this important area. The Online Safety Bill provides a flexible, comprehensive framework that requires platforms to prioritise the safety of Australians and empowers the eSafety Commissioner to assist them when things go wrong online. This bill is one vital step to delivering overall safety online. But it is also true that we, as individuals, need to actively take steps to make the internet a safe and enjoyable space for every user. Together, we can and should work towards a better internet. It is democratised knowledge; it has made the world a better place for many to live. I commend this bill to the House. But we all need to work together with regard to online safety. 12:42 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan As those who have spoken before me have stated, the Online Safety Bill 2021 seeks to create a new online safety framework for Australians. It is 'a modern, fit-for-purpose regulatory framework that builds on the strengths of the existing legislative scheme for online safety'. Many of the aspects of this bill should be supported. They tackle some very serious—I would venture to say, criminal—activities online and some very serious and damaging behaviours online. For the most part, the bill consolidates various online safety laws into one bill and tidies up those laws, but there are a couple of novel elements to the bill. One element is the articulation of a core set of basic online safety expectations, to promote and improve online safety for Australians—certainly something that is very welcomed and supported by those on this side. The other element is the creation of a new complaints based removal notice scheme for cyberabuse being perpetrated against an Australian adult—an adult cyberabuse scheme. I want to talk, in the time I have left, a little on that particular aspect and some concerns that have been raised about it, as well as some concerns that have been raised around the handling of the bill. While remaining largely supportive of the intent of the bill and largely supportive of the need for this bill, the criticisms of the bill have been focused on the process and some of the substance issues—things like the functions, powers and oversight of the eSafety Commissioner. I concur with the member for Higgins that the current eSafety Commissioner is a woman of extraordinary talents and brings extraordinary experience to the role. However, that does not preclude an eSafety Commissioner from having the kinds of checks and balances that other people with those kinds of powers should be and are subjected to. There are also concerns about the clarity and breadth of the basic online safety expectations, services in scope of the online content regulation schemes, the clarity and the proportionality of the blocking scheme, the appropriate basis for the online content scheme, reduced response time, and, importantly, the rushed public consultation for this bill, following an exposure draft which was released in December 2020. Only 376 submissions were able to be received, because of the short time of the consultation process. But coming back to the adult cyberabuse scheme, which is one of the novel parts of this bill, as I said before—that scheme would enable the eSafety Commissioner to make a determination about what is offensive and have that material removed within a short time frame. Concerns have already been raised about the subjective nature of this determination and the lack of, as I mentioned earlier, checks and balances on determinations, and they're valid concerns about how these determinations and how this particular aspect of the bill would be used. I remember that, in my first term here, we had a very heated debate in this House about section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. There was fervent debate on the other side, with free-speech warriors claiming that 18C needed to be removed. The member for Higgins, who spoke earlier—I know that she wasn't a member at the time—might like to go back and have a look at some of the Hansard on that debate, because it was members on her side who stated in their debate that offence was not given; offence was taken. It was members on her side who argued quite loudly for the right of people to offend, under the guise of the freedom of speech. I would urge those people—those free-speech warriors—on the other side to look very carefully at the detail of this bill and to look very carefully at the provisions of this bill and to consider how it might impact on free speech and how some of those provisions in the bill might be used. The other concern I have is that this provision in the bill is about adult cyberbullying. I have spent a lot of my career working in the spaces of antiracism, and, for some time, I worked in anti-bullying and anti-harassment policy as well. I can tell you that one of the greatest grievances of people who work in that field is that racism often gets subsumed into bullying and it's often dealt with as bullying. That has quite a serious side effect, has a serious consequence, because it means that racism never gets called out as racism. Instead, it's called bullying. But when bullying and the harassment is of a racial nature, it is racism. End of story—full stop. It is racism, and it needs to be called out as racism. Imagine a scenario where somebody is trolling with racist remarks and gets called out for it, gets called a racist, and the person, the troll, takes offence to that and reports it and instead of the racist remark being removed, the remarks that are calling out racism get removed instead. That is a very likely scenario—as we currently have it. It's a very likely scenario that somebody who is trolling another individual with racist commentary and gets called out for that racist commentary can claim that they are being bullied and harassed and take action against the person who has called them out. It is a very likely scenario. I will remind those on the other side what it looks like to be the subject of racist trolling online, although I'm sure that I don't have to remind some of those on the other side. I know that there are people on the other side who have been trolled online for their political views, for their race or for a number of other things. I've had people comment that I should be hung from a tree, that people should put a bullet in the bag and that they should take me out to the town square and shoot me or behead me. Imagine if, in a scenario like that, I were to call them out as racist and respond with remarks that they are racist, and I then became subject to the adult cyberbullying scheme and I were shut down. That is a very real possibility. That said, it is absolutely true that we need a scheme like this that would allow and require platforms to block the kind of terrible content that we saw with the live streaming of the Christchurch terrorist attack. I thank those who have spoken in this place and in the Federation Chamber on the second anniversary of the Christchurch terrorist attack. It is quite timely that this bill comes in line with that anniversary. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is currently undertaking an inquiry into violent extremist groups in Australia, and the terms of reference include online content. But I want to make this point: much of the recruiting and influence of violent extremist groups happens in the dark spaces of the internet, on the dark web. Very little of it happens on the surface web. It's just the tip of the iceberg that we see on the surface web. I want to make sure that this scheme captures the kind of online racism that we see on the surface web. People can be racist trolls and not be members of or affiliated with violent extremist far-Right organisations. We cannot let that behaviour slip through the net if we're going to have a comprehensive framework for dealing with these behaviours online. I just remind the House that, before I entered parliament, much of my research was on online behaviours, and I also did some research on the most appropriate way of dealing with online offensive material, looking at whether or not the whack-a-mole approach of removing material as it appeared was the best approach and also at the kinds of online behaviours that precede radicalisation and violent acts, such as the behaviours that were observed post the act of the Christchurch terrorist but perhaps should have been observed prior to the act. Many of those behaviours happen in the dark spaces. So I really would like to see further work done on this bill, and particularly on the scheme, to ensure that the adult cyberbullying part of this bill, the adult cyberbullying scheme, also recognises racism as part of it, racial harassment as part of it and hate speech as part of it, and clearly defines them and has clear and defined processes for the reporting and the removal of this kind of material online. That said, I join my Labor colleagues in supporting the intent of the bill. I join my Labor colleagues, particularly the member for Gellibrand and the shadow minister, who is sitting here today, in supporting the intent of the bill and the good things that the bill will do in removing really, really harmful content. But also, in adding to the debate today, I add my concerns about the bill—about the way that the bill was handled, about the lack of consultation in the handling of the bill and about the further steps that the bill needs to take to ensure that it actually does provide safety. All of us are entitled to feel safe, whether it's in our homes, whether it's in our workplaces, whether it's in our streets and whether it's online. 12:56 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher According to research from the eSafety Commissioner, last year, 44 per cent of Australian teenagers had a negative online experience in the six months to September 2020. I want to briefly acknowledge the work that's been done in this space by the member for Forrest, who's just walked into the chamber. She's been an undying advocate for this area. It's been great to work alongside her as a bit of a tag team in this space, because there's a lot of work to be done. Well done for everything you've done. Tragically, we saw a 129 per cent increase in child sexual abuse material reports over the March to September period last year. But it's not just children and young people who have serious negative experiences online; in fact, for adults, the issue is even more prevalent. The eSafety Commissioner found that 67 per cent of Australian adults had a negative experience online in the 12 months to August 2019, including repeated unwanted messages, unwanted pornography or violent content, scams, viruses, hate speech, abuse and threats. Vulnerable Australians, including those with a disability, are more likely than others to have these sorts of terrible experiences. But perhaps most disturbingly as many as a quarter of those who have had an a negative online experience experienced mental or emotional distress as a result. In one indicator of the size of this problem, online harassment and cyberabuse is estimated to have cost our economy up to $3.7 billion to date just in medical costs and lost incomes for Australians. So for those out there who may be listening and thinking, 'Why is a Liberal government getting involved in this space?' even if you just put aside the fact that this is the right thing to do for the moment, there is an economic cost to Australians. For people who are struggling with bullying, depression and social isolation, the online world can leave them no respite from their suffering. In 2021 the internet has no off button. Mobile phones and constant connectivity can mean that the bullying never stops. We see this, unfortunately, in politics. We see this in our own communities. Comments can be anonymous—they can be brutal—and the isolation can be unrelenting. At its worst, vulnerable people can end up being encouraged to take their own lives. Let me say that again: vulnerable people can be, and in fact are, encouraged to take their own lives. We talk so much in this place. The discussions in recent days have been about all of the issues that women are experiencing in this country, but let's just go back a step for a moment. If I treat the member for Lyons with the respect that he deserves, I'm hoping that he will return that. If these last few weeks teach us anything, it's that we are in positions of leadership in this place and we should be treating each other with greater respect than we do. With eating disorders, a different, though no less dark, side of the internet is on display. I've seen this personally. There are a plethora of websites and forums in which sufferers and enablers share information on how to lose weight in a very unhealthy manner, putting other peoples' lives at risk. These sites offer those suffering from eating disorders tips and tricks. They discourage treatment and normalise what we now know as a serious mental health disorder. We must do more to protect vulnerable people, and particularly we must do more to protect children online. To deal with these ever-increasing social challenges, ultimately we will need action from the online media companies which facilitate abuse and illegal sharing to better moderate their platforms. Like many regions around the country, my electorate of Fisher includes nearly 10,000 young people aged between 18 and 24 who are particularly at risk, as well as thousands more students at 13 secondary schools who are regrettably increasingly facing cyberabuse of all kinds. I have, therefore, and based on my own family's experience, taken a very strong interest in this issue. I'm now very familiar with dealing directly with the world's biggest digital and social media companies on their approach to cybersafety. Since my election I've been pursuing change in this area and, in particular, the reduction of cyberbullying and the protection of those online with serious mental health concerns, including eating disorders. With the support of the then Prime Minister, the eSafety Commissioner and the then National Cyber Security Adviser, Alastair MacGibbon, in January 2018, just after Dolly Everett took her own life, I had the opportunity to meet with the DIGI Group, a group of global online businesses, to speak to them about the ideas for change that I believe could make an important difference. This group includes representatives of Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Yahoo and others. Though our conversations then and in the years that followed have been constructive, some of these companies have made slow progress in improving safety. The message from industry time and time again has been the same: if we want to see real change in keeping Australians safe online then we need to legislate and force these businesses to act. Unfortunately, we've seen in recent weeks more clearly than ever the attitude of some of these major technology companies and their reluctance to act on important social issues when they're not forced to do so. Facebook is the platform where, the eSafety Commissioner reports, the most Australians have negative experiences. Only weeks ago, Facebook responded to entirely valid concerns about the benefits it was receiving without payment from the publishing of professional news content on its platform by depriving Australian users of a key part of its service. Instead of dealing constructively with Australians and their democratically elected government, Facebook attempted to bully and coerce Australians into what they wanted. If we ever needed proof that we require a strong regulator in this environment, to make sure that these companies do the right thing, we now have it. We simply cannot rely on the good intentions of these companies; we must have a strong cop on the beat ready to step in and force change when it is needed, and we need stronger expectations on the platforms that reflect Australians' expectations. The bills before the House today, the Online Safety Bill 2021 and the Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, will go a long way towards ensuring that a strong regulator is in place on an ongoing basis, and that it has all the powers it needs. It is the latest measure in this coalition government's unmatched track record of action on online safety. It was, after all, the coalition that established the Children's eSafety Commissioner in July 2015. This government expanded its role to encompass e-safety information and support for all Australians. As far as I'm aware, it remains the only organisation in the world that does this; we were world leaders. To date, this government has delivered more than $70 million for the work of the eSafety Commissioner, Ms Julie Inman Grant, who I've done a lot of work with in the last five years. She has done a tremendous job in using those funds and exercising the powers that she has to make Australians safer online. Just in 2019-20 the commissioner received 14,500 reports about prohibited online content and identified more than 13,000 separate URLs which were sufficiently serious to warrant referral to law enforcement. In 82 per cent of cases, the commissioner was successful in having material removed at her request. However, she also issued 16 notices to Australian and overseas services to remove abhorrent violent material. In one year the commissioner received almost 700 complaints about serious cyberbullying targeting Australian children and referred almost 3,000 people to the Kids Helpline. However, the online world is constantly changing and our regulatory framework must adapt to keep up. New technologies and new ways of using that technology have shifted the threat landscape, while the role of materials and services hosted online are becoming more recognised. In short, as I've often said and as this government says, the standards we apply to behaviour in the online world must be the same as those we apply in the real world. If something is unacceptable in real life, it should be unacceptable online. The 2018 independent review of the Enhancing Online Safety Act, led by Ms Briggs, laid out a clear path for how to improve our regulations. The bills before the House enact those recommendations, and I'll speak just about a few. First of all, the bills expand the range of situations in which the eSafety Commissioner can exercise her powers. They extend this government's already world-leading cyberabuse take-down scheme from content relating to children to that involving all Australian adults. Under these bills, where an online platform has failed to take down abusive material, the eSafety Commissioner will have the power to issue take-down notices not only to the platform itself but to the end user, where identifiable. These bills also expand the range of online providers to which the eSafety Commissioner can issue a notice to take down. Although social media is critical in the struggle against online abuse, other platforms, including search engines, online games, websites and messaging services, are seeing increasing cyberbullying. It's even happening now with online banking. With these bills, we empower the eSafety Commissioner to take the fight into these new battlegrounds. As well as broadening the commissioner's powers, the bills deliver tougher measures to deal with the most serious breaches. One of the most prevalent and harmful forms of online abuse is the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. I'm glad some kids up there in the student gallery have joined us. You might want to listen to this part. It needs to be dealt with quickly and comprehensively, and this bill halves the amount of time allowed to platforms before they must remove such material once a notice is issued by the eSafety Commissioner. Those who don't comply face a civil penalty of up to $111,000. When it comes to material described as class 1—that is, material involving the most abhorrent violence and abuse—this bill would give the eSafety Commissioner the power to have it removed from search engines within 24 hours and even to have apps deleted, where those apps are facilitating access. Where events of an abhorrent nature are ongoing, this bill would give the eSafety Commissioner the unprecedented but important power to have websites that have been used to share live images of these events temporarily blocked by all internet service providers in this country. To me, perhaps the bill's most important provision, however, begins to correct a cultural issue which I believe lies at the heart of the challenge posed by online bullying and harassment, and that is the question of anonymity. Studies have proved that the feeling of anonymity facilitates abhorrent behaviour on the part of people who would never consider it if their names and their faces could be seen. Behind a shield of anonymity, malicious actors feel invulnerable and, in all too many cases, they have been. I believe this cannot be allowed to continue. We must hold individuals accountable for their actions online, just as we hold them accountable in the offline world, and, to do that, we must be able to identify who they are, and this bill will do just that. I commend it to the House. 13:11 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Online Safety Bill 2021 and the Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021. Members may recall that in recent weeks I've been making numerous calls for action to be taken against the foreign based website Etsy, which had on its platform abhorrent products promoting child sexual abuse, putting these products for sale alongside things like Father's Day gifts. I'm certainly on the side of cracking down on rogue internet operators who fail to uphold community standards. Labor does support measures to consolidate, update and enhance online safety laws for Australians, and the bills do seek to create a new online safety framework for Australians—'a modern, fit-for-purpose regulatory framework that builds on the strengths of the existing legislative scheme for online safety'. For many years, Australians have been protected by laws to support online safety, and it is important these laws are kept up to date. To a large degree, the bills represent regulatory housekeeping by consolidating various online safety laws into one bill, with some updates, in response to Lynelle Briggs's independent review of online safety laws, which reported to the government in October 2018. So the government's had this for a while and has not acted with the speed with which it should have. Labor does support the aim of consolidating online safety laws into a new framework and new elements of the bill, including the creation of a new complaints-based removal notice scheme for cyberabuse being perpetrated against an Australian adult and the articulation of a core set of basic online safety expectations to improve and promote online safety for Australians. Although the government has been spruiking this new Online Safety Bill as if it already exists—and it has been spruiking it for almost two years—it's just now that it's introducing a bill that addresses a recommendation of the Briggs review for a single, up-to-date online safety act. Unfortunately, even after all the time the government's had, it still doesn't have this bill quite ready to go. Labor are supporting it because we're taking the view that something's better than nothing, but this bill really is half cooked, and the government should have done a better job. It's a very important piece of public policy, and the government's just come at it almost as an afterthought. When asked about key operational aspects of this bill, such as for the novel adult cyberabuse scheme, even the eSafety Commissioner referred to it as a 'sausage' that is still being made, and that was as recently as last week. Last week, the eSafety Commissioner said the sausage is still being made. It's really not good enough. Given the significant passage of time since the Briggs review reported, it is disappointing that the government has proved incapable of conducting a process that satisfies stakeholders in terms of both process and substance. A wide range of stakeholders still have valid concerns with this bill which the government has failed to address. Submissions to the Senate inquiry into the bill raised concerns about several matters that they argued have not been addressed and which some considered long overdue for reform, such as the functions, powers and oversight of the eSafety Commissioner, the clarity and breadth of the basic online safety expectations, and the public consultation processes associated with the bills, amongst other things. I personally have some concerns about things like mission creep. We start out with good intentions on these things, and I do back this bill. As I say, it's not ideal but it's better than nothing. But I am concerned that, given the holes in this bill and the patent fact that it's going to need pretty quick revision pretty soon, there is a risk of mission creep, where what starts off with good intentions ends up being something a little bit more insidious. I have a background as a journalist. I would hate to think that the provisions of this bill would end up in any way impacting on the ability of journalists to report freely and openly in this country. Journalism, by necessity, often presents the public with confronting images. For example, who can forget that terrible image of George Floyd being kneed in the neck until he was dead? It's not beyond the scope of reason to think that somebody may well complain to an eSafety Commissioner in the future that that sort of imagery is abhorrently violent and should be caught up in the scope of this bill and taken down. I have very high regard for the current eSafety Commissioner, but she won't always be there. Who knows who will hold that position in the future? Who knows what qualifications they will bring and what ideological or political baggage they might have trailing behind them when they are given fairly extraordinary powers under this bill? So I do have those concerns. I don't think those concerns are unwarranted, and I hope that, once this goes up to the Senate as part of that review process, it's taken on board a little bit more. We need to make sure that journalism and particularly the public interest are not caught up by bad-faith actors, people who make vexatious complaints to an eSafety Commissioner for either religious or ideological reasons or simply because they want content that they happen not to agree with taken down. So we need some more work done there. Other significant matters of concern include how the bill interacts with the frameworks of safeguards put in place by the telecommunications assistance and access regime, as well as matters that interact with freedom of speech. That goes to some of the matters I've just raised. Finding the balance between free speech and protections against certain kinds of speech is a complex endeavour. It's not easy. We all like to think that we live in a free society with free speech. We don't have free speech mandated in our Constitution, unlike in the US, but we like to think that we have freedom of speech in this country. But it comes with obligations and responsibilities, and finding that sweet spot is a difficult endeavour. We are concerned that this bill represents a significant increase in the eSafety Commissioner's discretion to remove material, without commensurate checks and balances. This is a key concern of mine: an unelected official is being given extraordinary powers over public information. As I say, this is being done with good intent—I don't question the government's intention on this—but an unelected bureaucrat is being given extraordinary powers, and I really think we need to look very closely at how that person is appointed, what qualifications they bring and also what oversight this parliament has. I am not a fan, personally—I can't speak for the Labor Party on this—of the executive having sole discretion over this. A minister having the hire and fire power over an eSafety Commissioner does not sit well with me. Finding that balance is important. Whilst we are supportive of a scheme for adult cyberabuse, it's very curious that a government that has made repeated attempts to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act on the grounds that it unduly restricts free speech, despite the availability of defences in section 18D, is now seeking to rush through a half-cooked bill that empowers the eSafety Commissioner with discretion to determine matters of speech in relation to adult cyberbullying without greater checks and balances or operational clarity. They've had this for two years. It's almost like they've just let it sit there and percolate, doing nothing, and now they're rushing it through the parliament not having done the checks and balances properly. This government talks a big game about its expectations of social media platforms, but, to date, it has failed to do its job by updating Australia's online safety laws. While the government is right to expect digital platforms to offer more in terms of transparency—and I'm not a fan of the way those digital giants do their job; they need to do better—so too must the government be prepared to provide transparency around decision-making, particularly on matters that engage with human rights. In their additional comments to the Senate inquiry, Labor senators recommended that the government consider further amendments to clarify the bill in terms of its scope and to strengthen due process, appeals, oversight and transparency requirements given the important free speech and digital rights consideration that it engages. Online safety is of increasing importance to all Australians as we spend more time online—it's just everywhere in our home lives and in business—and I urge the government to take the short amount of time it takes to get it right. You've had two years. I don't know why you're rushing it through now without taking account of the many complaints and many concerns that have been raised through the Senate process. Get it right the first time. Don't rush this through and then have to cobble it back together again with amendments over the next year, as you are doing with other bills. I think the biosecurity one comes to mind. You made a mess of that, and now the biosecurity amendment bill is coming back into the parliament. Get it right the first time. Labor supports online safety and we do support these bills. The safety of Australians online, particularly children, is of paramount importance, so Labor will work constructively with the government to iron out concerns with these bills in time for debate in the Senate. But, in the meantime, Labor will not oppose these bills. We just implore the government: do better. 13:22 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan It's a great pleasure to rise today and speak on this bill, the Online Safety Bill 2021, and to support it very enthusiastically and wholeheartedly. This is obviously a passion of mine. I'm a young dad and, like a lot of families in my electorate of Ryan, I'm passionate about making sure that our kids are not only safe when they're online but also supported in the real world from the harmful effects that can come from negative behaviour online. Before I go on, I really wanted to pay tribute to the member for Forrest, who is in here watching—the wonderful Nola—because I'm a recent addition to this place and it has been a great honour of mine to come into this place and be able to take up this issue of online harm. The member for Forrest is one who I know—and there are others—has been taking up this particular fight for some time. I think that, long before the full negative effects of it were fully appreciated, the member for Forrest appreciated them and not only took them up in a virtue-signalling way but also took them up in a very practical way by working with her schools and taking it upon herself to actually educate young people about what is safe behaviour online. So, Member for Forrest, you should be congratulated for that. Our kids are continuously spending more and more time online, and there are some very harmful environments online. I have to say technology continues to evolve faster than we are evolving in our understanding of it. Sitting on the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and looking at those recommendations into online gambling and access to online porn, it struck me that it's not just about messaging apps or Facebook or Instagram, which we all understand relatively well—me not as much as I should, because I'm not a tech-head. There are things like loot boxes in games. There are things like chat functions, which kids can use to chat to people. Kids can be playing these games, in front of their parents, in full view. A parent can think they're doing the right thing by watching over their kid, but they don't know who is on the other end of the earpiece or what they're speaking about. It's a very dangerous space for parents. I'm struck by the fact that it's a space in which parents can be incredibly diligent and feel like they're doing everything right but still get it wrong. That is a really dangerous space. They'll get it wrong because (1) it's a struggle for parents of any generation to keep up with the technology of a younger generation and (2) these predators are incredibly sophisticated and determined in the horrible things that they are trying to do. The point I'm trying to make, and where I'm going with this little monologue, is that this bill is important because it gives parents the tools to help their kids in a way that they couldn't before. As we have seen, the eSafety Commissioner has had significant success with younger people. It also gives parents and adults the opportunity to push back against some of the trolls and the abhorrent online behaviour that we see through social media and other technologies. To understand the prevalence of the issue, I want to give this House a little bit of an understanding of what we're up against when we're talking about vulnerable people in our society and the harm that can come from technological abuse. Recently, the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, known as the ACCCE—it's a tremendous facility hosted in my home town of Brisbane, and I'm incredibly supportive of it—completed a study into understanding community awareness, perceptions, attitudes and preventive behaviours. They found some remarkable things. Four out of five children aged four are using the internet, and 30 per cent of those children have access to their own device. Incredible! Again, this isn't about lax parenting, although, from my own experience with my child, I know I'd be very careful about providing a four-year-old with a device. Some parents think they are doing the right thing by giving their child an internet enabled device, opening up all sorts of educational and learning opportunities for that child. But with that opportunity comes an incredible responsibility and an incredible potential for harm. One in two children under the age of 12 have their own device. Despite this, only 52 per cent of parents talk to their children about online safety. By the age of 11, most children are using the internet unsupervised. This is incredibly concerning. At the age of 11, the cognitive abilities of these kids are limited. Their ability to make sensible, rational decisions and to understand the full scope of the decisions they're making when they enter into conversations that could be harmful to them is limited. They don't fully understand. That's alright. That's an opportunity for parents and our entire society. The saying is: 'It takes a village to raise a child.' We all have to throw our arms around these parents and kids to make sure that everybody understands the harm that can come from online technological abuse, whether it be to kids or to parents. I take the point of the previous Labor speaker. It is a difficult issue. But, with due respect, when he says, 'It's hard to find the balance,' I'm not so sure it is. I think the balance is quite clear. We expect the same rules, laws and norms in the online world as we expect in the real world. Up until now, we have been willing to forego those protections in the online world because we felt that, to get the benefits of all this increased connectivity between people in a globalised world, we had to give up the protections that we have in the real world. That's just not the case. I don't think that Australians are willing to accept it anymore. I don't think that they will cop it anymore. What the government has shown, by moving against the technology companies when it comes to having them paying for news content, demonstrates our desire to make sure that the same rules apply in the online world as they do in the real world. Frankly, I think these technology companies should be held accountable as the publishers that they are. It's not acceptable to have anonymous content on these platforms. If these platforms do allow anonymous content then they have to take responsibility for what is said in that anonymous content. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention 15 13:30 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The previous speaker mentioned that it takes a village to raise a child. The other thing that is required to keep children safe is that the village speak up when the children are being abused and if children are being raped. I want to remind this House that they have a responsibility for Veterans' Affairs, and they have a responsibility for the Department of Defence. In the last couple of weeks, in our training establishments, there have been suicides. There have been suicides right here in Canberra of veterans who have served this nation. Those opposite continue to fail to realise that sexual assault, violence against women and suicide are big problems, not only in our nation but also in our Defence Force. We need a royal commission into defence and veteran suicide. It needs to be called. Those opposite have a responsibility to get serious about this. But, unfortunately, they are led by a prime minister who yesterday might as well have said to the nation that the women of Australia are lucky that they're not shot because they've got the ability to protest. But he fails to hear their words. And I say to those opposite who have failed to hear the words of the veterans and families of this nation: time is up. We need a royal commission into veteran and defence suicide. You have to power to do it, so call it. (Time expired) Suicide 15 13:31 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay A mother told me last week of the combination of heartbreak and loss that swallows you when a child dies by suicide. Tragedies like this often can be twofold because anguish swirls with grief, with the expectation that they could have somehow done something to stop a loved one from hurting themselves. But this conversation can be too big for family and friends alone. Often when people die by suicide, the act that takes their life is preceded by one or more attempts. Help is needed most in the days and weeks following an attempt. It was a promising experience last week to attend the Maryborough launch of Beyond Blue's suicide aftercare initiative, The Way Back Support Service, which offers critical support for people after they leave hospital. It plugs an important gap to help people navigate their way back to the light at the end of the tunnel. The Morrison government has commissioned the $44 million The Way Back program to give practical support to people who have tried to take their own lives. Not only does this program help people recover but it helps them deal with the issues that led to the suicide attempt and helps them connect to their communities, who would feel their loss forever. Immigration Detention 15 13:33 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra Since the parliament last met, we have marked a devastating milestone. It is three years that Priya, Nades, Tharunicaa and Kopika have been in immigration detention. It is three years during which they have been robbed not only of their present but of their future—isolated, in unhealthy conditions and denied their basic rights. Five-year-old Tharunicaa has had four teeth surgically removed because of the lack of decent food in detention. These are baby teeth, and she will have to wait for her adult teeth to come through. Kopika was eight months old when this government put her and her family in detention. All she knows is detention. All she knows is her parents desperately trying to make things okay for their little girls, when nothing in their world is okay. This government could end this with the stroke of a pen. But this is a cruel government that has made an example of this family, with two little girls remaining in detention when they said no children would be in detention by the end of 2019. If we are to be an egalitarian country and if we are to be a country that upholds human rights, as so many of us want us to be, our policies need to change. I am ashamed, as an Australian, that this family is in detention, and I and my Labor colleagues will not stop fighting for them to be sent home to Biloela. Ryan Electorate: Roads 16 13:34 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan At the last election I made a commitment to fix local roads, and that's exactly what I am doing with federal funds I've secured for key projects across Ryan. One of these important projects is upgrading the Kenmore roundabout. After fighting for funding, the federal government and I delivered $12.5 million to this much-needed project at this congested and dangerous bottleneck. With the support of Dr Christian Rowan MP, the member for Moggill, we were able to drag the Labor state government, kicking and screaming—frankly, to get them to do anything is a miracle—to match the funding in September 2019. They have finally released some plans. In the period between then and now, we had heard absolutely nothing but crickets. I've been lobbying persistently to get them moving, given the funding was all available, and to get the Labor roads minister, Mark Bailey, to get on with the job. He's taken months and months, but finally we have some plans released for the community, which is what I want and what the locals want. What's important now is that we get your views on these draft plans and that we hear from you, the community of Ryan—the people who are trying to get home to their families more safely and more quickly but are faced with this dangerous bottleneck and congestion point every single day. Have a look at the plans. Make sure that you have your say so that we can get this project right. I want you to feed in your feedback both to TMR and to me and Dr Christian Rowan so that together, as a community, we can fix local roads. COVID-19: Vaccination 16 13:36 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I was pleased to see the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Dunkley get the second shots of their COVID-19 vaccination this morning. Getting all Australians vaccinated is the only way that we're going to get through this pandemic and get our day-to-day lives back to normal. Unfortunately, though, the Morrison government isn't doing its bit. Yet again, it's been too focused on announcing the vaccine rollout and not focused enough on actually delivering the vaccine rollout. Journalist Justin Stevens has collated a list of 25 separate Morrison government media releases and press conferences discussing the vaccine rollout in the last seven months. He hasn't counted Liberal Party branded social media graphics on the rollout, though, so it's far from a comprehensive list. If announcements were injections, we'd all be immune. We know that the PM told Australians we'd be 'at the front of the queue' for the vaccine. He told the nation that four million Australians would be vaccinated by the end of March and that the vaccine rollout would 'get through the population by October'. Yet, by today, only 170,000 Australians had been vaccinated. The Prime Minister put more effort into the cosplay costume he wore for his vaccination than he has into delivering the vaccination rollout for all Australians. He hasn't put Australians at the front of the queue for vaccination; he's put his own political interests at the front of the queue. The pace of the vaccine rollout in peer nations like the United States, the UK and Israel raises the very real prospect that, instead of being at the front of the queue, Australians will be left behind as nations in the developed world achieve population immunity and we'll be ruing the Morrison government's failure to deliver. Sturt Electorate: Waite Gatehouse 16 13:37 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt One of the great congestion-busting initiatives in my electorate—in fact, on the border of my electorate and the great electorate of Boothby—is the Fullarton Road and Cross Road intersection, in which the Commonwealth and state governments are jointly investing $61 million to ensure that we're helping people to get where they need to get, more quickly and more safely. However, one concerning component of this project was going to be the demolition of a very historic building in South Australia known as the Waite Gatehouse, on the famous Waite estate, which Peter Waite left to the people of South Australia when he passed away almost a century ago. Happily, I welcome yesterday's announcement that the gatehouse is, in fact, going to be saved and is going to be relocated on the Waite site. This was something that had caused a lot of consternation to local residents in my electorate and those in nearby suburbs. It was not because the project isn't supported—it's an excellent project, and everyone wants to see that intersection upgraded—but there was a lot of local community concern about losing that very important and historic local heritage asset. So I'm pleased that the University of Adelaide and the South Australian government were able to announce yesterday that they have agreed to relocate this building. It will go to a more appropriate place, nowhere near the intersection. It's a great outcome, and I congratulate the local community for making their voices heard. Miller, Mr John William, OAM 17 13:39 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie The Hawkesbury is mourning the passing of John Miller, OAM, who died on 12 March aged 91. He was one of the most passionate, relentless and determined gentlemen that I have met in the Hawkesbury, and he gave decades of community service to it. He arrived in the Hawkesbury in 1955 to farm fruit and vegetables, but, after floods devastated his farm, he moved to higher ground to grow mushrooms. Active in the Australian Mushroom Growers Association, he worked to unite growers across the country and helped to establish a research facility to improve the productivity of local crops. In 1986, he joined the local State Emergency Service, and again floods influenced his life. He was involved in establishing an early flood warning network. John and I didn't always see eye to eye on issues, but we did agree on the need for better flood evacuation routes. We also shared a love for the Boer War Memorial in Canberra—a beautiful sculpture of horses and their riders in motion, which he helped raise funds for. John's very many contributions to the region led to him being named a Champion of the West and an Ambassador for the Hawkesbury, and, in 2018, he received a Medal of the Order of Australia. On behalf of the community, I extend condolences to his wife, Beryl; children Annette, Ken and Robyn; and their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Vale, John Miller. Townsville: Tourism 17 13:40 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert Townsville is about to get an influx of visitors, thanks to the half-price flights made possible by our announcement last week. I've been meeting with dozens of tourism, accommodation and hospitality business operators over the last year. They've all said the same thing: this year has been extremely tough. With constantly changing restrictions, the uncertainty has resulted in a big hit to visitation to our area. I have to admit that I, along with the industry, was disappointed that Townsville was left off the first tourism stimulus list, and so I used the community's voice; I met with them to write to the relevant minister to explain how important this would be to a region that had been devastated through floods and then the impacts of COVID-19. So I was very pleased to be able to make the announcement that we will be getting the 50-per-cent-off flights to Townsville. I want to encourage everyone who's listening today and everyone here: in the coming months, your electorates are going to be cold and miserable! Not in Townsville: it'll still be 30 degrees; it'll still be lovely. So come visit. Use your 50 per cent discount. Come up to Townsville. For the people of Townsville: it's okay; when they come up and visit and go across to Maggie island, you can use the 50 per cent in reverse and get away for a little break with the family. So, everyone, come visit Townsville. It's a lovely place to visit. It's a great place to be. Ms Burney interjecting— Mr THOMPSON 281826 And I look forward to the shadow minister coming to visit as well! March 4 Justice 17 13:42 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne The women of Australia are speaking loudly and speaking clearly, but the men of this government are still not listening. But they can't ignore it and hope women will go away. The more the government ignores the crisis of male violence against women in this country, the more women will join this movement and demand: 'Enough is enough'. In a classic display of chauvinism, when women are talking to him, the Prime Minister isn't even listening. He demands that they come to him. He won't go out to meet Australian women on their own terms. He won't even read the allegations of women who have suffered and are suffering from male violence, because, to quote his first major speech as Prime Minister, 'We look after our mates'. He won't adopt the changes that inquiry after inquiry have said need to happen to eliminate violence against women because, again, he believes that he knows best. The 55 recommendations of the Respect@Work report to end sexual harassment have been on the Prime Minister's desk for 14 months and he hasn't done a thing to turn them into law. He refuses to adequately fund the services that are having to turn away women fleeing violence or to address the financial insecurity that forces women to stay in dangerous situations. The Prime Minister is more dedicated to silence against women. He tells them to go away, know their place, be quiet and be grateful that they aren't being shot at. But the women of Australia and their allies hear the Prime Minister's silence. They see his inaction. And we won't let this slide until this national crisis of gendered— (Time expired) Garner, Mrs Eve 18 13:44 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It was my great privilege to attend the 100th birthday celebrations for Mrs Eve Garner on Friday in Bethania. Mrs Garner, the youngest of seven children, was born in Aldershot in the UK to a military family, and during World War II she served in the Women's Auxiliary Air Force, driving trucks and ambulances and a variety of other support vehicles. After the war ended, she met William 'Bill' Garner, a former RAF pilot, and they married in April 1949. They had two children, Jill and Peter, and Mrs Garner worked in the children's home as an assistant house mother. She enjoyed flower arranging and belonged to a large number of women's groups. She also loved to travel and, during her life, visited Canada and New Zealand, ultimately coming to live in Australia. Sadly, her husband, Bill, passed away at the age of 60 in 1981. In 1996, at the age of 75, Mrs Garner made the brave decision to emigrate to Australia to be with her children and grandchildren, who had emigrated here in the 1990s. For her 85th birthday, Mrs Garner took a flight in a Tiger Moth, the same aircraft her husband, Bill, trained in. Mrs Garner now has five grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren. Nothing is more important to her than family, and they all adore her, which we saw at those wonderful birthday celebrations last Friday. Happy birthday, Eve. Thank you for your service to our community. I hope you have many more happy years. Aged Care 18 13:45 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The title of the aged-care royal commission interim report says everything about this government's approach to aged care. The title was simply one word, Neglect, and the findings of the aged-care royal commission point to a government that has neglected the sector for many years. The findings are quite shocking: almost half of residents in aged-care facilities are malnourished, there is inappropriate use of drugs and restraints, and there is a lack of care and respect for residents. There are almost 100,000 Australians on a waiting list for aged-care packages throughout this country, most of them looking for a high level of support. Twenty-eight thousand Australians died whilst waiting for an aged-care package over the course of the last couple of years, on this government's watch. Yesterday I met with age-care workers who are overworked and underpaid. They talked about lonely residents who just want the workers to sit with them and give them some company. But the workers have no time to do so, and they're often disciplined by management for taking the time to do it. Despite working shift work and weekends, many of them still struggle to make ends meet and have a second job. If this government won't respect aged-care workers, how are they expected to deliver the care that our elderly deserve? The royal commission made a series of recommendations, and this government is ignoring them. I call on this government to respect elder Australians and to pay workers in the aged-care sector what they deserve. (Time expired) Bonner Electorate: Wallum Nurseries 18 13:47 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I'd like to thank Treasurer Josh Frydenberg for visiting the Bonner electorate last week to meet with a local business that had graduated from JobKeeper. Wallum Nurseries managing director Peter Long welcomed us for a tour of the facility and to meet with his team. When the global pandemic created nationwide uncertainty, Peter and his team prepared to bunker down—that is, until JobKeeper was announced. I have appreciated Peter's feedback throughout the past 12 months, all of which has been passed on to the Treasurer, to advise how our support measures are working. As Peter told us during the tour: 'Josh and the government told us to spend to keep the economy going, and that's exactly what we did. We put all our staff on JobKeeper, even hiring new staff during the pandemic, including two apprentices under the wage subsidy scheme. We utilised the cash flow boost and instant asset write-off, purchasing a tractor, a ute, shade structures and a fridge. All of this was spent to put back into the community. We couldn't have done any of this without JobKeeper.' Wallum Nurseries are grateful for the government support. As Peter explained, he did what was asked and, as a result, Australia is getting back to normal and our economy is improving. Australia's economic position is envied by the world. However, it would not have been possible without Australians like Peter Long and Wallum Nurseries backing our plan, spending in the community and supporting their staff during such an unprecedented time. COVID-19: Vaccination 18 13:48 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara It is not hard to see why this government has given all of the responsibility of managing this coronavirus pandemic to the states and territories. The last time they tried to do something to help manage this pandemic was the COVIDSafe app. We all remember that app. That worked really well—$70 million to trace 17 contacts! But now we actually need this government to do something properly. It can't just be about spin. We need them to get the vaccine rollout right. We were told originally that we were at the front of the queue. 'The head of the queue'—that is what the Prime Minister told us. What was the truth? We're actually among the last in the world to get this vaccine rollout going. Australians are not at the head of the queue. Australians are waiting for this government to get this vaccine rollout right. We were promised four million vaccines by March. We are nowhere near that. We were promised that all Australians would be vaccinated by the end of October. Instead of actually delivering on his promise, what was the Prime Minister's response? 'No, we only meant that you would get the first vaccine by October.' Instead of worrying about vaccinating Australians, they're worried about the message. This government needs to get its act together. We need to no longer hear from people like the member for Hughes, who attacked our health experts, and Senator Canavan, who undermined our health approach in this country. We need a government that's actually willing to get the vaccine rolled out and to save Australian lives. Fisher Electorate: National Disability Insurance Scheme 19 13:50 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher On Thursday 4 March, the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme joined me in Bokarina, in my electorate of Fisher, for an NDIS roundtable. Some of Fisher's fantastic NDIS providers came along to give their feedback on how the scheme has been running in our community over the past two years. Providers spoke to us about the challenges they face meeting the high level of demand in our region and the hard work they're putting in simply to catch up. In particular, they discussed the need for further development of a skilled workforce on the Sunshine Coast and how the sector has stepped up to play its part. Finally, providers spoke about the urgent need for this government's coming reforms to deal with regional disparities and access across Australia. Thank you to Kerrie Mahon of Montrose, Jenny Madden of Community Solutions, Clare Mullins of Glasshouse Country Care, Keith Atkinson of Novacorr Healthcare, Jo Emery of Chatter-Boxes Speech Pathology Services, Kendall Morton of Home Care Assistance Sunshine Coast, Jodi Wolthers of Parent to Parent, Carlton Meyn of BUSHkids, Michael Burke of Lavender House, Kerry Staines and Carmel Crouch from STEPS, Russell Mason of Suncare Community Services, David Dangerfield from the Compass Institute, Tony Sandy from Just Better Care, Peta Simpson from New Staff Home Care Solutions and Brendon and Sarah McIntosh from Your Employment Solutions, as well as, of course, the minister for his contributions throughout the day. Women's Economic Security 19 13:51 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley Yesterday, we saw thousands and thousands and thousands of Australian women and the good men who support them marching and rallying across this country, saying: 'Enough is enough. This government has to do more for women who are victims of domestic and family violence and sexual assault.' And we wake up this morning to an announcement from the Morrison government: 'Don't worry, ladies. We've got your back. You can use your own superannuation to help you flee domestic violence.' Your own superannuation! The response of the Morrison government to women needing to flee violent relationships is to say, 'We know you earn 42 per cent less than men in superannuation, we know that the fastest-growing cohort of homeless people is women over the age of 55, and we know that single women in retirement are more likely to live in poverty than men, but don't worry—if you need to escape a domestic violent relationship, you can draw down on your retirement savings in order to do so.' It defies belief that women who are protesting should not only be glad they're not getting shot but should also have to go into poverty to escape violence. (Time expired) Mallee Electorate: Wycheproof Early Learning Centre 19 13:53 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Wycheproof is a small but enterprising community in my electorate of Mallee. People in Wycheproof do things well, and the construction of a brand-new early learning centre is no exception to that rule. Last week, I had the pleasure of opening the new facility with Mark Gepp, who is the member for Northern Victoria in the Victorian Legislative Council, as well as local parents, educators and the Buloke Shire councillors. The new centre is a fantastic outcome for the Wycheproof community. We know that early learning for our children has long-term benefits for educational outcomes and quality of life and that access to child care and early learning opportunities is crucial to participation in the workforce, particularly for women. I met Cooper, Scotty and Henry, three young Wycheproof locals who were happily testing out the new sandpit. I also met Jenna Allan, the mother of Cooper and Scotty, and her nine-month-old baby girl, Blair—Wycheproof citizens of tomorrow. Jenna said that the new centre would be great for her children, her family and the wider community. The project was made possible with $500,000 from the Morrison-McCormack government's Drought Communities Program. The DCP displays the government's commitment to supporting drought affected areas across the country. Collaboration, passion and community engagement turned this dream into a reality. Congratulations to Buloke Shire Council Mayor, Graeme Massey, CEO, Anthony Judd, to the YMCA staff who run the new facility and to the parents and families in Wycheproof. (Time expired) Travel Agents 20 13:55 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I rise to speak about the problems that travel agents, and people who work in the travel industry, are approaching on 31 March with the cut-out of JobKeeper. Travel agents have realised people's dreams in the good times, and in the bad times of COVID they've collected literally billions of dollars in refunds for passengers. But they are going down the gurgler. The mental health concerns and pressure on these family businesses, and a lot of the employees, is shocking. The government has announced a $130 million package, and we give them a tick for that. The problem is that this is a grants program. Today I just want to briefly call upon the government: please link this $130 million, that you are allocating to travel, to wages and salaries. Make it a JobKeeper-esque scheme, call it something else if you don't want to admit you're keeping JobKeeper, but don't repeat the mistakes of the first round of grants which were too hit or miss for the travel industry. A few travel agents got $100,000, but maybe should have only got $4,000. On other hand, many travel agents were only getting $4,000 when perhaps they should have received $100,000 for their business and employees. I'm worried the government's creating the same mess again because they don't understand the travel agents' industry. Why not require that the money which is given to travel agents in this next package be attached to wages and salaries? Use it as the best support to look after the owner-managers and the employees of the travel agents' industry, rather than just handing out grants? Finally, why not talk to travel agents rather than dictate to them? (Time expired) Outback Way 20 13:56 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to update the House on the progress of Australia's most remote road infrastructure project, the Outback Way, Australia's longest shortcut. Connecting Laverton, in the northern goldfields of O'Connor, to Winton in north-west Queensland, through the iconic Red Centre, it will be the newest trans-Australian route. I give a big shout-out to the Outback Highway Development Council who are in the House this week. Chair, Pat Hill, is also the president of the Shire of Laverton. He's here with CEO Peter Naylor; Outback Way General Manager, Helen Lewis; Mayor Gavin Baskett of Winton; and Mayor Rick Britton of Boulia. At 207,000 kilometres long, the Outback Way will almost halve the journey time for tourists travelling from the beaches of the golden west to the reef fringe of North Queensland. But this extraordinary journey is not just for tourists. Logistically, it provides a shortcut for the movement of mining equipment, fresh food, livestock and agricultural produce. It will reduce transport costs of around $20 million per year for tourists and over $2.5 million per year for the livestock industry. Economically, the Outback Way connects remote local government authorities who contribute $5.5 billion to Australia's GDP. In O'Connor, it is providing employment and training opportunities for some of my most remote constituents, with over 40 per cent of the man-hours worked in WA done by Aboriginal people. The Outback Way will also enhance remote health service delivery and see cheaper prices at community stores. I commend the Outback Highway Development Council for opening up Australia's interior and improving the quality of life for constituents like mine, living in the most remote part of Australia. March 4 Justice 20 13:58 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney by leave—I table this record of the petitions I received from yesterday's March 4 Justice, calling on government to act on violence against women. They have been signed by more than 135,000 people. Yesterday was a day of sadness and frustration for Australian women, but it was also a day of hope and enthusiasm. Hope in the passion and determination we saw at the march, in the women who refused to live with violence and harassment—women like Brittany Higgins and Saxon Mullins, who spoke so powerfully yesterday. Hope that after all these years we've finally reached a turning point. As leaders, it's our job to listen to what these people are so desperately trying to tell us, to understand their experience and to act on it. This is a historic moment. As a federal parliament, we need to be big enough to act on it. We all hope that the Prime Minister is listening to the message that came through so strongly from the women of Australia yesterday. Enough is enough. No more violence, no more sexual harassment, no more domestic abuse, no more murders of women by the men who are supposed to love them. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE March 4 Justice 21 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in question time the Prime Minister said that the more than 100,000 people who joined the women's March 4 Justice around the country were lucky because in other countries they would be 'met with bullets'. Rather than describe this as 'a triumph', why doesn't the Prime Minister listen to those who marched and take real action on gendered violence? 14:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook That is an egregious misrepresentation of what I said in this House yesterday—partisanised, as I've become very used to the Leader of the Opposition doing on such sensitive issues. If the Leader of the Opposition was indeed listening yesterday, he would have heard me say that it was 'good and right' that those who came to this city yesterday and cities around the country voiced their frustrations and their strong concerns. That is exactly what I said. I also said it was good to live in a country where there is a right to protest and there is the rule of law and there is the opportunity for Australians to speak with such a voice. And it is also the case—sadly, it is the truth—as I was seeking only to represent yesterday, that in many countries that is not the case. That is cause for celebration of Australia's democracy. It may be not a matter that the Leader of the Opposition has had to turn much attention to recently, but as Prime Minister I and the foreign minister have been involved on almost a daily basis with the issues that have been unfolding in Myanmar and to seek the release of Professor Sean Turnell. So it is not surprising that, as Prime Minister, these matters of the absence of democracy, the absence of the right to process, the absence of the rule of law are very much foremost in my mind. I celebrate our democracy. I celebrate the right to protest. I think it is good and right that Australians came from around the country and gathered in their cities yesterday and voiced their strong concerns—as I was pleased, of course, to give leave for those petitions to be tabled at the start of this question time. The Leader of the Opposition may seek to partisanise what is a highly sensitive issue, as the government simply seeks to take action such as the immediate increase in the counselling services provided to members of staff which is already in place—the extension of those services to 24/7 counselling support that provides an immediate way for people who find themselves in these terrible circumstances to be able to bring issues forward and have them assisted, as they would then, I would hope, raise these matters with the police. It is why the government agrees happily to and has facilitated putting in place the inquiry, on a multiparty basis, undertaken by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to ensure that, in a multiparty way, we deal with the real issues that are associated with these grave concerns. It is why our government moves forward to the fifth national action plan for the prevention of violence against women. They're the actions— (Time expired) Quadrilateral Security Dialogue 21 14:04 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is building relationships with our regional partners in order to create a peaceful, stable, prosperous and resilient Indo-Pacific? An opposition member interjecting— 14:04 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The interjection was, 'How's that working for you?' For Australia, it's working for us pretty well. On the weekend, for the first time, the leaders of the four most significant liberal democracies in our region, the United States, Japan, India and Australia, came together at a leaders level to champion the cause of liberal democracy in the Indo-Pacific, to secure an open and free Indo-Pacific and to ensure that we can work together as four liberal democracies, as we have sought to do now for many years at other levels, to bring peace and stability to our region and, most importantly, to do that through the prism of the ASEAN nations with our great friends in Indonesia—another great democracy in our region—Malaysia, Singapore and so many others. As President Biden, Prime Minister Suga, Prime Minister Modi and I gathered together, we focused on the practical challenges that our region faces, not just the defence, security and stability issues but, of course, the important responses to the global pandemic, particularly as it is impacting on our region and particularly so now as we see the rapid increase in cases to our north in Papua New Guinea. Over the last many days I've been involved, together with the minister for health and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in addressing the increasingly urgent situation there and directly engaging with the Queensland Premier to that end. The Quad is a force within the Indo-Pacific to promote peace and stability, to ensure that all countries of the Indo-Pacific can move forward in peace and prosperity, working closely together with each other with practical initiatives. It demonstrates that liberal democracies provide the answers to the significant challenges that the world faces, whether it's responding to climate change, whether it's responding to the COVID-19 pandemic or whether it's responding to the issues of developing critical technologies for the future, and the benefits of those technologies can reach all the citizens of our region and can be adopted in a peaceful way. This is a project that our government has championed. This is a project that had fallen into disrepair previously, and I'm pleased that our government over successive years of active diplomacy and with the great support of President Biden has seen the Quad leaders initiative become a reality. This has been one of the most significant issues— Ms Madeleine King interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Brand will cease interjecting! Mr MORRISON E3L for Indo-Pacific security that we have seen in decades, and it speaks volumes to the approach the government is taking to secure Australia's interests, to keep Australians safe by working hand in glove with the liberal democracies of our region to ensure that we indeed advance Australia fair. March 4 Justice 22 14:07 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answer and his statement on indulgence in this parliament yesterday, where he said: 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 … Does the Prime Minister regret that comment, particularly on the second anniversary of the Christchurch massacre conducted by an Australian citizen? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides! Mr Falinski G86 Shame! Withdraw! The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Mackellar! 14:08 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The Leader of the Opposition has engaged in, I think, a very unworthy and egregious slur in this place. When has it been a bad thing for a prime minister to proclaim the strength of democracy in our country? What issue does the Leader of the Opposition have with celebrating democracy and the right to protest? What issue could he possibly have, other than a twisted attempt to try and pervert what has been said in good faith in this place to celebrate the fact that Australians, anywhere in this country, can come and express their concerns? This demonstrates that, on this issue, the Leader of the Opposition does not act in good faith. On this issue, over many weeks now, he has simply tried to twist this issue for his own partisan advantage. He is proving himself unworthy even of the office he holds now, let alone the one he seeks to take. COVID-19: Pacific Islands 22 14:09 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins My question is to Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is providing support to our Pacific island neighbours for the management of COVID-19, including through the rollout of life-saving vaccines? 14:10 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Higgins, not just for the question but for her service to the Australian health system, a system which again, today, has seen, despite the challenges on the weekend, zero cases nation-wide for the 45th day in this year alone. But, whilst we are doing well at home, we know that the global pandemic continues to increase in its scope and its challenge. Our region, sadly, is not immune. In particular, we know, as the Prime Minister said, that Papua New Guinea is facing challenges as we speak. Therefore, as part of that, Australia has committed $80 million to the COVAX program to support 92 developing countries. This is at a time where we see that the world has reached 120 million cases and, agonisingly, over 2.6 million lives lost. But, specifically within our region, there is $500 million to support the vaccine rollout program across the Indo-Pacific, to support our Pacific neighbours and to support Papua New Guinea, where approximately $144 million has been put aside. Already, we have been working with PNG with regards to PPE, to the Rita Flynn testing and isolation facility, to the Port Moresby General Hospital and to other facilities and capacities across the country. Right now, we know that we are seeing an increase in cases in PNG. This is a matter of serious concern for Australia, but, even more so, of course, for the wonderful people of Papua New Guinea. As part of that, we are working with Queensland and we are working with PNG in preparing our response—to listen to their needs as to what they are seeking from Australia. In particular, we are in a position to be able to assist and support, once we've had their full advice, in the very near future. What we are doing—very much so—is ensuring that they have the capacity—through vaccines and through the support of an AUSMAT team, which has been announced and will be deployed to assist in Papua New Guinea. I thank the volunteers who have put themselves forward. We will continue to provide support within our region. There is $80 million for COVAX and $500 million for a regional vaccine initiative. There is direct support to Papua New Guinea already, and additional support is now being prepared in conjunction with Queensland which, in partnership with the Commonwealth, has set out its priorities. Commencing in the Torres Strait Islands, these include vaccinations in Saibai and elsewhere. This is already underway. These things are occurring. We're engaged with PNG, we're engaged with Queensland and we're engaged in protecting our friends and our neighbours. Members of Parliament: Staff 23 14:13 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister if Brittany Higgins was right to say that the Prime Minister's office was briefing against her loved ones. The Prime Minister said, 'I would never do that,' and, 'I've no knowledge of that …' Twenty-four hours later, has the Prime Minister asked his office if what Ms Brittany Higgins said is true? 14:13 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I refer the same answer I gave yesterday. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides! Members on my left! The member for McEwen! National Integrity Commission 23 14:14 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to the Prime Minister. On 29 March 2018, the Attorney-General told the media that the government was considering detailed models for a national integrity commission. It has now been 1,111 days since that public statement. Prime Minister, where is the National Integrity Commission Australia was promised? 14:14 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question. I will ask the Minister representing the acting Attorney-General to respond further to the question. As the Attorney-General at the time said, that is the case; we have prepared that model and engaged in the consultation process and that consultation process is continuing. But what is clear is that the proposal that the government has put forward is not supported by other members, either of this chamber or the other chamber. We are very determined to proceed with the model that we've set out. We believe that that provides the best way of handling the issues, but if the parliament is not prepared to support that legislation then that puts us in a rather difficult position in terms of being able to proceed. I will ask the minister to add further. 14:15 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for her question and recognise the genuineness of her concern in relation to the integrity commission. I think it's important for our country, as we've seen in other states and territories, to get the design right of an integrity commission. The Prime Minister pointed out that there is an exposure draft out at the moment which has had over 300 written submissions and 40 consultations in terms of meetings and roundtables that have taken place. We will follow that process through, hopefully in a form that can be supported in the parliament. I'll just make this point, because I know the honourable member and others have had a keen interest in this for a while. This integrity commission deals with serious corruption. That's the proposal here. What we need to be very careful about is that we're not straying into a space where we might compromise a criminal investigation or a successful prosecution against somebody in relation to a sexual assault matter. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Mr DUTTON 00AKI You can scoff at that, but that's the foundation of the legal system in this country. If the Leader of the Opposition is proposing a departure from that then he should make that very clear. But this government is going to make sure that we continue the process with the integrity commission, and it shouldn't be used for political purposes by those opposite. COVID-19: Aviation 23 14:16 Mr JOYCE E5D New England My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Leader of the Nationals, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please inform the House how the McCormack-Morrison government, through its investment in aviation, is supporting local jobs and rebuilding the economy as we continue to recover from the COVID-19 crisis? 14:16 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I do thank the member for New England for his question. He knows as well as we all do, and should, that keeping our aviation sector viable through this global pandemic is not only crucial to our health outcomes but also vitally important to our economy. The aviation and tourism sectors were hit first and hit hardest when this virus came to Australia. The government's measures have been targeted, they've been temporary and they've been scalable, but they've been substantial—more than $3.8 billion so far. Last Thursday, I was joined by the tourism minister, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister at Mascot airport, and as we addressed the media the roar of the engines could be heard in the background, and that's what we want to hear more of—the roar of those engines. But of course many planes are grounded. We know that planes in the air mean jobs on the ground. What we want to do, as part of the international aviation support, and what we will do as part of that $1.2 billion package of measures is not only get planes back in the air but also keep them the way they need to be. You can't just roll a Boeing 787 or an Airbus 330 out of a hangar and then expect to fly. It needs a lot of preparation, as do the workers in reskilling and retention of those accreditations. They need that support, and we, as the Liberal and National government, are giving them that vital support. Opposition members interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 You may laugh, and this may be really funny for you, but it's not really funny for the 8,600 workers who are relying on this package, who are relying on this support, who are relying on this investment to ensure that they stay connected with Virgin Australia and with Qantas. That is why we are providing this package. We are ensuring that the international fleet of aircraft are ready and safe to fly. We are ensuring that our airlines retain those 8,600—that's how many there are in the international workforce, the international air crew. They are important. The assistance that we've provided has been sector-wide of course. Just with the aviation support that we've provided as far as the tourism package is concerned, flight searches on Virgin Australia's website increased almost 80 per cent, bookings increased almost 40 per cent and about 400 crew have been brought back from the end of March. And it is anticipated that more than 1,000 workers— Opposition members interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 You once supported the workers, but you don't, obviously, anymore, but we do. They will be stood up or given more hours as demand returns. For Qantas, its website searches spiked 73 per cent. So they're good results. We're getting planes back in the air, we're keeping workers with their skills and we're getting on with the job. (Time expired) Members of Parliament: Staff 24 14:20 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat My question is again to the Prime Minister. Why has the Prime Minister not asked his staff whether they sought to undermine Brittany Higgins's loved ones? Why does the Prime Minister still have a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy? 14:20 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I reject the assertion of the question. I don't have any knowledge of those matters. I would never instruct my staff to do that, and I have no knowledge of them doing so, and none has been presented. When it comes to those who say that they should be looking into matters into their office, I notice that there's been a lot of discussion about the need to listen, and we do need to listen, and we are listening, and we are taking action on these very sensitive issues that have been raised. The multiparty Jenkins inquiry has been established. The additional services have been put in place. Actions are being taken, and further actions will be put in place. But what I do know— The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW Yes. It was a very clear question. On direct relevance, the first part of it goes very specifically to the Prime Minister not asking his own staff, and the second part of it goes to whether or not a particular policy existed in his office. The SPEAKER 00APG I think what the Manager of Opposition Business is doing is trying to anticipate the Prime Minister moving away from relevance to the question. I don't think he's done that yet. I certainly don't think he's done that yet. I'll hear from the Prime Minister. He is able, of course, to give some context to the answer, and I think what he's done so far is within order, but I'm listening. Mr MORRISON E3L Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, at a press conference, the Leader of the Opposition was asked, 'Are you'— Mr Albanese interjecting— Mr Burke interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Hang on. I haven't heard what he said yet. You've had your point of order. I am listening. I don't think interjections from the Leader of the Opposition and the Manager of Opposition Business, when the Prime Minister has said, 'Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition, at his press conference'—he hasn't said anything yet. You're sort of asking me to get into preventive standing orders. Mr MORRISON E3L Subsequently in that interview, this was put to him: 'Two claims against staffers'—that is, Labor staffers—'last year. What were the women told they should do?' In his transcript, it says 'inaudible'. The SPEAKER 00APG No, the Prime Minister needs to resume his seat. That cannot be related to this question. It certainly could be related to other questions but not this one. Taxation 25 14:23 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please remind the House how the Morrison government's commitment to lower taxes is helping our economy recover strongly and giving Australian households more of their own money back? Is the Treasurer aware of any credible alternative policies? 14:23 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I acknowledge the member for Bass's experience as a local mayor and as a person who has been involved as a farmer before coming to this place. The member for Bass, like others on this side of the House, believes in lower taxes so that Australians can earn more and Australians can keep more of what they earn. As a result of policies that have been passed through the parliament, supported and initiated by those on this side of the House, since last July $9 billion in lower taxes has passed its way through to the pockets of Australian families. Between March and September, there was another $12 billion in tax cuts for 11 million Australian workers, families and households. If you're a nurse or a teacher earning $60,000 a year, as a result of the policies supported by this side of the House you will pay $2,160 less in tax than you would have paid back in 2017-18. On this side of the House, we have also legislated tax cuts which will see a whole tax bracket abolished, meaning that 95 per cent of Australian taxpayers will pay a marginal rate of no more than 30c in the dollar. We will have one large tax bracket between $45,000 and $200,000. This is significant, long-term structural reform. I am asked: are there any alternative approaches? We know that the Australian people at the last election were presented with a very clear contrast. We supported lower taxes, while those opposite supported $387 billion of higher taxes. We remember the member for Rankin saying how proud and pleased he was of the retirees tax and the housing tax, and describing small business as the top end of town. Remember the member for Maribyrnong saying, about those taxes, that he was 'not for turning' and retirees were on the back of their yachts. We remember those opposite and their $387 billion of higher taxes—higher taxes on people's superannuation, on their income, on small businesses, on their savings and on their housing. Just last week the Leader of the Opposition had the opportunity to say he supported the legislated stage 3 of the tax cuts and he couldn't even bring himself to say that. He just said, 'Let's wait and see.' We on this side of the House support lower taxes. (Time expired) Attorney-General 25 14:26 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports that, if the Prime Minister allows the Attorney-General to resume his duties without an independent inquiry, the Attorney-General's portfolio will be restructured. In the light of the serious sexual assault allegations levelled against the Attorney-General and a related defamation action, can the Prime Minister tell the House what ministerial functions he intends to allow the Attorney-General to perform? 14:27 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook In an abundance of caution and to avoid any perception of conflicts of interests that may arise, the Attorney-General, when he returns, will not perform certain functions of his office that may relate to the Federal Court or the ABC. Family and Domestic Violence 25 14:27 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. Will the minister please update the House on the bipartisan approach adopted by successive Commonwealth governments to reduce violence against women and children, particularly through the national action plan? 14:27 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I thank the member for Mallee for her question. Her work with vulnerable young mothers and their children, through her Zoe Support service, is incredibly well known and well recognised across rural Australia. There is no excuse for family and domestic violence, and everyone does have a role to play, including governments. In fact, it was the Gillard government that commenced the first National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, which started in 2010 and led up to 2022. It had six national outcomes, including respectful relationships and holding perpetrators to account. Upon coming to government, we continued this process and, since 2013, we've committed more than a billion dollars to reduce violence against women and their children through a variety of initiatives. Many of them are focused on prevention, which is a key theme of the national action plan. We have boosted frontline and counselling services, provided safe places and developed prevention strategies for implementation in communities, workplaces and homes, including the very well-known Stop it at the Start campaign. We're now working on the next National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. We recognise that violence doesn't occur in isolation from issues such as justice, housing, health, disability, children and education, and they are all part of the work we are doing in our Social Services portfolio. I am looking forward to the next plan having an even stronger focus on rural and regional areas and rural and regional women. Sadly, the statistics are confronting: 23 per cent of women experience intimate partner violence in rural and regional Australia, compared to 15 per cent in the city. The unfortunate reality is that women in regional towns face incredible barriers to accessing support. Sometimes there is just nowhere to go, particularly when everyone knows who you are. I know the member for Mallee and other members look forward to leading those local consultations about how we can do more. There are many things we are doing. As I said yesterday, we're not standing still. In addition to the 24-hour support line, 1800RESPECT, successive governments have looked at providing special training to frontline workers, including in general practice in rural and regional Australia, helping the people who are there on the spot to recognise the signs of domestic violence and give people the confidence to come forward to them. We've provided additional funding to White Ribbon Day, expanding it into rural and regional areas and promoting men who stand up and say they will not tolerate these things. The focus on shifting attitudes and early intervention is happening through a range of measures. Violence against women and their children is never acceptable. This government and this parliament is committed to stopping it. Attorney-General 26 14:31 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Former Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson SC says the allegations against the Attorney-General should be referred to the current Solicitor-General. Why did the Prime Minister not seek the Solicitor-General's advice before he declared that the rule of law would be harmed by an independent inquiry into sexual assault allegations against the Attorney-General? Who provided the legal advice to support the Prime Minister's declaration? 14:31 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question. The advice suggested by the former Solicitor-General was not advice that was tendered to me by the government. The advice that I followed and the advice that I sought came from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I also consulted with the Commissioner of the Federal Police in handling these matters and raising these matters with the Attorney-General. There are established processes for dealing with all members of this House, former members of this House and any Australians: they all face one rule of law. They all face one rule of law. It's important that consistent standards are applied when it comes to such sensitive issues relating to allegations of sexual assault. I quote the member for Maribyrnong when he was the subject of such allegations— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Sydney will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business is seeking the call. Mr Burke DYW A point of order on direct relevance. The SPEAKER 00APG I'll rule that the Prime Minister is still being relevant to the question. There was a preamble and, essentially, one question was, 'Why?' and the other was, 'Who?' He's giving some context for the stance he has taken on behalf of the government. I think he is in order at this point. Mr MORRISON E3L Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a matter of consistency. As the member for Maribyrnong rightly said at the time: … the police have concluded their work, they have made their decision and now I think it's appropriate to draw a line under the matter and that's what I'm going to do. That position was supported by then Prime Minister Abbott, who said: Apparently it's been dealt with by the police and I don't think there's really anything more to say about it … so it seems that it is at an end. Then I quote the member for Sydney herself: 'We should now be able to draw a line under it.' On this matter, the police have concluded their dealings with this matter. As a result, I have applied exactly the same approach to this matter as was applied to the member for Maribyrnong. The double standards that the Labor Party is seeking to apply here are simply quite galling. The member for Maribyrnong was right to say that then, but the member for Sydney says that it's not right for others to say it now. This is a clear demonstration that the Labor Party is not engaging with this issue in good faith; the Labor Party is simply trying to exact political opportunity from the terrible trauma and circumstances that staff face in this office. Even now, the Labor Party knows that there are allegations— Ms Murphy interjecting— Ms Coker interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The members for Dunkley and Corangamite will cease interjecting. Mr MORRISON E3L and issues that have been raised about the conduct of staff and members on that side of the House. That is a matter for them to deal with, to get their own house in order. When they're standing in glass houses, they should not be throwing these types of stones. Employment 27 14:35 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business. Will the minister please update the House— Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member will pause for a second. I've made it abundantly clear that interjections are out of order, particularly when I'm listening to a question or an answer. So I think the member for Isaacs knows what I'm about to say: he can leave under 94(a). The member for Isaacs then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Curtin can resume her question and we'll restart the clock. Ms HAMMOND 80072 My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government's ongoing support for training and skills development is creating a skilled workforce, for now and the future, that will help build a stronger Australia? And is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:36 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank the member for her question. She and I both know how important skills training is for future workforces. Businesses from Cottesloe on the west coast all the way through to Coolangatta on the east coast and everywhere in between have always employed apprentices. We want to encourage them to continue to engage and take on apprentices. The Morrison government is very proud to be putting apprentices at the centre of our economic recovery. That's why, in the budget last year, we announced the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage subsidy as part of our $74 billion JobMaker plan. We've supported 100,000 places with that wage subsidy since October last year, and that includes 980 in the member for Curtin's electorate. This subsidy is already supporting the creation of more than 9,000 future bricklayers, carpenters and joiners; 8,000 future electricians; 7,000 future mechanics and over 12,000 people in retail and hospitality work. The take-up for that program was so strong that it reached its capacity within five months. That's why, last week, we announced an extra $1.2 billion to support another 70,000 new apprentices and trainees, to make sure that businesses had the skilled workforce that they needed to be able to grow. The Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage subsidy provides a full 12 months' support when an apprentice or trainee begins before 30 September this year. I encourage all business owners who are contemplating taking on an apprentice to do so, to support our young people and those that are willing, ready and able to take on an apprenticeship. Give them a go. There has never been a better or more important time for businesses to take on an apprentice. This wage subsidy is one of a raft of measures that we've put in place in the skills and training sector. Our government is making significant, strategic, record investments to ensure our skills development is the envy of the world. We're doing that because we know that it's good for businesses, it's good for workers and it's good for our nation. We are focused on very practical outcomes that provide an opportunity for all Australians, whether it's our business owners who are wanting to expand or our workers looking to upskill, right through to our school leavers who might be looking now for their first job. We understand how important it is to make sure that our workers are skilled for the future. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 27 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:39 The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call the member for Sydney, I'd like to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon His Excellency Mr Shingo Yamagami, the new ambassador of Japan. On behalf of the House of Representatives, a very warm welcome to you. I'd also like to inform the House that we have present in the gallery on my left this afternoon Lisa Singh, a former senator for Tasmania. On behalf of the House, a very warm welcome to the House of Representatives. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 28 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Members of Parliament: Staff 28 14:40 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. During the election campaign, on May 4 2019, the Prime Minister said about rape: 'One of the things that often happens with that is they're not believed and their stories are not believed. It's important that their stories are believed and that they know if they come forward their stories will be believed.' Why then did the Prime Minister decide a written complaint sent directly to him wasn't true, without even reading it? 14:40 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook As I said to the House yesterday, I was very familiar with the contents of those documents. I was briefed on them by none less than the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, before they were even received in my office. I asked the commissioner of the police whether it would be appropriate for me to raise those matters directly with the Attorney-General. He said yes, and I did so immediately. These are, ultimately, matters that have to be determined by police and prosecutors at the end of the day. I stand by the comments I said on that occasion. It is important that the earnestness in which these matters are brought forward by individuals is believed so that the matters can be taken forward to the police. The ultimate truth and veracity of a matter, and whether it can be taken forward, is a matter for the police. That was certainly the case in relation to the member for Maribyrnong. The police undertook their inquiries. They concluded the matter. I understand a brief of evidence may have been prepared and was forwarded to the prosecutors in Victoria. They decided not to proceed with the case. That is our justice system. We act in accordance with the justice system and the rule of law. In relation to the allegations against the Attorney-General, the police have concluded the matter, in the same way that the matter was concluded with the member for Maribyrnong. This may be inconvenient to the member for Sydney, who thinks it's okay to apply one rule to a Labor member but a different rule to a member of the government. I note that this is true also for the member for Boothby. The member for Boothby was the victim of an outrageous campaign mounted by Labor, GetUp and the unions at the last election. I did not hear the member for Sydney decry the disgraceful treatment of the member for Boothby. I did not hear Senator Wong decry the misogynous and disgraceful attacks from the members of the Labor Party, where the member for Boothby feared for her own safety. When it comes to claims of this matter, the Labor Party have very selective hearing. By contrast, when confronted with a very similar situation, our government, myself and former Prime Minister Abbott took the principled view that the rule of law applies equally to every single Australian. Defence Industry 28 14:43 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government is developing and delivering a world-class defence industry that is creating jobs and delivering essential capability for our ADF as we come back from the COVID-19 recession? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies? 14:43 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I thank the member for Boothby for her question and acknowledge her interest and passion for Australia's defence industry, particularly the defence industry in South Australia. The Morrison government's record $270 billion investment in defence is creating a world-class defence industry right here at home in Australia. We're creating thousands of Australian jobs and delivering new opportunities for Australian businesses to supply essential capability for our men and women in uniform. We are supporting Australian businesses at home and abroad, and we are incredibly proud of that. A good example is the partnership between industry and Defence to deliver the Boeing Loyal Wingman in Melbourne. The Loyal Wingman is the first locally designed and built military aircraft in Australia in some 50 years. Recently, we met a major milestone with the Loyal Wingman when we embarked on its inaugural flight. And we're going to build upon our investment in this program. We will invest a further $115 million in this program, where we will acquire an additional three aircraft, securing over 100 Australian jobs—jobs that will be found all around Australia, not only in South Australia but also in Queensland and regional Victoria. In more good news for South Australia, we have just recently announced that the Morrison government has signed a $150 million contract with BAE Systems Australia. This is a contract to support the production of the next generation Nulka decoys and launchers for our Navy. This is a capability that provides our ADF with leading-edge countermeasures to protect Australian warships. This investment will support some 90 jobs and Australian SMEs in South Australia and across the country. Our Australian defence industry knows that the Morrison government has spent the last eight years reversing Labor's failure and neglect of our Australian defence industry. Not only did they cut $18 billion from our defence budget; they failed to commission one single Australian built ship. History has shown that this left thousands of Australians without work and also increased the risk to the defence of our nation. What have the Morrison government done? We're very proud of our record. We have commissioned 12 Attack class submarines and 21 Pacific patrol boats, and we can't forget those nine Hunter class frigates and the 12 offshore patrol vessels. The Morrison government are getting on with the job of the defence of our nation, and at the same time we are creating a world-class, home-grown, sovereign defence industry. COVID-19: Vaccination 29 14:46 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the call by the Deputy Leader of the National Party in the Senate, Senator Canavan, for the rollout of the AstraZeneca vaccine to be suspended reflect government policy? Does the Prime Minister agree that the repeated freelancing from government members on COVID vaccinations has the potential to seriously undermine public confidence in the vaccine rollout? 14:47 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Of course it doesn't represent government policy. I think that, at all times, Australians should be looking to the official advice, which is based on the medical expert opinion of the government's advisers, when it comes to vaccinations. I think it's incumbent on all of us here in this place to be supporting that vaccination program. All of us should be doing that, not seeking to undermine it by making false claims about rollouts or anything like that. We've seen that quite a bit from the opposition over the course of this pandemic. We've seen quite a bit of the opposition talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to the government's leadership and when it comes to responding to the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic response of the government. So, yes, the government's policy when it comes to the vaccination program is very clear, and I encourage all members to be supporting the government in the rollout of the vaccination and not seek to undermine it. I ask the Minister for Health to add further to the answer. 14:48 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders The government clearly, unequivocally and absolutely supports the AstraZeneca rollout—clearly, unequivocally and absolutely. The reason is simple: it will help save lives and protect lives. The government has done so on the basis of medical advice. Today, the government has had renewed advice supporting the vaccination program from the Chief Medical Officer of Australia, from the Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia and from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation. The TGA said today: The TGA does not have any evidence of a biologically plausible relationship that could suggest a cause and effect relationship between vaccination and blood clots. The Chief Medical Officer of Australia has said: The Australian Government remains confident in the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and there is currently no evidence that it causes blood clots. The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation has said: 'Based on evidence to date, ATAGI do not see any reason to pause use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in Australia.' That's in accordance with the advice of the World Health Organization, the European Medicines Agency and the United Kingdom's MHRA. It's also what we see in relation to our own evidence here in Australia. So our view is crystal clear and unequivocal: we support this program. We support the continued rollout. There have been views expressed; we disagree with them—clearly, absolutely and unequivocally. That is our position. At the same time, by the end of today, we expect to reach 200,000 vaccinations—45,000 people in aged care in over 500 aged-care facilities. These vaccines will save lives and protect lives. Crime 29 14:50 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is protecting Australian families from the threat posed by dangerous non-citizen criminals? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:50 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question, and I thank him for standing up in his local community to make sure that people are safe in the city of Townsville and the surrounding areas. He strongly supports, like all people on this side of the House, the government's policy in relation to cancelling visas of dangerous criminals—people who have committed serious offences against Australian citizens. The words don't need to be taken at face value. Look at the results. Look at what we've done in relation to these visa cancellations. To the Prime Minister's credit, in 2014, we changed the law because we were quite amazed when we came into government and saw the fact that very few people, particularly those who had committed the most heinous offences against children and women and men in this country, were allowed to stay in our country and to repeat those offences against further victims. So we make no apology for having ramped up that program and done it in a dramatic way. For example, I have been incredibly proud—and I have informed the House of this on a number of occasions—of the $70 million that we've invested in the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, because that is saving children—young boys and young girls—from harm. We are, I think, landing a very significant blow on those paedophiles and sexual predators who seek out Australian children as their victims. It doesn't stop there because, with the visa cancellations during the Prime Minister's time as the immigration minister and during my time, we have been able to cancel 309 visas of persons who have committed rape and other sexual offences. Our successes in that portfolio compares to, for the previous six-year period, 43. We have made it our business to make sure that we can work with the authorities here and overseas to identify these offenders, and we make no apologies for it. In fact, we have now cancelled the visas of 6,300 non-citizen criminals. These are people who, unbelievably, when you look at their criminal histories, have gone on for years and years and years to commit criminal offences, including sexual assault and rape, against subsequent victims. I am proud of this government for the way in which we have kicked these people out of our country. They will not offend again against Australian women and children. We will not allow them— Mr Gosling interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI I take the interjection from the member for Solomon, who has been against this legislation, and he should explain to his community, where there has been an outrageous spike in relation to the number of those who have committed sexual offences against children. He should start with action like we have and stop the nonsense rhetoric that he continues, as do many others opposite. COVID-19: Vaccination 30 14:53 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister had committed to four million vaccinations by the time JobKeeper is cut. The Prime Minister is running nearly four million vaccinations short of his own target. Why is the Prime Minister so quick to rip away JobKeeper but so slow to roll out vaccines? 14:53 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I pre-empted the Leader of the Opposition's question in my last answer when I made it fairly clear that the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party speak out of both sides of their face when it comes to the government's response to the pandemic. On the one side, they pretend to support these measures, whether it's JobKeeper or the vaccination program—the unprecedented support which has ensured that we've stood by Australians—and on the same hand, they talk out the other side of their mouth, seeking to undermine the very things that have ensured that this country has led the world in both our economic and our health response. When it comes to vaccination, it may be a mystery to the Leader of the Opposition that, of the 3.8 million vaccines we've contracted from overseas, 700,000 were able to be provided because of the desperately serious situation that we find in Europe. But, regardless of that point, we said back in February that we would be hitting around 80,000 a week in the early weeks. Well, we've already hit that mark in the early weeks. We already advised, back in February, that the four million task would not be hit because of the disruption in supply that occurred, and that target would be pushed back. The Leader of the Opposition seems to think that we are living in a pandemic that does not have uncertainties. If the Leader of the Opposition had been sitting in my chair during this crisis, Australians would be despairing, because he would not have had the ability to pull together the response that this government has. I'm happy for the Minister for Health to add further to this answer. But the vaccination program will continue to roll out. It will reach all Australians with the first dose by the end of October, and every single day we will work hard to deliver that vaccination program, despite the undermining by a leader of the opposition who even seeks to play politics with the pandemic. 14:56 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders Yesterday there were over 18,000 vaccinations in Australia. Next week, we move to the following phase, when the supply from Australia's domestic, sovereign manufacturing comes on board. That phase will see us receiving approximately a million vaccines a week. It will allow us to move to some hundreds of thousands of vaccinations a week as we build up—up to over a thousand GPs in the first part of that and then ultimately to 4,000 general practitioners. And, yes, it's been based on supply. When the international situation saw a collapse, we made sure that we had sovereign vaccine manufacturing, and that's what's protected Australia. They can pretend it didn't occur overseas; we're upfront about that. But we pre-empted, we protected and we prepared. (Time expired) Energy 31 14:57 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister please update the House on the Morrison government's commitment to ensuring Australian families and business have access to the affordable and reliable energy that we all rely on? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:57 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the member for Robertson for her question and, of course, for her strong commitment—like all of us on this side of the House—to affordable, reliable energy because she knows how important that is to economic recovery in places like her electorate on the Central Coast. She also knows how important it is to small businesses like Simply Smashing, which is particularly dependent on affordable, reliable energy. I can confirm to the House that our plan is working. Our plan is working. We've seen seven consecutive quarters of year-on-year wholesale price reductions. Last year alone, we saw a nine per cent reduction in electricity prices in the CPI—unprecedented reductions in electricity prices. Crucial to ensuring that we continue to see that affordable, reliable energy in our system is having enough dispatchable power in our energy systems. When we look to the closure of Liddell in April 2023, we know it has to be replaced with genuine, affordable, reliable generation. We've said we'd prefer the private sector to step up, but, if they don't, we'll step in. Just a couple of weeks ago I was at Kurri Kurri, looking at the works on the Snowy Hydro project up there. It's ready to go, to build that affordable, reliable gas generation that will fill the gap as Liddell closes in April 2023, and it will complement the record levels of investment we're seeing in renewables in this country, alongside the investment we're making in 2½ thousand megawatts of capacity in the Snowy 2.0 project and $250 million of investment in interconnection and priority transmission projects. But I was asked about alternatives. The alternative, of course, is the indecision and division of those opposite. because under cover of darkness they recently released their national platform, where they heralded their peace deal on gas—a peace deal on gas. There were 111 pages of waffle there. There was no plan, there was no policy and there was certainly no peace deal. Just ask the member for Hindmarsh, who said, 'Gas won't underpin our recovery,' or the member for McMahon, who replaced him when he was sacked, who failed to back a new gas generator not once, but twice, on ABC Radio. The member for Hunter said, 'Hallelujah,' when we announced our project up at Kurri Kurri. But, as the member for Hunter said, 'The member for McMahon still has his training wheels on.' There might be a new face, but nothing has changed—it's the same old Labor. JobKeeper Payment 31 15:00 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley My question is to the Prime Minister. More than 5,500 workers in my electorate of Lilley are going to lose JobKeeper at the end of the month. That's nearly $3 million in support that's about to be ripped away. So my question is: how many of these workers who are on JobKeeper are going to lose their jobs now because of your cuts? 15:00 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong The good news for the member for Lilley is that over 19,000 people have graduated off JobKeeper in her electorate. That is a 74 per cent graduation rate. Somebody said in this place about JobKeeper, 'We haven't said to extend it.' Who was that? The Leader of the Opposition. Then you have the member for Rankin, who can't get a question, not even in budget week, who said, 'There's no substitute for an extension of JobKeeper.' So the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Rankin are not on the same page, not just on JobKeeper but in a lot of other areas too. The reality is: JobKeeper's been a remarkable program. At a cost of around $90 billion, it's supported 3.6 million Australian workers and nearly a million Australian businesses. But it was always a temporary, targeted program. It was emergency support. Initially, it was for six months, and we extended it for another six months. But the advice from Treasury is that, as the economy strengthens, if you leave JobKeeper in place it has a number of characteristics that are counterproductive to the economy. It prevents an official allocation of workers to other roles, and it can prop up some unsustainable businesses. So the reality is: as JobKeeper comes to the end, other economic supports are in place, put there by the Morrison government—the tax cuts, the JobMaker Hiring Credit, the infrastructure projects that were brought forward, the training places, the 340,000 skilled places. These are other economic support programs that are designed to create jobs across the economy. The other key point is that there is $240 billion on household and business balance sheets that was not there this time last year. That is money that will be spent across the economy, helping to create jobs. So JobKeeper will come to an end, but there are other measures being put in place to help create jobs and to see Australians get back to work. COVID-19: Economy 32 15:03 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson My question is to the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison-McCormack government's commitment to the resources sector, including coalmining, is contributing towards Australia's economic recovery from the COVID-19 recession, and is the minister aware of any alternative policies? 15:03 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I thank the honourable member for Dawson for his question. There's no stronger supporter of the resources sector than the member for Dawson, except for the member for Capricornia, the member for Flynn, the member for Herbert—pretty much all of them. They're all pretty strong, but the member for Dawson has been so busy supporting the people in 55,000 full-time jobs in his electorate directly and indirectly supported by the resources sector, he hasn't even had time for a haircut. He's been out, busy, every single day. I got an update on the weekend on Bravus, formerly known as Adani, which is out there once again providing jobs—2,200 people are employed on the site, $1.5 billion in contracts were issued and 88 per cent of those contracts are going to Queensland businesses, and they are driving that economy in Central Queensland right through the north. In fact, the additional $1½ billion in contracts creates 9,000 indirect jobs in the local community. What a great outcome—one that certainly wasn't supported by those opposite, I know that. While I was there, we launched Australia's identified mineral resources 2020—a great report. It was launched in Mackay and demonstrated once again that there was $291 billion from the resources sector in 2019-20, and, in fact, investment in mineral exploration increased by 21 per cent compared to the previous year, reaching $2.6 billion. In fact, there's been a gold rush—40 per cent of that exploration expenditure is due to the strong gold price. We're looking for gold. There are all sorts of opportunities in the resources sector. For anyone that's looking for a job, there is plenty of work out there in the regions, I know that. I'm asked about alternatives. I note the member for McMahon actually found a mine in Central Queensland in recent weeks. I was surprised as you are, Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER 00APG You won't bring me into it, thank you, or you'll be surprised—you mightn't get to finish your answer. Mr PITT 148150 I can just imagine it: up early, looking into the mirror, trying to get the mouth to form the word 'coal', practising: 'Can I say "coal"? I can do it!' and then reaching for the wardrobe, flicking through—suit, suit, suit, suit, skivvy, turtleneck, suit! I'm very pleased that those opposite finally managed to find a coalmine. However, to the shadow minister for energy, I've got to say: the member's been misled. I'm not sure that he noticed, but he actually went not to a thermal coalmine—an energy coalmine—but a met coal mine. Here we are; finally, someone from those opposite in a relatively senior portfolio found their way to a coalmine, but the people in the resources sector will not be misled. They know that those opposite are not believers. They know they don't support them. They don't want them to have a job. This side will continue to support the resources sector and support it strongly. (Time expired) JobKeeper Payment 32 15:07 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta My question is to the Prime Minister. More than 10,000 workers in my electorate of Parramatta will lose JobKeeper at the end of this month, with more than $5 million a week in support ripped away by this Prime Minister. How many workers in my electorate who are now on JobKeeper will lose their jobs because of the Prime Minister's cuts? 15:07 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong The good news for the member for Parramatta is that 19,064 members of her electorate have graduated off JobKeeper. That's a graduation rate of 67 per cent. When it comes to tax cuts, 85,000 members of her electorate are going to get tax cuts. The reality is that the JobKeeper program was always a temporary, targeted measure. It was emergency support, but it's coming to an end. I point out to the member for Parramatta that, since September, 2.7 million Australians have graduated off JobKeeper. In that quarter, we reduced by half the direct financial support from the Morrison government, between September and December, yet 350,000 jobs were created in that time. We understand it's going to be a bumpy time from here to when JobKeeper ends, but the key focus for the government is helping to keep people in work and helping those who are out of work to get back into work. We have a number of policies designed to do exactly that. Immigration, COVID 19: Economy 33 15:08 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government's immigration policy has contributed to Australia's economic success and how it will continue to drive growth as the Australian economy recovers from the COVID-19 recession? And is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 15:08 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I want to thank the member for Wentworth for his question. Certainly, in his role as a former senior diplomat for Australia, he supported Australia's migration program, and I thank him for it. Today, of course, Australia is one of the most successful migrant countries in the world. We know migrants have been part of the essential economic success that we've seen, and migration—certainly, well-managed programs and skilled programs—supports economic activity, jobs growth and jobs creation throughout our country. As Australia recovers from the pandemic, we know that migration is going to play a vital role in supporting the recovery and in enabling jobs growth, especially through our regions, and making sure that we have skilled migrants is a key priority of the Morrison government. We know that, over the course of the pandemic, we were able to attenuate and alter the program to match the conditions that we saw in a one-in-100-year crisis. That's why the government did things like establish the Global Business and Talent Attraction Taskforce, to ensure we're in the competition for high-value businesses—skills, people with brains and capital, coming to Australia, aligned with our JobMaker program. It's also why we created the priority skills list to ensure that we retain those critical skills in the economy. Health and aged care—we're in the competition to make sure people stay here and have the opportunity to stay and do their jobs and help us out, and we thank them for it. It's this government that knows also that temporary visa holders in Australia play a critical role in supporting the economy, in supporting the regions, in jobs growth and in job creation. We know it. Australians know it. Regional communities know it. And we're going to continue to support temporary migration to support our economy. But I'm asked about alternative policies. There are alternative policies to the government's approach, I'm happy to say. In May last year, the shadow immigration minister, Senator Keneally, in the middle of a one-in-100-year pandemic, wrote an article entitled 'Do we want migrants to return in the same numbers? The answer is no'. That's the title of the article. In the article, Senator Keneally proceeded to argue for a substantial cut in immigration to Australia. This would somehow support economic recovery. I'm pleased to say that, as an alternative policy, this was met with universal condemnation by members of this House, including, I'm pleased to say, my friend the member for Cowan, who noted that Senator Keneally could have expressed her arguments better. I certainly agree with her on that. Former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr—a very successful premier, I might add—said that Senator Keneally should drop her 'jobs for Australians first rhetoric', declaring the 'very loose' language showed signs of dog-whistling. These are the kinds of alternatives that are not good alternatives for Australia. It's this government that understands that migration supports economic growth and will support recovery, and we support skilled and well-managed migration to Australia. Mr Morrison E3L Mr Speaker, on that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 33 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:12 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the member for Sydney claim to have been misrepresented? Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Yes, I do. The SPEAKER 00APG You may proceed. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Today, in question time, the Prime Minister accused me of ignoring a GetUp campaign of harassment of the member for Boothby. The truth is that I was unaware of any harassment by GetUp of the member for Boothby until very recently. When I heard that the member for Boothby was retiring, I contacted her to tell her that I regret that she's leaving politics and that I wish her the best. I would like to see more Liberal women in this place, not fewer. 15:13 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Mr Speaker, I rise to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the member for Solomon claim to have been misrepresented? Mr GOSLING 245392 Yes, most unfortunately. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Solomon will proceed. Mr GOSLING 245392 In the last sittings, the member for Grey misrepresented me when he said, on 22 February: One of the privileges of the position I hold is that I am the co-chair, along with the member for Solomon, of the Parliamentary Friends of the Philippines. Last week I had the great pleasure of hosting the ambassador, Hellen De La Vega, for a quiet meeting in the house. Unfortunately, the member for Solomon couldn't join us at the time. The member for Grey, to his great credit, has rung my office and said that he misspoke because, of course, I was sitting right next to him and the ambassador in his office. I have a photo on my phone, if you want me to show you that, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 00APG No, I certainly don't, but you have shown where you've been misrepresented, and I don't think there's anything else to add, so thank you. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 34 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE JobKeeper Payment 34 15:14 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Macquarie proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's decision to cut JobKeeper and failure to provide certainty to Australian workers and small businesses. I call upon all those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:14 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie To hear those opposite, you'd think that life is pretty good: 'We don't really talk about COVID except that we're all about to get vaccines. We don't think about border closures, either at home or internationally. Business is booming; the emergency is over.' It feels like they're living in a completely different world than the world the small businesses and workers in our electorates on this side of the House are functioning in. So I want to take them to the reality of life in my electorate of Macquarie and in the electorates of people all through Australia. Put yourself in the shoes of a small-business owner in Katoomba or Blackheath. Since November 2019, life has not been kind. In November 2019, smoke kept people indoors and away—not just for a day, not just for a week, but for months and months. There were signs at Circular Quay telling people not to go to the Blue Mountains because of bushfires, and people who'd planned to visit from overseas cancelled. It's not like they could just move their visit a month or two; they just cancelled. Then the smoke cleared, and, after a while, the fire went out—the biggest fire from a single ignition point that the world has ever seen. Finally, people came back. For about a minute, they came back to the Blue Mountains, to the Hawkesbury and to the South Coast. But before international visitors could return, including some of the million who visit just the big attractions each year, COVID closed those international borders. And then there were more signs to Australians saying: 'Stay at home. Don't travel. Don't go anywhere.' Through all of this, thanks to the wage subsidy that we pushed for, that the unions pushed for, many small businesses hung on and some workers kept their jobs, but not all—not the casuals of less than a year, not the musicians and not the people for whom the job was a second, but still really necessary, job. But many small employers and workers made a pact to get through it, knowing that, sometime, it would end. But it's gone on longer than they thought. The ongoing restrictions mean that, while small cafes and restaurants are booked some nights, it's still very thin profit margins. Turnover is down. It's not steady. It's up and down. There are some good weeks, some good days, but it isn't reliable, and there are plenty of bad days. People unable to go places have actually been their saviours. People have visited the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, and I want to thank everybody who made a trip from Sydney or who managed to get from interstate to Sydney and then came up to our part of the world. You have been very welcome. But it still needed a safety net. And, in 13 days, the only safety net that's left, the only thing that's helping people stay positive—the wage subsidy—goes. It just disappears. I want you to stand in their shoes. How do you reckon they're feeling? I'll tell you what they're telling me in meetings, in Zooms and in emails. They're saying they're anxious. They're exhausted. They're emotionally wrecked. From Mount Victoria to Leura, across the whole of Macquarie, down the mountains and even beyond our region, they're worried. How are they going to pay the bills? How can they keep their staff on? They have been hopeful. They hoped this government would listen to their concerns and look at the realities, but that hope has pretty much faded. It completely disappeared with the joke of a tourism package, a package that actively discourages people from visiting anywhere within cooee of Sydney. How do you think people get to the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury? They come to Sydney, and from Sydney they travel beyond. Without any incentive to come to Sydney—in fact, with disincentives—and with incentives to go everywhere but, they just won't come. The Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains usually have millions of visitors a year. They come for World Heritage. They come for apple pie. They come for historic towns. They come for fresh air. Some of the bigger attractions, like Scenic World, get more than a million visitors just on their own, and 75 per cent of those visitors are typically from overseas. Their visitation is down around 75 per cent. It can't be replaced by local visitors, especially not when a tourism package encourages people to go everywhere but! The Blue Mountains economy—both the bigger businesses and the smaller businesses—depends on tourism, and every loss of visitation translates to a loss of jobs. Yet this hopeless tourism package contains nothing—oh, except loans! But, as one of my business owners points out, there's no interest-free period on that loan. The bigger ones say they may have to go for that, but it isn't their preference. The smaller ones are already scared of the debt that they carry; they're already fragile. For the bigger attractions, what is missing is the same sort of support that we saw for zoos and aquariums—an attractions and experiences package, which would help them maintain their equipment, maintain the cable cars, keep the rides going, keep the buses on the road and keep them safe. So the end of JobKeeper and the failure to support this vital tourism economy mean that jobs will go, and they'll be really hit in our second-biggest local economic sector. As JobKeeper ends, jobs will go in the travel industry. There are travel agents like Kim in Richmond who have kept on staff, thanks to JobKeeper. Kim has had to dip into savings to do it, and I don't know how she, Peta and Claudia can keep smiling month after month after month. There is no prospect of international borders opening soon and every prospect of internal borders closing because this government has failed to demonstrate any national leadership on this issue. Remember when the Treasurer assured us all that, by the time JobKeeper was ending, the vaccination program would be well underway. There was a promise of four million vaccinations by the end of March. I think there are 16 days to go. Around 170,000 doses have been delivered, so that means there are 3,830,000 doses still to go. And that means we'd need nearly a quarter of a million vaccinations to take place every single day to achieve that promise. It's not going to happen. They know it's not going to happen, yet they're still saying to people, 'Oh, yes, she'll be right.' I look across at those on the other side, and I see a prime minister who's happy to promise whatever it takes to help bushfire regions recover but is totally incapable of delivering on that promise and any of the other headline promises that they so happily throw around. I come from small business. I grew up in it. I ran my own small business for 25 years, and I can very easily put myself in the shoes of those depending on JobKeeper: the employers and the employees. The employees are your team. They're not just people you pay a pay cheque to. They make your small business function, and you can't function without them. But we're already seeing those skills being lost because small businesses can't give people the shifts that they need to put food on their tables. And it isn't every business that still needs help. We know that. Some are doing fine. Some are doing great, but many aren't. They're about to be cut adrift by this government, and their staff are about to be cut adrift to join the two million people who are unemployed or who are unable to find enough work. There are two million people right now who cannot get enough work, who cannot survive on JobSeeker and who won't be able to survive once JobSeeker reduces, yet we're going to add to the list of those people. I have looked at the figures that show who is really underemployed, and I'm going to highlight something that was in those figures before COVID. I don't want anyone to think that everything was fine before COVID, because that would be a lie. Before COVID, underemployment for women in the Sydney area who hadn't studied beyond high school was 18 per cent. That means 18 per cent of women really didn't have enough work, and that was before COVID—not during and not after. It goes on. So this government's pretence that we're going to get back to normal is an outrage. Why can't this government identify the businesses who still need JobKeeper? It can't be that hard. This doesn't just affect the 5,600 workers in my electorate who will still be on JobKeeper for another 13 days. This represents $2.7 million a week that's going to be ripped out of our local economy. It's a policy failure. The government is yet again showing its true colours. It only looks after its own, and the rest can do it alone. (Time expired) 15:24 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I want to acknowledge the member for Macquarie, one of the few on that side who have been in small business, I have to say. So congratulations. Having done it myself, I know it's a difficult road. It is one where, every week, you have to think about where the money comes from in order to pay wages and pay your bills, and it's one which many Australians take up. In terms of my local electorate and the comments made by the member for Macquarie, we have similar problems and different problems. The first thing I'd point out is Enzo's on the Beach, a well-known cafe in Hervey Bay. I'm sure you know it, Mr Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien, as a local. It is opposite the state member's office. While I have the opportunity, I want to acknowledge the retirement of Ted Sorensen, the former member for Hervey Bay, after 26 years of service. I think it is a phenomenal thing for an individual to put themselves forward for community service for that period of time. Last time I spoke to Enzo, I learned that, quite simply, he has what was previously a seven-day-a-week business, serving coffee and food, mainly to tourists, and, unfortunately, he has only been able to operate four days a week. The reason for that is not being put forward by those opposite. The reason is that he simply cannot get enough staff. Can you imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, in an area where we have a significant and substantial unemployment rate, not being able to get enough staff in hospitality to keep your business operational for seven days a week? So this is the problem for Enzo and any number of other small business operators in my region and in my electorate and, in fact, across a very large part of regional Queensland in particular. So, whilst it's different, there are some things which are the same. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I'm sure you know—it's in your electorate—Fraser Island is doing it tough in terms of visits by international tourists. I would absolutely like to see support for the return of the route from Sydney to Hervey Bay. Of course I would. But, when I went and had a look, I saw that it's actually planned. Jetstar have already announced that they'll return to that route in May. They're advertising right now, with tickets starting from, if I recall correctly, $45. I think $45 is a relatively affordable fare to travel from Sydney to Hervey Bay, and I absolutely congratulate Jetstar, because we do need those tourists from places like Sydney and Melbourne back in the regions and, in particular, in those areas which are directly affected by the loss of international tourism from the COVID-19 pandemic and outbreak and the subsequent actions that the government has had to take. We have made the right decisions for Australia, and the response of all Australians, in my view, has been quite simply magnificent. Australia has done a phenomenal job off the back of the Australian people doing what they needed to do, making the decisions that were necessary and making the commitments that they had to, with support from the Commonwealth. That will continue into the future. So I congratulate all of those people who are out there working hard and working in business. As part of my portfolio, the resources sector have been fantastic. They have done an exceptional job. They have maintained their businesses. They've kept their staff employed. They have managed the hygiene requirements to reduce the risk of a COVID-19 outbreak, and to date, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no outbreak in the resources sector. They've done what is necessary. The people who work in the industry have spent months away from home because it was required. Many of them have relocated their families. I congratulate all of them on the work they've done. And what are the results? The results are spectacular. In the December quarter alone, the resources sector was up 5.8 per cent in terms of employment. That is 14,000 jobs. We know that it's the largest number of people employed in the coal sector since 2012. Some 264,000 Australians right now are directly employed in the industry. That is up from where it was in the previous year, and we know there are more opportunities. There are jobs right now in the resources sector right across the country. So we want to see those jobs filled. We want to see those opportunities taken up. It is not just the big exporters—iron ore and coal. We are also working in the critical minerals space. The Critical Minerals Facilitation Office, which was stood up a couple of years ago, has the sole job of extending and expanding Australia's operations for critical minerals. Of course, we are looking to ensure that we can provide downstream manufacturing and processing, particularly the final product, and we are working with like-minded democracies right around the world to ensure that we can provide those supply chains which are currently supplied from elsewhere. There is an opportunity here for our country to build new areas of manufacturing and new jobs, particularly in the regions, but it takes significant changes in terms of technology. We need to test the prototypes in terms of the processing facilities. Once we have done that, once the prototypes have been firmed up and we have proof of concept, I think there will be significant amounts of finance that will continue to come. There's a great example of that, and that of course is Lynas in Western Australia, who have secured a contract with the US Department of Defense. Off the back of the work of the company and the Critical Minerals Facilitation Office, they have that opportunity now to extend their operations in Western Australia and provide more jobs. Western Australia—as much as I don't like to raise it, obviously it wasn't the result we were looking for on the weekend! But the point I want to make here is that 25 per cent of the budget of the WA state economy is propped up by the resources sector—predominantly and overwhelmingly by iron ore. Over 25 per cent—that is a significant contribution to paying for the essential services Australian rely on. Whether it's hospitals, roads or schools, it's off the back of the resources sector that that work is done. Of course, that also drives jobs into those local communities. There is another challenge out there, and it's the challenge of state premiers. If we want to keep Australians in the domestic tourism space, they need confidence. They need confidence that they are not going to have a state premier pull the rug out from under them when they have booked, planned, travelled and gone to a regional location to have a holiday, only to find they have to turn around, on a handful of hours notice, and return to their state before their borders close. What we know, quite simply, is that confidence is lost when state premiers put up snap border closures. Is there an alternative? Of course there is. You only have to look at Premier Berejiklian and what she has done in New South Wales. They have not closed their borders, they have managed COVID outbreaks, they have worked with the health system, they have ensured their contact tracing was absolutely bulletproof, and they are managing it. Once again, when state premiers continue to suggest to Australians that they will close borders at the drop of a hat, you cannot expect Australia's domestic tourism industry to stand up to those sorts of changes. You simply cannot. There is lots of opportunity being driven by the Commonwealth. One of those areas, of course, is the gas led recovery. Of the five strategic basin plans I announced and what will they will do for jobs, the first one out there is the Beetaloo Basin. Why are we looking at the Beetaloo Basin? Quite simply, it's because it is probably the hottest player in gas in the planet. We expect there is over 200,000 petajoules of reserve out there, and that is a significant amount of gas. We want to bring that on and we need to connect it to market, and industry will do the rest if they have the confidence to invest. So, to give that confidence, we announced as part of the Beetaloo Strategic Basin Plan $50 million in terms of support for exploration and drilling. We want to see that work done in this dry season and the next dry season. We're providing that encouragement to bring that work forward because we know that if we can firm up the resource, that will firm up confidence and provide more opportunities for industry to drive jobs into the Northern Territory. Right around Australia, this government is standing up for those people looking for work. We are ensuring that in the short, medium and long term, those opportunities will continue to come to fruition. We have made significant changes to the tax system. We have provided significant support through the COVID period. I think Australians absolutely understand that this is the only country in the world to be in, in terms of the outbreak of this pandemic. We are ensuring that they are staying safe; we are ensuring that they're provided opportunities, particularly for employment; and we are looking to the future in a post-COVID environment, in particular to drive manufacturing back on shore to this country. To do that, we need affordable and reliable gas, affordable and reliable electricity and an available workforce which has the right skill set, which is in the right location and which is ready to go. We need to ensure that red and green tape is out of the way and governments stop getting in the way of businesses who simply want to invest, drive jobs and provide opportunities. I think there is no greater example of that than the Bravus mine, formally known as Adani, in Central Queensland. It was a bunfight—there is no doubt about that. But what is the result? There are 2,200 people with jobs and a significant amount of money committed—$1.5 billion to contracts, driving some 9,000 indirect jobs into the project at a time when it is desperately needed. Once again, I would say to those opposite that we are dealing with these issues, we are providing opportunities, we are working hard to ensure the Australian people have an opportunity in the future for a well-paid, reliable job from which they can pay for their own way, their own mortgage and the education of their own children. 15:34 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore Once again I rise today to talk about this government's failure to help local workers in my electorate, because, despite the ongoing calls to do more, despite the pleas and the cries from businesses and workers doing it tough, the government is pushing full steam ahead with its cuts to JobKeeper from the end of the month—cuts that will see almost 1,500 local businesses and more than 4,500 workers in Gilmore left without support, cuts that are pretending everything is back to normal and there is no more need to help. No-one is saying that we should continue paying JobKeeper to businesses that don't need it anymore. Many businesses have graduated off the program, and that is fantastic news. That's exactly what should happen. I've spoken to many local businesses who are in that situation and delighted to be standing on their own two feet again. But the reality is that there are some businesses and industries that are a long way from recovering and being able to survive on their own. Ignoring the fact that the pandemic is still significantly impacting on some businesses disproportionately to others is simply irresponsible. It beggars belief. International borders are still closed indefinitely. State borders are still precarious at times. People are not travelling as they were before the pandemic, and our tourism businesses, which rely heavily on international tourists, can't just magically be okay. But that seems to be what the government wants them to do. Time and time again, the government says it's listening. It tells businesses in my electorate on the New South Wales South Coast that it cares and that it hears them. Then it announces a so-called tourism rescue package that actually encourages tourists away from the South Coast. It incentivises people to travel elsewhere this year. The package they announced last week—which, let's be honest, is aimed at the airline industry, not the tourism industry—won't do a thing to help struggling tourism operators in our community. Moruya Airport, a wonderful regional airport on the far South Coast in my electorate, has been left off the 'ticket to recovery' list. Shellharbour Airport, slightly to the north of my electorate but with the potential to bring people to Kiama and the Shoalhaven, has been left off the list as well. Why? Who knows? I certainly don't. The entire package is just another example of flashy announcement and failed delivery by the Morrison government. It's not the first time. In December, they announced a package which was meant to help travel agents, a group I have been strongly advocating for over months and months. But, almost as soon it was announced, it was clear the package was a dud. Agents from across my electorate contacted me in droves to tell me of their disappointment and their heartache. It was devastating for them. After fighting so hard for help for so long, they were not going to be eligible and this so-called rescue was not going to help them. Our tourism operators and travel agents deserve better. Our independent cinemas, another struggling group, deserve better. There's been no real help for them either. The government have simply not taken the time or simply don't care to work out which industries need targeted support and how to give it to them. Instead they keep looking after their corporate mates, ticking the box on COVID recovery and patting themselves on the back for a job well done, while local businesses and local workers pay the price. It is infuriating, and it is totally unacceptable. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Senator Molan even came to the South Coast to hear directly from local travel agents and tourism operators, only to have their government announce, just weeks later, a package that not only won't help but will hurt them. Is that what it means for the Morrison government to listen to people—to listen but do nothing? Well, I have been listening, and I won't stand by while they do nothing. I won't stand by while this government makes its flashy announcements but rips the rug out from under thousands of local people in our community. Those workers and those businesses deserve better. They need an extension of JobKeeper. They need the government to finally stand up and end the uncertainty and stress that they are facing now. They need targeted support programs for the industries that cannot recover while borders remain closed and the pandemic continues to impact, and I will keep standing here with them every day until they get them. 15:39 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar What a pathetic MPI this is! What a pathetic group of individuals we have opposite! You can just imagine the opposition's tactics team this morning saying, 'Let's come up with something so ludicrous, so misleading and so duplicitous,' and then giving it to one of the few credible members they have left on that side to move—that being the member for Macquarie. What we just heard then was a cacophony of confusion, self-truths, half-truths and absolute nonsense. On the one hand, the member for Gilmore apparently wants to have targeted support, but, on the other hand, the member for Gilmore would like to have a complete and absolute open gate, raining welfare down upon all Australians. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Members on my left! Mr FALINSKI G86 No, Deputy Speaker! They will shout and they will scream because the one thing they can't handle is the truth. They hate the truth as much as Dracula hates sunlight. They will keep going and there's no limit to how much they can scream, but we on this side will not be drowned out any longer. Dr Martin interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member for Mackellar will pause. Mr FALINSKI G86 We will not be silenced by their fear and loathing— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member for Mackellar will pause. The member for Gilmore is warned. The member for Mackellar will continue. Mr FALINSKI G86 Thank you, Deputy Speaker. No doubt I will continue. The fact of the matter is that this MPI shows once and for all the difference between the two political parties in this chamber. One party—the party on this side—stands up for working Australians. We believe in the value of individuals. We believe in empowering Australians, empowering their families and empowering their communities. All the opposition believe in is enslaving Australians, getting them on the welfare drip and leaving them there—right where they want them, where they're dependent upon those opposite. The issue here is that this side of the House believes in the innate worth of ordinary Australians and believes that they're smart enough to look after themselves and their own families. Those on the other side think they're too stupid to live their own lives unless those on the other side are telling them how to do it. If there were any doubt about that truth, this MPI puts it to the sword. They cannot help themselves. They have never seen a tax they didn't want to increase, they've never seen an industry they don't want to ban, they've never seen a hope they don't want to crush, and they've never seen a welfare program that they don't believe should be bigger and better, with money stolen from other Australians to remove any hope and prospect that they have of a better future in this nation. The fact of the matter is—and this is what hurts them the most; they hate this more than anything—that this government has created the Australian moment. The rest of the world is looking to us, in terms of social media code laws, vaccine rollouts, handing this pandemic, and creating jobs and economic opportunities that Australian families can rely on. What's their answer over there? More welfare. How can we make more Australians more enslaved by the state and by the federal government? Have you ever seen a political party—being the Labor Party—that cannot help themselves? Anytime something good happens in Queensland, they say, 'Oh, that's Annastacia Palaszczuk.' Anytime something bad happens in Queensland—and I know you're from Queensland, Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien, but it is quite often—it's always Scott Morrison's fault. They cannot help themselves. Anything good that happens in New South Wales apparently is just a fluke. The fact of the matter is that the Labor Party does not believe in Australian workers. You keep going through this over and over again. We have created more jobs, we have created more economic opportunities, and we have created more business start-ups. We have done more to give Australians hope and economic opportunity than any other government. We will continue to do that and we will not be shouted down by those opposite. We will not be silenced by those opposite. We will not let Australian workers continue to be betrayed by those opposite just because they've got the loudest voices and they've got more friends at the ABC. We will continue to come in here and tell the truth. We will continue to advance policies that do nothing more than give Australian families the truth. The fact of the matter is that the only vision that those opposite have is increasing the circle of grievance and continuing the cycle of poverty. How pathetic! (Time expired) 15:45 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I don't know where to start with that! There is something for everybody when the member for Mackellar speaks in this chamber! First of all, he said that JobKeeper is a form of welfare that is enslaving businesses. I just want to remind the member for Mackellar of the criticism of what his government has done: 'Ending JobKeeper is signing a death warrant for our industry.' Was that the member for Oxley saying that? Was that the member for Macquarie saying that? No, it was tourism operator Roderic Rees on the front page of our local paper The Courier Mail yesterday. How dare the member for Mackellar criticise and condemn industry and business leaders for speaking out against what his government is doing. The article goes on to say of Mr Rees: With his workforce virtually halved, he had a blunt warning for others in the industry who were fearful of what might happen once JobKeeper winds up. "There's a cliff face coming, make no mistake about it," … "Get ready to start haemorrhaging money. All your subsidies and your safety nets are gone. "I'm going to watch a lot of my friends' businesses go broke. The member for Mackellar is big on lectures and big on responsibility, but he's actually not delivering for people by not creating jobs and not supporting industry in our country. We on this side are supporting industry and are supporting small businesses. I thank the member for Macquarie for putting this MPI on the JobKeeper payment on the agenda today. What was your MPI going to be about today—not respecting women? What was your MPI going to be about today—cutting support for industry? The minister at the table, Minister Pitt, in his contribution once again slagged off the state government for keeping Queensland safe. No wonder there was an 11.1 per cent swing in the state seat of Hervey Bay in his own electorate—the LNP completely wiped off the face of the earth. No wonder there was an 8.8 per cent primary swing in the state seat of Bundaberg—wiped off the face of the earth in his own electorate. Keep telling the voters in your own electorate that you wanted borders open—keep telling the voters in your own community that you didn't want to keep them safe. You know who told them that she wanted to keep them safe? Our Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk. You may have been rubbishing her, but the people of Queensland don't agree with you. No wonder the LNP were thrown out of office at the last election. They had no hope. Their vote went backwards, and the member for Hinkler is still carrying on, saying that he wants the borders open. He's still carrying on about the dozens of times the economy would have been smashed if the member for Hinkler had had anything to do with Queensland state politics. The economy would have been destroyed if you'd opened the borders, as those opposite wished, during the last election, and he is saying 'rubbish'. We will be reminding the voters in Hinkler at the next election that it was he who wanted the borders open. He wanted his community to be kept at risk. Well, I'm glad that we have a strong premier. Didn't you get the message from Western Australia? Didn't you hear the message on the weekend? Start opening your ears— Mr Pitt interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The minister will cease interjecting. Mr DICK 53517 and listening to what the community wants. I'm glad that we're here today talking about these critical issues. There are 172,000 Queenslanders crying out for help. In my own electorate, 5,000 workers are expected to be thrown on the scrap heap, with JobKeeper ending at the end of the month. That means $2.4 million a week in support will be ripped away from our local economy. The member for Mackellar might call it welfare; I call it money going to the mums and dads of the small businesses in my community. I've met with many workers and businesses who have done everything right, and they've suffered because of a health crisis that's out of their control. They're only going to suffer more because those opposite are shrugging their shoulders, refusing to do their jobs and create meaningful policy. What have we got as an alternative for the people of Queensland? Half-price airfares. The member for Hinkler is here. Why wasn't Hervey Bay listed? Why wasn't Bundaberg listed? Did you fight for them? Did you ask for them to go on the list? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member for Oxley will address the chair. Mr DICK 53517 Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker: did the member for Hinkler ring up the tourism minister and ask if they could be included? Silence. Did you ring up and see if your tourism operators could be included in that? An honourable member interjecting— Mr DICK 53517 Absolutely not. He's got confidence in them, but he won't help them. On this side of the chamber, we will continue to speak about the thousands and thousands of businesses that are going over the cliff in a matter of two weeks. It's not good enough to criticise them. They need help and support, and you should start doing your job. 15:50 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm It was around this time last year that the world was taken by storm, seemingly overnight. The global population was at serious risk of a terrifying new illness or, even worse, death. Many countries still live horrified at the possibility of being ravaged by this sickness. Across those countries, economies are grinding to a halt, shops are being boarded up and people are losing their jobs en masse. The story in Australia is very different—like a cold, harsh winter ending and the light of spring bringing back new life. Australia has returned to a firm sense of normality. Through the stable and measured hands of the Morrison government, certainty was, and continues to be, provided to Australian workers and small businesses. It was the Morrison government's $251 billion of direct economic support that provided a crucial lifeline to help small businesses around the country retain their staff and apprentices, maintain their cash flow and reinvest in their businesses. In my home state of Victoria, businesses and people faced even greater adversity than those in other states had to endure. The extended lockdowns decimated businesses in my electorate. Even in the face of the Victorian Labor government's assault on the Victorian economy, the Morrison government's precise and calculated economic support packages have managed to save many businesses in my electorate and in the state. Just last month, I had the pleasure of visiting Twin Electrics & Plumbing, a business in my electorate that undertakes electrical work. They were showing me a new piece of equipment they had recently installed, thanks to a federal government grant they had received earlier. It wasn't easy for those guys, though. They were hit hard by the extended lockdowns we've experienced in the last year. Most of their staff were full time too. It was through the JobKeeper package the Morrison government designed that they were able to continue to work and to keep food on the table for their families. Now Twin Electrics & Plumbing are off JobKeeper, as of last December, and thriving as they move forward. This illustrates the success of the package. It was targeted and effective. Neither small businesses nor people were left behind in this government's plan. Also, job creation was central. We wanted people to have plenty of opportunities available. While talking to the team down at Twin Electrics & Plumbing, I found out that they have been able to utilise the Morrison government's apprenticeship scheme, which allows them to benefit from a 50 per cent wage subsidy for new trainees and apprentices, and soon they plan on bringing on an additional trainee to teach them the ropes of their business, which they will be able to do through the same scheme. I would like to suggest that the Morrison government has provided economic certainty to Australian workers and small businesses from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and has not lapsed in doing so. We are providing a framework to ensure that Australia makes it through this crisis and is in a position of enviable strength on the global stage. The Morrison government will always look out for the best interests of all Australians, and we definitely are doing that for businesses and workers. 15:55 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Before I start, I will give a brief history lesson. It was Labor who suggested to the government that it introduce a wage subsidy, way back in March last year, when the government failed to introduce JobKeeper. That's when the government failed to introduce JobKeeper. It was a Labor, unions and big business idea, and perhaps that explains the risible contribution from the member for Mackellar. You just chip away, and he shows his true self. He hates JobKeeper. He calls it 'enslavement'. The member for Mackellar called this enslavement: a program that has been singularly responsible for saving the livelihoods of millions of Australians and businesses, and the member for Mackellar calls it enslavement. It's an absolute disgrace. It was Labor who suggested it. The PM didn't want it. He had to be talked into it. The government described the idea at the time as dangerous, but JobKeeper has been vital. It's still vital. This is the great irony. It is still vital for many businesses and many Australians. The pandemic's not over. If the pandemic were over the international borders would be open, but the government's taken the right decision to keep the borders closed. The international borders are closed, but they're closing off JobKeeper at the end of this month. They are consigning hundreds of thousands of Australians—as many as a million Australians, perhaps—to the dole queues. At the end of January 2021, about 50,000 Tasmanians were either out of work or looking for work, and the state's unemployment rate was 7.9 per cent. Almost 13,000 Tasmanians are currently in receipt of JobKeeper. They're still on it. Many rely on the payment to keep them in work, to keep food on the table, to keep the lights on and to keep a roof over their heads. I shudder to think what happens when JobKeeper comes off at the end of the month. There are businesses that, on the face of it, are doing well—their doors are open, the staff are serving customers—but the customers don't know that the staff are being paid through JobKeeper. When JobKeeper goes off, those businesses, which are struggling to get the business custom through the door that they used to have, are going to have to make decisions: 'What do we do? We can't afford to pay the wages. We haven't recovered the profits yet.' They're going to have to start letting people go. These are very real impacts. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that, at the height of the pandemic in May 2020, 19,000 jobs were lost across Tasmania. A quarter of the jobs lost to COVID are yet to return. They've still not returned. Our recovery in our state from this pandemic is precarious and it is nowhere more precarious than in tourism and hospitality. As Australians emerge from the deepest, most damaging recession in almost 100 years, there have been some welcome, positive signs in our economy—there's no doubt. The green shoots are emerging. Australians have stuck together and done the right thing by each other, so we can perform much better than many other countries. This credit belongs to all Australians and, particularly, to the state governments, which have led the way. In the absence of real national leadership from this government, it is the state governments, Labor and Liberal, that have led the way in this nation. On those issues that the federal government's been responsible for, it's fallen over. Issues that the federal government's taken? No good. A vaccination rollout of four million by March? I don't think so. Four million by March? It's not going to happen. That's a federal government responsibility. It's already stalling and it's barely begun. It's already behind schedule. In my electorate of Lyons, almost 3,000 workers are expected to lose JobKeeper at the end of this month, with $1.3 million a week in support ripped away from our local economies. It's a very uncertain and anxious time for many Australians, particularly with what will happen in the labour market and the economy more broadly. There is uncertainty about the government's plan to cut pay, to cut superannuation and to attack job security. There is uncertainty about people's ongoing job security and what it means for their family finances—their ability to get a loan, for example. This government's addiction to casualisation and contracting out is going to affect people's ability to get a loan and provide for their families. This government is failing the test, with gross incompetence and economic uncertainty. 16:00 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth It gives me great pleasure to be able to talk about our economic recovery from the COVID pandemic, including how the economy is travelling and how JobKeeper has supported that economic recovery. Just last week, the Australian National Accounts figures came out. They showed that the Australian economy grew 3.1 per cent in the December quarter. That's on top of 3.4 per cent growth in the September quarter. It's the first time in several decades that the economy has grown quicker than three per cent in two consecutive quarters. If you look at the overall figures for 2020, the Australian economy is 1.1 per cent smaller than it was at the start of this pandemic. That is the best performance in the OECD. Look at other OECD countries: Japan's economy contracted by 1.2 per cent; the Korean economy contracted by 1.3 per cent; the US economy contracted by 2.5 per cent; the Canadian economy contracted by 5.2 per cent; and the UK economy contracted by 7.8 per cent. To go through what we've been through—a once-in-a-century pandemic with all the disruptions to international travel, global supply chains and any number of other things—and emerge at the other side with unemployment at 6.4 per cent and the overall economy 1.1 per cent smaller is not a bad effort. I think we should give credit where it's due. We've seen the economy continue to recover. In the last four months we've seen 350,000 jobs created, 90,000 in the month of January alone. Of the 1.3 million Australians who either lost their jobs or had their hours reduced to zero at the start of the pandemic, 94 per cent are back at work. Just last week we saw that job advertisements are at pre-pandemic levels. The same is true for consumer confidence and business confidence. Just recently we had our AAA credit rating reaffirmed. So the story is very much a positive one. We've still got further to go on this road of economic recovery. We've got more work to do to support some industries that still need assistance, and we've still got some work to do to get some of our more vulnerable populations, particularly our younger Australians, back to work. But we are very much heading in the right direction. What role has JobKeeper played in all this? Well, phase 1 of JobKeeper, from March to September last year, was very much an emergency phase. During that six-month period, $70 billion went out the door in JobKeeper, making it the single biggest program of federal government expenditure in the history of the Commonwealth. At that time, half of all Australian businesses were being supported by JobKeeper and one-third of all Australian workers were being supported by JobKeeper. But, if you look at where we are today, the story is considerably different. At the end of September, when JobKeeper kicked over into phase 2 and we extended it by six months, we had 2.1 million workers and half a million Australian businesses graduate off JobKeeper. Today, there are 2.7 million Australians and 650,000 businesses that have come off JobKeeper. In my own electorate, Wentworth, it's a similar story to the one being played out nationally. In Wentworth 5,800 businesses and almost 20,000 individuals have graduated from JobKeeper. Contrary to what those opposite may be saying, JobKeeper was never intended to be a permanent program. It was an economy-wide, emergency measure. We're not in the business of providing permanent wage subsidies to Australian businesses, and nor should we be. This would be a massive distortion in the economy. Instead, what we are doing is moving towards more targeted support, which is exactly what you'd expect. As the Reserve Bank governor, Philip Lowe, said recently: When the JobKeeper program finishes at the end of March we expect some additional job losses, but over time these are expected to be offset by the jobs created by the ongoing recovery of the economy. In Treasury's review of the JobKeeper program, which it conducted last year, it found: JobKeeper has a number of features that create adverse incentives which may become more pronounced over time as the economy recovers … it dampens incentives to work, it hampers labour mobility and the reallocation of workers to more productive roles, and it keeps businesses afloat that would not be viable without ongoing support. That's the truth. The economy is ready to transition to its next phase of recovery. In that recovery, we need to be supporting the areas that still need targeted assistance. We need to be supporting the broader economy. But it is time for JobKeeper to end. That's why we've got programs in place like the JobMaker Hiring Credit—to encourage businesses to hire new workers. That's why we've got the apprenticeship scheme in place, which has already seen 100,000 apprentices hired over five months. That's why we've got the COVID-19 Consumer Travel Support Program in place—to support travel agents. That's why we've got the domestic aviation travel announcements that we came up with last week—to support that sector of the economy. That's why we're bringing forward tax incentives for workers—to bring forward consumption. That's why we're creating tax incentives for businesses—to engage in investment—and why we're bringing forward infrastructure investment. We've moved beyond the crisis and the response. We're now moving to the next stage of recovery, and the ending of JobKeeper is part of that. 16:05 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro This government's tin ear and cement heart have been on show again this week and are on show right now in this MPI. They extend to its response to the recovery and the renewal effort needed in regional communities. JobKeeper has been central in getting us to this point, a point of fragile hope for the future. It was Labor, back in March, who pushed the government to introduce a wage subsidy. Those opposite described the idea of JobKeeper as 'dangerous', but JobKeeper has been vital. Tragically, hundreds of thousands of Australians are about to be left behind. Entire sectors, including tourism and hospitality, will be denied the government support that has kept them afloat and given them any hope. In my electorate of Eden-Monaro, 5,339 workers are expected to lose JobKeeper at the end of the month. That's $2.7 million a week ripped away from our local economy, at a time when we can least afford it. The day-to-day weight that comes with this kick in the guts is real, especially for the already traumatised communities right across Eden-Monaro. A recent survey of business in the Bega Valley found that 50 per cent of businesses lack confidence in their viability over the next 12 months. These businesses were robbed of income over the last two summers, and I have no doubt that the results would be very similar in other parts of Eden-Monaro. The depth of this feeling comes from years of challenges—years of drought followed by the worst bushfires in modern history, followed by floods and followed by a global pandemic. But you don't get it. The salt in the wound for families tied to these local businesses is that the very support they have been relying on is about to be ripped out from under them, with no plan or safety net for their future. Over 5,000 families in Eden-Monaro can't see a future beyond the next two weeks. The survey—which was done by Bega Valley Shire Council, Sapphire Coast Destination Marketing and Destination Southern NSW—also showed 54 per cent of businesses had to reduce their staffing levels, with 53 full-time staff and 218 part-time staff laid off in the wake of bushfires and border closures. Last New Year's Eve, businesses from Eden to Narooma, from Jindabyne to Talbingo, were braced for good times. Camp sites were full, hire boats were busy, local breweries were singing and restaurant tables were being turned over. A solid rebound was building following the wipe-out from the bushfires the summer before. That was until COVID-19 flared in Sydney and the Victorian border was slammed shut. The people in those camp sites and on those hire boats had to leave. The Prime Minister's national cabinet failed to come up with a definition for 'hotspots' before, during or after. It has failed to set trigger points for border closures. The risk of snap border closures remains for communities and businesses in Eden-Monaro. Peter from Longstocking Brewery at Pambula told me: 'We had just four days of excellent sales when the Victorian border closed. We had 130 people booked in, of which only seven turned up. And, as a consequence, we had to lay off staff.' The jobs that have remained have been supported by JobKeeper, and the sad irony for Peter and every business in Eden-Monaro is that the New Year's Eve border closure happened on the same day that, 12 months prior, fire ripped through our local landscape, smashing the busiest and most productive part of our year. The Eden-Monaro economy has lost two summers—that's over $150 million in the Bega Valley alone. We simply can't afford to lose any more, and yet this government is about to rip another $2.6 million a week out of local pockets. When quizzed on the future of JobKeeper, those opposite have pointed to the vaccine rollout—a misguided hope, as it turns out. The snail's pace at which people are being vaccinated simply isn't building confidence and hope in people that need it. The loss of JobKeeper only compounds the despair, as does the risk that, while we wait for the jab, borders could snap shut again. In the end, beyond income support, real, secure and meaningful work is what people really want. On the South West Slopes, timber jobs are at risk too. This government's tin ear and cement heart have failed to grapple with that—that's $2 billion from the Snowy Valleys' economy. Forty per cent of their timber production has been lost and 157 jobs could be lost in Tumbarumba alone. But what have they done, apart from listening to a commonsense solution? They have done nothing. (Time expired) 16:10 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon When we look at other nations—their ongoing struggles and how they managed their responses to both the health crisis and the economic crisis—Australia's got a lot to be grateful for. The member for Wentworth certainly pointed that out in no uncertain terms in his address. It's a remarkable feat to have outperformed all other advanced nations in the OECD when it comes to our economic management of COVID-19. But what's most important is the economic safety net that the Morrison government has provided, saving tens of thousands of jobs and thousands of businesses right across Australia. Government knows that there's more to be done, and we get that. We all get that. We know that we're not out of the woods yet. We now know that the recovery phase and the economic management strategy are well underway, but I think it's important today, particularly under this topic, that we recognise how far we've come. More than half a million businesses, employing more than two million Australians, have already graduated off JobKeeper. In my great state of Tasmania, around 68,900 employees received payments over the first phase of JobKeeper. Compare that to the second phase, which was just 24,100. That's a significant difference. That represents a decrease of 65 per cent, so 65 per cent of businesses in Tasmania who accessed the JobKeeper program are now back on their feet and working towards a positive future. The program's done its job. Just a few weeks ago, the Treasurer was in the electorate of Braddon. It was a great trip, and the mood in the street, right across the North West, the West Coast and King Island, was positive. In fact, the Deloitte December quarter report suggests that Tasmania's business confidence is amongst the highest in the nation. The Treasurer and I started our day by visiting some great businesses. One business, Mead Con, owned by Tim and Vonette Mead, employs their daughter, who's a third-year apprentice. Her name's Elsie. They're all positive. They've got about 70 employees and about 14 apprentices. In fact, they've employed three apprentices just this year. That represents confidence. Confidence is as infectious as the COVID-19 virus, and if confidence isn't firmly at the feet of our businesses then they have no hope. Confidence is strong in the North West. Tim said in no uncertain terms that confidence has never been stronger and his businesses have never been stronger. He's getting orders 12 months out and he wonders how he'll have enough employees to fill the jobs that he already has. He's even bought a new 2½ tonne forklift under the new instant asset write-off legislation that we released—a program that has allowed businesses in my electorate to purchase and bring forward expenditure on their fleet, making their bottom line that much more effective. From there we went to Darren at Derrico Cycles. The mountain bike scene in Tasmania has taken off, with tracks around the place like Derby, Hollybank, Maydena, Wild Mersey, Penguin and Dial Range, and with $2½ million the federal government has supported the West Coast mountain bike trails, covering Oonah Hill, Sterling Valley and Montezuma Falls. This has seen Darren's business become as busy as it's ever been, according to Darren. The other side is talking about the failure to provide certainty to workers and small business. I certainly disagree with that. In fact, I would maintain that the government has been completely open and transparent in our approach to this economic recovery. The government has always said that JobKeeper was a temporary program designed to be wound back without tails attached, as economic confidence and momentum rebuilds in our economy. Other measures have included income tax cuts and the JobMaker hiring credit. Around 41,400 taxpayers in Braddon have benefited from tax relief this year. We've seen 9,700 businesses in Braddon eligible for the instant asset write-off, which Mead Con used to purchase their new forklift. Business confidence is certainly high along the north-west coast of Tasmania and will remain high as they work towards a positive future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The discussion is now concluded. COMMITTEES 44 COMMITTEES Treaties Committee 44 Report 44 16:15 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 194: Certifications—Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway; Amendments 2020—CITES. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr SHARMA 274506 by leave—Today I rise to make a short statement on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report 194. The report concerns two treaty actions: the 2019 amendments to appendices I, II and III of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; and the agreement amending the Agreement on Mutual Recognition in Relation to Conformity Assessment, Certificates and Markings between Australia and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway. CITES protects endangered species by regulating international trade in those species and the products derived from them, and amendments to the list of protected species covered by CITES are regularly proposed and adopted. The amendments considered in this report include 10 Australian native species and four non-native Australian species which Australia trades in. The committee, in its report, supports the amendments to CITES but notes that the time frame in which amendments come into force means that there is usually insufficient or no time for the committee to undertake a proper inquiry. As a result, Report 194 recommends the government alter its process for referring CITES amendments to the committee, to ensure the committee can complete an inquiry before the amendments come into force. The aspect of the report dealing with the agreement to amend the agreement between Australia and Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway allows mutual recognition agreements to be made and aligns the mutual recognition arrangements with Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway with those that Australia has in existing arrangements with the European Union. The committee has also recommended the ratification of this agreement amending the mutual recognition agreement with Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. I commend this report to the House. BILLS 44 BILLS Online Safety Bill 2021, Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 44

Online Safety Bill 2021

Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021

Second Reading 44 16:17 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Before the debate is resumed on the bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate will be allowed covering the bill and the Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021. The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gellibrand has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 16:18 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson It gives me pleasure to speak on this bill, the Online Safety Bill, which is about establishing a set of basic online safety expectations for the online industry. It's about keeping kids safe online and regulating content that's harmful, illegal and abusive and that leads to a world of pain for both children and adults. This bill addresses cyberbullying, not just of children but also of adults—we could talk about that as online harassment rather than as cyberbullying. It'll give greater powers to the eSafety Commissioner to issue removal notices of harmful content that's on platforms. It'll require big tech to step up to the plate and do more about getting defamatory and harmful material off their platforms—rather than censoring political debate, which seems to be the space that they want to play in. When the Googles, Facebooks and Twitters of the world don't take responsibility for the harmful, unlawful and defamatory content that is on their platforms, that's when we intervene. That's when we have the eSafety Commissioner empowered to act immediately to block images and videos of violent and distressing events. It's when we have the eSafety Commissioner intervening to ensure that defamatory, harmful and other unlawful content is removed. And that is what's going to happen as part of this Online Safety Bill. I'll just say that I met an outfit by the name of Family Zone, a company that has developed some technology here in Australia which is all about helping parents better manage social media and online usage for their children and for their families. They put some stats together which show why this bill is so important. These are stats that are going to shock some people. They are certainly going to shock some parents. Sixty-nine per cent of boys and 23 per cent of girls have viewed X-rated material on the internet by the age of 13. Sixty-four per cent of teenagers in this country access X-rated material at least once a week. Children's first exposure to this X-rated material is between the ages of eight and 10—eight and 10! We had protests happening in the streets yesterday—and I won't get into that argument—but let me just point out this little nugget of truth: 88 per cent of this explicit content that these kids are being subjected to contains violence against women. Forty-two per cent of teenagers report being bullied on a platform like Instagram, which Facebook runs. The rates of online bullying have actually doubled in a decade. Children are being exposed to graphic and disturbing content online, and that has serious consequences for the future. It deforms children when it comes to developing relationships and understanding self-worth. Self-worth is important, because suicide is the leading cause of death of young people in Australia. And online bullying is just getting worse. The bullying doesn't stop now when the kids leave school; it's 24/7. Kids use social media for some form of peer validation. They seek approval from their friends, from their fellow students, because, sadly, what matters to most teenagers is what their friends think about them, and, when you've got almost half of all teenagers being bullied on some platform like Instagram, which is quite popular amongst young people, I can tell you: it's not a place, then, for validation; it's not a place for approval. These negative comments and scathing remarks—some of them illegal—about people's appearance, their personality or their sex life, or allegations of it, can have huge impacts on their self-confidence. They can completely alter the trajectory of a person's life. And, in the worst cases, they can lead to suicide. Big tech companies need to take more responsibility to prevent this kind of online bullying and to support parents in choosing what their children are exposed to. I talked to Mr Tim Levy from this Australian company, Family Zone. He's got some insight into the anticompetitive behaviour that actually stops parents from being able to exercise control over social media with their children. He's got some views and some information on Google, Apple and Microsoft and how they respond as to online safety. Apple deliberately undermined parental control software that they'd developed, removing them from their App Store in 2018. Apple removed them! Why? Google's policy is to allow children, from the age of 13, to remove parental consent! That is just so wrong! These big tech companies, Google, Apple and Microsoft, do provide better safety measures for businesses—that's true. But what about parents? What about families? They leave them high and dry. Business app developers on Apple devices can access high-performing network extensions for content filtering. Here are just some examples of what business app developers can do with Apple devices that parental control apps cannot do because that's how they've designed it. Businesses can stop users from accessing inappropriate apps like dating apps. They can stop users from installing browsers that access the dark web on a business platform. They can hide access to social media apps during, for instance, school hours—schools, actually, are allowed to do that. Businesses and schools can restrict the use of the camera or screen capture. Businesses can block X-rated iTunes content. Businesses can disable messaging apps. Try to do that as a parent, and you can't. The technology is actually there. Australian companies are developing it to offer protections to families, but the big tech giants—the tech tyrants—are actually stopping families accessing those apps, and stopping those apps providing that service to parents. These are big multinational profit-driven tech companies, conglomerates, big corporations. They're not really focused on what's good for the community. They're not focused on what's good for children. What they're focused on is their bottom line. Their goal is to drive as much engagement into their platforms as possible, to get the eyeballs on the screen regardless of the consequences. As a result, you've got children being exposed to the very real dangers of the online world, and parents unable to protect them. Imagine being the parent of a child who's taken their own life because of abuse that they received through an online platform which had done nothing to stop that abuse, even though they could have. Imagine being powerless to protect your child, knowing that a tech company could have taken responsibility—or allowed you to take the responsibility, but didn't—to protect your child. As much as anything, this is about taking responsibility. This bill means that if tech companies won't, or don't, take responsibility then the eSafety Commissioner can, and can force them to take action. I mentioned the Christchurch massacre in this place earlier today. The big tech companies allowed 17 minutes of that horrid, horrid event to be streamed live online. The atrocities were broadcast for the world to see and, as a result, multiple copies of that video were re-uploaded, re-uploaded, re-uploaded and shared on various social media platforms. Imagine being the family of one of those victims, losing your loved one in such a horrific way, and then having to watch, or hear that other people have viewed, the final moments of your loved ones played out online. It would be excruciating. And through this bill, the eSafety Commissioner will have the ability to remove content like this. What are big tech focused on at the moment rather than this? You know what they're doing? They're censoring political discussion. That's their big thing. They're censoring lawful, law-abiding, completely safe political discussion because they don't like it, it doesn't fit in with their editorial guidelines that they call 'community standards'. That's what they're focused on. These big tech platforms that parade themselves as being the parties for free speech and the new way that we can have free expression all around the world, they go and silence the leader of the free world. If they can do that, they can do it to anyone. And they are doing it to anyone. Australians every day of the week wake up to see the little note on Facebook and other platforms saying, 'Your post has been removed,' 'You have been banned for seven days,' or 'You have been banned for 30 days.' It's ridiculous stuff. It's not for harmful speech; they're not targeting that. They're targeting political discourse that they don't like. It is very, very dangerous because these big tech social media platforms are now the new public square. So they don't take responsibility for the dangers that affect kids and the dangers that affect people in our community; what they do is they actually censor political discussion. It is just so disturbing. This is a danger to our democracy—an absolute and utter danger to our democracy. In short, Google, Apple and Microsoft are preferring commercial interests and political censorship over the rights of parents and the expectations of the community that children should be safe online—that everyone should be safe online. Parents believe that this government—the Morrison Liberal-National government—has policies in place that are protecting their children. Our current regime allows Google, Apple and Microsoft, as I said, to prefer businesses. These platforms control what their employees can see, but they don't allow that to happen for families. I think there's public expectation that the new Online Safety Act should allow companies to provide Australians with tools that they can use to keep their children safe. As Tim Levy put it to me, big tech has taken away the fundamental right of parents to parent in the digital world, but, with some small changes, which the minister could utilise as a result of this Online Safety Bill, we can fix that. We can ensure that this government is doing everything possible to help parents protect their kids. The government can make it mandatory for tech companies like Google, Apple and Microsoft to support parental control software providers with the same level of features given to business app developers. Next, tech platforms need to ensure their maturity level structure with parental control providers, so that parents can make choices about what content their children should be exposed to. I'm advised, as I've alluded to, that this legislation allows the minister, through legislative instrument, to tailor additional expectations for larger, established platforms. Right here and now, I am calling on the minister to do that as soon as this bill is passed for the sake of parents and families across this country. Give families the same right to put in controls over the content that's being broadcast into their homes as you give to businesses. Right now that can't be done. I've got to tell you that, if I hear that this bill doesn't allow that, I will want to see amendments to this bill come before this House so that we can bring that in. But I do believe, from what I've been told, that this bill will give the minister the right to target outfits like Facebook, Instagram, Google and Twitter to ensure that they are not bringing in anti-competitive conduct and to ensure that the Apples of the world aren't stopping apps which give parents the ability to control what is broadcast through those devices. This is the kind of thing we need. So, on 15 March, I wrote to the Minister for Home Affairs asking him to look into this technology that has been developed in Australia that can help protect children and to ensure that this can be promoted. I'm going to be writing to Minister Fletcher as well to make him aware of this tech and to ensure that anti-competitive conduct is not engaged in to stop parents from accessing this new technology. Once again, it's a shame that we have to be here putting forward a bill about online safety. These big tech platforms need to get a grip on what they are doing. They need to stop the abuse of young children in particular, they need to stop defamatory and unlawful content being on their platforms and they need to forget about political censorship where they're censoring lawful speech in this country that happens to be on their platforms. They have got such a perverse focus at the moment, and it needs to end. I'm calling big tech to account on this. That's why I support this bill. 16:33 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne This week in Canberra, we've been reminded just how significant are the problems of violence that we've got to tackle in the real world. Of course, the Prime Minister hasn't even had the courtesy to go out and meet the thousands of women who came to this place to march and demand justice and change. But we're also reminded this week that, just as there are areas in the real world that we need to change—and it's predominantly men who need to change their behaviour—there are changes required in the online world. The online world is not exempt, and, in fact, in many instances, because of the speed at which things can happen online, approaches are needed there as well. We joined in the condemnation of the streaming of the terrorist massacre in Christchurch, for example. That streaming was something that was abhorrent and should not have occurred. Similarly, as previous speakers have mentioned, the issue of cyberbullying is something that requires tackling as well. In many instances it overlaps with what has historically been known as bullying, and in other instances there are specific ways that cyberbullying takes place. Of course, we see again that, because of the speed with which digital images can be transmitted and the capacity to do so, the non-consensual sharing of intimate images is something that has caused significant grief to so many people, including so many women. So I think you would find, across this parliament, not one person who says there are no problems in the online world. You will not find one person across this parliament who says there are no problems of violence or exploitation that need tackling, in the same way we do with respect to the offline world. But what is of great concern in those very significant areas that need to be addressed—including the protection of children, which is a critical duty for all of us—is that, when the standards that one might apply with respect to the protection of children—the limiting, for example, of what children may see—slip over and start to be applied to what informed, consenting adults are able to do, it raises issues, and we must tread carefully. We must tread incredibly carefully, because if we don't we could find ourselves, as the parliament, saying to informed, consenting adults, 'We are now going to allow government to determine what you can read and do and participate in online.' That is why it is very critical that we get the balance right—because a lot is at stake if we get it wrong. It will inhibit the freedoms and the rights of people in this country, of adults in this country, to participate and read online in the way that they choose. When there are 370 public submissions on the exposure draft of a bill, with significant amendments proposed, and the government come in here 10 days later with a bill that has zero amendments to address those significant concerns, and then they rush this bill through this place after an inquiry process lasting less than two weeks, where many of those same concerns were raised, it raises the presumption—in this case, the right presumption—that the government have not got the balance right and are engaged in huge overreach here. I suspect that everyone in this parliament would support the important aims of protecting children, addressing the non-consensual sharing of images, and dealing with the rise in hate speech and hate crimes and their perpetration through online media. You would find support for that if you took a measured approach to finding a way of dealing with that that did not infringe on other people's rights. But that is not what the government has done. Instead, we have a bill—the Online Safety Bill 2021—that gives an unelected official significant power to determine what people can read online in this country. I make no comments about the particular person who at the moment occupies the role of eSafety Commissioner. I'm not commenting on that particular person at all. I'm talking about the principle of whether it is right that very broad, generalised and undefined standards—things like 'basic online safety expectations', which is the phrase used in this bill, and broad brushstrokes about definitions of things like 'harmful'—should be delegated to an unelected official who then has the power, armed with that, to determine what is allowed to remain online or not. Under this bill, that unelected official will have the power to take down material that they think does not comply with these very broadly defined standards and to require that internet service providers and others who are hosting online content comply. This is a very broad, proactive power to go out, search, find and order that things be taken down. When such broad powers are given to someone who is an unelected official, what you will find is that people in the industry will start censoring themselves for fear of being subject to one of these orders. They are going to start taking down things that might not contravene the law, just for fear of being subject to an order according to some very broadly defined principles. In this respect, Electronic Frontiers Australia made a submission to the Senate inquiry, and they are right when they say: This is a breathtaking amount of power to be handed to a single person, regardless of the level of oversight. The severe lack of checks and balances over the exercise of power granted by the Bill only compounds the danger. Granting extraterritorial jurisdiction over all Internet content to an unelected person appointed by the government of the day is an astounding proposition in a country that holds itself out as a liberal democracy. It is worth noting that there is almost no way of challenging the decisions that this person makes. In almost every other sphere of our society, of the laws we pass, if an official does something, especially when it's something as significant as saying, 'You are not allowed to read this thing online,' there's a capacity to appeal and to review such decisions. But here that's almost non-existent. As others start to pre-empt this outcome and restrict content, and as the chilling effect of this legislation flows through to areas that it was not intended to flow through to, a lot of these take-down approaches are going to be automated. It's not going to be an individual person sitting there clicking and browsing and looking at everything; it will be automated. What we know is that computers and algorithms are not always that good at distinguishing a violent image that people would find abhorrent from, say, an image of a police officer kneeling on a black man's neck, and so images that are designed to hold power to account will also find themselves the subject of potential censorship under this legislation. That poses significant risks to groups like the Black Lives Matter movement but also to anyone who is fighting for change and who wants to use the internet as a platform for broadcasting abuses of power. They could find themselves falling foul of an unelected official's sense of what is appropriate. Then, when the official—or algorithm—takes it down, there is nowhere to go; they're censored. When similar legislation was passed in the United States, sex workers who had shifted their legal activity online during the pandemic found themselves caught in a situation where, although the work they did was legal, they could not pursue it online, because of restrictions of this type. That has been the experience overseas. There are a wide range of groups that are going to be affected by this legislation. To the extent that we are talking about safety, it's worth remembering what Digital Rights Watch said during the very short inquiry that was allowed. They made the point that, when sex workers are forced offline, they are often pushed into unsafe working environments, which creates direct harm. So this bill has the capacity to do harm, which is part of the reason it should not be rushed through. We oppose the government rushing this thing through when so many people have raised so many concerns about it. Domestic Violence Victoria made the point in the consultation on the exposure draft that the complaints process and the lack of a review of it as part of this legislation, in their words, 'provides opportunities for vexatious and malicious use of technology by perpetrators to further perpetrate family violence'. Then there's the prospect that, as currently drafted, the bill could provide to the commissioner the power to limit, restrict or undermine encrypted services and communications, as well as information-gathering and investigative powers. The extension of this to encrypted services suggests that the government is going well beyond what it says on the tin, because it's not about what people can see if they happen to be surfing the internet; it is now about going into private messages that no-one could say a child could see or is able to see. They're talking about accessing potentially encrypted services. It's astounding that a government that is running away from any independent inquiry into its own actions—when it comes to questions of alleged violence—is saying, 'Oh no, we expect to have access to other people's secret and private communications, and we'll do it under the guise of this bill and we'll do it via an unelected official, and there will be limited rights of recourse.' Of course, they have form on this, because this is the approach that was taken with respect to the assistance and access act, something that we opposed as well. There are two things we need to do in this country. The first thing we need is for the government to withdraw this bill and come back with a redraft that deals with the issues that you would find acceptance of across the whole of parliament—about how we deal with non-consensual sharing of images, how we deal with cyberbullying, how we deal with those images of hate crimes that get broadcast online. Go back and come up with something that deals with those key issues. But don't let it overreach and step into dealing with people who are committing no crime, who have never been accused of committing a crime and who are going about their lawful activity online. Don't let it dictate what they can or can't do online, because that is what this government is doing—rushing a bill through that will allow for the censorship and regulation of content from people who have done nothing wrong and who are participating online. All of a sudden, an unelected official is going to tell you what you can and can't see. The second thing that we need to do in this country is institute some basic privacy and digital rights that are leading standards, something on a par with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. If we had some basic digital rights enshrined in this country, then you could have a sensible debate about things like what the government is proposing, because people would know that their rights were protected. But at the moment we can't know that. Why does the government want to go beyond the stated intent and name of the bill and start regulating, in an unacceptable way, what adults are able to do online? It is part of creeping moves to exercise greater power over our freedoms and responsibilities, and that's why in its current form, unless it's withdrawn and redrafted, the bill cannot be supported. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 16:49 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan by leave—This bill is worth supporting, because, as I was saying before, Australians will no longer accept that they can be defamed and bullied and harassed online in an anonymous way. Ideally, we want to see these big tech companies legislated like the publishers that they are, so that the rules that exist in the real world exist in the online world and it's very clear to people that you can't make these anonymous comments online in a way that harasses and bullies and defames, and that, if platforms allow that kind of anonymous contact, those platforms have to take responsibility when it leads to defamation or causes concern. The previous speaker, the member for the Greens, just demonstrated everything that is wrong with his side of politics and with his political party. Those opposite say they support Australians having the same rights online, and here they have a bill in front of them that allows adults to take the power back from these big tech companies who have for so long said, 'If you want increased connectivity in a digital world, you have to accept that you lose your privacy, you have to accept the risk of defamation, you have to just cop every anonymous comment that comes your way.' What the government is showing with this bill is that it is responding to Australians who are sick of it, who are saying: 'Enough is enough! No, I don't have to accept that. No, I want there to be the same rules online and in the real world. If somebody publishes something in the real world, in the newspaper, I can sue them for defamation, and I'd like to be able to take action in the online world as well.' It just goes to show that, while those opposite will talk a big game about saying that it's bipartisan, that families and children are protected from online abuse, they don't actually support the measures to enable that protection to occur when they're in front of them. The Greens won't support this bill. In the same way, we put forward mandatory sentences and longer sentences for those who commit the most horrible, heinous acts of child exploitation, and Labor refused to support them. They do this country a great disservice when they don't support the measures that actually allow us to address this kind of exploitation of all people, but particularly of children, online. It's this government that has established an eSafety Commissioner, a world first. It has allowed us to be a leading example of what it means to keep our citizens safe online. I'm pleased to say that I've had the chance to catch up with the eSafety Commissioner many times and talk to her about the work that she does. She's incredibly passionate about it, and I commend her. Speakers from Labor and the Greens would paint the eSafety Commissioner as some heartless bureaucrat siting there and wanting to play censor, but it couldn't be more the opposite. The eSafety Commissioner is an incredibly passionate woman who is dedicating her life to trying to make sure that we can prevent some of this online harm. She's not sitting there as a censor—quite the opposite; she is responding to complaints from people. People come to her and say: 'There are sexual images of my child online. Can you help me take them down?' They say: 'There is somebody saying something anonymously that is defamatory of me. I'm suffering. My mental health is suffering. I think it's bullying. Can you help me take it down?' That's what this legislation enables. The eSafety Commissioner doesn't sit there, trawling through every comment. She's not following the Greens Facebook page, for example, and deciding what political comments they can make. That's just a ridiculous argument from the member for Melbourne. She is sitting there and taking the complaints from everyday, ordinary Australians who want to take back some control when it comes to online content that is mentioning them and involving them. This legislation gives enhanced information powers to the eSafety Commissioner to unmask anonymous identities that are being used to bully and abuse and humiliate and harass online, and to work with tech companies to ensure that that kind of stuff is taken down. That's what it is going to take to keep Australians safe. Australians know this kind of anonymous content is wrong. We are empowering the eSafety Commissioner to address the emerging harms and respond more quickly to the worst of the worst content online, no matter where it is hosted. The mandatory transparency reporting requirements outlined in this bill allow the eSafety Commissioner to require online services to provide specific information about online harms, such as their response to material depicting abhorrent violent conduct or attacks organised by digital lynch mobs that seek to overwhelm a victim with a torrent of abuse—what an ordinary person would call trolling. It's abhorrent. It is simply wearing somebody down by sheer weight of defamatory, anonymous comments, and it has to stop in this country. I'm so proud that it's this government that's doing that. Importantly for industry, this bill establishes in law a set of basic online safety expectations. I think these are absolutely in line with Australian community expectations. Australians want to be protected online and, indeed, to be able to pursue damages in the way that they can for traditional media types like TV and print. It is about accountability in our online world. We're not talking about removing freedom of speech; we are talking about serious online harm. As I said, we're talking about families taking back the power to take action. Let's face it: these are criminal acts we are talking about, not censorship of political material, as the member for Melbourne said. These are criminal acts. This has been a long-term election commitment for us. This bill will increase penalties for the malicious use of a carriage service to menace, harass and cause offence, from three to five years. What do the Greens find so reprehensible in somebody being punished according to community standards when they bully, harass and cause offence? We hear a lot of nice words from the member for Melbourne about wanting to stand up for people and see justice in the world and all the rest, but, when it actually comes down to the crunch of supporting the powers that enable that to occur, we find him and the Labor Party missing in action, but not this government. This government has established the eSafety Commissioner. This government is now, through this bill, giving the commissioner better powers to enable all Australians to take back their lives online and defend their own freedom and reputation online. I absolutely think it's worth supporting, and I applaud it. 16:56 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby I sincerely hope that there is no-one in this place who does not agree, especially after the month that we have had, that every single Australian needs to be safe and to feel safe at home, in their workplace and when they're out in public. When they're out in public, that's not just a physical presence; it's also an online presence. That is precisely what this bill, the Online Safety Bill 2021, is trying to do: keep people safe when they're online and keep them free of bullying, of intimidation, of harassment, and of sexist, misogynist or downright criminal remarks. I am incredibly proud that our government has introduced this bill, and I sincerely hope we will see its quick passage. We know that the presence of people online and the manners in which people can interact online have grown exponentially in the past decade. There are so many good things that have come out of the World Wide Web and all the different apps and ways that we can communicate now, including social media, but there's also a terribly large amount of awful and unacceptable behaviour that has been allowed to grow and prosper in these online environments. Unfortunately, I, like many others in this place, have firsthand experience of instances of online abuse, and members of my community and their children have experienced it. We all have to work to stop it, to publicly condemn it and to make sure that people can get very quick and efficient recourse against perpetrators online. Before I get to my personal experience and then talk about the bill, I just want to acknowledge the leadership of the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts; of my colleague Nola Marino, the member for Forrest, who has done so much work to keep children safe online, including with the eSafety Commissioner; and also of the member for Mallee and the member for Newcastle, who have established the Parliamentary Friends of Making Social Media Safe. The member for Mallee in particular has been subjected to the most appalling abuse online, and I know that that's taken a very high toll on her, her husband, her family and her local community, for whom the member for Mallee has done such wonderful work in her profession and as a volunteer. I welcome comments, for example, from a senior cabinet minister, the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, who says that we all need to call out the vile hate speech that exists on social media. I remember that about two years ago Janet Albrechtsen, writing in The Australian, said that all of us must work out how to disagree better, whether in person or online. To reflect on my personal experience, it was, unfortunately, in and around the 2019 election. It can probably be demonstrated most obviously and clearly by the activities of the man who the South Australia Police finally charged for stalking me. They issued him with a stalking order. His behaviour was physical, but what I haven't really spoken about before is his online behaviour, which reiterated everything that he was doing in person to me to intimidate and harass me and make me feel incredibly unsafe going about my job. It started in December 2018, and it continued right up until the police turned up on his doorstep and issued him with that stalking order, which was about two weeks before the May 2019 election. He posted hundreds—possibly over 1,000—posts directly about me: posts of me out in the community; posts at community events; posts of events that he could not have possibly known about, because they were not advertised publicly; posts that criticised me and my policies and the way that I look; posts that, in the end, were becoming quite derogatory and very sexist. And it was impossible to have that stopped. That's what this bill will do. That's why it is so important, especially for people in the public sphere, that we will have a mechanism so that we can stop this sort of dangerous behaviour. And it wasn't just him; it was all the supporters that he was attracting: people whose names I saw associated with GetUp, with the Labor Party and with the unions. They were all posting in support of him. So it was the cumulative effect of his physical presence following me around with this large camera, not stopping when I asked him to stop, not stopping when the AFP turned up, and, then, finally stopping when the SA Police issued him with a stalking order. But he was posting all of that online with the commentary and with the intimidation, and this creepy old man was following me around, turning up when I don't even know that he was there, and then commenting on these photos that he's taken of me, when I was so busy doing my job that I wasn't even conscious that he had been present at some of these things. I was thinking: 'What on earth is going to happen next? Am I really safe?' Honestly, I did not feel safe. On top of that, with the last campaign it was the thousands of Facebook posts—mainly Facebook, but also Twitter. Serial offenders were just attacking me—nasty, nasty attacks. You block them and you ban them, but then more of them pop up. It is clearly an organised, concerted effort by GetUp, Labor and the unions—the same names pop up time and time again—to have a real go at me. Again, this is the sort of thing that will be able to be dealt with thanks to this bill—and quickly dealt with. We now have a mechanism to help keep people safe. That brings me to another individual. I wish that this legislation had been in place when they did their dirty handiwork, because it was, and remains, deeply troubling, especially the online response to their appalling post in the first place. It was about two weeks after the 2019 election, so it must have been either late May or early June when I went on the ABC TV program Q+A. When I appeared, Mike Carlton, a former journalist, live-tweeted: Never have I admired Jimmy Barnes so much as tonight. How does he not leap from his seat and strangle the Liberal shill on his right? I have the tweet here. This is from about a year ago. I don't know if it's been retweeted and liked since. Suggesting that Jimmy Barnes showed great restraint by not leaping up and strangling me was liked 1,125 times, and it was retweeted 206 times. The Q+A hashtag was on that tweet. What did the ABC do? Absolutely nothing. It was bad enough that his tweet used very dangerous and highly sexist language, but, as we know—and jurisdictions around Australia have now recognised this—non-fatal strangulation is a serious offence. This has been recognised by pretty much every jurisdiction around the nation. It is widely recognised as an action that is perpetrated, almost exclusively, by men against women. And that was the language he used. The comments were also made during a Q+A episode where Jimmy Barnes recounted one of the most horrific acts of domestic violence that I've ever heard, whereby his brother-in-law wrapped his sister's hair around a barbed wire fence and proceeded to beat her almost to death on their wedding night. That was the context in which Mike Carlton said that it was amazing that Jimmy Barnes didn't leap out of his chair and strangle me. But Mr Carlton's denigration of conservative women, Liberal women, women on the Right—whatever you want to call us—is not limited to me. He has attacked Rita Panahi, who is a very strong woman. She writes for the Herald Sun and she has a Sky News show. This is a direct quote from one of his tweets: I'm not sure what a Rita Panahi is. It sounds like one of those lolly pink, sticky sweet Indian rice puddings. For the record, Rita's not actually Indian. Not only did he denigrate her in a racial sense, but he also denigrated her as a woman. He has also attacked Daisy Cousens, a gorgeous, outspoken, highly intelligent young woman who has a great presence online and appears regularly on Sky News. Again, these are direct quotes from Mike Carlton's tweets: Dunno who or what is this Daisy Cousens. But she can't write and she's as thick as cow shit— Excuse my language, I know that's very unparliamentary— I don't think even the RWFWs take Crazy Daisy seriously. In tweets—I have them all—he has also called Judith Sloan, the highly intelligent, leading economist who writes regularly for The Australian, 'fatheaded', 'dimwitted' and 'Miss Piggy'. This is disgraceful behaviour. It is unacceptable. It has no place in this nation. Finally, with this bill, we might be able to stop people like this. Currently, it's very hard to do so. I know because I've tried. But wait, there's more. Tweeting about Sharri Markson—I'm so grateful to Sharri for attempting to hold him to account over many years for his appalling behaviour—Mike Carlton wrote: I'm reliably told that the weapons-grade halfwit and murdocracy toady @SharriMarkson has been going nutso about me all day. She's blocked me, of course, but I'd be very grateful if some of you might send her my best thanks and wishes. To which I replied—and I rarely bother replying to horrible trolls, especially to people like Mike Carlton: I rarely lower myself to respond to people like you, but Twitter should ban you for your disgusting attacks on women like me & @SharriMarkson & so many others. Twitter must reform their system & we must reform our Oz Hons system so some good comes from your dangerous behaviour. To which Mr Carlton replied: What a pathetic little twerp you are: a Liberal party hack of no notable attainment and no evident future. I do not abuse women and it is defamatory to say I do. Stop whining. As Harry Truman famously said, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. This is unacceptable. This is what I hope this bill will stop. If it doesn't, I'll be lobbying to strengthen it even further. But I have great faith that it will. All Australians should treat each other with respect, whether it's online or in person. It's one of the beautiful things about our country. It's a safe, free, respectful society and a strong democracy, but we have to protect that. I believe that this bill will. I'm very grateful to the minister for communications for introducing it and for listening to people like me very carefully. I am very grateful that this bill will enhance and expand the existing legislative framework so that harm that is visited upon people through online media can be proactively and swiftly defused, in the first instance, or dealt with by the law, in the latter instance. This is a world-leading initiative, and it follows on from other excellent work that we have done in this area. As I remarked on at the start of this speech, technological developments have presented new ways for Australians to engage with one another, but they have also presented new risks and regulatory challenges. Indeed, as I'm sure members are all aware, the bill's explanatory memorandum lays out an incredibly disturbing list of types of online harm, including cyberbullying, abusive commentary, trolling, non-consensual sharing of intimate images, child grooming, cyberflashing, cyberstalking, technology facilitated abuse and the sharing of personal information without consent, otherwise known as doxxing. As I've just outlined, unfortunately, I have experienced some of this behaviour. The broadening of the eSafety Commissioner's remit will bring ancillary service providers under the expanded regulatory umbrella—which I think is very important—as well as search engines and app stores, because we know there are so many different ways that individuals can distribute and disseminate abusive material and messages online. I want to close by again acknowledging the leadership of the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts in overseeing this groundbreaking work to modernise and expand the legislative and regulatory framework that provides the protections Australians should be able to enjoy. It just disappoints me that we haven't done this sooner—much, much sooner—but I'm incredibly proud that it is our government that is finally acting. I also again want to acknowledge the member for Forrest, because I know that she was an early adopter of seeing the need to keep children safe online. I know she has spent many, many hours visiting schools in her electorate to talk about how to stay safe online and about the work of the eSafety Commissioner. I want to acknowledge the eSafety Commissioner and the ones who have come previously, because they are the people who have helped us to get to this point. They are the people who have worked incredibly hard over the years to try to keep Australians safe. I am very pleased that the keyboard cretins who hide behind their computer screens at home and put up fake profiles will no longer be able to attack, in such hateful ways, people in public life, kids at school and members of the public. Nobody deserves this. I commend this bill to the House and, in doing so, implore all Australians to please be respectful to one another. 17:11 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I begin by thanking the member for Boothby for her moving speech, because what she brings to this discussion—which is one of law—is the human experience of the awful abuse that she has experienced. Don't make any mistake about it: among those in this place, it is not just the member for Boothby who's experienced awful abuse. Many members know the same experience. Tragically, it's the price for putting yourself up there and wanting to make your country a better place. This bill, the Online Safety Bill 2021, starts from a very basic proposition: conduct that is unacceptable offline should not somehow be licensed online. I'm one of the first people to say that this area of law is a very complicated and difficult one, because, the more opaque the law, the more flexibility we give, the more we empower regulators and censors to be able to decide what can be published and what cannot. But what we know is that, where there is incessant intent and malice in the conduct and what is published, it has a direct impact on people and their mental health and wellbeing and, critically, on young and vulnerable minds that aren't fully developed. Sadly, the member for Boothby has outlined the despicable conduct she's experienced at the hands of online trolls, GetUp and, sadly, activists for the Australian Labor Party, among others. Sadly, we see this conduct every day on social media. I'm not suggesting that people on the other side of this chamber haven't experienced abuse themselves. I have no doubt that members opposite me in the chamber right now have experienced despicable conduct from online trolls—absolutely despicable conduct—on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender and the like. I know that's been experienced by members on this side, too. But, truthfully, this bill isn't just about us. In fact, it's definitely not about us. It's about the Australian people—about all of us—and the conduct that's experienced by young Australians, particularly where social media is part of their native environment. They are put in a position where people target them deliberately and maliciously in content to harass, to bully and to engage in violent abuse and cyberbullying, which can even have fatal consequences. And it needs to stop. The foundation on which it needs to stop is not from law. It's from the soft law of expectation, where people are held in the good standing of others and they moderate their behaviour. One of the biggest challenges we face online is, of course, where there is anonymous conduct where people feel that they can conduct themselves in a licensed environment in anonymity, and you see this every day. I'm not complaining—it's just the nature of these things, unfortunately—but there's been a fake tweet put out today in my name alleging that I wished ill on the protest marchers yesterday outside this place. Actually, if you look at what I said in this place, I was supporting the spirit of the marches—in particular, gender equality—but that doesn't stop unlicensed, deceptive, misleading and dishonest liars and frauds putting out malicious content and then it being repeated by their useful idiots in the Twittersphere and then on Facebook and other social media platforms. Again, I'm not the only one who's ever experienced this. I'm sure even the member for Melbourne, with whom I have many disagreements, has experienced that, as I'm sure the member for Chisholm and every member for every other electorate has experienced it. That's just tragically part of, as I said at the start, the consequence. This bill is not trying to say free and public debate should be stopped at all but is saying that, to the extent that we can through law, there is a responsibility in how you conduct yourself online, that basic safety expectations be put in place and that industry be held as accountable as people for their conduct, particularly where they're the vehicle for publishing the material online and particularly—and this is a consequence of the Christchurch terrorist attacks, horrific attacks which were despicably used as a form of political attack today in the form of a question at question time—to stop abhorrent violent communication and conduct and volumetric attacks being part of online discourse that is normalised. We want to stop cyberbullying, and that's why we have included in the legislation a strengthened cyberbullying scheme for Australian children. There is no environment in which we would accept bullying of children—not in the schoolyard, amongst their peers or in other settings—and we're certainly not going to accept it online. We need to make sure there are proper processes for notification and identification and for there to be appropriate penalties where bullying occurs. But critically, so often with younger Australians who are digital natives, there is a pathway where they may use technology in their adolescent minds for content of a sexual nature. They may become victims of attacks such as revenge porn, where content is used against people's will and is then used as the basis to target, bully and attack them. That sort of content is the most despicable content, particularly when it may have been taken in privacy, and should never be used as a basis for targeting and bullying others. I don't think anyone's under any illusion that the challenges we face from an evolving online platform make it harder to legislate and to regulate what goes on. In many cases, it would be bad if the state had the power to regulate what goes on. But there are lines that we all accept: there is no place for harassment in society; there is no place for bullying in society; there is no place for violence, online or offline, in society; and there is certainly no place in society for where people are taken to the point where they feel safe and then they lose their own dignity because they have been targeted in a malicious way by either individuals or digital lynch mobs because those individuals or mobs think they can get away with it. We as a government are doing what I hope that most members in this place would support, which is to support Australians to have a basic standard of safety. I've had some people who have raised with me concerns around some aspects of this legislation, particularly around the empowerment of what content may breach thresholds or lines, particularly around offensive conduct. But I've made it clear and made an effort to go and look at the specific details and how they would interact, and the specific measures, which ordinarily would raise concern on my part, are targeted principally at stopping revenge porn. I don't know anybody in this place—and I would hope there is nobody beyond this place—who thinks that revenge porn is acceptable or would tolerate such conduct or think that it should be legal. The threshold we apply when we want to limit people's conduct in the public square, online or offline, is to assume that all conduct is legal unless we explicitly make it illegal. This bill seeks to make it explicitly illegal, and rightly so. This legislation has an important part. When the mums and dads, dads and dads, mums and mums and everybody in between and everybody else in society look at the safety of their children in this country, they can know that, whatever happens offline or online, the Morrison government has their back. We understand the concerns and the fears for safety that exist within the community, and we understand that, if you're engaging in ordinary, lawful conduct, you shouldn't become the target of harassment, abuse or online bullying. That's how you have a society that prospers and flourishes, in which people can go about their lives wanting to be able to contribute rather than fearing the worst. And, in many ways, what this law does is harmonise the offline and the online. We're going to need to keep targeting, and tinkering with, these laws because the challenges and the nefarious uses of social media platforms by other Australians and by people from overseas towards Australians and the reverse are not going to change. People seek to exploit avenues, and sometimes it's done through the innocence of adolescence. We've got to set a new standard. That's why this law is important, but it is not the end. It is not even the beginning, because it starts with the responsibility of the individual and of parents to assist their children in understanding their conduct as part of a value stream of how they should conduct themselves in a free society. But it is an important step, and it's a step that Australians can have confidence in, understanding that we can serve the values that underpin the strength of our nation around protecting people's freedom in all senses—freedom to express themselves in a public square, as well as their freedom online to be able to express themselves without facing bullying, intimidation or harassment of an offline or online kind. It won't fix everything, but it's another tool in the toolbox to, hopefully, conserve the best of our nature. 17:22 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I thank all of those in the chamber who have contributed to the debate on the Online Safety Bill 2021. I'd particularly like to thank and acknowledge the member for Boothby, who, a short time ago, shared with our parliament and our nation the appalling ordeals, vitriol and venom she has had to endure just for doing her job as an MP in this place. I think it showed tremendous courage. Our parliament will be the poorer for her retirement at the next election. We need more members of her calibre, and she will be missed. This bill sends a clear message that the government and society as a whole expect industry to work harder to prevent online harms occurring in the first place and introduces important new protections for Australians when wrong is done and when crimes are committed. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Gellibrand has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. 17:24 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I want to have the Greens' opposition to the bill as currently drafted recorded. We urge the government to withdraw it and come back with a new bill. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 54 17:25 Mr GEE 261393 Calare by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 55

Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021

Second Reading 55 Third Reading 55 17:26 Mr GEE 261393 Calare by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021 55

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021

Second Reading 55 17:27 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton Monday 23 March 2020 is a day I will never forget. It is a day that none of us will forget. Long queues formed outside Centrelink shopfronts around the nation. We all remember them on our television screens. I could see them in my electorate as I drove to work, as others could. I went to a queue in Rockdale, and people were in shock. There were phone calls to my office from anxious residents in the Barton electorate, as well as around the country. They were anxious and confused by the rapidly changing circumstances and about what support would be available to them. Coronavirus had hit. It was more than a health emergency. It presented an economic emergency too, collectively as well as individually. Phone lines to Centrelink were inundated, and the myGov website crashed. The coronavirus reminded Australians about the randomness of finding oneself in hardship. I've always said the loss of a job or being unable to find one is often beyond the control of individuals. There are demographic factors that influence employment prospects, as well as the period of time spent unemployed. But they are often beyond an individual's control. They may be demographic, as I said, but there are other factors. Workers over 55, for example, experience the most difficulty re-entering the workforce—women, in particular—as a result of structural barriers and age discrimination, but these are factors beyond one's control. Tertiary qualifications or a lengthy career are also no safeguard from unemployment later in life. I have heard so many stories from workers in their 50s and 60s who have worked all their lives and who never, ever imagined they would experience long-term unemployment. I know other members in this chamber also know those stories. These workers never envisaged that they would be spending their 50s and 60s struggling, pushed to the edge of poverty and hardship. It just reiterates the randomness and the unexpectedness of unemployment. No-one really chooses to be out of work. Labor believes in the best of Australians. Labor understands that people are proud and families take pride. Labor understands that Australians just want a good job, to contribute and to build a life for themselves and for their families. We understand that, sometimes, Australians just need a bit of help when they are in between jobs. There are some families and individuals who, through no fault of their own, will never compete in the labour market, and this is such an important point to understand. It could be absolutely entrenched disadvantage, beyond what any of us could imagine. It could be mental illness. It could be family dynamics. There are seven Australians on JobSeeker for every job vacancy. Think about that, and think about a figure which was relayed to me yesterday by the Unemployed Workers Union: there are 60 Australians on JobSeeker for every entry-level job—60. It really is unfathomable that the government continues to insinuate that Australians are choosing to be unemployed. They are not. We also understand the economic function that our social security safety net plays. Australians receiving income support spend it on local businesses, helping to sustain local jobs. There is an economic imperative. It's not just about supporting Australians looking for a job; it's about sustaining jobs too. This bill will increase the base rate of the working age payments by $50 a fortnight, or about $3.57 a day, from the end of March. But the reality is that, for the 1.3 million Australians on JobSeeker, there will be a $100 per fortnight cut to their household budgets. That is an undeniable reality. This is because the coronavirus supplement, currently $150 a fortnight, will come to an end at the same time. Let me be very clear: Labor is not going to stand in the way of this increase, as modest as it is. An increase is an increase. And we will not play cruel political games with this bill or with the lives of people who are doing it tough at the moment, who rely on this increase the most. We will not jeopardise this increase. The simple constitutional reality is that only the government can increase expenditure. Let me be clear, crystal clear: only the government can set unemployment payments at a higher rate. Any amendments to this bill will simply not work, whether made in the Senate or the House. Labor is calling on the government to use the power of the Treasury benches to do the right thing. This is why I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes that: (a) the effect of this bill will be to cut unemployment payments by $100 per fortnight at the end of March, at the same time as JobKeeper is ending; and (b) over 1.3 million people are on unemployment payments—almost double the number before the pandemic; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) abandon its counterproductive and punitive plans for a dob-in-a-jobseeker hotline that will only make life harder for job seekers and employers by further increasing mutual obligation requirements at a time when unemployment and underemployment is high; (b) consider allowing people to keep more of their earnings from part-time, casual or seasonal work, to help people move into employment; and (c) do more to support Australians facing poverty and hardship—through adequate payments to those who need them, housing, addressing child poverty, and better health and education services". If Labor were in government, we would approach this whole issue very differently. We would focus on job creation, on poverty reduction and on how much it actually costs to get by. But we are not in government, and any amendments relating to money simply cannot work. Only the government can increase expenditure, and the Prime Minister has made it clear that he is not open to considering any change. We all know this. Moving money amendments to this bill only does two things. Let me say that again. Moving money amendments to this bill only does two things: it cruelly offers false hope to the most vulnerable people in our country, and it risks playing chicken with people's lives by delaying this bill, which has to pass the parliament this week if payments are not to go way back down to the pre-pandemic rate. I'm also very disappointed and surprised that the government is cutting in half the amount of money a person can earn before losing their payment. One of the best ways to help people into work, particularly if it is casual or seasonal, is to let people keep more of their payments in the beginning so that they are not worried about having to wait again to get access to help when their short-term job ends. In their submission on this bill, the National Youth Commission said: The low-income free area is a disincentive to seek work … The existing income test cuts in when young people begin to pay income tax, reducing the rewards from work. The combined effect of income test taper rate and income tax is the 'effective marginal tax rate'. The taper rate at 50-cents in the dollar plus the actual marginal tax rate of 19 cents for incomes over $18,000 per year creates an effective marginal tax rate of 69 cents above the income free threshold. The effective tax rate becomes 79 cents in the dollar at the 60-cent taper rate. These are higher than the top marginal tax rate of 47 cents applied to annual incomes over $180,000. People deserve better than that. Too often, discussions about social security do not put the people affected front and centre. Living in poverty or getting by on very little is really, really difficult, and it is the reality far, far too many Australians experience. Child poverty exists in this country, for over a million children. Poverty is a reality for many of the people we represent, and many of those people are in National Party seats. In a country like Australia, we should not have poverty. There should be opportunity and security for all, particularly for children. No-one chooses to be on income support. It's exhausting: navigating and negotiating payment plans, hunting down the cheaper options, dealing with public transport, and coming up with excuses or explaining why you can't come along or can't participate. That is to say nothing of the stress, the worry and the anxiety, knowing that bills are due or that a lease is up or that you won't be getting enough casual hours of work. It's very hard to secure a good and decent job if it comes along. All of this is simply out of reach for so many people. It is hard to have a go when you can't even get a go. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer were the last people to come to the table to acknowledge that the rate of JobSeeker is too low. Labor and many others have long been calling for an increase to the rate of unemployment payments. This includes academics and experts, as well as the Governor of the Reserve Bank, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Retailers Association and the Council for Small Business of Australia, just to name some of them. Recently the Governor of the Reserve Bank said: For me it's not a macroeconomic management issue, it is a fairness issue: what is the appropriate level of support we should provide to people who are unemployed? He also warned that there was still quite a long way to go before we reach our goals of full employment and inflation consistent with that target, due to substantial spare capacity. There simply aren't enough jobs in Australia for everyone who needs one. There are almost twice as many people relying on unemployment payments as there were before the pandemic. The last figures from February show that there are 192,000 vacancies compared to over 1.3 million people relying on unemployment payments. The sums don't work. There are seven people on unemployment payments for every one job vacancy. Those figures are averaged. In some electorates that are represented by people in this place, the figure is much lower in terms of vacancies and higher in terms of people who are on unemployment payments, and that doesn't begin to count all those Australians who are unemployed or underemployed but who are not receiving payments. For those getting by on payments, this increase will not end poverty, but it will reduce the depth of hardship that would be caused by going all the way back to the old Newstart rate at the end of March. The ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods told the inquiry into this bill: For the people who were on that payment prior to COVID, basically it returns to the previous rate. With the slight increase we have seen in the JobSeeker payment by $50 a fortnight, there is a small reduction in that poverty rate. So, instead of it being around 83 per cent, it has come down to about 80 per cent. For so many, it will be incredibly tough, after the increased payments that the government rightly switched to during the pandemic, to have to go back to juggling, to going without and to the sleeplessness and stress that people truly experience. Australia's social safety net is a proud Labor legacy, which is helping Australians to age with dignity, helping Australians who are sick or unwell and unable to work, and helping Australians to get by while they are looking for work. It was the Fisher Labor government that introduced the age pension back in 1908 and it was the Curtin Labor government that introduced social security for unemployment in the wake of the Second World War in 1945. Australians were willing to accept a social safety net because Australians understand the random nature of misfortune. Australians understand that the loss of a job, or being unable to find one, is usually beyond one's control. Workers can rest assured that, should they ever find themselves out of work, the social safety net will be there to help them make ends meet. Workers should have peace of mind that they will still be able to put food on the table, keep the roof over their heads, pay the bills and look after their children. The government's appalling legacy, on the other hand, has been to cut and undermine the social safety net. Their lack of compassion has been on full display. They know the situation they have put people in. If it were up to some in the government, there would be no increase in social security payments. With the help of the Greens and the crossbench, they have been able to cut over $12 billion from social security. This includes things like cutting the pension for 370,000 people by changing the assets test, completely cutting the schoolkids bonus, cutting pensioner concessions and freezing the family tax rate. Labor opposed each and every one of these cuts. Labor has also been able to block another $12 billion in cuts to the pension and social security. These include things like the government's plan to make people under 30 wait six months for unemployment payments—imagine that in a pandemic; cutting family tax benefits; increasing the pension age to 70; cutting PPL and calling mothers 'double dippers'; and scrapping the energy supplement for new applicants. And no-one will forget that this is the same government that gave us robodebt. In this parliament, Labor have stood up for those on social security, and we will continue to do so. But improvements to the system cannot be made from opposition. A Labor government would approach issues of equity, poverty and social security in a much more compassionate way than those opposite. Labor can't undo all the damage done by this three-term Liberal-National government, but in every budget a Labor government will make helping those in need a priority, and we will balance payment rates against other investments in housing, jobs, health and education. This government's punitive and counterproductive mutual obligation changes will not do anything to help Australians looking for a job. If the best the government can come up with for the two million Australians looking for a job is a hotline for employers to report people who haven't agreed to a job, regardless of the reason, they really are showing the hallmarks of a tired and empty eight-year-old government. In a list of all the bizarre things to emerge from this clueless government, a hotline to report people for missing an interview has to be near the top. Where is the hotline for people who have been systemically underpaid? This isn't a plan for jobs—this is a bizarre hotline that will inevitably see the government hound people looking for work rather than help them into a job—and neither are the changes that require those on the job hunt for over six months to undertake short courses, instead of making a real investment in their skills, nor are the plans for jobseekers to apply for 20 jobs per month. The government has no real plan for the millions of Australians who have found themselves without work because of this pandemic. Labor will also be moving a detailed amendment to put some principles into the mutual obligation system. I'll be totally clear: Labor supports and believes in mutual obligations. We support mutual obligation. It is an important part of the Australian social contract. However, it needs to be mutual; it needs to be based on reciprocity. Mutual obligation should not be a punishment. It should help a person looking for work and it should be about making a contribution to society, either directly or by preparing people for the workforce. I've heard countless stories of people who are being utterly failed by the current system—'just sit on a computer' or being told the wrong time for an interview. There are many other examples that I know people will be talking about. People are offered pointless training jobs and refused practical help. They are told to apply for jobs that require a car when they don't have one. They are told to apply for jobs that require physicality that many people do not have. That's to say nothing of the discriminatory Community Development Program, which subjects First Nations Australians to excessive and arbitrary requirements instead of working with communities on jobs and projects that matter locally. Over the forward estimates, $8.5 billion will be spent on unemployment services. Taxpayers and jobseekers need to know that this very significant investment is actually going to help people prepare for work. Labor's amendment will require mutual obligation rules to help people to get a job or to get the skills to get a job; to take into account the availability of suitable jobs and a person's skills; to take into account a person's personal circumstances, including caring responsibilities, access to transport, medical conditions and disabilities; and to not be an unnecessary burden or annoyance to employers. The last point is very important. Under the government's plan there would be at least 141 applicants for every single vacancy. We know from speaking to employers that in many cases there are hundreds or even thousands of applications to some jobs. It annoys them, it makes them feel powerless and it means a dreadful outcome for people applying for these jobs. There is a better way to do this. Punitive mutual obligation does not create jobs; it just wears people out—both those who are unemployed and employers. The Australian Retailers Association told a Senate inquiry: We think it doesn't really add to solving the real problem here. …   …   … The concern we would have is it may just drive the wrong behaviour: that people go through the process just for the purpose of securing unemployment benefits. That could just add more administration and costs to the retailers going through that process. This point is so important. 'Mutual' means reciprocity. 'Mutual' means two ways. My fear is that this government sees mutual obligation as a one-way street for people who are experiencing great difficulty and want to do the right thing. The mutual obligation that the government's proposing is not mutual obligation; it's just harassing people. Labor believes, as I said, in mutual obligation. It's a fundamental tenet to the contract that people enter into. People understand this, but it has to be a two-way street. Labor's amendments are a set of principles that should guide mutual obligation in the social security system. They are principles that we have thought about, they are principles that will work, they are principles that apply the important point of mutual obligation in a mutual way. In conclusion, we will not be giving cruel false hope to people by moving money amendments that simply cannot succeed because of the rules of the parliament. The only way to change the budget is to change the government. In every budget a Labor government would make helping those in need a priority. Poverty will be high on our agenda, and we will balance payment rates against other investments in housing, jobs, health and education. I want to finish my contribution today by saying that we will not vote against this bill, because it does mean more money into the pockets of those who are unemployed. However, I want this House to listen carefully to what I have said today in this contribution. It is important for 1.3 million Australians, and who knows what the change for those 1.3 million people will mean when JobKeeper finishes. The Treasurer has said—twice now, two days in a row—that, when JobKeeper comes off, it's going to be 'rocky'. It's going to be rocky for people who don't have employment. It's going to be rocky for people who find themselves lining up out the front of Centrelink. As I started my contribution today by saying, we will never forget Monday 23 March 2020; that was the day that we saw those lines in each and every one of our electorates. And people were frightened. They were shocked. They did not know what the future held. I don't want to see that again. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Giles 243609 I remember those lines, and I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 17:56 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise to support the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021. This bill is an investment in the Australian people, helping them to get back into the workforce. It will go a long way to helping vulnerable Australians and will work for those who need it most. The Morrison government is committed to this $9 billion increase to the pre-COVID-pandemic JobSeeker rate. This equates to about a 10 per cent increase on the government's annual JobSeeker spend and represents, most importantly, the largest year-on-year increase to unemployment benefits since 1986. There will be some people who will say, 'This is not enough,' but let me clarify that this is the first real increase to the unemployment benefit rate since the Keating Labor government increased the rate by $2.95 a week, or 42c a day, in 1992. What we're offering with this bill is a $50 a fortnight increase. That's more than eight times greater than what the ALP had to offer almost three decades ago. We believe that the base level of support that exists within our social safety net needs to be adjusted, not just for the here and now but for the long term. That is why this increase is permanent. And it is something that all Australians can be proud of. It's about supporting those who are in need. It's about supporting our most vulnerable. But let me be clear. While the JobSeeker increase is about increasing the safety net for those who need it most, it is not a wage replacement; nor is it an extension of COVID supports or stimulus. As always, the government's key focus is job creation and getting people back into work, because we know that getting a job is the best way to support people and their families. This bill is timely, as we know, because the COVID pandemic has caused a once-in-a-lifetime disruption to the labour market. All Australians should be proud of our comprehensive welfare system and that it was able to provide emergency support to Australians who found themselves unemployed. We all saw those huge lines outside Centrelink one year ago, and we all heard the collective sigh of relief right across Australia when the amazing JobKeeper program was implemented—a program that delivered support to those in a job and delivered dignity to those who were finding that their businesses were at risk. At the beginning of the COVID pandemic, we put in place a series of emergency measures designed to protect Australian livelihoods and lives, and that is what we've done throughout the COVID crisis. We've always kept our eye firmly on the fact that the COVID pandemic was a dual crisis. This crisis was both a health one and an economic one. By the end of March this year, we will have injected around $33 billion through emergency payments into our welfare system since the start of the COVID pandemic to support unemployed Australians. We backed in Australians facing a crisis that, through no fault of their own, was causing devastation, and, as the Prime Minister has said, we did it the Australian way. The coronavirus supplement, which was our first initiative, helped ensure that we strengthened the safety net that not every country in the world has already had in place but one upon which Australians have relied. At the same time that we announced this increased, strengthened safety net, we said that it had to be targeted, it had to be scalable and it had to be time-limited. Australians know they can expect certainty with our government. We've lived up to our word, and, as the impact of the COVID pandemic continued, we extended but scaled back the supplement as required. Our emergency measures have worked. The comeback in Australia's economy is already well underway, and it betters the experience of most developed nations in the world today. It's something we can all be proud of, on both sides of the House. It means that we no longer need to rely on the supports which have sustained us during the last 12 months to the same degree. It is time for us to move on past this crisis. With the commencement of the vaccination program, Australia is comfortably moving into the next phase of how we fight the COVID pandemic. We've aggressively suppressed it, and we're now moving into the vaccination phase. We will continue to battle to secure the livelihoods and lives of all Australians, but now that our vaccine rollout is underway it is time we moved from short-term emergency measures to long-term arrangements that people can rely on should they find themselves out of work. We need to think about the fact that the economic outlook is improving and the recovery is well underway. The resilience in the labour market reinforces that Australia entered this crisis from a position of labour market and economic strength. Fifty-thousand new jobs were created in December alone, 71 per cent of which were full time, and 785,000 jobs have been created in the last seven months, with 90 per cent of the record number of jobs lost at the height of the COVID pandemic already recovered. Further, the unemployment rate has decreased from 7.5 per cent in July last year to 6.6 per cent in December. That is remarkable. Of the 1.3 million people who lost their job or were stood down on zero hours, 90 per cent are now back at work. Australian job advertisements, measured by ANZ, rose 2.3 per cent in the month of January—the eighth consecutive monthly gain, increasing the annual growth up to 5.3 per cent, with the series at its highest level since April 2019. These are encouraging signs, to say the least. According to the National Australia Bank business survey, both business confidence and conditions have increased above pre-pandemic levels—and their respective long-run average. The economy is pumped, primed and ready. And those facts are simply remarkable. Business conditions rose further in December, increasing seven points to a positive 14 index points, its highest level since late 2018. While consumer and business confidence has recovered as restrictions have come off, this will be further supported by the vaccine rollout. The bill we debate today will support millions of Australians. In fact, from 1 April, if passed, it will provide 1.95 million Australians who are currently accessing working age payments with a permanent $50 per fortnight increase in their rate of payment. I'm sure they will be relieved to hear that this increase is permanent. In addition, we are also permanently increasing the amount of money jobseekers can earn before they lose a cent of payment up to $150 per fortnight. We are also temporarily extending the waiver of the one-week ordinary waiting period for certain payments for a further three months till 30 June 2021. Further, we'll also be temporarily extending to 30 June 2021 the expanded eligibility criteria for the JobSeeker payment and youth allowance for those required to self-isolate on the basis of directions from health authorities or to care for others as a result of COVID. We know there are still effects from COVID that need to be taken into account as we transition to our post-COVID recovery. While the comeback in Australia's economy is already underway, we know we continue to confront challenges caused by the COVID pandemic. While we're scaling back the COVID economic stimulus payments, let me be clear that the JobSeeker increase is an increase to the base rate of payment. It is not a cut, as those opposite would have you believe. For it to be a cut, it would have to be a reduction relative to an ongoing measure. JobSeeker is fundamentally important, but so are the other forms of welfare that people can access. It is worth noting that 99 per cent of people on JobSeeker receive additional payments on top of their base rate. For instance, a single renter with no dependants will receive a fortnightly payment of $620 plus an $8.80 emergency energy supplement and $140 in rent assistance, a total of $770 a fortnight. Approximately 685,000 Australians, or 55 per cent of JobSeeker payment recipients, are in this position. This increase was also not designed with stimulus in mind. The government does not make decisions about safety net supports based on how it will impact aggregate demand. While there may be a second-order effect, it is not the reason that we make changes to payments. In making this decision, we had to consider a range of factors while balancing three key principles: firstly, our responsibility to support those who can't help themselves, and unemployed Australians; secondly, to incentivise people to take up work; and, thirdly, to keep the welfare budget sustainable. Amongst the factors we considered was the fact that the minimum wage has been growing at a faster rate than unemployment benefits. This increase pushes the base rate up to 41 per cent of the national minimum wage, which is up from 37 per cent, putting it at the level it was during the early 2000s. The government also believes it is important for payments to cease before a welfare recipient's income reaches the minimum wage. This means that individuals will always be better off in a job than on welfare. People receiving the base rate of JobSeeker will cease to be eligible for payments once their earnings reach $1,217 per fortnight, or $1,449 for those receiving rent assistance. The government has always been focused on balancing support for unemployed Australians with incentives to work. We understand that it's hard to live without a job. This JobSeeker increase will work alongside the existing opportunities we provide to upskill and retrain job-seeking Australians and support people back into work. That's why, as a permanent reform, we're increasing the income-free area to $150 per fortnight. We want to encourage all unemployed Australians to dip their toe in the jobs market and take the first step towards re-engaging with the workforce. We know it builds confidence for them. That has been the consistent feedback from businesses in particular industries and regions where recruitment remains difficult, and it has been reflected in firm indicators such as the monthly employers survey conducted by the National Skills Commission. It is not right for these industries to suffer and for taxpayers to reach into their pockets while plenty of jobs go undone, including unskilled and low-skilled jobs that are suitable for a wide range of those who could do them. This bill will provide people with additional support as the economy continues to recover and they're able to transition back to work. It will allow people to keep more of what they earn as they reconnect with the labour market. This plan is not only significant; it is fair and sustainable for both unemployed people and the taxpayers who fund the support. It is a historic increase in welfare payments, and it should be recognised as such. This is about making sure we get the balance right between support for people while they look for a job and incentives to work. I commend the bill to the House. 18:09 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith This bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021, increases the base rate of working age payments, most notably the JobSeeker payment, by $50 a fortnight, or about $3.57 a day, from the end of this month. But, in practical terms, people who are relying on social security will face a $100-per-fortnight cut to their household budgets. That's because the coronavirus supplement, which is currently $150 a fortnight, will come to an end at the same time. For some years now, this has been a vexed issue in Australia. The Labor Party has recognised that the current rate of JobSeeker is way too low and deliberately leaves Australians living in poverty. There's been a chorus of Australians—leaders, former prime ministers, the Reserve Bank governor—who've called for an increase in the rate of the JobSeeker payment. Labor will not stand in the way of this increase, as modest as it is. But the reality is that $3.57 a day will not cut it for most Australians who will be forced to live on this payment for a period of time. The reality is that people will still be living in poverty. Under this government, if this increase goes through, they will still be living below the defined, official level of the Henderson poverty line. That is a cruel reality for many Australians who are trying to make ends meet at one of their most vulnerable times. It's simply not enough. The other reality is that the only way you're going to get a decent payment from JobSeeker is if there is a Labor government elected in Australia, because it's only Labor that inquires into this and ensures that there are decent increases in social security payments for some of the most vulnerable Australians at their most difficult times, to ensure that they and their families are not deliberately forced to live in poverty. So Labor is calling on the government to use the power of the Treasury benches, to use the power of government, to do the right thing. This really is about fairness and decency for Australian people and about growing the Australian economy and creating jobs, because there's an economic benefit from ensuring that people aren't living in poverty and that social security payments are adequate for people to be able to participate in society. Too often, discussions about social security do not put the people affected front and centre. Living in poverty or getting by on very little must be incredibly tough. Over the past couple of months, I've met with a number of people in the community that I represent who have lost their jobs because of the recession and are on JobKeeper—even with the supplement—and are telling me about their struggles. I've met historically with people who've been on JobSeeker for many years, pre-COVID, who relayed to me their struggles just to survive and feed themselves and their families, let alone try and find work. It's been the reality for too many Australians for too long. In a country like Australia, where we have relatively high living standards and are relatively wealthy, people should not deliberately be left living in poverty, but that is the outcome of this government's approach to welfare payments and, in particular, of this change to the JobSeeker payment. It's a full-time job, being poor. That's basically what a few people have told me—negotiating payment plans, hunting down the cheapest options, dealing with inadequate and slow public transport, and explaining to people why you can't come along to events or participate, simply because you can't afford it. And that's to say nothing of the stress or the worry that comes from knowing that bills are due, that a lease is up or that you won't be getting enough hours, because those hours that you may get will only be casual hours. It's hard to be in the best position to secure a job, if and when one comes along, when all your money, time and energy is taken up in just getting by. A haircut, decent clothes, training and transport—all of this is simply out of reach for too many people who are forced to try and survive on this payment. It's hard to have a go when you can't even get a start. Labor have, for a long time, been calling for an increase in the rate of unemployment payments in Australia, as have many others. They include the Governor of the Reserve Bank, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Retailers Association, academics and experts, and the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia—just to name a few. Even former Prime Minister John Howard and others from the Liberal side of politics have called for an adequate increase to the JobSeeker payment. I want to point to the words of the Reserve Bank governor, who recently said: For me, it's not really a macroeconomic management issue. It's kind of a fairness issue on what's the appropriate level of support we should provide to people who are unemployed. He also warned: … there is still quite a way to go before we reach our goals of full employment and inflation consistent with the target. This is due, he said, to 'substantial spare capacity'. Increasing the rate of JobKeeper to ensure that you try and get people out of poverty is not only the fair and right thing to do; it's also good economic policy, because we all know that people who are on low incomes spend a higher proportion of that income on the necessities of life, if they are given a boost in that income, as we have seen with the coronavirus supplement—which was specifically targeted by this government at ensuring that we were boosting spending in the economy to support investment and to support businesses and to support jobs—and you provide them with a livable supplement. But this struggles to do that. So we know that people who are on lower incomes, who are struggling to make ends meet, will spend a higher proportion of their income on their needs in the economy. And that's good for jobs. If we're talking about a recovery from this recession, then that is good for jobs. There have been numerous economic analyses which demonstrate that improved income support and improvements in the rate of JobSeeker and unemployment payments will basically pay for themselves over time. The analysis that was done by Deloitte came to a similar conclusion: if you provide an adequate increase in the rate of JobSeeker, it pays for itself in the increased economic activity that's generated from the increased spending, the jobs growth and the income taxation that's generated by that—it's good for everyone. Yet this government can't get past the ideological obsession, which they often have, and their belief that everyone on a JobSeeker payment or something like it is a dole bludger and is gaming the system. There are simply not enough jobs in Australia for everyone who needs one. There are almost twice as many people relying on unemployment benefits as there were before the pandemic. We know that there could be up to 143 job applicants for every job vacancy when the government's mutual obligation requirements increase. The Senate committee that looked into this particular bill said that, as part of the increase, Australians on JobKeeper were required to apply for 20 jobs per month from 1 July as part of their mutual obligations. When Labor senators asked officials from the Department of Social Services who fronted the committee whether they were aware how many job applications are expected for each vacancy when the 20-applications-per-month-rule returns, those officials were unable to provide advice and took the question on notice. But there were 192,000 job advertisements in February, based on the Internet Vacancy Index, and 1.38 million people on unemployment benefits, based on DSS data. That means that there could be up to 27 million applications each month, or 143 applications per job vacancy, if this was applied in that particular month. We're calling on the government to explain how it's reasonable to require Australians who are going to be struggling to make ends meet to look for work and to make those 20 job applications per month, particularly given the number of vacancies that we know exist. The government's also gone further with this. Again, this goes to the ideology of this government and those opposite about people who are receiving supplements such as this. The government's now introducing a hotline for employers to report people who haven't agreed to a job, regardless of the reason. They're really showing the hallmarks of their ideology with this reform. I'm in full support of the amendment that's been moved by the member for Barton asking that this requirement be removed. Of all the bizarre things to emerge from this government, a hotline to report people for an interview has to be near the top of the list. It's not a plan for jobs. It's not a plan to get people back to work. This is a bizarre hotline that will inevitably see the government hound people looking for work, rather than assist them to get into employment. The philosophy of this, as I said, is about automatically seeing people who are receiving this supplement as welfare cheats and people who are trying to game the system, rather than people who have genuinely lost their jobs, are struggling to make ends meet and are trying to get back into the workforce. The other point to make about JobSeeker recipients is that, in non-COVID times, the majority of people that were receiving the JobSeeker supplement aren't your stereotypical—in the eyes of the Liberal Party—welfare cheat. They're not young people who look like hippies that the government think are enjoying a good time being on JobSeeker. They are people who are over 45 and have lost their job. In non-COVID times, for men it's about 45 per cent and for women it's almost 55 per cent who make up those numbers of people who are over the age of 45 and are receiving job-seeking payments. So this ideological notion that all people are welfare cheats and they need to be punished by a hotline is simply wrong. All it's doing is demonising older workers and making it harder for them to get back into the workforce and making them feel like they're not supported by this government and like they've been thrown on the scrapheap and that they don't matter anymore because of their age. That is completely unacceptable, particularly on the back of a recession, when people, in many respects, lost their jobs because of government regulations to keep people safe, to maintain safe borders and to ensure that we reduce the impact of the spread of the pandemic. So it's not fair for this government to have that approach and to try and implement changes such as this. That's why it's important that this parliament should consider supporting the amendment—the very sensible amendment that's been moved by the member for Barton—to remove that punitive and ideological approach of punishing people, the majority of whom are older workers trying to get back into the workforce, rather than supporting them, as Labor would do. 18:24 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff If my ears don't deceive me, the member for Kingsford Smith just said in this chamber that all people on welfare are cheats. They were the words that came out of his mouth. He used negative words to describe jobseekers; they came out of his mouth. He used his own words to describe those people who need extra support during this pandemic, and I won't repeat them in this chamber. I think it's disgraceful that that's the way he described those people who need a bit of extra support. The member just mentioned hippies. I ask the question: what's wrong with hippies having a good time? There's nothing wrong with that, in my view. Australians have always understood that social safety nets are necessary, and this pandemic has reminded us that a large proportion of our population are vulnerable to economic shocks. Australians know that welfare is at its best when it helps people get back on their own feet and avoid disincentives to work when it's available and people are able to work. The government's suite of temporary measures have been successful in supporting Australians through the significant impact of this pandemic. When we think about the coronavirus supplements and how much they've helped people get on and stay on their feet, it's been a very important supplement. Of course, it was a temporary measure by the Morrison government to help people through this very difficult time of the pandemic. This is not to mention the $86 billion worth of JobKeeper that went into Queensland alone to help the local economy, which of course will also help those people who are on JobSeeker once the economy starts to kick in again. Confidence is starting to return to our economy as restrictions are relaxed, and, of course, the end of border closures have had a lot to do with that confidence. My community tell me that confidence is the most important issue right now, particularly on the Gold Coast, where tourism is so important. I also mention the $1.2 billion tourism package that the Morrison government has delivered to 15 destinations across our great country to stimulate the economy after JobKeeper is stepped down at the end of the month. I commend them for listening to the Gold Coast community and the tourism community around Australia, particularly in Queensland, a tourism state, and for delivering that package pretty much within a month of the roundtable that I held on the Gold Coast. We are a government that has always understood that a job is the best economic support for individuals and for families. The best form of welfare is a job; we say it time and time again. It is the truth. To sustain oneself and one's family through work is meaningful in people's lives. There are people in our community who need extra help to get to that point, and that's what the Morrison government is delivering. We're now moving away from emergency settings that were necessary for the twin economic and health crises towards more sustainable settings that support recovery and are more sustainable in the long term. The safety net settings need to match our circumstances so they do not hamper our recovery and are fiscally responsible in the long term. Australians understand that. Reasonable, good Australians around our country understand that these measures are temporary and targeted. The Morrison government is moving from broad emergency support to a sustainable safety net and targeted industry support, as I just outlined. Some key changes to Australia's safety net include that unemployed Australians will be supported whilst strengthening their obligations to search for work and that, from 1 April this year, 1.95 million Australians will receive an extra $50 fortnight in support from the government. This will include those who receive the JobSeeker payment; youth allowance; Austudy; the parenting payment, single and partnered; Abstudy living allowance; partner allowance; widow allowance; farm household allowance, which is very important for the regions; and the Department of Veterans' Affairs education schemes, which, of course, honours our veterans community. For single people on the JobSeeker payment without children, this will see the current payment rate increase from $565.70 a fortnight to $620.80 a fortnight from 1 April, taking into account indexation on 20 March—and, of course, indexation will continue. Payments are indexed regularly, and that will continue to keep up with CPI. The income-free area will permanently increase for JobSeeker and related payments to $150 a fortnight. This allows those receiving income support to keep more of what they earn. That is a key pillar to this side of the chamber. That is what liberal democracies are all about, and that is what the Morrison government is about when it comes to tax cuts. The waiver of the ordinary waiting period eligibility will be expanded for those required to self-isolate and will be extended for a further three months until 30 June 2021. That will assist during this period when we're rolling out the COVID-19 vaccine. It's important to note that not since 1986—I think I'd just finished high school at that point—have unemployment benefits been raised this much year on year. This is quite a raise and hasn't been done for some years. The total cost is $9 billion to support our national safety net for Australians that need that extra support right now. That $9 billion figure is across the forward estimates. It equates to approximately a 10 per cent increase in the typical annual spend on JobSeeker. This is a continuation of the Morrison government giving Australians the support that they need. The Morrison government stands behind those Australians who need extra support, first from the shock of the pandemic and now through our recovery phase. Since the start of the pandemic, around $33 billion in emergency payments—that's quite a lot, isn't it, Mr Deputy Speaker?—will have been injected into Australia's welfare system by the end of March. Measures such as the coronavirus supplement and four economic support payments, which have been very important for Moncrieff and my dad in South Australia—he's a pensioner, he's received the extra payments and he tells me that it it's helped him immensely during this period—are all examples of the action that we have taken as a government since COVID-19 hit. Australians' sense of fairness includes a sensible balancing act between those who need support and those who fund the support, so there are two sides to it. The $50 increase in the rate of payments was carefully chosen. There were many considerations that I know that the minister for social services and the department looked at: balancing support, incentives, sustainability and the minimum wage, which has been growing at a rate faster than unemployment benefits. We've pushed up the base rate to 41.2 per cent of the national minimum wage so that it's now at the level it was during the early 2000s under Prime Minister Howard. Avoiding Labor's mistakes, such as changing the pension rate but leaving unemployed Australians behind, which is what they did, the JobSeeker base rate will now rise to be 72 per cent of the age pension. The Morrison government, as I said, has the back of all Australians. The tax burden on Australians for the social security safety net must be sustainable long into the future. We are making sure that a job is always better than welfare by ensuring that $50-a-fortnight support payments for working age recipients will cease to be payable before reaching the minimum wage. It's important to note the support I've been outlining dovetails with significant other support measures. In fact, 99 per cent of people on working age payments receive additional supplements, and those include around 20 different supplementary payments that are targeted to people based on their individual circumstances. Here are a couple of examples: the energy supplement, Commonwealth rent assistance—very important for those people who need extra help—family tax benefit, remote area allowance, telephone allowance and the education entry payment—and there are many others that allow the government to tailor the support that's needed for those Australians who need extra support. The best support of all, of course, is our economic recovery across our great nation. All Australians stand to directly benefit, and more people in jobs means a more sustainable safety net. More people come off JobSeeker and go back into the workforce, so there are more jobs in the market. Therefore, there are fewer people relying on JobSeeker and the supplements, so our economy and our overall JobSeeker bill are far more sustainable for the country. The Morrison government is delivering our economic comeback in unison with hardworking people—those in Moncrieff and those all around Australia. We're putting more in the pockets of everyday Australians by lowering taxes. In Moncrieff alone there were $200 million worth of tax cuts just to about 100,000 people, I want to say—I'll say it was below that level, just to be safe. Perhaps it's 70,000 people in my electorate, but it's worth about $200 million of tax cuts. Of course those tax cuts go back into the economy. They go back out into small business and come back to the families that actually put them there in the first place, which is the beauty of a circular economy. Supporting job creation, delivering more training, evolving a more digital Australia, making it easier for businesses to run, providing tax concessions and business incentives, providing more economic security for women, supporting Australian industries: these are all supports that the Morrison government has put in place. Some of the support measures are supporting business. I've got about 30,000 businesses in my electorate of Moncrieff, and the recent $1.2 billion tourism stimulus package that I outlined before is going to help our economy tremendously in its comeback. The JobMaker hiring credit is going to help. The offset of tax losses against previous profits and tax paid in or after 2018-19 will certainly help, as will temporary full expensing of eligible depreciable assets for businesses with a turnover of up to $5 million—and that's pretty much most businesses I would imagine—and supporting 11,400 companies by increasing R&D tax offsets. The Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage subsidy is already supporting 900 apprenticeships in Moncrieff, and its expansion is expected to support hundreds more, which is good news for businesses wanting to hire apprentices. We are accelerating reforms and investments to enable greater adoption of digital technologies, and we're investing an additional $4.5 billion in the NBN to bring ultrafast broadband to millions of businesses around the country, as well as streamlining and digitising regulatory processes, which will save businesses time and money. Time is money in business, as we know, so that's certainly helping. We are removing barriers to exports to make it easier for Australian businesses to access international markets. That's very important for our recovery, as trade and tourism will be key moving forward. We're removing unnecessary barriers to the flow of credit so that consumers can continue to spend and so that businesses can invest and create jobs. We've heard about some of the changes to SME loans from the Treasurer just in the last week. We are supporting up to $40 billion in lending to SMEs through those guarantees. That's the area I'm talking about that will help those businesses. They can borrow up to $5 million with a two-year no-payment period, which is fantastic. Many Australians will retain jobs and many Australians on JobSeeker will find jobs due to the government investing in infrastructure, which creates jobs. I'll just say a little bit about infrastructure and what a great champion of regional Australia the Deputy Prime Minister is. He's been up to the Gold Coast four or five times since I've been elected, helping and making announcements around the M1 and around light rail. There's $110 billion being spent on infrastructure by this government. This government is spending $110 billion over 10 years on infrastructure that is so important to the Gold Coast, and it's also important to jobs. Jobs— Opposition members interjecting— Ms BELL 282981 Well, he's up on the Gold Coast, the Deputy Prime Minister, making jobs for Gold Coasters, just like he does all around the country, with $110 billion worth of infrastructure. He is a great champion of infrastructure, and he's in good company with me about the importance of infrastructure because I absolutely believe in the importance of infrastructure and the jobs that it brings. In the private sector on the Gold Coast, they say that the Deputy Prime Minister is spot on. In my discussions with Geoff Hogg, the head honcho at The Star, he emphasised the importance of transport links to the tourism industry. He's absolutely right. We need to be able to transport as many tourists as possible from around the world to the Gold Coast once we recover properly from this pandemic, so that they can enjoy our beautiful beaches and our beautiful accommodation providers and restaurants all over the Gold Coast. So I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his support around infrastructure. (Time expired) 18:39 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo There's much in this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021, and there's much that's been left out. I think it's important to acknowledge that this is the first permanent rise in years to JobSeeker, formerly Newstart. However, I think it's pretty clear—and I think most Australians agree—that $25 a week is woefully inadequate. It's an additional $3.57 per day! It really will fall short. There are 1.9 million Australians who will effectively lose $100 a fortnight. That's because, at the same time as the government provides the $50-a-week permanent increase, it will be taking away the $150 coronavirus supplement. So, really, $100 per fortnight is what will be removed from people's family income. There are just over 11,000 people in Mayo receiving the COVID supplement. There is going to be a double whammy here, which is going to affect the economy seriously. When JobKeeper ends, there will be a large cohort of people moving to JobSeeker. The estimates are saying it will be around 250,000 Australians. I actually think that's incredibly conservative. I think that there will be far more. I hope there aren't, but I think there will be. I think we in this place need to acknowledge that for a very long time not only welfare groups but also business groups have been saying that we need a substantial lift in the base rate of JobSeeker. Somewhere between $75 and $90 a week has been the broad consensus on where it needs to be—enough for people to live on and actively look for employment. It costs money to look for work. I think we all recognise that. What we need—and I've been calling for this for some time—is an independent body that determines the rate. It shouldn't be determined in a joint-party sitting meeting, where there's a whip around the table: Who wants $50 a week? Who wants $25 a week? I think that's where we got to. There's no policy structure in that. What we really need is an independent social security commission that would set payments that keep up with the cost of living and recognise Australia's economic circumstances. I'd like to backtrack to the previous parliament and its Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence. That committee handed down a final report called Living on the edge: inquiry into intergenerational welfare dependence. I had the great privilege of being on that committee. It pains me that, while there were 16 key recommendations, I don't think the government has addressed any of them as yet. I'd like to highlight two of those recommendations today. Recommendation 14 requested that the Australian government review the effects of government policy, including the adequacy of payments for young people and single-parent families. Recommendation 15, one that we don't talk about in here, was that the government consider changing the point at which a single parent moves from the single-parent payment onto JobSeeker. At the moment, that happens when the youngest child turns eight, and the recommendation was it that it be changed to when the child turns 12. I think it would have a profound impact if the government actually considered this and made some changes. I think we need to remember that the face of the Centrelink recipient has changed. A decade ago, a person receiving JobSeeker, formerly Newstart, was more than likely a young man aged under 35. Now, half the recipients are over 45, and the fastest-growing group—and there have been more women in this category than ever before—is women over 60. While the government's proposed increase to the JobSeeker base rate is $307, which I believe is completely inadequate, the great challenge is this: do we accept this, or do we play chicken with the government and hope that they will reconsider and lift this rate? My office is regularly contacted by constituents who are seeking assistance to obtain affordable housing, and more than ever it's older Australians who are contacting us. I know that in my electorate I have older people who are living in cars because they are unable to secure private rental, and the proposed reduction in the payments is only going to make it harder. Let's go beyond the individual recipient of JobSeeker. This change—this shrinking of money circulating in the economy through getting rid of JobKeeper and also shrinking the amount that a jobseeker has—is going to have a significant impact on small businesses in each of our electorates, because around 58 per cent of a person's Centrelink payment is spent on retail goods and services within the local community. So I think that we could have quite a compounding effect from the fact that we are shrinking JobSeeker and doing away entirely with JobKeeper. In my electorate, we have a very high number of people who are on JobKeeper. We are a tourism destination, and we don't have the international tourists, particularly on Kangaroo Island but also right across the electorate, that we relied on so heavily. While I appreciate that the government has given vouchers or funding to the airlines, the tour operators, those small businesses and micro businesses, are not going to receive the benefit of those airline tickets. It's just not going to happen. It's not going to trickle down. As I said earlier, over 11,000 people across Mayo have been receiving the COVID supplement, and this, on my calculations, is going to mean a shrinking in my electorate's economy of around $1 million a fortnight. That's $1 million every fortnight that's not going to butcher stores, greengrocers and every business in between. Who are going to be the big winners? The payday lenders, the pawn shops and the buy-now pay-later schemes. So I call on the government to reconsider a couple of things—firstly, the rate and, secondly, the income-free area for the JobSeeker payment, for youth allowance (other) and for the parenting payment. The income-free area should remain, I believe, at $300 a fortnight, and it also needs to be indexed. We know that millions of Australians are currently underemployed, because there just aren't the permanent jobs that there used to be, and so many people are accepting insecure or casual work and coupling together two or three jobs. So I think having that income-free area where they're not penalised with their JobSeeker rate is a prudent thing to do.. There are a number of other measures that are not highlighted in this bill but are part of this package. A couple of those are changes to mutual obligations, and these changes are not required to be made by legislative instrument. But I would just say to the government, which has always said it's a government for small business: you are putting such an onerous burden on small businesses through people on JobSeeker having to go back to putting in for 20 jobs a fortnight. The reason I say that is that a business will advertise a job on SEEK or some other platform and they will be bombarded with applications, which they will have to filter through, from people who do not have the qualifications for the job but need to put in their applications so that they don't lose the payment they receive. So I don't think that we've thought this through too well. Similarly, on 'dob in a jobseeker'—that scheme that Minister Cash announced at the same time as these rates were announced—during last week's Senate committee hearing the Australian Retailers Association CEO, Paul Zahra, stated that the association was not supportive of the 'dob in a jobseeker' hotline. He believed it would drive up anxiety among retailers and not really add to solving the real problem. Why do we want to do that to retailers? This is an industry telling government, telling this place, that it's not going to work and it's not something that they support. Yet it looks like we're still going to have it go through, simply because it's something that can be done without passing this place. Finally, I'd like to share with you an email I received late last week from an Adelaide Hills woman in her 60s who lives in my electorate. She said: 'Rebekha, I'm distraught at the seeming disregard of the federal government regarding the review of the JobSeeker rate. I found myself on JobSeeker, and I have just reviewed my budget and find that I'm having to choose between paying utility bills and buying food.' Come on. We can do better than that in this nation. We were never a nation that would say to people, 'We think that you should choose between keeping your heater on'—and it gets really cold in my electorate—'and food.' This isn't a 25-year-old bum who'd rather go surfing; this is a woman in her 60s who is struggling to look for work and who is going to face enormous, extreme hardship. The government has been quite clear. There's no negotiation; it's $50 or nothing. I urge the government: please, you still have time. We have a current coronavirus supplement that is $75 a week. Why not just leave it at that rate? That would benefit Australians, whether they are on JobSeeker or not. It would benefit our small businesses. I urge the government: please, give this another thought. 18:51 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass I'm pleased to rise and speak in support of this increase—a very modest increase, but an increase nonetheless. It's a step in the right direction, one I've long advocated for with many others in this place. I understand that there are a range of views on raising the rate. However, this increase is much needed and one that I fully support. It's the first raise in what we now call JobSeeker since the early nineties, which was around the time that I finished school. As we've already heard, this is the single biggest year-on-year increase to the rate of unemployment benefit since 1986, an increase of 9.7 per cent between 1 April last year and 1 April this year. We've also heard that this increase is an investment of $9 billion, which is not an insubstantial amount, and, if we want a safety net, we do need it to be sustainable. This increase is a start in balancing the need to support Australians who need our help and also ensuring that our social security system can be maintained for decades to come. Before I go on, I do want to acknowledge Minister Ruston for her work in bringing about this change. The minister has worked diligently to ensure an increase has been possible. It's no secret that I've been advocating for an increase since I was elected, and I thank the minister, who has always been prepared to meet with me, listen to me and work with me on this issue. It is important to point out that, for all the grandstanding we hear from Labor, Labor did not deliver on this in their own time in government. Whilst the coalition government is working to deliver some change, I still believe there is much more work to be done. You've heard me say it in this House before, but it bears repeating again: we can't and we won't move the dial on long-term unemployment or intergenerational unemployment if we don't have wider reform—in particular, reform that addresses the barriers preventing a JobSeeker recipient looking for or accepting meaningful work, such as access to child care; reliable transport; mental and physical health challenges; trauma; and disadvantage. The consequent changes to mutual obligation are, in my view, very unhelpful. There is an opportunity to ensure that we look at how mutual obligation can be a more useful tool for those seeking work, rather than the increasingly meaningless burden it puts on both the potential employer and the potential employee. I fail to see how encouraging jobseekers to apply for jobs that they are in no way able to fill is helping anyone. Last year I spoke to a local business that epitomises some of the many challenges that both jobseekers and employees are facing. After advertising for a machinery operator position, the business received almost 100 applications, the majority of them just fulfilling the mutual obligation requirement to apply for a job. After much time spent sorting through applicant after applicant, three were selected to come in and interview for the job. Further challenges were then presented, with one applicant disclosing an addiction problem, another applicant having a significant health challenge that would leave them unable to perform all the duties required of the position, and the third applicant, who was successful in being hired for the position, leaving the role after just a few weeks due to considerable mental health challenges. After all this time and effort, it was back to the drawing board. This is an example of an issue I heard several times from employers across a variety of industries in Northern Tasmania. There are some jobs there, but there are not people suitable to fill them. While I certainly accept that there are a portion of jobseekers who don't want to engage, they make up an incredibly small minority of jobseekers. So where's the gap? When we talk about making someone job ready, what does this really mean? It needs to be about ensuring that someone is ready, beyond just having skills. What are the other barriers that may stop them from accepting work? We can't be expected to fix every challenge faced by an individual when they're looking for work. But, when many of our population who need employment and want employment are bumping into one or more roadblocks, I do believe that as a government we have a responsibility to address some of the broader issues. I've spoken in this place before about a group of diverse constituents whom I met with in 2019, very shortly after I was elected. Levi, Sue, Merridee, Abbey, Maddi and Terry are all participants in the Skills for Education and Employment program in Launceston who came to me to raise the issues they faced as Newstart recipients looking for work. They raised the issue of mandated appointments with job agencies, which are seemingly nothing more than a box-ticking exercise. The issue of transport and the often prohibitive cost of personal transport prevent jobseekers from accessing employment and job-seeking services, particularly in a regional area like Northern Tasmania. Public transport is an option, but it's certainly not as robust a system as you would find in a major city, which leaves many jobseekers stuck, particularly when a number of job listings advise that those reliant on public transport need not apply. Accessibility issues surrounding mobiles and internet services are also challenges that were raised with me by this group and have been raised by others. Jobseekers are required to be available at set times by phone for appointments with service providers, to apply for jobs online or to complete their Centrelink reporting obligations. These are acceptable requests. But they do present a challenge to those who can't afford this technology on a regular basis. Perhaps this is an area where we could look to be more flexible or offer more flexibility. It also sends a message to jobseekers that their time is not valued. It also needs to be said that this area is an incredibly complex policy space. No matter the government, when it comes to addressing the challenges, we seek to apply a broad policy to fit a group of people that just aren't homogeneous. Certainly, someone living in a small rural or regional town will see their rent assistance go further than someone living in a metropolitan city. By the same token, someone on government assistance will likely see their budget for food extend further if living in the city, compared to someone buying groceries in a small town. There are individual people with individual needs, and a one-size-fits-all policy is not going to fit all. You are always going to have those who will be worse off than others. We have to look at striking a balance between support for unemployed Australians and incentives to work, and we are making some headway. This bill does include a permanent reform to increase the amount of money that jobseekers can earn before they lose a cent of their payment—up to $150 a fortnight. I've had a number of discussions with constituents in my electorate on this issue during my community catch-ups recently, and I know this permanent reform will make a difference. Temporarily extending the waiver of the one-week ordinary waiting period for certain payments until 30 June is also welcome. Some people might move on and off JobSeeker a number of times throughout their working life, but, for those who are on it long-term or where there is intergenerational disadvantage, we have to examine why. This raise is a welcome step in the right direction to lifting Australians in need, but I will continue to advocate for further reform to ensure that we can support people to gain meaningful employment. 18:59 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to speak about the government's increase to the JobSeeker payment—the permanent increase of $50 per fortnight. Labor will support this increase because, otherwise, the almost two million people relying on this payment would not get that paltry increase of $3.50 per day. But I want to be extremely clear that this increase is completely inadequate. It is an insult to people trying to survive on this payment, particularly as we're in a global pandemic and a recession. People cannot find jobs, people are trying to get by on this payment, and the government is just pulling the rug out from under them. Let's not forget that this is a government whose social services minister said that increasing the JobSeeker payment, or the Newstart payment as it was then, would just go into the hands of drug dealers. This is a government that constantly peddles myths about people receiving social security and the system itself. This is a government that says, 'Oh, they get other supplements.' Yes. They get the energy supplement—65c per day. I'm not sure what the government thinks that is going to help with. They may get rent assistance, which, by definition, they only get if they're paying rent, and it doesn't cover their rent. So all these supplements that the government speaks about are not making a difference for people's lives. The devastating thing is that in this pandemic, in responding to COVID-19, the government actually did acknowledge two things when they delivered the coronavirus supplement and effectively doubled the JobSeeker payment to people out of work. They acknowledged, firstly, that people cannot live on $40 per day—I would add that they cannot live on $43.50 per day either. They acknowledged that, and they also acknowledged that a decent unemployment benefit, a social safety net, has an important role not only in lifting people out of poverty but in stimulating the economy at a time when we needed it most. They delivered that and, at a time of peak unemployment, in our worst recession in many, many years, we actually saw the rate of poverty in Australia decrease. Between the introduction of JobKeeper—the wage subsidy that Labor argued for and the government introduced—and the increase to JobSeeker, we saw a decrease in poverty overall. We saw people protected from poverty. We actually saw, as a result of that doubling, that the rate of poverty among people receiving the JobSeeker payment reduced from around 80 per cent to around 25 per cent—and that is research from the ANU that I'm quoting there. It didn't alleviate poverty completely among jobseekers, I'll note that, but it decreased it significantly. Here the government had a real opportunity to use that to reset and actually deliver a decent social safety net for Australians. We had the opportunity to actually be like the society that we claim to be, an egalitarian society where people look after one another and people get a fair go. Instead, this is a government that wants to push people into destitution. What does poverty mean? What I talked about there, where we actually lifted people out of poverty, that is the poverty rate as calculated as a proportion of the median income. It is a relative number based on the distribution of incomes of our entire community. But what does it mean to the people actually living on these payments? As someone at the Early Morning Centre here in Canberra once said to me, 'Poverty is trying to choose between baby food and tampons.' Let that sink in. I think the people on the other side of this chamber obviously don't speak to people in their electorates, or they're just callous and they're ignoring it. That's what poverty is. On the other hand, when they introduced this coronavirus supplement, we heard people receiving JobSeeker speaking of living with some dignity for the first time in a long time and having some of the things that so many of us take for granted every day—things like being able to put petrol in the car or even afford a bus fare, getting a haircut, buying their children a school uniform so they can fit in at school and not feel ostracised because they're living in poverty, heating their homes and getting shoes without holes in them. These are the sorts of things that we in this place take for granted. This government could have continued that, and they are taking it away. It is an absolute disgrace. The other parts of this announcement—which, I note, are not in legislation and will be done by the minister through regulation—are the mutual obligation changes, which are just punitive. They're all just part of this government's agenda to really demonise people. What a joke to have a 'dob in a dole bludger' hotline for employers. Employers don't even want this. They don't have time to do that. The government want people to apply for 20 jobs a fortnight. I ask this government: where are these jobs? How about a plan for jobs? We're in a recession. We've also had the Reserve Bank governor say that a decent unemployment benefit is part of stimulating the economy. People on low incomes spend the majority of their income because they have to, and that money would be going back into our economies, back into our small businesses. This decision, this pathetic increase, is driven by ideology, not economics and certainly not the proper modelling that should have been done to set this payment. Labor has long been committed to seeing this increase. We have been arguing in this place for a decent permanent increase to the JobSeeker payment, formerly Newstart. At the last election, Labor committed to reviewing the payment. That was always about how much the payment needed to be increased by. There has never been any doubt that it needed to be increased, just as there is no doubt that this increase is inadequate; it falls so far short of all the amounts that people have been calling for for many years. This increase is $25 per week. At the moment, the Australian Council of Social Service is calling for an increase of $25 per day. So you can see that it is well short. They've previously called for increases of $75 per week and $95 per week. It is also well short of that. As someone who has worked my entire career on social security policy, looking at finding the policy answers to addressing poverty and inequality, I understand there are complexities in setting this rate. It needs to be done right. The government has the resources and the data to do that modelling right now. They should have done it and delivered a proper increase. There are things you need to consider, and anyone who says that we don't need to consider this rate properly is ignoring both the depth of the inadequacies of our social security system and the power of these payments to lift people out of poverty and to stimulate our economy—the important role that they play. In this country, we do not take the pride that we should in our social security system. It is the most powerful tool that we have to keep people out of poverty. We have child poverty at the moment. We have around a third of sole parents living in poverty, and that rate is only going to be higher when, in only a few days time, this government snaps back—sorry, there'll be a $3-per-day increase from the end of March—or removes the JobKeeper payment and assistance before we are anywhere near getting out of this recession. Instead, they could lift people out of poverty, as they did during COVID. The government need to look at where this payment should be set to ensure that people have a decent standard of living. That is not necessarily the poverty rate as defined by the OECD poverty line. I completely agree with the statement that people should not be living in poverty. People don't need to be destitute to have an incentive to work. Hello, over there; that is a fact. The incentive to work is all around us. So much of our identity in this country is around our jobs; so much of our society is centred on work. For the people in my electorate who are on unemployment benefits and dreading this reduction to $43 a day at the end of March, there's no doubt that a job is a better alternative to being on social security. I think the people who would argue that most strongly are the people trying to survive on this payment, the people who have been told that $3.50 a day is going to help them with that. The thing that comes to mind is to say that it won't even buy a coffee, but these people aren't buying coffees—they're not buying food. They're trying to survive. They're going to food banks. That has become the social safety net in this country, because our government funded social security system is so inadequate. It is the community sector that is keeping people alive. I'm not overexaggerating this problem; that is exactly what it is. Coming back to the proper modelling and analysis that needs to happen, it is important that we look at the rate of the unemployment benefit in relation to other payments, like the age pension and the disability support pension. It is important that we look at it in comparison to the minimum wage. It is important that we look at it in comparison to the poverty line. But the most important thing is that we can guarantee that people have a dignified and healthy standard of living in this country. We can do that, in my view, by doing a proper review of JobSeeker and of the social security system. I think it should include what is called a budget standards analysis, where we look at a basket of goods and services that a person in a certain type of situation—a single person, or a family with children—needs to live a decent life. A lot of this work has been done by Peter Saunders, from UNSW. The work he did for ACOSS in 2017 was the basis for their original call for an increase of $75 a week. The government could update that work and look at all these other factors, with their proper administrative data, of who is receiving these payments, and they could look at the data and work out an amount which would mean that people could live decently—people like Julie Stephen, who presented to the Senate inquiry on this bill on 9 March. I would encourage everyone, particularly people from the other side of this chamber, to read her testimony about what it's like to have an aggressive cancer, to be receiving chemotherapy and to fear what will happen when this payment is reduced at the end of March: how on earth is she going to survive, how is she going to put petrol in her car to get to her treatments and how is she going to buy food? These are the issues facing Australians right now, and we've got people saying that $3.50 is an increase. It is an insult. It is an insult to people living in poverty in this country. Bob Hawke said in 1987 that no Australian child should be living in poverty by 1990. We all like to have a laugh about that, but he introduced changes to family benefits after that, and poverty among jobless families with children was reduced by 80 per cent by 1994, because these payments are powerful. The No. 1 most powerful and important thing we can do to address disadvantage in this country is to make sure that people have an income they can live on, that they can have housing and that they can participate in their community. We'll support this increase. You couldn't stand in the way of that $3.50 because people are so desperate, but it is not enough. I just wish that this government would look up from their demonising and ideological crusades and talk to people in their electorates, in this country, who are really suffering. It is really going to come to crunch time on 31 March when this assistance is ripped away from people. God help us. (Time expired) 19:14 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I first of all congratulate the member for Canberra on such an impassioned and heartfelt speech about this issue. I'm going to do something unusual here and also congratulate the member for Bass for her very thoughtful and informative contribution to this debate as well. I have to say, it is so refreshing to hear something from somebody on the other side that isn't just about demonising people who are on welfare in this country, that isn't about lifters and leaners and that doesn't buy into that discourse and narrative that everybody who is on JobSeeker—or Newstart, as it was—is some kind of long-term dole bludger who just wants to get their hands on everybody else's money and live a life of luxury. I commend the member for Bass on standing up, arguing her case and being an relentless advocate for people who are on welfare, as I do the member for Canberra. I think about what $3.57 a day means. As the member for Canberra said, it's often likened to a cup of coffee, but she's absolutely right that people who live in poverty do not go out and buy cups of coffee. That's not what they'll spend it on. They will spend it on essentials, if they can. They'll spend it on food. They'll probably put it aside to pay for their electricity bill or their petrol bill to get them to where they need to get to. They will certainly not be spending it on coffee, avocado on toast or any of the other things that we here in this place take for granted. Labor is not going to stand in the way of this modest increase, but, as the member for Canberra said, it's hardly an increase; it's more of an insult. The rate of JobSeeker—Newstart, as it was called—is absolutely disgraceful in a country like Australia. I don't say that as the Labor member for Cowan. I say that as somebody who's lived on it; I say that as somebody who found herself in a position where she had to rely on welfare raising two sons; I say that as somebody who's had to live on $40 a day; I say that as somebody who has had to walk to a Centrelink office, feel the degradation and the humiliation of going to a Centrelink office, and ask for a payment; I say that a as somebody who has gone to her bank account to get some money out and found that her bank balance was minus $6 and then gone to cross the road, being nearly hit by a car and wishing that the car actually did hit me, because I was so desperate; I say that as somebody who's had to put half the shopping back at the counter, with two young boys crying, because I just couldn't afford it; and I say that as somebody who had to budget so hard that, once a fortnight, my sons would get a Happy Meal because, by buying a Happy Meal, they could get a little toy in there as well. Once a fortnight, they got a $3 Happy Meal. That was their treat. That was all I could afford. I also say that as a mother who had to make her sons' school uniforms. My father gave me an old sewing machine, and I sewed my sons' school uniforms because I couldn't afford to buy them. That's why I stand here today and argue that $3.57 a day is not enough. It is an insult. But, at the same time, we are in a position here where we cannot stand in the way of even this modest increase to the JobSeeker payment. I want to talk about some of the other things that the member for Bass raised, and I'm very pleased that she raised them. She raised reasons for unemployment. So often when we talk about social welfare, when we talk about JobSeeker—or Newstart, as it was—we focus on people getting jobs. Therefore you have this discourse that goes around and around: 'There are jobs, but people don't want them. If people wanted jobs, they would get them,' and all of this rubbish. But we don't really have an in-depth conversation about why people are unemployed, about what contributes to long-term unemployment and what contributes to generational unemployment. It's not laziness on their part. There might be a tiny minority of people who don't want to work. Every Australian should be afforded the opportunity to contribute to their country, to the social, economic and political fabric of the society in which they live. When you go out there and ask people what matters to them the most—'Do you care about jobs? Do you care about education? Do you care about this? Do you care about that?'—when you really dig down deep into it, instead of just giving them a multiple-choice question, you find that what really matters to people is security. I'm not talking about national security and the kind of stuff that I used to write about. I'm talking about personal security. I'm talking about a sense of wellbeing. A sense of security and wellbeing comes with job security, financial security and economic security. If you want to talk about unemployment, we need to talk about more than just the rate. We need to not just give people crumbs of $3.57 a day and say: 'Here you go; that'll do you. You can go and buy a cup of coffee now.' We need to talk about their sense of wellbeing and what that means, and how we enable that in people. If there's one thing that we can come together in this place to do it is to ensure that every Australian has a sense of wellbeing—that every Australian has personal security, economic security and job security. But that's not happening at the moment. We're not going to 'fix' unemployment and 'fix' our welfare situation by giving people the crumb of $3.57 a day. Right now—today, in fact—each one of us will get more in travel allowance than we give people on JobSeeker per week. I want everybody to think about that. Ms Payne 144732 It's shameful. Dr ALY 13050 It is shameful, as the member for Canberra says. It is shameful. We're here, staying in our nice little comfortable hotels or wherever it is that we're staying. We're free to eat our meals at the trough or to go and buy vegies at Coles and cook our own food. Let's stop and give a thought to the fact that, just today, each one of us is getting a travel allowance that is more than what people on JobSeeker are getting per week. Think about what it would be like if you had to make today's travel allowance last a week—with children. Then, on top of that, you have to fulfil your obligations to look for a job. Then, on top of that, you have to go to job interviews, using public transport—it might be $30, maybe $15 a day if you're lucky—or filling your car up with petrol. Then, on top of that, you have to put aside some money for your electricity bill, your rent, your gas bill and your water bill. Then, on top of that, if you've got school-age children, you've got to get them off to school every day, buy their school uniforms and fill their lunch boxes with the things that children want in their lunch boxes so that they don't stand out from the rest of the kids. Take a minute to imagine making today's travel allowance last a week. That is what it's like for millions of Australians who, on 31 March, will have their JobSeeker allowance reduced to what we're given per day in travel allowance. We tell them, 'That's okay, because you're going to get a $3.57-a-day increase.' We couldn't survive on that. None of us here, I guarantee you, could survive on one day of travel allowance to last us a week. I guarantee you none of us could do that. Those of us who have had to do it are the ones who know exactly how hard it is, along with those of us who speak to our constituents who are doing it and who come to us and say: 'I've got a choice. Do I buy my food or do I buy my medication? Do I feed my kids or do I feed myself?' I've been there. I've been the one who waits for her kids to finish eating so that she can have the leftovers, because you just can't afford to feed everyone. Just take a minute to imagine what that's like. I know that there are good people with good hearts in this place, and perhaps if we did that—perhaps if we cut through all the discourse and all the narrative and the rhetoric and all this crap about lifters and leaners and all of those people who are spending their Newstart allowance on drugs and are lazy—we could find the heart in this place to feel something more for the Australians who are left behind. Maybe we could find the heart in this place to find a little more generosity for those people who find themselves in situations not of their making, the victims of circumstance out there. So, as I said, we're going to support this increase, because it's an increase. Three dollars fifty-seven might buy another Happy Meal as a treat for a kid every fortnight, might buy a cup of coffee, might buy a tin of dog food or might buy a pack of chewing gum. In fact, it just covers a pack of chewing gum a day. But I stand here and support this knowing full well that it is not enough. But I'm heartened by the fact that there are, at least on this side, enough people who understand that, and I'm heartened by the fact that, on the other side, there are some people who understand that too. I'm heartened by the fact that we can find the heart in this place. We can bring the heart to parliament. We can be more generous. We just need the political will. 19:28 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth The reality is that this government has no plan for poverty elimination in Australia, and I deeply believe that poverty elimination must be our goal in this place. Here at home and abroad, and in this place, we hear so often that Australia is a rich, successful, multicultural country. So why does this government leave so many people behind? This bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021, does not lift people out of poverty; it simply makes them a little less poor. We just heard my good friend the member for Cowan talking about the need for all of us in this place to find the heart. She told us her personal story of actually having lived on these measly payments. I say to the people who are watching this debate—and, indeed, to many people who are on Newstart and have a deep vested interest in how this debate plays out—that we stand with all Australians who are on these payments—some 1,950,000 Australians who are on these payments. We know that there are many Australians who have a go but don't get a go. The Prime Minister's formula simply does not work for them. All they're seeking—again, as the member for Cowan said—is some economic security and a sense that they can do all the things that they want to do for their family. They do not wish for luxury. They do not wish for generosity. They simply want some simple economic security. When I say that this government doesn't have a plan to lift people out of poverty, at least on that front it is very consistent. It doesn't have a proper jobs plan. It doesn't have a plan for the future of Medicare. It has no plan for social housing. It killed the Gonski reforms, which we know from David Gonski himself— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 72 ADJOURNMENT Macarthur Electorate: Western Sydney Airport Rail Link 72 19:30 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I rise today to speak on an issue of critical importance to my electorate of Macarthur and to its residents' future economic prospects and our region's livability. It's now been almost five years since the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments' joint Western Sydney Rail Needs Scoping Study was initially released, and, to date, both governments have failed to take any action to provide rail transport infrastructure to my rapidly growing community. I've spoken about this often, but we have reached a watershed moment. I want to speak about the benefits that a new rail line to Western Sydney airport from Macarthur will afford my community, but I'll just remind the House of a few critical facts. The government's own scoping study has identified a need for Macarthur's growing suburbs to be provided with a rail line that links them to Western Sydney airport. Infrastructure Australia has identified that public transport links from Macarthur and Leppington to the new airport should be priorities. Literally every expert and stakeholder one could engage with comes to the same conclusion: the new airport needs to be appropriately connected, via public transport infrastructure, to the rapidly growing south-west Sydney. Shamefully, the Liberal government, at both state and federal level, refuse to act. They play politics. They misappropriate taxpayers' money to meet their own political objectives. We've seen this time and time again. From the sports rorts to 'Choppergate' to irrigation licences to the government's backflip on the NBN, those opposite misuse public money on a massive scale. In the last week, this has been identified in Infrastructure Australia's discussion of the northern rail link from Western Sydney airport to St Marys, showing this does not meet their criteria for a priority project. Even though the government have persisted with this northern link, they've not managed to do this appropriately either, as they have omitted a rail station in the Werrington campus of Western Sydney University, which was considered vital if this rail link was going to be appropriately developed. We know that the misuse isn't limited to dodgy grants, lucrative deals with property developers or deals with people who have vested interests in providing development around Western Sydney airport. We know that a lot of what they've done has been inappropriate. Rather than commit to their own rail scoping report's findings and the recommendation of the independent experts in Infrastructure Australia, the coalition have sought to play politics and have decided to only commit to connecting Western Sydney airport to the north-west. They couldn't even do that right. They've put the appropriate links to south-west Sydney and to my electorate of Macarthur on the backburner. The coalition were determined from the outset to ensure that my Labor-voting community would be locked out of the potential benefits that the new airport and associated infrastructure projects would deliver. Through their inaction, they've demonstrated they don't want Macarthur residents—along with residents of Hume, the electorate to the south; Wollongong; and the whole south-western area of Sydney and to the south—to be given appropriate development benefits that their Liberal-voting colleagues to the north would get. They've demonstrated that they don't want small businesses in my community to access the business and workload that construction of a new rail line would deliver. It's blatant economic gerrymandering from state and federal Liberal governments that are content to create a two-tiered society. To add insult to injury, we now know, thanks to Infrastructure Australia, that the government's approach of picking and choosing infrastructure projects to fund based on postcodes was completely unfounded. Not only have they refused to act on their own reports and expert advice; they've maliciously pork-barrelled money into half a rail line, for which there is 'insufficient evidence that the economic, social and environmental benefits of the project would justify its cost'. Those are Infrastructure Australia's own words. My community is growing exponentially. It's the fastest-growing community in New South Wales. There's a sound business case for the rail line from Macarthur and Leppington to be established to link my community to the airport and the aerotropolis. The government could refuse to take action in Macarthur, but no longer. They must act on a moral basis to provide that link. Macarthur residents are bearing the cost of a lack of government investment and a lack of planning. (Time expired) Australian Labor Party 73 19:35 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby Yesterday I sat in this place and listened to the Leader of the Opposition express outrage at the treatment of women in politics and suggest that we all need to listen to what women are saying. He directed almost all of his outrage at my party and my government. I heard him say almost nothing about his own. I sincerely hope that the Leader of the Opposition and all the senior Labor women are listening to me right now. The safety of women in this place—female staff, and female MPs and senators—should be above politics. The need to change the culture of our parties and of this place should be above politics. It is an issue for us all to address through the bipartisan independent review by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins. Despite all this and despite the bipartisan support for the review and the change, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition decided to crawl down into the gutter and make this about politics and turn this into an ugly political fight. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: I will not be lectured by you. I will not be lectured by your side of politics about the treatment of women in this place. I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where was he and where was his predecessor and where were the senior Labor women when GetUp, Labor and the union supporters chased, harassed and screamed at me everywhere I went in the lead-up to the 2019 election? Where were they when their supporters were abusing me time after time on Twitter and on my Facebook page? Where were they when I was stalked by a creepy old man who worked hand in hand with GetUp? Where were they when the same was done to my fellow candidate Georgina Downer by a different but abusive, aggressive old man? Where were they when I was subjected to the horrendous sexist and misogynist abuse scrawled all over my campaign office? Where were they saying, 'This has to stop,' when the incidents were all extensively reported on radio, television and in print? The fact that Senator Penny Wong has claimed that I was not subjected to a coordinated sexist campaign and that my claims of sexism have no basis in fact says it all. This is the woman who was paired with my seat and who was on the ground giving almost daily press conferences throughout the 2019 election campaign. She knew exactly what was going on. Is it any wonder that we now find that Labor female staff have been subjected to horrific treatment within the Labor Party as well? Is this the way they've been treated and listened to as well? In my evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I stated the following: Here is a quote from former deputy leader Tanya Plibersek, from January 2019—so in the lead-up to the last federal election: Women deserve to be safe and valued at home, on the streets, in our workplaces and in everything they do. And a quote from Senator Penny Wong … … of course bullying and intimidation in any workplace are unacceptable. Senator Wong responded to my committee evidence by attacking me. Today in this place, the member for Sydney said she was 'unaware of any harassment by GetUp of the member for Boothby until very recently'. I find the member for Sydney's claim hard to believe, as I was one of only seven Liberal Party members on GetUp's federal election hit list. I was the only woman, the only backbencher and the only one who was not a current or former cabinet minister. I find it hard to believe that Senator Wong and the Labor members on the committee did not tell the member for Sydney that I had named her in my evidence in September last year. But, although I find the member for Sydney's personal explanation today more than a little disingenuous, I don't want to attack her. What I say to the Labor Party today is that they may not have held the spray can to vandalise my office with sexist slurs and they may not have held the camera pointed at me by the stalker or called me evil in GetUp's phone calls, but they did create the environment in which hate could flourish. So I say to the Leader of the Opposition: what will you do about this? I say to the Leader of the Opposition: get your own house in order. And I say to the Leader of the Opposition: this can't be about politics anymore. We all bear the responsibility for change. Tasmania: Medicare 73 19:40 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark Tasmania has the highest rate of chronic disease and the poorest-performing public health system in the country. One reason for this is that so many Tasmanians simply can't afford to go to their GP for a basic check-up, let alone for ongoing care. Indeed, in the last financial year only 78 per cent of services were bulk-billed in Tasmania, compared to the national average of almost 90 per cent. Even for those services that are bulk-billed, years of inadequate Medicare indexation means that around half of all Tasmanian patients pay out of-pocket costs of up to $43 per consult, and the harsh reality of this is that many people avoid their GP because bills like rent, food and power are more pressing. Now I would like to share with you a couple of stories from my electorate of Clark, where the bulk-billing rate of 69.2 per cent is one of the worst in the country. For instance, a youth health worker from The Link Youth Health Service recently contacted my office to say they regularly receive phone calls from young people seeking information and urgent referrals for bulk-billing GPs. She told me: 'Last year I worked with a 19-year-old who needed multiple GP appointments in a short period of time for both sexual and reproductive health and mental health. She presented to The Link for assistance in finding a bulk-billing GP. I phoned every bulk-billing GP listed on the Primary Health Tasmania directory and was shocked to find that most either no longer bulk-billed or that a few doctors bulk-billed on "discretion". The few bulk-billing services in the area were not taking new patients. As a result, we offered this young person support with groceries from our Food Bank program so she could pay for appointments with money she would have otherwise spent on weekly groceries.' Another constituent told me: 'I have to rely on a doctor's pity for bulk-billing. It's so demeaning to try and get medical care.' They then told me they had found one medical practice which bulk-bills, but it wasn't accepting new patients. If you cannot visit a GP then your medical conditions often become deadlier and more expensive to treat, which is a crisis we see crystallised in our overstretched emergency departments, full hospital wards and premature death statistics. Moreover, any wind-back of the much-welcomed telehealth services introduced during the pandemic would only increase the disparity between people needing primary healthcare and people getting it. No wonder the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners' report General practice health of the nation 2020shows that GPs clearly want the Australian government to prioritise primary care funding and telehealth—and also mental health, because young people are not only struggling to access GPs; they are also disproportionately struggling with their mental health. And the problem for them is that, if you have poor mental health, you need a good GP. Indeed, data published by the ANU shows that last year, during the pandemic, 22 per cent of young adults experienced severe psychological distress, compared with 11 per cent of the whole population. The modelling further showed an almost 14 per cent increase in suicide deaths over the next five years, as well as a likelihood of increased mental health related ED presentations and self-harm hospitalisations. Frankly, the harm caused by the government's chronic underinvestment in GPs in this country is shameful. The government must fix it and fix it urgently. Of course, the federal government will tell you that bulk-billing rates are high and continuing to rise. But this is downright wrong, because the government counts the number of services bulk-billed and not the number of patients. So the fact is that bulk-billing rates continue to fall, due to years of inadequate Medicare indexation. To be absolutely clear: this is not an attack on GPs—of whom my wife is one—because I have no doubt that GPs want to provide their patients with affordable health care. But, at the same time, they are running a business and must be given the opportunity to provide patients with lower costs, and this, of course, is why bulk-billing is so important. Equal and affordable access to GPs must be a top priority for the government, including because Australia is a fabulously wealthy country and we can afford to ensure that every person who requires medical services receives them, and receives them to the highest standard. Mallee Electorate: COVID-19 74 19:45 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Recovery from COVID for many in the tourism and accommodation sector is challenging, to say the least, while international borders remain closed. There are several businesses in my electorate, Mallee, that are struggling, and, sadly, some have had to close their doors. While travel agents are among the hardest hit, accommodation businesses are also feeling the pain. Last week I was on the road travelling throughout my electorate. On the way, I stopped at the Junction Hotel in Maryborough, which is owned and operated by Janet McDonald. I've spoken with Janet on several occasions about the issues facing the tourism and accommodation industry. She told me that JobKeeper was a lifeline for her business. I also visited Steve and Michelle Friend, owners of the Warrack Motel in Warracknabeal. It was great to talk to Steve, who has a passion for politics. He told me about the challenges they have faced during the pandemic. He's very thankful for our government's support, but the business is currently surviving by accommodating people travelling for work, rather than holiday-makers. There are very few tourists travelling through Warracknabeal at the moment, and the few that are are towing their own accommodation. The story is much the same for travel agents in my electorate. For 20 years, Helen Russell built her business from the ground up. For 20 years, Kerang Travel provided outstanding services to the local community. Unfortunately, at the end of last year, Helen made the difficult decision to close her doors. She predicted that, even if she were to remain open, it would have taken at least five years to get back to her pre-COVID business position. Through no fault of her own, her successful enterprise is now gone, which is deeply distressing, of course. I also heard from Michelle Brown from MTA Travel in Horsham. She's worked in the industry for 25 years and now owns her own agency. Michelle told me she can't just shut up shop and come back another time. She needs to be operating, as her clients have credits with her business and she's still chasing refunds from suppliers to distribute to her clients. There is no easy fix to this situation, and I know the minister for tourism is aware of these complex issues. After meeting Michelle, I wrote a letter to the minister on her behalf to campaign for further support for the tourism and accommodation industry. The Commonwealth government has announced a $1.2 billion tourism and aviation recovery package, which will undoubtedly assist many regions to keep going and assist some to build a bridge back to business as usual. I'm sure it will also help many travel agents across the country. If you're thinking of making the most of the half-price airfares, I urge you to engage a local travel agent to support them at this difficult time. While the package is welcome for some, I have to say that, in my region of Mallee, there is little joy being expressed. John and Craig George have recently given me some insight into their dilemma in terms of operating a backpacker hostel in Mildura. They have a business that provides accommodation to travellers and helps them find employment with local horticultural industries. John tells me that the announcement will not pay his lease or loan repayments, or his operational bills. When JobKeeper finishes, there will be no funds to support his employees. To quote John, his core business has been decimated by international border closures. I've taken these issues to the minister and asked him to consider other possibilities to assist these vital businesses. I'm actively lobbying for Mildura Airport to be considered a destination for the half-price airfares. Mildura is home to one of the largest regional airports in the country, and the board of management have been regularly communicating with me throughout this pandemic. Due to their organisational structure and association with the local council, they've missed out on key government supports, including JobKeeper. I've been fighting hard to secure special-circumstances funding for the airport, and I know the Deputy Prime Minister has been doing a lot of work in the background to support this push. The tourism and accommodation sector in Mallee needs further support, whether that's through the inclusion of Mildura in the new tourism and aviation recovery package, an extension of wage subsidies currently supporting the industry or a subsequent round of the COVID-19 Consumer Travel Support Program. I'll continue fighting in the hope that we can further support tourism and accommodation businesses in Mallee. March 4 Justice 75 19:50 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Yesterday I joined many of my parliamentary colleagues and hundreds of thousands of women around the country in calling for change. What impressed me most about the rally yesterday was the passion and the rage that was displayed by all those marching around the country. The message was loud and clear: the system is broken, it is not serving women, and they have had enough. And who could blame them after some shocking revelations that we've heard over the past few weeks and the ongoing verbal abuse and total non-response from the Prime Minister and government members? All I can say is that it's appalling. This isn't about politics. It isn't about Labor or Liberal. It's about women. It's about listening to women and ensuring that violence against women is never tolerated or excused under any circumstances. It's also about ensuring that if abuse happens women can report and speak about it with confidence, without fear or repercussions, knowing they will be supported, knowing that there are mechanisms in place to hear their voice and support them. We've tragically learned in these past weeks that this isn't the case. Women are saying it, and they said it yesterday loud and clear: enough is enough. What we saw yesterday reminded me of the strength and power for change that can be generated by women. As a South Australian from Adelaide, I'm very proud of the role that one of our homegrown women played in getting women the vote and getting women the rights to a whole range of things. I'm talking, of course, of Muriel Matters, a courageous, tireless activist for women's rights. Muriel was born in my electorate, in the suburb of Bowden, in 1877. At the time of her birth, South Australia was one of the most progressive places in the world. In 1861, women were granted the vote in municipal elections, and in 1894, were granted the vote in South Australia and the right to stand for the South Australian parliament, making it the first place in Australia and the second place in the entire world to grant women the vote. This gives you an idea of the type of place that South Australia was and the progressive politics that it had. In this environment, Muriel went on to play a pivotal role in the women's suffrage movement in the UK. One of her acts was to shower King Edward VII in pamphlets from one of those balloons overhead in the king's parade when they were opening the British Houses of Parliament. The pamphlets were printed with the words, 'Votes For Women'. What a bold move at the time. It made news all around the world back then and ensured that it pushed the issue for the women's vote internationally. Muriel also famously chained herself to the grille of the Ladies' Gallery in the British House of Commons. The grille was designed—listen to this—to obscure women's view of the parliamentary debates, standing as a symbol of the oppression that women had to put up with in a male dominated society. It was Muriel's conviction that the grille should be removed. While attached to the grille, Muriel, by a legal technicality, was judged to be on the floor of parliament and thus the words spoken by her that day are still considered to be the first words delivered by a woman in the House of Commons, and therefore made the records of Hansard. I talk about Muriel Matters not only because she represents the power of women to achieve change but also because she reminds us of how hard women have had to fight to have their voices heard in places like our parliaments around the world. That's what women were trying to achieve yesteryear, and yet this government refuses to listen. It refuses to join Australian women in solidarity and agree to work with them to ensure things change. It's horrendous that one in every three Australian women has experienced physical or sexual violence and that we hear of one murder per week, approximately. I must say I'm listening, and it's time this government does the same. (Time expired) Gambling 76 19:55 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I want to talk tonight about credit card gambling. I started the day talking about this, and I want to end the day talking about this. Australians spend $25 billion a year on gambling. We are, per capita, the worst gamblers in the world in the amount of money that we spend. I don't mind so much if someone wants to gamble their own money away, provided they can feed their kids, put shoes on their feet, send them to school and pay their bills. The states and territories have all banned the use of credit cards from places like TABs, from poker machines, from casinos and RSLs et cetera. There's one place you can still use your credit card to gamble, and that's on the internet. We as the Commonwealth government control that space, and we need to do better than we are doing right now. Twenty-five billion dollars a year is spent on gambling. Have a think about that. That's about six Sunshine Coast University Hospitals that could be built each and every year. I've had lengthy discussions with the banks about this in the last couple of weeks—banks like Citibank, Suncorp, Macquarie and other smaller banks. These are banks that have made a conscious decision to ban the use of credit cards for gambling. But the big four banks haven't: Westpac, ANZ, Commonwealth and the National. So I've gone and seen senior executives from each of them. Do you know what, Mr Speaker? They agree with me. They are in furious agreement with me that the use of credit cards for online gambling should be banned, just as it is banned for gambling in the real world. We often talk about this issue. We often say that what is legal in the real world should be legal online and what is illegal in the real world should be illegal online. If you can't use your credit card at the track, at the pokies or at the TAB, why should you be able to use your credit card gambling at home on the internet? It's a very simple question. Not only are people losing tens of thousands of dollars—in this case, up to $25 billion a year—in gambling, but when you use your credit card to gamble you are paying 22 per cent interest on the loss that you will inevitably incur when you gamble, because the house always wins. Ultimately, the house always wins. We are seeing people racking up debts of tens of thousands of dollars and paying 22 per cent interest as a result. So I went to the banks and I said: 'This has got to change, and you should be out the front making those changes. It is your obligation to your customers. There is a moral imperative here that you make these changes.' They said: 'It's too hard. What we want you to do, Andrew, is press your colleagues in parliament to make us make those changes.' If the banks won't enter into a voluntary code of conduct amongst themselves, we can make simple changes to the Interactive Gambling Act to prohibit the use of credit cards and the likes of PayPal with gambling companies that operate online. It is very simple. This will save people's lives. We know that gambling is a root cause of things like domestic violence. This is an opportunity for us here in this place to do the right thing, and it is always the right time to do the right thing. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 76 NOTICES

Tuesday, 16 March 2021

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Irons) took the chair at 16:00.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 80 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS March 4 Justice 80 16:00 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Yesterday I stood with thousands of women out the front of this house on the front lawns of Parliament House to demand action and to demand change—genuine, lasting change—for women in Australia. Across the country, tens of thousands of women joined the March 4 Justice rallies, including in my own electorate of Newcastle. Today the member for Sydney and I, and a number of Labor women, tabled a petition presented to us at the protest, signed by 135,000 people. Yesterday was a day of sadness, frustration and anger, but it was also one of hope and commitment. This anger wasn't directionless. It wasn't without purpose. Women were very clear in their message back to this House, to this government and to this Prime Minister. Their message was strong and powerful. It was: 'Enough is enough. No more violence, no more sexual harassment, no more domestic abuse, no more bullying, no more coercive control, no more murders of woman by men who purport to love them.' It is not too much to ask. But the Prime Minister couldn't make it down to those lawns. He couldn't hear that message. He couldn't confront that reality. Shame on him. You have been called out, Prime Minister. Your record is woeful. You're somebody who is more than an administrator in this nation; you are the Prime Minister—the leader. We're not looking for somebody who, as I think Janet Albrechtsen said in The Australian, regards themselves as the branch bank manager, looking for someone else to explain away all the hard things and leaving it to others to make all the tough decisions. That is not the role of a Prime Minister. You can't keep going to your wife because you lack some empathy gene to understand the need to take rape seriously. You say you're not a police commissioner, and that is true, but you are the leader of this nation, and 51 per cent of the nation are looking to you for leadership now. It's not good enough to tell us that it's some triumph of democracy that we weren't shot when we were down on those lawns yesterday. That is not the message we're looking for here. Prime Minister, you failed to act on reports that have been sitting on your desk and your Attorney-General's desk for more than a year. You've failed to trend the violence against women in the direction we want to see. Now is the time to act. Stand up and be a Prime Minister. Royal Flying Doctor Service 80 16:03 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to recognise an intrepid lady of the O'Connor Wheatbelt who supports the Royal Flying Doctor Service by traversing huge distances on foot. The travels of Ann McLeish include walking north-west from her hometown of Narrogin to the state capital of Perth—a hike of 200 kilometres. Back in 2014, Ann completed her longest walk, a 270 kilometre walk from Narrogin to Albany. And last year, amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, she stepped out 202 kilometres, social distancing all the way, from Narrogin to Newdegate via Wagin. I met up with Ann two weekends ago at one of WA's premier agricultural events, the Wagin Woolorama. It's Wagin's 118th agricultural show. Over the two-day Woolorama, Ann raised $4,078 for the Royal Flying Doctor Service by rattling her tin at the gate. That formidable effort is a hint that her real achievement is not the thousands of kilometres she has trekked from town to town since she slipped on her sports shoes in 2008. As impressive as those distances are, Ann's great legacy is the hundreds of thousands of dollars that she has raised for the Royal Flying Doctor Service. The sum of her fundraising to date is an extraordinary $218,000. At the Woolorama, Ann told me that the Flying Doctor became her favourite charity after her brother, son and granddaughter were transported by the service. That's pretty typical in many remote areas of my electorate of O'Connor, where everyone—whether they be individuals, their families or friends—has at sometime relied on the RFDS. In 2019-20 the service flew eight million kilometres in Western Australia and transported 9,012 patients. In the Goldfields region alone, 1,624 patients have been assisted; in the Wheatbelt, where Ann lives, there were 735; in the South West region, 574; and in the Great Southern, where I'm from, 799 patients were transported. It was the flying doctor's busiest year ever in the west, and I thank them for their service. That's why Ann, who turns 76 on Thursday, still pounds the pavements and hikes the highways of O'Connor. Rather than slowing down, she's picking up the pace with a series of shorter, snappier walks planned from Dongara to Mingenew, Mingenew to Three Springs and from Lake Grace to Newdegate—each a lazy 50 kilometres or so. And, unlike the water from the salt lakes passed on many of Ann's walks, not one cent that she raises will evaporate in administration costs. Every dollar sourced from her sure and steady steps will land where it's needed—at the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which just goes to show that, in fundraising as in life, it's one thing to talk the talk but it's quite another to walk the walk. Wilson, Ms Kerrie, Forest Lake RSL Service Dogs 81 16:06 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I’m proud today to speak today about a good friend and an irreplaceable member of the community in my electorate of Oxley. Kerrie Wilson, director of the Aspen Community Early Learning Centre at Inala, retired last week, after more than three decades as a not-for-profit childcare worker. Kerrie started her career in 1984 in New South Wales, arriving at Aspen Early Learning Centre around 21 years ago. It was the first not-for-profit childcare centre in Queensland at the time and was on the verge of closing due to financial problems. Kerrie put everything into making sure the doors stayed open, setting up new admin and financial systems—remembering that she 'upgraded the building and dragged it into the 21st century'. Until her last day at Aspen on Friday, Kerrie worked tirelessly to access inclusion support for the many children with additional needs who have passed through the centre’s doors. As 85 per cent of the children at the centre are from Vietnamese backgrounds, Kerrie has been dedicated to assisting non-English speaking families in accessing important community grants and education funding, ensuring every child is given the best possible start in life. She says that finishing up at work was surreal. I caught up with Kerrie last week and said, 'You can now put your feet up,' although being the hard worker that she is, I bet she will continue volunteering and helping out in the community after a short break. Congratulations, Kerrie. We are all so proud of what you've done for our community, for your advocacy and all of your specialty in early learning. I'd also like to commend another great community-focused effort in my electorate. The Forest Lake RSL sub-branch is leading the way across the country in training PTSD service dogs to support veterans battling the demons of war. Recently, I had the opportunity to meet with veteran Bill on the day his service dog Mya was officially handed over to him. Mya completed 18 months of intensive training with the Forest Lake RSL sub branch's dedicated service dog training expert Michelle, and has become professional and focused. Now, she’ll be by Bill’s side helping him develop a sense of safety and improving his community engagement and social interactions. Mya is just one example of how a service dog can change the lives of returned service men and women. Another veteran I met that day told me that, before he was paired with his service dog, he had been contemplating suicide. The trailblazing work of the Forest Lake RSL sub-branch is not only changing lives, led by Sharon Ford and Steve Ford is not only changing lives; it's also saving them. On behalf of our local community I congratulate them, I thank them and I look forward to supporting and working with them for many years to come. Bonner Electorate: Moreton Island 81 16:09 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner Last week, I took the ferry over to Moreton Island in my electorate to meet with constituents, community groups, rangers and tour operators to see how they fared during the summer holiday season. I must say it was fantastic to see so many Aussies heading over to holiday on Moreton Island. Special thanks to Trevor Hassard, a Moreton Island local and director of the Tangalooma Island Resort. On every visit, he takes me to the islands and to the various townships and he goes out of his way to be accommodating. Thank you very much, Trevor. In heartening news of our economic recovery, Tangalooma Island Resort has graduated off JobKeeper and is running at near full capacity. With sunset over the bay, white sandy beaches and crystal clear waters, it is great to see tourists supporting our local tourism operators. My first stop was at the Bulla Fire Station to see its amazing upgrades and to meet with residents in the area. Crime has been somewhat of an issue, with some groups of campers abusing the region and not obeying speed limits on the beaches. The Wynnum police have recently taken over the jurisdiction of Moreton Island, so I look forward to chatting with officer in charge Wayne Richter to discuss the concerns of locals. I have been told that locals are impressed with the Wynnum police response times to any issues. If anyone is thinking of heading over to Moreton Island for a camping and 4WD adventure, I implore you to please follow the rules, respect others and respect the natural environment. It is there for all of us to enjoy safely. I know the Indigenous joint management of Moreton Island by QYAC has been somewhat of a concern to residents and tour operators on the island. The biggest issues fall around the lack of community consultation, communication and accountability. I'll be raising these issues with my state colleagues and will implore them to visit with their constituents. Jobs, livelihoods and tourism depend on all groups working together harmoniously and more needs to be done. I would like to see that happen. Over at Cowan Cowan, I met with residents and was updated on the work about to start on the fire station's new shed. I also learned one of Queensland's last remaining signalling stations is located nearby, and residents would like to see something done to preserve this slice of history. While it was built to help ships navigate into port, it was later used during World War II to set off explosives planted in the bay if enemy ships or subs were sighted. I then finally I caught up with Ranger Rusty of Queensland Parks and Wildlife who, with his team, has done a tremendous job of eradicating feral pigs on the island. On the day prior to visiting, we found out we were also successful— (Time expired) Shortland Electorate: Health 82 16:12 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I'm providing the House with an update today on some very disturbing developments regarding health in the Shortland electorate, which is particularly worrying when we're facing a global pandemic. I've recently been contacted by the principal GP of two medical centres, one on the very southern tip of Shortland in Lake Munmorah and one in the northern part of Dobell at Lake Haven. Both of these communities have significant socioeconomic challenges and access to health care is of fundamental importance. I'm very concerned that this doctor has been advised of the significant reduction of GPs at these two centres because the area has been reclassified from being a district of workforce shortage area to an MM1 area under the modified Monash model. This means, in the words of Dr Chowdhury, that these areas have a similar classification as metropolitan Sydney. This classification is so far removed from truth that it beggars belief. Both centres are now working with half the number of GPs they had before the change. Dr Chowdhury told me, 'At our best, both medical centres provide quality medical services. Patients were able to access a GP with waits of no longer than 48 hours. We used to operate weekly diabetic and weight loss clinics, monthly COPD clinics and biannual ABI check clinics. This is now all history. I know our hospital admission rates have increased. We now have wait times of over two weeks to see a GP. Due to financial constraints, we have had to further reduce staff and cannot operate our preventative health programs. Further, much to the disappointment of our GPs, who used to pride themselves on offering services at no cost to patients given the area's low-socio demographic, we are gradually introducing co-payments to patients who can barely afford to pay.' This is just not on. Lake Munmorah and Lake Haven should in no way have the same GP classification as the Sydney CBD or rich Mosman or wealthy Bondi. This is utterly ridiculous. I've written to the minister asking him to urgently reclassify these areas to their previous designation. Access to health care in Australia should be about the need for treatment and not about a person's ability to pay for treatment. A great Labor maxim is that your Medicare card should be more important than your credit card. What is happening in Lake Haven and Lake Munmorah is exactly what the Liberal Party wanted when they were first elected in 2013: a Medicare co-payment for some of Australia's most disadvantaged people and the end of the universality of Medicare. The government need to urgently change the classifications for these areas to ensure that some of the most disadvantaged people in New South Wales are able to access the treatment they need. I and my Labor colleagues will stand up and defend Medicare, support GPs and defend bulk-billing. Those on the other side are intent on the destruction of Medicare and further disadvantaging people in my community. Fairfax Electorate: Rail 82 16:15 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Never in our history has the Sunshine Coast been the recipient of so much federal government funding—never before. This is evidenced particularly with infrastructure. Between Pine Rivers and Gympie, the Bruce Highway spend alone is $3.2 billion; the North Coast rail line has $390 million; and there is the concessional loan to upgrade the Sunny Coast airport, at $181 million. But, as we look to the future, there is one form of infrastructure that will transform the Sunshine Coast like none other, and that is rail. There are two projects that we need in particular. First, we need full duplication of rail—that is, two tracks—between Beerburrum and Nambour, designed in a way that will accommodate fast trail in the future. Second, we need fast rail from Brisbane through to Maroochydore. That is using the CAMCOS corridor, providing the Sunny Coast with a rail link to its coastal strip that it's never had before. On the latter project, Infrastructure Australia reported just last week what we all expected, and that is that the fast rail link to Maroochydore doesn't yet have its green light. There are a few key takeaways based on the criteria of Infrastructure Australia. No. 1: the strategic fit, the rationale, the why—a big tick for that. There is no doubt, and now Infrastructure Australia has confirmed it, that the Sunshine Coast does need fast rail as a solution—what it would do for lifestyle, jobs, unleashing new accommodation and affordable housing, and what it would do to boost the economy. The second takeaway is the main hurdle, and that is that the main proponent, which is the state government, has not yet supported the project. Third, there's more work to be done on the business case. So, where do we go from here? We know Infrastructure Australia are not the decision-makers—governments make decisions—but they do provide good guidance. Firstly, in order to ensure the state government gets onboard, I've written to the state minister, Mark Bailey, and hopefully will engage with him to talk about how we take this project together as two tiers of government—indeed, three, with the local councils onboard. Secondly, Infrastructure Australia gave everybody a hint—the importance of this stretch of rail within a broader South-East Queensland fast-rail network. That is why we need to have a strategy that takes a South-East Queensland outlook. And, thirdly, what we really need to do is make sure the public keep getting onboard. Go to fastrail.com.au and get onboard. (Time expired) March 4 Justice 83 16:18 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin Yesterday, it was a real privilege to walk outside of this building with many of my Labor colleagues, and some from the other side, in the March 4 Justice. This was an optimistic moment when over 100,000 Australians took time out of their busy day, on a Monday, a working day, to march and say, 'Enough is enough.' I'm so proud of my colleagues for going out yesterday, unlike some on the other side, particularly the Minister for Women and the Prime Minister, who failed to show up when it mattered. We heard from some amazing speakers. I want to particularly thank Ms Brittany Higgins for turning up yesterday and for her wonderful, powerful and incredibly brave speech. I think she summed it up when she said: We are all here today not because we want to be here, but because we have to be here ... That expresses the frustrations of so many Australian men and women. They have seen so many Australian women so frustrated for so long. We are frustrated; we are tired. We are tired of the sexual harassment; we're tired of the sexual assaults; we're tired of the rapes; we're tired of the violence against women and their children; we're tired of the murders that are happening in Australia by intimate partners of women almost every week. We're tired. We want action from our government. Yesterday after question time when the Prime Minister stood up on indulgence I was hopeful. I was hopeful that finally, after eight years of this government, somebody was going to stand up and take the moment and have heard what the voices around Australia were telling them yesterday. I was hopeful that we were going to get a statement of action from the Prime Minister. Instead what we got was a statement about: how great is our democracy? How good it is that we weren't rained on by bullets. Absolutely, that was a good thing that we weren't, but a better thing would have been to hear from a Prime Minister who listens, who is acting and is doing something about it. Australian women and Australian men have had enough. They want things changed and they want them done soon. For this government to have sat on the report into sexual harassment in the workplace, the respect at work report done by Kate Jenkins, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, for a year with virtually no action is not good enough. It is a real fear from people who work in this building that when Kate Jenkins does her report into what happens in this place and how we fix it—it cannot sit on a government minister's desk for 12 months. It is simply not good enough, what has happened up until today, and we need action. Sturt Electorate: Roads 83 16:21 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt It's an exciting time in the electorate of Sturt for three major congestion-busting infrastructure projects that've being jointly funded by the Commonwealth and the state government of South Australia: the Magill Portrush intersection right in the heart of the electorate, the Fullarton Glen Osmond intersection and the Fullarton Cross Road intersection—which is on the boundary of my electorate, the electorate of Adelaide and the electorate of Boothby. With that one in particular, I informed the House earlier today we have had a breakthrough on one of the issues regarding a heritage issue to do with the demolition of a historic gatehouse, which has been resolved. I won't recap on my comments about that. That puts us in a position now, with that project, and frankly all three projects, to be moving ahead to the tendering phase. My understanding from the state department is that the two southern intersections, the Cross Road Fullarton and the Glen Osmond Fullarton, will be awarded as one single tender and the Magill Portrush will be awarded as a separate tender. I understand that one will be done in the next few weeks, which is very exciting because we've been waiting to get to this point. We've undertaken all of the land acquisition on the Magill Portrush intersection. That's now concluded. We've undertaken the relocation of the big 66 kilovolt lines from the substation that need to be relocated for the new footprint of that intersection. So now we can proceed to awarding the tender and getting the actual surface works undertaken and get that project completed. It is going to be transformative for that intersection, which carries around 65,000 vehicles a day. I can tell you, not just as the local member but as someone who lives within a few hundred metres of that intersection, it's going to be a real change to the lives of families in the area, getting us home from work quicker and safer and to where we need to be with our families during the week and on weekends. It's the same case for the Fullarton Glen Osmond and the Fullarton Cross Road intersections. I mentioned before that that's on the boundary of my electorate. That will have an enormous benefit not just to my electorate but particularly to the electorate of Boothby. I commend the member for Boothby for the work that she has done with me in working with the state and federal governments to see that achieved and see the resolution of some of the heritage sensitivities on those projects. It is a great example of two excellent Liberal governments working together to deliver for the people of South Australia. It is an excellent partnership. There are a number of these projects, these congestion-busting projects, going on around the city of Adelaide. I'm very grateful that three of them are in my electorate of Sturt. This is what good governments do: work together and solve practical problems on the ground for people. There's nothing better than reducing traffic congestion. In my electorate those three projects are going to be transformative for those neighbourhoods. They're also going to bring about massive safety outcomes for families and businesses in my electorate. I thank both governments for their support of those projects. Corangamite Electorate: Broadband 84 16:24 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Deputy Speaker, and members in the chamber, I want to share a story with you. It is a story of frustration and anger, a story that will resonate for many in the Bellarine, the Surf Coast and across my electorate of Corangamite. It's a story that reveals just how ill-prepared this government is to deliver decent, reliable mobile reception and an NBN. Rachel is 72 and lives alone on the Bellarine Peninsula. She's been battling in recent weeks to maintain her health and independence, but Rachel does not want to move into aged care. She relies on her mobile phone to make her medical appointments, to call a taxi and to connect with friends and family. Unfortunately, her reception is so bad that she often cannot make calls. She worries that if there is a bushfire or if she has a fall she'll be left on her own without help or support. When I spoke with Rachel at my street stall in Portarlington she was anxious and frustrated about her situation. She's not alone. Jenny, who also lives on the Bellarine, built her dream home three years ago, but the one thing she didn't count on was a woeful mobile phone reception. She found this out recently when she had to call triple 0 and couldn't get through on her mobile. When she finally did get through, and the paramedics arrived, they could not get reception either to contact the hospital. Such anxiety and stress is caused by this government's inaction. I understand Rachel's and Jenny's fears. They are the fears and frustrations of many, and it's not good enough. The federal government should not leave so many in my electorate isolated and disconnected. So today I'm announcing my campaign to reconnect my community—a campaign to give people better reception and better connectivity. To do so, we need well-positioned towers and targeted technologies. If you live in Waurn Ponds or Grovedale, in Leopold, the Bellarine or along the Great Ocean Road, or anywhere in Corangamite, head to libbycoker.com.au to fill out our petition to improve mobile reception and the NBN. Together we will fight for a better connected region. I want to acknowledge that this government has announced fixed mobile reception upgrades 23 times in my electorate. This is a good thing, but the problem is that there are still significant NBN and mobile reception issues right across my region. This affects people's livelihoods, their jobs, their businesses, their studies, their connection to community, their health and their wellbeing. So, if you have an issue with mobile reception, sign our petition. I look forward to hearing from you. Holbrook, Mrs Gundula 84 16:27 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I rise today to honour the life of a wonderful woman who hailed from Austria. Her links, and those of her husband, to my electorate of Farrer are well known locally but worth retelling here. At the age of 106, Gundula Holbrook passed peacefully on New Year's Eve in her home town of Steinfeld in Austria's south. Here in Australia her passing was mourned particularly by her namesake town. Holbrook in southern New South Wales has a population of around 1,700 and is a key stop on the Hume Highway between Sydney and Melbourne. Those with a sense of curiosity often wonder why there is a 90-metre replica of an Oberon class submarine sitting in a playground area in the north of the town—400 kilometres from the nearest Australian seaport. If not for Mrs Holbrook, this unique, historic marker may never have come to be. Gundula was the second wife of Commander Norman Douglas Holbrook, a British submariner and the first naval recipient of the Victoria Cross in World War I. His 1915 exploits in sinking an enemy ship after negotiating a treacherous mine-laden stretch of water in the straits off Gallipoli earned him a commendation but also the attention of the local folk back here, who were coincidentally canvassing a new name for their town at the time. Titled 'Germanton' after the settlers who made this part of the southern Riverina their home, heightened sensitivity around wartime deemed the town moniker unsuitable. Holbrook was chosen, and the British war hero was duly notified by a formal letter from the shire clerk. While Commander Holbrook was no doubt honoured to have a remote Australian shearing and wheatbelt community named for his gallantry, it apparently never inspired him to visit until his new wife suggested it would be a nice gesture of appreciation to pop along and say hello, some 40 years after the bestowed honour. While Norman did warm to the community, it was Gundula who became the town's champion. In 1996, 20 years after Commander Holbrook's death, she was a special guest at the ceremony to erect the fin or tail of the recently decommissioned HMAS Otway. Noting that the fin was a little bit small to feature as a major tourist drawcard, she immediately wrote a cheque for $100,000 to help ship the entire vessel to a new home. The Otway is now the star attraction of the Holbrook Submarine Museum, located proudly and most prominently in Germanton Park in Holbrook, New South Wales. Vale, Gundula. You will be forever fondly remembered in our part of Australia. And if anyone is ever travelling along the Hume Highway, it is a great place to stop and let the children have a run. CONDOLENCES 85 CONDOLENCES Somare, Grand Chief Sir Michael Thomas 85 16:30 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I rise this afternoon privileged to acknowledge the extraordinary life of Papua New Guinea Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare, who sadly passed away last month. My community and those that call Cairns and Far North Queensland home have very strong and deep ties with Papua New Guinea. In fact, we have the largest population of Papua New Guineans outside of Papua New Guinea, and we are very proud of these wonderful citizens. In fact, the most northern island of the Torres Strait, Saibai Island in my vast electorate of Leichhardt, is literally four kilometres from mainland Papua New Guinea. You can stand on the foreshore of Saibai and you can see the smoke rising from the villages in Sigabadaru and in the wet season you can see the deer swimming from the mainland of Papua New Guinea onto Saibai Island and retreating back to Papua New Guinea when the surface water dries up. That's how close and interwoven our two nations are. Sir Michael Somare was a towering figure in the history of Papua New Guinea. He was a driving force in the development of Papua New Guinea's national constitution and was the nation's first and longest-serving Prime Minister. He was Papua New Guinea's longest-serving member of parliament and represented his East Sepik constituency for 49 years. I suspect that's almost a record here in Australia as well. He also served as foreign affairs minister, Leader of the Opposition, and local governor of the East Sepik province. To his fellow countrymen, Sir Michael was affectionately known as the Chief and as father of the nation. He was one of only two people in Papua New Guinea to be given the official title of Grand Chief. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1990. Sir Michael was a person that deserved and commanded the respect of his community, its people and the nation—and rightfully so. Sir Michael holds an unparalleled place in the history of Papua New Guinea. He was the driving force behind—and led Papua New Guinea into—independence from Australia in 1975. His five decades of public service will be a long-lasting legacy for the nation, and especially its people, that he loved so much and cared so deeply about. Sir Michael once said: PNG is a melting pot of tribes, clans and families that were never meant to be the same. But despite all this, I have found that it is not a difficult nation to unite. Wise and profound words; words that we all can learn from. I had the privilege of meeting Sir Michael in 1975, when I was in the Air Force and based in Papua New Guinea. I was in Papua New Guinea at the time of independence. That was the first time I met him. I met him a number of times over the years. Sir Michael was a true statesman in every sense of the word. Finally, on behalf of my community, I would like to pass on my deepest condolences to Sir Michael's wife, Lady Veronica Somare, to their five children, to their grandchildren and of course to the wider Somare family. Rest in peace, Sir Michael. 16:33 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I rise in support of this condolence motion and join in expressing Labor's deep sadness at the passing of Grand Chief Sir Michael Thomas Somare. Today we honour his extraordinary lifetime of service and celebrate his profound impact upon the nation of Papua New Guinea, as its first and longest-serving Prime Minister. As the Grand Chief and father of the nation, Sir Michael was a man who was deeply committed to his people and to the cause of national independence. He served a remarkable 17 years as Prime Minister over four terms and was knighted in 1990. But Sir Michael was much more than the office he held and the honours he was awarded. He was a symbol of self-determination and autonomy. He was a towering political figure, with a commitment to advancing Papua New Guinea's national interests. He was a tireless advocate for Pacific regionalism and dialogue. Born in the coastal town of Rabaul in 1936, Sir Michael was raised in his father's ancestral home of Karau Village in the East Sepik province, a region he later went on to represent in parliament. He first began his service to the nation when he became a teacher in 1957. He later worked as an interpreter and a radio journalist. The beginnings of his political career came when he left the public service and attended the administrative college in Port Moresby alongside other young and energetic nationalists. Here he became a member of the Bully Beef Club, which later became Pangu Pati, Papua New Guinea's first locally initiated political party. In 1968, Sir Michael contested the elections for the second house of assembly as leader of the Pangu Pati and pledged to champion the demand for national self-governance and independence. He was re-elected in 1972 to become the first and only chief minister of Papua New Guinea while it was still an Australian administered territory, leading a coalition government. As remarked by Gough Whitlam, who visited Papua New Guinea as opposition leader in 1970 and 1971, this was a nation that was already rich in leadership and had a transformed political climate under the then young Sir Michael's leadership. With the election of the Whitlam government in Australia in 1972, the pace towards independence increased. Sir Michael was instrumental during this time in negotiating between Australia's wishes for a quick transition and resistance from people in the highland provinces and Bougainville. He held a pivotal role in preparation for the adoption of the constitution. As a member of the Select Committee on Constitutional Development, he travelled the country to talk to people in communities who were apprehensive about self-governance and to ensure that the beliefs and wishes of Papua New Guineans would be reflected in the nation's constitution. His leadership throughout this period was hallmarked by his unwavering commitment to the principles of sana, meaning consensus, peacemaking and inclusion, in his traditional language. His former advisor, the outgoing Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum, Dame Meg Taylor, has said nothing pleased Sir Michael more than exchanging ideas and stories. If the sun set on a conversation in a rural village, she remembered, he'd come back again or spend the night to finish the discussion and make sure everyone was heard. At the memorial service last week, Dame Meg described Sir Michael as a 'master politician in a truly Melanesian fashion'. She said: His astuteness in assessing a situation, understanding the implications of words and actions, comprehending anxiety and its consequences and using his skills as a listener, teacher, and a leader, brought people together. Sir Michael was ultimately successful in his vision for a unified, independent Papua New Guinea. He formally led his country to self-governance in December 1973 and ultimately secured a peaceful transition to independence on 16 September 1975 when he became the first Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea. On his 80th birthday, he reflected that his 'lifelong dream for this remarkable country was fulfilled at independence when we started with peace'. The unification of such a diverse and complex nation with over 1,000 different tribal groups and more than 800 Indigenous languages was, indeed, a colossal achievement. Sir Michael went on to serve as Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea for 17 years, on three separate occasions, a period spanning Australian prime ministerships from Whitlam to Gillard. His leadership was a testament to his unwavering commitment to democracy and his support for the Westminster political system. Despite challenges, this democracy remains steadfast today. As the Australian National University's Dr Ronald May recently wrote, Papua New Guinea 'remains one of a fairly small number of post-colonial states that have maintained an unbroken record of democracy'. Sir Michael will be remembered as a well-respected friend to Australia and for his commitments to regional solidarity and cooperation in the Pacific. Under his leadership, Australia enjoyed a longstanding and productive relationship with our closest neighbour. As a strong advocate for the Pacific Island Forum, Sir Michael also recognised the need for integration and dialogue to advance the development of Pacific nations. He set the path for a new model of leadership, continuing to affirm the importance of his people's traditional ways of life while seeking to progress PNG as a modern nation. There is no doubt that Sir Michael's legacy as a founding father of an independent Papua New Guinea will live on into the future. I extend our deep condolences to his wife, Lady Veronica, his children and the whole of the Somare family. I also extend our nation's condolences to the citizens of Papua New Guinea at this time. May he rest in peace. 16:39 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon It's no small thing to be called the father of a nation, but that was the title bestowed on Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare. It's no small thing to help create a new nation and lead it into a new world. These were but two of the many achievements of Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare. It's an honour for me to rise today to contribute to this condolence motion and join my friend in acknowledging an extraordinary leader. It is not only a privilege to be honouring the life of this leader and the contributions of this great man; I am also the co-chair of the Australia-Papua New Guinea Parliamentary Friendship Group. The reason I am working in that area is that Papua New Guinea is such an important friend of Australia's. That relationship is in no small part thanks to the efforts of the late great chief. Sir Michael led Papua New Guinea to independence from Australia. Amid the pre-independence debate about what an independent Papua New Guinea would look like, Sir Michael was clear about the vision he had for the new nation and brought all of his considerable skill and talent to bring that vision to fruition. We can learn much about Sir Michael the statesman from the stories of those who met him and those who worked with him. Bill Sanders, who worked as a patrol officer in Papua New Guinea before independence, told me about when he met Sir Michael, who was then but a young politician. At the meetings Bill attended, Sir Michael took the time to explain to each person about the progress which had been achieved at that point on the road to independence. Bill said, 'I do recall the respect that we all had for the quietly spoken politician, who was still finding his way.' Quietly explaining things and bringing people together to a common position was Sir Michael's leadership style. It is true to say he was a leader who sought to build consensus and reduce conflict. When a new nation is born, there is no guarantee of success or failure for the future of that country. We all know of numerous examples of failed and troubled states—new nations plunged into chaos, or autocracy, after much initial promise. At the time of independence, many thought Papua New Guinea would face a similar fate. How could one of the most linguistically and culturally diverse nations in the world cohere and survive? The factor that makes the difference, however, is political leadership. When leaders place institutions above themselves, success for those institutions follows. Sir Michael was just such a leader. At various points over his long public career, such as when he first lost the position of Prime Minister of the country that he had helped create, Sir Michael could have attempted to hold onto power through extra-parliamentary means—and there are plenty of examples of where that has occurred in other countries—but he was committed to the rule of law and democracy as much as he loved the country he had helped create. It can be difficult to recognise and evaluate a historical reputation so soon after the death of such a significant figure. There may be debates about the finer points of legacies, and contrasting views will of course be put—and that is a good thing—but I am confident that the fullness of time will demonstrate the full role of the Grand Chief. History will judge Sir Michael favourably and place him among the greats. Papua New Guinea has lost a great father. The region has lost a great father. Australia has lost a great friend. But let's not dwell on this loss. Let's instead reflect upon what Sir Michael leaves behind. His legacy lives on. Papua New Guinea is a free country with a free people who, having seized their own destiny and having joined the nations of the world, look towards a future of progress and prosperity. That is the legacy Sir Michael leaves behind. More importantly, Sir Michael leaves behind a family that he cherished dearly. I too pass on my personal condolences to his widow, Lady Veronica, and to his children, Bertha, Sana, Arthur, Michael Junior and Dulciana. Finally, today Papua New Guinea faces a crisis from the ravages of COVID-19. Australia shares an important history with Papua New Guinea and our destinies are inseparable. In the shadow of the death of the Grand Chief, let us here in this place resolve to do everything we can to support our sisters and brothers in Papua New Guinea overcome this terrible virus. Rest in peace, Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare. 16:45 The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM I understand it is the wish of the honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I ask all present to do so. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM I thank the Federation Chamber. 16:45 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt by leave—I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 87 COMMITTEES Australia's Family Law System Joint Select Committee 87 Report 87 16:45 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman It is easy for me to talk about this because I have had personal experience in it, unfortunately. About 26 years ago, I had the unfortunate experience of going through a divorce. In my case my ex-wife and I were very amicable, she was very easy to work with, and we decided to put the children first, which is the way it should be. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that way. I have heard for years and have seen personally as well—as in the electorate now I'm an elected official—personal and heartbreaking stories from people in our community when a marriage or relationship breaks down and it isn't so amicable. I have heard stories about mums fleeing in the middle of the night with their children because of an abusive partner. I have heard stories about dads who have been denied access to their children, simply because of spiteful behaviour. Divorce can be also an expensive process, particularly when it gets dragged out in the courts. I hate it when there's $500,000 worth of assets and $400,000 ends up going to lawyers. It is just unfair. All of these situations were exacerbated when COVID-19 struck. As the Family Court backlog grew longer, people were forced to accept delayed outcomes which put strain on parents and their children. In the 2016 census, almost 15 per cent of people aged over 15 in my electorate of Longman were either divorced or separated. That is around 18,000 people. The Family Law Act has been called overly complex and lengthy. It's probably an understatement. The Morrison government is committed to ongoing improvements to the family law system so that families can resolve matters safely, fairly and quickly. The Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, as I said—I was a late call-in on that one, due to someone else leaving the committee—has tabled its recommendations for family law reform, which will be considered by government. These reforms focus on four major areas of concern: extensive delays, excessive legal costs, the difficulty of enforcing court orders, and timely and fair resolution of family violence allegations. It makes 29 recommendations broadly regarding: legislative reform, legal costs, court funding, legal assistance funding, accreditation and training, Family Law Council, family violence. One of the recommendations put forward by the committee was around the concept of shared equal parental responsibility. Reforms made to the Family Law Act in 2006 by the Howard government aimed to ensure children could have meaningful relationships with both parents after a marriage breakdown. This is extremely important, in my view. In reforms made to the Family Law Act, the idea was that both parents would share equal parental responsibility. In practice, though, this is not always applied and for good reason. There are instances when it's not safe to do so. If one parent is violent or addicted to illegal substances, for example, then the child is at risk. The family law courts must ensure each individual situation that comes before it is determined with the best interests of the child at the forefront. The courts must consider whether a child spending equal or substantial time with both of their parents is in that child's best interests and is also practicable to do so. The Australian Law Reform Commission, in its review of the family law system, recommended clarifying the idea of shared equal parental responsibility to reduce any confusion that might arise from its usage. It is an important point and it is imperative that we get this right. The commission stated that the concept of equal parental responsibility is a good starting point for negotiations between parents and should be retained. Many decisions that occur after the starting point have their foundations in that concept. Further family law reforms in 2012 included attaching greater weight to child protection than to parental involvement when determining what is in the best interests of the child. In practice, it was found that, in cases where there were allegations of family violence or child abuse, shared parental responsibility was decided in only 33.8 per cent of cases. Shared care time involving between 35 per cent and 65 per cent of time was decided in only 10.6 per cent of cases. Issues related to family violence were raised in many submissions to the committee's inquiry. The committee made specific recommendations aimed to improve the experience of victims of family violence in the family law system. These include reviewing state and territory family violence order frameworks, and reviewing definitions of family violence to ensure a consistent approach; developing an appropriate technology platform for information sharing; and reviewing family violence and family law services to ensure adequate support services for all victims of family violence in considering initiatives to encourage a more gender balanced workforce. While the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System considers its response to the recommendations of the commission, the government has put in place a range of measures to improve safety within the family law system. We have supported the launch of a new family safety risk screening and triage process being piloted in the family law courts with a $13.5 million federal government investment. The pilot, known as the Lighthouse Project, was launched in December last year. All new parenting matters are systematically screened for family safety risks when filed in court. Matters are then triaged according to the level of identified risk. The Federal Circuit Court is also operating specialist family violence lists to resolve high-risk matters faster and more safely. The government has also provided funding of $10.4 million to pilot the rollout of child protection and policing officials in family law courts across Australia. These officials are improving the information available to the family law courts through the sharing of relevant information from different states and territories. The government is also working on a national information sharing framework to further enhance information sharing between these organisations. And we have funded the establishment of a family advocacy support service. The reforms to our family law system are incredibly important. We need to ensure that we get it right. Marriage breakdowns are emotional and stressful situations, particularly for the children. We need to ensure that the children are properly protected but, at the same time, we need to ensure that mums and dads have access to their children where appropriate and safe and practical. We also need to reduce the financial burden on families going through the family law process. 16:53 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I commend to the House the second interim report tabled on behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, of which I was a member. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues and fellow parliamentarians for the work on this inquiry, which was quite lengthy, over the period of time, with a substantial number of submissions. We also had robust discussions, which really can be seen through this report. I'd also like to thank the secretariat, who really had to do a lot of work in light of the volume of submissions and the highly emotional nature, in many instances, of the issues being the subject of submissions. In commending to the House this second interim report, I also must call on the government to actually act on the report. Don't let it sit on the shelf like so many similar reports that have come before it. We have to actually note this. It should be noted that there have been 67 different inquiries into the Family Law Act since it came into effect in January 1976, and unfortunately there is a history of successive inquiries identifying similar systemic problems with our family law system and successive governments being unwilling or unable to make the necessary changes. Out of respect for the people of Australia who are going through these highly distressing situations, I call on the government to enact the changes and the recommendations that are called for. The most recent inquiry led to the Australian Law Reform Commission report, which was handed down in March 2019, entitled, Family law for the future: an inquiry into the family law system. That report contains 60 different recommendations on how to improve the system, and, ironically, our inquiry looked at many of them and arrived at similar conclusions. Sadly, almost two years after that report was tabled, the government is yet to respond. Just recently, in Senate estimates, it was revealed that the Attorney-General had the government's response on his desk 17 months ago, but it is yet to see the light of day. I use this opportunity to again call on the government to publicly respond to the ALRC report and to urgently implement the full list of recommendations. The reality of modern society is that, sadly, 40 per cent of marriages end in divorce. While many of those separations are conducted fairly and amicably, there are still many Australians who rely on the family law system to settle their divorce and resolve disputes over property and custody of children. Most of us know someone who has gone through the family law courts or have experienced it firsthand themselves. I should say that I have been through the system and my husband has also been through the system, so I do know, from a personal point of view, the experience of the Family Court system, but also from having practiced in the jurisdiction as a family law barrister for some 10 years before coming to this place. To various degrees, the process can be adversarial, confrontational, emotionally unsettling, financially crippling and life-changing. It's for those reasons that it is imperative that our family law system needs to be not only functional but also fair and well funded. It's for that reason that this inquiry and its recommendations are so important. Over the course of the inquiry, we received more than 1,600 submissions. The majority were from individuals, detailing their very personal cases and experiences, and another 169 submissions were from organisations, academics and other professionals. Despite the various challenges of COVID-19 throughout 2020, the committee held 12 public hearings and 13 in camera hearings, so there was a very thorough hearing of the issue. At this stage, I would like to thank all the people who participated in the inquiry and made submissions. They often aired issues that were deeply personal and deeply emotional. It was often in the hope that others would have a better experience that they shared their experience. It was vitally important that we heard from those who have firsthand experience of the system and a desire to improve it. The terms of reference for the inquiry were far-ranging and, on the whole, I feel they are addressed in the interim report. I should say they are consistent with my own experience as a family law barrister. There were a number of key issues identified through this inquiry: the costs associated with the family law system; the adversarial nature of the family law courts and whether we should move towards a more inquisitorial model; the issue of distressing delays in the court system, and that was a recurring complaint—the amount of time it took for highly sensitive issues of parties to come before a judicial officer for determination; and the role of family consultants, expert witnesses and the independent children's lawyer—the weight that is given to their opinion and advice, and maybe the inconsistent approach or experience of witnesses in their interactions with family consultants and independent children's lawyers. Enforcement of family law orders was a real question. What happens after you leave the courtroom? How are orders that are made put into practice? In fact, are they keeping families and children safe and delivering their stated purpose, especially when it comes to parenting, to ensure that decisions and arrangements in the best interests of the children are, in fact, continuing? We also heard a lot around the interaction between the family law and domestic violence jurisdictions when it came to local courts interacting with the Family Court system. The committee arrived at 29 recommendations. I won't go into all of them in detail but I would encourage everyone interested in this area to read the report. Broadly speaking, they cover: the funding and expansion of a number of pilot programs providing support and mediation to parties going through family separation; the resourcing of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court, which have now changed since the merger legislation passed this place; the harmonisation of processes between the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court, which again are slightly outdated now; the levelling of certain costs and fees in family law proceedings; mandatory accreditation standards and monitoring processes for those involved in family law proceedings as well as professional development opportunities, and it's important that we recognise the stress that professionals who work in this system are under, especially judicial officers; the approaches to make Family Law courts less adversarial; the amplification of the voice of children in proceedings, where appropriate; the issue of perjury and wilfully misleading the court; and issues of domestic and family violence and the role of police, family violence orders and personal protection orders. We dealt with a number of issues in relation to allegations of false complaints. This is where the delay in the timeliness of the resolution of disputes came to the fore. The recommendations also include: improved information-sharing between various government agencies and various jurisdictions; increased funding for legal aid and community legal centres; a review of policies to allow for funding of both parties in appropriate circumstances; amending the Family Law Act 1975 to address a misunderstanding about shared parental responsibility; clarifying the requirements on independent children's lawyers; and addressing the issue of disclosure duties in regard to financial circumstances. In general, I agree with the majority of the recommendations. In closing, there are two issues I want to discuss: the number of judges in the family law system and the recent merger of the Family Court of Australia with the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. As of 6 November 2020 two in three Federal Circuit Court judges had more than 300 matters on their dockets, 27 judges had more than 400 cases, five judges had more than 500 cases and one judge had 659 cases. In the Family Court, two-thirds of judges had more than 300 cases on their dockets and five judges had more than 500 cases. To put this into perspective, this just shows that there is a chronic under-resourcing of the court and an inability to deal with issues in a timely manner. While this inquiry has come up with very important recommendations, they will be for nothing if the courts are not adequately resourced with judicial officers to hear the matters. The delays are real and have a huge emotional impact on the parties participating. Many, many people who participated in the inquiry urged the government to be mindful of domestic violence and the interrelation with the family law system. I encourage all of those people to contact, and get help from, the various services. Thank you. 17:03 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I'm really pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the second interim report from the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. I was a member of that committee and the member for Warringah was also a member of that committee. As the member for Warringah said, it was a very long and oftentimes emotional inquiry. We heard a lot of conflicting evidence from people who have been through the system. I think one of the great values of the inquiry was that it gave people who have been through the system an opportunity to put in a submission or to give evidence at a hearing. I and the member for Warringah have both been through the system. We know what the deficiencies are and we know the impact that a bad experience in going through the system can have not just on yourself but on your children as well. I'd like to start, first of all, by thanking the chair, who had an incredible job of bringing together some fairly disparate views of not just the people who were providing submissions but also the members of the committee. The chair, the member for Menzies, Mr Andrews, did an incredible job of bringing together those disparate views into a very coherent report. I'd also like to thank the committee secretariat, who worked incredibly hard on this and did an incredibly good job of bringing everyone together, and of course the other members and senators on the committee, who were representing the various sides of politics here. The committee received over 1,700 submissions from organisations and individuals. I remember having to sit in a room and go through about 1,200 of them at one time. It was quite a daunting task. We had 12 public hearings and 13 in camera hearings—over 40 hours of evidence—and 85 witness were heard in in camera sessions. It was a very extensive review, but, as the member for Warringah said, this was a review that followed many reviews. It's an inquiry that followed many inquiries. In fact, it is the 68th report and inquiry on family law conducted by various parliaments over the years. From the outset, Labor members stated that, quite frankly, we did not consider there was a need for another review and another inquiry. We know what the problems are. We've been told what the problems are. Nearly 100 recommendations have been made over the years on how to fix, and what to do for, the family law system. None of those have been acted on. But, even though Labor members argued from the outset that we did not need or want another review and another inquiry, we undertook our roles seriously and participated in the inquiry diligently. As I said, the inquiry was quite emotional at times, particularly for somebody who's been through the system, who has lived experience of the system and who has lived experience of domestic violence. There were times when it was quite emotional. It also opened up a discussion, and my office has since been contacted by many people who did not put in a submission but who wanted to come and talk to me personally about their own personal experiences as well. We've been quite inundated with calls. One of the good things to come out of that has been being able to help some people navigate the system, after they contacted my office either after appearing at a hearing or putting in a submission, and that's been a rewarding experience and a rewarding part of being a member of this committee. But the thing that really came out and stood out during the inquiry was the adversarial nature of our system. By the time families get to the point where they are relying on the court system there has already been a considerable breakdown between the parties. They may have already sought some form of counselling or mediation that has failed. They end up in the courts. They end up fighting it out in the courts. I don't think there is anyone who has been in that position who will tell you that it was a completely positive experience for them. The adversarial nature of our family law system creates further stress and further pressure and makes the daunting and devastating situation of a family breakdown even more daunting and devastating—and it has an even more devastating impact on children in particular. Resourcing was another issue, including the resourcing of judges, as the member for Warringah said—and I'm glad to see that some of the recommendations look at the appointment of additional judges and registrars. But that lack of resourcing and the backlog of cases and the delays that it creates only add to the adversarial nature, only adds to the devastation and the negative experience of going through the family law system. That was certainly something that struck me in a number of submissions that we had. The other thing is the misunderstanding around the equal shared responsibility. The misunderstanding that equal shared responsibility equates to equal time with the children as opposed to what it is, which is equal say in the management of the children's affairs, also adds to, again, the adversarial nature. It can also add to the backlogs, and, in situations where there is domestic violence, it can also add to the retraumatising of the victim. Finally, one of the other things that stood out to me was the cost of family law practitioners. Some of the costs are really astronomically high. If I look to my very first divorce—it's funny that I can say my first divorce, second divorce!—I think the total asset pool at the end of it all was $26,000 and the lawyer got $10,000. For a single mother raising two children on a minimum wage, that was a lot of money—$10,000 for a lawyer. That was primarily because it became so adversarial that I had to go to the courts several times, and those fees just piled up and piled up. That happened to me some 30 years ago now, and we're hearing stories like that now. It just brings back the point that, after 67 different inquiries, 67 different reports, close to 100 recommendations, I'm hearing today, 30 years later, the same kinds of issues, the same experiences. In closing, I want to say the committee is quite an unusual committee in that it is allowed to go on for the term of this parliament, so we have made recommendations to look into further aspects. I believe that our child support system needs to be looked at very carefully and very closely, and I welcome further work of the committee looking at the child support issue. I urge the government to no longer kick the can down the road on this issue of reforming the family law system. The government needs to address those issues. If I went through this 30 years ago and people are going through it now, that really, really says something. If I am talking to women and men who have identical experiences to what I had 30 years ago, how much longer are we going to make people wait? How many more families, how many more individuals are going to be devastated by this system? We need to act. The time for inquiries is over. Let's get this job done and let's get it down now. 17:13 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley It's my pleasure to note this interim report of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System today. I'm not a member of the committee; I wasn't part of the inquiry, but I wanted to take this opportunity to speak on behalf of all the people in Dunkley who have been and are going through the family law system and on behalf of the Peninsula Community Legal Centre. The recommendations in this interim report are considered, and I want to congratulate those members of the committee who took to this task in good faith and with a real intension to improve the lives of people, particularly to improve the lives of people who often are going through the worst experience they will go through in their lives, which is the breakdown of a relationship. By definition, if you're at the Family Court, your relationship has broken down. But it does not have to be a retraumatising experience, the way that the member for Cowan has so eloquently described it as. And it certainly should not be a retraumatising experience for children. If anyone is innocent in the breakdown of a relationship, it is the children. We cannot continue to have a family law system where children's experiences and voices are too often not heard or not heard properly, and where the system allows them to be used at times as weapons in an ongoing fight between their parents. The Peninsula Community Legal Centre in my area of Dunkley is staffed by the most dedicated lawyers and service professionals that one could hope to meet. They are people who are working in the justice system, to be honest, not to make money for themselves. Most of them could go out and make a huge amount more money in the private system but they want to serve their community. They do so, essentially, on the smell of an oily rag. When I have spoken to the Peninsula Community Legal Centre and Jackie Galloway, their general manager—who is an amazing woman—about what do you want to see change in the family law system and are you putting in recommendations? I see the weariness in their eyes and the weariness in their demeanour because they have put in these submissions to various inquiries over and over again. As the member for Cowan also just said, the time for submissions is over. They want a number of things to change in the family law system. A number of them are addressed in the recommendations of this report. Funding for community legal centres is money so exceptionally well spent because it is, in some ways, a preventative measure of people getting caught up in a legal system over and over again and not being able to get out because they can't represent themselves, or because they are forking out all of their savings and all of their retirement savings, often, to pay for private lawyers, which leads to further problems down track, which often gets them back into the justice system. Funding a community legal centre and an entire legal system properly is for the good of the entire community, including those of us who aren't using it. But in particular, it is for the good of some of the most vulnerable people in our community who just need help in their time of great crisis,. and that's what the Peninsula Community Legal Centre and community legal centres across Australia do. Building on the Australian Law Reform Commission report of 2019, the Productivity Commission report, pleas of people across the justice sector, Justice Connect—for years—and the recommendation in this report we need to fund those community legal centres properly. I agree, we also need to look at the fees that are charged privately. This won't surprise people, given that I come to this place with a legal background and having been a practising lawyer and barrister, I agree with the proposition that lawyers need to be paid and paid well for the job that they do. This isn't often said but a lot of lawyers, particularly those who work in community legal areas, family law and criminal law, often work over and above what they get paid for. But not all lawyers and not in all cases. When we have a family law system that is supposed to be helping people divvy up their savings and their property for the good of them and the good of their children, we shouldn't be leaving them to divvy up the dregs that remain at the end of a protracted adversarial system, where the lawyers have had to have been paid so much money because it's gone on for so long. Just today I have had two emails from constituents. One telling me about her daughter who exhausted all of her superannuation to pay for the family law legal fees. We know what happens when women retire without decent superannuation. There was another who wanted to tell me about a situation where her daughter is having to go to her father for a loan in order to go through the family law system. That's just two stories from today. So I wholeheartedly endorse the proposition that we have to have a family law system where access to justice means something. It shouldn't be a system that's available for those who can pay. It shouldn't be a system that only works well for those that have resources. It should be a system for everyone. Like my Labor colleagues and the crossbench, who voted against the government's legislation, I want to restate my profound disappointment at the changes to the family law system, which have effectively led to the abolition of a specialist family law court. In this week, when we've heard thousands and thousands of women and the men who support them around the country calling for a better system to deal with domestic and family violence, to lose the specialised system to deal with people who have gone through that is a tragedy. We didn't need to lose the family law court; we needed better funding and better resources for the family law court to be able to deal with people who are dealing with family and domestic violence, particularly children. 17:20 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I too would like to make a short contribution in relation to the second interim report by the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Family Law System. Similar to others, I commend the chair, the member for Menzies; and all those who participated in the inquiry, and I commend them on the report. I, like many, probably didn't give this much chance of success. I initially thought it was a short-term political fix, mainly to accommodate the head of One Nation, Pauline Hanson. But, having read the report and its 29 recommendations, I think they have done a very good job indeed. One recommendation is for the funding of legal aid commissions and community legal centres. As the member for Dunkley has just expressed, for many, particularly in working-class suburbs, that is the only access to the law they will have. As a consequence, it is essential that legal aid centres and community law centres are adequately funded. There is a recommendation for another 25 to 30 registrars in the Family Court to address the backlog. The registrars do a profoundly good job at reducing a lot of the hearing time that needs to take place, and as a consequence that is a welcomed contribution. The report deals with the capping of legal fees at $50,000 or 10 per cent of the combined value of parties' identified properties. If you put that in a Sydney or Melbourne context, where the average property is worth over $1 million, you're talking about capping it at $100,000. No wonder people can be locked out of access to that legal system, the way it is at the moment. The ones principally being locked out are women. People can engage in litigation with a view to having one party simply give up. The system of justice for family law shouldn't be on the basis of attrition; it should be on the basis of fairness and justice for all. The recommendation to urgently draft and release an exposure draft of the legislation to address the current misunderstanding of the equally shared parental responsibility is something I've spoken about on many occasions here, where families can get access to an apprehended violence order only for it to be misinterpreted, in terms of the access, by the Federal Circuit Court. These are things which are real. It probably doesn't sound like much to those who don't practice in the field, but certainly, particularly for people who are the victims of domestic violence, these are very real things. It's not a legal misunderstanding, but it's certainly a legal misinterpretation of the shared parental responsibility, and bringing about a change is something that's well overdue. Another aspect I'd like to touch upon is the merging of the Family Court through the Federal Circuit Court. We've had, so far into family law, about 67 inquiries. Various recommendations have been made. In this report we have before us, 29 recommendations were made. I very much support what they have found in that regard. But we have had recommendations made by various inquiries that have occurred and yet none of those dealt with the merging of the Family Court to the Federal Circuit Court. This is something that, to be fair to the government, might have been looking into efficiencies. The Family Court is a specialised court. Set up over 30 years ago, it was due to simply specialise in family matters. We don't have to look too far from our own electorates to see some of the issues confronting families. In my area, I get very worried about the higher instances, particularly during this COVID pandemic, of domestic violence and how that's playing out and impacting on families. Having a court that specialises in these matters makes a heck of a lot of difference. That's why I welcomed, as I said earlier, putting more registrars on. That will actually help alleviate some of the backlog. Simply putting this into the Federal Circuit Court, which itself has a significant backlog at the moment, is not going to do anything to immediately assist families in need. At least the Family Court was a court that specialised in dealing with these matters. From time to time there have been many debates in this place, about extensive delays, excessive legal costs—which the member for Dunkley just spoke about—the difficulty in enforcing various court orders, and the ability to get a fair and quick resolution of matters. That's where, particularly where it does involve family violence, the Family Court really did excel. The two most recent reports on the Family Law Court—apart from the one we're talking about now—is the Australian Law Reform Commission report in 2019 and the Henderson report. Collectively, they made 93 recommendations to improve family law. I was told, in the Senate estimates almost two years ago, that the Attorney had the government's response to the Law Reform Commission's report but they were still sitting on the desk. They haven't seen the light of day. There are 93 recommendations still sat there and have fundamentally been ignored. Having said that, I think it is commendable that the inquiry, conducted by the member for Menzies and all those who have participated, should bring forward these 29 recommendations. I certainly support what they have done. Against a backdrop, I didn't give much chance of success from the start. I thought it was simply a political fix, but I think they have worked through the inquiry, taking their evidence, in such a way that they have produced a commendable result. I think we need to work with them into the future to ensure that at least family law is treated in such a way that it makes the court and the access available to all families. For a court to be at least seized of the significance of family violence as being a matter of fact when addressing many of its issues. I won't take it any further than that, but I do commend this inquiry. I commend the way the committee went about that, and I support its recommendations. Debate adjourned. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 94 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Asylum Seekers 94 17:30 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I want to speak about the consequences and the fallout from this government's irrational decision to leave lingering in perpetuity a large number of refugees on temporary protection visas and the safe haven enterprise visas. It is without doubt a short-sighted policy framework that not only ignores the seriousness of the international movement of people in search of refuge and humanitarian settlement, but also denies the vast potential for Australia to build on the wealth opportunity presented to us by the people seeking refuge in our country. It is vital to reflect on this issue now because we are presented with choices locally and examples globally of the significant potential that these harsh policies continue to deny us. We can no longer ignore the fact that this government's temporary protection visa scheme is creating an underclass that discredits us as a country and denies our sense of community. It's a blight on the proud contribution refugees have made to the building of modern Australia, bringing their talents, hard work, skills and ingenuity, and adding them to our nation-building and advancing Australia. Today we have a significant number of refugees who, simply by their method of arrival in Australia, are denied permanent settlement as a lesson by this government that is willing to punish innocent people in order to discourage others. It's a cruel and short-sighted policy. It's a policy that denies us the opportunity to benefit from all the untapped skills critical to our economy at a time when skills and labour shortages are becoming an increasing threat to our economic growth. In recent inquiries of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration into migration in regional Australia and into our working holiday maker program—and, indeed, in the current inquiry into our skilled migration program—the evidence put before us has been very clear. We are pressed by stakeholders to act with urgency and are asked to be bold and resourceful in addressing the labour and skills shortages of workers in regional Australia as well as across a range of sectors in the economy. Refugees on TPVs and SHEVs, all of whom seek opportunities for safety and in return want to make a contribution, have a lot to offer across the broad spectrum of the economy. Community groups and many in my community can see not only the injustice of the situation but also the untapped potential denied to Australia. The Refugee Council of Australia in a submission to the committee suggested we address our regional labour shortages by giving TPV and SHEV holders realistic pathways to permanent residency—sensible proposals that are being ignored by this government. While we speak of ourselves as a country that leads on services relating to migration and refugee settlement, which is of course true, we need to reflect on how comparable countries have responded to the movement of people and heed some of their lessons. In 2017, 68.5 million people were forcibly displaced as a result of persecution, conflict or violence worldwide. In that year, Australia settled 16,250 of these displaced persons under our humanitarian program. In contrast, Germany's refugee intake was 328,385. Between the years 2014 to 2020, the number of refugees resettled in Germany totalled over 1.2 million people. In Australia, however, the number of visas granted under our own program was 101,465. On a case basis, what Germany settled in the last six years took Australia nearly 60 years to do. I mention Germany not only as a comparable nation but one which has firmly cemented its place as Europe's leading economy and growth engine. When headlines and politicians across Europe evoked fear of, and hostility towards, refugees, the sense of purpose and resolve was eloquently expressed by Chancellor Angela Merkel when she said: 'I put it simply—Germany is a strong country. The sky did not fall in Berlin or Bavaria. On the contrary.' She understood all too well the opportunities a humanitarian refugee would deliver for Germany; instead of punishment, she saw boldness. You would be hard pressed to find any one of Germany's entrepreneurial start-ups or innovation hubs that isn't powered by software developers, tech geniuses or professionals who have come to Germany as refugees, or filling gaps in areas of care—very much needed in Australia on the back of the gross neglect in our own system identified by the royal commission into aged care. Against numbers which dwarf our own, Germany stood undeterred by fearmongering and instead went for the opportunities. We too should grab hold of our own opportunities and be bold. This reality exposes a delusional argument around labour supply and aggregate demand, with our own Productivity Commission insisting that the concept of job displacement is partly a manifestation of a fallacy that there is a fixed number of jobs in the economy. It supports economic modelling including Deloitte Access Economics report on the economic and social impact of increasing Australia's humanitarian intake. Modelling suggests that if Australia increased its humanitarian migrant intake to 44,000 per annum over a five-year period, economic output could increase by more than $37.7 billion in net present value terms over the next 50 years and the economy could sustain an additional 35,000 full-time jobs every year for the next 50 years. Some of this human potential is already among us in my electorate, and in our communities, schools and sports clubs. They are part of the social and economic fabric of our communities. They have grown up here, were schooled here and have trained others yet they are forced to live parallel lives to the rest of us, temporary lives. Despite their children growing up and spending most of their formative years in our community alongside other Australian children, theirs is a life of waiting for an outcome, of living in limbo on the temporary or the so-called bridging visas and of living in fear of being asked to leave to go back to the places they have fled. In some cases these bridging visas are a decade long. At a time when we're trying to compete with the rest of the world to attract the best and brightest to this country, overlooking the possibilities amongst TPV and CHEV holders speaks of madness. I want to share some of the stories of the people in my electorate who offer us those amazing possibilities. The Kashani family arrived in Australia in 2013 from Iran. Mum and dad have worked for most of their time here while raising their two children, Mohammed aged 11 and Atena aged 17. Their youngest, Mohammed, started his formal education in Australia and his dominant language is English. Atena is a gifted student in her first year at Roxburgh College. The family remains without a substantial visa status, having been on temporary visas since arriving. Meanwhile, Atena's resolve and sense of purpose has seen her excel as a sports person. Atena is a seven-time champion of Victoria and three time Australian national champion. She has come first in the Arnold Classic Taekwondo Championship Tournament three times, and one day hopes to compete in the Olympics representing Australia. Disheartening for anyone, Atena missed out on opportunities to travel overseas and compete in international tournaments, not on merit, but because of a visa status that denies her the opportunity to be a permanent resident in Australia. Imagine the making of an Australian champion and the possibility of this not being realised because of this government's temporary protection visa policy. Atena and Mohammed must also contend with barriers to university enrolment once completing school. They will be expected to pay full fees similar to international students. Enrolling in university as a bridging visa holder is something Francis in my electorate is having to contend with. Francis arrived from Sierra Leone when he was in grade 6. Francis has grown up alongside other Australian children with English now his dominant language. When Francis approached VCE, he was asked by his teachers to think about what he might like to do with his life and what goals he would wish to attain. But because of his visa status, he is not entitled to access the Higher Education Loan Program, so he's required to pay almost triple the amount of his classmates and almost always up-front in the same way as an international student. Francis has recently signed up to do the relevant certificate to lead him to a pathway into civil engineering. When I asked him whether he'd paid up for his diploma, he said he had no choice because he needs to keep moving with his life and to fulfil his ambitions, even though he lives in this country on a temporary visa. There are countless examples of refugees and children of refugees who are in very similar circumstances. They stand testament to the denial of the opportunities for this country that I've spoken about today. In the face of this undeniable reality, our TPV and SHEV regimes are ridiculous and spiteful, serve no purpose in the Australia of the 21st century and should be abandoned. Aged Care 95 17:40 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein It's a pleasure to be able to speak this evening, particularly on the issues facing aged care following the royal commission on aged care. I don't think I would be alone in this chamber and elsewhere in saying I haven't had the chance to read the full volumes of the report, but we all know that, from what we can read so far, it is sobering reading. The reality is it confronts us and holds a mirror up to the sector and should disturb us all. But we also need to acknowledge there are many good people who operate, manage, own and run aged care and support people in aged care across Australia. The point of the royal commission was to put sunlight onto the system to make sure that those who are vulnerable and need assistance and care get it, and that where there is wrong it is righted, to respect the contribution of those who contributed. It also highlights concerns of neglect. Last weekend, I was in Highett, in the wonderful electorate of Goldstein, doing a listening post. One of the most passionate local residents who came to speak to me raised a specific concern about aged care and what was to be done about it, not just following the royal commission but as part of making a sustainable system for Australia. Every Australian should have the opportunity to live a life and retire with dignity after a full contribution to the fabric of our nation, particularly at the most vulnerable stage, with care, support and compassion, so that they can live out their days with dignity. This is an essential part of the generational contract which builds the strength of our country. Through two years of testimonies from 641 experts, residents and families and more than 10,000 submissions, the royal commissioners heard how the aged-care system is failing catastrophically to meet the structural challenges of our ageing society. Too many older Australians are sitting on wait lists, unable to access the care that they critically need. There is misallocation of capital. We have centralised, uniform services that don't always mean that people receive the care they need. Many are being unnecessarily forced out of the comfort of their homes and into residential aged care simply because the system was too slow to respond to their less financially burdensome needs. Inadequate training of aged-care staff and the underavailability of professional medical assistance is leading to an oversubscription of psychotherapeutic drugs, misdiagnosis, medical neglect and premature deaths in care. That is against the backdrop of significant challenges with the number of people going into aged care with dementia and the support and assistance they need. Highlighting the vulnerability, from 2019 there were 5,780 allegations of assault at the hands of staff members, corrupting the ethic of dignity and respect, which should sit at the heart of the aged-care system. The consequences are fundamentally human in nature. The commissioners were quick to illustrate in their report that our failing aged-care system is directly linked to profound and unprecedented demographic challenges. Rising life expectancy and medical breakthroughs are swelling the ranks of our older population, absolutely, and in relation to working-age Australians. It is projected that the number of Australians aged 85 will increase from just over 500,000 in 2019-19 to 1.5 million by 2058. This means there are rapidly growing numbers of Australians in need of care for longer periods and in need of care for more complex health conditions associated with longer life. Meanwhile, there is a relatively small number of working Australians providing the income tax revenue that subsidises aged care. As the system exists today, the federal government is the primary investor of $27 billion spent in the 2018-19 years. Some $20 billion came from the federal government. The Parliamentary Budget Office predicts that, over the next decade, federal government spending on aged care will increase by four per cent per year, which is well above the 2.7 per cent increase predicted across all other areas of government spending at the same time. The Morrison government is already investing significant money in aged care. We know that money is a critical part of the system, but what also matters is the outcomes of the investment that is being made, to make sure that Australians get the support and assistance they need. We should not accept poor standards. We need to make sure that the standards that operate deliver outcomes for those who are vulnerable. There are, of course, significant consequences from the challenges of capital in the sector. First, aged care has to evolve into a ration based system which has limited capacity to meet individual needs; the provision of services is shaped by the scarcity of available funding, meaning that many are left on wait lists and those with high-cost needs are provided inadequate service; and the system therefore lacks flexibility for some people; particularly those from diverse back grounds, whether they be culturally or linguistic differences or veterans and people from the LGBTI community—to name some. Everyone is different. People are complex, and rigid, uniform and centralised systems will not comprehend the sensitivities of aged care. Often this not only fails to deliver care but also creates more suffering in the system itself. We need to always be mindful of that, particularly when we are talking about Australians in one of the most vulnerable stages of their life. The report noted that smaller services performed better than large centres because they had more capacity to focus on individual needs. The success of those environments should inform our approach towards reform. We also need to make sure that the governance model hasn't lowered standards and allowed failings to go unnoticed and unresolved. That is why the report recommends a new rights based approach which establishes obligations to deliver high-quality, safe and timely support in care with choice and control. That is of critical importance. When I go out and speak to people in the community about aged care, there is a diversity of attitudes which are heavily informed from their own life experience. If you talk to people who have had a good experience with aged care, as many residents of the Goldstein electorate have had—and we're home to some of the largest private aged-care providers—the overwhelming majority say that the experience is good, though people faced particular challenges during the COVID-19 period due to access and, of course, what happened when there was a COVID-19 outbreak. As we know, 95 per cent of the aged-care deaths that occurred over the past year occurred in Victoria because of the consequences of community transmission. But, of course, there are other people who saw their family members be deceased because of the lack of access that people had. That was particularly challenging in a situation where people didn't get the chance to see their loved ones before they departed. No matter what side of politics, we all share a compassion for families who never got that last moment—or who may have got it through a form of transparent glass. Sadly, though, there are also people who want to use a discussion around aged care for some sort of ideological agenda. I really want to stress how damaging this is, because aged care has private providers. A lot of them are community based organisations who operate privately but receive government money. I don't seek to demonise any of those, whether they are community based providers or those who we have needed to invest in the system to build the capital so that, when people go and seek out an aged-care service, it is available to them. We've seen failings in different parts of the sector and for different reasons. I outlined the failure of being able to ensure that people have individual care needs based on their ethnic or religious background or, of course, their sexual orientation or gender identity. Aged-care homes that have been well intentioned and motivated by a mission to support people from their community have often lacked the capital, which has meant that they have had to sacrifice services to keep their operations going—and that has a consequence too. Where you see a private operator that is a commercial operator that misallocates capital away from service provision that is a problem in itself. The challenge before us in developing an aged-care system that sustains people for the 21st century is not to pursue ideological agendas; it is to understand the care that people require and how we meet those needs. Sitting behind are much broader discussions around the sense of responsibility that we have between each other as part of a culture and a society of mutualism. Where there is capital, the government can play a role. But where there is capital required for capital investment, there is simply no reason why the private sector—whether charitable, commercial or other—cannot be part of the system, to grow the system, so that when you need aged care and support and the home it is there for you. Similarly, when it comes to management, it often comes down to the costs of the individual and their responsibility and contribution. When it comes to the service provision, particularly around health care, what operates inside an aged-care home should be the same as what occurs outside the aged-care home, where taxpayers have a responsibility to support each other. Ultimately, it's a debate about responsibility: who is responsible for which section to make sure people get the assistance they need? Individuals have a responsibility, families have a responsibility, companies have a responsibility, and of course the taxpayer has a responsibility as well. Citizenship, JobKeeper Payment 97 17:50 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I recently met with community leaders and settlement services officers in my community in relation to lengthy wait times, from application to citizenship, for applicants originally from Myanmar who reside in my community, many of whom came as refugees and have settled in Australia. I'm hearing that for many of the applicants this wait has now been over five years, and they have yet to receive any update on a decision from the processing of their citizenship application. The community leaders understand that in many cases applicants are being asked to provide paperwork that the refugees do not possess and that in some cases does not exist. They are also aware that in some cases processing is being held up due to names on application forms being spelt differently to those received when leaving refugee camps, which they believe is due to English translation problems. Whilst I understand that complicated applications require additional time to process, the service standard is that 95 per cent of applications be processed to decision stage in approximately 17 months after submission. It is, therefore, unacceptable that so many in my community are waiting 60 months. These applications are still under consideration, with no indication of when a decision will be made. Two such constituents presented to my office to inquire about their citizenship applications, which were lodged in March 2016. Upon contacting the department for advice, it was disappointing that a generic response was given. Not satisfied with the response, my office again contacted the department and were advised that the officer could not access the information as to why the applications were still under consideration in their system and that it would be best to contact the processing centre where the applications had been lodged. The officer was unable to provide any contact details as there are many processing centres. This is unacceptable and is why I have written to the minister to express my disappointment and to give him some understanding of why citizenship is absolutely critical for these members of my community. I have met with community leaders and I understand the importance of citizenship to these community members. For many, they have left a country where they never felt a sense of belonging. The delay in their citizenship sends them mixed messages about their welcome in this country. They want to put down roots. Their children are in our schools. They want to be Australian citizens. They want to vote in elections. They value democracy, and they are desperate to be afforded the rights of an Australian citizen. There is also a belief from their community leaders that compared to other community members, such as skilled migrants, there exists less opportunity for these refugees to become citizens. I am sure this is not the message that we want to send these members of my community, but that is the message that they are hearing. I would also note that they are enduring these lengthy wait times and often not asking for assistance because they perceive that in asking for assistance they'll be seen as a nuisance. I implore the government and the minister, Minister Hawke, to look into this situation and give us some answers. I have written to the minister and asked him to do just that. I say to the members of my community: your patience is admirable and your desire to become an Australian citizen is admirable. I know that most members in this place would join me in welcoming you as citizens in this country. I also want to raise tonight the situation in my community as we approach 31 March and the cut to JobKeeper. There are 3,631 businesses in my community who will stop receiving JobKeeper payments. This will endanger over 11,000 local jobs. The Prime Minister's JobKeeper cuts risk leaving too many in my community behind. One only has to ponder for a moment what impact that will have on our local economy. Our recovery from the deepest recession in a century risks being longer because the Prime Minister is pulling support from some sections of our local community too quickly. Our community needs and deserves a comprehensive jobs plan to support local businesses and workers in the recovery. Abolishing JobKeeper at the end of the month will impact more than one million workers and half a million businesses across the country. Labor pushed for the wage subsidies in the first place because it was the right thing to do, and we welcomed the government doing it. With more than two million Australians now searching for a job or for more hours in their current job, the Morrison government have no real plan to grow our local economy and support those workers. They are going to cut JobKeeper and add to those long lines around the country. The cuts to JobKeeper are coinciding with industrial relations legislation that could lead to cuts to wages. And cuts to superannuation will make things worse, not better. Only Labor is on the side of working families in the communities in Lalor. Fighting COVID while also fighting to build an economy that is stronger and fairer after the pandemic than it was beforehand is what Labor wants to see. The pandemic is far from over. Part of the reason and the justification around this date being appropriate for JobKeeper to be withdrawn, despite it still being needed, was that we would all be vaccinated yet this plan has also fallen behind. So communities like mine are now faced with a lack of vaccination yet JobKeeper will be gone. This will damage our local economy. I would say to members in my community about this that we are going to have people in our neighbourhoods facing hard times in the very near future. I would ask the people in my community to ensure that they are checking on their neighbours, that they are seeing how people are coping, because we know already that during the pandemic we had many in our community who were never in receipt of JobKeeper. We know that we have a population of New Zealand citizens, many of whom were not eligible for JobKeeper support in our community. We have international students who didn't receive JobKeeper, we have local government employees who didn't receive JobKeeper, we have people who work in the university sector who didn't receive JobKeeper and now we have a new group of people—local small businesses—who will be trying to make decisions now about their viability. Their employees are feeling very stressed about what their future might look like. I note too that it's been advertised today through social media channels that if people think they are going to lose their position when JobKeeper is withdrawn, they could apply early for Centrelink support. I note that downstairs we are in discussion around the legislation that would see a small rise in JobSeeker on its old value, while 150 will be ripped away. This will be a tough time for many as they face the insecurity and a question about what their future holds on 31 March—whether the business they are running is going to be viable beyond that point without JobKeeper and, I might add, without a vaccinated community. These are incredibly important things for my community with high unemployment figures already. This government is going to cut JobKeeper despite the fact that there are businesses still struggling and that still need it. Some have made a partial recovery in some industries. Other things haven't and won't change for a while yet. Our community had the highest number of locals who went on to JobSeeker payments during the pandemic. The last thing we need is 11,000 locals joining the 16,000 already on unemployment payments and doing it tough, who face their own cliff on 31 March. The coming months will be tough for so many across the nation. They will also be tough in neighbourhoods in Lalor. The JobKeeper cuts and Centrelink already running ads for workers on the payments show that this government are aware of the issue we're facing but are stubbornly refusing to change tack. Despite the difficulties that we heard about in question time today with getting the vaccine from overseas countries, they are hell-bent on cutting JobKeeper. That is going to hurt people in my community—it's going to hurt more people than those directly affected—because it will be a hit on our local economy. We've seen 2020 be a really tough year, and I know that my community were looking forward to 2021 being a very different scenario. The government are pulling support too early. They should be focused on rolling out the vaccine. They should make sure that that is happening as they promised it would. But again, I fear, only Labor is on the side of the people in Lalor and the people across this country. Inland Rail 98 18:00 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I wish to talk about the Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail project. The design of the Inland Rail needs to be reconfigured to include a link from Toowoomba to the Port of Gladstone. There are four advantages for the Gladstone link. Firstly, the Port of Gladstone has unconstrained growth capacity, which does not exist at the Ports of Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne, and is several days less sailing from Asia than Melbourne. Gladstone can handle the largest of container ships. On time-saving, it's 10 hours by sea from Gladstone to Brisbane, two days and two hours from Gladstone to Sydney, and four days and 10 hours from Gladstone to Melbourne. A truck can travel much quicker than that on the highway. There is going to be a net reduction in capital expenditure on the project by about $4 billion. That is backed by figures from proper sources. Economic analysis shows that it has substantially improved the project's economics. With the handling of freight, potential for economic growth is up to $10 billion in Central and Western Queensland. There are three different freight tasks for the Inland Rail. For capital to capital freight tasks, Inland Rail is relying on winning the business from the long-haul trucking industry, which has been established over the many years. Our roads are very busy with trucks, as we all know, from Melbourne all the way through to Cairns. The second freight component is the import-export task—a land bridge concept. Forecast growth should happen in the landlocked ports of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, which have limited area to grow. The Port of Gladstone has virtually unlimited growth potential and can manage the largest of container ships. The coal freight task is the third freight component, to send all existing and future coal from the Surat Basin to the Port of Gladstone, which has existing capacity available to export this coal. There are challenges for a freight corridor into the Port of Brisbane. Firstly, descending the Toowoomba Range requires 13 bridges, 6.2 kilometres of tunnel and three crossing loops. Secondly, crossing the Lockyer Valley floodplain has its own issues. Thirdly, connecting to the interstate rail, which links the Melbourne leg, we have 27 bridges, one kilometre of tunnels and four loop crossings. Of course, it will cause major community and housing issues all the way down to Acacia Ridge and into the Brisbane Port, and the bottlenecks will occur at the Brisbane Port. Overcoming these challenges represents 50 per cent of the cost of the Inland Rail from Melbourne to Brisbane but only look after 10 per cent of the distance. I'll repeat that: for 50 per cent of the cost of Inland Rail, it will only cover 10 per cent of the distance, because of the difficulty in getting the line from Toowoomba to Brisbane. The Gladstone link could eliminate coal trains passing through the suburbs of Brisbane and Logan. Gladstone is the port that has untapped potential. This Inland Rail extension will help build stronger and more confident regions of Queensland. Thank you. El Halabi, Mr Mohammed, Philippines, Myanmar 99 18:04 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I should start by saying I feel reassured with you in the chair. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Thank you. Mr HAYES ECV I take this opportunity to raise some pressing issues of human rights facing our global community at the moment. As a nation, we're very fortunate. We live with basic human rights, such as being able to live in peace, security and freedom and to live with dignity—rights that, regrettably, many groups around world don't have access to. First, I draw attention to the House of the ongoing plight of Mr Mohammed El Halabi, former director of World Vision Australia, who worked in Gaza and on the West Bank. Mr El Halabi was arrested in 2016 by Israeli authorities on the allegation of funnelling $50 million of World Vision money to the terrorist group Hamas. It's been five years since his arrest and the Israeli authorities have yet to prove the allegations made against him or release him. There are serious ongoing concerns about Mr El Halabi's welfare, given his restricted medical care and limited visitation rights. There have also been a number of significant restrictions placed on his legal team. Despite 156 court appearances, still no evidence has been presented to substantiate the charges that have been made against him. Investigations conducted by our own Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, independent auditors, as well as World Vision itself, have all failed to produce any evidence that any money was ever diverted by Mr El Halabi. Given that no evidence has been presented thus far by the Israeli authorities to substantiate the allegations, we must continue to place pressure on Israel to finalise Mr El Halabi's trial without further delay and ensure that human rights are adhered to in this matter, including due process and the rule of law itself. Another matter I'd like to refer to is in the Philippines, where extrajudicial killings have been the principle human rights concern under the president's nationwide antidrugs campaign. Summary and lethal justice based merely on suspicion has claimed the lives of thousands, with some sources claiming the number could be as high as 27,000 people killed over the last three years. President Duterte, who has effectively set aside the rule of law, granted impunity to police without any judicial oversight or accountability. The lack of due process in police operations and the fact that these deaths are not being transparently investigated is of great concern. Apart from the grave issues surrounding the policy, President Duterte has also launched a crackdown on civil society, threatening to abolish the Human Rights Commission and ban news organisations that are critical of him. He has attacked the United Nations envoy and withdrew from the International Criminal Court. One noted critic of the president who has publicly spoken against him on the murderous war on drugs is Senator Leila de Lima, a former Secretary of Justice and prominent human rights campaigner in her own right. Senator de Lima was arbitrarily detained without trial and charged with drug related offences on the strength of untested statements by convicted drug lords, some police officers and prison officials. It has been four years since the unjust detention of Senator de Lima. Accordingly, I use this opportunity to reiterate my previous calls for the Australian government to use all its diplomatic measures to urge the Philippines government to immediately release Senator de Lima and to allow her to continue to properly discharge her duties as a duly elected senator of the Philippines parliament. I'd now like to refer to the more recent military coup in Myanmar, which represents a direct assault on Myanmar's transition to democracy and the rule of law, with the military overthrowing the legitimate government and detaining numerous political and civil society leaders. I'm advised that more than 1,500 people, including Aung San Suu Kyi, the country's elected leader, and her Australian economic adviser, Professor Sean Turnell, remain incarcerated, with their future very much uncertain. I understand Professor Turnell has now been detained for over a month with limited consular access and no confirmation of the reasons for his detention. For someone who was engaged at the behest of the Myanmar government to assist and support its economic growth, his treatment is nothing short of appalling. With concerns mounting about Professor Turnell's welfare, I call on the Myanmar government to immediately release Professor Turnell and allow him to return to his family here in Australia. The military coup in Myanmar ends a decade-old fragile democracy for a nation. It's certainly caused mass disruption and protests around the nation, which have been met with violence and aggression by Myanmar's security forces. Since the military coup last month, I understand that more than 50 people have been killed and many more hospitalised. For many, this has revived memories of the bloody outbreaks of opposition to almost half a century of direct military rule, which ended in 2011, leaving many in the international community now fearing for the future of Myanmar itself. Further, the military coup raises significant concerns not only for the remaining Rohingya population in Myanmar but also the many ethnic groups that live in that country. Daniel Sullivan of Refugee International highlights this in the case of the military coup, noting that another mass expulsion of refugees remains a real possibility. This would put further strain on the already overburdened humanitarian response, which has resulted in the displacement of 700,000 Rohingyas, who've taken refuge in neighbouring Bangladesh. We must remember that this coup was committed by the same military that committed the mass genocide and atrocities against the Rohingya minorities of Myanmar. The current situation in Myanmar represents a collective international failure, with the military no doubt emboldened by the very little action taken by the global community against its campaign of ethnic cleansing. While I welcome the Australian government's recent decision to suspend all military aid to Myanmar, we must continue to take appropriate action to highlight the escalating crisis occurring in that country. This case, I believe, warrants targeted sanctions against senior members of the military responsible for the coup and the atrocities against the Rohingya and other minorities. The generals should not be left with any doubt about the consequences if they choose to continue to brutally destroy the remaining elements of democracy in Myanmar itself. Along with other Western countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Canada and New Zealand, we should be taking targeted sanctions. Clearly, the current situation in Myanmar is a perfect example of why we should effect and legislate Magnitsky-style legislations in this country. As members of the international community, we have a moral if not a legal responsibility to do all we can to encourage countries in our region to adhere to their international human rights obligations. Human rights are not mere notions that we should aspire to when the situations are suitable or principles that we can pick and choose when necessary. Human rights are the foundation that underpin our democratic values and allow us to create strong and inclusive communities. We cannot remain silent when people's human rights are being so blatantly violated and we must be willing to speak up and fight for the protections of some of the most vulnerable people across the globe. I'd like to conclude with the words of that very prominent and revered American civil rights campaigner Martin Luther King: 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' Agriculture Industry 100 18:14 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee In the north-west region of Victoria, which is most of my electorate of Mallee, growers produce 100 per cent of the almonds grown in Victoria, with a gross value of over $840 million. We also produce: 99 per cent of Victoria's table grapes, valued at $347 million; 98 per cent of Victoria's oranges, valued at $66 million; and 62 per cent of Victoria's nectarines, valued at $59 million. Many of the horticultural products produced in Mallee are labour intensive, and the sector is dependent on overseas workers to get product to our plates. Clearly, COVID-19 has created significant challenges for the industry, largely due to international and national border closures. However, workforce challenges existed in the industry for many years prior to the pandemic and will undoubtedly persist into the future. While reopening our borders to international arrivals will continue to be the main determinant of our ability to get fruit off the trees and vines, the need for meaningful reform still exists in a non-COVID environment. Many of our pre-existing visa programs are not suitable for the highly seasonal, sporadic, short-term and transient work that is characteristic of the horticultural industry. However, programs that do meet these requirements, such as the Working Holiday Maker program do not provide a sustainable solution for the sector. Greater capacity to access legal, sustainable sources of low-skilled workers for long- and short-term work is desperately needed for producers and employers in the industry. Whether it's through the extension of existing programs or the creation of new ones, greater access to low-skilled workers will be instrumental to the industry's growth in the future, reaching $100 billion by 2030. The reality is that our industries are suffering. I've spoken to many local growers whose fruit has fallen to the ground or who fear it will. Many have already made the heartbreaking decision to plough their entire crop. One such farmer at Lake Boga is Ian McAlister. He aimed to pull off a fabulous crop this year, but is down to 25 to 30 workers. Shockingly, he had to plough in his entire peach crop valued at $300,000. Nick Muraca, a table grape grower from Robinvale, told me last week that a large majority of growers in his area are struggling. He said that the huge losses currently facing the industry are due to worker shortages and will have untold effects. Nick is appreciative of the work of the Commonwealth government to improve access to international markets for our nation's primary produce in trade, but he's worried these efforts could go to waste if we can't sort out problems with labour. He knows that we need a sustainable, long-term plan to tackle these issues. I've also recently met with young innovators and farmers Dean Morpeth and Mick Young entrepreneurs and founders of SHARP Fruit in Woorinen. They have an impressive set up in their packing sheds, but they are currently down 20 workers, resulting in a shutdown of their entire packing line. This is lost revenue for the whole district. If producers don't sell their fruit and it can't be packed and sent in a timely manner, they lose it. This has a flow-on effect for all the cafes and businesses in town. Less locals can be employed in those businesses and more families are doing it tough. Mick and Dean expect next year to be worse if international borders don't open, as more people on Working Holiday Maker visas are forced to return to their home countries. I've also met recently with Darren Minter of Minter Magic in Iraak. Minter Magic is famous for its asparagus, and I can tell you first hand, it's amazing. But asparagus is incredibly labour intensive. Darren can see the writing on the wall and is slowly transitioning away from asparagus and into less labour-intensive crops, such as almonds. Many producers across the country are facing these difficult decisions. A report by the consultancy firm EY released in September last year painted a grim picture of expected workforce shortages. The analysis showed the industry could expect a shortfall of up to 26,000 workers between 20 June and December 2021. This translates to a net gap of 20 to 33 per cent over the 18-month period. Consequently, the horticultural industry is in crisis control. I've had countless conversations with growers, employers, workers, industry leaders, government officials and other experts about what needs to change for us to get the settings right. These conversations have led me to develop a seasonal workforce policy, which I've taken to the Nationals' party room and policy committee. In the document, I've made several recommendations. These include: making improvements to the Seasonal Worker and Working Holiday Maker programs; providing greater clarity and refinement of the Horticultural Industry Labour Agreement; and establishing regional hubs for the Department of Home Affairs to assist with labour and immigration issues. But perhaps the two most significant recommendations are my calls for the development of a short-term low-skilled harvest visa and the implementation of a one-off visa status resolution for undocumented workers. These ideas are not new, and have been canvassed several times in the past. However, the current situation with COVID-19 provides the perfect opportunity to implement these reforms for the benefit of the horticultural industry. The creation of a dedicated ag or harvest visa is widely supported by industry, including national peak bodies such as the National Farmers Federation and the Australian Fresh Produce Alliance. It's also been a recommendation in two separate reports by two different parliamentary inquiries. Such a visa that would allow for greater flexibility for both workers and employers; decrease costs and regulatory burdens for government and industry; reduce instances of exploitation in the industry; and provide a consistent and stable supply of harvest workers. To complement this visa, I am asking the party room to support the introduction of a measure to resolve the status of undocumented workers in the horticultural sector. It has been estimated that there are between 60,000 and 100,000 undocumented people working in industries. While the Australian border remains tightly closed, we have the optimal opportunity to resolve these domestic visa issues. The measure will allow Australia to confront exploitation in the horticultural industry; provide a level playing field for producers who sell the fruit at the market for the same price; reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19; and improve health and safety outcomes for this hidden population. The point is that, currently, only employers who are willing to break the law and engage undocumented workers have access to this pool of labour. If these undocumented workers were to have their status resolved, it would open up this pool of labour to the vast majority of growers and employers who are doing the right thing. My call for a status resolution for undocumented workers has recently been supported by the National Agricultural Labour Advisory Committee and their new strategy Learning to excel. Recommendation 25 in the report calls for a one-off regularisation of undocumented workers. Tony Natale, another table grape grower from Robinvale, endorsed my position on this issue by saying 'it's a no-brainer'. To his mind, there are no negatives in this proposal. He wants to remind critics that a vast majority of these undocumented people were initially issued a holiday or student visa. They did not enter the country illegally, and their only crime is overstaying their welcome. Tony is of course spot-on with this assessment, and his points are confirmed in the Learning to Excel report. Not only would this measurement lead to a more productive horticultural industry and stronger regional economies; it's a moral imperative that we as a government must address. While we continue to fight against COVID-19 and hope that the international situation becomes favourable enough to reopen our borders, we nonetheless need to focus on reforms that will strengthen our industries for the long-term. I aim to continue working with my colleagues to ensure we get the settings right for our horticultural labour industry. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:23