
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2021-03-17</date>
    <parliament.no>46</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>5</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 17 March 2021</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Tony Smith</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Line" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present Report No. 28 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 22 March 2021. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today and the committee's deliberations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 16 March 2021.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 16 March 2021, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 22 March 2021, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Presentation and statements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1    Standing Committee on Procedure</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">A window on the House: practices and procedures relating to Question Time</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">all statements to conclude by 10.20 am.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Vasta</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Next Member speaking</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1   Dr Haines: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment (Rural and Regional Australia Statements) Bill 2021</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 15 March 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2   Mr Wilkie: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to the environment, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority Bill 2021</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 16 March 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3   Mr Bandt: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Amendment (No New Fossil Fuels) Bill 2021</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 16 March 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4   Mr K. J. Andrews: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Canadian House of Commons unanimously passed a resolution that, 'in the opinion of the House, the People's Republic of China has engaged in actions consistent with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 260, commonly known as the “Genocide Convention”, including detention camps and measures intended to prevent births as it pertains to Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Parliament of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has passed a resolution stating that 'measures intended to prevent births' and 'having punishment camps' in China fell under United Nations Resolution 260;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the UK House of Lords has passed a resolution urging the government to uphold all undertakings in and international obligations arising from the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the then US Secretary of State, Mr Mike Pompeo, issued a determination that Uyghur and other Turkic Muslims are being subjected to a genocide by the Government of the People's Republic of China, a position reinforced by his successor, Mr Antony Blinken;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) a series of international reports, including by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights and the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy, have concluded that Uyghurs in Xinjiang have and are being forcibly held in 're-education' camps, subjected to torture, forced labour and coercive transfer to other regions; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) other ethnic and religious minorities are being persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) records its abhorrence that the Chinese Government continues to engage in serious and systematic breaches of the human rights of its peoples;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government of China to respect and abide by universally acknowledged human rights for all its peoples;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) urges the United Nations to investigate the breaches of human rights in China; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) encourages the Australian Government to continue to protest the ongoing abuse of human rights by the Chinese Government and to take appropriate measures to enforce laws against modern slavery and identify supply chains that use forced labour.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 15 March 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>60<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr K. J. Andrews</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that </inline> <inline font-style="italic">consideration of this</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1   Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020 (<inline font-style="italic">Mr</inline><inline font-style="italic">Perrett</inline>): Second reading—Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from</inline><inline font-style="italic">22</inline><inline font-style="italic">February</inline><inline font-style="italic">2021</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that </inline> <inline font-style="italic">consideration of this</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1   Mr Giles: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 15 to 21 March 2021 marks Harmony Week, a time to recognise and celebrate diversity and inclusion in Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) 21 March 2021 is International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, a call for the international community to increase its efforts to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australia's diversity is our greatest strength, we should celebrate this, defend this, and strive to strengthen it; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) at a time of rising racism around the globe and in Australia, we must commit to a zero-tolerance approach to racism, and to working to end all forms of racial discrimination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 16 March 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>35<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Giles</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that </inline> <inline font-style="italic">consideration of this</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2   Mr Thompson: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the construction industry:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) employs over 1 million Australians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) consists of 390,000 small and family businesses; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) generates more than $100 billion, or around five per cent of our annual economic output; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) the Government's HomeBuilder grant has provided critical support to the residential construction sector during the COVID-19 pandemic; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) that Treasury estimates that HomeBuilder is underpinning $18 billion worth of construction projects.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 22 February 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>40<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Thompson</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that </inline> <inline font-style="italic">consideration of this</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3   Mr Hill: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes with approval the resolution of the European Parliament in March 2021 regarding the mass trials of members of the opposition and other civil society activists in Cambodia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) condemns the Cambodian Government for the politically motivated mass trials of members of the Cambodian diaspora based on fake and spurious criminal charges, including Australian citizens, as an authoritarian tactic to silence dissent and global criticism of the Hun Sen regime;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Minister for Foreign Affairs to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) break her silence and speak out publicly against the Cambodian Government for their flagrant disregard for human rights, democracy and the rule of law; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) work with like-minded countries to protect the Cambodian diaspora and support human rights and democracy in Cambodia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government of Cambodia to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) put an end to all forms of harassment, intimidation and politically motivated criminal charges against members of the opposition, trade unionists, human rights defenders, the media and civil society actors in and outside Cambodia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ensure Cambodian security forces refrain from unnecessary and excessive force against those engaged in peaceful protests;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) proceed with the immediate and unconditional annulment of the sentences against Sam Rainsy, Mu Sochua, Eng Chhay Eang, Ou Chanrith, Ho Vann, Long Ry, Men Sothavrin, Tiolung Saumura and Nuth Romduol;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) initiate a process of national reconciliation through genuine and inclusive dialogue with the political opposition parties and civil society;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) release, without delay, all persons who have been detained for exercising their human rights, and to drop all charges against them that are politically motivated and aimed at eradicating any dissent;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) drop all charges against members of diaspora communities, including Australian citizens Hong Lim, Hemara In and others being charged and tried in absentia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) respect the rights of all citizens to a fair trial, freedom of expression and freedom of association and peaceful assembly;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) immediately cease all forms of harassment, including judicial harassment and intimidation of opposition members in the country; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) restore democracy and the right of opposition political parties to organise and express the views of citizens and ensure that the application of the law respects human rights and fundamental freedoms;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) notes that the European Commission:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) recently withdrew tariff preferences for Cambodia in response to the Cambodian Government's failure to meet their obligations to overcome serious and systematic violations of political participation, freedom of expression and freedom of association;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is of the view that the Asia-Europe Meeting Summit should not be held in Phnom Penh this year unless democracy is restored to Cambodia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) recently called on European Union member states to suspend all bilateral financial support to the Cambodian Government and instead focus on civil society organisations and opposition parties;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) insists that the Cambodian Government cooperate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and United Nations Special Procedures in order to allow them to fulfil their mandates without interference;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) reiterates the call on the Cambodian authorities by Rhona Smith, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia, to open up civic space, protect and promote fundamental freedoms, including the rights to assembly and of expression, and to ensure the right to a fair trial for all, as guaranteed by international human rights norms and standards and Cambodian laws; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) calls on the Australian Government to examine the imposition of targeted sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, against Cambodian political and military leaders who are responsible for serious human rights violations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 16 March 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>35<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Hill</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that </inline> <inline font-style="italic">consideration of this</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4   Mr Young: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that Government is committed to ensuring that all Australians, including young Australians, have every opportunity to succeed in post-pandemic Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that the Government has over 200 initiatives that directly and indirectly benefit young Australians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government's $1 billion JobTrainer Fund will provide over 300,000 vocational education and training places for school leavers and job seekers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the JobMaker Hiring Credit is encouraging businesses to hire young Australians; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) notes that the Government is investing an additional $1.2 billion to support businesses to employ 100,000 new apprentices.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 22 February 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Young</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that </inline> <inline font-style="italic">consideration of this</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices—continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5   Ms Swanson: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the extraordinary value of the resources industry to the Australian economy and Australians' livelihoods;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Australia's mining and energy sectors such as iron ore, coal, gas, gold, uranium, bauxite and alumina, copper, nickel, zinc and lithium are world class;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) these sectors continue to provide quality jobs for Indigenous Australians and opportunities for training and apprenticeships for all;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the resources industry provided half of Australia's total export share in 2019-20, worth $238 billion to our economy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) around the nation, the resources industry provides 238,000 direct jobs for Australians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) congratulates the resources industry for its ongoing support of communities, regional towns and essential fly-in fly-out workers living in metropolitan areas; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises the tireless efforts and sacrifices of workers and industry that has allowed the resources industry to thrive despite the immense challenges presented by COVID-19.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 2 February 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>40<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Swanson</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that </inline> <inline font-style="italic">consideration of this</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6   Mrs McIntosh: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that the Government is committed to safeguarding Australians from foreign interference in our universities and protecting government funded research from being compromised;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that the Government convened the world's first Universities Foreign Interference Taskforce in 2019;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Universities Foreign Interference Taskforce produced the <inline font-style="italic">Guidelines to Counter Foreign Interference in the Australian University Sector</inline> to ensure due diligence and to have conflict of interest polices in place to identify and mitigate risks of any foreign affiliations; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) there are examples of intimidation, threats and coercion towards researchers and their families; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) further notes that the Government has invested $145 million to combat foreign interference, including $1.6 million to strengthen cybersecurity in universities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 22 February 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>50<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mrs McIntosh</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that </inline> <inline font-style="italic">consideration of this</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7   Mr Wilkie: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) there are 300 locally owned distilleries spread across 84 federal electoral divisions, which directly support over 5,000 Australian jobs, with a further 15,000 jobs created through the supply chain including across primary producers, hospitality and tourism sectors;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) more than 65 per cent of Australian distillers are in regional and rural areas which bring economic benefits through farm production, manufacturing, regional tourism and hospitality;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Australia has the third highest spirit tax in the world, with spirits taxed up to three times more than wine, cider and beer, disproportionately impacting craft and boutique distilleries;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) it makes no sense to tax grain-based spirits, like gin, vodka and whisky, up to $6 per litre more than grape-based spirits like brandy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) given the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the industry, it makes practical sense to support our local craft distillers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) cut the spirits excise rate to the brandy rate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) freeze spirits and brandy CPI indexation for three years; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) provide much needed relief to local craft distillers by increasing the current excise refund scheme limit from $100,000 to $350,000 for two years, bringing it into line with the rebate offered to small wine producers under the wine equalisation tax.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 16 March 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>30<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Wilkie</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that </inline> <inline font-style="italic">consideration of this</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8   Mr T. R. Wilson: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that the Government is taking real and practical action to reduce emissions while protecting our economy, jobs and investment; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) welcomes that the Government's plan is driven by technology not taxes, and the plan is working, for instance:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) we beat the 2020 target by 459 million tonnes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) updated forecasts show Australia is on track to meet and beat its 2030 Paris target; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) over the past two years, our position against our 2030 target has improved by 639 million tonnes—equivalent to taking all of Australia's 14.7 million cars off the road for 15 years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 22 February 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> business time prior to 7.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr T. R. Wilson</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that </inline> <inline font-style="italic">consideration of this</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17 March 2021</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER</title>
        <page.no>6</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliament House: Access</title>
          <page.no>6</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 25 February, the Leader of the Greens, the member for Melbourne, asked me a question about access to Parliament House. For the information of members and in answer to the question, I table a statement from myself and the President of the Senate in response to the question. A copy can be made for the Leader of the Greens; that would be appreciated. He can collect it down here at the table.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>6</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>6</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6688" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>6</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>6</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021 makes a number of changes to tax laws to implement reforms to the administration and oversight of organisations with deductible gift recipient (DGR) status and also deliver on the Morrison government's commitment to amend Australia's Offshore Banking Unit regime to address concerns raised by the OECD's Forum on Harmful Tax Practices in 2018.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (1997 tax law) to require non-government entities seeking endorsement as a DGR to be a charity registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission or be operated by a registered charity. Ancillary funds and specifically listed entities will continue to be exempt from this requirement.</para>
<para>The requirement to be a charity already applies to the majority of the general DGR categories in subdivision 30-B of the 1997 tax law. This measure will amend the special conditions applying to the remaining general DGR categories, requiring non‑government entities to maintain charity registration in order to retain their eligibility for DGR endorsement.</para>
<para>The amendments include a 12-month transition period which will provide non-charity DGRs with the time to meet the requirements for charity registration without losing DGR status. Eligible DGRs may also have access to an additional three-year transition period.</para>
<para>This measure will improve the consistency of regulation, governance and oversight of DGRs, in turn helping to support continued confidence in the sector and public support for DGR entities.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 to the bill contains amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 that remove the preferential tax treatment provided for offshore banking units (OBUs) and provide transitional arrangements for existing OBUs.</para>
<para>The OBU regime is a concessional tax regime that can be used by the Australian financial services sector to provide banking services to offshore customers. The regime provides a concessional 10 per cent tax rate and an exemption from interest withholding tax for applicable OBU activity.</para>
<para>In October 2018, the OECD's Forum on Harmful Tax Practices determined that Australia's OBU regime contains harmful features. As a result, the Treasurer announced on 26 October 2018 that the government would seek to address those concerns. The OBU regime has been closed to new entrants since that announcement.</para>
<para>Existing participants operating within the OBU regime will continue to access the concessional tax rate for a period of two years—up to the end of the 2022-23 income year.</para>
<para>The government will use this time to consult with industry on alternative measures to support the industry and ensure activity remains in Australia once the two-year grandfathering period ends.</para>
<para>Timely passage of this bill will allow the OECD to confirm that Australia has amended our OBU regime to ensure that it is no longer a harmful tax practice.</para>
<para>Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>TARIFF PROPOSALS</title>
        <page.no>7</page.no>
        <type>TARIFF PROPOSALS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2021</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOOD</name>
    <name.id>E0F</name.id>
    <electorate>La Trobe</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2021.</para></quote>
<para>This proposal creates a new tariff concession for goods that are for use in the program known as the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter program. Australia, along with eight other countries, entered into an agreement whereby all parties agreed to cooperate in the production, sustainment and follow-on development of the Joint Strike Fighter. This international agreement establishes the framework that enables the nations to cooperate effectively to accomplish the objectives of the program, including global industrial participation. Under the terms of this agreement, the Australian government and all other participating countries have committed to achieving tax neutrality. Under current tariff arrangements, not all goods for use in the program are eligible for a free rate of customs duty. To ensure Australia is able to meet the terms of the agreement, new concessional item 58, inserted by this proposal, will apply to all goods for use in a part of this program. This new tariff concession will support and streamline the importation processes for these goods. New concessional item 58 commenced on 1 March 2021.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>7</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHRISTENSEN</name>
    <name.id>230485</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> () (): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled <inline font-style="italic">Pivot: d</inline><inline font-style="italic">iversifying Australia's trade and investment profile.</inline></para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHRISTENSEN</name>
    <name.id>230485</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>In presenting this report to the parliament, I want to highlight its title: <inline font-style="italic">Pivot</inline>. As trade and political tensions with the People's Republic of China escalate, one thing is clear: Australia needs to pivot. Good advice when investing in stocks and shares is to diversify your portfolio and make sure you don't have too much stock in any one industry or company, lest it fall over and you lose the bulk of your investments.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, Australia's portfolio has become less and less diverse over the years, and a big chunk of it is invested in a volatile stock, the People's Republic of China. It's been a no-brainer, though, for Australian businesses to go in that direction. China is a market we can sell to on an enormous scale and buy from at a cheap price. They've been a big buyer of Australian assets, too—agriculture land, property, resources, infrastructure—and there continues to be a great deal of interest in Australia from Chinese investors in Australia. Without intervention, it was inevitable that Australia would be so economically entangled with communist China.</para>
<para>The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed weaknesses, though, in our nation's approach to trade. China's boycotting of Australia's barley, coal, wine and beef exports during times of elevated political tensions has raised question marks over who we should choose to trade with and what the term 'partner' actually means. It seems as a nation we're all the more vulnerable when we put too many of our economic eggs into the one basket. That vulnerability is exacerbated when the basket is woven by a totalitarian communist state that uses trade as a political weapon.</para>
<para>It is in this context that the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth conducted its inquiry into diversifying Australia's trade and investment profile, and the conclusion the committee has drawn from this inquiry is clear: Australia needs to pivot. This inquiry began in February 2020, before the full impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Australia's trade and the economy more generally was actually known and fully realised. But the writing was on the wall a long time before the pandemic. The China question has been on many people's lips for decades, but it's been considered a problem too big to deal with. Now, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought many of the background issues of our nation's trade and political relationships with China to the forefront. I have to say that it's gone from being too big of a problem to deal with to too big of a problem to ignore.</para>
<para>But there is life after China. The committee has considered opportunities for Australia to diversify its export markets. India, Vietnam and Indonesia in particular present value opportunities for Australian businesses. As such, ensuring that access to these markets is available and should continue and be fostered has got to be a high priority for the Australian government.</para>
<para>The committee has also made recommendations aimed at protecting Australia's national interest and national security, particularly in sensitive and critical sectors. Notably, there are recommendations in this report that go to serious concerns regarding state owned enterprises and state linked enterprises funding our universities and owning or leasing our strategic infrastructure, including the port of Darwin. Given the ongoing tensions with communist China, it is an unacceptable security risk to have Chinese state owned and state linked enterprises involved in our universities and involved in our strategic infrastructure. It's a question of trust: can we trust the Chinese Communist Party with our strategic infrastructure? Can we trust the Chinese Communist Party with our education institutions? I don't think that there would be many right-thinking Australians who'd say yes. In fact, I actually don't think there'd be many right-thinking Chinese people who would actually say yes.</para>
<para>In terms of foreign investment, the committee has put forward recommendations regarding the need for foreign investment to be acutely in the national interest. Any foreign investment must be of clear benefit to the Australian people. Much foreign investment into Australia merely displaces Australian capital, rather than growing the economy by creating new jobs and business opportunities for Australians. The committee is of the view that there needs to be a clear definition of 'national interest' for the purposes of the national interest test for foreign investment and that our foreign investment regime needs to be more in line with the interests of the Australian people.</para>
<para>Solutions to our trade diversification issue are available domestically as well. Australia must be more self-sufficient. We can diversify by selling more raw product to ourselves. To that end, the committee recommends greater support for future-focused, innovative industries and Australia's manufacturing capabilities in order to diversify the range of goods and services that we export, while also ensuring that we have the supply capabilities necessary in times of crisis. Domestic investment, aided by things such as a national development bank and incentivising domestic investment of Australians' superannuation savings—all of this will further insulate Australia from the impact of international trade tensions and disruptions. It will provide alternatives to international investment that may pose a risk to either national security or the national interest.</para>
<para>The committee's recommendations will aim to realign Australia to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic with a stronger, more self-sufficient and more enterprising economy. These recommendations were informed by a range of stakeholders who provided evidence on the opportunities and challenges relating to diversification. Most of the recommendations in the report were recommendations that were bipartisan. To that end, I want to acknowledge all the members of the committee, including the deputy chair. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank all of the individuals, businesses, peak bodies, academics, expert witnesses and government agencies that submitted to our inquiry or presented to our inquiry. It very much assisted in the final outcome. I also want to thank my committee colleagues, again, for their contribution to the inquiry. I want to acknowledge their commitment, particularly during such a challenging and uncertain time, where we had to postpone certain hearings because of pandemic restrictions. The onus is now on the Australian government. The onus is now on this government to urgently consider each of these recommendations and to implement the necessary changes to secure our nation's future. In doing so, the government should be mindful of the consequences for both our national security and our national interest if we fail to pivot.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I begin by acknowledging the work of my fellow committee members, as the chair has done, and I also acknowledge the presence in the chamber of the deputy chair. This was a report that was, almost in its entirety, signed up to right across the entire membership of the committee. As the chair just indicated, it received bipartisan support. I also acknowledge the extensive contributions provided to our committee by a whole range of submitters, in often very extensive and thorough written submissions but also in person, taking considerable time out of their busy schedules to come and give evidence. I would like to acknowledge that we were beneficiaries of extensive evidence from academic experts—some of the best trade experts in the world, I might say—and from experts in trade across a number of other professions, from peak industry groups and from a number of individual businesses and citizens. The work of our committee in coming up with this report was greatly assisted by all of that evidence and expertise. I also acknowledge the work of the secretariat, who, under often difficult circumstances, continued working on this very complex topic and assisted the committee in delivering what I think is a very sound report and a significant contribution to an important topic.</para>
<para>I begin by saying trade and investment have always been important underpinnings to Australia's economic prosperity and also to our national security and broader national interest, and that was something which this report reaffirmed. We have always been an open economy and, in being an open economy, we have specialised in a range of goods and services and used our world-class productivity in those goods and services in the export of those goods and services to be able to import a range of other goods and services that it would be difficult and, on occasion, impossible to produce domestically. So it is critically important to reaffirm the importance of being an open economy and using the opportunity of trade in goods and services and two-way flows in investment to benefit our economy.</para>
<para>There is an understandable focus on the need for diversification in relation to trade not only in the destination of goods and services to particular countries but also from particular sectors, but that has long been the case in Australia. We have gone through periods of time with a range of different countries and across a range of different sectors where there has been a degree of concentration of our trade in goods and services. That is part of being an open economy. That is part of the ebb and flow of supply and demand. It is a risk, though, and it is something which we need to be constantly alert to and manage appropriately. But in managing that risk we need to, I believe, always do so while reaffirming the importance of remaining an open economy.</para>
<para>So, first and foremost, in our response to managing that risk, we reaffirm that we want to continue to be an open economy and, indeed, to continue to be a global champion and global leader in reducing barriers. Labor has long been a champion of opening up Australia's economy, and many of the great reforms over the last three or four decades have been under Labor governments. Indeed, we support further reductions in tariffs and, in many sectors, non-tariff barriers. It is often non-tariff barriers that are the most material. We support this particularly through multilateral arrangements and, where appropriate, bilateral arrangements.</para>
<para>But, secondly, it is critical that trade diversification become more of a national priority. This is not about weakening our economic relationship with China. This is about a China-plus strategy. It is about building upon the strengths of the relationship with China by expanding our economic relationships with other major economies such as India and such as the major ASEAN economies, economies in South America and of course other major OECD economies. But what we need is a practical plan for implementing that diversification. The recommendations in this report do provide some useful guidance. It is important to note that this government has been in office for around eight years, and now is the time for action, not continuously mouthing the word 'diversification'. Now is the time for practical action. That requires building capacity in our business sector. That requires building practical links, effective links, with all of those economies that I just mentioned—India, ASEAN, other OECD countries and South America. That requires, for example, programs to boast Asia literacy, particularly in businesses. It requires the right training opportunities for the jobs of the future. It requires promoting outward-bound investment in Asia, noting that Australia currently invests more in New Zealand than all of ASEAN combined.</para>
<para>So the recommendations in this report in relation to diversification are fine, but now is the time for action, and we have had far too little action over recent years on these issues. If we just look at India as one example, there have been major recommendations from a very robust report about that particular relationship that have been on the table for far too long.</para>
<para>I want to conclude by making a couple of comments about leasing the port of Darwin. This is something which was identified in the report, and it's a matter of some concern that has arisen under this government. This was a transaction that occurred under the current Liberal-National government, which didn't recognise or understand or interrogate sufficiently the risks associated with the long-term lease of that port, which is a sensitive asset of national strategic importance. Neither the Northern Territory Country Liberal government nor the Liberal-National federal government identified or properly considered the strategic implications or the long-term consequences of this deal for Australia's national security or sovereignty, and the actions of the Northern Territory Country Liberal government in selling and leasing different parts of this critical infrastructure were not opposed at the time by the Turnbull coalition government. Indeed, the then minister for trade, Andrew Robb, welcomed the transaction.</para>
<para>We believe it is important that this transaction is reviewed, and we believe that, despite the fact that the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020 has been passed, it's important that the government explain whether this lease, whether this transaction, is consistent with Australian foreign policy and that they must explain what actions they believe are appropriate.</para>
<para>In conclusion, returning to the report as a whole, it is a report that, as I said, makes a significant contribution to this broad issue. It is an important issue. We do need to diversify. I believe that we need to maintain the strength of our relationship with China, but we need to build upon that and build our links with India, with ASEAN, with the OECD and with other major economies, and we now need to see appropriate funding of practical strategies to that end.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHRISTENSEN</name>
    <name.id>230485</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.</para></quote>
<para>With brief indulgence, I want to thank Joel Bateman and other members of the secretariat for their assistance during this inquiry and the development of the report.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Road Safety Joint Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That Mr Thistlethwaite and Ms Vamvakinou be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>10</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6684" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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. I call the honourable member for Perth in continuation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This bill does not lift people out of poverty; it simply makes them less poor. Proper poverty elimination must be one of the most important things that we do in this place, for Australians at home and for those who live in poverty abroad. We are a rich, successful multicultural country, but we do leave too many people behind.</para>
<para>When we look at the government, we see that they don't have a plan for the many layered challenge of lifting people out of poverty. This is the government that froze the Medicare rebate. This is the government that has no plan to grow the stock of social housing. This is the government that killed the Gonski reforms, which we know were key to lifting people out of intergenerational poverty. They starved our universities of JobKeeper. And, from what we've seen so far, it looks like the aged-care royal commission will go the same way as the banking royal commission. They hate investing in public services and have done nothing to lower the cost of public transport, despite having been in office for more than seven years. And, in the middle of a pandemic, when I asked the government if they could guarantee that the Morley Centrelink in my electorate would stay open—the Centrelink that thousands and thousands of people go to to access and apply for JobSeeker—I couldn't even get that guarantee.</para>
<para>There is no doubt that we do need a more comprehensive review of how we deal with poverty elimination in this country. Yesterday the member for Canberra said that we need to do a more comprehensive review, rather than just throwing a few dollars around, and I think that is definitely the way to go. I say to the 1.95 million Australians who rely on these payments: Labor is on your side. Reducing poverty will be made a priority in every budget of an Albanese Labor government. We are still in the middle of a pandemic, and we don't know what happens next. Of course, the government must keep all options on the table, including ongoing COVID supplements, to deal with what is thrown at our economy in the weeks and months ahead.</para>
<para>We also need to recognise that it's not only the amount that we give people that is important but also their ability to access these funds. That means quality Centrelink services, secure jobs for the people who work at Centrelink and proper resources so that the call centre waiting times don't blow out, as we've experienced in the last 12 months. We need to make sure that the physical shopfronts for Centrelink continue to be there, because that is the preferred method of interaction with government services for many, many people. We also need to acknowledge that, while we might be providing a very small increase for those on JobSeeker, this government has overseen some huge increases in the cost of living. We know the devastating impact of the government's failure on energy policy and energy prices. We've seen increases in childcare fees. There was a 5.6 per cent increase in childcare fees last year, and the fees are projected to increase 4.1 per cent for each of the next four years. In fact, since it was elected in 2013, this government's record is a 35.6 per cent increase in childcare fees. We know that they froze the Medicare rebate. This government also has a unique ability to refuse to accept when it gets it wrong, as we saw with the embarrassing robodebt saga, which this government pretended didn't exist.</para>
<para>I will end my remarks by referring to one of the many pieces of correspondence I've received from constituents in the Perth electorate, urging this place to do more when it comes to JobSeeker. I won't name the constituent. She writes: 'I'm a sole parent without another adult to help support and raise my amazing child. JobSeeker puts us in poverty, not just me but my child. Poverty is exhausting. Nobody wants to be on JobSeeker. Do you know how stressful it is being so broke, let alone managing life?' I think the reality is that, for many of us in this place, we are fortunate to not know how stressful that is, but that doesn't in any way absolve us of the responsibility to do a lot more to lift our fellow Australians out of poverty.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the second reading of this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021. Perhaps it's important to reflect on the context of what we're doing here. I'm lucky enough to have been involved in international business in previous careers. In fact, one of the roles I had involved doing business in the United States. It was quite an eye-opening experience for me to recognise how different other nations around the world are in the way they support the most vulnerable in their societies. There are lots of great things about the United States, but one thing I don't think they get right is the lack of an appropriate and proper safety net. I remember employing a number of people over there and experiencing things that are totally foreign concepts to us in Australia. An example is the importance, to someone who's applying for a job, of health insurance being provided by their employer, as part of the employment contract—for a lot of people, that's more important than the salary they receive, because, of course, they don't have the universal healthcare system that we are lucky enough to have in this country. In the United States, support for unemployed people is also very limited. It would surprise a lot of people in Australia to realise that there are many other parts of the world where unemployment benefits, if they do exist, are, in many cases, provided in a very time-limited way. In some jurisdictions of the United States, you might be eligible for six weeks of unemployment benefits in total.</para>
<para>In this country, of course, we have a very different approach. We recognise the need for a safety net. We want to live in a country and an economy where we encourage people to participate in the workforce, to have a go, to try to get ahead. We want to be a country where success is rewarded and hard work is rewarded. But it is, of course, vitally important that there is a safety net, because we want to live in a society where no-one can completely fall through the cracks and not have the support that is beholden of human dignity for every person that's lucky enough to call themselves a citizen of this great country. I think it's important to start by acknowledging that the system we have—not just the system supporting unemployed Australians, which this legislation is relevant to, but the universal healthcare system that we have, the universal pension system that we have, et cetera—and the support that we provide as a government, this federal government, but also at state levels, gives us the society that we want. We are paying taxes to support the less fortunate and those that need government support at times and sometimes permanently. That's the sort of society that we want to live in.</para>
<para>When we think about the last 12 months in this country—people often talk about Australia as the lucky country. I don't dispute that we're a lucky country, but I always believe in the saying, 'You make your own luck.' We might be a lucky country, but it's because, as a country, we do so many things very well. The last 12 months have shown how well we have been able to respond to the dual challenges of a global pandemic from a health point of view and from an economic point of view. I won't get into the health response; it's not relevant to this legislation. But certainly the economic response and the social welfare response is relevant to this legislation, and I think it's worth recapping how we came to be where we are today in debating this piece of legislation.</para>
<para>It's well known that about a year ago to the day, the most significant elements of or likelihood of the threat of this coronavirus were becoming evident, and we had to make decisions about closing our borders. Pretty soon, within what felt like days at the time, we weren't just closing international borders but effectively having to shut down many elements of our economy to ensure that we got the health risk of this rapidly spreading global pandemic under control on this beautiful island continent of ours. Closing the international border was a significant decision—one that in hindsight seems obvious, but at the time it was something extremely significant. It was the first time we had ever done it. We're lucky enough to be an island continent, of course, but nonetheless it was a significant decision for a government to take, knowing the economic impact that would be brought about by closing that border, whilst still allowing any Australian or permanent resident who was overseas to return home, and that's still happening up to 12 months later.</para>
<para>As we had to take further measures to shield the population, as we had to shut down so many parts of our economy, and as so many states, in their slightly different ways, went into lockdown for different periods of time, this, of course, provoked an enormous economic risk. Some of it was foreseeable at the time, and some risks eventuated but other risks thankfully did not eventuate. Nonetheless, as a government, it was vitally important that we took significant measures to make sure the government was stepping in to support some fundamentals of our economy.</para>
<para>One of those fundamentals was, of course, protecting consumption and keeping confidence in the economy. A big part of that was the JobKeeper program. Another big part of that was the JobSeeker coronavirus supplement—the $550-a-fortnight payment which initially we announced would go for a six-month period of time, from about late March to late September. The government made further enhancements to that spectacularly enormous announcement of social welfare by extending it from September to December, and then from December to March, with the step-down payments. Now, of course, we're in the middle of March, and in a few weeks time that temporary payment will cease. So the government has, through this legislation, made the decision that we are going to put in place a permanent increase to the JobSeeker payment. I'm strongly in support of what the government is doing here—both the payment amount and the mutual obligation changes that are coming into place as part of it. This is a very significant, permanent increase in JobSeeker. It's a 9.6 per cent increase in the JobSeeker rate, and it's going to cost the budget $9 billion over the forward estimates. That's a very, very significant increase—a permanent increase—to unemployment benefits in this country. We haven't seen an increase like this since the late 1980s.</para>
<para>We all hope that the cost of this will come down. We hope, of course, that unemployment will fall, and we hope that as few Australians as possible need to access these payments. But it's important for those who do need to access these payments that they're receiving this increase. A lot of people in the last 12 months have gone onto the JobSeeker payment for the first time in their lives. I know, as a member of parliament, that, in those first few weeks after those significant government decisions at a federal and state level were taken around closing borders and around economic shutdowns, my office was contacted by so many people—I'm sure all members had the same experience—who had never had to access, in some cases, any form of government support, except, perhaps, Medicare et cetera, in their lives. They didn't have customer reference numbers at Centrelink. They didn't even really know or understand what the process would be for registering and accessing government support. It was a real eye-opening experience for me as a new member of parliament, having been elected less than 12 months earlier, to have that volume of people, for the first time in their lives, seeking out their federal member of parliament and seeking their support in accessing government support.</para>
<para>A lot of those people thought that they would never need to access that support in their lives—whether it was JobSeeker or whether it was JobKeeper. All sorts of other support mechanisms have been put in place: small business loans et cetera, dealing with landlords around rental holidays and all the rest. No-one could have foreseen the enormous amount of government support and response that was going to be required and the enormous number of people who were going to be seeking that.</para>
<para>The number of people on JobSeeker and the temporary supplementary payment that was part of that initially went up quite significantly but, thankfully, it has now come back down quite significantly. Unemployment figures will come out tomorrow. Last month's figures were, again, very encouraging, with unemployment returning to pre-pandemic levels. I mean, any unemployment is not a good thing, but the unemployment rate that we've got, at 6.4 per cent, compared to the economic challenges in other parts of the world, is truly quite remarkable. And it's great to see that, geographically, that is fairly consistent across the states and territories.</para>
<para>There are some industries that are still very significantly impacted: particularly, of course, tourism—particularly international tourism—the airline industry et cetera. I welcome other announcements that we have been making as a government to support those industries. But we hope that the number of people on JobSeeker will continue to reduce as we continue to grow our economy and come out of the worst impacts, economically, of dealing with the health response to the coronavirus. The vaccination program will, of course, be one of the largest parts of that.</para>
<para>I'm proud to be part of a government that is putting in place a permanent increase to the JobSeeker allowance for those who need support as they are looking for work. It's really important that there's a balance here. It's really important that we have a safety net, but it's equally important that anyone who is on JobSeeker wants to get off JobSeeker as soon as possible. You get off JobSeeker by getting a job. I know that, in this debate, people raise and talk about the challenges of living on JobSeeker, and I completely agree that it would not be easy to live on the JobSeeker payment. It would not be comfortable. When people say, 'Could you live on it?' I say, 'Certainly not to anywhere near the comfort and standard that I, of course, do at the moment.' And the point there is that we want people to have an incentive to get into the workforce. We don't want people wanting to be on JobSeeker. We want it to be a support structure in place.</para>
<para>The increase of 9.6 per cent is the largest increase since the late 1980s. But, equally, we're also increasing the mutual obligations components of JobSeeker. That's important too because, as I say, the objective of JobSeeker is to help as many people get off JobSeeker as quickly as possible, and the mutual obligation provisions, as part of receiving JobSeeker, are very important as part of giving people a pathway from JobSeeker back into the workforce. That's critically important for the productivity of our economy; it's critically important for supporting the budget. We don't want long-term unemployment in this country; we want everyone to have the dignity of being able to have a job. We recognise that people need to be supported when they do fall on tough times and are unemployed. That's why this increase is going to contribute significantly to supporting people on their pathway back into the workforce.</para>
<para>I'd like to commend Minister Ruston for the work that she's done on this. She is a good friend of mine, a fellow South Australian. She's had an enormous number of spectacular challenges in the social services portfolio over the last 12 months, and she's risen to the occasion remarkably. I'm so very proud to call her a friend. I'm very proud to support this initiative that she's brought through the cabinet and into the parliament, and I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We're in the House today debating legislation, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021, that would see an increase in the JobSeeker allowance for Australians, on the eve of a cut to the COVID supplement of the JobSeeker allowance due on the 31st.</para>
<para>It brings home absolutely this government's complete lack of understanding about what is happening in the suburbs and the country towns around our country. My Labor colleagues and I won't stand in the way of this piece of legislation. We are not the government. The government controls the Treasury, and we will support this increase at this stage. But my disappointment in the government couldn't be more profound. We're in the middle of a pandemic. Yes, we're all hopeful that 2021 is going to be a much better year and that the impact of the pandemic will reduce quite quickly from here. That is the hope, but it is not guaranteed, and, as a Victorian, I completely understand that there are no guarantees with this pandemic. The government are here saying that they're going to be generous and they're going to increase JobSeeker and that pretty much those around the country should be applauding them for this action, while, at the same time, they're going to cut the COVID supplement. So, in fact, in real terms, families in my electorate and people in my electorate who are reliant on this allowance will face a real cut from this government.</para>
<para>We're cooperating with the government today to ensure that this increase can be legislated in this sitting week of parliament, in the short time that we're together before the budget. On this side of the House, we're keeping our comments as brief as possible, so I'm going to cut to the chase. My problem with the government's attitude in this today is that they want to talk about disincentives, they want to talk about compliance and they want to talk about JobSeeker being an allowance to help people find work, but what they're bringing into the parliament is a very narrow view of the structures around these things. And there are a couple of things that the government need to know.</para>
<para>They need to know the growing number of people over 55 that are currently on JobSeeker. They need to know that, before the pandemic struck, I was talking to people over 55 in my electorate who had lost their work and who were looking seriously at this being their income going forward until retirement age. The government need to understand those growing numbers. They need to understand that over a million people are currently unemployed. They need also to understand that, when someone gets their JobSeeker number, they are sent to a jobactive, so they need to balance what we're spending on this jobactive program. The jobactive program is supposedly there to ensure people find a pathway to work and to support people while they're looking for work. But the government are also bringing in new compliance measures that include a hotline to dob in somebody who didn't show up for an interview, when we're spending billions of dollars on a system that's supposedly already set up to do those things. They need some clarity around jobactive. They need some clarity around the billions of dollars we're spending there as to whether it's a compliance regime—and, therefore, is actually a cost that should be attached for compliance—or whether it's there to support people, because at the moment, in my electorate, what they'll hear from the community is that it is failing miserably, and we are spending billions of dollars on it.</para>
<para>On the weekend, I attended a Tradeswomen Australia function. They're running a pilot in my electorate where 70 women will be assisted and put through a program to get them to look at the trades as an option, and to support them in entering an apprenticeship in trades. This is a place where the government might want to make a commitment to spending some money—rather than leaving this important work to the philanthropic centre—and it could have been a part of what they're announcing today. I also want them to hear this statistic: as we stand here today ,40 per cent of people in Australia under 35 have never had a permanent full-time job. I want them to understand that, because when they talk about a jobseeker being above the poverty line or that being dignified is a disincentive to work, they've got a job to do. We have people working in this country who are not being paid the minimum wage. While that's occurring, of course it's creating this notion of a disincentive. If 40 per cent of people under 35 have never had a full-time permanent job, then that insecurity is growing that disincentive, and you can't use one argument and then balance it against the other. So the government has work to do. The government has work to do in job creation, and I don't mean their JobMaker program. I don't mean a program that's going to see one person thrown out of a job, potentially, for somebody else to be put into it. I mean job creation.</para>
<para>This government doesn't have a plan for job creation in the electorate of Lalor in the outer western suburbs of Melbourne. They do not want to bring in an increase that would support the people in my electorate who, during the pandemic, have joined the numbers of the unemployed. This government needs to think very clearly about people who are working for less than the minimum wage when they see this prism. They need to address the housing crisis across this country, they need to address homelessness, they need to get an understanding of what it's like to live in poverty and they need to take action. They need to commit themselves to creating a society where all can live with dignity—those working, those looking for work and those unable to work.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VASTA</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
    <electorate>Bonner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021, for it goes to the fundamentals of our party values. I'm a proud member of the Morrison government who was there for Australians when they needed support the most. The coronavirus pandemic was unexpected and it was devastating. It needed decisive action, and that's exactly what we were able to deliver. We were able to cushion the blow to households and businesses to protect lives and livelihoods by putting in place measures quickly and without hesitation. We were able to do this as we had both the economic management skill and the budget position to do so. Imagine for a minute what would have happened if we'd been faced with this pandemic under a Labor government with their $387 billion of new taxes. I shudder to think.</para>
<para>We know that there is more to do, but our comeback is on. Confidence is building, jobs are coming back and our economy is mending. Our country is mending. Last month, a NAB business survey showed that business confidence was at its highest in 11 years. For the first time since records began, GDP growth is above three per cent in two consecutive quarters. Our Australian economy has outperformed all other major advanced economies across the world. We are one of nine nations to hold our AAA credit rating. We are the gold standard. The most encouraging figures to all Australians are job figures. Ninety-three per cent of jobs lost during COVID have come back, and we're continuing to build on this. Fifty thousand new jobs were created in December of last year alone. Our JobMaker program is creating jobs of the future and backing apprentices. Our HomeBuilder program has seen building companies hire more staff to keep up with demand as more and more new families are given the opportunity to own their own home.</para>
<para>Last week, along with the Treasurer, we visited Wallum Nurseries in Gumdale. Wallum Nurseries is a great example of a business that was able to take advantage of the many measures we put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic. They kept all their staff by utilising JobKeeper, and now they have successfully transitioned off the JobKeeper program and they've hired new staff—even two new apprentices under the wage subsidy scheme. They've also used the cashflow boost and instant asset write-off to purchase a tractor, a ute, a shade structure and a fridge. The owner told the Treasurer and I: 'We couldn't have done any of this without JobKeeper. Josh and the government told us to spend to keep the economy going, and that's exactly what we did.'</para>
<para>On this side of the House, our key focus is on job creation and it's a goal that we are steadfastly focused on. Nothing will deter us from this task, for the best welfare anyone can have is a job.</para>
<para>Let's remember that JobSeeker is not designed to be a long-term solution. It is there as a safety net to get people back into work. It is not a wage replacement. It is a helping hand when that help is needed most. But we need to find a balance and a balance that is fair and will be sustainable in the future. We must support those people who are unemployed and actively looking for work and the taxpayers who fund their support. We must be there to make sure that our generations now and in the future are supported if they fall but that they do not unfairly burden generations in the future with unreasonable debt, hampering future opportunities, and we must not remove the incentive for them to get back into work. That is what I believe Australians want most, for a job is not a pay cheque; it's a purpose, it's an opportunity and it's certainty.</para>
<para>That's why, as a permanent reform, we are increasing the income-free area to $150 per fortnight, because we want to be always encouraging out-of-work Australians to re-engage with the job market. The bill will permanently increase the income-free areas to $150 per fortnight for the JobSeeker payment and youth allowance payment from 1 April 2021, allowing people to keep more of what they earn as they go about the task of reconnecting to the labour market. We have taken into account the need for a modest rise in those payments, along with the positive change in our economy that it is reflecting.</para>
<para>When those opposite throw their jibes and jabs our way, they fail to discuss that these measures that we put in place were emergency measures to get us through the toughest time and out the other side. While we might not be fully out on the other side, we are going ahead in leaps and bounds and we are proud of that. We're backing our comeback and we're backing the Australians who are making it happen.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SNOWDON</name>
    <name.id>IJ4</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to be able to speak in this debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021, but I have to say I'm not too pleased with the outcome of this bill. Whilst we on this side of the parliament will be supporting the legislation because we accept the proposition that any increase to the base rate of these income payments is welcome and important, it is an absolutely lousy amount. And we need to comprehend how lousy it really is.</para>
<para>I listened to the member for Sturt, and my ears pricked up when I heard him say a few things around safety nets and getting off JobSeeker by getting a job. He admitted that living on this would not be too comfortable. So he's accepted the fact that living on an extra $3.57 a day on top of the $40 is not too comfortable and he probably couldn't live on it. 'But it's an incentive to get into work,' he said.</para>
<para>Let's be clear. I note the member for Sturt said, 'Look, we increased this payment by 9.6 per cent,' and said this was the first increase since 1994. Well, that's an indictment of all of us—all of us. I've sat in this parliament since 1994, and we haven't seen an increase in this payment. I'm disgusted. And now we know people are living in dire poverty as a direct result. We have a responsibility in this place to look after the interests of all Australians and to understand what poverty really means.</para>
<para>When I was listening to the member for Sturt I was reflecting on my own electorate, which has large numbers of Aboriginal people who are unemployed, on CDP, living in really remote places where there are just no jobs. Yet we now have the government saying that they're going to change the mutual obligation requirements and provide a hotline to report people who don't turn up to accept a job offer—well, I'm not sure that there are going to be too many job offers in remote communities in the area I look after—and there will be a return to the precoronavirus number of monthly job applications, 20. What 20? Where are these 20 jobs going to appear from? It's just bizarre. Then there are the intensive job preparation activities after six months of unemployment payments. We accept mutual obligation on this side of the chamber, but mutual obligation means 'mutual'. It includes an obligation for us in this parliament and the government to do a lot more than we're doing.</para>
<para>It is more than just an issue about poverty; it's a public health issue. Let me go to the reasons why. The Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation has given me some data about the impact of income supplements over the COVID period, what it's meant for people in remote parts of the Northern Territory where the ALPA stores operate and how their sales figures have changed as a result of the COVID supplement. Remember, this is an issue about health. I'm saying it's about public health. During May and April of 2020, the extra social security increased nourishment in the ALPA communities. Access to the chiller and freezer produce went up by 49 per cent, fruit and vegetables by 36 per cent, groceries by 12 per cent, meat by 60 per cent and prepared foods by 12 per cent. This is a public health issue. Now we're saying to those people: 'We're going take this money, which you're using to purchase extra nutrition for your families, off you. That's coming away, and we'll give you a lousy $3.57 extra a day.' We've got to do better than this. We're condemning people to poverty. We're condemning people to poor health outcomes. We are, really. Think about this: how can we expect kids to go to school with a full belly if there's no food in the house? The member for Sturt said he might find this difficult to live on. It's impossible to live on.</para>
<para>As I say, I reluctantly, in a way, support this legislation, but only because even this minuscule amount will make some difference. But it is clearly not enough, and more needs to be done by all of us in this place.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MARTIN</name>
    <name.id>282982</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The first priority of every member in this place should be to those who sent us here. It's our solemn duty to support them in realising their aspirations. It was around this time one year ago that COVID took the world by storm and the future seemed uncertain. 'Will I have a job tomorrow? Can I pay my electricity bills? Can I feed my kids?' These were the questions which faced many. This government stepped in to answer these calls, and the answer was yes. In response to the economic crisis, the Morrison government committed unprecedented support to save lives, cushion the blow and help Australians remain in jobs. The coronavirus supplement provided extra support for those on JobSeeker. This was in addition to JobKeeper, wage subsidies and support for small businesses, which kept the economy moving. We must recognise that we were only able to be in this position because of the Morrison government's strong economic position before COVID. Maintaining our AAA credit rating has meant that the Australian government has been able to provide this economic lifeline.</para>
<para>Many other highly advanced liberal democracies around the world have not been so successful in either managing the health crisis or providing the level of economic support that we have. However, we know the objective must be to keep getting people back to work, and 90 per cent of the 1.3 million Australians who either lost their jobs or saw their working hours reduced to zero are now back at work. We know that there is no money tree. A fiscally responsible government cannot keep spending such large amounts forever. With that, as the coronavirus supplement comes to an end, the government is implementing a permanent increase to JobSeeker—1.95 million Australians currently accessing working-age payments will see a permanent $50-per-fortnight increase in the rate of payment. This is the single biggest year-on-year increase to the rate of unemployment benefits since 1986—an increase of 9.7 per cent. In addition, we are also permanently increasing the amount of money jobseekers can earn before they lose a cent of payment, to $150 per fortnight. We are also temporarily extending the waiver of the ordinary one-week waiting period for certain payments for a further three months, to 30 June 2021, and we will be temporarily extending 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 care for others as a result of COVID-19, until 30 June 2021. This is a $9 billion spend across the forwards, which equates to about a 10 per cent increase on the government's typical annual spend on JobSeeker, and it is the largest-ever budget measure for working-age payments.</para>
<para>With the commencement of the vaccination program, Australia is confidently moving into the next phase of how we fight this pandemic and battle to secure the livelihoods and lives of Australians. As we come to the next chapter, the government believes it is important that we show faith once again in our social safety net. At the beginning of the pandemic, we put in place a series of emergency measures designed to protect Australian lives and livelihoods. The coronavirus supplement, which was our first initiative, helped ensure that we strengthened the safety net upon which Australians would rely. At this time, we said it had to be targeted, scalable and time-limited, and we have lived up to our word. As the impact of the pandemic continued, we extended but scaled back the supplement. Now that our vaccine rollout is underway, it is time to move from short-term emergency measures to long-term arrangements that people can rely on should they find themselves out of work. But it is important to note that JobSeeker is a hand up, not a handout. It is not a wage subsidy but an incentive to work. The pandemic caused a once-in-a-lifetime disruption to the labour market, and our comprehensive welfare system was able to provide emergency support to Australians who found themselves unemployed. During the pandemic we have stood with all Australians, side by side. These new payment arrangements continue to make good on our commitment to supporting Australians as they look for work.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The average rent in Perth is $393 a week. The average weekly grocery bill is $130. I'd go on about the cost of other basic expenses, but we've already hit negative territory when it comes to somebody who is relying on JobSeeker. This is the reality for so many individuals who will still be reliant on this payment at the end of March.</para>
<para>Should the legislation before us pass, we will see the JobSeeker payment climb to $615 a fortnight, or $44 a day. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021 will increase the base rate for working-age payments by $50 a fortnight from the end of March. While a rise is certainly welcome, in practice, for so many people who are relying on that benefit payment, it will be a pay cut. In practical terms, people who are relying on social security will face a $100-a-fortnight cut to their household budgets. This is because the coronavirus supplement, which is currently $150 a fortnight, will come to an end at the same time. Labor, of course, will not stand in the way of an increase, even if it is a pitiful one, and we won't play cruel political games, giving jobseekers hope of a greater increase, as much as we would like to see that, when the reality is that only the government can increase expenditure and set unemployment payments at a higher rate.</para>
<para>Good social policy is good economic policy and vice versa. They are two sides of the same coin. This government fails to understand that, when you give people more money, there is a significant social and economic benefit that comes with it, not just for the recipients and their families but for the whole community. To be clear on who we're talking about, these are people who will only be receiving the equivalent of 41.2 per cent of the minimum wage, when it was 50 per cent in 1996. They will be receiving only a 70 per cent equivalent of where the poverty line is. Better living standards, health standards, job prospects: the list of the benefits goes on. Research shows that more income for those who receive the least is spent in local economies and improves the quality of life for everyone in those communities, not just the recipients of the payments. As we have seen in our communities through the COVID-19 pandemic, while life hasn't been easy, the greater rate of government support payments has improved outcomes in every facet of life—health, education, crime, and the economic flows into local businesses and across the community. In order to change the budget and this payment in any significant way, though, you have to change the government. So, until then, we will agree to this increase in payment but continue to advocate for it to increase further.</para>
<para>Living in poverty or getting by on very little is incredibly tough. I often reach out, visiting members of my community. I go out doorknocking, but let me tell you that it's incredibly difficult to doorknock when some people don't even have a front door. That is the reality for some of the people in my community and, indeed, across the country. Australia is a wealthy nation. We call ourselves the lucky country. There should be absolutely no excuse for allowing people to live anywhere near poverty, let alone the situation that many people find themselves in and will find themselves in again when, in real terms, the rate of JobSeeker is reduced. However, those on the other side of the House like to throw around terms like 'dole bludgers' and 'laziness' and say that this is stopping people from going to work. Let me tell you, members of the government: nobody aspires to poverty. The sheer reality is that, as we recover from the COVID pandemic, there are not enough jobs in Australia for everyone who needs one. The statistics don't lie. There are almost double the number of people relying on unemployment benefits today than there were at the beginning of the pandemic.</para>
<para>The latest figures from February show that there are 192,000 job vacancies, while there are 1.35 million people relying on unemployment benefits. That's seven unemployed people for every job out there. In Western Australia, it's 6.7 people for every job available in Western Australia, and that number doubles in some other jurisdictions around the country. That's not even taking into consideration the number of people who will be joining those jobless queues when the JobKeeper payment comes to an end in just 11 days time. Treasury's own figures suggest that 100,000 people will lose their jobs when the JobKeeper payment comes to an end on 28 March. Other economists say that the number of people who will become unemployed when JobKeeper comes to an end is more likely to be around 250,000. That means an additional 250,000 people will be relying on a payment of just $614 a fortnight. That is a significant drop from the current rate of JobKeeper of $1,000 per fortnight—all while COVID still rages, and businesses across the country are still suffering.</para>
<para>The transition from the COVID payments to the new normal under this government will be incredibly difficult for Australian families around the country. They'll need to go back to juggling, going without meals, having sleepless nights, feeling stress, not being able to provide what their kids need to go to school. Businesses will now have fewer customers as JobSeeker recipients will no longer be able to afford their goods and services.</para>
<para>In this parliament, Labor have stood up for those on social security and we will continue to do so, but you can't change the nation unless you change the government. A Labor government will approach issues of equity, poverty and social security very differently from this government. We will have compassion. We will balance our approach to ensure that health, jobs and education are proportionate to these payment rates. But, until we're in government, I'm sorry to say that we can only talk about what we would like to see happen, rather than take the real action that is required of government. This legislation is not remotely good enough, but, unfortunately, it is still better than nothing.</para>
<para>So I will make this commitment to my community now: I won't stop fighting for a better deal for you; I won't stop fighting for a fairer deal for you. I've seen the benefit of these higher payments during COVID, and the difference they've made to the communities of Armadale and Gosnells and in the surrounding areas—not only to the standard of living for these individuals but also to our local economies, to the small businesses, to our social support system and to our healthcare system. It turns out that you can go a long way towards solving poverty by throwing more money at it; you just have to do it the right way. Investing in social support measures goes beyond cash payments to individuals. It's about investing in education and training, job creation here in Australia, a healthcare system, mental health supports and good, solid, secure and available housing. But a higher rate of JobSeeker is needed, too, because, as I said, good social policy is good economic policy. Our entire community benefits if we get this right.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021 with much disappointment. This bill was yet another opportunity for the Morrison government to put the people of Australia first, but they've failed to do so. At a time when millions of Australians are still standing in the unemployment queue, when people are doing it tough and are out of work due to this pandemic, this government has chosen to throw them a few meagre crumbs to undermine their efforts to secure stable, rewarding work and leaving many feeling isolated and unsupported. There are now 60 Australians for every entry-level job in Australia—a startling statistic. And no-one aspires to be unemployed, to live in poverty. It is stressful, it is a struggle, it can be demeaning and it makes people feel powerless.</para>
<para>So, in these unprecedented times, it is staggering that the Morrison government has chosen not to substantially increase the permanent rate of JobSeeker but to instead propose a pitiful increase of only $3.57 a day. This meagre sum will not help lift people out of poverty. It will continue to be a huge barrier to securing work, it will continue to drag back the economy as we recover from the pandemic and it will entrench the cycle of poverty for millions of Australians. But, while there is much to dislike about this bill, it will put just a little more into the pockets of people who need it the most. So Labor will not oppose this bill, but we will continue to push for better, for so much better, from this government, and I will continue to push for so much better for the people in my region of Corangamite.</para>
<para>Members opposite have said that this increase in the unemployment payment is the first since 1994. This is true, and it is an indictment on us all in this place. We must all do more to support people, to lift people out of poverty and to provide an avenue for rewarding, stable work. In the end, at the next election, this will be the litmus test. Do Australians want more of the same—more punitive, short-sighted legislation that does not help people or our economy; a government that treats with contempt people who have lost jobs through no fault of their own; a government that encourages Australians to dob in other Australians via a hotline; a government that will hound people out of work instead of encouraging them into work? It's hard for these people to get ahead when they can't even get a go.</para>
<para>The Morrison government that has given us robodebt and sports rorts now proposes to raise the rate by a miserable $50 a fortnight. The changes will begin on 1 April, next month, when the coronavirus supplement ends. The supplement has now dwindled to $150 a fortnight. In practical terms, those on working age payments will lose $100 a fortnight from 1 April. To add injury to this insultingly low increase, the government is also supercharging the hostility around qualifying for payments, urging people, as I've said, to ring the hotline and report people who do not accept a job offer, regardless of what that job is, the rate of pay or the conditions of work. The government will also require each recipient to complete 20 job applications every fortnight, while intensifying job preparation activities after six months of receiving an unemployment benefit.</para>
<para>It should be noted that Labor supports mutual obligation. It was Labor that first introduced it. But the obligations should be mutual, shared, two-way. The person receiving the payment is expected to diligently seek work that reflects their skills, abilities and potential. The government is expected to support the jobseeker and to be fair and reasonable in its expectations. Of course, both the jobseeker and the government should want the same end result: securing decent, stable work for the unemployed person. But the requirements under this bill do the opposite of this. They are punitive and counterproductive. They will serve to punish the unemployed, they will waste time for businesses and jobseekers, and they will create barriers to employment. But, as I've said, the increase in this bill, while miserable and woefully inadequate, is better than nothing, because $50 a fortnight is better than zero dollars a fortnight. I say again that it will not put an end to the huge suffering and instability that is being experienced by so many living in poverty, including more than one million children.</para>
<para>It is not just jobseekers being mistreated by this government. I've heard from many workers in child care, universities and the arts sector and casual workers across my electorate who have been left out in the cold by the Morrison government. This government talks about consumer confidence on the radio, it harps on about jobs on the telly, and then it comes into the House and proposes this legislation. It's legislation that, apart from hurting many people, will decimate the economy. At the start of the pandemic, the government introduced the coronavirus supplement, a $550 fortnightly payment, but childcare workers were taken off payments only months after the scheme started, and university and arts workers and millions of casuals never saw any payment support. This lack of support not only leaves workers feeling overlooked and unsupported; it shrinks the economy when we need to stimulate it. It beggars belief.</para>
<para>Every day I talk to residents in Corangamite who are facing increased costs to protect their health because of the coronavirus pandemic. Every day I talk to pensioners in my electorate who are facing rising costs in energy and grocery bills. Every day I talk to people in Corangamite who are out of work and dumbstruck that the Morrison government doesn't seem to care about them. There are 7,805 people in my electorate who are about to come off JobKeeper at the end of this month. Many, many of them will need to spend time on JobSeeker, and, if this bill is successful, we can be sure they will spend much, much more time unemployed than they need to.</para>
<para>In the wake of this pandemic, the Morrison government had an opportunity to deliver lasting structural change for vulnerable Australians while boosting business and jobs. This bill fails to do this. It is time for a change of government. It is time for a government that cares, that has vision and that has a plan for all Australians. I commit to my community that I will continue the fight to ensure that we get into government and we make the change that's required for all Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This social services legislation amendment bill 2021 is named, in parenthesis, 'strengthening income support'—'strengthening' income support. Let's think about what this government thinks this word 'strengthening' actually means. They've tied it to a miserly $3.57 per day increase. That's what they mean by 'strengthening'. So it's gone from $40 a day with some silver coin, a bit of spare change, up to $44.34 a day for a person on JobSeeker looking for a job. That's the 'strengthening'. They might want to check their dictionary or their thesaurus when they are trying to name amendments to bills, because that is barely enough for anyone to survive on—$3.57 per day.</para>
<para>People have told me time and time again that on the current $40-odd a day they often skip meals and can't afford fresh food. Let's say you're at Woolies. What can you get on your shopping trip with the extra change the government has so generously given you? Well, you can get 1½ florets of broccoli. You can get one punnet of fresh strawberries—actually, you probably couldn't, because strawberries are pretty expensive. You can get four lemons—which is probably what this bill is: a lemon. You can get one punnet of cherry tomatoes. That will see you through the day. You can get a bag of salad mix. You don't get all of these things; you get to pick one. You can't have all of them.</para>
<para>Or maybe you just forget about the fresh food section, as I know so many people are forced to do, and go to another aisle. In the rest of the supermarket, what does your $3.57 extra get you? You could choose to blow the whole thing on two litres of milk—of Woolies brand milk, to be specific. Oh, sorry, hold on. That's $3.59, so you'd actually be 2c over your budget if you tried to buy two litres of milk. You can scale it down to one litre for $2.39. With the $1.20 that you've got left after you've bought your milk, maybe you can get a can of tuna for $1.15, or a can of beans or a cup of two-minute noodles or a can of Heinz tomato soup—but you'd be very lucky to get that one, because that's on special at the moment for $1.10; usually it's a lot steeper than that.</para>
<para>In all seriousness, these are the choices, the actual choices, that 1.3 million people in our community who are on JobSeeker are making. They will be making that choice with their miserly $3.57 increase—the 'strengthening' increase this government has so generously proposed. These are the choices that people who have been on the old Newstart know all too well; they're all too familiar with making those choices every day.</para>
<para>These are the choices that await the around 100,000 Australians, according to Treasury's own estimates, who may lose their jobs when the government cuts out JobKeeper payments on 28 March and they are forced to turn to JobSeeker and the very generous increase being proposed. Locally, in my electorate of Wills, the government ending JobKeeper will affect 2,898 of the people that I represent who operate businesses. It will actually affect 11,996 workers in my electorate.</para>
<para>Those of us on this side, I and all of my colleagues in Labor, want a substantive increase to JobSeeker. We've been calling for this. I've been calling for this substantive increase for years—since I got elected to this place—an increase that means that people can live in dignity while they're on their job search, not in poverty. Clearly, $3.57, even though you might label it 'strengthening' is nowhere near that. It goes nowhere near enough. It doesn't go far enough. However, we will pass this bill. We'll pass it now because we don't want to delay even this miserly increase reaching people that actually need it, because it's better than zero. We're pragmatic, and we're realistic. That's why we'll do the right thing. But we'll be very clear that Labor, as a party of government, will do the work as an opposition ahead of the next election to come up with a plan for the right increase, a substantive increase, and support an investment in jobs for these 1.5 million Australians.</para>
<para>Others in this place will play their political games with the usual empty political stunts, like the Greens political party, who will no doubt put up amendments to the bill with increases that can never pass because only the government can pass money bills—we know that. But it won't stop them and others, potentially, from moving such amendments, even though they have no chance of success in this place or in the Senate and will actually, potentially, delay even this minor increase—which you have so generously decided to bequeath upon these Australians! But, playing politics with people's livelihoods is not good enough.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! When the honourable member says 'you', he is actually referring to the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My apologies. I refer to the government so generously bequeathing $3.57! In contrast, Labor and I are committed to a substantive increase if we win government. That's why we won't play political games right now. We're the only political party that can form government and deliver the increase that will change lives for the better.</para>
<para>This is a complex issue. We don't doubt that. Many people have been focused on the rate itself—rightly so, because it has been too low for too long. But it's also much more than the dollar rate itself; it's about getting the balance right throughout the whole framing of this, about making sure that people can live in dignity, not in poverty, and making sure that there are jobs out there for people to actually apply for, because, right now—there's what?—one job for every 13 or 14 unemployed Australians. Some of the minor parties will tell you the rate should be $80 a day, but it's not as simple as that. That would mean that people, mostly women, would have the perverse incentive or disincentive to leave their part-time work, because mostly women have part-time and casual work, in favour of JobSeeker. So, some of these other plans, these political stunts that we might see in the coming days, would actually incentivise women to leave the workforce. So, it is also about the type of work that's out there for women in society and the issues around part-time work and the casualisation of the labour force.</para>
<para>Some of these minor parties won't really care about this. They'll talk about the rate as a dollar figure, but they won't tell you about the consequences, because they don't have to worry about the consequences—minor parties don't form government. Nothing that they put forward will ever become a reality, because, after all, they're not a party of government. But, unlike the minor parties, who have no regard for the consequences, or the government, which is actually ideologically bound to the consequences of its own bill, we actually will do the work necessary to take this issue seriously in all of its entirety to look at the rate, to look at the issues that people face in the workforce, to invest in job creation and to deal with the broader issues that are facing what is almost 1.5 million Australians today.</para>
<para>A future Labor government will actually look out for them in the best possible way. We won't delay this bill, even though this $3.57 is miserly and pathetic. We'll make sure that it gets to them. But we, as a responsible opposition, will also do the work necessary to look out for them in the economic recovery that this nation faces going forward.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I rise to not block this bill. I don't support it. It doesn't go far enough, and it's typical of this government that, when it comes to people in need, they fail to deliver. But here, on our side of the House, the Labor benches are not going to get in the way of something when it's better than nothing, and this legislation, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021, represents the first real increase in unemployment payments since 1994. So, even though we know it doesn't go far enough, we have to accept, like chewing broken glass, that an increase is better than no increase. But it's important to be aware that the government would not have done this without pressure from the community and from Labor. That's because helping out those in need is not something that's normal for this government. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming to extend a hand to those who don't have a net worth of a couple of million bucks.</para>
<para>The bill permanently increases the base rate of working-age social security payments by $50 a fortnight, $3.57 a day. This will increase the base rate of JobSeeker payments from $565 a fortnight to $615 a fortnight, and it'll benefit some 1.9 million people, including 1.2 million on JobKeeper, 322,000 on youth allowance and 350,000 on parenting payments. In practical terms, though, people relying on social security still face a $100-per-fortnight cut to their household budgets. That's because the coronavirus supplement, currently at $150 a fortnight, will come to an end at the same time.</para>
<para>Already the state governments have had to jump in and fill a gap. Just yesterday, the Victorian Labor government announced a $620 million Jobs Victoria scheme with more than 450 advocates to help people find jobs. This is the key issue. No-one actually strives to be poor. No-one strives to be living on or below the poverty line. The jobs are not there for people. This is the real issue. People can't get jobs, and this government has sat on its hands during this pandemic and done absolutely nothing to increase job rates.</para>
<para>The only thing that they've done is establish the dob-in hotline, for employers to dob in people who haven't agreed to a job. The difference between what we do and what they do has never been starker. Labor helps employees find work. The coalition punishes those who can't. Where is the hotline from this government to help people who've been systematically underpaid? These people don't have a hotline, because the government know where they get their votes from, and it's not from people who are looking for work. If you can't be counted on to support the coalition, they don't care about you.</para>
<para>The Victorian government is right to be concerned about the end of JobKeeper. In McEwen, unemployment and youth allowance support has doubled since the start of the pandemic. But I've also heard concerning calls from members of the travel agency sector. One constituent who runs a travel agency business has implored me to get the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to support the travel agency sector. We tried, but, as usual, they ignored. She was concerned that this sector would be the last to return to pre-pandemic levels because of the effect of border closures. Unless the support is extended, she will have to close her business.</para>
<para>Too often, discussions about social security do not put affected people front and centre. Living in poverty or getting by on very little is very tough. It's a full-time job being poor: trying to negotiate payment plans, hunting down the cheapest options on things, dealing with inadequate and slow public transport, and coming up with reasons, explanations and excuses for why you can't come along and participate. That's to say nothing of the stress that it causes or the worry that comes from knowing that your bills are due and you don't have money to pay them. It's hard to have a go when you can't get a go.</para>
<para>Labor has long been calling for an increase to the rate of unemployment payments, as have many others, including the Governor of the Reserve Bank, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Retail Association, academics, experts and the Council of Small Business, just to name a few. There are simply not enough jobs in Australia for everyone who needs one. There are seven people on unemployment payments for every one job vacancy, and that doesn't even begin to count those Australians who are underemployed—underemployment is the great scourge of this society—who aren't receiving payments. In Victoria there are 45,000 vacancies and 338,000 people receiving unemployment payments. That's 7.4 people on unemployment payments for each job vacancy. How is a dob-in hotline going to change those numbers?</para>
<para>This is a government that has a shameful track record on pension and social security payments. With the help of the Greens and the crossbench, they have been able to cut over $12 billion from the pension and social security. This has included cutting the pension for 370,000 people by changing the asset test, completely cutting the schoolkids bonus, cutting pensioner concessions and freezing family tax benefit rates. Labor opposed these cuts. Labor has also been able to block another $12 billion in cuts to the pension and social security. We have blocked this government's cruel attempts to make people under the age of 30 wait six months for unemployment payments. Imagine that—having to wait six months in a pandemic, through no fault of your own. Because of the inability of this government to actually lead, you lose your job and then you're forced to wait six months to get payments. They cut the family tax benefits. They wanted to increase the pension age to 70, but Labor stood in the way. They cut paid parental leave and called mothers 'double dippers', and they scrapped the energy supplement for new applicants.</para>
<para>In this place, Labor has stood up for people in need of social security, and we will continue to do so. Australians now know that an Albanese Labor government will be on their side. As I said at the start, I'm not happy about this, but I'm not going to block this bill, because people are in need. What would be nice is if the government actually put people first.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Like my colleagues on this side of the House who have spoken before me, I reiterate the fact that the Labor Party will of course not stand in the way of this very modest increase to the JobSeeker payment, but at no point throughout this debate should anyone be under the illusion that this work is complete. At no point should we be under the illusion that this job is done and that this rate is sufficient for Australians to live on. It's not. It's not enough. Even with the extended amount, it is not enough. A rate of $40 a day means Australians are living in poverty, and a rate of less than $44 a day is going to mean Australians are still living in poverty. On this side of the House we have a choice to either support this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021, or not. The government have made it clear that they're not interested in negotiations, and, therefore, this is the rate that we have to choose from. Of course we support raising the amount, even to this very insufficient level, but that doesn't mean that we are comfortable with where it's at right now.</para>
<para>For all of the Australians who are currently receiving the JobSeeker payment, what this is going to mean, week to week, is that they will actually have less money once this supposed increase comes in. At the moment, with the coronavirus supplement, they're getting $150 a fortnight on top of the JobSeeker payment. But the removal of the coronavirus supplement, even with the $50 permanent increase to the JobSeeker payment, will effectively mean a cut of $100 per fortnight. What we also know is that there aren't enough jobs for the number of job applicants in this country. People are applying for jobs because they have to, not because they have a legitimate and realistic chance of getting one.</para>
<para>The most important point that I would like to make is that we are still in this pandemic. When the Treasurer and the Prime Minister stood up in April last year and announced the increase to JobSeeker and created the JobKeeper payment, it was all in recognition that the pandemic was altering the way in which our economy was working. Well, the pandemic is still doing that. We are still in a pandemic. Only this morning, the Prime Minister was making announcements about how we are helping our Papua New Guinean family to deal with one of the worst outbreaks that we have seen in this entire pandemic. It is not over. Speak to any Queensland health professional and they will tell you that the crisis is still looming on our doorstep. Yet this bill makes the assumption that it's all done, it's all over and it's all in the past. I really hope that we will not face another lockdown, anywhere in this country. But if we do, this bill will mean that Australians will be living below the poverty line during that lockdown.</para>
<para>Earlier in the pandemic, when this rate was increased, I spoke to many people. I spent a lot of time in the many public housing towers in Macnamara, speaking to the many amazing people who live there. For many of them, the increased supplement was a life-changing experience that not only meant that they were no longer scrimping and saving every last penny; it also meant that they could do things like buy a bit of meat for their dinner, for the first time in years.</para>
<para>We need to make a decision in this place about what sort of living standards we want Australians to live under.</para>
<para>One of my final points is this: to live on less than $44 a day means that the amount of housing available to you in the private rental market in Australia is extremely limited. Less than one per cent of the private rental market is available to Australians who are on the JobSeeker payment—less than one per cent. During the pandemic, at the very top rate of JobSeeker, when the coronavirus payment doubled the JobSeeker rate, that went up to about 11 per cent of the private rental market. That meant that more and more Australians were able to access the private rental market and live with a bit of dignity. They could live in a rental property and stand on their own two feet. This bill is going to mean that, again, fewer and fewer Australians are going to have access to stable, secure housing.</para>
<para>So we, on this side of the House, say: of course we're not going to stand in the way of this bill—but under no circumstances are we admitting that the job is complete; under no circumstances are we accepting that this is enough for Australians and that the work here is done. It is not a source of pride that this is the largest increase since the 1980s. It's a reminder that the work is still yet to be done and that, in Australia, our fellow Australians deserve to live with dignity and deserve not to live in poverty. Unfortunately, this bill is going to mean that too many will be living without dignity and still below the poverty line.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021. This government is cutting the support for people who are doing it tough as we deal with the pandemic. This government is plunging people back into poverty—including hundreds of thousands of children around this country—and they are doing it deliberately, because this government punches down. No-one should be living in poverty in a wealthy country like ours. Instead, in a world where there are 12 people looking for every job that's available—12 people who don't have enough work or don't have a job at all—and where there are 60 people on unemployment payments for every entry-level job advertised, this government is saying, 'It's your fault, and we're going to make you live in poverty.'</para>
<para>Everyone understood, before the pandemic, that $40 a day, which was the level of JobSeeker then, was not enough to live on. Everyone understood that. And the government was forced to admit that, when the worst of the pandemic hit, because they increased JobSeeker—they doubled it. Now the government is saying, 'No, $40 a day is not enough to live on, but we reckon $44 is.' That's the level that this government is plunging people back down to.</para>
<para>We are here to debate a bill where the government is giving people a pitiful $3.57-a-day increase when they are struggling and living below the poverty line already. It speaks volumes about the approach of all governments that this is the first real permanent increase that we've seen in the JobSeeker payment since 1994. But, instead of being able to celebrate this moment, we are angry. We are angry at the government's decision to entrench poverty at the same time as it hands out billions of dollars in tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. Make no mistake: this is a choice that the government is making. The government is choosing to make people live in poverty, at the same time as it gives $100 billion a year in handouts to big corporations and the very wealthy.</para>
<para>When the JobSeeker payment was doubled last year, we made huge progress in tackling poverty in this country. The government were forced to admit that you could not live on the previous rate of Newstart or JobSeeker, so they lifted it to what they thought was appropriate, and it took it above the poverty line. All of a sudden, it was something that people could live on. People spoke of the transformational impact that this had on their lives. They were able to go to the dentist, buy fresh fruit and vegetables, get their car serviced, buy a family computer and afford essential medication—things that many of us in this place take for granted but that you couldn't do on $40 a day. We heard from people who could finally afford essentials like prescription glasses, a fridge, warm jumpers and school supplies for their children. There were enormous benefits at the community level as well when the rate of JobSeeker payment was increased. The number of people skipping meals dropped by over half, to 33 per cent, while the number of people struggling with medical costs dropped similarly, by over 40 per cent.</para>
<para>The poverty rate for households whose main source of income is allowances dropped to 26 per cent following the introduction of the coronavirus supplement. But researchers estimate that the poverty rate for these households will skyrocket back up to 85 per cent after this bill is passed. Before the pandemic, we had people having to skip essentials—medication, food and, in many instances, a roof over their head—because the rate of JobSeeker was so low. During the pandemic, we had a window into what it is like for these people to be able to live a normal life. All of a sudden, they were able to buy things like food and other essentials such as prescription glasses. But now the government is plunging them back into poverty.</para>
<para>That's why I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following words be added after "education services":</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) increase the Jobseeker Payment to above the poverty line."</para></quote>
<para>In a wealthy country like ours, where there are two million people who either don't have a job or don't have enough hours of work, and where there are 12 people either without a job or without enough work for every job that's available, and where there are 60 people on unemployment benefits for every one entry-level job that is available, no-one should be living in poverty. We should be able to keep people above the poverty line while they look for work and especially while this country recovers from the pandemic and we rebuild.</para>
<para>The jobs that the government says that people need to get just aren't there. They're just not there at the moment. That's especially the case in places like my electorate of Melbourne, where so many of the industries that employ people—like hospitality, events and tourism—are still not able to get back on their feet, because we're still dealing with a pandemic and they're subject to social-distancing restrictions. The government just does not seem to get that we are still dealing with the virus and with the economic consequences of it, and the jobs have not bounced back.</para>
<para>Of course, even before the pandemic hit, life was pretty tough for people, especially young people, in this country. Before the pandemic, about one in three young people in this country either didn't have a job or didn't have enough hours of work. That's not because they weren't taking up a massive surplus of jobs that was available. The jobs just aren't there. But what is the government doing? The government is punishing people for not finding jobs that aren't there. That's what this government is doing. The government is saying, 'Even though we've got enough money to give $100 billion in handouts to big corporations, even though we think that billionaires deserve a tax cut and will rip $300-odd billion out of the budget with the Labor Party's help to make sure that we can't fund schools and hospitals as well as we would like, despite all of that largesse that's available for big corporations and billionaires, I'm sorry, we can't lift you out of poverty in the middle of a pandemic.'</para>
<para>It is incredibly cruel, and that's why I'm moving the amendment to increase the JobSeeker payment to above the poverty line. We can do it. We did it during the worst of the pandemic, and we can do it now as we recover from the pandemic and into the future. What the government don't understand is that, when you are living on so low an amount as the $44 a day that they are proposing, you not only go without many of the essentials, you not only have to skip meals, you not only have to have those difficult conversations with your kids about why they can't go on excursions or do the things that other kids are doing; it's actually a barrier to finding work, because it means you don't have the money to go on that extra training course, you don't have the money to go and buy some nice new clothes, you don't have the money to get a haircut. Being on $44 a day means you spend all your time just struggling to survive. It's not a living; it is just barely surviving.</para>
<para>Then, to make matters worse, the government comes along and says, 'We're going to introduce a hotline, a "DobSeeker" hotline, where you're going to be able to dob people in.' As you're struggling just to survive and as you're looking for jobs that aren't there, you now have the added weight hanging over you of an employment service provider—who makes money out of this whole industry; this privatisation should be completely unwound, and we should go back to having a public centred approach to employment service provision—now potentially having the ability to put a black mark against someone's name and say, 'They didn't take a job that we reckon they were suitable for.'</para>
<para>And employers can do it too. Employers are able to dob people in, according to this new government hotline. So if you're a young woman who goes for a job at a place and comes out of it feeling, 'I don't trust that man who's going to employ me. He's creepy and he's sleazy, and I don't want to be working under him. I'm not going to accept that job,' you can get a black mark put against your name and potentially have your payment suspended. This is not slavery, in this country, but that is the direction the government is taking us in. Now you won't have the freedom to say no to working for someone that you might think could be completely inappropriate to work for; you're going to be forced to do it under this government. This government is now embarking on a process of virtually forced labour by saying you don't even have the right to say no to working for someone who's inappropriate. People should have the right, after they've met their employer face to face, to say: 'No. Actually this job isn't going to work out for me, and I've got some very good reasons why.' But no—this government's punishing them for even doing that.</para>
<para>The mutual obligation requirements that are being imposed in this bill as well are going to mean that, from July, people will be forced to apply for up to 20 jobs a month, in the middle of a recession, and they're going to be required to resume face-to-face appointments with jobactive providers, even while social-distancing restrictions are in place in many places around this country. Again, this speaks volumes about the government's approach, and the government's approach is to punch down and to blame people for not finding jobs that aren't there.</para>
<para>But there's a different way. If we make the billionaires and the big corporations pay their fair share of tax, then we can afford to ensure that no-one is living in poverty in this country and that we invest in the kinds of job-creating nation-building projects that will set us up for the future, deliver something of lasting benefit to Australia and get us back to full employment. Instead of handing out $1 billion a year to big corporations, including its donors, the government could invest some of that money in projects like getting Australia running on 100 per cent renewables, restoring our environment and expanding free education. That would create jobs. The government could actually do things right now, through its investment, that would create jobs. Instead, the government has a trickle-down approach to the recovery that says: we'll force people to live in poverty, but we'll give $100 billion a year to big corporations and the very wealthy and hope that they choose to use some of it to employ people.</para>
<para>High unemployment is a choice this government is making. This government is choosing to keep people out of work. What it could do with that $100 billion, instead, is invest it in projects that would deliver lasting benefit for the whole of Australia for decades to come and would give people meaningful work—a meaningful job for everyone who wants it. We could get back to full employment in this country if we wanted to. That's what they did in the US after the Great Depression. They invested, and as a result they've got a national parks system which is still used to this day and transportation networks that are still used to this day. They built amazing buildings and created incredible works of culture. Instead of giving money to the same people that helped cause the crisis, they put money into direct job creation, and that's what the government needs to do here. That is how you create the jobs for people. That is how you could go to every person in this country and say, 'We can guarantee you a job working on one of these nation-building, planet-saving projects.'</para>
<para>Look at our natural environment. Look at how devastated it is, especially after last year's bushfires. Look at how much work needs to be done in rural and regional areas to restore our environment and get it back to good health. That is work that could create jobs. Look at our aged-care sector and the scandals that we've seen there. The No. 1 recommendation of the royal commission was to invest in and lift the workforce. We could invest in our aged-care sector so that there are more nurses, attendants and other staff working in our aged-care sector, and that would create jobs. This idea from the government that, instead, we're going to just keep giving more to the billionaires and big corporations and hope things get better is a trickle-down fantasy. For as long as the government is refusing to offer people decent jobs, it has no right to complain about the unemployment rates. What we should do in this country is all agree on a single principle that, in a wealthy country like Australia, no-one should be living in poverty. We lifted people out of poverty during the worst of the pandemic and we can do it again. I commend my second reading amendment to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Wilkie</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Clark. The original question was that this bill be read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Barton moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting others. The honourable member for Melbourne has now moved, as an amendment to that amendment, that certain words be added. The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Melbourne to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Barton be disagreed to. The member for Indi has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the last 12 months, many Australians have experienced for the first time what it's like to be out of work. For several years, the number of Australians receiving the JobSeeker payment was bouncing around at about 700,000, but in March last year, when the pandemic hit, that number jumped to 1.2 million people, an increase of 54 per cent in a single month. Our country has never seen anything like it. At the same time, the government did something extraordinary and temporarily doubled the rate of JobSeeker payment to around $1,100 per fortnight. It also introduced JobKeeper to support the business community. These were two of the best decisions the government has made, and they were made because those opposite recognised several things. They recognised that the hundreds of thousands of Australians who'd suddenly found themselves out of work were unemployed through no fault of their own, and they recognised that it would be good for small business to put more money in the pockets of people who will spend it locally. Since that time, the government has slowly cut the rate of JobSeeker back to close to its original rate. This is despite the fact that in January there were still 1.2 million jobseekers in Australia, the number having barely budged since the pandemic hit. And the bill before us, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021, will permanently enshrine yet another cut in the rate. If this bill is passed, on the first day of April, two things will happen. First, the permanent rate of JobSeeker and several other social security payments will rise by $50 a fortnight. Secondly, at the same time as the permanent rate is increasing, the coronavirus supplement of $150 a fortnight is ending. This means that the actual rate of JobSeeker that people are receiving is being cut by around $100 a fortnight. Right now, a single person with no dependants who's receiving JobSeeker will be getting around $50 a day. In two weeks time, that very same person will get just $44 a day.</para>
<para>I will support this bill because, if it does not pass, the JobSeeker rate will simply go back to its old level of $40 a day, but I do believe this cut is overly punitive and counterproductive not only for the people who are receiving it but for our small businesses looking for employees. I'd like to use this opportunity in parliament to outline my reasons why. I believe that the goal of our social security system should be to support people who can work to do so and to support people who are unable to work to live decent lives. Both of these things are important. I fear that this bill, by cutting JobSeeker to such a low level, achieves neither goal. It neither gives those people unable to work a decent life nor encourages people who are able to work to do so. On the new JobSeeker rate, a person will receive just $44 a day. I don't believe that there's any way to really survive on income that low. Before coming to this chamber, I checked on realestate.com to see what it costs to rent a place in some of the towns in my electorate. The cost of an average rental in Wodonga right now is around $40 a day. In Bright, there's basically nothing on the market at all, but, if you can find something, the cost is $56 a day.</para>
<para>When I met with the Minister for Families and Social Services a few weeks ago to be briefed on this bill, she insisted that, because the government has other supplements available, people really are given enough to live on. To an extent it's true that the base rate of JobSeeker is not the only thing that determines the total amount of social security that an individual receives, but, even once you include these supplements, I simply don't see how we can plunge 1.2 million Australians into living like this. Let's take an example. With the new fortnightly JobSeeker rate, a single person with no children who is renting a property will receive $620 in basic JobSeeker, $9 in energy supplement and $141 in rent assistance. That's a total of around $770 a fortnight or $55 a day. If you live in Wodonga and you're spending an average of $40 a day on rent, that leaves you with $15 a day to live on. But, in some of the smaller towns, the lack of affordable housing is even worse. The cheapest rental available right now in Mansfield—not the average, but the cheapest—costs $740 a fortnight or $53 a day. So, if you're on JobSeeker in Mansfield, even with all the extra supplements that the government talks about, you're looking at spending 96 per cent of your income on rent. After paying rent, that just leaves $30 a fortnight. So how is a person supposed to survive on JobSeeker if they live in a town like Mansfield where there are simply not enough properties available to live in?</para>
<para>The minister also insisted to me that health care is 'free in Australia and universal', so people receiving social security are able to access health care at no cost, but this is simply not correct, particularly in regional Australia. People are not always able to access health care for free. Fifty-three per cent of patients in regional Australia face out-of-pocket costs to access Medicare, paying around $142 per person a year. I constantly hear from constituents who tell me that they can't access mental health care in places like Wangaratta and Benalla because the only providers charge significant gap fees. If you live in Benalla and you have a medical emergency, there is no emergency department to go to. Instead, you can only go to an urgent care centre where, when you see a GP, you will receive fee-for-service charges. As a result, some people in Benalla will drive for up to half an hour on the road in the middle of the night to go to the ED in Wangaratta just to see a doctor. These issues are not isolated to Indi; they happen across regional Australia. The idea that we can afford to have such a low rate of social security because health care is free is not only incorrect but actually dangerous. We have to be honest: making the rates so low means that some people are unable to access the essentials of life, like a place to live and basic health care.</para>
<para>I said at the beginning of this speech that giving people dignity in unemployment should not be the only goal of the social security system; it should also encourage people who can work to do so. We have to be honest: if the rate of JobSeeker is too high, for some it is a disincentive to work. But I believe that simply cutting JobSeeker is a crude way to try to get people into jobs. I don't believe it does much to address the structural barriers that stop people being able to work. A few weeks ago the <inline font-style="italic">Mansfield Courier</inline> ran a story reporting accurately that I was calling on the government to rethink its cuts to the JobSeeker rate. When I was in Mansfield last week, I was approached by one of my constituents, Mr Dean Belle. Dean owns the popular Delatite Hotel and the Mansfield Produce Store. He is well known in the community and I, together with that community, hold him in the highest regard. He told me that some of the business owners in the Mansfield main street were concerned about what I had said about the rate of JobSeeker because they're struggling to find enough people to work in their businesses. He told me that he too was struggling to find enough people to work in his pub and cafe. As a result, he and other business owners had missed out on thousands of dollars in lost trade.</para>
<para>Dean's comments, while alarming, unfortunately didn't surprise me because, to be truthful, I'm hearing this from many people. In the last few weeks I've heard the same message from small businesses in Tallangatta, Corryong, Bright and Mansfield. One pub owner told me he had to shut down on the Sunday of the Labour Day long weekend because he was so understaffed and the few staff he had were completely worn out by the huge crowds on Friday and Saturday. I know Dean Belle. He is a model employer, and so too is the IGA in Mansfield and other great employers. They simply can't find people to work. There are businesses there offering traineeships, and still they can't find people to work. Many businesses tell me that one of the reasons they struggle to find workers is that they think, in their mind, that it's easier to be on JobSeeker than it is to work. The brutal truth is that in some rare cases they're probably right. There are some people sitting on JobSeeker, turning down work, when these hardworking businesses are unable to fill their available spots. That is deeply unacceptable.</para>
<para>But my view is that, whilst a portion of people on JobSeeker are choosing not to work, there are a slew of other reasons that prevent jobseekers from being able to take up jobs; it's not a zero-sum game. I heard from so many constituents about other structural barriers that stop them taking up jobs—things like housing and transport. If we just take housing, there is an acute lack of affordable housing, as I've mentioned. I've said before what the cheapest property in Mansfield costs. Just imagine: you're unemployed and living in Melbourne, and there's a job going in Mansfield, but the only place to live would cost you $740 a fortnight. It is impossible for you to even pay a security deposit out of your JobSeeker income. If you come up to work as a casual waiter or part time in a ski shop, you are unlikely to be able to afford that rent.</para>
<para>Lack of skills is another huge barrier. Many small businesses need people with experience and training in skills, which may not be available locally. Take Bright, for example. The Bright and Mount Beauty area has seen the number of people on JobSeeker go up by 96 per cent since March, the highest increase of any place in Indi. This is unsurprising, given it was heavily reliant on tourism, which was completely decimated in the pandemic. Many of those people who lost their jobs have subsequently left the area. Now that tourism is coming back, small businesses in Bright tell me the jobs they are trying to hire for are roles for chefs, bar staff and experienced waiters. The problem for these businesses is not the availability of people needing jobs but the mismatch between the skills they need and the skills that these local people have.</para>
<para>Another barrier is child care. In regional towns we have extremely limited childcare options, especially in flexible child care for shift workers. If you're a single mother on JobSeeker and there is a local pub offering you a shift on the bar at night, but you can't find childcare, you simply can't take the job. On top of that, even if you can find child care, it may be so expensive that it's not worth it for you.</para>
<para>Fourth is transport. If you need a car to get to a job and you don't have one, it's essentially impossible to take on a job in a regional area with very limited public transport options. If you live in Eurobin and there's a job in Porepunkah but you don't have a car, it's pretty simple—you can't take the job.</para>
<para>Housing, skills, child care and transport—these are four structural barriers to employment that I hear from my constituents. Simply cutting the rate of JobSeeker doesn't do anything to solve these four problems. I'm acutely conscious that these barriers don't tell the full story. We have to be honest: some would prefer to receive money for nothing. I recently met with Wodonga UnitingCare's social services, and they told me precisely that. But they also told me that these people are very much in in the minority; most people want to work.</para>
<para>If we really want to create jobs in regional communities, we should be creating more affordable housing, investing in transport, investing in child care and investing in skills. Addressing these issues in a holistic way, I believe, would do far more to create jobs in the regions than simply cutting JobSeeker. The government must be able to design public policy that allows our small businesses to thrive but which does not condemn our fellow Australians to the indignity of poverty. The debate about what the JobSeeker rate should be is a difficult one, mired in complexity and in politics, but simply railing against jobseekers, as some in the government do, is unhelpful.</para>
<para>I will support this bill because I think we're a society that lends a hand to people who are down on their luck, but I call on the government to offer a comprehensive regional investment agenda, one that's matched by services that enable people to live, work, study and thrive in the regions. It's high time they did.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate>Oxley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on this important bill before the House, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021. I want to raise my voice regarding what the government is proposing—and, obviously, what my community has been concerned about for some time—regarding the issue of Newstart and the associated reforms that we are dealing with today.</para>
<para>The first thing I want to do is place on record my thanks and gratitude for the many service and community organisations that work across the south-west suburbs of Brisbane and the Ipswich regions who provide critical support for families and individuals who are in need. I've had the privilege and honour of working alongside many church community organisations and frontline workers, particularly during the COVID crisis, who have been there at the end of a phone call or have been running services to support some of the most marginalised and disadvantaged people in the community. The work that they do and the support that they offer is truly uplifting. Sitting and hearing their stories of, day after day, dealing with some of the most complex social needs and support services that are required by so many in my community—with rising poverty rates, and, particularly rising children's poverty rates—is one of the great privileges that I have as a member of parliament. Hearing their concerns and understanding the pressures that they deal with—not only the people who work in the sector but also the many, many families across the Oxley electorate that are desperate for work and desperate for income support—I understand that they are concerned and fearful for the future. With over one million people unemployed and more than two million people looking for additional work in one of the worst recessions that our country has faced, I think it is time that the government heard those concerns.</para>
<para>I want to talk a bit about some of the provisions that are in the bill and what this will mean as impacts for my community. I want to remind the government, who are patting themselves on the back about increasing the base social security rate, that once the coronavirus supplement ends unemployed Australians will actually face a $100 a week cut to their household income. We're not going to stand in the road of anyone keeping the previous increase, because people are doing it tough now; they are struggling.</para>
<para>I want to put this in perspective. Once this measly payment is implemented, 1.3 million Australians or more will have just $3.57 extra to spend each day. You can't buy a return bus ticket with that, so what can you buy? A tin of soup or a tube of Colgate toothpaste or a pack of soap, but you can't have it all—not for $3.57 per day. These are the choices facing 1.3 million people right now. When JobKeeper ends, there are around 5,000 people in the Oxley electorate alone who will be cut adrift by the Morrison government. I've spoken to a number personally. They say they may not be able to keep all of the staff on their payroll. The businesses are concerned about what the government is planning to do with JobSeeker when they go over a cliff. So this will potentially mean even more people out of work. There are not enough jobs to go around, and the government know this, but they are simply making it worse. Well, I want to stand here and say that I hear what those concerns are, and I'll continue to fight for those residents.</para>
<para>While many Australians are or will be unemployed through no fault of their own, they're being punished by this government, which is putting in heartless measures attacking people who would never have been out of a job if better policy had been put in place to protect them. There are issues in this bill that I have concerns with, including the 'dob in a jobseeker' hotline. That has already raised concerns about the new reporting measures being so heavy-handed. Businesses have come out against those procedures, and I'm not quite sure that, from an ethical or employer standpoint, it is a good idea.</para>
<para>Whilst we won't be opposing this bill today, it is important to put on record the concerns that I have received from local businesses and local community organisations that have been working so hard alongside so many people to get them through the coronavirus pandemic. I'll always speak out for those who don't have a voice, and I'll always try to make sure that they have a suitable, decent living wage or at least income support to make their lives easier.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021. This increase to what was called Newstart, now renamed JobSeeker, has been long called for, but it is disappointing and, unfortunately, what is being put forward by the government is not a solution.</para>
<para>To provide baseline understanding in our discussion of this bill, I note that JobSeeker is due to return to the pre-COVID rate of Newstart, at $40 a day. In this bill, the proposal is that that be increased to $43.50 a day. Even with concession rates, that won't even get you to the city on the Manly ferry. So people living on JobSeeker and other payment types need a greater level of support to help them transition back into the workforce. This is a measly measure by the government that falls short of what is needed, and I've impressed upon the minister that much more is needed and this doesn't even begin to resolve this issue. People need to be able to pay the bills and still get the ferry to the city. They need to be able to go to the job interviews. If they are not, we will not get them back into the workplace.</para>
<para>We need to return to a more dignified approach to social security, going back to the roots of the Liberal Party. Sir Robert Menzies, who so many in this government revere and often quote, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The purpose of all social security measures is not only to provide citizens with reasonable protection against misfortune, but also to reconcile that provision with their proud independence and dignity as democratic citizens.</para></quote>
<para>I do not believe maintaining the rate of JobSeeker significantly below the poverty line can be reconciled with the proud independence and dignity of Australians.</para>
<para>In my view, JobSeeker should be at least $60 a day. That's under 90 per cent of the pension rate and on the upper end of the bracket put forward by the Business Council of Australia. The Australian Council of Social Service recommends that the rate should be $65 a day, just under the pension, which is $67. Chris Richardson of Deloitte Access Economics argues that it should be around $58 a day to be comparable to when the rate was indexed to inflation in 1994. So it's clear that, at $43.50, the government is way off the mark from all advice. All of these rates proposed by business, the social sector and economists are significantly higher than the proposal of $43.50 a day by the government.</para>
<para>The government emphasises that the increase in this legislation is a $9 billion direct cost to the budget over the forward estimates—four years—but completely fails to recognise that you get back a dividend of $2 for every $3 by way of a bigger economy. It's an argument we hear in relation to so many other spending measures, but, when it comes to this measure, the government is conveniently silent about it. People with less money are more likely to spend it, because they need to. They buy food, pay rent and buy other essential items. Rebekah, a JobSeeker recipient, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The businesses that would receive the money as soon as I get it are no longer going to get that money, so that's going to affect my local shops.</para></quote>
<para>It comes back to the economy and boosts it from the bottom up. In Australia, we have one of the world's highest minimum wages, but, relative to that, we have one of the lowest rates of unemployment benefit. The disincentive to work is not there, as claimed by so many members of government. The high rate of minimum wage is a huge incentive to work. When working two days a week at the minimum wage you will earn more than you can earn on JobSeeker. The incentive is there.</para>
<para>Jeff Borland of the University of Melbourne told <inline font-style="italic">The Australian</inline>:</para>
<quote><para class="block">To be honest, I can't remember a policy change I have been more disappointed about … Here was an opportunity—by giving a significant increase—to have a real impact on living standards of people experiencing hardship and provide a macroeconomic benefit without there being any likelihood of a negative effect on incentives for unemployed jobseekers to find work.</para></quote>
<para>Independent economist Nicki Hutley estimates that we could lose 100,000 jobs as a result of the combined end of the coronavirus supplement and JobKeeper. I would argue it is mismanagement by the government to be ending both measures at the same time. Nicki Hutley said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… we've got millions, literally, of people both on the JobSeeker supplement and on the JobKeeper allowance, and pulling those out of the economy… it's probably equivalent to around $5 billion a month … That's equivalent to roughly 3 per cent of GDP—</para></quote>
<para>that's going to be pulled out. That is a very significant hit to the economy. The economists lined up with the business groups, including the Business Council of Australia and the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, to say that we need to increase the JobSeeker permanently to 'a reasonable level'. This is not it.</para>
<para>In Warringah, we saw the number of people on JobSeeker and youth allowance triple during COVID-19. That's more than 2,000 individuals who had not been on payments prior to the pandemic who now are. We also have over 4,000 businesses on JobKeeper. Many of those receiving JobKeeper will likely shift over to JobSeeker at the end of the month. This drop-off in support places people in Warringah in a very difficult position.</para>
<para>In Warringah, we have amongst the highest cost of living in the country. We've also got a large tourism and hospitality sector that's been devastated by the pandemic, especially through the Christmas lockdown, without any support from the government. Our electorate will feel the end of JobKeeper and, at the end of the coronavirus supplement, the move to other payments acutely. The events industry is still struggling. There are no plans, and there are no packages put forward by the government. There are more than 17 travel agents in the electorate with little to no work as a result of the international borders still being closed, and I should note that the recent announcements in relation to travel subsidies does not automatically flow to travel agents in all industries; it has gone to airlines, essentially. And we still do not have any long-term policy in relation to our borders from the government. There is an indefinite wait for borders to reopen and for Australians caught abroad to be able to come home, so we actually need some long-term planning.</para>
<para>I can accept that for the first month, March of 2020, an immediate response was needed, but we are 12 months on and we are still in a situation of closed borders, impeded travel and Australians being unable to return. It is, with respect, not good management and not acceptable. Ending the coronavirus supplement at the same time as ending the JobKeeper wage subsidy is a mistake. It will hurt both businesses and individuals, and this bill does little to alleviate that pain.</para>
<para>This bill is a permanent increase of $50 per fortnight to the base rate of JobSeeker. To be very clear to people listening, that's actually a decrease of $100 a fortnight from what they are currently receiving today. They will also soon have their payments impacted by other income. If any jobseeker starts earning an income, they are currently able to earn up to $300 per fortnight before their JobSeeker payments are impacted. Under this bill, that is halved to $150 per fortnight. That means if you get just one eight-hour shift in a local cafe at minimum wage in a fortnight your payments are already impacted. Surely people should be able to get at least a shift per week before their payments start going down, especially given that, even with one shift and the base rate of JobSeeker, you're still below the poverty line. The poverty line in Australia is currently around $457 per week. If you're on JobSeeker and you get one shift at a minimum wage, you will receive a grand total of $382 per week, still below the poverty line. Adding in rent assistance, which is a maximum of $78 a week, you are pretty much on the poverty line. But I should note that in Warringah, the median rent was, at the time of the census in 2016, $580 a week. So unemployed people in Warringah have no chance under the government support in this package.</para>
<para>The conversation about who is on JobSeeker and other payments is incredibly important as it provides some guidance about where we need to inject stimulus into the economy. It is all too often demeaning and incredibly insulting when members of government describe this in a very dismissive way, and really, I would say, prey on the more vulnerable in our society that are needing the assistance. Older people represent a growing proportion of those on JobSeeker. Let's be clear: ageism is real. As of September last year, 42.6 per cent of those on JobSeeker were aged over 45, and 32,000 people on JobSeeker were over 65. These people are increasingly making up the long-term unemployed. With respect to the government, it is incredibly hard for older people to find a job, particularly when there are programs that are incentivising the employment of younger people. It is not for lack of trying. Older people are trying to either find new professions, pivot, adapt to new professions or find new opportunities, but they are looking for work. Once losing work, they find it incredibly difficult to find employment again. For some, their skills don't match the needs of the workforce of today. For others, they're seen as overqualified for the roles available and not likely to be a good long-term employee. There has not been the shift to properly appreciate their experience and what they can contribute. This group are at a great risk, and without adequate support, they face a very uncertain future. It's no wonder, therefore, that women over 55 years of age represent the fastest growing group suffering from homelessness. That should be an incredible shame and stain on everyone in this place. We need to find employment solutions for this older generation, opportunities to retrain and policies to incentivise employers to take them on.</para>
<para>Women will be greatly impacted by the removal of the coronavirus supplement. In a month where the government's issues with women have been highlighted, this should be a very clear focus of the government as it prepares for its May budget. Jenny Davidson, the Chief Executive Officer of the Council of Single Mothers and their Children says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The struggle to feed, house and provide for their families on so little money takes up time and energy that then can't be invested in parenting, studying, or seeking work.</para></quote>
<para>So let's be very clear: by not adequately supporting older women, the government is also impacting the outcomes of their children and their families. Local and state services will be left to try to fill the gap with emergency relief and food packages and expect to be overwhelmed from April. As at September 2020, 46 per cent of people on JobSeeker were women. Among the parenting payment singles, that proportion is 95 per cent. Over a million children live in homes receiving the coronavirus supplement. The supplement has been the game changer for so many women and their families. There have been so many who have finally had the financial stability to leave abusive relationships. There are others who have been able to afford new clothes for their children for the first time.</para>
<para>The financial empowerment that has been delivered by the increased supplement cannot be underestimated. This is the benefit of treating all jobseekers with dignity and fostering their proud independence. We need to deliver this security on an ongoing basis to make sure that people remain functioning members of society. Without the additional support, people suffer, and children suffer, and they're unable to maintain functional positions in society or achieve their full potential—and this ultimately costs more down the line. Let's be very clear. Our health services and many other aspects of our society pay the price when we are not adequately supporting the cohort that find themselves unemployed.</para>
<para>I implore the government to do more to help women and older workers as you deliberate and consider prebudget submissions before the budget in May. It is so important that this be the focus of the budget this year. Without additional support, people suffer and they're simply unable to maintain functional positions within society and achieve their full potential, and we will all pay the price for that. If you won't listen to so many sectors and raise the JobSeeker rate by a substantial amount permanently, look closely at those most at risk and deliver tailored packages for them in the next budget.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, we're in a position where there is no choice but to support the bill, because we would not begrudge the small increase, the meagre increase, that is being provided. But it is so disappointing when there was an opportunity to lead on this. The government had an opportunity, post the coronavirus supplements, to actually implement a policy that could bring dignity and an adequate level of support—and this level of support has been called for by so many in our community. Treat those on social security with dignity and develop their proud independence. There are economic and health benefits to a more substantial safety net. Ripping all this stimulus away at the same time will have dire consequences. I urge the government: listen to your communities.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Like so much of this government's legislation, the title of this bill does not reflect the intent at all. The Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill permanently increases the base rate of social security payments by $50 a fortnight, or $3.57 a day. The base rate of JobSeeker will increase from $565.70 a fortnight, or $40.40 a day, to $615 a fortnight, or $44 a day. Youth allowance will go up from $462.50 to $512.50 a fortnight, and parenting payment will go up from $793.20 to $843.20 a fortnight. The increase of $50 per fortnight will also apply to Austudy, Abstudy, special benefit payments, widow allowance, partner allowance, farm household allowance, DVA student payments and the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme. The changes will take effect from 1 April, when the $150-per-fortnight coronavirus supplement ends. So most social security recipients will in fact see a cut of $100 a fortnight to their payments.</para>
<para>The other key changes in this bill will be to the mutual obligation requirements, with a return to the pre-COVID requirement of 20 monthly job applications, and the creation of a hotline to dob in people who do not accept a job offer. There will also be a permanent increase to the free area for JobSeeker, youth allowance and parenting payment partnered recipients from $106 to $150 per fortnight. Throughout the pandemic, the free area for payments had in fact been increased to $300 per fortnight, but that also will now be wound back.</para>
<para>I speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for Barton. What is clear from this bill is that the Morrison government's longstanding ideology of callously disregarding and even attacking people on welfare payments is what drives this government. It's what has driven it in the past, continues to do so now and obviously will into the future. This is a government that, with the help of the Greens, has cut $12 billion from pensions and social security payments by changing the asset test and therefore cutting the pension of 370,000 people, by completely cutting the schoolkids bonus, by cutting pensioner concessions and by freezing family tax benefit rates. All of these changes were opposed by Labor at the time because we knew that they were unfair. Indeed, were it not for Labor blocking other measures, the Morrison government would have cut a further $12 billion in payments by making people under 30 years of age wait six months before they could apply for unemployment payments, by cutting family tax benefits and by increasing the pension age to 70, which is what this government wanted to do. Furthermore, it wanted to scrap the energy supplements for new applicants and cut parental leave payments. All of those cuts would have gone through were it not for Labor.</para>
<para>There are numerous other penny-pinching examples, across a range of portfolio areas, where payments have been cut from people who are already struggling. The time for this debate doesn't allow me to go through each one of them individually. One I will refer to is the government's current proposal to bring in an independent assessment process for people who are on National Disability Insurance Scheme payments. The government is currently doing a trial with respect to that. What that independent assessment will do, in my view, is simply create another barrier. It will create another consuming process for people who are already struggling to navigate a complex system. It will create a process by which people will have their payments cut, if they are already within the scheme, or, once they have gone through an assessment, they will be provided with a reduced payment. From my understanding, it's an assessment that cannot even be appealed. I note that the minister is in the House. If I'm wrong, he's welcome to respond and tell me so. But it's clear to me that the new independent assessment process is simply going to be brought in as another cost-cutting measure that the government wants to impose.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E09</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member will resume his seat. I call the minister.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Robert</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order on relevance: whilst I understand that it's an important issue—and the member for Makin is free to see me anytime—the substantive nature of this debate is on social services and JobSeeker.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E09</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, that's not a point of order. Please resume your seat. I call the member for Makin.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate the minister's comments. I thought he might have actually clarified the issue I was alluding to, given that it is directly within his portfolio's responsibility. It is a matter of social security payments, and that's why I refer to it. It is consistent with this government's approach to cutting social security payments to people in need throughout this country, and it always has been.</para>
<para>There are currently 1,357,000 people across Australia on JobSeeker and youth allowance payments. I understand it's expected there will be an additional 200,000 people joining those queues when JobKeeper ends. Almost 107,000 are in South Australia, the state I represent, where there are currently 10 unemployed people for every job vacancy. We know that, nationally, there are about two million people who are unemployed or underemployed. Underemployed people are, by definition, people looking for more work. They are people who are 'having a go', to use this government's phrase, and who are taking whatever work they can get. Often, these are the people doing the work that nobody else wants to do or doing work at payment rates that are much lower than the accepted community standard. These people are not trying to rort the system. They are already within the workforce and they're trying to get more work.</para>
<para>Unemployed people, equally, are not people who are trying to rort the system, in most cases. Today, most of them are either people who are over 55 years of age or people with limited skills, or they are relatively new arrivals, who face their own difficulties in securing a job. It's not that they don't want to get a job; they have barriers to overcome. They do not want to live off welfare payments. They too have families to support and mortgages to pay. Often they are people who, through no fault of their own, have lost their job because of the COVID pandemic or other issues that have impacted society. They are people such as those within the travel and tourism sectors; people affected by the sudden trade sanctions applied by China; people who have lost their work because of the travel restrictions, such as university staff; people in industry sectors that have been affected by restricted numbers, such as those in the hospitality industry or in entertainment; people who work at sporting events; or even those who work within the funeral sector, such as undertakers. These are all people who, because of issues completely outside of their control, today find themselves either unemployed or underemployed. They are not bludgers or freeloaders but people with a strong work ethic who are indeed looking for work. But the work is simply not out there. Now they are being expected to live on $44 a day, if they are on JobSeeker, or, if they are on youth allowance, on $36.60 a day. These are people who already have financial commitments to meet each and every week.</para>
<para>I've heard members opposite who've spoken in this debate refer to those payments as 'a temporary safety net, never meant to become a permanent lifeline'. Can I just focus on the words 'temporary' and 'safety net'. Firstly, with respect to 'temporary': for many of them, it will not be temporary, because we know that there are at least 10 applicants for every vacancy—and that's in South Australia; in other places, it's even higher than that. Therefore, the likelihood of full employment is way down the track. It is also likely that, for many of these people—who, in many cases, are at a stage in their life where they're already going to find it difficult to get a job—being unemployed will be a long-term feature; it will not be a temporary matter for them but one that could affect them for months and months to come. Secondly, with respect to these payments being a 'safety net': how can living on $44 a day be a safety net? It is a safety net with lots of holes in it, because it simply will not support people adequately to even just live a basic life, let alone meet the commitments that many of them already find themselves with. So those claims that it is a temporary safety net simply don't stand up to scrutiny.</para>
<para>On the $25 increase that is being proposed by the government: unemployment payments in this country have not been increased since 1994. An increase of $25 is an increase of less than $1 for each year that the payments have remained stagnant—less than $1 for each of those years. And the government thinks that that is a fair outcome! Well, it is simply inadequate.</para>
<para>I will very quickly turn to the issue of mutual obligations, where the government will now revert back to requiring 20 job applications per month from every person receiving payments. Again, when there are dozens of people looking for the same job, it is impossible to get work. Quite frankly, I see that as being simply another mechanism by which the government will force people to breach their mutual obligation and therefore to lose not only their $44 a day but all of their payment. It is a harsh measure at a time when the economy is struggling, and the government knows full well that it is simply being brought in to further cut payments to people who already need every last dollar.</para>
<para>I also make this point: it is clear that the government understood the value of putting more money into the economy during the pandemic recession when it also increased the JobSeeker payment quite considerably. It did so because it knew that that would strengthen the economy. It knew that the money provided to these people would circulate and help all of the small businesses, who, in turn, would employ more people. In other words, there is a clear economic benefit, which the government understood when it responded to the COVID-19 pandemic but which it now turns its back on.</para>
<para>Quite frankly, I think the government's own actions are not going to help the economy at all. There is a social benefit from providing support payments to people who are struggling. It saves money in the long run because, if people are adequately supported, they will not incur other social costs that inevitably arise when people are struggling. When people are struggling and they cannot afford the food they need or the medical support they need, ultimately the social costs increase rather than going down. So it's in neither our economic interests nor our social interests to cut these payments the way the government wants to do. And, quite frankly, given that this government has now been in government for eight years and has had plenty of time to thoroughly assess this issue, the government's stance is condemned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Living in poverty is a full-time job, in terms of thinking through how every dollar is stretched in any given day. The necessities of life—food and shelter—which so many of us take for granted become a minute-by-minute problem to solve for people who are living in poverty. And $40 a day, which was the rate of Newstart prior to the COVID-19 crisis, is simply too little to live on. For a long time now, Labor has been calling for an increase in that rate.</para>
<para>The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021 will provide for a $50 a fortnight increase in the rate on a permanent basis. In effect, though, the fortnightly rate will be lowered by $100 when the coronavirus supplement, which at the moment provides an additional $150 per fortnight, comes to an end. This increase will by no means end poverty, and no-one is suggesting that it will. It will stop people falling back, though, to the pre-existing rate of Newstart prior to the coronavirus crisis, so Labor will not get in the way of this increase. We note, though, that the government and its actions ultimately determine the outcomes here. The government is in control of the budget and the purse strings, and, in order to change the budget, ultimately we need to change the government. This is a matter to which Labor is committed. In government, it is something we would certainly seek to act upon.</para>
<para>In my contribution today, I particularly want to speak on the member for Barton's amendment to the bill. This amendment introduces a set of principles in relation to the mutual obligation provisions for jobseekers under the Social Services Act. Mutual obligation is a principle that Labor deeply supports. Indeed, it was the Keating government that first introduced the concept of mutual obligation. It established in 1993 the Committee on Employment Opportunities. At the time, in a green paper entitled <inline font-style="italic">Restoring full employment</inline>, this committee argued:</para>
<quote><para class="block">As the period of unemployment increases, so does the obligation on the Government to assist the unemployed person into a job, and likewise the obligation on the unemployed person to take more steps to find work and not refuse reasonable opportunities.</para></quote>
<para>That principle of mutual obligation, as important as it was then, remains absolutely fundamental today, and Labor is completely committed to this principle. It does, though, need to be applied in a way which gives expression to the sentiment that was recorded in that passage back in 1993. Put simply, mutual obligation needs to be about government and those who are on unemployment benefits being able to work together.</para>
<para>Under the member for Barton's amendments, what is proposed is that the secretary, in putting in place the mutual obligation requirements, act consistently with a set of principles. These principles are articulated in the amendment that the member for Barton has put forward. The first is that the purpose of mutual obligation be there to help people get into jobs or to develop the skills necessary to get jobs. As obvious as that is at one level, that is something which needs to be legislatively put in place and be the fundamental underpinning of the way in which the secretary acts in terms of exercising mutual obligation powers. The second is that the powers are intended to be used as part of a mutual arrangement in which the Commonwealth undertakes a reciprocal obligation to help persons find work. This means that, in exercising powers in relation to a person, the secretary should take into account the availability of suitable jobs, the person's skills and abilities, and the person's personal circumstances. In part, this applies in the administrative arrangements that exist, but all of these ought to form part of the legislative set of principles which underpin the exercise of the secretary's powers.</para>
<para>It's also important to ensure, as a principle, that, in the exercise of the mutual obligation powers, we don't create a system where there is an unnecessary annoyance or burden for employers. That makes no sense at all, and these amendments make that principle clear. Nothing we have heard from the government in this space, in respect of the changes to the mutual obligation arrangements, offers us any sense of confidence that the mutual obligation arrangements will improve or, in fact, that the government is on the side of those who are looking for work.</para>
<para>If the best that the Morrison government can come up with for the two million Australians who are looking for work right now is a hotline for employers to report people who, regardless of the reason, haven't agreed to a job, they really are showing all the hallmarks of a tired, stale and empty eight-year-old government. Of all the bizarre and clueless things that have emerged from this government, a hotline to report people for refusing a job offer has to be near the top of what is now a very long list. Where is the hotline for those who have been systematically underpaid? That might have been a better place to start.</para>
<para>The truth is that this government has no real plans for the millions of Australians who have found themselves without the work that they want, through no fault of their own, as a result of this pandemic. It's critically important that, as a nation, we do better. The mutual obligation arrangements that have been set out in the amendment proposed by the member for Barton would assist greatly in doing that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank all parliamentary colleagues who have spoken on the bill today. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021 modifies the Social Security Act 1991 to provide additional support to people receiving working-age payments as they transition back to employment. Everyone receiving the JobSeeker payment, youth allowance, youth disability support pension, parenting payment, Austudy, special benefit, partner allowance, widow allowance, Abstudy (living allowance), farm household allowance or payments made under the Department of Veterans' Affairs education schemes will receive an extra $50 a fortnight, commencing 1 April this year. This will be in addition to the usual indexation of payments on 20 March. The bill also permanently increases the income-free area to $150 per fortnight for the JobSeeker payment and youth allowance (other) from 1 April 2021, allowing people to keep more of what they earn as they reconnect with the labour market.</para>
<para>The temporary measures which were in place from the beginning of the pandemic are no longer required. The economy and labour market are recovering, and the vaccine rollout is already underway. The bill extends the waiver of the ordinary waiting period for the parenting payment, JobSeeker payment and youth allowance for a further three months, until 30 June this year. The bill also extends, to 30 June 2021, expanded access to JobSeeker payment and youth allowance (other) for persons who find themselves having to self-isolate or caring for someone who is self-isolating, due to the pandemic. It also extends, until 30 June 2021, the portability period for certain age pensions and the disability support pension for people with significant disability. This means pensioners unable to return to, or depart from, Australia within 26 weeks due to travel restrictions resulting from COVID-19 will have their entitlement maintained until 30 June this year, as though they've been able to return home as planned.</para>
<para>The measures in the bill have an estimated cost of approximately $9 billion over the forwards, including $700 million in 2021. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Melbourne and Leader of the Greens be disagreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [12:33]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>63</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Alexander, JG</name>
                  <name>Allen, K</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KJ</name>
                  <name>Archer, BK</name>
                  <name>Bell, AM</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, RE</name>
                  <name>Burke, AS</name>
                  <name>Burney, LJ</name>
                  <name>Chester, D</name>
                  <name>Christensen, GR</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, PJ</name>
                  <name>Connelly, V</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M</name>
                  <name>Drum, DK (teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, PC</name>
                  <name>Entsch, WG</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                  <name>Flint, NJ</name>
                  <name>Frydenberg, JA</name>
                  <name>Gee, AR</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, GR</name>
                  <name>Hammond, CM</name>
                  <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                  <name>Hayes, CP</name>
                  <name>Irons, SJ</name>
                  <name>Joyce, BT</name>
                  <name>Kelly, C</name>
                  <name>Laming, A</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J</name>
                  <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                  <name>Ley, SP</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D</name>
                  <name>Liu, G</name>
                  <name>Martin, FB</name>
                  <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, MI</name>
                  <name>Morrison, SJ</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, T</name>
                  <name>O'Dowd, KD</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A</name>
                  <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                  <name>Price, ML</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, RE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, SR</name>
                  <name>Sharma, DN</name>
                  <name>Simmonds, J</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, MS</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P</name>
                  <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                  <name>van Manen, AJ</name>
                  <name>Vasta, RX</name>
                  <name>Wallace, AB</name>
                  <name>Webster, AE</name>
                  <name>Wicks, LE</name>
                  <name>Wilson, JH (teller)</name>
                  <name>Wilson, RJ</name>
                  <name>Wilson, TR</name>
                  <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                  <name>Young, T</name>
                  <name>Zimmerman, T</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>5</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bandt, AP (teller)</name>
                  <name>Haines, H (teller)</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, RCC</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, AD</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Barton has moved 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.</para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [12:46]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>63</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Alexander, JG</name>
                  <name>Allen, K</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KJ</name>
                  <name>Archer, BK</name>
                  <name>Bell, AM</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, RE</name>
                  <name>Chester, D</name>
                  <name>Christensen, GR</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, PJ</name>
                  <name>Connelly, V</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M</name>
                  <name>Drum, DK (teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, PC</name>
                  <name>Entsch, WG</name>
                  <name>Falinski, JG</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                  <name>Flint, NJ</name>
                  <name>Frydenberg, JA</name>
                  <name>Gee, AR</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, GR</name>
                  <name>Hammond, CM</name>
                  <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                  <name>Hunt, GA</name>
                  <name>Irons, SJ</name>
                  <name>Joyce, BT</name>
                  <name>Katter, RC</name>
                  <name>Kelly, C</name>
                  <name>Laming, A</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J</name>
                  <name>Ley, SP</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D</name>
                  <name>Liu, G</name>
                  <name>Martin, FB</name>
                  <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, MI</name>
                  <name>Morrison, SJ</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, T</name>
                  <name>O'Dowd, KD</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A</name>
                  <name>Pearce, GB</name>
                  <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                  <name>Price, ML</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, RE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, SR</name>
                  <name>Sharma, DN</name>
                  <name>Simmonds, J</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, MS</name>
                  <name>Taylor, AJ</name>
                  <name>Tehan, DT</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P</name>
                  <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                  <name>van Manen, AJ</name>
                  <name>Vasta, RX</name>
                  <name>Wallace, AB</name>
                  <name>Webster, AE</name>
                  <name>Wicks, LE</name>
                  <name>Wilson, RJ</name>
                  <name>Wilson, TR</name>
                  <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                  <name>Young, T</name>
                  <name>Zimmerman, T</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>59</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, AN</name>
                  <name>Bandt, AP</name>
                  <name>Bowen, CE</name>
                  <name>Burke, AS</name>
                  <name>Burney, LJ</name>
                  <name>Burns, J</name>
                  <name>Butler, MC</name>
                  <name>Butler, TM</name>
                  <name>Champion, ND</name>
                  <name>Coker, EA</name>
                  <name>Collins, JM</name>
                  <name>Conroy, PM</name>
                  <name>Dick, MD</name>
                  <name>Elliot, MJ</name>
                  <name>Fitzgibbon, JA</name>
                  <name>Freelander, MR</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S</name>
                  <name>Giles, AJ</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P</name>
                  <name>Haines, H</name>
                  <name>Hayes, CP</name>
                  <name>Hill, JC</name>
                  <name>Husic, EN</name>
                  <name>Jones, SP</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P</name>
                  <name>King, CF</name>
                  <name>King, MMH</name>
                  <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                  <name>McBain, KL</name>
                  <name>McBride, EM</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, BK</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, RG</name>
                  <name>Murphy, PJ</name>
                  <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, BPJ</name>
                  <name>Owens, JA</name>
                  <name>Payne, AE</name>
                  <name>Perrett, GD</name>
                  <name>Phillips, FE</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, TJ</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, AL</name>
                  <name>Rowland, MA</name>
                  <name>Ryan, JC (teller)</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, RCC</name>
                  <name>Shorten, WR</name>
                  <name>Snowdon, WE</name>
                  <name>Stanley, AM (teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z</name>
                  <name>Swanson, MJ</name>
                  <name>Templeman, SR</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, MJ</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, KL</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                  <name>Watts, TG</name>
                  <name>Wells, AS</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, AD</name>
                  <name>Wilson, JH</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>14</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, KL</name>
                  <name>Smith, DPB</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S</name>
                  <name>Aly, A</name>
                  <name>Coleman, DB</name>
                  <name>Bird, SL</name>
                  <name>Evans, TM</name>
                  <name>Byrne, AM</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, IR</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, JE</name>
                  <name>Hastie, AW</name>
                  <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                  <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                  <name>Chesters, LM</name>
                  <name>Howarth, LR</name>
                  <name>Clare, JD</name>
                  <name>Landry, ML</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, MA</name>
                  <name>Marino, NB</name>
                  <name>Gosling, LJ</name>
                  <name>Morton, B</name>
                  <name>Keogh, MJ</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, LS</name>
                  <name>Marles, RD</name>
                  <name>Porter, CC</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, CE</name>
                  <name>Wood, JP</name>
                  <name>Mulino, </name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Original question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.<br />Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>36</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the amendment circulated in my name:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, page 22 (after line 18), at the end of the Schedule, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 6—Mutual obligation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Social Security (Administration) Act 1999</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">40 At the end of Subdivision A of Division 3AA of Part 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">42ABA General principles</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (1) The Secretary must exercise his or her mutual obligation powers consistently with the following principles:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the purpose of the powers is to help persons to get:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (i) jobs; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (ii) the skills necessary to get jobs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the powers are intended to be used as part of a mutual arrangement in which the Commonwealth undertakes a reciprocal obligation to help the persons to find work;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) in exercising the powers in relation to a person, the Secretary must take into account:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (i) the availability of suitable jobs; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (ii) the person's skills and abilities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (iii) the person's personal circumstances including caring responsibilities, access to transport, medical conditions and disability;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the exercise of the powers must not cause unnecessary annoyance or burden for employers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Secretary's<inline font-style="italic">mutual obligation powers</inline> are his or her powers under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (a) this Division, to the extent it relates to mutual obligation failures; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (b) a provision mentioned in section 42AC (mutual obligation failures).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">42ABB Employment pathway plans</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">An employment pathway plan in relation to a person must state what the Commonwealth will do to help the person secure employment.</para></quote>
<para>Labor believes in mutual obligation. The government's proposed changes to mutual obligation will only make those requirements more punitive. They have always been punitive under this government. Mutual obligation should be about keeping workers engaged with the workforce. It should be about assisting workers to get back into jobs. But mutual obligation has been weaponised by this government to punish workers looking for work. The government believes the worst about Australians. Labor believes the best about Australians. Labor believes Australians just want good, decent and secure jobs. The government believes Australians choose unemployment. The reality is that there are seven Australians on JobSeeker for every job vacancy. There are 60 Australians on JobSeeker for every entry-level job. The government's punitive changes to mutual obligation won't create a single job, and their idea of a jobs plan is a hotline to dob in people looking for work.</para>
<para>The member for Corio has outlined in detail what my amendment on principles around mutual obligation seeks to do. The amendment would require mutual obligation rules to help people get a job or the skills to get a job. It would take into account the availability of suitable jobs and a person's skills. It would take into account a person's personal circumstances, including caring responsibilities, access to transport, medical conditions and disability. It would not be an unnecessary burden or annoyance for employers. Under the government's plan, there would be at least 141 applications for every single vacancy.</para>
<para>We know from speaking to employers that, in many cases, there are hundreds or even thousands of applications for some jobs. It simply annoys employers—and why wouldn't it. They are forced to wade through hundreds and hundreds of applications from people who don't have the right skills and experience but have to go through the motions of applying for jobs, even if they're inappropriate. There has to be a better way. Punitive mutual obligation does not create jobs; it just wears people out—the unemployed and employers.</para>
<para>Labor does not intend to stand in the way of the bill, as I stated yesterday. An increase is an increase, as many people have indicated. We will not play chicken with this bill and jeopardise this increase to those who need it most. We won't cruelly give false hope with futile amendments that will only function to unnecessarily delay, even jeopardise, the increase. We will not stand in the way of this bill. But my intention, in moving this mutual obligation amendment that sets out a set of principles, is truly about people looking for work. It is truly a way of being humane but also being incredibly sensible about what mutual obligation stands for. 'Mutual' is the word that people need to focus on. There should be reciprocity at the base of mutual obligation. People who are receiving government payments do have an obligation and a social contract, but so does the government, back to those people. That is what this set of principles seek to establish.</para>
<para>Our social security system should always be accessible and available to those who need it when they need it. In every budget, a Labor government will make helping those in need, those in poverty, a priority.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate what the shadow minister is trying to achieve but would argue that the amendment duplicates provisions that already achieve what is being talked about within current social security law; therefore, the amendments are unnecessary and not supported. In fact, we'd argue that the provisions that already exist are stronger than those being proposed by those opposite.</para>
<para>In setting mutual obligations, the secretary is currently required to have regard to each of the factors listed in Labor's amendments, plus more. For example, as to the JobSeeker payment, section 606 of the Social Security Act specifies that the secretary is to consider the person's capacity to comply with their requirements and their needs with specific regard to the following:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person's education, experience, skills and age; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aa) the impact of any disability, illness, mental condition or physical condition of the person …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the state of the local labour market and the transport options available to the person in accessing that market; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the participation opportunities available to the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the family and caring responsibilities of the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the length of travel time required to comply with the requirements; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the financial costs (such as travel costs) of complying with the requirements … and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) any other matters that the Secretary or the person considers relevant …</para></quote>
<para>In determining whether a person has a reasonable excuse for not meeting a requirement, the secretary is also required to consider a similar list of factors, including the impact of medical conditions or, indeed, caring responsibilities. Social security law already also states that jobseekers cannot be compelled to apply for or accept a job if they don't have the skills or abilities to undertake it, or if the job would exacerbate medical conditions, or if the jobseeker does not have appropriate care for their children or is unable to reasonably commute to the job—again, all the factors that are listed in the amendment that Labor have, in good faith, proposed.</para>
<para>A range of other administrative protections exist, ensuring that jobseekers' requirements are appropriate for their circumstances and JobSeeker payments are not affected for reasons outside of their control. These include a newly introduced two-day resolution time, allowing jobseekers time to talk to their provider about the reason they missed a requirement and/or to re-engage with their requirements before any payment suspension. Jobseekers also have the appropriateness of their requirements assessed twice before facing any financial penalty for not meeting the requirements.</para>
<para>I note also that the shadow minister is proposing that the exercise of mutual obligation powers must not cause annoyance or burden for employers—and, again, I accept the heart of what is being put forward. We would argue, though, that there is significant evidence that mutual obligation requirements do help jobseekers find work, meaning employers will get the workers that they need and want.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [13:01]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>61</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Alexander, JG</name>
                  <name>Allen, K</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KJ</name>
                  <name>Archer, BK</name>
                  <name>Bell, AM</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, RE</name>
                  <name>Chester, D</name>
                  <name>Christensen, GR</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, PJ</name>
                  <name>Connelly, V</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M</name>
                  <name>Drum, DK (teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, PC</name>
                  <name>Entsch, WG</name>
                  <name>Falinski, JG</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                  <name>Flint, NJ</name>
                  <name>Frydenberg, JA</name>
                  <name>Gee, AR</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, GR</name>
                  <name>Hammond, CM</name>
                  <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                  <name>Irons, SJ</name>
                  <name>Joyce, BT</name>
                  <name>Kelly, C</name>
                  <name>Laming, A</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J</name>
                  <name>Ley, SP</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D</name>
                  <name>Liu, G</name>
                  <name>Martin, FB</name>
                  <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, MI</name>
                  <name>Morrison, SJ</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, T</name>
                  <name>O'Dowd, KD</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A</name>
                  <name>Pearce, GB</name>
                  <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                  <name>Price, ML</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, RE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, SR</name>
                  <name>Sharma, DN</name>
                  <name>Simmonds, J</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, MS</name>
                  <name>Taylor, AJ</name>
                  <name>Tehan, DT</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P</name>
                  <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                  <name>van Manen, AJ</name>
                  <name>Vasta, RX</name>
                  <name>Wallace, AB</name>
                  <name>Webster, AE</name>
                  <name>Wicks, LE</name>
                  <name>Wilson, RJ</name>
                  <name>Wilson, TR</name>
                  <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                  <name>Young, T</name>
                  <name>Zimmerman, T</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>57</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, AN</name>
                  <name>Bandt, AP</name>
                  <name>Bowen, CE</name>
                  <name>Burke, AS</name>
                  <name>Burney, LJ</name>
                  <name>Burns, J</name>
                  <name>Butler, TM</name>
                  <name>Champion, ND</name>
                  <name>Coker, EA</name>
                  <name>Collins, JM</name>
                  <name>Conroy, PM</name>
                  <name>Dick, MD</name>
                  <name>Elliot, MJ</name>
                  <name>Fitzgibbon, JA</name>
                  <name>Freelander, MR</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S</name>
                  <name>Giles, AJ</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P</name>
                  <name>Haines, H</name>
                  <name>Hayes, CP</name>
                  <name>Hill, JC</name>
                  <name>Husic, EN</name>
                  <name>Jones, SP</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P</name>
                  <name>King, CF</name>
                  <name>King, MMH</name>
                  <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                  <name>McBain, KL</name>
                  <name>McBride, EM</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, BK</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, RG</name>
                  <name>Murphy, PJ</name>
                  <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, BPJ</name>
                  <name>Owens, JA</name>
                  <name>Payne, AE</name>
                  <name>Perrett, GD</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, TJ</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, AL</name>
                  <name>Rowland, MA</name>
                  <name>Ryan, JC (teller)</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, RCC</name>
                  <name>Shorten, WR</name>
                  <name>Snowdon, WE</name>
                  <name>Stanley, AM (teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z</name>
                  <name>Swanson, MJ</name>
                  <name>Templeman, SR</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, MJ</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, KL</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                  <name>Watts, TG</name>
                  <name>Wells, AS</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, AD</name>
                  <name>Wilson, JH</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>14</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, KL</name>
                  <name>Smith, DPB</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S</name>
                  <name>Aly, A</name>
                  <name>Coleman, DB</name>
                  <name>Bird, SL</name>
                  <name>Evans, TM</name>
                  <name>Byrne, AM</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, IR</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, JE</name>
                  <name>Hastie, AW</name>
                  <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                  <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                  <name>Chesters, LM</name>
                  <name>Howarth, LR</name>
                  <name>Clare, JD</name>
                  <name>Landry, ML</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, MA</name>
                  <name>Marino, NB</name>
                  <name>Gosling, LJ</name>
                  <name>Morton, B</name>
                  <name>Keogh, MJ</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, LS</name>
                  <name>Marles, RD</name>
                  <name>Porter, CC</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, CE</name>
                  <name>Wood, JP</name>
                  <name>Mulino, </name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>39</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6674" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>39</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Morrison government might be too busy to go ahead and set up a proper integrity commission, one with teeth, which holds public hearings and can hold people to account for past wrongdoings, but it's not too busy to water down laws affecting business accountability. We saw some reasonable changes put in place during the pandemic, but now the government is looking to make those permanent and to take away the corporate accountability and directors' liability, which ensure that Australian firms do the right thing.</para>
<para>The government is claiming that there is an epidemic of class actions taking place in Australia, despite the fact that shareholder class actions make up much less than even one per cent of all cases filed in the Federal Court. They affect a tiny share of the firms who've done the wrong thing. Very few directors are sued in Australia, and yet the government wants to go ahead and make directors liability even lighter than it currently is. These moves have been criticised by a range of stakeholders. The leading investor body, the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors, has said that there was no consultation with major investors on the repealing of continuous disclosure laws. ACSI Chief Executive, Louise Davidson has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Continuous disclosure provisions are fundamental to market integrity and should not be diminished.</para></quote>
<para>She goes to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Investor confidence in the Australian market relies on disclosures being accurate. These changes could undermine that confidence by providing protection for companies making poor disclosures.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reducing accountability for poor disclosures is not the answer to addressing issues with class actions. These policy issues should be considered and addressed separately from the continuous disclosure and director liability regime.</para></quote>
<para>That's from a body that represents $1.5 trillion of super savings. They have said that these changes will dent market integrity. Peter Morgan, the former head of Perpetual investments, said he was 'totally against any attempt to get rid of a physical AGM'. Stephen Mayne, who has been a regular critic of corporate mismanagement, has said, 'The physical AGM is the one day of the year where shareholders get to eyeball directors.' ISS has said it is a proposal that would 'stifle the questioning and accountability of boards'. As Stephen Mayne has pointed out, there is a significant risk of going to a fully virtual AGM approach. Damon Kitney, in <inline font-style="italic">The Australian</inline>, summed up the atmospherics at Crown's AGM. Following the devastating findings of the Bergin inquiry, Crown's virtual AGM was almost completely devoid of emotion. Crown's directors were back in control because questions were not asked in person. They were submitted in writing and they were read to the chair, Helen Coonan, by the company secretary, Mary Manos. As a result, shareholders didn't get to see the whites of their eyes, as Stephen Mayne has put it. They didn't get to question company directors in the way in which an in-person AGM would allow.</para>
<para>These changes mean that company directors will only be liable for civil penalty proceedings in respect of continuous disclosure obligations where they can prove the directors have acted with 'knowledge, recklessness or negligence'. These changes have been referred to as the 'honest idiot defence'. Damian Graham, who oversees $130 billion of assets as the chief investment officer at Aware Super, says investors rely on an informed market:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I would suggest we would prefer that the strongest disclosure regime was in place … As a principal, greater disclosure provides greater confidence and supports the highest level of efficiency of markets.</para></quote>
<para>Maurice Blackburn class action principal Andrew Watson has said that securities class actions will become more difficult and has pointed out that in a given year less than two per cent of companies get sued for breaches of the continuous disclosure and misleading and deceptive conduct rules. So, as a result of the government's attacks on those bringing class actions, we are going to get less continuous disclosure as a result. As the member for Whitlam has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">After the revelations about Crown Casino in the New South Wales Casino Inquiry, it is hard to understand why the Government is going down this path.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Shareholders are demanding more transparency, not less, to protect their investments and allow them to make rational decisions about where to put their money.</para></quote>
<para>So these changes, if they're approved by this parliament, will allow dodgy directors to get away with not releasing crucial information to shareholders.</para>
<para>This is not just an issue that should affect shareholders. Australian firms are stronger and Australia is a more attractive investment destination when we have appropriate disclosure rules in place. These proposed changes put the interests of a handful of company directors ahead of the vast number of mum and dad investors. It's ironic that the coalition, which, at the last election, claimed it was the party of shareholders, is now limiting the ability of shareholders to keep directors in check. Australian Shareholders Association head, Allan Goldin, says: 'The new instruction to management from boards could be: "If you want to keep some information to yourself or exaggerate a bit, just make sure you don't tell me so no-one can sue me." This is a real danger.'</para>
<para>It's not as though we don't have significant problems in the economy. As Greg Jericho has pointed out, even prior to the pandemic, the level of prime age men working full-time was below the post-1990s-recession median of 74 per cent, let alone the mining boom peak level of 75.9 per cent. The current level is a full percentage lower than the pre-pandemic point, and since 2012 there's been a historically low number of men in this group working full-time. We have, according to Greg Jericho, still a significant drop in the level of hours actually worked, and we have an unemployment rate not forecast to return to pre-pandemic levels for years to come.</para>
<para>Even then, the government is too unambitious in its unemployment targets. We've had the Reserve Bank governor saying that he thinks full employment might be below four per cent, which would mean we need much more ambition to increase employment in Australia, yet we have two million Australians out of work or without enough work. Estimates from the University of Melbourne's Jeff Borland suggest that between 150,000 and 250,000 people could lose their jobs when JobKeeper comes to an end at the end of this month. The economy is a full one per cent smaller than before the pandemic. Even before COVID, growth was well below trend. Wages growth under the Liberals has been at record lows. Under Labor, wages grew an average of 3.6 per cent a year. Under the Liberals, wage growth has slowed to 2.2 per cent, and has recently fallen to all-time lows of 1.4 per cent. In real terms, many Australian workers are going backwards. They're seeing the buying power of their pay packet fall, because the Liberals have been focused on corporate profits rather than wages.</para>
<para>Again, we see that with this bill, a bill that tilts the balance away from the many and towards the few. It's always the way with the Liberals. They're always out there to ensure that the small number who receive profits benefit at the expense of the large number who receive wages. Again, here, they're looking to protect their mates. They're looking to protect the C-suite, the insiders, at the expense of the many more people who own shares.</para>
<para>This is in a context in which productivity is in the doldrums, in which household consumption is down and in which household debt is among the highest in the world. There are serious economic problems to be addressed. But the Liberals aren't addressing them. With this bill, they are simply doing the bidding of a handful of insiders, not dealing with the very real problems that Australia has.</para>
<para>This bill reflects the lack of ambition for Australia under the Liberals. If only we had a Prime Minister as ambitious for the nation's economy as he is for his own political career. If only we had a government interested in looking after Australian shareholders rather than watering down disclosure. As the member for Whitlam has pointed out, every shareholder who was told at the last election that the coalition was on their side now knows that to be a complete falsehood and now knows that this Liberal Party is a party that will stand up for the few against the interests of the many.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THOMPSON</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We all know that COVID-19 has had a massive impact on many parts of our communities and, in particular, our business community. There have been many things that have prevented businesses doing things they normally do, particularly because of the large number of unpredictable lockdowns that we've all had to experience. I have more than 12,000 businesses in my electorate of Herbert, and JobKeeper has supported at least 4,000 of those through this pandemic. But subsidies and financial assistance alone aren't enough to keep businesses going. The burden of regulatory red tape has had to be eased in a lot of areas, and that has had a major positive impact in helping small business owners through the pandemic.</para>
<para>That's what today's bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021, is about. We're extending some of the temporary relief that has allowed business dealings to continue. Specifically, schedule 1 extends temporary relief, allowing companies to use technology to meet regulatory requirements, hold meetings, distribute meeting materials and execute documents until 15 September 2021. We've all become very accustomed to Zoom and Teams over the last 12 months, and this will allow those technologies to continue to be used to hold those meetings while meeting face to face is still impossible. We need to be ready for another COVID-19 outbreak maybe occurring in a particular area and for public health orders being imposed from time to time.</para>
<para>But we're not just extending the date and leaving it at that. The extension includes enhancements to the original temporary relief following feedback received through consultation. These enhancements including ensuring that substantive regulatory obligations are the same irrespective of whether companies conduct meetings virtually, in person or in a combination of both, or whether they use paper based or electronic forms of communication. The extension will cover more than 200 listed companies and many more unlisted companies with 31 December as their year-end date, who are expected to hold annual general meetings in the first half of this year.</para>
<para>COVID-19 has helped revolutionise a lot of things and helped us make changes and try new things that we really didn't need to try before a global pandemic. That's why, in response to the positive feedback from consultation, we're also proposing permanent reforms that will continue to allow companies to electronically sign company documents and send meeting related materials electronically. These reforms will be in place when this temporary extension ends. We're also proposing to conduct an opt-in pilot for hybrid annual general meetings, in which shareholders can choose whether to attend meetings in person or virtually. This pilot will commence when the extension to the temporary relief ends. The aim of the pilot will be to encourage companies and shareholders to engage with technology, with a view to considering whether further permanent reforms are needed to further support companies to use technology effectively to engage positively with their shareholders. In addition to enabling businesses to use digital technologies to conduct meetings and send meeting related materials, the relief also allows businesses to use digital technologies to sign meeting related materials and keep, retain and provide meeting related materials such as meeting minutes.</para>
<para>What about those in our community who might not be able to access technology? The experience with this temporary relief was that shareholder attendance increased when they were offered the ability to participate via technology. Compared with 2019, there was a 36 per cent increase in shareholder attendance in 2020. In 2020 some companies had over 800 people attending their virtual meeting. So they actually had more people attend, because they didn't have to physically be anywhere. But this relief does accommodate shareholders if they have preferences for physical meetings, as they place no obligation on companies to host virtual-only meetings if the shareholder base prefers otherwise. This relief also allows shareholders to elect to receive hard-copy meeting materials.</para>
<para>What about protecting shareholders' rights with these virtual meetings? That's a question that I, too, asked. Shareholders will have the same substantive regulatory protections regardless of whether a physical, virtual or hybrid meeting is held. Specifically, companies provide shareholders as a whole with facilities to ask questions orally and make comments at the meeting, a reasonable opportunity to participate, and facilities to be counted towards a quorum and to vote and comply with preferred voting methods as expressed in company constitutions. Companies must also send meeting related materials electronically and send hard copies if shareholders elect to receive them.</para>
<para>This is a great example of how we don't necessarily need to go back to exactly how things were before COVID-19. This is an example of how we have learned plenty of lessons from trying something new, how we can move forward in a way which will provide significant savings for businesses and, in turn, how we can reinvest in creating more jobs for Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Although we have reservations, Labor supports schedule 1 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021. Others have commented on those amendments. In my remarks today, I will focus on schedule 2 of the bill, which Labor does not support.</para>
<para>On 25 May 2020, the Treasurer announced temporary changes to the continuous disclosure provisions in the Corporations Act. Before that date, the continuous disclosure regime introduced by the Howard government had required companies to disclose any information that was not generally available to shareholders and that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of a company's shares. When a listed company or a director failed to fulfil that obligation and shareholders suffered as a result of that failure, shareholders could take action, and they didn't have to prove that the company or the company's directors had knowledge or were reckless or negligent. As the Australian Shareholders Association put it in a media release last week:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Previously if there was any failure to keep the market informed under the current 'Continuous Disclosure' rule, it was a simple black and white situation, don't tell shareholders something material and the Company and its Directors were liable. This was great for shareholders because they do not have insider or special interest knowledge and all they know is what they are told and what they read.</para></quote>
<para>In May 2020, the Treasurer used an emergency COVID-19 power—or, more accurately, the Treasurer misused an emergency COVID-19 power—to water down John Howard's continuous disclosure obligations. As a result of those temporary changes, which continue to operate as I speak, shareholders who suffer a loss as a result of listed companies or company directors withholding information from them now have to prove that a company or a company director had knowledge of, or was reckless or negligent in respect of, whether the information they did not disclose to shareholders would have had a material effect on the price or value of the company's shares.</para>
<para>In less legalistic terms, the Treasurer's temporary changes make it easier for company directors to withhold important information from shareholders and harder for shareholders to take action against dodgy directors. Those are the changes that schedule 2 of this bill would turn into a permanent feature of Australian Corporations Law. As the Australian Shareholders Association said last week:</para>
<quote><para class="block">So the new instruction to management from boards could be, if you want to keep some information to yourself or exaggerate a bit just make sure you don't tell me so no one can sue me.</para></quote>
<para>Let's be very clear about what we're talking about here. Australia's continuous disclosure obligations require companies to keep markets fully informed of anything that could materially affect their share price. These laws protect shareholders, promote market integrity and, by extension, make it easier for Australian companies to raise capital. As ASIC has told the Treasurer, the continuous disclosure regime 'is a fundamental tenet of our markets and is particularly important during times of market uncertainty and volatility'. It is not something to be messed around with or treated like an ideological plaything, but that is how the Morrison government is treating it, and it's a direct attack on the rights and interests of every shareholder in Australia. From mum-and-dad investors to self-funded retirees to large institutional investors, every single Australian shareholder should be concerned about these changes.</para>
<para>Why is the Morrison government doing this? The main reason the Morrison government has offered for the changes in schedule 2 is the supposed threat of 'opportunistic class actions' by company shareholders. The Morrison government doesn't explain what it means by 'opportunistic class actions'. My guess is that the government thinks that all class actions, whether by shareholders or any other aggrieved group of Australians, are opportunistic. How dare ordinary Australians who are harmed by powerful interests vindicate their legal rights! That's what the Morrison government says. The Morrison government, of course, has direct experience of class actions. Whether it's property owners in Townsville, Darwin, Perth, Richmond and many other places across Australia banding together to sue the government because the Department of Defence allegedly allowed toxic chemicals known at PFAS to contaminate local environments, or the victims of the Prime Minister's illegal robodebt scheme launching a class action to vindicate their rights, the Morrison government hates the idea of ordinary Australians standing up for themselves.</para>
<para>But let's put aside the debate about the merits or demerits of class actions, because, when it comes to the proposed changes to continuous disclosure laws, that is a side issue at best. Let's instead put the Morrison government's pathological obsession with class actions, and shareholder class actions in particular, into context. According to the large commercial law firm Allens, in 2019 there were 10 shareholder class actions filed in Australia—not 10,000 but 10. In fairness, and so I can't be accused of cherrypicking statistics, I note that in 2018 there were about 20 shareholder class actions filed in Australia, in 2017 there were about 15 and in 2016 there were fewer than five. Those figures also come from Allens. The point is that, on any measure, these are tiny numbers, especially when one considers the many tens of thousands of cases filed in Australian courts each year.</para>
<para>With this bill, the Liberals are trying to water down the continuous disclosure regime introduced by John Howard, a regime that has served Australia, and particularly Australian shareholders, very well for decades. With this bill, the Liberals, under Scott Morrison, are trying to make it easier for company directors and officers to get away with withholding information and with providing misleading information to shareholders.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>43</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sydney Electorate: JobKeeper</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In less than two weeks, the Prime Minister is ending JobKeeper wage support across the country. He said he'd do it when the vaccine rollout was well underway. Sadly, the vaccine rollout is very slow, but the withdrawal of JobKeeper is coming at us very fast.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Sydney, 9,290 businesses will lose $13.8 million a week between them. That's going to happen on 28 March. These businesses employ more than 28,000 people. Businesses and workers have been hard hit in my electorate. We know the story of CBDs around Australia has been a very tough one. Universities were deliberately excluded from JobKeeper, and the fact that borders have closed, with fewer international students, means the businesses and the landlords that depend on those students have really suffered, as have the thousands of university staff who've lost their jobs. Arts workers were shut out by design. Local businesses, cafes, travel agents—after 16 years, the 505 club in Newtown has announced this week that it will close because JobKeeper is ending. The owners of the Dendy independent cinema in my electorate are, again, under enormous stress. They're struggling from the hangover of lockdowns plus the lack of movies coming out, and now JobKeeper—it's their death knell.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Vaccination</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SIMMONDS</name>
    <name.id>282983</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased to say that we have an exciting step forward in Australia's vaccination program today. Already the vaccination is being rolled out to aged-care homes in the Ryan electorate, including at Regis The Gap, where residents have already had their first jab. I certainly know that, when the vaccine is available to my age cohort, I'll be rolling up my sleeve and enthusiastically getting the vaccine because it is a key marker on our path back to normalcy.</para>
<para>Today we have had the first lot of phase 1b GP clinics and respiratory clinics announced, including, in the electorate of Ryan, nine locations that will start vaccinating constituents in the 1b category next week. Those include the Kenmore respiratory clinic, the SmartClinics Walton Bridge at The Gap, the Ferny Grove Family Practice, the Bardon Rainworth Medical Centre, the Keperra Family Practice, the Brookside Family Clinic, Myhealth Toowong, the Fiveways Surgery at Taringa and the Bellbowrie Medical Centre.</para>
<para>I look forward to supporting these GPs and respiratory clinics throughout the vaccine rollout. I know that each clinic will be provided with their allocated doses, commencing next week, and that they'll be reaching out to the phase 1b cohort—the vulnerable population, such as older people and people with underlying medical conditions. You can check your status and your nearest GP at vaccine@health.gov.au, and I encourage you to reach out to that website and be part of Australia's vaccination program.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parramatta Electorate: International Women's Day</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms OWENS</name>
    <name.id>E09</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I want to acknowledge some of the amazing women that worked so hard to organise events celebrating International Women's Day. Of course, all these women work hard all year to celebrate women. I want to start with Sue Advani—the amazing Sue Advani. She's the president of Seva International, which came together with Boronia Multicultural Services and Parramatta city council in Wentworthville to host a wonderful event. I'd also like to thank Bernadette Agyepong, who's the manager of Boronia, and Sharmila Falzon, who's the community capacity building officer for Parramatta council. It was a great day, with lots of women there celebrating our diversity. It was really wonderful.</para>
<para>That night too, I went to an event in Rosehill organised by Maxine Simmons from WOW, which, appropriately, stands for the Wonders of Womanhood. Many women received awards that night, and I want to acknowledge three from the electorate of Parramatta: Simran Gulati, who was most influential woman; Reshma Singh, who was most empowered woman; and Sonia Singh, who won the power award. Again, it was a great night, with lots of women coming together to celebrate all their achievements and what they want out of life.</para>
<para>Finally, at a United India Associations event, again in Parramatta and again with Sue Advani—she does seem to be everywhere!—an amazing group of women came together to raise money for a shelter for domestic violence victims. Again, they were amazing women. I want to thank them all and all of those who supported them in putting these great events together.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sex Education</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALLEN</name>
    <name.id>282986</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for action is now. It's time that education about sexual consent becomes standard across Australian secondary schools. As students reach adolescence, they are discovering their independence, but with independence comes responsibility. Parents are key to teaching children the values of respectful relationships. But, let's be frank, parents can be the last to know that their son or daughter is sexually active. We all know they ask their mates, not their mums, about sex. But we can't leave it to their mates when it comes to the topic of sexual consent.</para>
<para>Understanding consent is a sensitive and serious issue that should be managed by parents and educators, not left to peers, and we know there is a problem about consent among adolescents. The LSAC annual statistical report found that one in eight boys and one in 12 girls reported that they had engaged in unwanted sexual behaviour. We must make a change. We must provide the resources and better educate young people as they navigate what is a wonderful and essential part of being human—resources supported by the federal government, like the soon-to-be released and updated Respect Matters program.</para>
<para>It's not just adults calling for this. Secondary student Chanel Contos started an online petition calling for sexual consent to be taught in schools. It has more than 36,000 signatures. This matters. Everyone deserves to feel safe and we must teach our young people how to make sure they are, always.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Vaccination</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This morning Tasmanians woke up to learn 36 clinics had been announced to roll out the vaccine from next Monday—36. There are five seats in Tasmania. Divide that and you get just over seven clinics in each electorate, you would think. There are five in Lyons. The population is about even in each seat. There are 11 in Braddon and 10 in Bass. Now, I wonder why that is! Eleven in Braddon, 10 in Bass—two Liberal seats. And the other seats, non-Liberal held seats, get fewer clinics. Six councils in my electorate have missed out altogether. More than 32,000 Tasmanians who are over 70 live in council areas with not one clinic. The people in those areas have a choice. They can try to book at a clinic that is a one-hour-to-90-minute drive away, if they can get in, because the books are full, or they can wait to see if their GP makes it into the next round. That's a waiting game. So what are doctors saying? 'No communication. The details are being lost. There's no thought being put into managing the logistics. It's been poorly planned.' One doctor has told me that his staff will have to work weekends for years to get through the backlog. It is described by doctors as a fiasco. They are not being listened to. Labor supports the vaccination rollout, but this government is stuffing it up from beginning to end.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cutts, Mr Ross</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
    <electorate>Longman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Throughout the electorate of Longman we have a wealth of business men and women who are proud to serve the community and their customers. One such businessman is Ross Cutts, who is the branch manager of Repco Morayfield. On Monday night, Ross received an award for his 50 years of service—that's right, 50, five zero—with Repco and became the first inductee into the Repco hall of fame. Congratulations, Ross. Thank you for your many years of service and for your tireless efforts in serving the community you know and love.</para>
<para>From a young age, Ross wanted to work in spare parts and follow in the footsteps of his brother and father, who were motor mechanics. He left school at 15 to follow that dream. Ross is another example of someone making a career for themselves without having any form of higher education. He is testament to what can be achieved through good old-fashioned hard work in a job that you love.</para>
<para>After getting his start as a young lad with Repco, he would later move to the Caboolture branch, in 1994, before that business moved to the neighbouring suburb of Morayfield. Since then, Ross has built a strong rapport with local customers, as well as with the staff who work with him on a daily basis. Ross has so much passion for what he does, the people that he works with and the company he works for, and that truly shines through when he speaks about his job. Maree, who works with Ross in his office, has also been there for 30 years, so this is obviously a great place to work. Thank you again, Ross; we need more people with your kind of passion, loyalty and dedication.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Corangamite: Roads</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our roads need to be safe; it's just that simple. The first responsibility of government at any level is to protect the safety of people, but Tivoli Drive in Curlewis in my electorate of Corangamite is not safe. It's an accident waiting to happen, it's an accident the City of Greater Geelong says it cannot fix for another five years and it's an accident that could and should have been avoided if only the council had planned this road better.</para>
<para>It was only built a few years ago, and, instead of supporting local traffic only, it is now a significant link road for trucks and construction. The road is too narrow. When cars are parked, there's no way two cars can pass at the same time. Speed humps have slowed the traffic, but they have also caused significant noise pollution, with the screeching of truck brakes causing unrest and frustration for nearby residents.</para>
<para>Fixing mistakes isn't easy, but the council needs to take responsibility. It must fully fund the widening of this road in the upcoming budget. As an interim measure, the community would welcome a local-traffic-only restriction. Last year the mayor of Geelong said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The extension of Tivoli Drive improves access and safety for both motorists and pedestrians.</para></quote>
<para>It is now time to live up to this commitment and widen Tivoli Drive. It is of paramount importance if we are to keep the community of Curlewis safe.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Probus Club</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZIMMERMAN</name>
    <name.id>203092</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Across Australia and New Zealand, Probus clubs provide fun, friendship and fellowship to over 125,000 retirees who look to progress healthy minds and healthy bodies through social interaction activities with other retirees. In my time as member for North Sydney, I have seen the important role Probus clubs play. To see so many of our community's retirees come together, make new friends, listen to wonderful guest speakers and stay active is just so encouraging.</para>
<para>Late last year, it was a Lane Cove Probus Club picnic that became one of the first community events I was able to attend after all those months of COVID restrictions. But many wouldn't be aware that the very first Probus club in Australia can be found in my own electorate in Hunters Hill. Celebrating its 45th anniversary this year, the Hunters Hill Probus club initially started off with an annual membership fee of just $1 and has prospered ever since. Meeting monthly, the Hunters Hill Probus club has speakers from all walks of life and regularly holds events such as barbecues and lunches; visits to galleries, museums and theatres; and travels across Australia to explore this great country. I understand they've been as far as Turkey. It's has a very active community led by club president Jim Likidis, and I know they are all dedicated to the club's success.</para>
<para>Probus is a great organisation. I encourage retirees living in my area to think about joining. I'm sure you won't regret it. I want to wish the Hunters Hill Probus club a very happy 45th birthday and many more years of success ahead.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Petition: Ethiopia</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm here today on behalf of the members of the Tasmanian Eritrean and Tigrayan communities to table a petition regarding the civil war in Tigray. On 4 November last year, in response to an alleged attack, the Ethiopian government declared war on Tigray, a region of Ethiopia. Since then, the conflict has spiralled out of control and reports suggest that thousands have been killed, hundreds of thousands have been forced to flee homes and over 4.5 million people are desperately in need of food and medical relief. Moreover, to make matters worse, there are credible reports that Eritrea has joined the war, fighting alongside Ethiopia. No wonder both the UN and Human Rights Watch have expressed concerns that the actions of Ethiopian and Eritrean soldiers in the conflict could amount to war crimes and that Eritrean refugees in the Tigray region are being forced to return to their country, a prospect that has horrified members of the Tasmanian Eritrean community.</para>
<para>I support this petition, which calls on the Australian government to apply every diplomatic pressure on the Ethiopian and Eritrean governments to end hostilities and to give aid agencies full access to the conflict zones so that urgently needed supplies can reach civilians. Furthermore, if reports regarding war crimes are found to be true, the Australian government must play a role in ensuring the perpetrators are brought to justice. I seek leave to incorporate the petition.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">The </inline> <inline font-style="italic">document</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Dear Marise,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are writing to you about our grave concern in the ongoing civil war in Ethiopia between the central Ethiopian government and the state of Tigray. This civil war is now a regional war with the Eritrean regime now fighting alongside the Ethiopian government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As of 8 December 2020, U.S Authorities have confirmed that Eritrea is now party to the war in Ethiopia against the state of Tigray. U.S. Authorities have confirmed this with satellite images and a number of diplomatic sources who are present in the region of Tigray. In late December 2020, a senior Ethiopian military officer, Major General Belay Seyoum addressing a meeting in the Tigraian capital Mekelle, confirmed the presence of Eritrean forces clearly confirming the regional dimension of the conflict. The U.S. government has since called for Eritrean forces to immediately stop their involvement in the war in Ethiopia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It must be noted that every young Eritrean is forced to serve an open-ended military service by the dictator Isaias Afwerki. Mr Isaias Afwerki has led the country of Eritrea, unelected for 30 years. His track record includes, silencing people with different views or political orientation with imprisonment or death. Religious institutions and university have been closed for many years- running the country as an open prison and the people of Eritrea are hostages under this tyrant regime.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The engagement of Eritrean troops in the Ethiopian civil war is deplorable and strongly condemned by the people of Eritrea. There is no need for Eritrea to be party to a war that has nothing to do with the country. We are horrified and extremely saddened by the atrocities and war crimes that are being committed against the people of Tigray and the Eritrean refugees under lsaias's instructions. On 28 November, the African Union sent a team of negotiators- former Presidents Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia, Joachim Chissano of Mozambique and Kgalema Motlanthe of South Africa to facilitate peace in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Prime Minster Mr Abiy Ahmed however, refused to participate in mediation citing reasons that the conflict is simply a matter of conducting law enforcement on the region of Tigray. This, however, is not the case- given confirmed reports proving Eritrean forces are involved in the Ethiopian civil war.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet repeatedly expressed their grave concerns about the civil war in Ethiopia and its impact on civilians. The situation for Eritrean refugees is very desperate with confirmed cases of killings, abductions, forced return of Eritrean refugees back to Eritrea compounded by the terror and starvation that exists in the refugee camps. Refugees that were under the protection of UNHCR are now forced back into to the hands of a regime that they fled from. This is a serious crime against humanity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">On 17 December 2020 the European Union suspended the payment of a €90 million budget aid to the Ethiopian government over the crisis in the Tigray region. The decision is part of the 27 European countries' call for a cessation of hostilities. In addition to this the US and French governments have recently expressed their concern about the Ethiopian civil war and the war crimes committed in Tigray. They are also calling for this war to stop immediately and for urgent supplies to reach all civilian victims of this war.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are urging the Australian government to join the growing voices of the international community that are calling for cessation of hostilities and human rights respect in the ongoing Ethiopian civil war.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this regard we are asking your department to exert its diplomatic influence by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. Pressuring the Ethiopian Government to immediately stop fighting and negotiate via peaceful dialogue to resolve the conflict;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. Calling for all Eritrean troops to leave Ethiopia immediately;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3. Calling for all Ethiopian troops to leave Eritrea immediately;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4. Pressuring the Ethiopian government to allow full access to international monitors to the conflict zone and facilitate urgently needed supplies to reach all civilians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5. Freeze all support that the Australian government is giving to the Eritrean government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6. Freeze all support that the Australian government is giving to the Ethiopian government; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7. Calling for all acts of war crimes against the people of Tigray and Eritrean refugees to be independently investigated and perpetrators to be brought to justice.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Yours sincerely,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Concerned Australian Citizens</para></quote>
<para>from 641 citizens</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Vaccination</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALEXANDER</name>
    <name.id>M3M</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This morning I was alarmed to hear that a misinformation campaign is travelling around Bennelong. Leaflets are being distributed describing the anti-COVID vaccines as unsafe. This is a blatant and desperate lie. Normally such bile would only be spouted anonymously to hide the identity of the miscreant, but this has been proudly written by one Clive Palmer, who is seemingly proud of the lives he will risk and the economic recovery he will delay by questioning our scientists.</para>
<para>The vaccines went through rigorous trials before they met the high demands of the TGA. Unlike other countries, we didn't rush the rollout, so we can be absolutely sure the vaccines are safe. The TGA has said that the vaccines are safe. The TGA is made up of doctors and scientists who have trained in this field for decades. Clive Palmer has said it is unsafe. Clive Palmer is neither a doctor nor a scientist, but he is desperate to reignite his political career.</para>
<para>From today, people in group 1 will be able to register for vaccines. There are four locations in Bennelong that will be offering it initially, and I look forward to this growing. See the Department of Health website for more details. I implore the people of Bennelong and Australia: when your turn comes, please take the vaccine. Trust the science. It's for us all.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cooper Electorate</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today is 17 March, St Patrick's Day. Happy St Pat's day to everybody. It's also three years to the day since the Batman by-election, when I was elected. It's when I started this fabulous experience of representing the good people of my electorate. I like to think that with a name like Gerardine Mary Kearney there was a bit of the luck of the Irish in getting me across the line in that election, but I've got to say it was a hard-fought win against a very worthy opponent. It was an emotional win in extraordinary circumstances.</para>
<para>I am so lucky. I have really had some of the best years of my life in this role. Every day I am challenged and I am cheered on. Most of all, I am really chuffed to be the member for what is now Cooper. We changed the electorate's name to Cooper; it is now named after a great First Nations activist, William Cooper. Everybody that comes into my electorate office is greeted by a fabulous portrait of the great man that was given to me by his grandson, Uncle Boydie. It really sets the tone for the electorate. I have a lot of great activists who care about First Nations, climate, refugees, industrial relations and community sport. They really are wonderful and I thank them from the bottom of my heart. Last week we had a poster making session at Jika Jika so that the hundreds of people who went to the rally in Melbourne could carry a sign. Thank you to my team, thank you to my great colleagues and thank you to my community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Goldstein Electorate: Queen's Scout Awards</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The strength of Australia comes from strong citizens as the foundation for family and community to achieve and be part of our national success. It's with pleasure that I recently had the privilege of joining the 1st/14th Brighton Sea Scouts in February to celebrate the achievements of Sam Gulliver, James Parsons and Miles Nathan, who have each been recognised with a Queen's Scout Award. Open to 15- to 18-year-olds, the Queen's Scout Award is the highest award attainable in this age group, as it requires an extensive time commitment of sacrifice that must be diligently balanced alongside the VCE. Recipients demonstrate exceptional competence in the scouting program, which is focused on personal growth and community involvement.</para>
<para>So congratulations to Sam, James and Miles. We look forward to not just observing your success in Scouts but your future contribution to our community and our nation. But they don't get there just by themselves, so thank you to their devoted supporters: Catherine and Michael Gulliver, Hillary Parsons, and Michelle Greerson and Tony Nathan, who have provided invaluable support to their children to achieve this incredible success and award. Thank you to the group leader, Janet Cardell; the district commissioner for Bayside, Peter Kennedy; the regional commissioner for Melbourne, Roy Kaplan; and the Right Honourable the Lord Baden-Powell for hosting the awards ceremony and for your commitment to fostering scouting and leadership within our wonderful community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Sexual Violence</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate>Oxley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On the cover of Queensland's <inline font-style="italic">Courier-Mail</inline> today, women on both sides of state politics have come forward and shared their stories of sexual assault and harassment. They've done the bravest thing a survivor can do—speak publicly about their experience—and they've done so hoping that their stories will empower others to speak out. These stories—from small business minister Di Farmer, environment minister Meaghan Scanlon, children's minister Leanne Linard, health minister Yvette D'Ath, Attorney-General Shannon Fentiman and Amanda Camm of the LNP—are hard to read. They happened during childhood and adulthood, in workplaces, at schoolies, in the shop or at home, perpetrated by friends, colleagues and strangers. But there was a common thread: nearly all these women feared that they wouldn't be believed and that they'd get in trouble for being out late or wearing a short skirt, or they'd be told, 'Boys will be boys.' There is a reckoning going on in this country. Women are standing up, making predators accountable and telling us they won't stay silent or be doubted any longer. I say to the leaders of Queensland who have come forward today: thank you for your bravery and for shining a light on this issue in this historic moment. I say to all courageous survivors and all women: I stand with you, I believe you and I'm on your side.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Anzac Day</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>HK5</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was dismayed to read this article in the Melbourne <inline font-style="italic">Herald Sun</inline> this morning, entitled 'Anzac days axed in tiers of frustration'. It said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">ANZAC Day commemorations are being cancelled across Melbourne and major regional events are in limbo as RSL sub-branches across Victoria anxiously wait for state government COVID permits.</para></quote>
<para>Of all our national days, Anzac Day is the most sacred. It's one on which, for over a century, people in villages, towns and cities across Australia have marched and come together at cenotaphs to commemorate those who died—those who gave their lives on the cliffs of Gallipoli, in the muddy trenches of the Western Front, in the swamp infested areas of Asia, in the searing hot deserts of Africa, in the skies and on the seas, including the nurses who were executed off Singapore. They deserve the commemoration that they've had each year, and I call upon the state government in Victoria, instead of hindering this process, to actually help the RSLs to be able to put on these marches and events. RSLs are voluntary organisations. Many of those running them these days are in their 70s and 80s. Please, Premier Andrews, help these RSLs to put on the commemorations for their local communities. Don't stand in the way. If 50,000 people can go to the MCG or 29,000 to Marvel Stadium, surely a few thousand people can gather at cenotaphs throughout Victoria to commemorate Anzac Day.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>March 4 Justice</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are some moments in our history when marketing won't work and spin won't work. There are moments that require us to reach in and find our humanity. I'm really proud to stand here today to say that I watched a moment like that this week. I watched the member for Grayndler as he listened to the speakers on the lawn on Monday. I watched him listen, I watched him internalise and then I watched him walk into this House and give expression to his humanity.</para>
<para>Sadly, our Prime Minister has failed to do the same. Our Prime Minister has shown us inside himself this week, with references to the mob and to the notion that we're lucky not to be shot marching in front of Parliament House. He has not only missed the moment; he has shown me what makes him tick. This moment can't be managed. This moment can't be spun. The Prime Minister needs to understand that the women of Australia are not only standing up to be heard but feeling that we have been heard by most men in this country. He should join those ranks as quickly as he can. He should reach in and find his humanity and stand with the women of Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tasmanian Holocaust Education and Interpretation Centre</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ARCHER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 2 March, members and friends of the Jewish community converged on Australia's oldest synagogue, in Hobart, for the announcement of the establishment of a Holocaust Education and Interpretation Centre. As Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said on the day, the centre has been established so that future generations can say, 'Never again.'</para>
<para>Attending on the day was a constituent of Bass, Holocaust survivor Felix Goldschmied, who immigrated to Australia in 1948 as a young boy. Dr Goldschmied was born in what was then Czechoslovakia and lost most of his family members at Auschwitz. Dr Goldschmied said that the establishment of an education centre is incredibly important, as he fears stories risk being forgotten as Jewish survivors grow old, taking their memories of the atrocities of World War II with them.</para>
<para>I would also like to highlight another Holocaust survivor from the Northern Tasmanian community, Dr Gershon Goldstein, who was, sadly, unable to attend the announcement. Dr Goldstein was born in the Netherlands during the war to a Dutch mother and Jewish father. Like Dr Goldschmied, he lost many relatives in the Holocaust—almost 100 relatives, in fact—including his father, his grandmother, an uncle, an aunt, cousins, six great-uncles and two great-aunts. Dr Goldstein has spent years teaching students about the Holocaust and has long been campaigning for it to be taught more widely in the school curriculum, with a particular focus on countering anti-Semitism. Dr Goldstein, I hope that this centre is a step forward in achieving your goal.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Macarthur Electorate: Health Care</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In my electorate, my patients cannot access primary health care. This has been an issue that I have discussed with the health minister's office for a number of years. It's occurring because, in the newer suburbs and the growing suburbs, they cannot recruit doctors. There have been changes made to the workforce shortage rules that have prohibited practices in my area from employing doctors in primary health care who are eminently well qualified. This is leading to much poorer health outcomes.</para>
<para>I've been contacted by families with children with severe disabilities who cannot access primary health care. This puts an even greater load on our public hospitals. I've discussed this with the health minister, with his office, with NSW Health, and nothing is being done. I am sick of motherhood statements. I'm sick of being brushed off. My patients cannot access primary health care. It is a tragedy. It's an absolute disgrace. We are at risk of developing an Americanised health system, where the wealthy can afford very good care but the poor and disadvantaged cannot access care. Something must be done. I was contacted by Dr Ben Touma from the Emerald Hills Medical Centre. His two medical centres are not able to employ doctors who a very well qualified to work in the area. This is a tragedy. I've been contacted by other electorates with similar problems. We cannot have a two-tiered health system in Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dawson Electorate: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHRISTENSEN</name>
    <name.id>230485</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's a place in southern Townsville. Its name is Wulguru. Every time it rains up there, the homes fill up with poo. The sewers get all backed up, the suburb really whiffs, and, despite the council's promises, the problem still persists. The response from Townsville council is nothing, zero, zip, despite the local cries and screams that they cannot take this 'ship'. Locals went to the newspapers and on the TV news, but still there's no solution to these overflowing poos. But as locals are united to fix this crappy need, they've formed the Poo-nami Army, with Leanne Dobbin as its lead.</para>
<para>They've started a campaign to sort the problem out and called on me, George Christensen, to lend a bit more clout. That's why I'm here, in parliament, reading this little ditty. I do not like when locals' homes get left all brown and gritty. And while this poem might be funny—because humour does the trick—the issue is pretty serious, given people have fallen sick. Mum Nicole and daughter Shae to the Townsville hospital did go, when their home was inundated with a horrible brown flow. There have been other locals who've had to rebuild their home, after number ones and number twos throughout their house did roam. The thought makes the stomach turn—it leaves you feeling ill—so we have to send a message to the mayor, Jenny Hill. So I've started up a website to make the council think: georgechristensen.com.au/stopthestink. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for letting me say my bit. So now I'll take my leave and stop rhyming about—</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Greenway Electorate: Blacktown Hospital</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A most serious issue has emerged in Blacktown that is nothing short of a national disgrace. At the only public hospital in the Greater Blacktown area, which services some of the fastest growing suburbs in north-west Sydney, if not all of Australia, babies are dying unexpectedly during or soon after birth. Every infant death is tragic, but we're not talking about isolated incidents here. On Sunday, Blacktown Hospital recorded its sixth unexpected death of a baby within around two years. Let that sink in: six babies in two years. The heartbreaking depth of grief for every one of those parents and their families is palpable, and I'm so profoundly sorry for every one of them and their precious children.</para>
<para>I have ventilated longstanding issues with the understaffing and maladministration of Blacktown Hospital in this parliament before, most recently in November, when nurses and midwives took industrial action in response to their intolerable working conditions. I wrote to the New South Wales health minister seeking an urgent briefing on this unfolding crisis. I received a response a month later, not from the minister but from his underling, essentially not saying anything anybody didn't already know. In the meantime, another family have lost their beautiful baby. There are longstanding issues at Blacktown Hospital that need to be resolved now. I was born in that hospital, and I say, as a local member and a mother, that the families of Blacktown deserve to have confidence that the service they will receive in their local public hospital will be of the same standard as those in the rest of Sydney. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements' has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>49</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hurford, Hon. Christopher John, AO</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>51</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the resumption of the debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Hon. Christopher John Hurford AO be referred to the Federation Chamber.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As a mark of respect, I ask all present to rise in their places.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">Honourable members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">and those in the gallery </inline> <inline font-style="italic">having stood in their places—</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the House.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Somare, Grand Chief Sir Michael Thomas</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>51</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by the Prime Minister be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As a mark of respect, I ask all present to rise in their places.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">Honourable members and those in the gallery </inline> <inline font-style="italic">having stood in their places—</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the House.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>51</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Vaccination</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's long-awaited announcement to launch the booking system for COVID vaccinations was executed with precision in every newspaper and media outlet this morning, but there are already widespread reports of the system failing. If the government can get the media strategy right, why can't it get the vaccine delivery right?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will ask the Minister for Health to make further comments. As I said in this place yesterday, the characterisation of that question in that way has only one purpose and that is to seek to undermine the vaccination program in this country. The issues put forward by the shadow minister are false. They're disingenuous and they seek to undermine one of the most important vaccination programs ever undertaken for the good health and the recovery of this country. I would urge the opposition to engage in this national project of such great importance to this country rather than continuing to stoop into the partisanship of playing politics with the COVID pandemic. I will ask the Minister for Health to add to my answer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUNT</name>
    <name.id>00AMV</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To add to the Prime Minister's answer, the correct position is that there are now over 203,000 vaccinations that have been administered. That was more than a 10 per cent increase in national vaccinations alone only yesterday. There are now 509 aged-care facilities, and I have reported 45½ thousand aged-care vaccinations which have been implemented. In particular the vaccination program began, as we said it would, in late February, on 22 February, for phase 1a. The AstraZeneca program began, as we said it would, in early March. Next week—again, as we said it would—the expansion to phase 1b will commence on 22 March, four weeks after phase 1a commenced.</para>
<para>We'll be able to do that because we have the sovereign vaccine manufacturing capability in Australia. In particular, 1,169 general practices have been announced today, with more to come on board over the coming days. They will commence at different times during the course of next week. All are available to commence next week. All have applied, been accepted and have placed orders. Very importantly, there are six million Australians who will be in phase 1b. Not all will be done in week 1 or week 2, but over the course of the coming months. That's a very important thing to understand—to make sure that we have a vaccine rollout which uses the general practice network. Over 1,000 general practices will grow over the coming weeks to over 4,000 general practices. What does that mean? It means every Australian who seeks to be vaccinated will be vaccinated.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>52</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop, a former senator, a former member, a former minister and a former Speaker of the House. On behalf of the House, a warm welcome to you.</para>
<para>We also have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Peter Garrett, a former member and the former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. On behalf of the House, a warm welcome to you too.</para>
<para>I would also like to inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Michael Atkinson, former Speaker of the South Australian House of Assembly. On behalf of the House, a very warm welcome to you.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>52</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Papua New Guinea</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ENTSCH</name>
    <name.id>7K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please inform the House how the Morrison government is stepping up to manage a concerning spike in COVID-19 cases in Papua New Guinea, to save lives and to support our closest Pacific neighbour's health system? How will these activities will help to protect Australians, particularly Australians in Queensland, as Far North Queensland is, of course, in the Torres Strait?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are many friends of Papua New Guinea in this place, on all sides of the chamber, but none greater than the member for Leichhardt. He has done an outstanding job in responding to this latest crisis in Papua New Guinea, and I want to thank him, on behalf of the foreign minister and the health minister and many other members of the national security committee, for the tremendous input he has given to framing the response that I announced earlier today in relation to the COVID crisis in Papua New Guinea.</para>
<para>There are so many great friends of Papua New Guinea, because there is no closer member of our Pacific family than Papua New Guinea. Earlier this week we mourned together with Papua New Guinea the loss of their Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare. This is a nation—this is a people, more importantly, because, even at the time when it was an Australian territory, the people of Papua New Guinea stood by Australians like no other nation we can think of in our region. They were there for us on the Kokoda Trail, and we will be there for them as they face this most recent challenge.</para>
<para>Today we have announced that in response to the serious escalation of the COVID crisis in Papua New Guinea—that has seen the WHO now categorise outbreaks in Port Moresby and West Sepik as large-scale community transmission events—we're moving immediately to get 8,000 doses of our vaccines from domestic stocks here in Australia to vaccinate frontline health workers in PNG from next week. That will be supported by deploying a strategic AUSMAT team, who will be there on Monday to commence the planning of further responses by Australia, which will include further clinical teams that will support that vaccination program and other urgent health tasks. We will be seeking the release of a million of the doses that we have contracted from AstraZeneca from the European production facilities, and we want them to release those stocks of vaccines so we can support, right now, one of the developing countries most devastated as a result of COVID. We need that help right now, and I have no doubt the parliament, from all sides, will be joining us in that call to our European friends to release those vaccines to ensure that we can support our family here in the Pacific.</para>
<para>In addition, in response to the request from Prime Minister Marape, who I have been in constant contact with, we're deploying some one million surgical masks; 200,000 P2 N95 respirator masks; 100,000 sets of gowns, goggles, gloves and hand sanitiser; 20,000 face shields; and up to 200 non-invasive ventilators. This is part of a comprehensive Australian response, including supports for surveillance testing, PPE in a clinical care capacity, reopening the Rita Flynn testing and isolation facility in Port Moresby, a new emergency triage facility at Port Moresby General Hospital and the PNG COVID-19— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Vaccination</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. On 7 January, the Prime Minister said about the vaccine rollout, 'We have set out cautious timetables,' and: 'We don't want to make promises that we can't keep. That is incredibly important.' Why, then, has the Prime Minister failed to deliver on his announcement of four million vaccinations by the end of March?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There have been many COVID tests that Australians have undertaken over the course of this pandemic, but there is a test for the opposition when it comes to national unity on the delivery of the vaccine program, and the Labor Party in this chamber is failing the test of national unity: to support the national vaccination program. As the government that has led Australians out of the COVID-19 crisis—both the pandemic and the economic recession that it caused—we have put Australians in the forefront of the world as we emerge. As there is chaos and crisis around the world—in Europe, in the United States, in the United Kingdom and all around the world—here in Australia we have proved to be a safe haven for Australians in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic storm. As we have learnt as we've led the country in that way, it is important to continue to respond to events as they occur. It may be lost on the Labor Party, but, when you order 3.8 million vaccines from Europe and 700,000 are able to be delivered because of the crisis in Europe, this is something that the Labor Party seems to overlook.</para>
<para>What they also overlook is that it was this government that knew, in August of last year, that supply chain vulnerabilities would be present. So we put in place, in August of last year, the commencement of a program to create a domestic manufacturing capability for the AstraZeneca vaccine. Were it not for that strategic decision—just like our decision to close the borders at the outset of the program and to call a global pandemic two weeks before the World Health Organization—Australia would not have a vaccination program—were it not for the foresight of the Minister for Health and Aged Care; of the Secretary of the Department of Health, Professor Brendan Murphy; and of the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Kelly, who those opposite now seek to undermine in seeking to undercut and undermine confidence in the national vaccination program. This is a Leader of the Opposition who only has political bones in his body. You won't find any other bones, and you certainly won't find a spine.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call on the next question, quite obviously the level of interjections is far too high. I wasn't going to keep sitting the Prime Minister down to make the obvious point, but I'll now make another obvious point. I'm issuing a general warning. Anyone who doesn't understand what that means, you can consult the <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline>—standing order 94(a) does not require a warning, but a general warning means you can be named.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Papua New Guinea</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THOMPSON</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is providing critical medical support to our neighbours in PNG, including through the rollout of lifesaving COVID-19 vaccines?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUNT</name>
    <name.id>00AMV</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Herbert for his deep engagement with, and concern for, the people of Papua New Guinea. The World Health Organization has identified that PNG is facing large-scale community transmission. We know that so far there are 19 of 22 provinces that are facing some form of outbreak. We also know that Port Moresby hospital, as one example, is dealing with great pressure on the number of beds, with over 90 per cent of beds occupied, and we are seeing an increase in the number of lives lost.</para>
<para>In that context, Australia has stepped in in a number of ways. Firstly, we've already provided $60 million to assist them, and there's $144 million directly for vaccine support—a critical step forward. Secondly, however, we are providing vaccines. As the Prime Minister said, to assist their frontline health workers we'll immediately make 8,000 vaccines available. This is after discussions with the Papua New Guinean government. They will be distributed shortly with appropriate consumables—those items that can assist in the administration of the vaccines. We have sought, and will be seeking, one million vaccines of Australia's contingent, which has been held by the European Union, as the Prime Minister has just said, to be made available for the urgent lifesaving need in Papua New Guinea. We hope that is accepted as a critical global responsibility, to make sure those vaccines which have been held back, 3.1 million of 3.8 million, are allowed out for this fundamental humanitarian task.</para>
<para>In addition to that, we have also made available a medical assistance package, beginning with AUSMAT. There's an AUSMAT forward assessment team, which is due to be on the ground in Papua New Guinea during the course of next week. It will assess needs and assist with the program. As part of that, we are providing critical medical assistance: one million surgical masks, 200,000 N95 masks, 100,000 gloves, 100,000 gowns, 100,000 pairs of goggles. As well as that, there are 20,000 face shields, 100,000 units of hand sanitiser and, very importantly, 200 non-invasive ventilators. Given the nature of them and the fact that we will be able to provide that assistance by Australian medical authorities working in a remote way with people across PNG, these may well prove to be lifesaving, absolutely fundamental humanitarian forms of medical aid. So I want to thank the member for Herbert and thank the member for Leichhardt for being such advocates. Our job is to put out the hand of friendship to those who have given it to us— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>JobKeeper Payment</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said economic confidence will be reinforced by the rollout of the vaccination program. What will be the economic-confidence and jobs impact of ripping away JobKeeper while the vaccine rollout falls behind schedule? Why is the Prime Minister so quick to rip away JobKeeper but so slow to roll out the vaccines?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm reminded by the Treasurer that 18,000 people in the member's electorate have already graduated from JobKeeper. Those opposite jeer and sneer at that comment, but I tell you, for those 18,000 people who live in the member for Corio's electorate, it is a significant development in their lives that they are no longer having to depend on taxpayer funded income support and that the businesses they work for are getting back on their feet.</para>
<para>The Australian economy is getting back on its feet. It is recovering. The comeback has been on for some time now, and that is enabling Australia to move away from the emergency supports that were so necessary at a time of crisis, delivered in record time and with record efficiency as a partnership—not just the government but the business community and the financial community—to ensure that we could preserve the lifeline of income and preserve the lives of Australians who in that period of time were facing the most incredible uncertainty that they are likely to face in their lives.</para>
<para>That has been a very necessary program, but we said very clearly that that program would have to withdraw when the economy was returning, and that is what we're seeing. The vaccination program is rolling out, with over 200,000 Australians already vaccinated. A thousand doctors have signed up, and that will grow to over 4,000. With the AstraZeneca vaccine, in a few weeks time, we will move to the production and rollout of a million vaccines every week. This is because of the sovereign decisions taken by our government to ensure we have the domestic capability to deliver on that need.</para>
<para>The confidence is growing, the economy is coming back, and Australians are getting up on their feet again. The last thing they need is a negative Labor leader and Labor Party who want to pull the rug from under them by seeking to undermine the most important vaccination program that this country has ever seen.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Members of Parliament: Staff</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister, regarding the alleged rapist of Brittany Higgins. Almost four weeks ago I asked you, amongst other things, whether the alleged rapist of Ms Higgins had meetings with ministers, their staff or department officials at any time since the alleged rape occurred. You undertook to the House to make inquiries and report back. Given there have been 23 days to make such inquiries, can you please now advise whether the alleged rapist met with your ministers or their staff after the alleged rape?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Melbourne will recall that I reported back to the House very soon after that, when I reported on the inquiries that were made, particularly through the Presiding Officers, to understand about the issues that were raised in the question. In terms of the broader actions of the ministry, there is an incredible array of activity that goes on across the government, and the sheer scale of what the member is asking is not something that we can give a definitive response to. We have looked into this matter, and I have no information to suggest that what the member suggests is true.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Biosecurity</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHRISTENSEN</name>
    <name.id>230485</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the enhanced border measures the Morrison government is implementing in response to the unfolding COVID-19 situation in Papua New Guinea?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for his question. I was up in Mackay last week, and they love George Christensen in Mackay. He's a great advocate for his local community and for North Queensland as well.</para>
<para>The government has made announcements today in relation to our response to provide support to our friends and to our family in Papua New Guinea. At the same time, we have taken actions to protect Australia from the potential spread of the virus across the Torres Strait. I can inform the House that in March of last year we took a decision to stand up Operation Overarch, which was designed to protect the Torres Strait protected zone. Very early on in this pandemic we took a decision to look at the way in which this was unfolding, particularly in Asia and China at the time, and to close our borders to the rest of the world. That is a decision that we took that stood us in such good stead and to this very day has been at the heart of our success in keeping this virus under control. We don't want the virus sneaking across what is obviously a very small area, and we don't want people in North Queensland, particularly Indigenous communities, facing the incursion of that disease.</para>
<para>We have a remarkable effort underway—as I say, it's been underway now for 12 months—by Australian Border Force personnel and Australian Defence Force personnel working in concert with the Queensland Police Service, Queensland Health and other Commonwealth agencies to make sure that we do have an extra layer of protection across the Torres Strait. As all Australians know, it is a very, very narrow point. The Torres Strait separates Cape York, in Far North Queensland, from the PNG mainland by only 150 kilometres. There are over 200 islands in the strait, 17 of which are inhabited. We have the ability to provide support at that southern end of Papua New Guinea, and we do that on a regular basis, but we want to do that in a way that doesn't see the virus spread into Australia.</para>
<para>I want to commend the work of the ABF officers, the Australian Defence Force officers and all of those who are involved in Operation Overarch. It is designed to keep Australians safe and healthy, which has been the wont of this government from the first day of our response to this virus. At the same time, we are providing additional support to our family and friends in Papua New Guinea, and we'll continue to do that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>JobKeeper Payment</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to reports that the Treasurer has told the government to be prepared for a rough couple of months because of the decision to rip away JobKeeper. Why is the government treating the people on JobKeeper who are about to lose their jobs as a political problem rather than a human one?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Spare me the feigned indignation from the member of Rankin. The reality is that the JobKeeper payment was always meant to be a temporary one. Initially, it was planned for six months, and we extended it to 12 months. At $90 billion, it's the single largest economic support program any Australian government has ever undertaken. The reality is that there have been 2.7 million Australians who have graduated from JobKeeper, including more than 20,200 from the member's electorate.</para>
<para>But, as JobKeeper ends, the Morrison government's support does not. The Morrison government's support continues with initiatives like the recent aviation and tourism package, designed to provide low-cost airfares and low-cost loans; like the HomeBuilder program; like the hiring credit; like the infrastructure programs that were brought forward; like the immediate expensing that has led to a boost in investment; like the apprenticeship announcement, which saw, within five months, 100,000 new apprentices; and like the tax cuts, because we on this side of the House believe that Australians should earn more and keep more of what they earn.</para>
<para>The member for Rankin doesn't know much about tax cuts. He only knows about tax increases. The reality is that we continue to provide economic support across the Australian community, and what we have seen is the labour market being remarkably resilient.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I just say to the member for Lalor: she has continued to interject.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Economy</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government's commitment to driving job and economic opportunities in regional areas will help underpin Australia's recovery from COVID-19?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We respectfully heard at the start of question time about a 10-pound Pom who came to this nation and contributed so much to our country and to our parliament. Today we also pay respects to those Irish immigrants who came to our country. It's St Patrick's Day. I know that the member for Cowper and probably even the member for Shortland will join me—and others, too—in saying happy St Patrick's Day. Many of those Irish people came to regional areas. They came and they forged an existence out of regional Australia, because they knew that their future lay in those rural and regional areas, and good on them! They helped our nation to be the success it is today.</para>
<para>I thank the member for Mallee for her question and acknowledge her hard work and advocacy for her Victorian electorate. She has advocated so fiercely for the Murray Basin freight rail, and we've contributed $200.2 million towards its success. That's on top of the $240 million that we've put towards that project in the past. But, more than that, she knows, as does every other regional member of this parliament, how magnificent country Australians have been through the COVID-19 crisis. They have been their best selves, even though decisions were taken in faraway capital cities to shut down areas and to wear face masks. Even farmers were going out in regional areas wearing face masks when they were feeding stock, even though they were many hundreds of kilometres away from the capital cities. But they've been their best selves and they've helped keep their regions largely COVID free. I say thank you to those regional Australians for doing what they've done—for keeping COVID-19 away from those regional areas.</para>
<para>There are many, many jobs out in regional Australia right now. The Move to More campaign is going to ensure that regional Australia can be its best self. This morning I was with the CEO of the Regional Australia Institute, Liz Ritchie, to launch that wonderful campaign. And it is a wonderful campaign, because we want many of those Sydneysiders to move to the regions—7,782, in the September quarter alone, can't be wrong. They've moved out of the capital cities into the regions.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Morrison interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> Indeed, it is great news, Prime Minister. Many others are making the transition, making the tree change and moving to a regional area, because they know that during COVID you could have been in Manangatang, you could have been in Mangoplah, you could have been in Moree or you could have been in Moranbah and you could still tap in, via telepresence, to those Zoom meetings in a far-off capital city and get involved, participate and do all the sorts of things that capital city people take for granted. Regions—there is no better place in which to live and no better place in which to invest, play and work and do all the things that keep our country great and safe. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>JobKeeper Payment: Tourism Industry</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. In response to the Prime Minister's decision to rip away JobKeeper, the operator of Gold Coast tourism business Duffy Down Under says, 'What is the point of bringing everyone safely across the desert just to drop us off a cliff?' He's right, isn't he? Why leave people behind when the crisis isn't over yet?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll ask the minister for tourism to add further to my answer. What the tourism industry needs is tourists. That's what they need. We want to see the demand come back into the tourism sector. At no other time in the tourism industry's history have they seen a package of support of some $1.2 billion. Never before has there been such a significant package of support provided to the tourism and travel sector and the aviation sector that is going to see Australians getting into the air and then getting on the ground—because a dollar spent in the air is worth $10 on the ground for those tourism and travel industries. So, whether they're up in North Queensland or in other parts of the country that have been so devastated by the withdrawal of international tourists because of the close of those international borders—so necessary to protect Australians' health and wellbeing through this COVID-19 pandemic—on top of the JobKeeper support, on top of the cash flow assistance, on top of all the other measures that we put in place to get Australians through this COVID-19 pandemic—in particular the travel and tourism and aviation industry—further support has been provided. I will ask the minister to add further to the answer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, PM. I was at the Currumbin Wildlife Sanctuary with our three wonderful members from the Gold Coast on Friday, and can I tell the House that the reception of our package there, on the Gold Coast, was huge—absolutely huge. One of the other things that I can report is that, following the announcement, the bookings that we have already seen with our major airlines have been quite extraordinary. In fact, they haven't seen booking levels like it since before the COVID-19 pandemic. What the tourism industry said to the government was that, more than anything else, they want tourists, and what our $1.2 billion package was all about was making sure that we're putting confidence into the aviation sector, confidence into the tourism sector, so that people will get moving again. And they have voted with their feet. They're booking airline tickets like they haven't been booked in the last 12 months, and our discount tickets haven't even started. Forty-six thousand—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. Member for Lalor, I couldn't have been more clear last time.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Lalor then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And, while you've got some spare time, book a ticket! Take a trip! Do your patriotic duty! There are 46,000 tickets available each week. Everyone, do your patriotic duty! <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Economy</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VASTA</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
    <electorate>Bonner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer remind the House how the Morrison government's economic support packages have helped save the Australian economy and enabled it to recover strongly from the COVID-19 recession? Is the Treasurer aware of any threats to our economic recovery?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Bonner for his question and acknowledge his experience as a restauranteur and as a small-business person, something that those opposite have little experience of.</para>
<para>The Australian economy is recovering from the most significant economic shock since the Great Depression, and it's recovering with the support of $251 billion of direct financial support from the Morrison government: the JobKeeper program, the JobSeeker program, the cash flow boost, the $750 payments to millions of pensioners—to carers, to veterans and to others on income support. That has helped see 94 per cent of the 1.3 million Australians who either lost their jobs or saw their working hours reduced to zero come back to work. That has seen household spending, household consumption, go up. That has seen dwelling investment go up. That has seen business investment go up. And that has seen farm GDP grow. The net result is that in the December quarter we saw 3.1 per cent growth. This is the first time since records began, back in 1959, that Australia has enjoyed two consecutive quarters of economic growth of more than three per cent. And we've also seen business and consumer confidence come back to its pre-pandemic levels.</para>
<para>I recently had the opportunity to join the member for Bonner in his electorate, at Gumdale, where we went to Wallum Nurseries and we met with Peter, who said that, before JobKeeper came in, his business was on the edge. He said JobKeeper has seen him keep the 30 staff. As a result of programs from this side of the House, he is now taking on new apprentices. He's come off JobKeeper. This is another success story from across Queensland.</para>
<para>I'm asked: are there any threats? The greatest threat comes from those opposite with their plans for higher taxes—$387 billion of higher taxes.</para>
<para>An opposition member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He says it's boring to talk about $387 billion, but that's not what the Australian people thought at the last election, because when the member for McMahon said, 'If you don't like our policies, don't vote for us,' they took him literally. Labor's higher taxes on superannuation, on income, on small business and on retirees would have been destructive to the Australian economy. Just the other week, he was given an opportunity to support our legislated stage 3 income tax cuts, and he refused to do so, saying, 'We'll have to wait and see.' It's because those on the other side of the House don't believe in lower taxes. We on this side of the House absolutely do.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Members of Parliament: Staff</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Given it's now been more than 48 hours since Brittany Higgins told the women's March 4 Justice that the Prime Minister's office had sought to undermine her loved ones, has the Prime Minister asked his staff if this is true? If not, why not?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer the member to the answer of yesterday.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women's Health</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ARCHER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. Will the minister please advise the House on the measures the Morrison government is taking to improve the health of Australian women, particularly those living in rural and regional Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Bass for her question. The health of women and girls in Australia is fundamental to us all, not just to the individuals themselves but to their families, their communities and to the nation. The Morrison government recognises this and the National Women's Health Strategy 2020-2030 was launched by the minister for health last year. The strategy identifies policy gaps and new and emerging health priorities for women and girls. It presents recommendations for action and highlights the need for collaboration between governments at all levels, the health sector, patient groups and the women themselves.</para>
<para>Importantly, rural and regional women are identified as a priority population in this strategy. This is because women in rural and remote areas have poorer health outcomes than those in the city. They have greater health risks and they find it more difficult to access health services. Sadly we know, too, that the gap is even greater between Indigenous and non-Indigenous women, and we're working harder to close that gap. We are committed to tackling the issue.</para>
<para>In the member's electorate, on the ground, what that means is we're supporting mobile health hubs, something fought for by the member for Bass. That's doctors and specialists going out on wheels—travelling directly to patients with chronic health conditions and working hard for them. It means we're enhancing access and supporting the continued use of mobile cancer screening services for women in rural and remote areas, and it means we're increasing the number of Commonwealth funded breast care nurses through the McGrath Foundation from 57 to 102. It means improving access to mental health services and subsidising telehealth consultations. I know the member for Bass has been a real champion of rural mental health, having secured additional funding for the expansion of her local headspace in Launceston.</para>
<para>More broadly, the government has many goals, including the goal to reduce stillbirths by 20 per cent or more over the next five years. The rate is higher, unfortunately, in rural and regional Australia. That followed a bipartisan Senate inquiry in 2018. Senator Keneally in the other place played a strong role there. We also created the first national plan for endometriosis in 2018, championed by members on both sides, none more so than the member for Boothby. She was brave in the face of a despicable campaign against her at the last election, and brave on behalf of all the women whose voices she has raised in this parliament.</para>
<para>The health of rural and regional women, and all Australian women, remains a key focus of the Morrison government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Members of Parliament: Staff</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. A month ago the Prime Minister told this House that he asked his former chief of staff, Phil Gaetjens, to verify what his office knew about the reported sexual assault of Brittany Higgins only metres from where he works. Has Mr Gaetjens delivered his report and told the Prime Minister if he can trust his own staff? If not, when will it be received and when will it be released?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No, I have not received that report. I'll report further once I have received that report. As I've said in this place, and my own inquiries on this matter, then, no. No is the answer to the question in relation to what my office knew. I've set out very clearly when my office learnt about those matters. I inquired about those matters with my office, and we have gone through a process, which we have done on other occasions, with the department secretary. When he has completed that report, he will provide it to me.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women in STEM</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McINTOSH</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is backing women in STEM as part of our plan to increase participation and strengthen our economy for the future?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate>McPherson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. The member for Lindsay and I launched the Girls in STEM Toolkit in her electorate back in 2019. That toolkit was actually so successful that, in the last budget, we actually committed more money to expanding that. In fact, in the last budget, this government committed over $50 million for programs that were specifically designed to improve gender equity in STEM. We know that we have to decrease the gap between the number of male students and the number of female students that study STEM subjects when they're at school and go on to study STEM at higher levels and move into STEM careers. Increasing participation in STEM is absolutely vital for the jobs of the future and also for our economy. A few years ago, it was estimated that, if just one person in 100 shifted to a STEM role over the next 20 years, it would increase our nation's GDP by $57.4 billion. We also know that STEM skills are vital for the jobs of the future, and probably even more so for those jobs that we're not even aware of at the moment that are still to be developed in the future.</para>
<para>Earlier today, I was at the Press Club, along with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and we listened to our new Chief Scientist, Dr Cathy Foley, address us as part of Science meets Parliament. Dr Foley herself is an extraordinary woman in STEM, and she had this to say about increasing the participation of women in STEM: 'Simply put, diversity of ideas and experience equals better results.' It's absolutely true. How can we look to solve the great challenges that we face or take advantage of the exciting opportunities in STEM if we're not embracing the skills, knowledge and perspectives of our entire population? If we're drawing on only half the talent pool, we are likely to achieve only half the results that we could. That is behind our rationale in appointing the first Women in STEM Ambassador, Professor Lisa Harvey-Smith, and it's what drives her to make sure that we are getting young girls, in particular, more interested in studying science and maths at school and going on to undertake careers in STEM. It gives them the opportunity to secure a fulfilling job for the future, and it boosts our economy. Quite frankly, it's a win-win for all.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Respect at Work Report</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister: Over a year ago, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, delivered her <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work </inline>report to the government. When will the government formally respond to all 55 recommendations?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Together with the many other responses the government has been putting in place on these matters—and I particularly refer to the implementation of the fourth action plan, which, I can report, is on track with 85 per cent of measures meeting projected time lines and dealing with the many issues.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate that I'm referring to a different program—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If members opposite are not interested in programs which are to implement primary prevention to stop violence before it starts, to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and their children, to respect, listen to and respond to the diverse lived experience and knowledge of women and their children—this is the fourth national action plan. In the process of implementing the fourth national action plan, we're also moving, through the Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General—she will be concluding her recommendations to the government on the response to that report and we hope to be able to do that in the not-too-distant future. So that is what the assistant minister is doing right now as we speak. There has already been a response in the budget of $2 million in measures for supporting the response to the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report.</para>
<para>But what I am pleased to say is that the fourth national action plan for protecting women against violence is on track. They're important projects, and work is already underway on the fifth national action plan. A billion dollars has been invested by the government in implementing these measures that are designed to support women and protect them against violence, wherever that may occur.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Plibersek interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Sydney will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A billion dollars is what we have spent, and these programs—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I note the interjections from those opposite. The fourth national action plan is a bipartisan initiative. It was supported by both sides of this House. That has been a key factor in its success since the first national action plan was put in place by Prime Minister Gillard, supported by the coalition in opposition at that time. Since coming to government, we have invested a further billion dollars in the action plans that have followed. We are now working together, I hope, to put in place the fifth national action plan, and that's a national action plan which is done together with the states and territories, who are keen deliverers—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would just say to the Prime Minister—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members can cease interjecting. He has been able to give some context, but it was a specific question about a response—very specific—and he will need to come to that in his answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker. I already came to it when I set out that the Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General is preparing that response, and it will be released shortly. I addressed that in my earlier remarks and I framed my response in the context of the more than a billion dollars that the government has invested in preventing violence against women, which we will continue to pursue in a bipartisan way. We will continue to pursue those measures in a bipartisan way, and I would encourage the Leader of the Opposition to bring the opposition to a bipartisan approach to this very serious issue. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cybersafety</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MARTIN</name>
    <name.id>282982</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is working to keep women and children safe online?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Reid for this important question and acknowledge her deep expertise in this area as a clinical psychologist with strong interest in, and knowledge about, the issues of online safety and the impact it has on the safety of children and of women. The sad fact is that too many Australians are subject to vicious online abuse. We have had some high-profile instances over recent years: Erin Molan, Tayla Harris and, sadly, Dolly Everett and Charlotte Dawson, both of whom tragically took their own lives, with online abuse a significant triggering factor. I have mentioned women because the sad fact is that women suffer more abuse online than men.</para>
<para>Our government has taken many steps to work to keep women and children—all Australians, but women and children particularly—safe online. We established the Children's eSafety Commissioner in 2015 and introduced a scheme to deal with the cyberbullying of children. We followed that in 2017 with a scheme to deal with the unauthorised sharing of intimate images. This is something which overwhelmingly affects women, and it is devastating for the victims when this occurs. It is absolutely devastating, and we have introduced effective legislation to deal with it. Of course, we are now taking further action designed to keep Australians and particularly women safe online. We have committed more than $100 million over the next three years for the eSafety Commissioner, and our new Online Safety Bill expands her powers and includes a new scheme to deal with serious cyberabuse directed at adults.</para>
<para>Today the tech industry's peak body had an op-ed in <inline font-style="italic">The Sydney Morning Herald</inline> essentially saying, 'We need more time to get the details right.' That's their commentary on our new legislation. I'm sorry to say that the tech sector has said this every time that we have sought to introduce new measures to keep Australians safe online. I can say very clearly to the House that when it comes to a choice between keeping Australians—overwhelmingly and particularly women and children—safe online and protecting the profits of big tech, the Morrison government will make one choice every time. We are determined to do what it takes to have the rule of law prevail online. We are determined to do what it takes to require that big tech does what is necessary to keep Australians safe online. Our eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, is leading that fight, and we are backing her all the way with more than $100 million in funding and strong new powers in our Online Safety Bill.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the reports that the government will introduce legislation to allow domestic violence victims to take $10,000 out of their superannuation. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he is asking victims of domestic violence to fund their own escape plans, increasing their likelihood of retiring in poverty, but won't support 10 days paid domestic violence leave?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. The measure she refers to was part of the first Women's Economic Security Statement, but there has been a second statement in the most recent budget. The purpose of both of those statements was to provide as much security as we possibly can through the various measures that were put in place through both of those packages. As to the measure which the member refers to, there is some draft legislation which has been issued. We've been consulting with various groups around the country on their views about that, and they've raised strong concerns about the nature of that measure. We're listening to those concerns, and that measure is now under review.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Agriculture Industry</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Will the minister outline to the House what action the Morrison government is taking to help address agriculture's workforce needs and to assist the industry to reach its $100 billion target by 2030?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Braddon for his question. The member represents a very large and very powerful agricultural region in Tasmania and he, like many regional MPs, understands the increasing challenges on our agricultural workforce. That's why, just under 16 months ago, the federal government launched John Azarias's inquiry into a workforce strategy, to ensure that we understood the skills required by the agriculture sector in order to grow to $100 billion. It's important to acknowledge and understand that agriculture not only relies on skilled labour but also has a heavy reliance on seasonal labour, and that has shown vulnerabilities, particularly throughout COVID-19.</para>
<para>Previously the industry relied on backpackers, the working holiday-makers. There were over 140,000 of them here before COVID-19; now there are under 40,000. That's why the government has tried to work collaboratively with the states in making sure that we have solutions to meet those seasonal requirements in the here and now. In August we reopened the Pacific and seasonal worker programs, understanding that we could do that in a COVID-safe way. We opened up the opportunity for 25,000 pre-vetted men and women from 10 Pacific nations to come into this country and work in agriculture, because we identified agriculture as a critical industry. Unfortunately there have only been 2,600 that have come into the country. We are working collaboratively with the states and encouraging them to look for new ways to bring in these workers, as they continue to maintain the quarantine protocols. Pleasingly the Prime Minister took to cabinet, only in the last couple of weeks, a new initiative, whereby the Chief Medical Officer put to national cabinet to allow in-country quarantining for citizens of Vanuatu and Fiji. This is a new initiative, which is possible because of the work that we've done with our Pacific family. I'm proud to say that the South Australian government has taken that initiative up. We would encourage the other states to follow.</para>
<para>I also acknowledge the work that the South Australian government has done in the last couple of days in announcing a quarantine hub for agricultural workers. They are working to bring an additional 1,200 workers into South Australia, in addition to their normal caps. This is an example which other states can follow. The federal government stands ready to stamp the visas once the quarantine protocols from the states are agreed. They have the power. We have the ability to stamp the visas. We will continue to work with the states, through the Azarias report, in making sure we continue to build the skills but also protect the workers that come into this country so that people can take up the opportunity to be part of an agricultural industry that will reach $100 billion.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Attorney-General</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister said the Attorney-General would not perform certain functions of his office. If the Prime Minister intends to allow the Attorney-General to resume his duties without an independent inquiry, will the Attorney-General be responsible for the Sex Discrimination Act?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer the member to the response I gave to these matters yesterday. I can advise the member that advice has been sought from the Solicitor-General in relation to the scope of the A-G's portfolio responsibilities in light of the defamation lawsuit. Once that advice is received, arrangements that are consistent with it will be put in place at the time of the A-G's return.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>HomeBuilder Program</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
    <electorate>Longman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the . Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government's HomeBuilder plan is creating new jobs in the housing and construction sector and generating housing confidence as we continue our comeback from the COVID-19 recession, and is the minister aware of any alternative policy approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Longman for his question. All Queensland MPs in particular—but also, I think, all other MPs in this House—understand just how successful the HomeBuilder program has been in igniting the residential construction industry throughout our country, in every major city, every regional centre and every small country town in Australia. In fact, in Queensland alone we have nearly 20,000 HomeBuilder projects, and nationally we have over 90,000 HomeBuilder projects, overwhelmingly being taken up by first-home buyers who are purchasing that typical house and land package—people entering their home for the first time. As the coalition government, we are the parties of first-home buyers, whether it's with the HomeBuilder program, whether it's with the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme or whether it's with the First Home Super Saver Scheme.</para>
<para>I remind the House that this time last year the residential construction industry was going to hit a cliff. New home sales had stopped virtually overnight. When we put HomeBuilder in place we were hoping to protect the up to one million jobs in the residential construction industry. Never did we think that the HomeBuilder program would not only support those million jobs but create new jobs. By the end of last year, new home sales were up by 32½ per cent. New home sales mean jobs for tradies on construction sites—whether we're talking about carpenters, plumbers or electricians—and in the entire supply chain, which includes the manufacturing workers who make the bricks, the tiles and the glass, and the timber workers who make the frames and the trusses.</para>
<para>I'm asked by the member whether there are any alternative policies. Shamefully, the Labor Party opposed the HomeBuilder program. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition, in describing HomeBuilder and talking about the first-home buyers who have been using HomeBuilder to buy new homes, said that all it would be good for was pearl taps and gold baths. This Leader of the Opposition is completely out of touch. He's so out of touch that he has not learnt his lesson. They're still attacking homeownership. I saw reports in the <inline font-style="italic">AFR</inline> just a couple of weeks ago that Labor's housing taxes, to quote the <inline font-style="italic">AFR</inline>, are not dead. So the Labor Party do not want to support the residential construction industry or first-home buyers, and they have not learnt their lesson. The coalition will always stand for the residential construction industry and new-home buyers. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Morrison</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>62</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>62</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Economy</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Rankin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The failure of the Government to provide adequate economic support to industries and regions which are still being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon all of those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are a million Australians still on the JobKeeper program, and this is a fact that the government do not want to concede. They tell us all about those who are no longer on JobKeeper but they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that, for a million Australians who face the government's JobKeeper cuts at the end of this month, these will be a very uncertain couple of weeks.</para>
<para>But instead of treating the million Australians on JobKeeper and all those at risk of losing their job as a human problem to be avoided, those opposite, as always, treat them as a political problem to be managed. We know this because the Treasurer told his party room yesterday, he told the politicians in the Liberal and Nationals party room, that they had to brace for a couple of difficult months because of the withdrawal of JobKeeper—because of the Treasurer's cuts to JobKeeper, the politicians on that side opposite have to brace for a couple of difficult months! Doesn't that just say everything about the government's approach to managing these issues politically, rather than understanding that joblessness, particularly that caused by cuts to JobKeeper, is a human problem which must be avoided?</para>
<para>What those opposite don't understand is that the future of JobKeeper, the future of those million Australians, is in the government's hands. So any job losses which flow from cuts to JobKeeper at the end of this month and in the subsequent months will be on their heads. Why they don't understand that is because the Treasurer cannot understand, from the leafy suburbs that he occupies, what life looks like and what life feels like for so many Australians who aren't enjoying the economic recovery that he congratulates himself for. He is so lost in self-congratulation and in taking credit for what the Australian people have achieved together by doing the right thing by each other during this pandemic—doing the right thing so that we can recover and so we can come out of this recession, the deepest most damaging recession in almost a century. He is so busy taking credit for that that he can't understand that some people are still doing it really tough. He is the poster child for a government with a big head and a very cold heart. We know that because no government which truly understood what is happening in the suburbs and towns of this country would be cutting JobKeeper at the end of this month.</para>
<para>Remember—and we remember—that those opposite said one of the reasons why they can cut JobKeeper at the end of this month is that they will have four million vaccinations out of the way. As The Shovel and others have pointed out on social media, they're approximately four million short of that four million target when it comes to vaccinations! So they are very quick to cut support out of the economy but very slow to deliver all of those vaccinations that they promised.</para>
<para>The Treasurer was at the BCA last night, and we support the fact he addressed the BCA last night. He talked about how there was a light at the end of the tunnel when it comes to this crisis. For those million Australians, that light at the end of the tunnel is a locomotive and it's coming at them very fast—the weekend after next!—where all of those people at risk of losing their jobs don't know what the future holds.</para>
<para>The reality is that if you cut JobKeeper in these uncertain times, you cut jobs. It's as simple as that. The Reserve Bank has warned, the OECD has warned and others have said a really big risk right now is declaring mission accomplished over this recession too soon and pulling the rug out from under small businesses too soon, before they have recovered sufficiently to hold onto their staff. It is true that the economy is recovering. To some extent that is inevitable, given the trough that we were in last year. With the reopening of state economies and all of the good work that Australians have done, as I said, there is a recovery from this recession. Every time there's a pleasing development in the economy, we have all welcomed it. We've said that's a good thing. At the same time as we've acknowledged the pleasing parts about this recovery, we've said that those opposite need to acknowledge the difficult parts as well. Those businesses impacted by distancing, those businesses impacted by the closure of the international border and all of the people that they employ are up for a very difficult period ahead. There's a lot of uncertainty in the economy still as we come out of this recession.</para>
<para>The labour market is in nowhere near good enough condition for those opposite to be patting themselves on the back. That's another point made by the Reserve Bank and others. We are nowhere near full employment; we have serious issues with wages; we have two million Australians who are either unemployed or can't find enough hours to support their loved ones. There's a million on JobKeeper, as I said, and millions more are dealing with stagnant wages, which have been a defining feature of the economy under those opposite, even before anyone had heard of coronavirus.</para>
<para>It remains to be seen how many jobs will be lost. This week, a number of my colleagues, in the context of their own communities, have asked: how many of the thousands of people being supported by JobKeeper in our electorates, in our communities, does the government expect will lose their jobs when the Treasurer and the Prime Minister cut JobKeeper at the end of the month? The Treasurer, of course, talks about those who are no longer on JobKeeper. That's one thing. But he cannot recognise the people who are still on it and still need that help. They talk about graduation day as if people who are losing their jobs or finding another job deserve a little hat to throw in the air at the end of the ceremony. Unfortunately, when it comes to the end of this month, too many Australians will graduate into joblessness and onto the JobSeeker payment because of the actions taken by those opposite.</para>
<para>We don't know how many that will be. The Treasury expects 100,000 people will hit the wall at the end of March and in the subsequent months. The Commonwealth Bank says it will be 110,000. One of Australia's most respected labour market economists said it could be anywhere up to 250,000. We hope that that's not the case. We genuinely hope we see nothing like that. But the risk is there, and those opposite are not doing anything to avoid that risk.</para>
<para>There is absolutely nothing which resembles a jobs plan to replace JobKeeper. As the member for Maribyrnong said on the TV and as a number of my colleagues have said in recent days, the tax cuts are no good to you if you don't have a job. JobMaker is no good if you are over 35; it deliberately excludes a million people from that program. The half-price airfares are nowhere near enough to save these jobs which are at risk. What we say to the Prime Minister is: dressing up as a pilot with a little pilot's hat and waving around a fake airline ticket is no substitute for the jobs plan and the JobKeeper extension that we need to make sure that people aren't thrown onto the scrap heap because of the decisions taken by those opposite. None of us have said that JobKeeper needs to be a permanent feature in the budget. We all recognise that, at some point, as JobKeeper tapers and as it's targeted, it will trail away. We've all said that, and it will be a good thing if the economy doesn't need JobKeeper anymore, but the truth is that it does. We understand that on this side, even if those opposite do not. The economy still needs JobKeeper. It needs to be targeted and responsible and temporary, but many are not yet ready to shed JobKeeper because that will mean shedding jobs.</para>
<para>That little ticket, which the Prime Minister waved around at that comical press conference that he had in the Qantas hangar with the little hat on, playing pilot and all the rest of it, is a ticket for joblessness for too many Australians. I'm distracted because of the references to <inline font-style="italic">Flying High</inline>, which I'm trying to avoid, in comments behind me! To make things worse, in the Senate this week—we are debating this at the moment—instead of a jobs plan, instead of something reasonable and responsible on JobKeeper, what have we got instead from those opposite? We've got cuts to wages, cuts to JobKeeper, cuts to super and some of the diabolical plans that the member for Dunkley asked about in question time today. This is the government's agenda. At the same time as they say that there's no blank cheque to support workers in our economy, we've got a budget which is absolutely riddled with rorts, top to bottom: dodgy deals for mates; sports rorts; a billion dollars in advertising; market research; the debacle which is the subs; taxpayer funded executive bonuses—the list goes on and on. These are the government's priorities: cuts to JobKeeper, cuts to wages, cuts to super and a budget riddled with rorts.</para>
<para>It's for us to decide what kind of future we have as we emerge from the deepest, most damaging recession in almost 100 years. What will determine the kind of recovery we have is the kinds of jobs that we create, and every single one of us on this side of the House want to see secure, well-paid jobs with fair conditions created as we come out of this recession. We don't want to see the defining features of the pre-COVID economy re-emerge with the weak wages and weak investment and all the rest of it. We will continue to be on the side of those workers and small businesses who need help for a little longer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We, as a government, have given unprecedented support to our economy over the last 12 months. These were unchartered waters. No-one really knew what the pandemic was going to do to the global economy. No-one knew what it was going to do to the local economy. We have given unprecedented assistance to businesses and employees across our country, and it has worked. That $250 billion has worked. Firstly, on the health front—and I will agree with the member for Rankin on this—we need to thank the Australian people for what they've done with hand hygiene, social distancing et cetera. On the health front, we have done very well during the pandemic. We just need to look at comparative figures from other countries to see how well we've done.</para>
<para>The member for Rankin prefaced the views of the RBA and a few other people. Economically, we are coming out of this COVID-led recession faster than they predicted. Business confidence, consumer confidence and the growth in our economy, as we saw in the December quarter figures that came out, are fast surpassing what even the RBA and most economists were predicting. The biggest issue we have in a lot of regions—I'm hearing about this anecdotally, and it is shown in figures as well—is staff shortages. The shortage is not only in the agriculture sector; it's across the whole gamut—trades, retail and hospitality. The biggest issue that business has raised with me is that they cannot find enough staff. That's well documented around many regions in our economy.</para>
<para>I know the member for Rankin focused on one thing, JobKeeper. I will speak about JobKeeper, but I'll also be speaking about a lot of ongoing support that isn't going anywhere. That support is going to be locked in, especially for areas and industries that still aren't operating as they can and should, like airlines and other related areas. JobKeeper was initially brought in for six months. At the start, we didn't know how this was going to play out. We brought JobKeeper in because we wanted the employee to keep a relationship with their employer. We brought it in for six months; it was going to end last September. Obviously, back then we weren't ready. So what did we, as a government, do? We extended it. Now, given how well we have grown out of this, given what the economic statistics have shown about our growth and confidence, and given the staff shortages that everyone tells us they have, we think that, with other ongoing support, the economy can cope with this.</para>
<para>One of the major things we are doing as a further boost to this support is cutting income tax. People talk about there being no wage increases. An income tax cut is a wage increase. That's flowing through, and there'll be more of that to come. In the past, we have also brought in small-business tax cuts. We realise that the private sector is the major job creator in this country. Just about everything we do, including what we announced in the budget last year and a lot of the other assistance measures we do, is about giving private businesses the confidence to invest in their business, their staff and their capital equipment. That's been shown, as I said, in consumer and business confidence and the growth that we have seen in our economy. I'm going to list a few of these, beginning with the JobMaker Hiring Credit scheme, which we announced in the budget last year. This was about what we saw and what we all worried about when went into the COVID-led recession. In past recessions, the people who suffered the most were our youth. The youth unemployment rate was the slowest to recover, because young people hadn't been trained or they didn't have a job to build a skill level through a really important stage in their life. So we brought in the JobMaker hiring credit, which gave $200 a week to employers who hire anyone between 18 and 30. That has been a major success.</para>
<para>The other thing that I mention nearly every time I get up here is the instant asset write-off, which we did a few years ago but we have now put on steroids. I think it's one of the best policies that we've ever initiated. This is where businesses can go away and make a capital purchase for their business. What does that do? It's a great initiative that encourages people to invest in their business. A lot of small businesses in my region love that policy. They keep talking about it. In the budget last year, we put it on steroids and lifted the amount you could buy and write off. We did that because we want people to keep their jobs. We want business to invest in their capital and their staff, and that has worked.</para>
<para>Another thing in the budget last year—the money is still flowing for this—was the $2 billion investment in R&D. What we've seen in this country, which the global pandemic showed us, is that we have to be as self-reliant as we can be, and R&D is a very important part of that. We brought in a $1.3 billion manufacturing plan, too, across six areas: defence, space, medicine, food, resources, technology and recycling and clean energy. Again, we're investing in this at a really important time, to make sure that people's jobs are as secure and safe as we can make them.</para>
<para>There's the apprenticeship scheme. What a great scheme this is. This filled up more quickly than we thought. Again, this is a subsidy; we will subsidise an apprentice's wage up to $7,000 a quarter. A hundred thousand places filled up like that! And we announced the extension of that just a number of weeks ago. So there isn't a vacuum going on here. Things are happening with JobKeeper and things are happening in other areas. There isn't a vacuum, in the sense that there's a lot of ongoing support happening in a lot of other regions to support jobs growth—for example, the apprenticeship scheme. It's a wonderful scheme. I saw the minister stand up earlier in question time. There's the HomeBuilder scheme. Again, builders were facing very uncertain times—as were all the apprenticeships and jobs around that—and the HomeBuilder scheme has been very important to that.</para>
<para>Then there are the infrastructure programs. Whether it be BBRF, whether it be skills packages, whether it be roads projects—these are happening across my region; they're happening across all regions throughout this country. With our local governments and local community organisations and some of the state governments, we're stimulating economic activity.</para>
<para>What has this all done? This hasn't happened by accident. I, too, thank the Australian people for what we've done on the health front—for what we did with hand hygiene, social distancing and everything else. We are seeing record consumer confidence. We are seeing great business confidence. In the Australian economy, we are seeing one of the highest levels of growth in the world right now—thank you to the Australian businesses who are doing this—because of the stimulus packages and the things that we're putting out there to encourage them to do that.</para>
<para>We aren't out of the woods yet, though. I understand that. There are certain areas and sectors that are still under threat. As mentioned earlier, a big one is, obviously, international travel. We are looking forward to the vaccine rollout not just in Australia but across the globe because, once that rolls out and there are enough critical numbers on that, we'll be able to travel and open up international borders.</para>
<para>Again, there's no vacuum here. There is ongoing assistance being provided. Just in the last week or so there was a further $1.2 billion for our aviation sector and the tourism sector related to that. Again, this was targeted at sections of our economy and sections of our country that are missing out, that were more focused and targeted towards international tourists. Again, that was announced just last week.</para>
<para>We had a fund at the height of COVID that we were using to target areas that were highly affected. I've got a list here. I won't read them all out because I'll run out of time. But, to give you some idea, there was RANS, which you'll be aware of, Deputy Speaker—the Regional Airline Network Support. Just last week we extended that program. What is that program? That's for the airlines deeply affected, especially in regional Australia. We knew we needed to keep our regional airlines operating. There were frontline workers and critical staff who had to be flown in to regional areas all around the country, and the airlines simply didn't have enough capability or capacity or demand to keep up. So the Regional Airline Network Support was a really important thing across regional Australia. Just last week that got extended, and that was really important. There was additional funding for the Export Market Development Grant Scheme, for aquariums, for shows and ag fields—we all remember that none of our field shows were held last year, so there was targeted assistance given to them as well. Our travel agents are doing it tough. Obviously they can't take international bookings. Just this week we announced a package to help them out. So there's a lot going on. We've done well so far but we do have more to do.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The problem that Australia is facing today, the biggest problem that we are facing today, is that we have a prime minister who sees every economic challenge as a marketing problem, and every human problem as a political problem. That is not good enough. We've got a prime minister who is always there for the photo op, always there for the big announcement, but, whenever responsibility needs to be taken for anything, this guy vanishes; he is nowhere to be seen. It's always somebody else's responsibility. Maybe he's blaming his staff, maybe he's blaming the states, but it's never this Prime Minister's responsibility.</para>
<para>And it's not as if we don't have some challenges, because we most certainly do. The minister has just said we're in uncharted waters. Well, yes, indeed we are. We are in uncharted waters and, unfortunately, we've got the crew from <inline font-style="italic">Gilligan's Island</inline> running the boat. This is a bloke who has not got a clue about what we're going to do with the 1.5 million Australians who are either out of work or are looking for work—and that number is going to be added to by over 100,000 in a few weeks time.</para>
<para>What is the plan? What is the idea? What is this government's great big plan to deal with that challenge, with that human challenge? 'We're going to cut your wages. We're going to cut your superannuation. We're going to cut your income support.' And we've heard this falsity that's being peddled that there are plenty of jobs out there but people won't take them. What is the ratio of people seeking a job to jobs? There are between 10 and 15 people looking for a job for every job vacancy in this country—and somehow that mob over there want to blame the people who can't find a job. Their great big plan is a letter-writing campaign. 'I know the way we're going to fix this. We'll cut your income support and make you write 20 letters every month to an employer who hasn't got a job available or has a job you don't have the skills to fill.' Their great big plan for the economic challenge is a letter-writing campaign. These guys are a joke.</para>
<para>Business investment is coming back, the minister just told us. Business is confident and investment's coming back. Memo to the minister: business investment is at a 25-year low. Businesses have worked you lot out. You haven't got a plan. You haven't got a clue what to do. Once the press release is done and the cameras have vanished, you guys are clueless. You're onto the next thing—cut superannuation, cut income support, roll back the recommendations of the royal commission. If there were ever a time that we should be learning from the lessons of the past and ensuring that our banks and our finance companies are acting responsibly, it is right now, when we're trying to drag ourselves out of an economic recession. But your big plan is to roll back the very first recommendation of the Hayne royal commission. It's not like it was a big obligation: banks must lend responsibly. But somehow your answer to the economic recession, your answer to the lowest level of business investment in over 45 years, is easy credit, cheap credit and relaxing lending standards. We do not need a crystal ball to work out what will happen here. You need a history book. Look at what happened over the last 10 years, when relaxed lending standards led to reckless lending, with farmers and businesses losing their businesses, their houses and their properties. This is their big plan for the future of the economy.</para>
<para>They went to the last election saying they had a better deal for mum-and-dad investors—that they were going to stand up for the interests of mum-and-dad investors. Remember that? There wouldn't be a member in this place who didn't receive an email from this mob, saying that they were going to protect the interests of mum-and-dad investors. But this week we have a bill before the Senate which gives permission to directors to pull the wool over the eyes of mum-and-dad investors. They don't have to tell their mum-and-dad investors the material effects of what's going on inside the businesses that they are running. This mob pretend they're running the economy in the interests of business, but they haven't got a clue. They haven't got a clue and they've dropped the interests of small investors like a hot, mouldy potato.</para>
<para>So let's not have any of this nonsense. This is a Prime Minister who is always there to make the big announcement, but, when you look behind it, there's a cardboard cut-out; there's nothing there. There is no plan for the future, and it's ordinary Australians who are suffering as a result. There are 1.5 million Australians out of work or looking for more work, and this mob haven't got a clue about what to do with them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That was just fantastic, wasn't it! 'The member for Whitlam hasn't got a clue' was his key message. Isn't it fascinating—when the Labor Party decide to bring an MPI to this chamber, they put forward speakers that are clearly economically illiterate. You would've thought that, as the member for Whitlam had five minutes, he would've actually mentioned one point relating to the Australian economy. Instead, it was frothing at the mouth—the usual rant that comes from not just the member for Whitlam but indeed most of those on the other side when they actually have to talk about economics.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>'Tell us about economics,' they call. Well, let me tell you a little bit about the Australian economy. The Australian economy is one of the few in the world to have reaffirmed its AAA credit rating. The Australian economy has now seen the unemployment rate drop to 6.4 per cent. For the Australian economy, the last quarterly results showed a growth rate of 3.1 per cent. The Australian economy sees consumer confidence and business confidence up. Our economy is back to recovery. And the member for Whitlam is leaving the chamber to look up an economics textbook! God bless you, my peer.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Whitlam will leave the chamber quietly if he's going.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So here's the thing: the Labor Party will rant and they will froth, but the one thing they cannot produce is one skerrick of evidence to suggest that the coalition government has not done a competent job in managing the greatest threat to our economy since the Great Depression. That is why, when you look at the scoreboard, you see those economic outcomes.</para>
<para>From the very beginning, the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the team have made it clear that our economic response to this dual crisis of health and the economy is based on three principles: our response will be targeted, it will be temporary and it will be commensurate. The good thing about what you have with a coalition government is the consistency of our approach. Those three principles have driven the coalition government's response to COVID-19, and they continue to drive it.</para>
<para>That is why, indeed, unlike those opposite, we celebrate companies graduating from JobKeeper. The opposition don't. The shadow Treasurer stood here, putting forward his case for this MPI, criticising businesses for graduating from JobKeeper. Despicable! A despicable presentation! What it goes to is the problem with the Labor Party, which is inherently anti the private sector. Clearly, they don't want businesses to graduate; they want businesses to continue to rely on the taxpayer. But taxpayer money is not the plaything of the Labor Party. Taxpayer money is not the plaything of government. It might be the way that Labor heavies run the union movement, but it is not the way responsible governments manage the books—the money of the taxpayers.</para>
<para>This is why, where there are some targeted supports required, this government continues to step up. It is why last week we saw over $1 billion allocated to aviation and tourism, with half-price airfares, ensuring that people in that sector—who will indeed continue to feel the pain—get that targeted, temporary, proportionate response, that support, because that's the only way that we can ensure that the Australian economy gets back and we can continue our recovery.</para>
<para>We know, as do those opposite, despite their complaints today, that the Australian people and Australian businesses are doing a wonderful job, and this government is supporting them. Over 13 per cent of GDP is the value of the support from the Australian government. As to my state of Queensland, if you look at the Queensland Labor government, their support comes in at two per cent of their GSP. Let me say that again for those opposite, who don't understand maths all that well: 13 per cent is higher than two per cent—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So: the Commonwealth government's support package is 13 per cent of our GDP; the Queensland state government's is a measly two per cent. And the Labor Party have the hide to criticise the Liberal-National government for their contribution! What a joke! <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Some 172,000 Queensland workers are expected to lose JobKeeper at the end of this month. That's $83 million in support that's going to be ripped away from the Queensland economy. So yesterday in question time I asked on behalf of my workers in Lilley—5,500 of whom are still reliant on JobKeeper, amounting to $3 million in support—what would happen to them when JobKeeper was ripped away. The Treasurer's answer was that the market would look after them now. Like a nurturing mother, the market was going to sweep in and look after us and I shouldn't worry my pretty little head about it, because it would all be sorted out. Can't understand maths—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Ted O'Brien interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Fairfax will leave the chamber quietly.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>See you later! 'Leave it to the menfolk. It's all under control. Don't worry your pretty little head about it.' But when they say 'leave it to the market', do you know what they actually mean?</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Bell interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I'll take that interjection. The member for Moncrieff said, 'Shame on the member for Dunkley for her question,' and then the Prime Minister agreed with the member for Dunkley. So learn your lesson. Honestly!</para>
<para>When the Treasurer answered yesterday that the market would look after our workers, it was code for 'they're going to get the sack'. That was what the code was. When the Treasurer said the market would look after them, he meant, 'You'll probably get the sack, but I'm not going to be honest enough to tell you that directly.' The reason we know that is that yesterday, on the same day, locally on Facebook on the north side of Brisbane, an ad was posted by Services Australia. The ad said, 'JobKeeper is ending, but we can help you sign up for JobSeeker.' How supportive! There's that nurturing support coming from the government: 'You're off to JobSeeker.' It isn't good enough! How dare you mutter and shrug your shoulders and scoff and talk to yourself—with all your friends—about how disgraceful it is for us to hold you to account? The job of opposition is actually to hold you to account. I'm sorry if it makes you feel uncomfortable that you're receiving a little bit of scrutiny for all of the incompetence that has been going on in your government, but that is our job and that is what Australians want us to do, and I'm very pleased to be back in this place to do it.</para>
<para>I think, after seven years, the LNP has lost sight of what is basic, core bread-and-butter business for a government, which is to make sure that their people, the people who elect them to office, have a roof over their heads and food on the table and can feed their kids at the end of the day. That is what this plan—ripping away JobKeeper before the vaccine rollout is completed—fails to do. It fails to do the very core business that they were entrusted to complete. It's an absolute outrage that they sit there and do not acknowledge that that is what their plan does. The Treasurer, in fact, seems to expect some kind of gratitude from the rest of us who have been elected to represent our people that he's leaving it to the market to look after.</para>
<para>Speaking of the Treasurer, I've contacted the Treasurer requesting a meeting to discuss how this government is going to better support north-side jobs and I'm still waiting for a response. I suspect I may wait forever. I particularly want to speak to the Treasurer about our aviation industry, because I represent 6,600 aviation workers on the north side of Lilley, mostly based at Brisbane Airport. Their livelihoods have been decimated by this government's failure to provide them with the specific, targeted support spoken of by the speaker before me for aviation workers. I wrote to the PM and the Deputy PM asking for specific support for aviation workers and their families back in March 2020. I met with the DPM about it. Their response was that they've already done enough. Let's reflect on what 'enough' looks like on the ground. In May 5,500 dnata workers were told that they were ineligible for JobKeeper because they were employed by a foreign owned company, despite many of them working for 20 years in the same job on the same shift with nothing changing except the name at the top of the masthead and on a letterhead somewhere far from their workplace. Not long after that, Virgin collapsed, putting 10,000 direct jobs and 6,000 indirect jobs at risk. At the start of August, Virgin confirmed that it would cut 3,000 jobs, one-third of its workforce, in order to stay afloat. Later in August, Qantas announced that it was outsourcing 2,500 baggage handlers. Let's take a moment to recognise that: Qantas no longer has baggage handlers in Australia. They've outsourced those jobs, taking secure, permanent, good employment away from Australian workers to create new insecure casual jobs to save money.</para>
<para>On the back of this devastation in my community, you'll have to excuse me for not accepting the Treasurer's response: 'The free market is going to take care of north-side workers when JobKeeper is axed in 11 days.' They've racked up over a trillion dollars in debt but can't spare $3 million to keep north-side workers afloat. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DRUM</name>
    <name.id>56430</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks to the member for Rankin. This is a great opportunity to talk about what the government has done when faced with these challenges that have been presented to us by COVID. Certainly, the JobKeeper program has been put in place to assist and help in conjunction with JobSeeker—the greatest stimulus and greatest support package this nation has ever seen. JobKeeper was always—always—going to be temporary. As previous speakers have said, it was put in place initially for six months. When we realised that the crisis was not going to abate within the six months, it was extended to 12 months. But, at some stage, we have to wean the nation off JobKeeper and off the JobSeeker supplements that are associated with our Newstart allowances. That's what we're trying to do in the very best way and in a way that keeps everybody's interests to the fore.</para>
<para>As previous speakers have said, there is this debate being put forward by the Labor Party that somehow or other we have vacated the situation. There's some idea that we don't know how to assist and how to stimulate the economy. These are the figures that have been put forward in the last two weeks by the Treasurer about the way that the economy is coming back: a 3.2 per cent increase in the economy bouncing back from where it was, and, on the previous indicators as well, it was 3.1 per cent bouncing back before that. We are finding that the economy is on its way back and, yes, it's coming back from substantial lows, but we are doing so much better than nearly every country that we compare ourselves to.</para>
<para>The Labor Party would just like to compare us with the fairies. They come up with their own figures about how they would like to see the economy. That's fine for them, but you've got to have a dance with reality every now and again, and, when you are faced with reality, you can see that Australia is in a responsible and quite positive position. Yes, we've got a lot more to do, but the reality also is that these jobs that are out there at the moment—certainly in hospitality—are real jobs. You've only got to go onto seek.com to see how many positions of chef are available at the moment or how many positions of restaurant manager are available at the moment. So we're not talking about being a farmhand or a fruit picker. We're not talking about working in abattoirs. We're talking about jobs in hospitality. We're talking about jobs in the trades. So, all of a sudden, with these jobs that have incredible esteem, for some reason in Australia we are struggling to fill these positions.</para>
<para>This is not something that we are making up; just go on to your iPads, go to seek.com, and have a look at how many jobs are out there that as yet are unfilled week on week on week. So we have to balance that up as we keep trying to assist and help and support people without work. We have to keep balancing up the concept that there are so many jobs out there in Australia right now that are not being picked up by the people who are currently receiving the benefits. It seems to be only the coalition that wants to talk about this balance that we have to achieve. There are the ideas associated with the support packages that we have been putting in place, like the HomeBuilder program. In my electorate—and this is consistent with most electorates now—builders have got themselves booked out for 2021. If you're building in the domestic market, the chances are you're now trying to book in houses for 2022. It's been a stunning success. Also, on top of that is the tax assistance we've been giving businesses. Being able to take the instant asset write-off to, effectively, as much as you can afford has given businesses the greatest incentive of all to reinvest in themselves. When businesses reinvest in themselves, what they do is put additional staff on and they keep driving their business to a higher level.</para>
<para>Again, this MPI that has been put forward fails to have any sense of reality about what's really going on in Australia at the moment. It's a very, very challenging time, where we have to continue to train our own and help create more jobs. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians have been rickrolled by this Prime Minister. He has given up on them, he has let them down and it's clear that the government will hurt Western Australians at any opportunity. In Western Australia, just 22,944 vaccines have been administered. The government have known for more than a year that they would need to administer a vaccine program in every state of the Commonwealth. At one point it might have been that they didn't know what to do, because Gladys Berejiklian had a whisper in the Prime Minister's ear and said, 'I think you should put New South Wales ahead of the queue'—here's the article where she said, 'I think we should put New South Wales ahead of the queue.' But we still wait, day after day.</para>
<para>Then, today, we saw in the <inline font-style="italic">West Australian</inline> newspaper, a great newspaper, Senator Michaelia Cash saying, 'The coalition stands behind its record.' Well, it's good that she's standing behind their record rather than behind a whiteboard. Their record in Western Australia is terrible. We have the fake money promised by the member for Tangney for the Roe 8 project.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Morton</name>
    <name.id>265931</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You want to reallocate fake money, do you? What do you want to reallocate it to, if it's fake?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We've had the fake money for the Roe 8, we've got the fake tradie, we've got the fake coalminer over in the Senate and now we have the fake PM with his fake airline ticket to support the tourism industry. The tourism industry have seen through this fake support. We know that it does nothing for Perth, for the hotels in Perth that are doing it tough and are about to have JobKeeper ripped away. It does nothing for the South West. I'll quote the Tourism Council of WA CEO, Evan Hall, who said about this policy, this government's policy, which is supposed to support the tourism industry: 'This is a devastating blow.' He said it is a devastating blow for the tourism industry, at a time when you have a lot of businesses looking to close their doors at the end of JobKeeper. This is someone who's actually in touch with what is happening and with what is likely to happen when, in my electorate, 8,000 people have JobKeeper ripped away in 11 days time. The Tourism Council says, when it comes to Western Australia, 'We are an afterthought at best.'</para>
<para>I heard the assistant minister speaking before, and he said that the biggest issue facing Australia is staff shortages. If they think the biggest issue in Australia right now is staff shortages, I will quote from <inline font-style="italic">Flying High</inline> and say, 'Surely you can't be serious.' I would have thought that jobs for the unemployed would be a bigger issue. I would have thought ending gender based violence would be a bigger issue. I would have thought rolling out the vaccine would be a bigger issue for this government. But no. Apparently the biggest issue they face is staff shortages.</para>
<para>When it comes to this government and its capacity to support the economy in a really difficult time, it's really great at promising things and then, quietly, off in the background, campaigning against them. Take Senator Dean Smith, the Western Australian senator. You'd remember that former Senator Cormann announced the Perth City Deal: a $1.5 billion investment, including an investment in Edith Cowan University, in my electorate. But then what arrived in the letterbox of my constituents from Liberal Senator Dean Smith? A letter campaigning against the relocation of ECU Mount Lawley, something that his own government announced and is funding. No wonder that, when it comes to the fake announcements we get from this fake Prime Minister, people have a little bit of scepticism about what's going to happen.</para>
<para>But I'll tell you what's not fake. What is not fake is that we're going to see 8,000 people in my electorate lose JobKeeper at the end of this month. That's $3.9 million a week in support being taken out of my local economy. Across Western Australia, 75,000 workers are still relying on JobKeeper. These jobs exist because of that financial support. I remember when the government said that we didn't need a wage subsidy, and they were wrong. Now they're cutting it again, saying, 'We don't need the wage subsidy anymore.'</para>
<para>This government learned last year to backflip. I really do hope that, if things do not turn out as planned and, if, indeed, there are further job losses when they tear away this vital economic support, they see a way through, put their ideology at the door and support workers. Western Australia missed out because of sports rorts, we missed out because of the Safer Communities Fund rorts and now we're missing out because of the Prime Minister's colour coded travel map. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Those on the other side of the chamber don't get what business is about. They don't understand business. They don't know what a BAS statement is or how long it takes a small-business owner to fill in a BAS statement every month or quarter. They don't know how to run a budget, on that side. The thought of those on the other side being in charge of our budget as we come out of this coronavirus pandemic—can you imagine the absolute train wreck—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Moncrieff will pause. Members on my left will cease to interject, and, if the member for Solomon is not taking a seat, he will either leave the chamber or cease to interject. The member for Moncrieff.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have three words for Australians and those opposite: coronavirus recovery plan. Not only do those opposite not know how to fill in a BAS statement but also they don't know how to plan their way through a twin crisis—a health crisis and an economic crisis. They wouldn't have any idea how to plan through that.</para>
<para>I want to talk about the economic recovery that the member for Rankin doesn't want to talk about, because the national accounts show that the Morrison government's economic recovery plan is working. Those on the other side don't want to hear that it's working. The member for Rankin just wants the Treasurer's job. Can you imagine if he were in charge of this country in the position we're currently facing? The good news is that in the December quarter Australia enjoyed economic growth of 3.1 per cent, significantly beating market expectations of 2.5 per cent. Who did that? That would be the Treasurer of our great country leading us through this pandemic and out the other side. That's two consecutive quarters of economic growth in Australia of more than three per cent.</para>
<para>For the first time in Australian recorded history we've had two quarters of economic growth of more than three per cent. That's quite an achievement, don't you think? At the moment, under duress, in the situation that this country's in, that is the result. I think that's extraordinary. Australians across our great nation think that's extraordinary. It is a long way from two negative quarters of growth, and we on this side of the chamber know that two negative quarters of growth equals recession.</para>
<para>An opposition member interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A member opposite said, 'Everyone knows that!' No, everybody doesn't know that. Those on the other side don't know that. They don't know how to fill out a BAS. They don't know the difficulties of small business across Australia. The Australian economy has recovered 85 per cent.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left, particularly the member for Dunkley, will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia's response to this twin health and economic crisis has been very successful. The UK, for example, contracted by 9.9 per cent; Italy contracted by 8.9 per cent; France contracted by 8.2 per cent; Canada contracted by five per cent; Japan contracted by 4.8 per cent; and the United States of America contracted by 3.3 per cent. Where is Australia, to those opposite? Australia contracted by only 2.5 per cent. There's silence from the other side of the chamber now. We're right at the very top of the ladder. We are in a very good position.</para>
<para>Our country is leading the way and our Treasurer is leading the way. Direct economic support from the federal government halved in the December quarter, yet, at the same time, the economy grew. That means it went up—by 3.1 per cent. It grew. There were 320,000 new jobs added to the economy. There were 2.1 million Australian workers who graduated off JobKeeper. The private sector's going to look after those people. Ninety per cent of jobs—for those opposite, if you're listening—come from the private sector. They come from small business and medium business, or SMEs. And they are graduating off JobKeeper all the time. I hear it from my electorate. I hear about HomeBuilder and how that's keeping the construction industry going. They say on the other side we're not helping industry. What about construction? There's Homebuilder. What about JobKeeper? That goes across all of industry and all of business. What about the tourism recovery package we just announced last week? On the Gold Coast, $1.2 billion— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What an impassioned performance from the member for Moncrieff! Congratulations, but I do have to pick up on a few of the points she made. Gold standard? Really? Gold standard of what? We heard that there are three words to describe the Morrison government's economic record. I've got three words to describe that record: one trillion dollars. That's debt.</para>
<para>There are too many people who are being left behind by the government. They just want to pretend that the pandemic is over and that it's business as usual. But, for my community, that is far from the truth. I've spoken most recently with a number of people who are very anxious about what their lives are going to look like over the coming year. Local businesses in Jagajaga have been relying on JobKeeper. In my electorate, almost 10,000 workers are expected to lose JobKeeper at the end of this month, with $4.8 million a week in support being ripped away from our local economy by this government. That is serious stuff. I have spent a lot of time in the past month talking with small businesses in my electorate who are on the edge. This pandemic is not over for them. They have not recovered. They know that they have been doing everything they can to keep their businesses going and to keep their employees on the books through what has been an incredibly difficult time. They also know that they are not through the woods yet. But the message they get from this government, who is planning to rip away JobKeeper from them, is that it's done. You're on your own. I know all these things because I've been talking with businesses in my electorate. But this government seems to have a tin ear when it comes to actually talking to small business.</para>
<para>I would like to draw your attention to some correspondence I've received from someone who lives in my electorate but whose business is based in the Treasurer's electorate. His businesses is based in Camberwell, Victoria, and he tells me that he employs 19 staff, seven of whom live in my electorate. This is what Miki has to say about his business:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My business has suffered severe consequences as a result of Covid-19 like many business in Australia. Our revenue has been down by more than 30% each month since March last year and despite this I am happy to say we have been able to keep all our staff on during these hard times. We have not reduced their salaries, hours etc. These staff are connected to 19 families who have in turn approx. 17 children.</para></quote>
<para>So Miki is doing the right thing by his employees. But then he tells me:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Where our problem lies is that despite meeting all the qualifying criteria for Job Keeper and most other Government forms of stimulus there is one test that we have not been able to pass simply because of a definition.</para></quote>
<para>The member for Moncrieff mentioned BAS statements and her understanding of them, so I'll put this to the member for Moncrieff. Miki says that his business is a finance company and finance does not attract GST. So therefore, when he completes his BAS return, he doesn't declare any GST revenue, because he's not input taxed. For this reason, he is not eligible for JobKeeper for his business.</para>
<para>As I said, his business is based in the Treasurer's electorate, and he has written to the Treasurer a number of times asking for assistance for his business, asking for the Treasurer to give assistance so that he can keep all his staff on. And do you know what's happened? Has he had a meeting with the Treasurer? Has the Treasurer helped him out? No, he hasn't. He says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We have even tried on many occasions written to the Hon Josh Frydenberg who is the local member of where our business is located in Camberwell. After months of non-responsiveness I finally decided to personally visit his office last week and spoke to a couple of his staff—</para></quote>
<para>So thank you to those staff for trying to help, but he still has not been able to get help from the Treasurer. He says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">To say we have been disappointed with how his office has handled our situation would be a gross understatement!</para></quote>
<para>Again, these are businesses in the Treasurer's own electorate that this government is not listening to. You don't know—you don't understand what is going on in our communities. They still need support and you are ripping it away. On behalf of this business and on behalf of the other small businesses in my electorate that this government is ignoring, I ask you to do more. I ask you to support them, to support jobs, to support families. Don't walk away.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Husic</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I didn't want to interrupt the previous speaker, but during—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member has a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Husic</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. I would ask the assistant minister to withdraw an unparliamentary remark he made about the Queensland Premier during the course of the contribution of the member for Jagajaga.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I didn't hear the unparliamentary remark.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Howarth interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Husic</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Either way, it was an unparliamentary remark, and I think you should withdraw it, with respect.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Howarth interjecting—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Husic interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Chifley won't argue across the table. Did the assistant minister make an unparliamentary remark?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Howarth</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, I was talking about a Victorian Premier. It wasn't unparliamentary about anyone in the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Did the assistant minister—</para>
<para>A government member: Ed, you're supposed to ask at the time that they do it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Lindsay.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McINTOSH</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's fantastic that the member for Chifley is in here again listening to another opportunity where I can talk about what I'm doing in Western Sydney, particularly when it comes to backing manufacturing. We all know the facts are in the numbers, and the numbers are high in Lindsay, with 600 manufacturers. I think the numbers are so low for the member for Chifley, I can't even remember what they were. There is a great opportunity to talk about supporting industries because we're not only supporting them in Western Sydney; we are actually creating industries, particularly when it comes to advanced manufacturing, and ensuring our manufacturers have lower energy prices, unlike those opposite.</para>
<para>At the last election, Labor's failed energy policies included a 45 per cent emission reduction target that we know was going to slash jobs and slash industries like manufacturing. We still have the same old Labor putting together incoherent energy and climate policies. As the member for Hunter put it:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… after 14 years of trying, the Labor Party has made not one contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in this country.</para></quote>
<para>Only the Morrison government can deliver affordable, reliable energy for our manufacturing industry in Western Sydney—and it's not just me saying this. John from ACO Australia in Emu Plains joined me and the Prime Minister for our manufacturing roundtable because the Prime Minister, like me, is a very passionate about ensuring we're backing Aussie manufacturers in Lindsay and Western Sydney. ACO predominantly uses gas to power their plant, manufacturing items for use in the construction industry—another industry that the Morrison government is backing. John noted the recent decrease in their gas costs has improved the efficiency of their business. This is part of a consistent drop in their gas expenses over the last year, going from almost $10,000 per month in early 2020, down to around $7,000—a saving of $3,000 this year. John told me that this is allowing ACO to invest more into their business. The more they can invest into their business, the more local jobs they can create. This is how delivering affordable, reliable energy gives manufacturers in Lindsay, and right across Australia, the certainty to reinvest into their business so they can scale up and be competitive on the global stage.</para>
<para>We are backing the manufacturing industry. At my manufacturers' roundtable, 30 manufacturers from right across Lindsay spoke to the Prime Minister and me, and it was really a testament to how our national policies are working on the ground. I've got some great feedback from some of our local manufacturers, including Tracy, the Managing Director of Plustec. She is a proud Aussie manufacturer and she has also used another policy of ours, the instant asset write-off, which has enabled her to purchase equipment that she needs to scale up, to expand, and to create more local jobs. She told me and the Prime Minister how the instant asset write-off is making the processes in her business more efficient, streamlining the production and allowing her to reinvest more in her business.</para>
<para>It's not only manufacturing that we're investing in in Western Sydney. We're not only supporting this industry but growing and creating a new industry in advanced manufacturing. We're also investing in local jobs when it comes to the construction industry, when it comes to everything around Western Sydney international airport. This is where the new opportunities are coming in advanced manufacturing.</para>
<para>I'm really pleased to say that we're supporting industries out there and local jobs so much that already the Western Sydney airport are almost doubling their local employment targets through the construction phase. A great local small-business owner, Frank, the managing director of Two Way Cranes, based in Western Sydney, told me how proud he is to be part of this project. He said: 'Securing the crane hire contract for Western Sydney airport was one of the highlights of my business career. The project has enabled me to look further into the future, order new cranes and hire more employees. Most of my current employees and staff were born and raised in Western Sydney, and we all enjoy working on the project.' Two Way Cranes are also engaging local businesses throughout their work on site, further supporting our economy and local jobs.</para>
<para>We're investing in Western Sydney airport to create the jobs of the future, to back our local industry, to back our local small businesses and to even create a new industry in advanced manufacturing. This is all about local people and supporting local jobs.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The discussion has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>72</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Road Safety Joint Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>72</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Small has been appointed a member of the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights Committee</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>73</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Human rights scru</inline><inline font-style="italic">tiny report: r</inline><inline font-style="italic">eport 3 of 2021</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I am pleased to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' third scrutiny report of 2021. As usual, this report contains a technical examination of legislation with Australia's obligations under international human rights law. In this report the committee considered 11 new bills and 52 new legislative instruments. The committee is seeking further information in relation to two new bills, has commented on one new bill and has concluded its examination of two bills previously considered.</para>
<para>In particular, the committee is seeking further information in relation to the Online Safety Bill 2021, which would establish a new legislative framework for online safety in Australia, helping to regulate online content that's harmful against children and adults. Overall, the committee has found that this bill is likely to promote a range of important human rights, including the rights of women, the rights of the child and the rights to privacy and reputation. Regulating and disabling access to certain harmful online content also necessarily limits the right to freedom of expression. In the main, these appear to be reasonable and permissible limits on this right; however, the committee is seeking further information in relation to the potential scope of specific powers to regulate certain content and the eSafety Commissioner's information-sharing powers.</para>
<para>The committee has also concluded its consideration of the Migration and Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Information Provisions) Bill 2020. The bill seeks to introduce a framework to protect the disclosure of confidential information provided by intelligence and law-enforcement agencies where it is used for certain migration and citizenship decisions. By restricting a person's access to information relevant to the decision which affects them, the bill limits the right to a fair hearing and the prohibition against expulsion of aliens without due process. The committee considers that the bill pursues the legitimate objective of upholding law-enforcement and intelligence capabilities; however, the committee is concerned that the bill does not contain sufficient safeguards to protect these rights. For example, the court is prohibited from considering procedural fairness in deciding whether to disclose information to the applicant and their lawyer. I think it's important that, where a bill has significant human rights implications, the committee draw these to the attention of parliament but also, where it is possible to do so, make constructive suggestions as to how the bill might be amended to be more compatible with human rights. In this case, the committee has suggested a number of amendments that it considers would assist with the proportionality of the measure.</para>
<para>Likewise, in its concluding comments on the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020, the committee has suggested amendments to improve the bill's compatibility with human rights. This bill seeks to introduce new online warrant powers to disrupt crime and gather intelligence and evidence of criminal activity. The committee notes that, to the extent that the measures would facilitate the investigation, disruption and prevention of serious crime, the bill would promote several human rights. However, it also limits rights, particularly the right to privacy. The committee considers that the bill contains some important safeguards but considers that, without amendment, these safeguards may not be sufficient in all circumstances.</para>
<para>I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's analysis. With these comments, I commend the report to the chamber.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Works Committee</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>73</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
    <electorate>O'Connor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the 84th annual report and Report No. 2 of 2021, concerning referrals made in November and December 2020.</para>
<para>Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—The 84th annual report of the committee reflects on the work conducted by the Public Works Committee in 2020. Despite the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the committee's work, it was another busy year. Having moved to conducting most of its business via teleconference, during the time the committee inquired into 13 projects with a combined estimated value of more than $2.28 billion, tabled six reports and one annual report, examined 120 medium works proposals with a combined value of more than $807 million and held 32 meetings by teleconference or in person, depending on COVID-19 restrictions.</para>
<para>Recognising that the work of the committee could impact on construction activities around Australia, down to the level of subcontractors in small towns, the committee made a decision to prioritise its work and work with proponent entities to schedule hearings and complete its scrutiny and finalise reports as efficiently as possible. The committee would like to thank the Department of Finance who were able to ensure that the important work of the committee could continue via a provision in the act which enables the Governor-General to refer a public work to the committee. The committee also appreciates the cooperation of all entities in their flexibility and understanding in 2020, as this greatly assisted the committee in continuing to conduct its work.</para>
<para>Report No. 2 of 2021 considers three proposals: one referred to the committee in November 2020 and two referred in December 2020. The total value of the proposed works for the three projects is $79.22 million, with the projects being undertaken in Perth, Brisbane and Sydney.</para>
<para>The first chapter of the report contains the report of the inquiry into the CSIRO's proposed Perth precinct project with an estimated cost of $18.7 million, excluding GST. The CSIRO sought approval from the committee to refurbish its Kensington and Waterford sites to accommodate the arrival of staff from its underutilised site in Floreat. The project is the first step towards consolidation, with further efficiencies to be delivered by future projects, guided by the CSIRO Perth master plan.</para>
<para>The second chapter of report No. 2 contains the report of an inquiry into Airservices Australia's proposed Brisbane Air Traffic Services Centre and Control Tower Complex refurbishment, with an estimated cost of $35.7 million, excluding GST. The project will provide space to accommodate the relocation and integration of the Defence air traffic control approach services from Darwin and Townsville Air Force bases into the Brisbane complex.</para>
<para>The final chapter of report No. 2 contains the report of the inquiry into Airservices Australia's proposed Sydney airport tower refurbishment, with an estimated cost of $24.8 million, excluding GST. The project will allow for current generation technology to be upgraded to new integrated tower automation suite technology and address a number of mechanical, structural and safety shortcomings. The tower will remain fully operational throughout the works, and the heritage value of the tower will be maintained.</para>
<para>I'd just like to take the opportunity to thank all the committee members for their work during 2020, and particularly the former chair, the Hon. John McVeigh, who, as we all know, retired from this place in September last year. I'd also like to thank the committee secretariat for their work, particularly the committee secretary, Pauline Cullen; inquiry secretary, Klara Fay; Tanya Pratt, the office manager; and all others who contributed to the work of the committee throughout 2020. Thank you very much.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>74</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6674" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>74</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With this Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill, the Liberals, under Scott Morrison, are attacking the rights of every shareholder in Australia, and they're doing it all because of an infinitesimally small number of class actions. The Treasurer actually says, in his own explanatory memorandum, that the main impact of these changes will be to reduce the amount of time that companies and company officers must spend on ensuring that they have complied with their obligations to provide accurate and timely information to shareholders. Heaven forbid that company officers spend time on ensuring that they are making timely and accurate disclosures to shareholders!</para>
<para>This bill is bad news for Australian shareholders and it is bad news for the Australian economy. Mum-and-dad investors, self-funded retirees and other individuals across Australia make life-changing investment decisions on the basis of what they are told by companies and by company directors. Australian investors know that they can generally rely on what they are told because the laws introduced by the Howard government impose strict disclosure requirements on companies and company directors. Not anymore, if the Morrison government gets its way. The changes proposed by the Morrison government would put the narrow self-interest of a tiny number of individual company directors above the interests of millions of mum-and-dad investors and self-funded retirees and of large institutional investors.</para>
<para>According to a survey conducted by major commercial law firm King & Wood Mallesons, these changes do not even appear to be supported by a majority of senior company directors. The Mallesons survey asked 195 company directors and senior executives about the Morrison government's temporary changes to continuous disclosure laws. Only 11.3 per cent said that they relied upon those changes, and almost 80 per cent said that the changes should not be made permanent.</para>
<para>Why would the vast majority of company directors and senior executives oppose the Morrison government's attempt to make it easier for people like them to mislead or withhold important information from shareholders? My theory is that it's because most company directors understand that Australia's strict continuous disclosure laws are ultimately good for everyone. They make Australian companies more attractive to investors, including international investors, and so make it easier for Australian companies to attract capital. In other words, Australia's strict continuous disclosure laws make it easier for company directors to do the job that they are there to do, and that is to promote the interests of shareholders. I also think that most company directors in Australia do the right thing and have no problem with laws that require them to do no more than the right thing, and that is to provide shareholders with timely and accurate information about the company they've invested their money in.</para>
<para>It must come as a shock to the Morrison government to learn that there are people out there in the Australian community who are happy to do the right thing and who actually have no problem with laws that keep them accountable! This is a foreign idea to the Morrison government, which is a government at war with transparency and any notion of accountability.</para>
<para>When the Auditor-General discovered that the Morrison government had used $100 million of taxpayers' money as a Liberal Party slush fund, in the so-called sports rorts affair, and revealed that the government had paid Liberal donors in Western Sydney $30 million for a $3 million block of land, the Prime Minister did not apologise. No minister took responsibility. No minister was reprimanded or sacked. Instead, it was the Auditor-General who was punished, with a cut to his budget, because it's never the wrongdoer who is punished or held accountable by the Prime Minister.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister has made it clear that ministers in his government can get away with pretty much anything. They can rort grant programs, use forged documents and even call a young woman who alleges that she was raped—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Howarth</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's in relation to relevance. The member opposite is not being relevant to the bill.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dreyfus</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am speaking to the second reading amendment.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Your point is overturned. Please proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's never the wrongdoer who is punished or held accountable by this Prime Minister. This Prime Minister has made it clear that ministers in his government can get away with pretty much anything. They can rort grant programs, use forged documents and even call a young woman who alleges that she was raped in the office of the Minister for Defence 'a lying cow'. Ministers can do all those things and more with complete impunity. And with this bill the Prime Minister is telling company directors that he wants them to be able to act with impunity too, without having to worry about being held to account by shareholders. To the great credit of most company directors in Australia—at least, according to King & Wood Mallesons' survey of company directors—they have rejected the need for these changes, because most company directors are not like the current Prime Minister. Most company directors and most Australians have more integrity in their little fingers than the Prime Minister has in his entire cabinet.</para>
<para>So afraid of scrutiny is this Morrison government that it has gone to an enormous effort to prevent Australian shareholders even finding out about the measures in schedule 2 of this bill, let alone raising concerns. The Senate committee tasked with inquiring into this bill was given only three weeks to receive submissions from members of the public and issue a report. With the support of every single crossbench senator, the Senate voted to extend the committee's reporting date to 30 June 2021 so that mum-and-dad investors, self-funded retirees, large institutional investors and everyone else affected by this bill would have an opportunity to be heard. But, disgracefully, the Liberal-controlled Senate committee ignored the will of the Senate and tabled its report early, on 12 March. Not even the Treasury had time to make a submission to that inquiry. In fact, no government agency or department made any submission at all—not ASIC, which is opposed to the measures in schedule 2; not the ACCC, which is also opposed to them; and not the Attorney-General's Department. If the Treasury, the Attorney-General's Department, ASIC and the ACCC don't have time to prepare a submission, what hope do the mum-and-dad investors and self-funded retirees of Australia have?</para>
<para>Fortunately, the Senate has told the Morrison government that it will not let it ram these changes through the parliament. Yesterday, with the support of all Senate crossbenchers, except Senator Griff from Centre Alliance, the Senate supported Labor's motion to establish a new inquiry into this legislation. That inquiry will not be controlled by the reckless incompetence of the Liberal Party and will report on 30 June 2021. Though we have some concerns about the long-term effectiveness and desirability of virtual annual general meetings, Labor have told the government we're prepared to work with the government to ensure that the measures in schedule 1 can pass the parliament this week. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make a few brief remarks about this bill. Further contributions on behalf of the Greens will be made by our Treasury spokesman, Senator McKim, if and when the bill reaches the Senate, which, sadly, it looks like it might, given the government's determination to push this through.</para>
<para>This Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 is the latest example of the government using COVID as a cover to wind back protections for individuals to instead give even more power to the big corporations and the superwealthy that run this government. They're trying it on with the repeal of the responsible lending obligations, which is going to once more give banks a licence to engage in predatory lending—even after the royal commission said, in recommendation No. 1, to keep those rules in place to protect consumers. They're trying it on with their industrial relations bill, which is going to further entrench insecure work and keep wages low, and they're trying it on with this bill, which will water down the requirement of companies to make continuous disclosures to the market and shareholders of information that is material to how much a company is worth or a company's valuation.</para>
<para>Apparently, the economic recovery after COVID is advanced enough to take away extra income support for jobseekers at a time when there are two million either without work or without enough hours of work. All the people on JobSeeker will be plunged below the poverty line, because apparently we're out of the woods—lollies and lemonade are falling from the sky and everything is okay—so we can cut JobSeeker back to below the poverty line and take away wage subsidies.</para>
<para>This will hit hard, especially in my area of Melbourne. A lot of the businesses that have been hit hardest by COVID are still being hit because they're businesses in events and hospitality and the creative sector. They rely on getting lots of people together in the same place. They just can't do it, because of social distancing restrictions, because we are still dealing with a pandemic. Apparently it's okay for those businesses to get cut and to fall off the JobKeeper cliff, and apparently it's okay for people who are unemployed in a pandemic and looking for work to have their support payment cut to below the poverty line.</para>
<para>According to the government the economic recovery is well advanced, so we don't need those supports anymore. At the same time, they say the economic recovery is in so much trouble that we need to rig the rules even further—to benefit the rich and powerful—so that the people who run companies don't have to tell the rest of the world what's going on. It's one rule for the big corporations and billionaires, where they get more and more special treatment, and another for everyone else, where they're asked to live on wages below the poverty line and be with two million people either without a job or without enough hours of work.</para>
<para>The pandemic is being used as a poor excuse to pursue a neoliberal trickle-down agenda, which has nothing to do with building a better recovery and everything to do with this government helping out their mates, the people who make donations to them. That is why they are doing this. The big corporations have said, 'We want the opportunity to tell people less about what goes on behind closed doors, so would you please do it for us and why not use COVID as an excuse.' The government has said, 'Yep, we'll tell everyone that the economy is going so well that we don't have to pay JobSeeker above the poverty line and we can cut JobKeeper. Then we'll tell them, in the same breath, that the economy is doing so poorly that the rich and powerful deserve more special treatment.'</para>
<para>The thing is, if you take the government and their rhetoric at face value—they come in here saying that they believe in the markets, that they believe in open and transparent markets and the market will solve everything. We know that's not true. We know that, left unchecked by parliament, the markets can create massive inequalities. We have seen, for example, billionaires' wealth in Australia rise by around 50 per cent—it depends on the estimate; it's at least 25 per cent—and up to 70 per cent during the pandemic while everyone else is doing it tough. We know that markets can lead to inequality when left unchecked, but if you accept the government at face value they say they're the party of markets.</para>
<para>But markets are meant to work on the basis of equal access to information. That's why there are rules against things like insider trading. The basic rule is, if you're in a corporation and you've got access to information that's going to affect the price of your shares, the people who own the company have to release it. We have these rules set out that require companies to make what are called continuous disclosures and help create a level playing field, so the theory goes. This, in turn, so the theory goes, taking the government at face value, helps ensure the integrity of Australia's share market and benefits investors and business alike.</para>
<para>This bill goes in the opposite direction and says it's okay to keep things secret. It might help the big corporations but it won't help ordinary shareholders. The government is now saying, 'That's okay.' As Ben Hardwick from Slater and Gordon put it:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If you truly believe in markets then you'll consider transparency and accountability to be good things, because they allow investment to flow rationally. If, however, you prefer crony capitalism and protecting corporations from consequences then you'll take a different view</para></quote>
<para>This government is all for crony capitalism—that is, they just do what the corporations and the billionaires ask them to. Even when it violates every principle in their so-called professed ideology, they don't care, because they want to keep getting donations from the billionaires and keep the revolving door going between the big corporations and seats in parliament. In return they will do whatever is asked. The government are nothing more than big corporate shills.</para>
<para>Under the existing continuous disclosure framework, civil action can be taken. So, if you're ASIC or a private litigant, where there's a failure to disclose material information regardless of knowledge, recklessness or negligence, you can go to court. That puts the obligation on directors to find out what is going on and tell people what they need to know if it's going to affect the value of their shares. But now schedule 2 of this bill relieves the directors and CEOs of this supposed burden. Instead, civil action to succeed is going to require proving that those running a company knew they were in receipt of relevant information and that they should have disclosed it—effectively, it reverses the onus of proof. If you're sitting there in a corporation and you know something that might affect the value of the shares, at the moment you're obliged to release it to the market. This is going to reverse it so that the shareholders have to have telepathy and know what they don't know. The shareholders have to know that the corporate directors know something and then take them to court and prove it. It reverses the onus of proof, and it completely and fundamentally changes the way the system operates. It will now be okay to sit on information that might affect people's share investments just because you as a director of a company are sitting there and you think it might be in your or the company's interests.</para>
<para>This is going to pave the way for insider trading. For everyone who felt they could make rational investments in particular companies, this ends that. It privileges those in the know. It privileges the rich and powerful, because now they can know something about their company, know that the company is about to tank or rise, and then do whatever they want with their shares—make a squillion out of it. Everyone else will be left to pick up the pieces, and there's nothing they can do about it because the government reversed the onus of proof. That's what this bill is about—benefiting the people who run the big corporations because they're the people who donate to the Liberal Party. The millions of people who rely on what they think is the fair and efficient function of Australia's stock market are going to lose out.</para>
<para>The government's also selling this bill with the argument that it'll somehow reduce the prospect of class action litigation being undertaken on behalf of investors. Apparently, according to this government, shareholders exercising their rights collectively and holding companies to account is too much of a burden for companies and their highly paid executives and directors. What a furphy. The point of class actions is to enable ordinary people who aren't in a position to commence litigation against a big executive, corporate director or corporation to have access to justice. Not many people have access to the money to do that themselves. Class actions, when there have been a lot of people who have been affected, allow people to join together, have strength in numbers and say, 'We'll take the big corporation on.' That is a principle which should be defended. The government obviously doesn't like that principle, but the government says that there are too many of these kinds of class actions against directors, so it's got to change the law to give these corporate directors the kind of protection that I've just outlined—the ability to do what is illegal. By ASIC's count, there's been an average of just five class actions a year for the last 20 years, but, even so, as ASIC—ASIC!—points out, the economic significance of fair and efficient capital markets dwarfs any exposure to class action damages. Class actions and the prospect of them support the enforcement regime of ASIC—the regulator—and help them ensure that corporate Australia does the right thing.</para>
<para>But this government is all about allowing big corporations and directors to do the wrong thing. There are things that a director or corporation might do for which at the moment you could take them to court and say, 'You've ripped me off,' or 'You've engaged in insider training.' Under this bill, you're not going to be able to do that, because the onus of proof is going to be reversed. You're going to have to prove what was inside the head of the corporate director. If you can get past the walls of lawyers and through the walls of their mansions and through the security guards, maybe you've got a chance of doing that, but that's not what most people are going to be able to do. Most people are going to lose.</para>
<para>The Greens will not be supporting schedule 2 of the bill. Its only purpose is to benefit those on the inside and those with market power. It is going to come at the expense of millions of everyday Australians. That's what this government is about. The government acts for big corporations and billionaires, and everyone else is left to pay the price. The Greens will hold this government to account and will not support this move that would pave the way for insider trading and the rip-off of everyday people in this country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms OWENS</name>
    <name.id>E09</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, here we are again. Under the cover of COVID, we've seen this government weaken superannuation and move to cut wages and conditions and now, surprisingly even for this government, to weaken the protections for mum and dad shareholders by weakening what is known as the continuous disclosure regime, which ensures that people who invest in shares in Australia have all of the information that company directors have at their disposal. That's the current system, and this tax law amendment bill moves to weaken it.</para>
<para>I also want to point out something about this government, because I find this quite interesting. Usually, when they do something that they want talked about and about which they want the spin to roll out across the community, they give the bills fabulous names like 'strengthening economic security' or something—even though quite often they do the opposite. But, when they want to hide something, they stick it in these tax law bills, with names like 'Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill.' That's what this is. In it is a profound change to the way our entire share system works in Australia, and most mum and dad investors would not know that what they have assumed to be the case for decades is about to change.</para>
<para>I want to talk about the two schedules to this bill, because they are quite different. The first one, schedule 1, allows companies to hold virtual AGMs and execute a range of other government activities by electronic means. Currently they can do that, because of COVID, until 21 March. This extends that until September 2021. That's essentially a good thing. It's still very difficult for shareholders to hold AGMs. We still don't know what's going to happen with borders. It's a sensible thing. Even though on our side we have real concerns about the way that some of those AGMs do or don't allow shareholders to participate fully, we understand that, as a temporary measure, that's necessary and that's fine.</para>
<para>Schedule 2, however, is the one that has the problem in it. It extends what was a COVID-19 measure, which weakens Australia's continuous disclosure and misleading and deceptive conduct provisions, and it makes it permanent. Again, it's not extending it temporarily because there's a reason out there that requires it; it is permanently making this change.</para>
<para>There are probably people listening to this who don't know what this means—including mum and dad shareholders who might not know, because, again, they assume that the open and transparent system that we have is normal. It turns out that it's not and we're about to lose it. Let me go through a little bit of the history. Before COVID, we had a continuous disclosure regime. It was actually introduced by the Howard government in 2001. Companies and company directors were required to disclose publicly any information that was not generally available and that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of the company's shares. So, if directors knew something that shareholders should know, they had to tell them. In 2001, John Howard, a Liberal Prime Minister, introduced this continuous disclosure regime. If a company or a company director failed to comply with those obligations, they could face a civil penalty action either by a shareholder or by ASIC. However, there was an out for the director, who would not be found liable in civil penalty proceedings for breaching those obligations if he or she took all reasonable steps to ensure that the company complied with its disclosure obligations and thought the company was complying with those obligations. So, again, directors were obligated to provide full disclosure to institutional investors, superannuation companies that invested and mum-and-dad shareholders. That's the way it's been since 2001, and it has underpinned a very strong, reliable and transparent share market system in this country. It's been a very good thing.</para>
<para>Under COVID, the government made some temporary changes, which said that companies and directors that failed to disclose price-sensitive information are liable to shareholders for the failure only if the company or director acted with knowledge, recklessness or negligence. That's quite a change. This bill makes that change permanent. It also makes another change permanent: it makes changes to the misleading and deceptive conduct provisions that currently apply to companies so that, in order for a company or director to face civil penalties for providing misleading or deceptive information to shareholders or the market, ASIC or an affected individual would have to prove that the company or director acted with knowledge, recklessness or negligence. So, from a situation where directors are obligated to disclose information that shareholders should know, we're moving to a world in which a shareholder would have to prove that a director acted negligently or recklessly by not providing information, even though the shareholder might not know what that information is because they haven't been given it. So this is an extraordinary situation where, first, in order for a shareholder or ASIC to take action against a company, they have to find out this information that has been kept secret, and then they have to prove that the director or the company acted with knowledge, recklessness or negligence. So the onus of proof here is on the shareholder. That's an extraordinary change. It's extraordinary that the director isn't obligated to make full disclosure anymore, but it's even more extraordinary that the onus of proof has moved to the shareholder.</para>
<para>Let's make no bones about this. These changes make it easier for companies and directors to get away with failing to provide price-sensitive information to the market. The government explanatory memorandum says it reduces the amount of time entities and officers must spend on assurances that they have complied—extraordinary. It makes it easier for companies and directors to get away with failing to provide price-sensitive information to the market. That's what it does. It makes it easier for companies and directors to get away with withholding information from, or providing misleading information to, the market or shareholders, because, in order for those directors to be brought to face the consequences, a shareholder has to prove that they knew and that they acted recklessly—an extraordinary change. It puts the interests of individual company directors above the interests of mum-and-dad investors, self-funded retirees and large institutional investors, all of whom rely on Australia's strict disclosure laws now. When we're talking about mum-and-dad investors, by the way, we're not talking about people who necessarily fully understand the operations of the market. We're not talking about people who necessarily follow all of the workings of a business in great detail. We're talking about people who quite often invest in companies based on their reputation. We now have a situation where directors could get away quite easily with not providing investors with the information that they need. It really is quite extraordinary.</para>
<para>I'm going to quote from the Australian Shareholders Association head, Allan Goldin, who said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">So the new instruction to management from Boards could be, if you want to keep some information to yourself or exaggerate a bit just make sure you don't tell me so no one can sue me—</para></quote>
<para>the 'honest idiot' defence, as it's known. It's also known as 'don't ask, don't tell'. I think we've seen a bit of that in the Prime Minister's department, not that I would ever call the Prime Minister an honest idiot. But I would point out that the 'don't ask, don't tell' regime we have seen from this government will now apply to directors as well. It is quite shocking.</para>
<para>With something that is this serious, something that changes the fundamental understanding people have of the information they get from companies to inform their investment decisions, you would expect there to have been a comprehensive Senate inquiry. There was the beginning of a Senate inquiry, but it was cut short by the Liberal-controlled committee. It was such a short time frame that even the Treasury and ASIC didn't get to make submissions—honestly!</para>
<para>While we know that the schedule 2 changes are supported by the Australian Institute of Company Directors—I totally understand that—and the Business Council of Australia, they aren't universally supported. In fact, some extraordinary organisations have come out and said, 'This isn't right.' A 2020 survey of 195 senior company executives, conducted by the law firm King & Wood Mallesons, found that only 21.5 per cent of executives thought the temporary changes to continuous disclosure laws should be made permanent. Over 80 per cent said that the changes had not altered the way in which companies were making disclosure decisions. In other words, even the temporary changes don't have many friends. There is strong opposition to schedule 2 by a large and diverse coalition of parties, including the Australian Shareholders Association, plaintiff law firms and the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors.</para>
<para>Fortunately, the Senate has now decided to reinstitute a Senate inquiry, which won't report until June, so finally we might get a chance to look at this. If this government wants to get schedule 1 through and extend the ability of companies to have AGMs virtually, then it needs to split this bill. We're happy to split it so that schedule 1 can go through and schedule 2, which makes fundamental changes to the way the share market operates in Australia, can be properly scrutinised by the many stakeholders in this area.</para>
<para>You have to ask, quite frankly, why the government would do this. Why is the government making it easier to withhold information from shareholders and making it harder for shareholders to take action? The only reason the Liberal government has given is that these changes are needed to protect company directors from 'opportunistic class actions'. Presumably what they're saying is that, because there are some class actions against directors, every shareholder has to have their protections weakened in order to protect directors. Let's look at the problem the government is trying to solve. According to figures from the law firm Allens, in 2019 there were 10 shareholder class actions filed in Australia. In 2018 there were 20. It was a big year. In 2017 there were 15. In 2016 there were fewer than five, and the average for the last 20 years is about five. So, in order to protect an average of five companies a year from class actions—and I'm not saying whether they're opportunistic or real or whatever—the access of every shareholder in Australia to relevant information that informs their investment decisions will be weakened. What an extraordinary thing! And something this profound is not called the 'Tax Laws Weakening Continuous Disclosure Regime Bill'; it doesn't even have a name. It's hidden in a tax laws amendment so that the vast majority of people will not see it.</para>
<para>This is extraordinary, coming from a government that thinks it's about business. This is extraordinary, coming from a government that pretends that it's the economic manager of the country. Our share market—the trust that people have in it, its transparency and the way it works—underpins investment in this country, investment by businesses within Australia and by international investors. If you weaken the trust that people have in the information that informs their investment, you weaken the trade and investment in Australia. Don't you get that, this party of business and this party of the market?</para>
<para>When people are going to risk their money on an investment and you tell them, through this sort of action, that they can no longer trust the information they're getting, they will go and invest elsewhere. They will invest elsewhere because they're not stupid, particularly big institutional investors. You will weaken our share market and you will lessen the investment that comes into Australia because you want to protect, from your own explanation, the somewhere between five and 20 companies that face class action each year in Australia—that's it. Every shareholder is treated badly in order to make that small protection, this focus that you have on class actions. This is a shocking piece of legislation. Now that the Senate has reinstated the inquiry, if you want to get schedule 1 through, to temporarily extend the capacity for AGMs to be held virtually, which is important, you're going to have to split the bill. That's your option now. Schedule 2: you shouldn't be doing it and you really have to rethink it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll be relatively brief because the member for Parramatta and the member for Whitlam before her have characteristically nailed all of the important points. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 is really two bills smashed into one; two schedules smashed into one set of legislation, and I think for not the right reasons. The reason why these two things are being considered together is that the government knows we are prepared to be accommodating when it comes to the conduct of virtual AGMs, recognising the difficulty in COVID time of getting shareholders together. We want to make sure that we can find ways to make that more meaningful, to make sure that shareholders can hold executives and boards accountable in the time of COVID, but we are prepared to be reasonable about the conduct of those AGMs for a little while longer.</para>
<para>The second schedule in the bill, as the member for Parramatta and other speakers before her have pointed out, is much more problematic from our point of view. It weakens Australia's continuous disclosure framework and the misleading and deceptive conduct provisions permanently. The reason I emphasise 'permanently' is that there's a big problem here. The government says: 'The economy is going so well that we can pull out this extraordinary support for workers. JobKeeper has got to end because things are going so well. The whole world has returned to normal and the Australian economy is galloping. There's no need for these extraordinary measures in our labour market.' At the same time and on the same day, the same government says: 'Oh, no, things are really difficult. We need to leave these accommodating arrangements in for business so that they can dodge their continuous disclosure obligations.' Those opposite can't make those two arguments at the same time. They have to choose. It's one or the other. Are things going really well and provisions need to be pulled out, or are things really difficult and so we need to leave provisions in? They can't have one approach to one part of the economy, the labour market, and another approach to another part of the economy, the corporations subject to continuous disclosure.</para>
<para>As I said, we've got our concerns with the first bit. We're prepared to be supportive. There's absolutely no reason why we can't consider those two bits separately. But the government, in the usual way for the usual political reasons, has left them together. There are lots of problems, as others have said, with the changes proposed to the continuous disclosure regime. From conversations today, I know that elements of the business community have a different view to mine. That's part of a respectable exchange, and I'm grateful for the conversations that I've had throughout the course of the day. But we do have issues of substance and substantial concerns with the second schedule, and that's why we are taking the steps that we're taking in the House today.</para>
<para>As we know, these were supposed to be temporary measures, but instead, in my view, the government is using this pandemic as an excuse to make them permanent in a way that will do a lot of damage to the way that our markets operate in this country. What's being proposed here is in many ways a solution looking for a problem. It's one of those things that the government has had in the top drawer for some time, and they are hoping that Australians are sufficiently distracted by what's going on with the pandemic, cuts to JobKeeper and the rest of it that they are able to get away with making these changes permanent. We saw it in responsible lending laws. We've seen it in other areas as well.</para>
<para>If you go to the facts and you go to the views of important stakeholders, you discover a few things about what's really going on here. The Liberal Party, those opposite, are obsessed with class actions, when class actions make up under one per cent of cases filed in the Federal Court. They affect only a tiny number of companies that have done the wrong thing. Think about these changes more broadly. Just last year, 195 senior company executives from King & Wood Mallesons found that only every fifth person thought these changes should be made permanent. Over 80 per cent said that the changes hadn't altered the way in which companies were making disclosure decisions.</para>
<para>There's strong opposition to these changes, from the Australian Shareholders Association—we should listen to them—from plaintiff law firms and from the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors. In my view, if the government were confident that they had a good case to make here, they wouldn't have truncated the inquiry process. They made that Senate process so short that many who wanted to make a submission were unable to do so in time. We already know that ASIC and the ACCC have advised the government that the pre-COVID continuous disclosure and misleading and deceptive conduct provisions should be retained. ASIC told the Treasury that these arrangements were a 'fundamental tenet of our markets and particularly important during times of market uncertainty and volatility'. ASIC said that the laws were working well, that they operated to increase the attractiveness of Australian markets for investors and that the economic significance of a fair and efficient capital markets dwarfs any exposure to class action damages.</para>
<para>So this bill as it stands, the second part of it, will hurt mum-and-dad investors, a point that the member for Whitlam has made repeatedly. It will weaken Australia's Corporations Law. It will make it easier for companies and company directors to get away with withholding information from or providing misleading information to their shareholders, and without proper disclosure rules that is much more likely, in our view. These rules don't just protect the retail shareholders—that's incredibly important—but they make businesses stronger and more attractive to investors as well.</para>
<para>Those are all the reasons why we are not supportive of the second schedule. We are not especially surprised to see the government using this pandemic as an excuse to try and make these temporary arrangements permanent. They are never on the side of ordinary Australians—ordinary mum-and-dad shareholders, ordinary workers, ordinary people trying to save for their retirement. Really, right across the board, we've seen lots of examples. Again I return to the fundamental point: if the economy is so weak and uncertain that business requires the extension of what were proposed to be temporary arrangements, then why doesn't that apply to workers who will have their JobKeeper cut this month as well? You can't have it both ways. Either the economy is too weak to remove support or it's too strong to leave it in there. What we're seeing here is a pretty blatant attempt to permanently change—in a detrimental way; in a way that key stakeholders don't support—the arrangements which are so important to the efficient functioning of markets in this country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
    <electorate>Chifley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I had not intended, initially, to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021. But, in reading through the material that supports this legislation, listening to colleagues and understanding what is proposed here, I feel it's a responsibility of parliamentarians to get up and basically ask the Australian people whether or not they're in favour of a system that would allow—and not just in terms of mum-and-dad investors being potentially ripped off, which is a serious concern, as has been described already—this creep that is occurring, where we see the dilution of accountability and transparency.The creep that I refer to is occurring in behaviour within government, within the federal government itself. Whenever they are required to disclose what they are up to, how they make their decisions or the quality of their decision-making, they always now default to stonewalling, refusing to disclose information and making it harder for the public to understand. Look at the way that freedom-of-information requests are being managed. We'll see it potentially on display next week when the other place holds estimates and we count the number of times ministers or those representing them use the old technique of taking a question on notice—not answering a question but giving the default position, 'We'll take it on notice.' At some point down the track they'll reveal what's going on.</para>
<para>An honourable member: Within the same year.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Within the same year, hopefully, but usually they'll attempt to hide the information. We see them claim, for example, that they want to bring in a national integrity commission. That claim was made two years ago. We still see nothing. When the framework is proposed, it is so weak it's probably weaker than the paper it's written on. We see all these efforts building up, and now they want to extend it to corporate Australia and they want to do it through this bill. They want to make it easier for directors to not have to be accountable for the decisions they're making.</para>
<para>Through the eighties—and we've also seen in recent times—we saw some major corporate collapses and we saw some pretty bad business behaviour. I absolutely do not believe that all corporate or company directors behave in that way. In fact, many are horrified by it. And, in fact, the propositions that are being put forward in this bill are being resisted by many in the business community because they know exactly what this will do. The reason I speak today is that I don't want to see those corporate collapses re-emerge in this day and age. Lessons are there to be learnt, not to be unlearnt so that we go back and make the same mistake. We cannot see that for those companies, those investors, those shareholders, those employees, those supply companies, those small businesses, those contractors—all those who earn their living from the proper functioning of these firms. We cannot see them affected because of a corporate collapse that may have resulted from the actions of a few directors who knew something was not right in what they were doing—who knew that, if how they had intended to operate was disclosed, it would not have met expectations within the business community. If those companies collapse, there are a lot of people who lose out, and they don't get back what they put in. We know it. We know what happens: the big creditors get looked after, but it's all the other, smaller ones, this whole string that appears after that collapse, who lose out—and it's particularly the employees, who I speak for today, the workers of those businesses, who will lose out.</para>
<para>We shouldn't have it that the government has to underwrite it through the mechanisms we have to cover those redundancies. The taxpayer should not be required to step in and fund those redundancies because those firms collapsed. The reason I speak today is that I feel strongly about these types of measures—the dilution of what the Howard government brought in. I don't make a habit of cheering on legislation brought in by that very conservative government, but, on this, they were right. They were right where they said that companies and company directors are required to disclose publicly any information that (1) was not generally available and (2) a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of a company's share price. Further, they were right where they said, if a company or a company director failed to comply with those obligations, they could face a civil penalty action; they would be held accountable for their action or, importantly, their inaction.</para>
<para>Again, as the Labor leader has said, we have sought to support, in the course of the pandemic, a number of regulatory and legislative measures designed to assist. We did that then, but we do not agree with—we actually oppose—any suggestion that this regime that was brought in temporarily be extended. We don't think it's good, and schedule 2 of this legislation would make that permanent. Companies and directors that fail to disclose price-sensitive information either at all or in a timely fashion are only liable to shareholders for that failure if the company or director acted with knowledge, recklessness or negligence. The thing is this: that is going to be very difficult to establish. It is very hard for people outside of the firm to know that.</para>
<para>The government's own explanatory memorandum says that this is about reducing the amount of time entities and officers must spend on an assurance that they have complied. They're basically admitting that they are watering down everything required for compliance, transparency and accountability. This is not good for corporate Australia. This is not good for working Australians. If this leads to corporate collapses—we have seen the type of behaviour that creeps in and sets in—it's not good, long term, for the economy. It will potentially stifle investment flow. It will potentially make it harder for companies to raise capital. It will potentially make it harder for companies to grow. From a business perspective, it's bad.</para>
<para>As I said, I don't think any working Australian should suffer as a result of the type of corporate collapse that might be triggered because of the bad behaviour that this is starting to let creep in. This is wrong, and they should not pay for that. All those people that we know who went through One.Tel, Ansett—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Stephen Jones</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Crown casino!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, Crown casino. It's not the government and their corporate crony mates who pay that price. They get off; they escape. But what about the mums and dads—not only the shareholders but the employees—with mortgages, with families to raise, with bills to pay? This is so wrong. They should hang their heads in shame. It's one thing for it to be temporary; it's another thing for it to be permanent. It is not right at all.</para>
<para>We should speak strongly on this. We should say we can do better. We should indicate that there is something right in accountability and transparency, not just for the 'Aha, gotcha!' moment but because of the teachable experience, the fact that we can do better and the fact that people know that they can't break the boundary; they can't go beyond the boundary and break the rules. We cannot have the crony capitalism that this will trigger. I emphasise this: we have to draw the line now on the way this government is starting to continually default, refusing to be accountable, refusing to be transparent and allowing big government or big business to get away with that type of bad behaviour. It's not good for our community. It is definitely not good for our nation.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021. Schedule 1 to the bill extends temporary relief, allowing companies to host meetings virtually and to send meeting related materials and validly execute documents electronically. This will enable companies to continue to operate while uncertainties remain due to COVID-19, and public health orders are introduced from time to time.</para>
<para>This extension contains enhancements to the original temporary relief, in response to feedback received during consultation. The relief ensures regulatory obligations are essentially the same regardless of the technology used to comply with them. In response to the positive feedback from consultation, the government proposes to put in place permanent reforms that will continue to allow companies to electronically sign company documents and send meeting related materials electronically when this temporary extension ends.</para>
<para>The government also proposes to conduct an opt-in pilot for hybrid annual general meetings in which shareholders can choose whether to attend meetings in person or to attend them virtually. This pilot will commence when the extension to the temporary relief ends. The aim of the pilot will be to encourage companies and shareholders to engage with technology, with a view to considering whether future permanent reforms are needed to further support companies to use technology effectively to engage positively with their shareholders.</para>
<para>The government is committed to evaluating and improving regulatory settings to support Australia's economic recovery plan to create jobs, rebuild our economy and secure Australia's future. Schedule 2 to the bill will amend our continuous disclosure laws so that companies and their officers will only be liable for civil penalty proceedings where they have acted with knowledge, recklessness or negligence with respect to updates on price-sensitive information to the market. Introducing this requirement means that companies and their officers can more confidently provide guidance to the market. This will benefit investors and businesses by ensuring the market continues to stay informed and function effectively. Reforming continuous disclosure obligations will allow businesses to allocate resources towards improving efficiency and output. This will make it easier for businesses to invest, to create jobs and to grow the economy. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [17:25]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>65</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Alexander, JG</name>
                  <name>Allen, K</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KJ</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KL</name>
                  <name>Archer, BK</name>
                  <name>Bell, AM</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, RE</name>
                  <name>Chester, D</name>
                  <name>Christensen, GR</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, PJ</name>
                  <name>Connelly, V</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M</name>
                  <name>Drum, DK (teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, PC</name>
                  <name>Entsch, WG</name>
                  <name>Falinski, JG</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                  <name>Flint, NJ</name>
                  <name>Frydenberg, JA</name>
                  <name>Gee, AR</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, GR</name>
                  <name>Hammond, CM</name>
                  <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                  <name>Hunt, GA</name>
                  <name>Irons, SJ</name>
                  <name>Joyce, BT</name>
                  <name>Katter, RC</name>
                  <name>Kelly, C</name>
                  <name>Laming, A</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J</name>
                  <name>Ley, SP</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D</name>
                  <name>Liu, G</name>
                  <name>Martin, FB</name>
                  <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, MI</name>
                  <name>Morrison, SJ</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, T</name>
                  <name>O'Dowd, KD</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A</name>
                  <name>Pearce, GB</name>
                  <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                  <name>Price, ML</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, RE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, SR</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, RCC</name>
                  <name>Sharma, DN</name>
                  <name>Simmonds, J</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, MS</name>
                  <name>Taylor, AJ</name>
                  <name>Tehan, DT</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P</name>
                  <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                  <name>van Manen, AJ</name>
                  <name>Vasta, RX</name>
                  <name>Wallace, AB</name>
                  <name>Webster, AE</name>
                  <name>Wicks, LE</name>
                  <name>Wilson, RJ</name>
                  <name>Wilson, TR</name>
                  <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                  <name>Young, T</name>
                  <name>Zimmerman, T</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>57</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bandt, AP</name>
                  <name>Bowen, CE</name>
                  <name>Burke, AS</name>
                  <name>Burney, LJ</name>
                  <name>Burns, J</name>
                  <name>Butler, MC</name>
                  <name>Butler, TM</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, JE</name>
                  <name>Champion, ND</name>
                  <name>Coker, EA</name>
                  <name>Collins, JM</name>
                  <name>Conroy, PM</name>
                  <name>Dick, MD</name>
                  <name>Elliot, MJ</name>
                  <name>Fitzgibbon, JA</name>
                  <name>Freelander, MR</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S</name>
                  <name>Giles, AJ</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P</name>
                  <name>Haines, H</name>
                  <name>Hayes, CP</name>
                  <name>Hill, JC</name>
                  <name>Husic, EN</name>
                  <name>Jones, SP</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P</name>
                  <name>King, MMH</name>
                  <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                  <name>Marles, RD</name>
                  <name>McBain, KL</name>
                  <name>McBride, EM</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, BK</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, RG</name>
                  <name>Murphy, PJ</name>
                  <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, BPJ</name>
                  <name>Owens, JA</name>
                  <name>Payne, AE</name>
                  <name>Perrett, GD</name>
                  <name>Phillips, FE</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, TJ</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, AL</name>
                  <name>Rowland, MA</name>
                  <name>Ryan, JC (teller)</name>
                  <name>Shorten, WR</name>
                  <name>Snowdon, WE</name>
                  <name>Stanley, AM (teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, MJ</name>
                  <name>Templeman, SR</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, MJ</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, KL</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                  <name>Watts, TG</name>
                  <name>Wells, AS</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, AD</name>
                  <name>Wilson, JH</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>13</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Buchholz, S</name>
                  <name>Albanese, AN</name>
                  <name>Coleman, DB</name>
                  <name>Aly, A</name>
                  <name>Evans, TM</name>
                  <name>Bird, SL</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, IR</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, CE</name>
                  <name>Hastie, AW</name>
                  <name>Clare, JD</name>
                  <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                  <name>Chesters, LM</name>
                  <name>Howarth, LR</name>
                  <name>Byrne, AM</name>
                  <name>Landry, ML</name>
                  <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                  <name>Marino, NB</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, MA</name>
                  <name>Morton, B</name>
                  <name>Gosling, LJ</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, LS</name>
                  <name>Keogh, MJ</name>
                  <name>Porter, CC</name>
                  <name>Smith, DPB</name>
                  <name>Wood, JP</name>
                  <name>Mulino, </name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bill be now read a second time.</para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [17:30]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>65</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Alexander, JG</name>
                  <name>Allen, K</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KJ</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KL</name>
                  <name>Archer, BK</name>
                  <name>Bell, AM</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, RE</name>
                  <name>Chester, D</name>
                  <name>Christensen, GR</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, PJ</name>
                  <name>Connelly, V</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M</name>
                  <name>Drum, DK (teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, PC</name>
                  <name>Entsch, WG</name>
                  <name>Falinski, JG</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                  <name>Flint, NJ</name>
                  <name>Frydenberg, JA</name>
                  <name>Gee, AR</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, GR</name>
                  <name>Hammond, CM</name>
                  <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                  <name>Hunt, GA</name>
                  <name>Irons, SJ</name>
                  <name>Joyce, BT</name>
                  <name>Katter, RC</name>
                  <name>Kelly, C</name>
                  <name>Laming, A</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J</name>
                  <name>Ley, SP</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D</name>
                  <name>Liu, G</name>
                  <name>Martin, FB</name>
                  <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, MI</name>
                  <name>Morrison, SJ</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, T</name>
                  <name>O'Dowd, KD</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A</name>
                  <name>Pearce, GB</name>
                  <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                  <name>Price, ML</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, RE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, SR</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, RCC</name>
                  <name>Sharma, DN</name>
                  <name>Simmonds, J</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, MS</name>
                  <name>Taylor, AJ</name>
                  <name>Tehan, DT</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P</name>
                  <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                  <name>van Manen, AJ</name>
                  <name>Vasta, RX</name>
                  <name>Wallace, AB</name>
                  <name>Webster, AE</name>
                  <name>Wicks, LE</name>
                  <name>Wilson, RJ</name>
                  <name>Wilson, TR</name>
                  <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                  <name>Young, T</name>
                  <name>Zimmerman, T</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>57</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bandt, AP</name>
                  <name>Bowen, CE</name>
                  <name>Burke, AS</name>
                  <name>Burney, LJ</name>
                  <name>Burns, J</name>
                  <name>Butler, MC</name>
                  <name>Butler, TM</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, JE</name>
                  <name>Champion, ND</name>
                  <name>Coker, EA</name>
                  <name>Collins, JM</name>
                  <name>Conroy, PM</name>
                  <name>Dick, MD</name>
                  <name>Elliot, MJ</name>
                  <name>Fitzgibbon, JA</name>
                  <name>Freelander, MR</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S</name>
                  <name>Giles, AJ</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P</name>
                  <name>Haines, H</name>
                  <name>Hayes, CP</name>
                  <name>Hill, JC</name>
                  <name>Husic, EN</name>
                  <name>Jones, SP</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P</name>
                  <name>King, MMH</name>
                  <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                  <name>Marles, RD</name>
                  <name>McBain, KL</name>
                  <name>McBride, EM</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, BK</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, RG</name>
                  <name>Murphy, PJ</name>
                  <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, BPJ</name>
                  <name>Owens, JA</name>
                  <name>Payne, AE</name>
                  <name>Perrett, GD</name>
                  <name>Phillips, FE</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, TJ</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, AL</name>
                  <name>Rowland, MA</name>
                  <name>Ryan, JC (teller)</name>
                  <name>Shorten, WR</name>
                  <name>Snowdon, WE</name>
                  <name>Stanley, AM (teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, MJ</name>
                  <name>Templeman, SR</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, MJ</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, KL</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                  <name>Watts, TG</name>
                  <name>Wells, AS</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, AD</name>
                  <name>Wilson, JH</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>13</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Buchholz, S</name>
                  <name>Albanese, AN</name>
                  <name>Coleman, DB</name>
                  <name>Aly, A</name>
                  <name>Evans, TM</name>
                  <name>Bird, SL</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, IR</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, CE</name>
                  <name>Hastie, AW</name>
                  <name>Clare, JD</name>
                  <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                  <name>Chesters, LM</name>
                  <name>Howarth, LR</name>
                  <name>Byrne, AM</name>
                  <name>Landry, ML</name>
                  <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                  <name>Marino, NB</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, MA</name>
                  <name>Morton, B</name>
                  <name>Gosling, LJ</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, LS</name>
                  <name>Keogh, MJ</name>
                  <name>Porter, CC</name>
                  <name>Smith, DPB</name>
                  <name>Wood, JP</name>
                  <name>Mulino, </name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>86</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The House will now consider the bill in detail. I understand it is the wish of the House to take the bill as a whole. The question is that the bill be agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 1 to 4), omit the table items, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The whole of this Act The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 2, page 25 (line 1) to page 38 (line 8), omit the Schedule.</para></quote>
<para>Labor's amendment is simple: it cuts out schedule 2 of the bill. The schedule contains the government's plan to weaken continuous disclosure rules and damage corporate transparency. If the government members agree to this simple amendment, the remainder of the bill—that is, schedule 1 of the bill, which deals with virtual AGMs—will sail through this House and, I presume, will gain assent from the other place as well.</para>
<para>We won't stand for the proposition that corporate transparency should be reduced. We are on the side of small investors and self-funded retirees. This is an insidious measure. The measures contained in schedule 2 would make it easier for companies and company directors to get away with withholding information or providing misleading information to shareholders. Will the majority of companies and the majority of shareholders do that? The answer is no, and we know that they won't, because the majority of directors disagree with the provision that the government is trying to ram through the House—that is to say, the majority of directors who are given relief by this bill don't support it. So you have to ask yourself: if the majority of directors of Australian listed companies do not want this relaxation of standards, why is the government determined to cram it through? Without corporate disclosure rules, dodgy directors can get away with not releasing crucial information to shareholders, and the overwhelming majority of good directors know that this is not in their interests and is not in the interests of the economy as a whole.</para>
<para>The Liberal Party claim that these rules will stop opportunistic shareholder class actions, as if access to justice for small shareholders through class actions is somehow illegitimate or some form of crime. We disagree, but this is a continued obsession for some members of the Liberal Party who seem to think class actions are this immense problem. The fact is they are not. In fact, less than one per cent of cases filed before the Federal Court are class actions, they affect a tiny minority of companies and not only must that tiny minority have done the wrong thing but that egregious action must lead to damage which is justiciable.</para>
<para>This is a solution in search of a problem. By contrast, all Australian shareholders benefit from Australia's strong continuous disclosure laws, and all Australian shareholders will be harmed by the government's changes. Repealing the laws that protect shareholders and allow our investment markets to function, just because you don't like class actions, is like shooting the cow because you don't like milkshakes. Regardless of your thoughts on class actions, it's a bad idea. It's a very bad idea to make it easier for bad actors to withhold information from shareholders. Don't ask me; ask the International Corporate Governance Network. Their evidence to the first Senate inquiry into this bill was very clear. They said that the changes would circumvent the true and accurate valuation of companies; hinder the functioning of fair and efficient capital markets; foster misleading, dishonest conduct; strip shareholders of their rights to redress for mass wrongdoing; and shield company directors, advisers and auditors from accountability. In short, this measure is a direct attack on markets and their institutions that support our economy which will only benefit a very small number of poorly behaved directors but damage a vast number of shareholders, particularly small mum-and-dad investors and self-managed retirees.</para>
<para>Other speakers in this debate have made the observation that this government has a very low standard of accountability. It will take responsibility for nothing—whether it's sports rorts, whether it's the egregious action of the minister for climate change and energy, whether it's the outrageous waste of taxpayer money with the Leppington Triangle affair, or whether it's the 'don't ask, don't tell' culture that seems to permeate the Prime Minister's office. It is one thing to hold yourself, your government and your ministers to such a low standard; it is another thing entirely to try to export this culture to corporate Australia. We won't support it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [17:42]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>64</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Alexander, JG</name>
                  <name>Allen, K</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KJ</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KL</name>
                  <name>Archer, BK</name>
                  <name>Bell, AM</name>
                  <name>Chester, D</name>
                  <name>Christensen, GR</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, PJ</name>
                  <name>Connelly, V</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M</name>
                  <name>Drum, DK (teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, PC</name>
                  <name>Entsch, WG</name>
                  <name>Falinski, JG</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                  <name>Flint, NJ</name>
                  <name>Frydenberg, JA</name>
                  <name>Gee, AR</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, GR</name>
                  <name>Hammond, CM</name>
                  <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                  <name>Hunt, GA</name>
                  <name>Irons, SJ</name>
                  <name>Joyce, BT</name>
                  <name>Kelly, C</name>
                  <name>Laming, A</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J</name>
                  <name>Ley, SP</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D</name>
                  <name>Liu, G</name>
                  <name>Martin, FB</name>
                  <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, MI</name>
                  <name>Morrison, SJ</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, T</name>
                  <name>O'Dowd, KD</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A</name>
                  <name>Pearce, GB</name>
                  <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                  <name>Price, ML</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, RE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, SR</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, RCC</name>
                  <name>Sharma, DN</name>
                  <name>Simmonds, J</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, MS</name>
                  <name>Taylor, AJ</name>
                  <name>Tehan, DT</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P</name>
                  <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                  <name>van Manen, AJ</name>
                  <name>Vasta, RX</name>
                  <name>Wallace, AB</name>
                  <name>Webster, AE</name>
                  <name>Wicks, LE</name>
                  <name>Wilson, RJ</name>
                  <name>Wilson, TR</name>
                  <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                  <name>Young, T</name>
                  <name>Zimmerman, T</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>56</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bandt, AP</name>
                  <name>Bowen, CE</name>
                  <name>Burke, AS</name>
                  <name>Burney, LJ</name>
                  <name>Burns, J</name>
                  <name>Butler, MC</name>
                  <name>Butler, TM</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, JE</name>
                  <name>Champion, ND</name>
                  <name>Coker, EA</name>
                  <name>Collins, JM</name>
                  <name>Conroy, PM</name>
                  <name>Dick, MD</name>
                  <name>Elliot, MJ</name>
                  <name>Fitzgibbon, JA</name>
                  <name>Freelander, MR</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S</name>
                  <name>Giles, AJ</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P</name>
                  <name>Haines, H</name>
                  <name>Hayes, CP</name>
                  <name>Hill, JC</name>
                  <name>Husic, EN</name>
                  <name>Jones, SP</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P</name>
                  <name>King, MMH</name>
                  <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                  <name>Marles, RD</name>
                  <name>McBain, KL</name>
                  <name>McBride, EM</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, BK</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, RG</name>
                  <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, BPJ</name>
                  <name>Owens, JA</name>
                  <name>Payne, AE</name>
                  <name>Perrett, GD</name>
                  <name>Phillips, FE</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, TJ</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, AL</name>
                  <name>Rowland, MA</name>
                  <name>Ryan, JC (teller)</name>
                  <name>Shorten, WR</name>
                  <name>Snowdon, WE</name>
                  <name>Stanley, AM (teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, MJ</name>
                  <name>Templeman, SR</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, MJ</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, KL</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                  <name>Watts, TG</name>
                  <name>Wells, AS</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, AD</name>
                  <name>Wilson, JH</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>13</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Buchholz, S</name>
                  <name>Albanese, AN</name>
                  <name>Coleman, DB</name>
                  <name>Aly, A</name>
                  <name>Evans, TM</name>
                  <name>Bird, SL</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, IR</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, CE</name>
                  <name>Hastie, AW</name>
                  <name>Clare, JD</name>
                  <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                  <name>Chesters, LM</name>
                  <name>Howarth, LR</name>
                  <name>Byrne, AM</name>
                  <name>Landry, ML</name>
                  <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                  <name>Marino, NB</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, MA</name>
                  <name>Morton, B</name>
                  <name>Gosling, LJ</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, LS</name>
                  <name>Keogh, MJ</name>
                  <name>Porter, CC</name>
                  <name>Smith, DPB</name>
                  <name>Wood, JP</name>
                  <name>Mulino, </name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>88</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6665" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>88</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021, and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) after two and a half years, the benefits of the new child care system have been entirely eroded for many families;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) child care fees are projected to grow by four per cent per year for the next four years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Australia has one of the highest rates of female involuntary part time employment in the OECD; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) the current system does not support second income earners, usually women, working more than three days a week".</para></quote>
<para>I welcome the opportunity to speak on early education and care in this place, because this portfolio impacts over a million Australian families, and we should take every opportunity we can to improve the system. I'm pleased that we have this bill before the House, because it's unlikely that this government will want to speak much about early education and care as this year goes on, because the problems in the government's system are just becoming evident.</para>
<para>The changes before us today are sensible and mostly technical in nature and are supported by stakeholders in the sector. It's not surprising that there were some drafting errors and ambiguities when the COVID-19 response legislation was drafted and passed last year. Schedule 1 of the bill retrospectively clarifies and states the circumstances where the secretary can declare emergency or disaster events and make business continuity payments, thereby providing legal certainty for actions taken last year and retaining business continuity payments as an ongoing policy response available to government. Labor had some issues with the business continuity payments last year, but they were entirely based on the amount of funding provided to services, not the mechanism. Of course, we had many early learning centres being given a 50 per cent continuity payment—well, it wasn't a continuity payment; there were some other continuity payments. There were obviously some issues and problems with that, but as a whole the mechanism is the right mechanism. It is a prudent change, and it always pays to plan ahead. This payment mechanism, as a mechanism, worked well last year. Of course, the government wasn't very generous in this mechanism, and there were issues with the eligibility criteria and the quantum of payments last year. But, while the government did get the detail wrong, the mechanism is worth keeping, and therefore we will support this.</para>
<para>Part 6 of schedule 1 removes the legal requirement for services to send weekly sessional reports to the department during declared emergency and disaster events, reducing the red tape burden on services during these unsettling events. Of course, data gathering is very important. Many services did not have to provide their attendance data and other data during the free child care, or the so-called free child care, and it is disappointing that we don't have that information to get a sense of who was utilising the free child care and why demand went up when it came to the free child care. But, of course, during a disaster it is very important that that flexibility be there, so we certainly support that part of the legislation. But it should be used sparingly, because data on who is using early education and care is critically important.</para>
<para>The bill also extends the tax return deadlines for the 2018-19 financial year to 31 March 2021 to provide more time for people who have not managed to lodge their returns during the stress of the pandemic. This is important because there have been many people whose lives have been thrown up and whose businesses have been completely disrupted. It also removes the two-year cut-off point for people to lodge their tax returns to be eligible for childcare subsidy. We certainly support this. This provision is surprising, given that this is the same government that prides itself on making it harder to claim benefits and chases vulnerable people for illegal robodebts. I have to say I was surprised, but I welcome the government taking a more practical and compassionate response to qualifying for CCS.</para>
<para>An important provision in the bill also ensures that declared emergency and disaster events do not count towards the 14-week period of non-attendance, after which a child's enrolment is cancelled. This is particularly important for families from Victoria, who had a second quite long lockdown last year, but I've heard from early learning centres that this is also affecting a number of families in my electorate and other electorates. So this is quite important and will help ensure that families in future events won't accidentally be removed from the system. The bill also contains some other minor tidy-ups and corrections which have no adverse impact on families, and therefore Labor will support these changes.</para>
<para>Labor will always support commonsense changes that reduce red tape on services and families and clarify the legal position of the secretary of the department and other public servants acting in goodwill. Labor will support the bill but we will be moving a substantive amendment to give further protection to families in the system. Labor is pleased that the government is acting to improve some of the rough edges of its COVID-19 response, because the government certainly did not get everything right with its pandemic response in the early learning sector last year.</para>
<para>Of course, the Prime Minister's free child care for everyone with a job was like most announcements from the Prime Minister: not quite what it seemed. The main feature of the Prime Minister's free childcare system was that there were many families locked out of free child care because the funding wasn't there. Of course, many of these families were not told they couldn't access the child care by the government. Indeed, that burden was placed on the centres themselves. Labor heard from early learning services around the country that were struggling to keep their doors open as the funding had been slashed, and, of course, many workers were not eligible for JobKeeper. Services had to cut their opening hours, they had to cut staff and they had to stand down staff. Many early educators lost jobs and cut places to try to balance their books. Family day-care educators in particular did not suffer a drop in enrolments but were expected by the government to work for half the pay, because many could not access the JobKeeper program. That was part of the design. Families were denied places, including many healthcare workers who had been asked to come back from maternity leave or were naturally returning to work. This is very distressing.</para>
<para>Another key feature of the pandemic response was the government's exceptional circumstances fund, which they set up to try to cover the one-third of early educators not covered by JobKeeper. This fund was very, very good at one thing: refusing funding applications. Department data showed that only 39 per cent of applications were approved. The government likes to boast that 98 per cent of early learning centres stayed open during the COVID shutdown crisis, but this is a very superficial KPI. The government's own limited survey found that one-quarter of services were not financially viable or were losing money every day. They stayed open during that time, losing money, to look after children so that we could get through the pandemic. Services were ordered to deliver the Prime Minister's underfunded commitment and struggled to provide places to meet demand.</para>
<para>The government's response was naturally to blame the providers. They sent strongly worded communication to providers, threatening their funding if they did not provide enough places and hours, when they knew the services were not funded to do so. Incredibly, they set up a new hotline to encourage families to dob in early learning providers. This was at the height of the pandemic, and these were families and services trying to work together, trying to muddle their way through. Anxiety was high on the families' side and on the educators' side. This was a very difficult time. And instead of supporting, of course the government wanted to pit early learning providers and families against each other.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, this bill does not undo some of the damage that has been caused. While the government often likes to brag about their JobKeeper program, we are hearing, on the ground, that many educators that were forced to leave the industry have not come back. So what we are seeing now is staff shortages. As a direct result of the government not properly covering these educators and not properly ensuring that their connection to their workplace continued, they have now left the sector. What we are seeing as a result is more and more applications for waivers of ratio numbers. That is what we're seeing. So what we are seeing is a sector that has not recovered, because the workforce was disengaged. The workforce was disengaged because this government could not design JobKeeper to ensure that the early learning sector had that connection to their workforce. This is a problem, and we have heard nothing from the government on this.</para>
<para>Now, as we come out of the pandemic, we are facing a different problem in addition to the workforce shortage. We are now seeing the government snap back from their free childcare system to one where fees are now soaring. If we have a look at this system, we are only 2½ years in. The Prime Minister personally designed this childcare system. From time to time they'd brag about the benefit of this system—though a little less, lately, because that benefit has been completely eroded for many Australian families. The Prime Minister himself dubbed these changes, when he introduced them, a 'once-in-a-generation reform', and promised that they would make child care more affordable. Yet we are now seeing ABS data that has shown that, for parents in Brisbane, Sydney and Darwin, child care is now more expensive than when the system was first introduced in mid-2018. That's not just fees—we're not talking about the overall fees. It's the out-of-pocket expenses. And any out-of-pocket benefit has been completely eroded in those places. The benefit has been almost entirely eroded nationally, showing that this system failed—absolutely, comprehensively failed—on what it was meant to deliver. The education department itself predicts that childcare fees will increase by an average of 4.1 per cent for the next four years—substantially outstripping inflation, which the childcare subsidy is pegged to. So that means that out-of-pocket costs will continue to increase and increase and increase and will be higher in the years to come. On average, parents will soon be no better off under the Prime Minister's once-in-a-generation set of reforms than they were under the previous system. Overall, childcare fees have now soared 35.9 per cent since the election of this Liberal government in 2013.</para>
<para>The Productivity Commission's report on government services in 2021 showed that childcare costs are actually locking parents out of the workforce. So now, when so many parents around Australia who had lost their jobs through being stood down want to get back into the workforce and take those opportunities—since the government keeps bragging that those jobs are coming back—they can't, because childcare costs are locking them out. The data reveals that almost 300,000 Australians are not in the labour force due to caring for their children. Notably, the number of parents saying they are not working, and that's mainly to do with the cost of child care, has skyrocketed by 23 per cent to 91,000 parents. This confirms that the cost of child care is prohibiting Australian parents from working the hours they want. The data also shows that the median cost of child care soared by 5.6 per cent to $523 a week from 2019 to 2020.</para>
<para>With the Morrison government itself predicting that fee increases will well outstrip CPI for years to come, the hits will keep on coming for the Australian family. And there is now mounting evidence and data proving that the coalition's childcare system has failed to keep a lid on childcare costs. So the Prime Minister and the minister for education need to stop burying their heads in the sand. We keep hearing from the government that child care doesn't cost very much. They are failing to listen to Australian families right across this country. I tell you that Australian families are crying out to me. They are saying that it's too expensive, they are saying it's too difficult, and they are saying the cost does prohibit them from entering the workforce or taking more hours. But the government has its hands over its ears. Instead, their response is: 'Families have never had it better.' That's what I keep hearing from the minister for education, and that's what I keep hearing from the Prime Minister.</para>
<para>Parents need a real plan to tackle skyrocketing out-of-pocket childcare costs. And, of course, it's not just parents that need this. If we are going to have the type of economic recovery we need, we need everyone with the skills and everyone with the abilities—everyone who can get a job—to get a job. We hear this a lot from this government, but, of course, the handbrake on our economy for women with skills, particularly, is actually the cost of child care. So, while they are encouraging everyone and while their rhetoric is, 'Go and get a job; if there's a job go and get it,' they fail to acknowledge that one of the most significant barriers to taking up those jobs and to using those skills in the economy is the cost of child care.</para>
<para>It's not just workers and parents that want to get back in that are affected by the economic drag that the cost of child care is having. We're hearing it from business groups right across this country. Big business and small business recognise that this is a problem. They continue to call for action from the government, because if a small business has got a great worker and if that worker has time off to have a child and start a family, and have a second child or a third child, they want to ensure that cost is not a barrier to that worker coming back to work. But what we know from the current system is that there is a workforce disincentive. If a second income-earner—and that is usually a woman—works the fourth or fifth day, they are either working for free or actually losing money, when you factor in the cost of child care. They're losing money by going to work; that is how perverse the system is.</para>
<para>Labor has a plan. Labor has announced a plan that will bring down the cost of child care and keep it down. An Albanese Labor government will introduce cheaper child care for working families, which will scrap the childcare subsidy cap which sees women losing money for working extra days of work. We will lift the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent and increase the childcare subsidy rates and taper them for every family earning less than $530,000. We often hear the government criticism of this policy. They are saying that we want to help rich families. Can you believe it? That's what we hear from the government. What we know is that what the government is calling 'rich families' is a police officer and a high school principal working full-time. That's who this government thinks are the rich families. Isn't this perverse? When it comes to so many other things, they are happy to say, 'We don't play class warfare,' but, when it comes to support for child care, they are straight in with class warfare, demonising these women who want cheaper child care.</para>
<para>Importantly, under Labor, the ACCC will be tasked with designing a price regulation mechanism to shed light on costs and fees and to drive them down for good. Also, if we are elected, the Productivity Commission will conduct a comprehensive review of the sector with the aim of implementing a universal 90 per cent subsidy for all families, because the truth of the matter is that supporting children in early education and care is not welfare. It is not welfare, despite what those on the other side say. They try and make out that it's welfare. This is a productivity measure, and we know that, as we come out of COVID, productivity is going to be key. But it's also a workforce participation measure. It's about getting more women back to work and working the hours they want to. And, of course, it is also a population measure because, when they are looking at how many kids they are going to have, many families look at these types of costs. They look at four years or five years of childcare fees, and that is a long time and a lot of money.</para>
<para>These measures that Labor is putting forward are really, really critical. They have been widely welcomed by business groups, by economists, and by parents and families. There is only one group, really, that has been negative about this and has continued to talk this down, and that group is the Liberal and National parties. So I would urge them, with the budget coming up, to steal our ideas. I would be happy for you to steal our ideas, but stop putting your head in the sand when it comes to the cost of child care in this country. Acknowledge that this is a real issue for families.</para>
<para>Labor, if we are elected, will fix the coalition's broken childcare system, but, in the meantime, we're happy to talk about child care anytime. We will support this bill, but, as I noted, we will be moving a substantive amendment that provides extra protection for families during COVID-19 lockdowns. We have not seen the government act on this, especially during these short lockdowns that we've seen in Brisbane, in Adelaide, in Victoria and in New South Wales. We want to see more protection for families when they are told not to turn up to child care yet are still being slugged with gap fees. The government has not responded to that in this bill, and we will be moving an amendment that will help them do just that.</para>
<para>Labor will support the bill, and I look forward to moving our substantive amendment in consideration in detail.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Watts</name>
    <name.id>193430</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Kingston 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.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALLEN</name>
    <name.id>282986</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a working mother of four, I am acutely aware of the pressures that working families face every day. It can feel as though there isn't much time to focus on anything other than supporting our families. Child care has rightly been a chief concern for working families during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, Australia's COVID-19 economic recovery depends on working families being able to return to the workforce, and our government is committed to increasing workforce participation, especially amongst women. In order to do this, we need a strong and resilient economy that works for families. That is why the Morrison government has been, and continues to be, committed to affordable and accessible child care before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021 is about ensuring continuity and clarity for Australian families while also futureproofing the childcare sector.</para>
<para>There are three aspects to this bill I would like to address. Firstly, this bill will ensure business continuity payments are payable during emergencies and disasters. Few could have predicted the worldwide upheaval of the COVID pandemic last year. Although we hope never to witness a global event of its nature again in our lifetimes, we must learn from the experience and put worst-case scenario protections in place. Indeed, we should take what we have done well in this pandemic and create a safety net in case of future disasters or emergencies.</para>
<para>This legislation has a view to the future and will look to safeguard the sector in the case of a future large-scale disaster or emergency. Under the Early Childhood Education and Care Relief Package announced by the Morrison government at the start of the pandemic last year, payments of the childcare subsidy and the additional childcare subsidy were suspended and, in their place, approved providers were given business continuity payments. The bill allows a secretary to make business continuity payments where a childcare service has been adversely affected by an emergency or disaster that may occur in the future. Of course, we hope, we pray, there won't be future disasters or emergencies, but this is humanity and we know that there could be another pandemic around the corner and disasters are an ever-present threat. This bill will allow business continuity payments to be paid instead of or alongside CCS payments.</para>
<para>Secondly, this bill will enable the extension of the first deadline for 2018-19 and will allow taxable income reconciliation to occur after the second deadline. This legislation will also ensure that families and childcare providers are not adversely affected by COVID-19 by ensuring that business continuity payments paid during the relief package period will not be offset against future childcare subsidies. This amendment will allow an extension of the first and second reconciliation deadlines. This means that the amount of the childcare subsidy that an individual was entitled to for a financial year can be reconciled against their adjusted taxable income for that year. This will assist families who are unable to meet their tax return lodgement requirements on time due to the COVID-19 pandemic. I had a number of constituents who had this very problem and who came to me seeking support with how to deal with this very issue.</para>
<para>Thirdly, this bill addresses the legal consequences of their relief package. The sudden onset of the COVID-19 pandemic saw legislation developed and passed at record speed. I will say that it is a sign of a competent and mature government that the changes that were required to provide support for not just the childcare sector but the full economy were on display, and I'm very proud of the Morrison government and its executive for the work that it has done. We have here, in the chamber today, the Assistant Treasurer, who was very central to that very important suite of changes that were made at record speed. Australians can feel confident and secure in the knowledge that they have a mature, dependable and reliable government at the helm during a crisis.</para>
<para>As we emerge from the pandemic, it is necessary to address some of the legal consequences of this legislation, as we are doing here today. For example, there is now concern that a legal challenge could result in individuals being entitled to CCS during the COVID-19 relief package period, resulting in a doubling up of government assistance. We know that it's important that taxpayers' money is properly distributed and that we don't have problems such as this. This legislation amends the Family Assistance Law to minimise the risk of legal challenge.</para>
<para>Another tweak we are making to the legislation is about concerns regarding the automatic cessation of enrolments. Currently a child's enrolment automatically ceases after 14 weeks of nonattendance, and absences claimed in that period may give rise to debts when the enrolment ceases. We are making amendments here to avoid the raising of debts due to a child being unable to attend care during the period of the relief package. I know this is a problem, because, in our home state of Victoria, there were lengthy lockdowns where children were unable to attend childcare providers for months at a time, so it is important that we be able to make changes to this legislation were this to happen again.</para>
<para>The Morrison government knows that Australian families require accessible and affordable child care that meets the needs of working families. We recognise that the three Ps—productivity, population and participation—are the keys to economic prosperity. Australia's COVID-19 economic recovery depends upon working families being able to return to the workforce, and the government is committed to increasing workforce participation. In order to do this, we need accessible and affordable child care that meets the needs of working families. We know child care is critical for lifting female workforce participation. I know this very personally, being a working mother of four, but I hear it so often from my constituents. Pre COVID, women's workforce participation had risen from 58.7 per cent in September 2013, when this government came to power, to 61.6 per cent in January 2020, which is among the best rates in the world. However, as a result of COVID-19, female participation fell to 57.5 per cent in May 2020. This is very concerning, but I'm pleased to say that there has been a recent rebound in female participation back to its record levels of 61.2 per cent in the February just past, 2021. This is an almost complete return of female participation to the workforce. It is something to be celebrated and acknowledged because it's a very important factor for our economic recovery.</para>
<para>As we know, economists estimate that halving the gap between male and female workforce participation could produce an additional $60 billion in GDP by 2038 and increase cumulative living standards by $140 billion. It is true that women play a very important role in the productivity of our economy, and we need to continue to support women all along the way. I'd like to make a special note of the Women's Economic Security Statement, which was inaugurated by the former Minister for Women and member for Higgins, the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer, and acknowledge her work in supporting women in the workplace. In particular, the Morrison government is committed to seeing more women in high-skilled, high-paying jobs. That includes non-traditional industries such as modern manufacturing. We've heard from the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, the Hon. Karen Andrews, and the work that she is doing to activate our modern manufacturing sector, which will have good jobs for women. That is why we are also investing heavily in women-in-STEM programs. That means that women can get into high-paying jobs, and that means that we can have a more productive economy.</para>
<para>It also means that affordable and accessible child care is more critical than ever. Indeed, childcare and workforce participation are natural complements. The Morrison government has been, and remains, committed to affordable and accessible child care. That is why the 2020-21 budget saw a record $9.2 billion in childcare subsidy payments, which will continue to grow to $10.7 billion in coming years. That is a huge investment in getting women back into the workplace. The Morrison government has also extended the relaxed activity-test requirements for all Australian families through to 4 April 2021. This means that families can continue to receive the same level of subsidised care as before the pandemic.</para>
<para>The Morrison government has been working hard to ensure that the sector continues to improve. The Morrison government has built on its strong record when it comes to child care, and important strides have been made over recent years. In 2018, as we heard from the previous speaker, this government introduced a suite of reforms to the childcare sector to keep a lid on out-of-pocket expenses. ABS CPI data show that the costs to families remain 2.3 per cent lower than under the previous childcare package. Under Labor, out-of-pocket costs in child care skyrocketed. It's under this government, and thanks to these reforms, that we've had a lid put on out-of-pocket costs and that we've seen an increase in women's workforce participation.</para>
<para>The government supports a targeted approach to child care. This means that those families who earn the least receive the highest level of subsidy, at 85 per cent. It's about supporting those who need help the most. On top of this, we provide additional support for those who are doing it particularly tough, with a 95 per cent subsidy available for families who are transitioning to work and a 120 per cent subsidy already available for families who are experiencing financial hardship. In most cases, this equates to free child care, and it's about helping those who need it the most.</para>
<para>The Morrison government's support for the childcare sector is critical, and it is valued by the sector and families alike. We know that the childcare sector faced decimation by COVID. I'm proud that the Morrison government gave the sector an incredible lifeline that kept families connected to their usual childcare centre. Every mother knows that children like stability and continuity of care. Quite simply put, children get attached to their caregivers, so it was incredibly important that families could continue to send their children to the same childcare centres that they had been attending pre COVID. It was with a sense of security and support that they could do that, and I'm very pleased that almost 100 per cent of childcare centres were able to stay open through COVID due to the support that the Morrison government provided. At the same time, we continue to futureproof this vitally important industry with the changes that we are making to the legislation offered on the floor of the House today. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If there is one thing that is certain, it is that child care costs are out of control under this Morrison government. They've been increasing, and, in many capital cities throughout the country, child care is now more expensive relative to when this government came into office. It's a handbrake on economic security for families and it's a handbrake on productivity and growth in our economy, but, more importantly, it hampers the ability of kids to get access to early childhood education.</para>
<para>This bill, the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021, makes some technical amendments to the operation of the COVID related legislation that was brought in earlier last year. It clarifies the circumstances where the secretary can declare an emergency or a disaster event and make business continuity payments, therefore retaining those payments as an ongoing policy response available to the government. It also removes the legal requirement for services to send weekly session reports to the department during these emergency events and extends the tax return deadlines for 2018-19 to 31 March 2021 to provide more time for people who have not lodged their returns during the pandemic.</para>
<para>Of course, we're supporting sensible changes such as theses. But the Morrison government certainly didn't do everything right and didn't get everything right in the early learning sector during the COVID-19 pandemic response last year. Their 'free child care for everyone with a job' policy, like most announcements from this government, sounded good but it wasn't quite what it seemed when it came into operation. The main feature of that so-called free childcare system was that a number of people were locked out of child care and a number of services were driven to the brink of collapse. I heard from early learning centre operators in my electorate and Labor heard from operators around the country who were struggling to keep their doors open after they found out that the reality of that system was that their funding had been cut. They couldn't offer new places and they couldn't take new kids to cover that loss and that shortfall, yet they had to remain open and, of course, they had continue to provide the number of educators, keep the centre running and meet those additional costs. Services found that they were cutting hours. They had to cut staff and cut places to try and balance their books. Family day care educators didn't suffer a drop in enrolments, but they were expected by the government to work for half the pay because they couldn't access JobKeeper payments. So it wasn't just the service operators that suffered but family day care educators as well.</para>
<para>Families were being denied places, including healthcare workers who had been asked to come back early from maternity leave to help with the crisis but were missing out on getting places. It seemed that some Australians were more essential than others. Another key feature was the government's exceptional circumstances fund which they set up to cover the one-third of early educators not covered by JobKeeper and which was exceptionally good at refusing to approve funding applications. The latest data from the department showed that only 39 per cent of applications were approved. The government boasts that 98 per cent of early learning services stayed open during the COVID crisis, but does the government know how many of those 98 per cent of services suffered massive financial losses and have really struggled to make those losses back? The government's own limited survey found that a quarter of the services were not financially viable and were losing money every day. It's no wonder the sector seriously struggled to deliver that free childcare commitment when they were being expected to do it with a lot less funding.</para>
<para>Naturally, the government's response was to blame the providers. They sent strongly worded communications to providers threatening their funding if they didn't provide enough places and hours, when they knew that they weren't funding the services to do so. Incredibly they set up a new hotline and encouraged families to dob in early learning providers. What was the government's response to the mess they made with their underfunded and poorly targeted policy? It was to snap back to the old, confusing, expensive childcare subsidy system. We all know that you only need to talk to a parent, particularly in the capital cities, to find out the exorbitant cost of child care, and the fees keep rising and rising and rising. For working families, we all know that wages aren't increasing, but the one area where we know that there has been price inflation is around early childhood education expenses. In some areas, the fees are out of control. Only 2½ years into their new system, the benefit has been entirely eroded for many Australian families.</para>
<para>When the Prime Minister introduced this system, he dubbed this a once-in-a-generation reform and promised that it would make child care more affordable, yet ABS data shows that, for parents in Brisbane, Sydney and Darwin, child care is now more expensive than when the system was introduced in mid-2018. So that promise, that commitment, has been completely blown out of the water by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the data that shows that it's now more expensive than under the old system. Childcare fees have soared by 36 per cent across Australia since the election of the government in 2013. We know that that is an inhibitor to families getting the support that they need to ensure that people can return to work after having a child and continue to remain in work to support their families and also to ensure that we're growing our economy and that we're more productive, particularly when it comes to women.</para>
<para>We know that, because of the way the system works at the moment, there's a disincentive for families, particularly women, to work a fourth or fifth day while using child care. Many mothers that I've spoken to in my electorate over the course of the last couple of years have said that, when they sit down with their partners to do the sums and work it out, that fourth and fifth day is simply not financially viable, because all of the money that they earn on the fourth and fifth days is going to pay the childcare fees because of the way the cap operates on the amount of the subsidy that can be accessed by families. That is a handbrake on productivity. That is a handbrake on growing our economy and creating more jobs, which would enable us to reduce the unemployment rate, put more people in employment and, ultimately, grow the economy so that there's a bigger pie for all to share and so that you can talk about reducing taxes and other regulatory payments and have businesses thrive. But, under this government's system, there's a built-in disincentive to that occurring, and it is harming our nation's economic growth and productivity.</para>
<para>The other point about this sector is that workers in the sector are undervalued by this government and have been so since they came to office. Anyone with kids knows that you'll often drop your kids off at eight o'clock in the morning when you go to work and, when you come back at 5.30, those childhood educators are still there. They're still working, looking after your kids when you come back, after hours, to pick them up, yet you can bet your life that, on average, that childcare worker is earning less than the parents that drop them off. Historically there's been an undervaluation of this profession and its value to our community and our society by this government. We haven't recognised that there's a deeply emotional element in caring for children and that there's a deeply positive element in ensuring that kids get access to education at an early age. All of the studies throughout the world—and so many have been published—indicate that the earlier you begin educating a child in a systematic way and begin that important social interaction with other children and adults in a learning environment the better the educational outcomes will be, the longer they will stay in school and the more likely they will be to take on tertiary education, get into a trade or university and, ultimately, get into a better job and earn more income and be more productive for the Australian economy. Yet we don't recognise the value of those that provide that structured education and that social interaction. The teaching that they provide to children has not been valued by our society, and that's particularly the case under this government.</para>
<para>That's why Labor went to the election pledging a policy that recognised the value of the work performed by childhood educators and promising to fund an increase in their wages—to basically fund from government support an increase in the wages of people working in this sector—to finally say that this parliament values the work that you do, appreciates the work you do and, importantly, understands its value to our society and economy and ensures that you are paid more for that work. Do you think the Liberal government, the Morrison government, would ever do anything like that? Certainly not. Do you think this Liberal government would ever countenance saying to the Fair Work Commission in the minimum wage case or in any other case: 'You know what? We value the work of early childhood educators. They're underpaid and we believe they should be paid more'? We've got Buckley's chance of that submission ever being put to the Fair Work Commission by the Morrison government or by any other Liberal government. In that it's deeply fair to say that this government does not value the work that early childhood educators do. If they did, they'd ensure that they're paid more, as Labor was promising at the last election to do.</para>
<para>Not only is this an issue that's very important for working families and individuals, particularly women—it's a key issue in income equality, it's a key issue in women's participation in the workforce and it's a key issue in ensuring women get access to the rights and opportunities that men get; it's an issue of national significance to our economy in growing productivity. We all know that the more access that working families get to work, particularly women, the more productive they are going to be. Their earning capacity increases, and the nation benefits. But there's a built-in disincentive in the system as it works at the moment, and it's specifically in the childcare subsidy cap, which, as I said, discourages work on the fourth and fifth day because it makes it financially unavailable. It means that parents cannot afford to have a child in day care or in early childhood education four or five days a week. It doesn't add up for the family, so why would you do it?</para>
<para>That's why Labor has announced a policy—and Anthony Albanese has been so strong on this—as a budget reply last year to scrap the $10½ thousand childcare subsidy which sees women in particular losing money for extra days worked. We're also pledging to lift the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent so that working families get better support to ensure that they can work the hours that they need to and want to. We're also pledging to increase the childcare subsidy rates and taper them for every family earning less than $530,000. Overwhelmingly, 99 per cent of families in Australia will benefit from Labor's policy. Fees will come down, access will be increased, families will get access to the days that they need, workers will get more access to work and grow income, productivity will improve, the economy will grow, more jobs will be created. It's a simple equation. If Labor's policy is implemented, the economy and workers and families and, importantly, children, will be better off.</para>
<para>The ACCC will be tasked with designing a price regulation mechanism to shine light on costs and fees and drive them down for good. The Productivity Commission would also, under a Labor government, conduct a comprehensive review of the sector with the aim of implementing a universal 90 per cent subsidy for all families. That's Labor's plan for cheaper child care. It represents consultation with the industry, with early childhood educators, with families and with operators to ensure that families get access to the hours of support that they need so they can work the hours that they need for their families and, importantly, so that kids get access to that early childhood education service.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I address the substance of this bill, I'll address the comments by the member for Kingsford Smith, because you'd have to live in a bizarro fantasy land to accept the proposition that he has put forward. The member for Kingsford Smith said that every single proposal put forward by the Australian Labor Party is good. It can do wonderful things, there are no extra costs involved, everybody is getting paid more and getting better benefits and better outcomes, but it's not going to cost anybody more. The Labor Party's approach to child care in this country has the same perennial delusional impact. But what they've done is constantly increase obligations and regulations and costs for the sector. Make no mistake, most of it doesn't actually improve productivity or outcomes in the childcare sector. Truthfully, it barely even improves outcomes for the kids. But it does make it harder for young couples and single parents to access child care at an affordable price.</para>
<para>The Labor Party have never actually been interested in outcomes. Everything they focus on is inputs, with no interest in what you get as a result of what you put into a system. It's the same attitude they take to education and health care. We hear them every time complain, 'There isn't enough money.' They say, 'How much money do we tip into the system?' They never say, 'How do we improve outcomes so that kids get better educated'—not interested in that—or 'so that people on waiting lists get seen'—not interested in that—or 'so that people get higher standards of health care'—not interested in that. The same is true with aged care—not interested in how people age with dignity. No matter what the issue is, their answer is always 'What is the input?' not 'What is the outcome?' This is the absurdity and the lack of logic that sits at the heart of their policy approach. Of course we have to talk about inputs as part of an honest conversation about how we provide the sustainable public services that people need. No-one would argue with that. But it should be matched against performance and outcomes.</para>
<para>We see the dishonest conversation the Labor Party are having at the moment, where they're obsessed with increasing super contributions, even though the actual research shows that Australians already have enough retirement savings to live a dignified life in retirement at the international benchmark of 70 per cent of your final salary. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Australians have more than 91 per cent. So what Labor are actually trying to do is take more today to subsidise inheritances. They actually don't understand—or don't seem to understand, if they read the Callaghan review—that the system they're engineering is designed to benefit the rich.</para>
<para>Let's face it, their interest actually isn't even to benefit the rich. Their interest is in benefiting their constituency of organised capital through industry fund movement, where they want large capital to be at the heart of decision-making—where big business, big capital, big unions and, when they're in charge, big government come together to conspire against the people. Ultimately, these debates are about power, and what the Labor Party want to do is empower themselves, because they have always seen the success of this nation through themselves, not through the aspirations, the goals, the achievements and the dreams realised of the Australian people. It's got them into trouble a lot of times in the past. What they want to do is keep destroying sectors, step by step, including child care, so that they can realise their ambition to control and manipulate it.</para>
<para>We on this side of the chamber take the exact opposite approach. Everything we stand for is about how we empower Australians to live out the fullness of their lives, not just in their working lives, so they have dignity in retirement—which is why we won't hit them with a giant new retiree tax, like the Labor Party, who, before the last election, misled the public and said it wouldn't hit low-income earners. They had to come back into this chamber and outside this chamber, including the Leader of the Opposition, and accept that, yes, in fact, they were going to push people, physically push them, below the poverty line. Now, with child care, we have a similar challenge, where their solution to the problem is to make child care more unaffordable for Australians. That is not our approach. Our approach is to try and get costs down. We've implemented reforms already that have done so, but, yes, costs continue to creep up—partly because of demand, partly because of the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, partly as a consequence of things like rising wages and regulatory standards as they've been implemented.</para>
<para>But what we want to ensure is that every working parent out there who needs and relies on child care at this challenging or difficult time can get access to services. We've seen this approach continuously by this government, because we've been prudent in the good times but also built up a buffer so we can support Australians in the difficult times such as we've had over the past 12 months, providing temporary support and assistance so that we can remove the barriers for those who need it.We've done it in areas like telehealth, to make sure that people can access healthcare services, to the benefit of the patient and the doctor. And, because some people are still facing challenges, we've recently announced extensions to that service, that critically important service. This legislation fits as part of that conversation—continuing to provide business continuity payments required by the childcare sector when they need it.</para>
<para>We don't want that to be a permanent state of affairs. We hear the members of the Labor Party on the other side of this chamber complaining at the moment about the decision of the federal government not to continue to support JobKeeper. They ignore the facts that it has now been running for nearly nine months and, in addition to that, the longer you keep it going and you have firms and jobs that don't require it, the bigger the gap it creates and the more restructure and adjustment there is, and more people will find themselves out of work. The Labor Party would rather public policy and jobs be based on falsehoods and false foundations rather than sustainable futures. The approach we're taking with this legislation is to say that there are temporary measures that we need to implement. We need to provide discretion to the government to take action when there are temporary emergencies and disasters, to support the services when they need us and when they need taxpayer support, because they've got to support working parents across the country.</para>
<para>So we've looked at what we need to do to make sure that we can support child care, so that the parents of this country that need assistance to go to their jobs, their families or their work in the challenges of raising children amongst their lives can get support, and the Morrison government has their back.There'll be further reforms in this space, but this is an important one, as part of making sure that those Australians who face challenges get the help they need now, including in the childcare sector, including the providers—so they can keep supporting Australian children and Australian parents when they need it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the two most shocking images as a result of COVID for Australians in Australia—aside from the terrible international images we saw of mass graves and people struggling to breathe on ventilators—was people queued up outside of Centrelinks, and the other was parents desperately seeking child care with this system on the brink of collapse. This government neglected to listen to the industry last year when the industry was crying out for solutions during the pandemic. It was only after Labor dragged the government to the table and stakeholders thumped that table loudly enough that the government—finally, begrudgingly, with the whites of their eyes showing in fear and knowing that they had to do something about child care because it was an economic fulcrum; we needed to keep people at work—came up with some sort of crazy package. Those opposite didn't understand the importance of the industry. Those opposite didn't understand how critical the educators in child care were, and they didn't understand the importance of it for our future either.</para>
<para>In a single month, my office had more than 50 interactions with businesses and parents who needed immediate support. Across my electorate of Paterson, centres and desperate parents contacted me with urgent questions that had not been adequately or promptly responded to by the minister or by the government. The Prime Minister's 'free child care for everyone with a job' was like most announcements from this Prime Minister—really not quite what it seemed. The main feature of the Prime Minister's free childcare system was the number of people locked out, adding pressure on the number of services already being driven to the brink of collapse. It really was a terrible, chaotic time not only for desperate parents and in some cases grandparents but also for those who worked in the sector and saw the honeycomb crumbling all around them.</para>
<para>Across my electorate, early learning services were struggling to keep their doors open after their funding had been slashed. Some services had to cut their opening hours, cutting staff. It was just so incongruous with the situation that was at hand. They had to cut places to try to balance their books. Family day care educators were expected by the government to work for half the pay because they couldn't access JobKeeper initially, despite pressure building on enrolments as people expected free child care, and who would blame them after their government had set them up to fail like this? Families, including healthcare workers, were denied places. If people take the time to the read the history of this pandemic, perhaps a hundred years from now, they truly will shake their head at some of the moments of incompetence demonstrated by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, his cabinet and his Liberal government, aided and abetted by the National Party. Family day care educators were expected by the government to work for this half-pay, which no-one else was expected to do, while families were being denied places, including healthcare workers. Some of those healthcare workers had been asked to come back early from maternity leave and do their duty. These people were trying to help the government. They were trying to help our country and the wider community at a terrible time, when their nursing skills and medical skills were desperately required, but their government wasn't making it easy for them.</para>
<para>During the pandemic the relationship between the government and the childcare industry was atrocious. I couldn't believe it as I watched the situation go from bad to worse. Professional educators, people who really understand child care and how it works—and I'm not just talking about the first thousand days of a child's life and how important it is for neuroplasticity and brain development and making these brilliant young minds the best they can be; I'm talking about the intricacies of running the business—often small business—of child care. Not all providers could access JobKeeper, because the government wanted to cherrypick the business models it supported, which was really very interesting. At first those opposite denied JobKeeper, saying the sector didn't need support. Then they gave them JobKeeper, but only after so much unnecessary anxiety and anguish. Interestingly this government seemed keen to support some in the sector more than others. If my memory serves me correctly, a few of the government's frontbench owe a great deal of their current wealth to the childcare industry, so it is flummoxing to say the least.</para>
<para>Then they set up the exceptional circumstance fund, which was a truly unfortunate name, to cover the one-third of early educators not covered by JobKeeper. Are you keeping up? It is confusing for those who know the industry, let alone parents who are strapped for time and trying to navigate a system like this. This fund was exceptionally good at refusing to approve applications, it would seem. It was often leaving businesses waiting months for support during the height of the pandemic. The latest data from the department showed that only 39 per cent of applications were approved. This is the exceptional circumstances fund that was supposed to help people in this exceptional circumstance that we all found ourselves in and yet only 39 per cent were approved. That is just appalling. Things were far from smooth and easy, as the government kept saying it would be. 'Free, smooth and easy'—it certainly was none of those things.</para>
<para>All this comes from a government that boasts that 98 per cent of early learning services stayed open during COVID. But this is a perfect example of a very superficial KPI. Those opposite really do love a bit of spin. Does the government know how many of that 98 per cent suffered from massive financial losses? Did the government bother to seek feedback about its botched measures? How many jobs did these businesses lose? How many years was the business set back? This government boasts it understands small business, but it really does little to support it, and it certainly does not appear to understand the childcare sector at all. It actively fought against a wage subsidy and then decided to compromise but offered only a half-hearted solution that left many businesses in the sector worse off.</para>
<para>As my colleagues have said, the government's limited survey found a quarter of services were not financially viable and were losing money every day. Is it any wonder that the sector struggled so badly to deliver the Prime Minister's free childcare commitment? How could this government honestly expect the sector to do this with a lot less funding? It really just makes no sense.</para>
<para>Sadly, these blokes opposite—they are mainly blokes—really like to think that they are the masters of the universe when it comes to budgeting and finance. However, these figures certainly demonstrate that they can't manage the childcare books, after eight years in power. They had tripled the national debt even before they had the cover of a pandemic to blame. COVID didn't send us backwards; we were already there. I wonder what Mr Howard, the former PM, must think. Whilst he certainly did some good things like gun reform, I think most people will attest that he was not the best Treasurer we have ever had, and Josh Frydenberg is an even bigger embarrassment.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>241590</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Paterson will refer to members by their correct title.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer is an even bigger embarrassment, with his attempts to make a scapegoat of the pandemic rather than admit the ineptitude before and during COVID. He's running the economy into the ground, as I said earlier, having tripled the debt even before we were in the situation of a pandemic.</para>
<para>Whilst the government's free childcare policy was failing, the government's response, rather than listening to the experts and working on fixing the policy's oversight, was naturally to blame the providers. They sent strongly worded communiques to providers, threatening their funding if they didn't provide enough places and hours. They knew that the services weren't funded to do so. The services weren't able to do that. The government bullied small business operators—and I know, because I had phone calls with people who told me what had been said to them—and they expected more of overworked staff. This government will happily throw any Australian job and any business, or even industry, under the bus if it's in the best interests of the Prime Minister and the spin the government wants to put on it.</para>
<para>What I find most incredible in this whole mess was the government's decision to set up a new hotline to encourage families to dob in providers. What a complete debacle! As if families are going to dob in a service they've chosen to care for their children, especially when places are impossible to get and they're absolutely desperate! The government were looking for someone to blame for their failed policy. It wasn't the fault of the providers, who do an outstanding job and are under so much pressure. It was the lack of guidance and clear direction and support from a government that was clearly flailing.</para>
<para>I don't think it's right, in fact. We talk about the Prime Minister being the master of spin. Well, I'm not actually sure that he is, because, the longer his term goes, the more the spin is wearing thin and the shine's wearing off. Monday was a prime example, with the women of Australia calling out the PM for his blatant disregard for consequences. I think anyone who was looking for childcare places during the pandemic would also say that there was blatant disregard for consequences. It seems no minister was held to account for the bungling of the childcare rollout or, for that matter, of grants programs or half-baked childcare policies—or worse, it would seem. It's just a culture of no accountability; of a complete lack of capacity, it would seem, on the front bench and in the cabinet; and, frankly, of moral failure right around this government.</para>
<para>So now what is the government's response to the mess they made with their underfunded, poorly targeted, headline-grabbing policy? They've decided to revert to the confusing and expensive Prime Minister Morrison designed childcare subsidy system. Childcare fees are out of control and providers are being dragged through a long and convoluted process to understand anything the government is trying to achieve. Why would the government snap back to its ill-designed prior policy when they already know, after 2½ years, that the childcare system they designed and any proposed benefits have been entirely eroded for many Australian families? ABS data shows that for parents in Brisbane, Sydney and Darwin, child care is now more expensive than when the system was introduced in mid-2018. The benefit has almost been entirely eroded nationally, showing the system has really been a complete failure.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister himself dubbed the system a once-in-a-generation reform and promised it would make child care more affordable. In fact, it has done the reverse. It has made it more expensive and harder to get. The coalition has never delivered generational reform. They don't know how to deliver generational reform. We have had a generation of entitled politicians who have delivered no reform at all. That's actually not generational reform. Superannuation, Medicare, the NBN and the NDIS are all life-changing reforms. They are the sorts of things we need. After eight years, one would think we would see some glimmer of an idea from a government of making reform. We know we need to get women back to work. We know that we need increased capacity in our workforce to grow our economy, especially after this pandemic has riven many families and made it so difficult. But it seems as though this government is absolutely determined not to deliver.</para>
<para>Last year the federal Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, and I attended my old preschool, the Kurri Kurri & District Preschool, which I went to from 1973. We spoke to the team there. They're a terrific group of people. Some of them have been doing this since the 1970s and beyond. They shared some of the challenges the industry is facing. They talked about the fantastic program they offer local Kurri kids. They do a magnificent job. I would love for the Prime Minister to go back to the community and, rather than offer some off-in-the-distance gas program that will never happen, talk to some of these childcare workers. Prime Minister, go and pick their brains for really good insight. They are professionals who know what they are talking about and can point you in the right direction of how to set up a decent childcare system that is fair and equitable for Australians, rather than the wasteful, convoluted system we have been landed with. Across my electorate of Paterson I have just over 10,000 children who are under four, and all their parents vote. I hope they really think about what this government has delivered for them and know that Labor will deliver.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge the contribution this evening of the member for Paterson, an extraordinary representative for her community in country New South Wales, regional New South Wales. She's an exceptional local member of parliament who was elected on the same day as me and also the member for Burt, who is here at the desk. Like us, she has worked hard each and every day for her community, for all the educators in her community and for all the parents and families in her community. She, like me and the member for Burt, is very proud of the childcare policy that the member for Greenway has developed. We look forward to prosecuting it more and more in this place and in our electorates. I thank the member for Paterson.</para>
<para>Labor supports the legislation before us today, the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021, but equally I rise in support of the amendments put forward by the member for Kingston, Ms Rishworth. These changes to the original bill are technical in nature and seek to clarify drafting errors and ambiguities in the original legislation that was passed in haste due to the pandemic. This retrospective legislation clarifies and states the circumstances where an emergency or disaster event can be declared and business continuity payments can be made, thereby providing legal certainty to actions taken last year and retaining those payments as an ongoing policy response available to government—a sensible move. It removes a legal requirement for services to send weekly session reports to departments during emergency or disaster events, reducing the red tape burden on services during these events.</para>
<para>Further, it extends tax return deadlines for the 2018-19 financial year to 31 March 2021. I might add that that's the member for Paterson's 25th wedding anniversary, I think, and also my birthday—but I won't tell you my age! Extending the tax return deadlines is important because, as we know, the pandemic has wrought chaos on many Australians' bookkeeping and, alongside the stresses of ongoing job insecurity and potential school closures, it's understandable that many working parents have fallen behind on things like tax.</para>
<para>Could I just correct myself? I said that the member for Greenway had moved the amendment; it was actually the member for Kingston. My apologies to both members. It's the member for Kingston who has developed the childcare policy for Labor and done a great deal of work in that effort, and it is she who moved this amendment, which I support.</para>
<para>The legislation before us today removes the two-year cut-off point for people to lodge their tax returns and be eligible for the childcare subsidy. It also ensures that emergency or disaster events do not count towards the 14-week period of nonattendance after which a child's enrolment is cancelled.</para>
<para>We know that the government did not get everything right with its COVID-19 pandemic response last year, particularly in the early learning sector. The Prime Minister's free child care for everyone with a job was, like most of his announcements, not quite what it seemed. The main feature of the Prime Minister's free childcare system was the number of people locked out of free child care and, in turn, the number of services being driven to the brink of collapse right around this country. In 2020, Labor heard from early learning services from around the country that struggled to keep their doors open after their funding had been slashed. Services had to cut opening hours, cut staff and cut places to try and balance their books. Family day care educators didn't suffer a drop in enrolments but were expected by the government to work for half pay, because they had been unfairly locked out of the JobKeeper payments. Families were being denied places—including healthcare workers who had been asked to come back from parental leave to help with the crisis, yet they were the ones missing out.</para>
<para>It's no wonder the sector seriously struggled to deliver the Prime Minister's free childcare commitment, when they were being expected to do it with less funding. And, of course, the government's response was to blame the providers. They sent strongly worded communications to providers, threatening their funding if they didn't provide enough spaces and hours, when they knew the services weren't funded to do so. Incredibly, in a dire act of cynicism, they opened up a hotline and encouraged families to dob in early learning providers. When in doubt, set up a hotline—what a palaver! We saw the government seeking to blame childcare providers themselves, and the people who work there, for the mess of its own making. So what was the government's response to the mess it had made with the underfunded and poorly targeted headline-grabbing policy? It was snapped back to the old, confusing and expensively designed childcare subsidy system.</para>
<para>We in Labor know that childcare fees are out of control. Since the coalition was elected in 2013, childcare fees have skyrocketed by 35.9 per cent. Australia ranks 26th of 32 countries in the OECD for net childcare costs. In 2019, families spent 18 per cent of household income on early education and care. We're only 2½ years into the coalition's childcare system, and the benefit has been entirely eroded for many Australian families. The Prime Minister himself dubbed the system a 'once-in-a-generation reform' and promised it would make child care more affordable. It's been a very short generation.</para>
<para>Two and a half years later, families across the nation are paying too much for child care, and this is especially the case in my home state of Western Australia. The costs of day care at one centre in Perth reached almost $150 a day in 2019. Brett Thomson, of Schools of Early Learning in WA, said at the time that childcare fees are:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… becoming unaffordable—the CCS was supposed to address that, and to some extent it has, but a lot of upper middle-income earners are finding it pretty tough.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Some of them are the professionals who we want as working parents back in the workforce.</para></quote>
<para>Under the coalition's plan, childcare fees have increased by 5.4 per cent in Kwinana and 5.8 per cent in Rockingham, both suburbs in my electorate. This is an outrage. The community can barely afford what it gets already, so to have an increase in childcare fees of nearly six per cent in both Kwinana and Rockingham is a disgrace. There are too many childcare centres in Brand for me to name them all, but I would mention the Goodstart Early Learning at Baldivis, who allowed me to visit last year. The workers at these centres, as all of us know, are frankly amazing. Time and time again, when I get to visit, I am astounded by their compassion, their commitment, their work ethic and their dedication to the young people of this nation.</para>
<para>The benefit has been almost entirely eroded nationally, showing the system has been a complete let-down for Australian families. Documents from the Morrison government's own education department predict that childcare fees will increase by 4.1 per cent every year for the next four years, substantially outstripping inflation, which the childcare subsidy is pegged to. This is further evidence that out-of-pocket costs for families will be higher in the years to come. We know, on average, parents will soon be no better off under the Prime Minister's once-in-a-generation set of reforms than they were under the previous scheme, which ended in July 2018.</para>
<para>Parents need a real plan to tackle skyrocketing out-of-pocket childcare costs, not the coalition government's broken system that they continue to cling on to. The Productivity Commission's <inline font-style="italic">Report on Government Services 202</inline><inline font-style="italic">1</inline> has shown childcare costs are locking Australian parents out of the workforce. Fixing access to child care, and, as such, women's participation in the workforce, will be a boon for the Australian economy.</para>
<para>ABS data reveals almost 300,000 Australians are not in the labour force due to duties caring for children. That's 300,000 people who want to work and cannot because of the skyrocketing costs of child care. At a time when Australia has limited opportunities to grow the workforce because of COVID-19 restrictions, we need these people to be able to get back to work. The rate of parents saying they are not working mainly due to the costs of child care continues to grow each and every day.</para>
<para>With the Morrison government itself predicting fee increases that will outstrip CPI for years to come, the hits will keep on coming for Australian families. There is now a mountain of evidence and data proving the coalition's childcare system has failed to keep a lid on childcare costs for Australian families, particularly those in my electorate of Brand.</para>
<para>Experts across the country and economists around the country have been calling for investment in child care because it is a win, a win and a win—good for parents, good for children and good for our economy. Australian women are much more likely to work part time and less likely to work full time than women in comparable OECD countries. Australia's female workforce participation rate of 73 per cent is above the OECD average of 65 per cent, but it falls in the prime parenting years. Australian women are much more likely to only be able to work part time because of childcare costs. The typical Australian woman with children of early caring education age works just over two days a week, and that is a loss to the workforce of Australia. Child care is supposed to support parents to work, but instead for many parents it is acting as a financial disincentive to work more or even at all. This is a particularly harsh barrier for women's participation in the workforce, for resuming their place in the workplace or on their career paths, and, indeed, for their economic independence.</para>
<para>Only Labor has a plan to bring down the costs of child care and to keep them down. Labor will introduce cheaper child care for working families, which will scrap the $10,560 childcare subsidy cap which often sees women losing money from an extra day's work. We'll lift the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent and increase childcare subsidy rates and taper them for every family earning less than $530,000. It is a universal childcare program.</para>
<para>Cheaper child care in this country will enable parents to work as much as they want. It will ensure all children can receive a quality early education, no matter their background. Accessible universal child care will pay dividends back to our economy by increasing the workforce participation of women. Treasury has said that the three Ps are essential to Australia's economic recovery—participation, productivity and population. Labor's childcare plan addresses all three by unleashing the power of the female workforce. As was recently stated by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia:</para>
<quote><para class="block">While there are many ways Governments can bolster the capacity of their workforces, the most exciting opportunity is to make it easier for women with young children to re-enter the workforce and work more hours.</para></quote>
<para>The fact is women, particularly mums, could be essential to our recovery from this recession and to our long-term economic prosperity. Modelling on investing in child care from KPMG and the Grattan Institute found that the resulting growth to our economy from women working more could be worth up to $10 billion a year. That is the reason that it is not only families calling for childcare reform but also business leaders and economists right around this country. Under Labor's plan, the ACCC will be tasked with designing a price-regulation mechanism to shed light on costs and fees and drive them down for good.</para>
<para>Children are learning and developing from birth, and even before that. The nature of the interactions between a child, the adults around them and the environment, as well as the experiences to which a child is exposed, all contribute to a child's early learning foundations. The benefits of quality early learning for children in the year prior to starting school are largely undisputed, with evidence that immediate socialisation increases the likelihood of a successful transition into formal schooling, as children get older, and improves their performance in standardised test results in the early years of primary school. This is all as a result of participation in preschool programs. There's also evidence of the impacts on children's development of attending quality early learning from about one to three years of age.</para>
<para>Children's experiences in the early years of their lives can have profound impacts on their longer-term development. The environment within and outside the home is important. There has been extensive research on the impact of non-parental care on children's development. The Productivity Commission has said:</para>
<list>Preschool is beneficial to the general population and delivers significant benefits to disadvantaged children.</list>
<list>Children facing disadvantage or who are at risk of poor care in their home environment may benefit from early exposure to high quality childcare and the additional income generated by parental employment.</list>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<list>The quality of care is important in early childhood development and depends on a range of factors …</list>
<para>Overall, most Australian children are doing well developmentally. However, for many, it is a case of being born lucky. It is a case of being born into a family that teaches the child to read at a young age and that has the time to educate them or the money to pay for early childhood education. Those born without such resources often miss out.</para>
<para>Labor's plan for cheaper child care will reward all families and allow more second-income earners, who are usually women, to work more and contribute to our economic recovery. This is a win for the women of this country returning to the workforce. It's a win for the economy. But, most importantly, it's a win for the children of this country. It gives infants and toddlers the opportunity to learn more, to grow more and to have a sound start to their early childhood education. Most of the growth of a child's brain happens in these early childhood years. This country should take advantage of that and make sure it implements a system of universal child care. But only Labor has a plan for universal child care in this country, and only Labor will deliver for the women and children of this country and their education and prosperity.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021. COVID-19 has left few industries and workplaces unaffected, but childcare centres and the educators who work there have faced some of the most significant challenges of any workplace during this pandemic. It was not helped by the shambolic approach of this government to this essential service, which had to continue throughout lockdown.</para>
<para>At the beginning of the pandemic, the Morrison government refused to support this sector, despite the fact that centres saw their revenue dive overnight as national lockdowns were put in place. I saw this in my electorate, where centres were contacting me saying: 'We need to keep running, but what are we going to do? People are pulling their children out.' Meanwhile, essential workers needed to send their children to child care. It's an essential service, and it needs to be recognised as such. So, after pressure from Labor and from the sector, the previous minister announced that the government would provide free child care for all. It seemed like a fantastic announcement, except centres were not properly supported to provide this.</para>
<para>The truth was that childcare centres were expected to provide care for half the money and that many parents, including essential workers, were unable to access the care they needed under the Morrison government's scheme. My phone was running hot from centres in my electorate who couldn't cope with this change, where one minute families were taking their children out of child care and the next minute they wanted to expand hours, but with no support from the government. Centres were driven to the brink, with several childcare centres and providers needing my help during that. These providers know how vital their services are and that they would be required once again as restrictions eased. However, the Morrison government was missing in action.</para>
<para>Next the government established the exceptional circumstances fund. This was another confusing piece of policy, with only 39 per cent of applications approved. These applications were from centres in desperate need. I advocated on behalf of several centres in my electorate and then found that they received approval after I had contacted the minister, but it wasn't really clear why they had not been eligible in the first place and why they then were. Our system of government should not work like this, but often these rules under this government are so arbitrary.</para>
<para>So here we are today, being asked by the Morrison government to fix more mistakes. Of course, we will assist in this, because the sensible and largely technical changes in this bill are welcome. So we will support that. But this is a bigger problem. Childcare fees in Australia at the moment are out of control. In my electorate, in Canberra, we've always had high childcare fees, but they actually rose the most in the last year, to an average of $595 per week for full-time child care. That's simply unaffordable for most people who are considering whether to go back to the workforce after having a child or whether to increase their hours. I increasingly hear from women in Canberra that they can't afford to work that extra day or to return to work. It's simply not worth it. A big part of that discussion is, of course, that it is the women who tend to be the secondary earners. It is the woman who decides not to go back to work, because it's simply not affordable. This is a handbrake on our economy that we can't afford as we're trying to come out of a recession, trying to survive a global pandemic.</para>
<para>To make the situation even worse, the department of education predicts that childcare fees will increase by 4.1 per cent every year for the next four years. This will mean the government's childcare subsidy, which increases only at the inflation rate, will be quickly outstripped by the fee increases. The most damning figure is 35.9 per cent, the amount that childcare fees have soared since the election of the Liberal government.</para>
<para>Labor, on the other hand, has a plan that will make child care accessible, because we understand the juggle and the changes facing Australian families at the moment. We cannot afford an economy where many people—women in particular—are kept out of the workforce because of the cost of child care. We are also robbing our youngest Australians of an opportunity to benefit from high-quality early childhood education and care, which we know has lifelong benefits for children. I know that my son, who attends a day care centre in Canberra, learns so much. He socialises with other children, and the people there who care for him are incredibly dedicated, skilled and wonderful people. So it would be great to see the Morrison government actually show this sector the respect and the support that it needs as a vital service, as the high-quality education system that it is.</para>
<para>Child care is an economic driver. Research from the Australia Institute shows that making it easier for women to return to work will deliver billions in benefits for all Australians and help our economy recover faster from the economic downturn associated with the pandemic. We need to empower families to make choices that suit them. Notably, the number of parents saying they are not working mainly due to the cost of child care has skyrocketed by 23 per cent. That's an estimated 91,700 parents kept out of the workforce because they cannot afford the child care. This doesn't make economic sense, and it doesn't make sense if we want to be a country that addresses gender inequality.</para>
<para>We need change now, and I think that at the moment the women around Australia are feeling that they are not being listened to. They were protesting in their thousands outside this parliament on Monday, and the Prime Minister and the Minister for Women would not even come out and listen to them. Obviously, those issues were in particular around violence and sexism against women, but this is a broader issue about women needing to be supported by their government—needing to be supported to make choices about their career, how their family manages parenting and how that's shared between mums and dads—and they can't do this when the costs of child care are simply prohibitive. It's simply not worth working—end of conversation. For many women, that decision follows them into poverty in their later years because they haven't built up the superannuation and they haven't built up the income. It's even worse, obviously, if they end up single. For those years that they've taken out of the workforce raising their family, what do we give back to them? Nothing. This is yet another reason why it's so important for child care to be funded properly.</para>
<para>Labor's policy would actually make child care more affordable for 97 per cent of Australian families. We would scrap the $10,560 childcare subsidy cap, which is the part that often sees women losing money from an extra day's work, and we would lift the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent. We'd also increase the childcare subsidy rates for every family earning less than $530,000, because this is an economic measure. This is a progressive policy, of course, but it is about delivering for all women the chance to return to the workforce and be supported.</para>
<para>Importantly, the ACCC would also be tasked with designing a price regulation mechanism to shed light on costs and fees and drive them down for good. One of the best aspects of our plan is that we would also commission the Productivity Commission to look into implementing a universal 90 per cent childcare subsidy for all families, and I think ultimately that is where we want to end up. Why do we see early childhood education—in the most important years of brain development—as different to school education, which we clearly see as important to have freely accessible for all families? Why do we see it as different? Why do we treat that workforce differently, when many of them have requirements on the training they need to do to care for our children? So that is a really important part of our policy and something that I hope we will look into further in the future. Labor really wants to get behind Australian families that are facing that juggle, that are trying to balance work and family. We want to back our economy. We don't want this handbrake on the economy that is meaning that people who want to go back to work cannot because they simply can't afford the child care.</para>
<para>Another important role that early childhood education and care centres provide, particularly not-for-profit centres—I think it's not talked about enough, but I certainly hear about it a lot in my electorate—is really important emergency care for children in difficult situations. I spoke to one provider in my electorate who was really concerned about the end of JobKeeper and the impact that it would have when many families simply could not continue to afford for their children to go to child care—she knew that there were families within her centre only getting regular meals while they were attending that centre.</para>
<para>This is such an important issue for families and for women, in my electorate and around the country. As I say, Canberra has some of the highest fees in the country, and it would be good to see families be able to make decisions free of that prohibitive cost. This is so that decisions can be made around other factors—around how much people want to work and how they want to balance parenting and engagement in the paid workforce—and also for young children to be able to experience the great benefits of early childhood education and care that are there.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>103</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Loneliness</title>
          <page.no>103</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If 2020 has taught us anything, it's the importance of human connection and, of course, the significance of its absence. Loneliness was a quiet crisis in Australia before we'd even heard of COVID-19. Now it is impossible to ignore it. This is a good thing, but we need to seize this moment to make ending loneliness the priority it needs to be. Loneliness is a feeling of social isolation. It's not having the connections we all need. This is obviously a very common experience, but its consequences aren't well enough understood. Loneliness really hurts us and it can kill. President Obama's former Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, has described loneliness as a public health epidemic. He rated loneliness as a more significant public health challenge than obesity, as lethal as smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Significantly, President Biden is set to reappoint him as Surgeon General. Japan's government has recently appointed a minister for loneliness to tackle rising suicide rates in that country.</para>
<para>We know that before the pandemic one in four Australians experienced loneliness some or all of the time at damaging levels. Last year the experience of COVID-19 doubled that rate to one in two—half the Australian population. Loneliness can no longer be ignored in Australia, and it won't be. Loneliness must be regarded as a public health priority. Its connection to issues like addiction, violence, anxiety and depression mean we have to treat it as such. We must also consider how loneliness can impact the whole of someone's life—their health, wellbeing and capacity to work and to do all the things they want to do.</para>
<para>I'm very proud to serve as the co-chair of the new Parliamentary Friends of Ending Loneliness group, and I look forward to its meeting next week. Together with the member for Reid, I'm hopeful that this bipartisan group will raise the profile of loneliness and generate discussion about what can be done by government to tackle it, looking at evidence and examples overseas and in the community.</para>
<para>Late last year, Ending Loneliness Together, a national organisation dedicated to addressing loneliness, released a landmark white paper on the impact of loneliness in Australia. All involved in this work deserve thanks and for this to be responded to. Amongst many confronting statistics, the white paper tells us that people who are lonely and socially isolated are 29 per cent more likely to suffer coronary heart disease and 32 per cent more likely to suffer a stroke. Lonely adults have a 58 per cent higher risk of developing dementia than their less lonely peers. People experiencing loneliness are 17 times as likely to have made a suicide attempt in the last 12 months. These are deeply disturbing numbers, but the statistics only tell half of this story; it is the personal stories that cut so deeply.</para>
<para>I want to acknowledge the efforts of many in the media to raise awareness and illustrate these personal stories of loneliness and, importantly, to work to end the stigma that unfortunately has inhibited both personal conversations about loneliness and forming an effective policy response to this scourge—a policy response that recognises all of its dimensions, including how it affects all population groups in the community. The impact of racism is something we must consider as we also respond to the disturbing connection between loneliness and right-wing extremism. A number of News Corp newspapers—not always publications I praise in this place—including <inline font-style="italic">The Courier Mail</inline>, the Adelaide<inline font-style="italic"> Advertiser</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">Herald Sun</inline> and <inline font-style="italic">The Daily Telegraph</inline>, led by journalist Ellen Whinnett, are doing an excellent job drawing attention to loneliness through powerful personal stories, saying through their campaign we should never walk alone. This is a powerful call that should be responded to across the community. I also want to acknowledge Claudia Long at the ABC for her ongoing interest in this issue.</para>
<para>Too often, being lonely has been seen as regrettable, something to be suffered in silence. This must change. We need to talk about it and we need to act.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicinal Marijuana</title>
          <page.no>104</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank the member for Scullin for his contribution and associate myself with his remarks as well. I think it's a very, very important issue. So thank you to the member for Scullin for sharing that with the House.</para>
<para>I'd like to touch on a similar but related subject in my contribution tonight. I note, in the past couple of weeks, we passed a bill through this House, the Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021. I'm so pleased to see the passage of this bill through this House to remove unnecessary regulations and seek to therefore encourage further development of the medicinal cannabis industry in Australia. The medicinal cannabis industry is a new one and is exciting for our country. The government supports a range of new health therapies and, just in the last day or so, we've announced a $15 million grant round for the development of innovative therapies for mental illness. There is now a strong and emerging body of international evidence that shows that substances such as ketamine, psilocybin and MDMA, when used in a controlled environment and supported by psychological and psychiatric care, offer the promise of a new approach to intractable mental illness. Similarly, medicinal cannabis offers this promise as a treatment for some conditions that are resistant to other protocols.</para>
<para>Tonight I'd like to share a couple of stories of my constituents who have had firsthand experience in this area. I was recently speaking with representatives from Pharmaceutical Rehabilitation Services, and they mentioned to me that they now have a doctor on board for four hours a week who was willing to, where necessary, prescribe medicinal cannabis to his patients for mental health issues in particular, but also to deal with illicit drug addictions and alcohol addictions. They shared the story of a young man who had an anxiety issue which prevented him from leaving home, and at times when he wanted to leave home he could be physically ill. After a course of treatment with medicinal cannabis, through PRS and through the doctor, he's now able to leave his home without those physical reactions. It is an example of, where used properly and prescribed properly as part of a proper treatment plan, it has significant benefits.</para>
<para>I'd also like to speak about Lindsay Carter, 22, who lives at Loganholme. Lindsay has a brain tumour and intractable epilepsy. This causes him to have headaches, seizures, nausea and poor appetite. Anti-seizure drugs had failed to help symptoms and they also caused unpleasant side effects. In 2014, Lindsay travelled to the USA with his mother, Lanai, and was prescribed medicinal cannabis. Lanai said she would have once considered herself highly conservative on cannabis but changed her mind after seeing how the medical cannabis helped her son. He had more energy and his symptoms improved to a point where he could have freedom which was previously seen as impossible. When they returned to Australia, Lindsay's mother, Lanai, co-founded the Medical Cannabis Advisory Group, and started lobbying federal and Queensland governments to provide legal, affordable, efficient access to medical cannabis.</para>
<para>It hasn't been an easy road. The Carter family have faced delays and barriers to access, they've experienced ongoing supply challenges and inconsistent supply, with the end result that at times Lindsay didn't have access to medical cannabis. Over many years Lanai has fought tirelessly for her son's access, and while she has now resigned from the Medical Cannabis Advisory Group, she still advocates for Lindsay and other patients both here and globally.</para>
<para>This legislation goes to reducing the regulations and red tape around the prescription of medical cannabis through our medical professionals to ensure that people who need this treatment, where appropriate, get the support that they need to live better and improved lives. It's all backed by sound science. I commend this legislation to the House and the efforts we are making to achieve that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parental Leave, Gender Equality</title>
          <page.no>105</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Ruby Elizabeth Bukowski-Gorman was born at 5.28 pm on Thursday 3 December 2020. Jess and I couldn't be prouder; neither could grandparents Diane and Danny, Wendy and Ron. Our three-year-old, Leo, is working overtime to prove that he is a good and helpful big brother. When I was first elected to this place, I spoke of Leo in my first speech and of the world I wanted for him and his friends and of a commitment to try and be an engaged parent and an engaged parliamentarian, because I believe that every child, every parent and every community benefits from us building workplaces across this nation and having workplace laws that enable Australians to be fully engaged parents and have fulfilling careers. I do have some parental guilt, now, that my second child, Ruby, didn't feature in that speech—for obvious reasons, it wasn't possible! But I need to acknowledge her existence now.</para>
<para>Following that, I took more than three months away from this place, being a parent—playing Magna-Tiles with Leo, and monsters, hide-and-seek and the rest—and of course introducing Ruby to our friends, our family and our local favourites: The Old Laundry, Miller and Baker, the Rosemount Hotel. For a period of time, after Australia Day onwards, I slowly returned to community work. And it is now fabulous to be back here with you, Mr Speaker. I know parental leave is not a luxury that every person working in Australia has, but it is something that every Australian should have the opportunity to do.</para>
<para>I want to thank the people of the Perth electorate for being so generous to me in enabling me to take that time with my family. I also want to thank my colleagues in this place on both sides, but particularly the Leader of the Opposition for his support. I'm not the only one in this parliament or on this side of the House who has done this in recent times; the member for Lilley, the member for Jagajaga, the member for Canberra, the member for Burt and Senator Smith are all taking parental leave.</para>
<para>I think it has been an opportunity to pause and reflect—something that we don't do enough of in this place, and I'm very grateful for the opportunity to have done so. But it also makes me pause and reflect on the fact that we do need to continue to raise the standards in this place. This is a building I love. I love the parliament. I love the work that is done here. I met my wife working here. But the reality is that this building has become, for many millions of Australians, a symbol of a culture of secrecy and disrespect. We need to change that. We need to raise the standard here with some honesty, some reflection and some truth-telling so we all can, once again, love this democratic workplace. That means that we need to increase our expectations of ourselves—to be role models, to be good community leaders, to be active citizens.</para>
<para>It was somewhat in this spirit that, on 8 March, Jess, Ruby and I attended Edith Cowan University, thanks to an invitation from the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Cobie Rudd, who invited us to their International Women's Day event. Edith Cowan University is a great Australian university, named after a great Australian. Edith Cowan was the first woman elected to any parliament in Australia. It was 100 years ago last week. She wasn't just a great Australian elected to parliament; she was elected to represent a great community. She was elected as the member for West Perth within the electorate of Perth. At the speech at Edith Cowan University honouring this 100-year milestone, we heard from Libby Lyons, the director of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. Her message was that we need men to take more parental leave if we are to achieve true gender equality. I note today that the Business Council of Australia have come out with a very similar message, saying that we need to provide more parental leave, enabling men and women, too, to have time with their kids in those early months. I agree.</para>
<para>On this front, I believe that we need to talk about 'parental time' rather than 'parental leave'. You are not walking away from your workplace; you are just spending time doing something else. You're not on holiday. You're not sick. You are just caring for your child.</para>
<para>I'll finish by saying we talk in this place about the world we want to build for our children and how we make sure that we invest in early childhood education and create opportunity and a safer world. But we also spend a lot of time on debates which, I hope, will be well and truly history by the time Ruby is 18 and able to vote at the 2039 federal election—maybe voting to give Prime Minister Thwaites or Wells a second term! I just hope that, whatever it is, the debate on climate change is science based and is well and truly over, with a proper, bipartisan consensus, just like on Medicare and the NDIS.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women in Leadership, Lindsay Electorate: Awards</title>
          <page.no>106</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McINTOSH</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Being a parliamentarian is an absolute honour and, I believe, the best job in the world—leading our communities in the Australian parliament. But this job is not the only way to lead. And by no means does leadership mean elitism. There are corporate leaders, political leaders, community leaders. But this is not what makes a leader. We can all be leaders, we can all be mentors, and we can all be role models. It is about leading in whatever drives your passion—in work, in our community, and in our families. It is about leading by example. It's about mentoring other women, and it's about not pulling up the ladder behind us.</para>
<para>There is nothing I feel more strongly about than mentorship when it comes to supporting women in their leadership potential and getting more women into leadership roles, for gender equality and women's economic empowerment. It takes those of us who are in a position to mentor to do it sincerely, passionately, and consistently. The reason I started a Women in Leadership initiative at the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney before coming into this place is that I felt that we weren't getting anywhere in this debate. We had stagnated. We had an opportunity to learn from the United States and they from us, and one of the best things I learned from that work was from a leading professor at Harvard University, Iris Bohnet. Iris was a professional and an academic in behavioural science, and her research showed that, above all the diversity programs within organisations, the most success came through mentorship and supporting others, particularly when women were supporting other women into leadership positions, where mid-ranked and senior women and also men saw opportunities in their daily interactions to develop or grow junior colleagues. It is widely argued that mentorship plays a big role in changing an organisation's culture and is essential to long-term success.</para>
<para>My passion for getting more women into leadership positions has also led me to develop a Lindsay Women in Leadership Award, and I'll be announcing that award, along with a number of other leadership awards across Lindsay. The award will recognise a woman who positively contributes and demonstrates leadership in our community and in their chosen field. This is one way we can acknowledge, applaud and promote the efforts of women right across Lindsay who are making a difference, setting an example, mentoring other women, and leading the way. Another award that I will be announcing is an 'Aussie Made' award. Lindsay is a great place to live, work and stay, and our local businesses are vital to what makes our community so great. I'm passionate about Australian manufacturing and I'm proud of the manufacturers in Lindsay creating and supporting local jobs, contributing to our economy and making high-quality Aussie-made products. That's why, in recognising an outstanding local manufacturer, I'm announcing the Lindsay Aussie Made Business Award. We have an incredible manufacturing industry, from rail parts to keep our trains safe and moving across our country to advanced electronics in our Army's vehicle communications systems.</para>
<para>I often say that Lindsay is full to the brim and overflowing with community spirit. This has shone through in our community and has helped us band together, particularly during the coronavirus pandemic. Service is a hallmark of our community spirit, so the Lindsay Community Service Award will recognise a selfless, honest, compassionate, hardworking person making a positive impact on those around them. As we look to the future, from inspiring our future leaders to making sure our kids have the skills they need to take on the jobs of the future, education is key. That's why I'm also announcing the Lindsay Educator of the Year Award, recognising a local educator for their contribution to our community. The coronavirus pandemic has put our community's health in the spotlight, particularly the incredible efforts of our frontline health workers, so I'm announcing a Lindsay Healthy Active Living Award to recognise someone who is making a positive contribution to the health of our community through their leadership in this field.</para>
<para>I encourage our community to think about people who are able to apply for these awards—incredible people making an impact on you and showing leadership in our community. I look forward to the applications coming through my office soon.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Monday, before the sun came up, Serco took two Sri Lankan Tamil refugees from the cramped Darwin cabin that they had been kept in for more than a year. They were put on a charter flight and sent back to Nauru. Parmika and her husband, Kirubakaran, had asked to go back to Nauru. Kiru has been accepted by the United States as a refugee, and they're waiting to complete the process to have Parmika accepted as well. Even so, they figured they were better off on Nauru than being locked up in indefinite detention in Darwin, in the electorate that I represent. The conditions that they and nine other refugees were living in were appalling: each sleeping in single bunk beds, not getting the medical treatment that they were brought to Darwin for and not being told what the medications that were being administered to them were. A migration agent told me their diet was poor, due to their being provided with take-away meals, from the Mercure Hotel, that are routinely unpalatable. The migration agent said, 'They are often given reused leftovers, and it's regularly unhygienic, with hairs, insects and even maggots.' That's deplorable, disgusting and unacceptable.</para>
<para>Parmika and Kiru told one of my staff that the only good thing about their year—a year—in detention in Darwin, in a small cabin, was the kindness shown to them by Darwin locals. I commend those Territorians, who have been keeping up the fight and working so hard to get these refugees released. They are demonstrating tremendous humanity, and it's shame the federal government can't do the same.</para>
<para>There are still nine refugees, all Iranian, held in Darwin. All of them have been there for more than a year. I've met with representatives of all three families that remain. They've sat with me and told me about their suffering and their struggles. I met with 33-year-old Abbas Maghames, who's been detained along with his father, Yaghoob, his mother, Malakeh, and his sister Hajar. He's angry and frustrated. His family are Ahwazi Arabs from south-western Iran, who are discriminated against by that government. Their participation in politics and employment is limited, they cannot exercise their cultural rights, and they've been arrested and imprisoned because of their religion. The Maghames family have been in some sort of detention for eight years, since 2013. They've been on Christmas Island and Nauru. They were brought to Darwin more than a year ago for medical treatment that they still haven't received. Their mental and physical health is suffering enormously.</para>
<para>I also met with Mojtaba Hamedani. He's been detained alongside his wife, Afsaneh, and her son Behnam. He's a construction specialist and his wife was a hairdresser for more than 20 years. Behnam was a child when they fled Iran in 2013 and never got to finish his schooling. Mojtaba says, 'We spent seven years of our short lives with no prospects to rebuild our lives, no safety and inadequate health care on Nauru.'</para>
<para>The extended suffering of all these refugees has been perpetrated by those opposite. They should hang their heads in shame. I received a letter this week co-signed by a number of angry Darwin residents—lawyers, public servants, academics, nurses, plumbers, teachers and administrators. They call the alternative place of detention in Darwin 'a concentration camp'. They write, 'These refugees were incarcerated in a concentration camp, built on Nauru, for seven years in indescribable conditions: searing heat, tent accommodation, scant privacy, abuse and exposure to all kinds of horror. This included lip stitching and other forms of self-mutilation, including self-immolation, assaults, child abuse, sexual assaults and mental breakdowns. PTSD, severe anxiety disorders, severe depression were prevalent. They were given numbers, not names, to identify themselves, in the deliberate, dehumanising cruelty which has been Australia's policy towards these innocents.'</para>
<para>They call this policy barbaric, and they're not wrong. They call this Australia's disgrace, and it must end. I call on Minister Dutton to release these remaining nine refugees into community detention immediately. Let them out, and shut it down immediately.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Longman Electorate: Telecommunications</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
    <electorate>Longman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Love 'em or hate 'em, mobile phones are a fact of life, and in many cases they are a necessary part of our lives. We use them for work and to keep in touch with friends and family, and these days we use our phones for an almost infinite number of tasks and activities online. They have also been used to save lives. If someone collapses at a shopping centre, you reach for a phone and call triple 0, and, likewise, if you come across a serious crash on the road or see a crime being committed. There's a reason that mobile devices have become such an important part of our lives; it's because they perform so many functions that are important to our daily lives. This is why people in my electorate of Longman get so frustrated when they can't get the one thing that is necessary to use their device—reception.</para>
<para>Longman is an outer metro electorate. We are located north of Brisbane city. Part of the electorate is classed as metro, part of it is classified as rural. To further complicate the matter, there are rural areas in my electorate that are classed as metro and there are metro areas that are classed as rural—it sounds like a Three Stooges skit! This means that people who live in rural areas but have a metro classification cannot get mobile black spot funding for a new or improved mobile tower that will adequately service their property. And I know it's not only Longman in this situation; other outer metro electorates have the same issue. Mobile coverage issues are among the most common complaints that my office receives. People living in Caboolture South, Bellmere, Sandstone Point, Narangba, Wanaaring and Donnybrook seem to have the most problems with getting mobile reception, and it's been this way for years.</para>
<para>The other issue that is becoming more prevalent is the over-50s communities that are cropping up all over the place. These communities have issues of their own, and the only solution in many cases is a mini tower at a cost of around $80,000, which the telcos expect the developer or the residents to pay for. The developers have already got their money, so they're not interested, funnily enough. So the poor resident is expected to pay for the tower, even though I'm sure they're not going to receive a cut of the bill once it's installed, and that's just simply unfair.</para>
<para>Recently I heard of an incident at the Living Gems retirement village in Bellmere where a person had a heart attack but could not call triple 0 from inside their home. This person had to crawl on their hands and knees into their yard in order to get reception to make the call. Thankfully, in this case, they were able to get through and it ended in a good result. But this example shows how important it is in this modern world that all residents have adequate mobile reception. Come on, Telstra, you need to do better. You need to put your hands in your pockets and provide people in these areas with functional mobile reception.</para>
<para>Lately Telstra has been pushing its wi-fi calling service for those people who can't get mobile reception. What this means is people can use their home NBN to make calls over the internet rather than through a mobile phone provider. This is a good solution for those who already have a compatible phone and are technologically savvy enough know how to turn on the wi-fi setting. But the problem is that not every phone has wi-fi calling compatibility and many people can't afford the cost of a new phone that offers this service. Also, many are on a $20-a-month mobile plan and, at the moment, the cheapest NBN plan I could find is $44.95 per month. When you're a pensioner forking out $200 for a new smart phone, plus $44.95 per month on a NBN plan so you can do wi-fi calling on top of your $20-per-month mobile plan to make a phone call, this is simply not an option.</para>
<para>Longman has received new mobile infrastructure grants under the federal government's Mobile Black Spot Program. There is a new macro station tower installed on the NBN tower in Narangba West, and we had a small-cell mobile base station installed near Beachmere Sands and at Moorina. This is very welcome and makes a difference for those people in the coverage area, but there is still a long way to go. We need to ensure that Telstra is listening to the concerns in our communities and addressing these issues in a timely manner. If the only solution is to look at creating a new classification for outer metro electorates that allows for fringe urban areas to apply for mobile black spot funding, then that is what I will fight for.</para>
<para>Earlier this month, Minister Paul Fletcher and I held a telecommunications forum in Caboolture to hear these concerns. About 150 locals turned up, and they were very frank and honest. I'm thankful to the minister for following up on the issues that were raised with him by the guests at the forum. Representatives from Telstra, Optus and Vodafone attended the event and heard firsthand the problems people in Longman are having with their mobile reception. Now we need to act. We need to ensure all residents in outer metro areas get the mobile reception they require, and we need to ensure that no other incident such as what occurred at Living Gems retirement community ever happens again.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>108</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 17 March 2021</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The DEPUTY SPEAKER (</span>
            <span class="HPS-OfficeInterjecting">Mr Llew O'Brien</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 10:00.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>110</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Isaacs Electorate: JobKeeper Payment</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last month I met with a number of travel agents in my electorate of Isaacs in the south-east of Melbourne. Like so many businesses in my electorate, they have been utterly devastated by the COVID pandemic. The stories I heard from these hardworking people were distressing. When international and state borders abruptly closed to protect our community, they were hit earlier and harder than almost anyone else. Businesses that took years to build into well-known, respected sources of advice and joyful experiences have been pushed to the brink. The owners were in tears telling me how JobKeeper payments went entirely to supporting their employees. Unlike some large businesses that did very well through the pandemic, these travel agents did not siphon those payments into bonuses for themselves. They told me how they'd spent their entire personal savings and borrowed more to keep their businesses afloat until Australians could once again travel. But a year later, after being promised a tourism industry assistance package, their hopes were dashed this week when the Prime Minister instead announced what amounted to an airline assistance package directed at a limited number of destinations far away from the community that I represent.</para>
<para>One can well understand the distress of these hardworking business owners and the workers who rely on them, as the JobKeeper cliff approaches, because the end of JobKeeper is totally out of step with the disappointingly slow start to the Morrison government's vaccine rollout. Despite the Prime Minister's promise of four million by the end of this month, only around 200,000 Australians have been vaccinated and we are still a long, long way away from being able to freely travel again. When JobKeeper is cut off, there is no way travel agents in my electorate, already on the brink of collapse, can continue to employ their staff—and they won't be alone</para>
<para>Treasury postcode data shows that in Isaacs alone more than 4,000 businesses employing over 13,000 people are accessing JobKeeper right now. The Treasurer himself says that more than a million Australians will be still on JobKeeper when it ends. That's about one in 10 of our nation's workforce. The Morrison government intends to strip one million Australians of their only means of employment support during a pandemic, with no plan for good, secure well-paid jobs to replace it. No Australian government should do such a thing. We expect and deserve better, much better, than this.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ryan Electorate: TRACTION</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SIMMONDS</name>
    <name.id>282983</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the great privileges of being in this place is that you get to meet with groups from all around and throughout our community who do incredible work to support our local residents and to help people who, through no fault of their own, are doing it tough. One of those great groups that I had the chance to meet and engage with is called TRACTION. They do some important outreach to engage and empower young people in need. Working across South East Queensland, in Brisbane, Logan, Redlands, Moreton Bay and Scenic Rim, the group works with kids to give them a safe and inclusive action based environment where they can build their self-esteem and their sense of belonging as a group. Kids who for many reasons might find it hard to connect in regular situations or at school are given projects that they can work through together in small groups. It shifts the focus onto the job at hand, it encourages teamwork and it allows for some great, relaxed one-on-one chats about some of the challenges that they might be facing. They take it in turns to lead the group and do other roles within the group as well, learning leadership skills.</para>
<para>When I got to meet with some of the kids who are in this program, I got to jump on the tools, which was great, at the TRACTION site at Yeronga in Brisbane. The kids were very happy to hand me the sandpaper, which I appreciated, and allowed me to muck in and help with the custom BMX bike that they were building. At that point they were using the sandpaper to strip it down to repaint it. At the end of the 10-week program, each student would have built a custom bike with the help of others, and they get to keep that as something they can show off and be really proud of. I have to say that they were certainly an impressive bunch of kids—and it is an impressive bunch of bikes that they are building.</para>
<para>I was alerted to the TRACTION organisation by Andrew Tuckey, who is a local resident of Ryan and a fierce advocate for this fantastic program. After speaking with him and the founder and CEO Sandy Murdock, I was really blown away by how good this program is. They spoke of their keen interest in using the program to assist kids from defence families. Having the Gallipoli Barracks in my electorate, I know how much this program means to defence families and other families right across South East Queensland. They have been able to continue throughout COVID, which has been great. Throughout 2020 they supported 309 young people across seven local government areas. They had a 97 per cent participation satisfaction rating, which goes to show how much the kids value the work that they are doing.</para>
<para>Governments at all levels, including the federal government, should be supporting this fantastic organisation, including financially, so we can roll this out to more kids who are doing it tough. I really want to take this opportunity to thank Andrew Tuckey and Sandy Murdoch for their stewardship of and passion for the TRACTION program. I will do everything I can to support you. I hope you continue passionately with the program.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence: Paid Parental Leave</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Amani Haydar lives in my electorate. Six years ago her mum was murdered by her father. She was stabbed 30 times in front of Amani's younger sister. At the time, Amani was five months pregnant. With her father in prison and her mum in a grave, Amani left work and went back home to look after what was left of the family, her younger sisters. Later that year, Amani gave birth to a beautiful, healthy young baby girl. When she later applied for paid parental leave, she got rejected by Centrelink. Why? Why would that be the case? It was because she hadn't worked the required 100 days under the work test to get paid parental leave; she'd only worked 95 days. So, to get paid parental leave under the work test, you have to work 100 days while you're pregnant. The only two exemptions to that are if you have a pregnancy related illness or if you have a premature birth. There is no exemption for domestic violence—but there should be. Amani eventually did get paid parental leave after she contacted me and I lobbied on her behalf—she also contacted the then Minister for Social Services, Christian Porter—and she's grateful for that. I'm grateful for that. But the law is still the same. It hasn't changed.</para>
<para>I spoke in this place almost three years ago urging the government to act and to change the law so that there is an exemption to the work test for women experiencing domestic violence. That hasn't happened yet. Earlier this year I wrote again to the new Minister for Social Services, Anne Ruston, urging her to act, asking her to make this change to the law. I haven't heard anything back—not yet—but I'm hopeful. So I use this opportunity to beg the government to please act here. This is a real and simple change to the law that can help women who are pregnant experiencing domestic violence—people like Amani. Please, please make this simple change to the law. Please act.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>HomeBuilder Program</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THOMPSON</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to take this opportunity to highlight the major impact that HomeBuilder has had in my electorate of Herbert. Without HomeBuilder our residential construction industry, which had already been doing it extremely tough after enduring a very long downturn, would not have survived. It was great to have been joined in Townsville last Monday by the Treasurer to meet locals and local industry people and to talk about the effects of not only HomeBuilder but also JobKeeper.</para>
<para>In Townsville, we had 27,100 people on JobKeeper, supporting more than 4,000 businesses to keep their employees, but by the start of the year 72 per cent of those had graduated off JobKeeper, which is fantastic. One of those businesses that has been able to move off the temporary government support is residential developer Maidmen Group. Glen Maidmen and his team told the Treasurer and me they've never been busier. Business is booming so much that the 25 employees Glen kept on during the pandemic thanks to JobKeeper are working harder than ever. The HomeBuilder grant has seen their inquiries and contracts surge. They've gone from weeks where they wouldn't close a sale to having dozens of contracts each week. They estimate they have about 250 homes being built right now in their developments which are supported by HomeBuilder. They think, Townsville wide, this number would be sitting around a thousand.</para>
<para>This is an unprecedented amount of building activity for Townsville. We've seen new home approvals in our city triple just recently. This means there are more tradies on work sites; more apprentices; more people going to the local shop, getting their bacon and egg roll as they roll into work. The flow-on effect is all through Townsville. In fact, there's so much building activity that the supply lines are struggling to keep up with demand. This is one of two main issues that have been raised with me as we prepare for the HomeBuilder package to come to an end in just a couple of weeks. I don't want to see people missing out on getting the grant because the builder couldn't start work on their house in time because of a lack of supply. The other issue is the wet season. With rain, with the potential of cyclones, there's blowout from the time you sign the contract to when the first slab gets laid. So I've written to the Assistant Treasurer, Minister Sukkar, to ask him to see if there is something we can do locally, because I don't think it is the builders' fault that they can't get the slab down because of the wet weather</para>
<para>HomeBuilder has been a lifeline for Townsville's construction industry, and I hope its impacts will continue to be felt months and years into the future. I want to thank the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer for their efforts on HomeBuilder. It's a fantastic grant.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Private Health Insurance</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's that time of year when Australians receive that letter from their health fund telling them their private insurance premiums are going up—again. For those who can't get joint funds, the disincentive rises with every fee hike. Punitive lifetime health cover loading compounds this and discourages people from joining when that age kicks in. I understand health insurance costs increase, but the cumulative private health insurance increases between 2015-16 and 2019-20 totalled 22.28 per cent. When you compare that with wage growth over that period at 10.62 per cent and CPI at only 6.44 per cent, it isn't fair. It's not sustainable.</para>
<para>My constituents are telling me that their out-of-pocket expenses are ever-increasingly unpredictable and their private health insurance premiums are growing and growing. One retired couple have to find an extra $30 a month. That is incredibly difficult. They are self-funded retirees. They rarely claim, but every month they need to find more and more, and their income isn't increasing to do so. Recent government tools, such as the premium comparison tool and the Medical Costs Finder, are really good, but they're not helping premiums to go down. Consumer research shows that these premiums are the top household concern, above fuel and even electricity costs. Cost is a main reason why people drop out of private health insurance or they lower their levels and their inclusions. This is compounding the challenges within the private health insurance system. It's the younger, healthier people who are dropping out, and the older people who are holding on to their health insurance for dear life even when they can't afford it.</para>
<para>Industry observers have said that we need to have an in-depth inquiry into the viability of Australia's private health insurance sector, because the younger ones are leaving and the older ones, who have paid their taxes throughout their lives, have paid their premiums, are still paying, paying, paying. I would like to see a system where when someone reaches over 65 the increase they receive is no more than whatever increase goes to the pension, whether they be self-funded retirees or pensioners. I call on the government to urgently look at this. This is a crisis in our community. We need to have in-depth changes to make health insurance and the whole system more affordable, sustainable and equitable for all Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Papua New Guinea</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHARMA</name>
    <name.id>274506</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to discuss today the alarming rise in the outbreak of COVID-19 in Papua New Guinea, our nearest northern neighbour. We have seen a rapid increase in COVID-19 cases and positive tests there, and in a way that suggests the disease there is growing exponentially. In the first week of March, 17 per cent of tests there were positive. We have had 114 staff at Port Moresby General Hospital—frontline workers—test positive, and James Marape, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, said just a few days ago that he expects as many as one in three or four people in Papua New Guinea, a country with a population of 10 million people, could be positive. As our Chief Health Officer Paul Kelly said this morning, these are all signs there is a major epidemic underway in our community. As the Prime Minister also said at this press conference, this is a great concern for us in Australia and also a very real risk.</para>
<para>It's a great concern because, of course, Papua New Guinea is our family, our wantoks and our friends and there are close ties that bind us. We have traditional movement of people across the Torres Strait, Indigenous peoples, and there are close family and other links between the two countries. Of course, we have a strong historic bond with Papua New Guinea from our time as the colonial administrator, our time serving together in the Second World War in the battles of Kokoda, Milne Bay and other areas. Papua New Guineans have always stood by us in difficult times and it is important we do the same for them at this time.</para>
<para>I was pleased to learn that our Prime Minister Scott Morrison spoke to Papua New Guinea's Prime Minister, James Marape, who has just been at the funeral of Sir Michael Somare up in Wewak. It's important that whatever we provide to Papua New Guinea is done with their consent and, indeed, at their request. They are a sovereign nation. Any support we provide to them should always be with their blessing and in a way that meets their own needs and their own expectations about what we can provide. There are a number of steps that we will be taking, as the Prime Minister announced this morning. We will be suspending all passenger flights to and from Port Moresby for at least a fortnight. We are dispatching an Australian medical assessment team to do a critical needs analysis. We are sending things like tents and personal protective equipment, and also, importantly, we have offered to provide 8,000 AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines from within our own stockpile here in Australia to be administered to front-line healthcare workers in places like Port Moresby General Hospital and some of the other regional centres. That will help meet the gap before the COVAX facility takes off. We have already committed some $200 million to help deliver the COVID-19 vaccine throughout the Pacific and particularly to the countries that are most vulnerable. We have contributed $80 million to the Gavi COVAX facility as well. These 8,000 AstraZeneca vaccines will help bridge the gap. This is a very important emergency unfolding in our nearest northern neighbour. It is important that Australia does our bit to help address it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Employment</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are too many people being left behind by the Morrison government. This government wants to pretend that the pandemic is over and it's business as usual. But for my community, that's just not the case, as much as we all wish it could be. I have spoken to a lot of people who are still very anxious about what their lives are going to look like over the year to come. These are people who have lost their job or who have lost hours at work and they still don't have them back. Older people, in particular, are coming to me with what are some very difficult stories at the moment. They know that they will not be top of the employment queue in the current jobs market. For these people, the government is offering them a paltry $25 a week increase to the JobSeeker payment. We don't build communities by keeping people in poverty. These people need a genuine jobs plan from this government. They deserve genuine support. Instead, what this government announced was a dob-in-a-dole-bludger hotline—a hotline that even employer groups have said is impractical. I feel as though this government has no idea about the reality of people's lives. I really urge them to get out in their community and talk to people.</para>
<para>I've been talking to people like our North East Neighbourhood House Network. They wrote to me with their concern that the removal of the coronavirus supplement means that many of the people they support will be pushed back to living below the poverty line. We need a permanent increase to this rate that allows people to live in dignity and we need a jobs creation plan from the Morrison government when the government's JobKeeper support payment stops at the end of this month.</para>
<para>From talking with businesses in my electorate, I know there is a lot of anxiety for them about what that will mean, particularly for travel agents and for those in the event industry. They are far from business as usual at the moment. There is real stress and anxiety for them about what the end of JobKeeper will mean for their businesses and for their employees. Many of them have carried their employees through this period, and they want to keep them on, but they are really unsure if they will be able to so when JobKeeper ends. They are even unsure if they will be able to continue running their business. The government needs to step up and save these sectors. They need more support and they need support that is targeted correctly.</para>
<para>Again, I've heard from travel agents that the targeted support the government's provided there doesn't actually match the reality of how their businesses operate. We know that the half-price flights that are being offered by the government will do little to support travel agents, who actually need that direct support.</para>
<para>The government is picking winners, not supporting all the industries that need support. But these people are vital businesses in our local community. I don't want to see them close up. I don't want to see them have to let their employees go. They need more support.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Member for Boothby</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAMSEY</name>
    <name.id>HWS</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When Brittany Higgins said to the women for justice rally on Monday, 'Silence says it's okay to treat people this way,' she was right. Our silence condones appalling behaviour. Women will never be safe in the workplace unless they are safe everywhere. It is on this issue—the safety of one of my colleagues and the highly selective media reporting which supports only some of those who are attacked—that I speak to you today.</para>
<para>While an intelligent hardworking member of parliament has been harassed from politics, those with high profiles, who profess to have women's rights and safety as their motivating force, have barely lifted a finger. I'm speaking of my friend and fellow South Australian Nicolle Flint, who has been found guilty of two crimes: firstly, she is a Liberal and, secondly, she is a conservative Liberal. Where was the outrage when the member for Boothby had 'skank' and '$60 an hour for a blow job' plastered on her electorate office? What gives GetUp and Extinction Rebellion the right to attack and deface her office and terrorise her staff? How it is okay that she is stalked and, when the offender posts hundreds of derogatory attacks, they are liked by people that Nicolle recognises as members of the Labor Party, of GetUp and of the unions? What a despicable pile on! In the shadow of British Labour member Jo Cox's death, Nicolle genuinely feared for her life.</para>
<para>Left or right, it matters not where the attacks come from. They are vile. Our media, as the chief carriers of information, should be enraged. Damningly, in Nicolle's case, most were not. It's not okay for the media or the full political spectrum to be silent in condemning the behaviour of GetUp and Extinction Rebellion. It is not okay for a young, intelligent and articulate woman to be hounded out of a job by abominable and unlawful behaviour. We cannot claim to live in a civil society if we have one rule for left-wing activists and another rule for others.</para>
<para>I have been appalled by attacks by people who should know better, like left-wing media personality Mike Carlton, who unbelievably extracted an apology from the ABC because he did not say that Jimmy Barnes should strangle Nicolle Flint but only that he was surprised that he did not. Really! The mainstream press was rightly and justifiably outraged when Alan Jones said that Julia Gillard should be shoved in a chaff bag and taken out to sea. But where was that support when a conservative Liberal woman was attacked? For the ABC, which vigorously defends its integrity, it seemed to me that an apology to its old friend and employee Mike Carlton came pretty cheap.</para>
<para>Maybe it's too late for Nicolle. But I feel compelled to speak up so that perhaps the next generation of conservative females will not be hounded out of office by this appalling and bullying behaviour. It is not okay for the member of Boothby to be slandered and stalked—and it is definitely not okay for her to feel her life is threatened. For all those that have been silent, and particularly those who provide the information in our lives, the media, they should hang their collective heads in shame. Fairness, balance and calling out of harassment should be afforded to women, not just those whose views align with theirs.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Adelaide Festivals</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Thursday 11 March I joined many people in the electorate of Adelaide, at the Adelaide council chambers, at a function hosted by the Adelaide Lord Mayor to celebrate the return of our festivals to Adelaide. The fringe festival, the Adelaide Festival, WOMADelaide and a whole range of other activities are taking place. It's absolutely fantastic and wonderful after the year that we have had and faced to see artists once again performing, venues filling up, people on the streets enjoying the wonderful offerings of the Adelaide festival season. The east end of Adelaide, Rundle Street, was absolutely jam-packed with people enjoying the festivities in restaurants, bars et cetera. This is a much needed boost for the Adelaide economy. It's also essential for our wellbeing. The arts feed our minds and our souls. I'm so happy for the artists and the related staff, so many of whom have struggled through COVID, who have done it tough in the last 12 months because they were ineligible for JobKeeper.</para>
<para>The arts is a sector that is incredibly important to the South Australian economy. It supports over 3,000 full-time equivalent jobs. It is said that every two jobs in the arts supports a job in another industry elsewhere in the Australian economy. The fringe festival's contribution to SA is undisputed and goes far beyond just the arts sector. It spreads throughout the economy. Many hospitality, tourism and retail businesses in Adelaide report that their takings for the month of the fringe are equivalent to their takings throughout the rest of the year. I spoke to many of the restaurant owners at the east end of Adelaide and they were all having a very good week or month during the festivals.</para>
<para>We had WOMADelaide, one of the biggest selections of world music in Australia, only a couple of weekends ago. This year the look and feel of the festivals has been a little bit different of course because of COVID—the social distancing and a whole range of things to keep people safe—but how wonderful that Adelaide can get back to doing what it does best, putting on a great show with amazing artists and atmosphere. I hope everyone gets to enjoy the fringe and the festivals. I urge everyone to come to Adelaide and enjoy it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bankstown District Amateur Football Association, St George District Netball Association, Georges River Life Care</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last Saturday 13 March I attended the start of season kick-off event for the Bankstown District Amateur Football Association, the BDAFA, an incredibly important organisation in our electorate which represents about 6,000 players right across the Bankstown area. In my area we've got clubs like Penania Diggers, Revesby Rovers, Padstow Hornets—just to name a few—and there are several others. BDAFA is an incredibly important organisation. It was difficult year last year for football, obviously, with the disruptions from COVID. This year BDAFA had a great kick-off event at Jensen Park in Regents Park. It was really good to see Dimitri Hursalas, the Chairman; Laurie Warner, the Deputy Chairman; and in particular Leanne Miller, the General Manager, who is doing an absolutely fantastic job in bringing together the many clubs in the Bankstown district for the good of football. It's a great organisation. It was a great event. It was really good to see the clubs there. Thank you to everyone at BDAFA.</para>
<para>On Saturday 13 March I attended the opening of the new netball courts the St George District Netball Association over in Rockdale. It was really great to be there. To be frank, for decades these courts have not got the work that they needed. They weren't level. They were crumbling. They needed to be fixed and they have been fixed. I'm really pleased that the federal government was able to provide $1 million towards this really important project. The headquarters there in Rockdale services the entire St George region. Lucy Smith from the St George netball association has done an incredible job. She is a great advocate for netball. Along with the president of the association, Tairua Ben-Vavia, there are some great people in St George netball doing great things.</para>
<para>I would like to acknowledge the important role of Georges River Life Care in our community. Based in Peakhurst, Georges River Life Care is run by the Georges River Life Church, which is a really important organisation with scores of volunteers doing many great things in the area. It runs a successful community relief centre which collects donated groceries to help people in need in our community. The centre also provides financial assistance to people in difficulty and offers a free legal clinic and domestic violence support service. It's a tremendous organisation. Glenn Power, the CEO, and the pastor, Scott Morrison, both do a fantastic job, as does everyone at Georges River Life Care.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In 2018-19, the Australian government ran a program known as the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program. It had three rounds: December 2018, February 2019 and April 2019. According to the Australian National Audit Office, if the process was based purely on Sport Australia's assessed merit, applications would have been approved if they had a score over 74. However, the Audit Office found that 417 applications, 61 per cent of the total approved, had a score below that cut-off. That of course meant that many worthy projects missed out. Last year, I tabled the full list of sports rorts grants, which included the Sport Australia scores. Among those were four Canberra projects which scored higher than 74 but were not funded. Braddon Tennis Club applied for $90,678 for its revitalisation project. It scored 77 and was not funded. The ACT government applied for $500,000 for the Boomanulla Oval refurbishment. It scored 80.5 and was not funded. The ACT government also applied for $200,000 for the installation of floodlights on Bonner neighbourhood oval. It scored 77 and was not funded. The Belconnen Tennis Club applied for $50,000 for a court lighting upgrade. It scored 82 and was not funded. The minister, Senator McKenzie, ultimately was forced to resign and took full responsibility. This is despite the fact that the colour-coded spreadsheet that she operated was put together following 136 emails between the Prime Minister's office and hers, including one from the Prime Minister's office saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">These are the ones we think should be included in the list of approved projects.</para></quote>
<para>Sports rorts is just one of the many rorts that have taken place under this government, including the Leppington Triangle, and the watergate and grasslands affairs involving the Minister for Energy and the Environment. But this one went straight to affect members of my communities. As Martin Klein, the president of Belconnen Tennis Club, said in his submission:</para>
<quote><para class="block">... we were somewhat perturbed that processes other than the Sports Australia assessment, may have been used to determine who was funded.</para></quote>
<para>These local clubs are the salt of the earth in the Canberra community. They work tirelessly and they deserve better than a federal government that hands out money based on colour-coded spread sheets and conniving from the Prime Minister's office.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Old Bonalbo Public School</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to congratulate Old Bonalbo Public School on their upcoming centenary celebrations. The school turned 100 last year, but celebrations were postponed due to COVID and will now be held on 3 April this year. Old Bonalbo is a wonderful community with a great local history. In 1842, Bunalbo Station was established, 'Bunalbo' meaning 'place of the leaning bloodwood tree'. Then, in the early 1900s, a new settlement, also called Bonalbo, was built on the banks of Peacock Creek. Residents of the original Bonalbo applied for their area to be named Old Bonalbo, and the town began. Ten years later, the school was established with a composite class of around 35 children. In the early 1930s, the construction of a road from Sandilands to Urbenville brought a large number of families to the school, and at one time there were over 100 pupils being taught in only two rooms and under verandahs. Over the years Old Bonalbo has had a very active P&C group. Up to four generations of local families have attended the public school. I'd like to thank the current school staff: teacher and principal, Kandas Petty; Raylee Ryan; Jenny Clarke; Cheryl Whitney; Melissa Armfield; Grantley Roffey; Cheryl Atkinson; and Shannon Whittaker. Congratulations and happy birthday, Old Bonalbo Public School.</para>
<para>I'm very lucky to represent a wide range of industries in my electorate. An industry starting to boom is the microbreweries and distilleries industry, bringing many jobs and tourists to our region. Chris and Nicola Fraser are the founders of Critters Distillery in Woolgoolga. They make a handcrafted vodka and recently won the Australian silver medal at the World Vodka Awards held in London. Nicole and Trent O'Connor are the owners of the Sanctus Brewing Company in Townsend. It opened in 2019 and has won various awards at the Independent Brewers Association and the Crafted Beer and Cider Festival. Adam Freeman and Alison Sloley started up the Clarence Distillery in Yamba and use local ingredients to make their dry gin, called the Duke. Vivienne Shorter owns the Emerald Island Distillery and has a great range of local gins. Lou and Matt Wilson started up Seven Mile Brewing Co. in Ballina in 2018 and have won many awards over the years, including the gold medal at the Independent Beer Awards.</para>
<para>There are also two new microbreweries on the way: Grant Smith and Andrew Newton have received the approval to establish Two Mates Brewing in the old yard shed in South Lismore; Sarah and Ryan Poole and Aaron and Jacqui Dobner have started the Woolgoolga 'Woopi' Brewing Company. Places like Brookie's Gin, and Stone and Wood, are in the region as well and many others are doing great things too. Congratulations to all these local businesses.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Vaccination</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's no understatement to say the most critical thing facing the government in our country is the successful rapid rollout of the vaccine across the country. It's the absolute key to opening up the economy fully, to enable business people to come and go, and to opening up trade. It's critical to lower the risk and the fear, over this winter, of further lockdowns across all of our major cities and regions. It's the key to opening the borders so that 44,000 stranded Australians abandoned by this government can finally come home. It's the key to getting tourists back on shore so we don't have to see ridiculous schemes for half-price flights to marginal seats, like the Prime Minister's dreamt up, and it's the key to welcoming hundreds of thousands of international students back to our country. They're paying fees; they need to come back. It's also representing a multicultural electorate. It's the key to people living their family lives. I have tens of thousands of people who haven't been able to see their parents. I've spoken to parents, partners, who have never met their children because they haven't got the right visa. It's key for Aussies to be able to travel.</para>
<para>This is why it is so concerning that the vaccination rollout is going way off the rails under this incompetent government. Across the world, 389 million doses of the vaccine have already been given. More than 50 per cent of adults in the United Kingdom have received at least one dose. Yet in Australia we're told, 'It's all on track. It's all going well. Tickety-boo!' That's not true. More than 99 per cent of Australians have not received a dose, not a single dose. The Prime Minister, in a bit of marketing spin, said, 'There'll be four million doses out by the end of March.' He said that. That's not going to happen. He's not going to hand out more than 3. 8 million in the next two weeks. The Prime Minister then said, 'We'll be fully vaccinated by the end of October.' Yet, on the very same day, the chief medical officer told the Senate, 'That's not going to happen.' So 'We'll try and get everyone, maybe, to have a first dose.' I don't believe a word. It follows his failures on managing the border and quarantine, and failure to accept responsibility for that and the vaccine.</para>
<para>I was shocked to hear from my electorate yesterday that that tosser Clive Palmer has been distributing leaflets—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Please—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw 'tosser'. That Clive Palmer chap, the mate of the LNP, their big donor, has been distributing misinformation leaflets to my electorate and across the country, saying, 'Don't take the AstraZeneca vaccine.' Where's the Prime Minister calling that out, along with Senator Canavan? In six months, the world will be opening up and Australians will still be closed and locked up in their own country because of this government's incompetence. The Prime Minister loved to tell us we're all at the front of the queue: 'Australia's at the head of the queue. We'll get it first.' The only person who is at the front of the queue is the Prime Minister, in his stupid outfits and daggy caps. He got the vaccine first.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Howarth interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Petrie on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Howarth</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He should withdraw. The Prime Minister is leading by example and doing a good job.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He's the only person at the front of the queue. For the rest of Australia it's a long far queue from this Prime Minister. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Petrie Electorate: Australian Indigenous Football Championships</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to give a shout-out to the Hon. Ken Wyatt, Minister for Indigenous Australians, who visited my electorate two weeks ago. It's the first time a Minister for Indigenous Australia has visited Petrie in 10 years. I was really pleased to have him there. He's a great man. One of the people the minister met with was local Petrie constituent Ramone Close, who has been working to build the profile of football—soccer—within Indigenous communities. Ramone started playing football when he was 13 years old. He got signed to play professionally in Europe when he was 15, and he spent many years living there playing the sport he loved. He said he would never have the perspectives he has now without having had the experiences he had travelling the world with football. That's why Ramone, as a former professional Indigenous football player, is seeking more global opportunities that the game can present, and he believes the Indigenous physicality is well-suited to the game of football. For now, he is trying to get more funding for the code because the high cost of playing sport is prohibitive to Indigenous families.</para>
<para>The Indigenous football festival was fantastic. People came from all around Australia. I want to give a shout-out to Lawrence Gilbert, of Naree Events; Peninsula Power Football Club; and the Feuerriegel family. There are so many good people at Peninsula Power who help that club every day—people like Nicole Dymock, Nikki Harrison-McRae, John Auld and the Auld family, who are big supporters of Peninsula Power and were major supporters of the football festival. Minister Wyatt also visited other parts of my electorate, including Deception Bay High School, where he met with students and teachers. There was a great meeting with the Mindle Bygul Aboriginal Corporation in Deception Bay. I thank other Indigenous owners, elders and industry people in the employment sector at Designer Life North Lakes. I also thank Michael Connolly and Gubbi Gubbi woman Christine Stuart and her daughter for meeting at my office with Minister Wyatt as well as students from Grace Lutheran College.</para>
<para>Last week I was invited by principal Tracy Egan to attend Mango Hill State School, which is the biggest primary school in Queensland with 1,493 students in P to 6. I was greeted by hundreds of eager, smiling faces. The children were all in coloured clothes—not their usual lime and green outfit. They had sporting uniforms on and traditional dress from countries right around the world. Tracy explained that it was 'We all belong day'. This is Harmony Week and this year's message is 'Everyone belongs'. It's a good message. They are a big united team at Mango Hill State School, just like we are big united team here in Australia. Whether you are born here or come here from another country, everyone is welcome. We have a wonderful country here in Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Brand Electorate: Mining</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Earlier this month, accompanied by Labor leader Anthony Albanese, I visited BHP's Kwinana nickel refinery in my electorate of Brand. Kwinana is where I was born, and the nickel refinery has been operating there for about 50 years—just a couple of years more than me. I have driven up and down Patterson Road in Rockingham countless times during my life. For much of that time, and especially in recent years, there has been a growing threat of the closure of the nickel refinery. Nickel was always an unloved commodity and global prices were in the doldrums. But now, as the world moves towards decarbonisation, BHP's operations in Kwinana are firmly back in business. In fact, they are now expanding. That means more jobs for people in my electorate and elsewhere.</para>
<para>Nickel is in demand because it is essential to creating the lithium ion batteries that power electric vehicles. Last year Nickel West in Kwinana sold around 70 per cent of its nickel product to battery manufacturers around the world, making BHP Kwinana the world's leading battery material supplier. That's something everyone in Kwinana, everyone in Western Australia and everyone in Australia should be very proud of.</para>
<para>Just a couple of days before visiting the refinery I was in Kalgoorlie in Western Australia's Goldfields, the original heart of the state's mining industry. There I saw the starting point of the process that culminates at the Kwinana refinery. The nickel mined in the Goldfields is processed firstly through BHP's mills at Kambalda, Mount Keith and Leinster. The ore is then smelted at the Kalgoorlie nickel smelter before being transported via rail to Kwinana, from whence that nickel sulphate is transported around the world.</para>
<para>When I was in Kalgoorlie I also had the chance to visit the grave of my great, great grandfather Eli Pizer, who, in the 1890s, packed up his four children and his life in Melbourne to join the luck of the Western Australian gold rush. It's my family's linked to the great gold rush of Western Australia. It's a similar story for many Western Australians who can trace their ancestry back to the Victorians who came over to help mine and develop Kalgoorlie. When I was there I also went 500 metres underground at the Northern Star's South Kalgoorlie Gold Mine, where I gained an even greater appreciation of the very hard work that miners in Kalgoorlie play to the future of this nation, but miners right around the country, who do very hard work in very difficult conditions.</para>
<para>I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate Ali Kent, elected as the new member for Kalgoorlie in the recent, remarkable Western Australian election. Ali Kent will be a great representative for the people and businesses of Kwinana. Like Ali, my message to mining communities across the nation is simple: Labor supports mining and the jobs it creates. We support the entire role of the resources sector in helping Australia and the world transition to net zero emissions.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Warrandyte Country Fire Authority</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>HK5</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Right across rural and regional Australia, country fire brigades serve a very significant and important purpose, particularly in times of natural disaster. They come to the fore not just for bushfires but for floods and other disasters that seem to regularly afflict parts of this country. Those brigades are also in existence in parts of our suburban cities of this country, including the semi-rural parts of my electorate of Menzies, with the brigades of Warrandyte, Wonga Park, Eltham and Kangaroo Ground, amongst others.</para>
<para>In the past, when I was growing up as a child in the country, the Country Fire Authority local brigades were the male preserves. It was entirely men who served on those brigade. Thankfully, that is changing, as with a lot of other things. I acknowledge the story in the latest monthly edition of the <inline font-style="italic">Warrandyte Diary</inline> about what's been happening at the Warrandyte CFA brigade, which currently has 10 female volunteers, the majority of whom regularly respond to emergencies, day and night, and provide active support in many other ways.</para>
<para>Of course, women also bring an important set of skills to firefighting, just as men do. Some of Warrandyte's female members have taken on years of specialist training, qualifying them to manage a broader scope of roles during an emergency. The skill sets these women hold are quite expansive, with roles in training, recruitment, community education and officer positions. A few are also CFA staff supporting other volunteer brigades around the state. They can be called upon to perform extra duties during large scale bushfire events and to manage emergency warning from the incident control centres.</para>
<para>Warrandyte CFA recruited its first female firefighter in 1981, when the station was moved to its current location on Harris Gully Road. Prior to that, women who attempted to apply were rejected by the captain of the time, with the cited reason that the old station had no female facilities. Thankfully, that has all changed now. According to a former captain, now deputy group officer, Shane Murphy, the introduction of women to the brigade has promoted a positive cultural change. Mr Murphy said, 'more respectful attitudes were adopted towards everyone, not just the women.' I think that's a great development.</para>
<para>In 1996, the Warrandyte CFA elected its first female lieutenant, Kate Murphy, who is still a current member. Since then, and still to this day, women have held several leadership roles in Warrandyte CFA, both in officer positions and within the brigade management team. I congratulate all of those involved, particularly the women of Warrandyte and those throughout Victoria, who contribute to preserving our safety through the CFA.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Walter Taylor Bridge</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Walter Taylor Bridge spans the Brisbane River between Chelmer in Moreton and Indooroopilly in Ryan. It's a heritage listed suspension bridge built way back in 1930. It's actually unique to the Southern Hemisphere as it's a habitable bridge. I won't go into some of the stories about those residents, but they are interesting. It's a beautiful piece of history, but the use of this single-lane bridge is far beyond its capacity, as established in 1930.</para>
<para>The peak hour gridlock for residents in Chelmer, Graceville, Corinda and Sherwood and the surrounding suburbs has been unacceptable for many years. That's at peak hour especially, but it can strike on a Saturday. Anyone who tries to cross that bridge knows how much of a choke point it is. Cars are banked up for kilometres, more and more every day. They go back right down Honour Avenue and Oxley Road, the two feeder roads leading to the bridge from the peninsula.</para>
<para>So I'm pleased that the Brisbane City Council, the Liberal-controlled Brisbane City Council, have announced that they will commence a feasibility study on a second bridge. This would be the first car bridge built in inner Brisbane since 2010. The design of this new council bridge will be critical. No-one wants to see it detract from the aesthetics of the historic Walter Taylor district or the heritage listed bridge. There should be a thorough process of community consultation to ensure that the new bridge is what the local community wants and is fit for purpose. There will not be a second bridge crossing any time soon; they're just kicking off a feasibility study. In the meantime, local residents will continue to sit in their cars in lines of traffic waiting to enter the bridge, pumping out particulate matter into the Graceville and Chelmer residents' lungs.</para>
<para>The Brisbane City Council have neglected the Tennyson Ward for years, ever since Campbell Newman was the lord mayor. They've starved Tennyson of funds that would improve traffic flow and the daily commute for local residents. The Brisbane City Council have already identified in their local government infrastructure plan two intersections that need to be upgraded. Both of these intersection upgrades would help with the traffic feeding into the Walter Taylor Bridge. Upgrades to the Coonan Road and Wharf Street intersections that feed traffic onto the bridge and the Oxley Road and Long Street intersection, which controls traffic along Oxley Road leading to the Walter Taylor Bridge, would both improve traffic flow leading to the bridge. These upgrades should happen now.</para>
<para>Work should start on planning and community consultation for the proposed Walter Taylor Bridge duplication project. But, in the meantime, traffic can be improved by immediately upgrading these intersections, already earmarked by the Brisbane City Council as important infrastructure works. BCC should stop ignoring residents in the Tennyson Ward. Locals in Chelmer, Graceville, Corinda, Sherwood and the surrounding suburbs should not have to put up with traffic gridlock during peak hours and also on Saturdays while planning and consultation are being undertaken to improve the bridge. The traffic gridlock could be alleviated now. Work should start immediately to fix these intersections.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Brisbane City Council, Gold Coast: Tourism</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Off the topic that I'm about to talk about, which is tourism on the Gold Coast, I would actually like to commend the Brisbane City Council and Lord Mayor Adrian Shreiner for the great work that they do in Queensland for the local economy and across many other sustainable, green measures and all kinds of other measures that the Brisbane City Council are putting in place in Queensland.</para>
<para>The impact of COVID-19 on the tourism sector on the Gold Coast has been dire, including for accommodation providers. For example, the Q1, Queensland's tallest residential building, which is in the heart of Moncrieff, was down 95 per cent occupancy when COVID-19 hit. That is devastating—and it has been devastating for many, many, tourism operators on the Gold Coast. It has been devastating particularly for those businesses that rely on international business—those small mum and dad businesses who employ perhaps four or five people. JobKeeper has been holding all of that together on the Gold Coast.</para>
<para>As we know, JobKeeper will step down at the end of this month. So, just over a month ago, I organised a roundtable event at the Star Gold Coast, where Minister Robert and Minister Andrews and I gathered with Minister Tehan to talk about what we could do to assist tourism operators and associated industries on the Gold Coast. At that roundtable, the key message that came out of the stakeholders was: 'We need certainty around the border. Borders opening and closing does irreparable damage to local business. We need certainty and we need bums on seats. We need people to come back to our businesses.' Minister Tehan and the ministers present listened, and we heard last week the announcement of a $1.2 billion tourism package and 800,000 half-price tickets—which the federal government is assisting with—to 15 destinations, including the Gold Coast. That extra support will definitely help our region and 14 other regions around the country that are reliant on tourism.</para>
<para>We know that we will lose some jobs at the end of the month. But other jobs will come online. There will be jobs where there is demand. There are new businesses popping up. Unfortunately, there are some businesses closing across the coast, but we are seeing new shoots come through and we are seeing the economy start to recover. So we need that border open, we need the COVID vaccine rolled out, and we need to get back to business.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Sydney Airport</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last month I spoke in the House about the plight of small landowners in and around Western Sydney airport. The continuing neglect by the state and federal governments on this issue is appalling. I attended a now recurring community meeting in Luddenham to discuss these issues with the people that are being affected. I was joined by several local state MPs, councillors and hundreds of irritated but very distressed residents. No-one is comfortable not being able to plan their future. Residents are frustrated, and we were told how it is affecting their health. They spoke with passion and reason.</para>
<para>The residents have not changed their outlook since the beginning. All they have wanted is answers. They need to know what lies ahead for their land and for their future investments, and they need an answer to why the federal and state governments have stayed silent and left these citizens in limbo. They need an answer to why there seem to be different rules for ordinary people, and an answer to when there will be transparency and fairness in the process. These land owners want to know which land will be purchased, when it will be purchased, and by which government agency. The fact that state and federal governments won't offer a timeline for these residents is bizarre, considering this has been on the mind of landowners since late 2018, when the rezoning commenced.</para>
<para>Residents now face a land value cut of over 10 times its original value; compare this to the overpayment of an original airport land by 30 times—it's shocking and unfair. However, it's much worse for some landowners. A local landowner Theo originally had his land valued at $11 million. Now his entire property has been designated as green space. The property is valued at $1; it's unsellable. I agree with the sentiments stated by the state Liberal member for Mulgoa, Tanya Davies, 'This is theft.' The member continued to stay at the meeting, she's ticked off at the government, and I support her. This government cannot expect the landowners and residents to give their land for free or deal with the uncertainty for years. Throwing away the financial future of hundreds of these families is not reasonable.</para>
<para>The residents are constantly facing stress and uncertainty. It is not a reasonable treatment by the state government, and it's not what residents and landowners want. I commend and thank Rob and Deb for their tireless efforts in organising such a well run community meeting. I hope that very soon the state government provides some certainty for these residents.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>O'Dwyer, Hon. Kelly</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALLEN</name>
    <name.id>282986</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In this week of the women for justice march, it's appropriate I recognise Higgins constituent and former member for Higgins the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer for her groundbreaking legacy work. It was the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer who, as Minister for Women and the first female member for Higgins, established the inaugural Women's Economic Security Statement, designed to empower women through economic participation and address the traditional barriers women have faced in accessing the workforce. The five aims of the Women's Economic Security Statement include initiatives to repair and rebuild women's workforce participation and further close the gender pay gap, through traineeship and entrepreneurship programs; allow greater choice and flexibility for families to manage work and care; support women as leaders and positive role models; respond to the diverse needs of women; and, importantly, support women to be safe at work and home.</para>
<para>Alongside the Women's Economic Security Statement, Kelly also called for the Respect@Work inquiry, led by Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins. She delivered the largest funding package for domestic violence—$384 million including $78 million for emergency housing for women fleeing unsafe situations—an Australian record. She's also helped women grow inside the party through mentoring and I thank her for her support and mentorship of me. I'm proud to build on Kelly's legacy by successfully calling for an increase in funding to the Women's Economic Security Statement or WESS at the last budget. It's more than doubled from $100 million $240 million. There needs to be more.</para>
<para>You cannot be what you cannot see. That's why I have initiated an inaugural Higgins Women in Business forum, attended by both the Premier and Treasurer last year; a women in politics school forum, to role model and inspire our future leaders; and a superstar women in STEM forum in Higgins award for the three inaugural recipients of the STEM superstars award—Crystal Forrester, Grace Lethlean and Dr Maria del Mar Quiroga. I have also initiated regular Go Girl policy discussions to help bring a women and girls perspective to Parliament House. To my constituents, I say: please contact my office if you want to be part of any of these local initiatives.</para>
<para>I look forward to the government's formal response to the 55 recommendations resulting from the Respect@Work inquiry initiated by Kelly, and I welcome the further inquiry into parliamentary workplace culture, led by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins. I'm pleased that the federal government has already committed $2 million to the Respect@Work report implementation but more needs to be committed. I remain a receptor site for the voices and views of Australian women inside the tent that is the heart of our democracy. In my first speech, I spoke of the warm winds of change for women but they're now howling through the corridors of power. I am your voice in this place.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:01</para>
<quote><para class="block"> </para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>