2021-03-18 46 1 5 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 18 March 2021

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 9:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 2021 1

Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 2021

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:32 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989 implements Australia's international obligations under the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel convention). The Basel convention is an international framework that protects human health and the environment from the harmful effects of the international movement of hazardous wastes. All exports and imports of hazardous waste are assessed to ensure they are transported and managed in an environmentally sound manner, and precious resources are recovered for reuse in the manufacture of new products. At the last Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention, it was agreed to regulate the export and import of unsorted plastic wastes and plastic wastes containing hazardous substances, that cause harm to human health and lead to marine plastic pollution. This bill is important so that we can align our laws with our international commitments, but more importantly, take responsibility for our waste and make sure it is managed in a way that doesn't harm human health or the environment. The changes in this bill would complement the landmark Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020. All Australian governments have agreed that from 1 July 2021, only waste plastics sorted into a single polymer or resin would be able to be exported and from 1 July 2022 further processing would be required of waste plastics before they can be exported. The regulation of waste plastics covered by the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act will operate in tandem with the regulation of hazardous waste plastics under the Hazardous Waste Act. This will ensure the export of plastic waste from Australia does not harm human health or the environment. The Hazardous Waste Act has now been operating for several years and the government has found ways to improve the effective and efficient operation of the act, while ensuring the standard of environmental protection remains high so that Australians can be better protected. This bill also makes changes to the act to: trigger the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 to adopt standardised Commonwealth regulatory powers and best practice regulation; improve compliance and enforcement by refining the existing criminal offences and introducing new strict liability offences, and civil penalties so that non-compliance is responded to in a targeted and proportionate manner; increasing the penalties for offences relating to the export, import and transit of hazardous waste and introducing new serious offences where there is, or could be, injury or damage to human health or in the environment; introduce new information sharing powers that will allow for the sharing of information, including across the Commonwealth, state and territory governments where appropriate; introduce new record keeping requirements and information gathering powers to protect, use and disclose information to ensure compliance. These changes will better protect our community and the environment. The bill also proposes to modernise the consultation process when declaring a material to be a hazardous waste, or that a waste processing technology is environmentally sound. This new process will provide flexibility to allow consultation with a range of stakeholders including appropriately qualified and relevant experts. This will ensure the government has the best advice available when making these declarations. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021 2

Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021

First Reading 2 Second Reading 2 09:36 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust was established in 2001 by the Howard government, as a transitional body to rehabilitate prominent former Defence sites on Sydney Harbour and open them up to public access and for the benefit of current and future generations. In that time quite a bit has changed for the trust. Its portfolio has grown, its life has been extended and it has successfully opened h up all of its sites to the public, with only some small areas still closed. The trust is now increasingly focused on the day-to-day management of the sites and the longer-term planning and actions to protect, preserve and enhance the sites consistent with the requirements of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act 2001. Recognising this, in 2019 the government announced an independent review into the trust's future arrangements to ensure that the right arrangements are in place for the important sites the trust manages. The report of the review was published in June 2020, and it made 21 recommendations, finding widespread support for the work of the trust. The government agreed immediately with the central finding of the review that the trust should become an ongoing entity, retaining responsibility for the sites, rather than handing them over to the New South Wales government and local councils for ongoing management. The 2020-21 budget provided $40.6 million in funding over four years for the trust to support its work in rehabilitating its sites and providing valued community spaces, facilities and attractions. This is in addition to the $9 million made available to the trust on release of the review report, to keep its sites safe and accessible. The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021 is the next major step in the implementation. As with the review, the bill has been framed in consultation with key stakeholders and the wider public. The bill takes forward four of the review recommendations as well and other amendments to improve the operation of the act and to better equip the trust for its new ongoing role. The bill implements the central finding of the review—that the trust becomes an ongoing entity. The trust was originally set up with a mission to remediate the sites and hand them over to NSW and relevant local councils for ongoing management. The independent review affirmed the community's strong support for these important sites to remain in federal government hands, managed by the trust on an ongoing basis. The government agrees with this proposition, and so the bill will ensure the sites remain in the hands of the trust into the future. The bill supports the review's recommendation for a refresh of the trust's membership requirements to ensure it is equipped with the skills and expertise needed for the future. The bill also updates provisions regulating the trust's commercial activities. The primary purpose of trust sites is to remain open for public access and amenity. But the last 20 years of operations has shown that sensitive commercial activities have a role to play in bringing life and amenity to the sites and contributing to the costs of protecting them. The bill maintains and strengthens key protections by ensuring long-term leases are only available where it is clearly consistent with the objectives of public access and amenity, and the conservation of heritage and environmental values. As part of this, the community will get a direct say in any such proposals. To continue to support the trust in its new ongoing role, the bill also modernises the language of the act and includes amendments related to a review of regulations under the act which are due to sunset and anticipated to be remade later this year, following community consultation. I particularly want to thank the hard work of the member for North Sydney, the member for Wentworth and Senator Bragg. The tireless advocacy of these three local representatives is reflected not just in this bill, but also in the recent budget and in the establishment of the review itself. One of my first visits to the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust was to Sub Base Platypus with the member for North Sydney. I was incredibly impressed with how this former base for Australian Submarine Squadron has been opened to the public and it is a credit to the member for North Sydney who fought hard to bring this site to life, and I encourage all to jump on a ferry from Circular Quay to North Sydney to explore this wonderful spot on Sydney Harbour—one of many. I also want acknowledge the Headland Preservation Group for their positive and constructive engagement with government in this process and for the support they have given to this bill, and to Joseph Carrozzi for his exemplary chairmanship of the trust through this period of transition. Overall, the bill supports the recommendations of the independent review, and the government's commitment to ensure it has the right arrangements in place to protect the special sites managed by the trust into the future. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021 3

Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 09:42 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021 primarily amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003(HESA)and makes minor amendments to the Education Services for Overseas Act 2000 (ESOS Act). Schedule 1of the bill amends HESA to expand the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) to include resident return visa holders who previously held a permanent humanitarian visa. Currently, the travel component of a permanent humanitarian visa ceases after a five-year period. If a permanent humanitarian visa holder travels outside of Australia outside of that time frame, they must apply for a resident return visa to retain permanent residence in Australia. A former permanent humanitarian visa holder in this situation would no longer be eligible for a HELP loan under HESA, even though, if they had not travelled outside of the travel component of their visa, they would have retained their original visa and eligibility for HELP assistance. The resident return visa is a permanent visa, and permanent visa holders are not generally eligible for HELP. The very intent of HELP is to make higher education more accessible to students who may not otherwise have access. As a permanent humanitarian visa holder in this situation would have retained their HELP eligibility if they had not travelled outside of their travel facility, this bill ensures permanent humanitarian visa holders can still access HELP, ensuring continued access to quality tertiary education while they are Australian residents. Schedule1 of the billalso contains minor technical amendments to improve the clarity and operation of HESA by aligning provisions across all HELP programs for student protection measures, clarifying references to Indigenous languages, streamlining the operation of grant funding, and clarifying grandfathering arrangements. I turn to the measures in the bill that amend the ESOS Act. The ESOS Act ensures quality education and training, provides tuition assurance and complements Australia's migration laws. The ESOS Act amendments arise from the government's focus to ensure continuity of assistance and quality for overseas students and demonstrates the government's commitment to good governance and the effective and efficient legislative oversight of Australia's international education sector. This bill builds on measures the Morrison government has already put in place to support the international education sector through the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including significant regulatory and fee relief that has reduced red tape and simplified the regulatory environment. In summary, the amendments will continue to protect students, keep providers focused on meeting their obligations to students and ensure the sustainability of the Overseas Students Tuition Fund. The ESOS Act provides important protections for students. It ensures rigorous standards are applied to any course delivered to international students, beyond the existing strong domestic regulations. It protects international students' investment in an Australian education and upholds the integrity of the visa system. These requirements will remain. Overseas students will continue to receive these protections. The measures in this bill demonstrate the government's commitment to ensuring higher education in Australia is accessible, affordable and fair and will assure the efficient functioning of HESA, the ESOS Act and the Tuition Protection Service. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill 2021 4

Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill 2021

First Reading 4 Second Reading 4 09:47 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I am introducing the Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill 2021. The changes proposed in this bill represent the most significant reform to Australia's mutual recognition arrangements for occupational registrations since they were introduced in 1992. This reform is part of the government's JobMaker plan for economic recovery and the whole‑of‑government approach to deregulation. This bill also marks a milestone for the Council on Federal Financial Relations with all jurisdictions working collaboratively to deliver on this deregulation reform to improve occupational mobility. The Mutual Recognition Act 1992, orMRA, was designed to reduce regulatory impediments to a national market in goods and services. The act recognised that once a person was assessed as good enough to practise in a trade or profession in one state or territory then they should be able to perform the same work anywhere in Australia. Mutual recognition reforms were supported by governments of all political persuasions from the outset. Over 19 per cent of Australian workers require a registration or a licence to perform their work. Some occupations, including some in the health sector, are registered nationally, but most trades and other professions, such as builders, plumbers and real estate agents, are registered on a state-by-state basis. Regulatory requirements and processes for most registered professions are managed and set differently in each of the eight states and territories. Differences in regulation between jurisdictions for the same occupation make it harder for tradespersons and other professionals to move across borders for work, raising the costs to employers to fill job vacancies and reducing competition and choice for consumers. These arrangements can also create particular challenges for those living and working in border communities and inhibit rapid responses to natural disasters when registered workers are needed urgently to restore critical infrastructure. Mutual recognition under the MRA has helped to reduce barriers to occupational mobility across borders for a range of occupations. Around 12 per cent of new occupational registrations were made under mutual recognition in 2019. Regardless, a person is still required to apply and pay for an additional registration even though they have already paid for their current registration in another state or territory. In its 2015 study into mutual recognition schemes, the Productivity Commission found that the current mutual recognition arrangements generally work well, but there would be cost savings from automating these processes. The Productivity Commission recommended governments give higher priority to expanding the use of automatic mutual recognition of occupational registrations, or AMR, to improve the efficiency of mutual recognition arrangements for individuals and businesses. The reform I am introducing today increases the strength and resilience of the Australian economy. It is critical that Australians can take up job opportunities wherever they arise. A more mobile labour force will respond to new opportunities, with more skilled workers crossing borders to work. In addition, this reform will help communities respond to national emergencies and disasters by enabling registered workers to relocate more quickly to help with immediate or longer-term recovery efforts in another jurisdiction. This bill introduces a uniform scheme for AMR to streamline processes where individuals seek to work in other states and territories. The scheme applies to those registrations covered by the existing mutual recognition arrangements, including builders, plumbers, architects, surveyors and security workers. Registered persons will not be required to pay additional application, registration or renewal fees. They will not have to complete an application form or provide supporting information to undertake the same activities in another jurisdiction. It's like the driver's licence approach. The bill will enable a person who is licensed or registered for an occupation to perform the same activities in another state or territory. As an example, under AMR, a builder holding a licence may assist with bushfire recovery in South Australia under his or her registration from Tasmania. They could save around $700 annually in registration fees and time in completing additional application forms. This bill is the culmination of efforts by national cabinet, the Council on Federal Financial Relations and officials from the Commonwealth, states and territories. I commend the hard work of the Treasurer in bringing this to fruition. As a result of these efforts, in December 2020, the Prime Minister, state premiers and the Northern Territory Chief Minister signed an intergovernmental agreement to implement a uniform scheme for AMR from 1 July 2021. This policy has been informed by input from consultation with industry, unions and the public. Draft legislation was released for public consultation from 17 December 2020 until 12 February 2021. In addition, the Commonwealth, states and territories held a range of meetings and consultations with industry, unions and regulators. Feedback from stakeholders raised during consultations indicated that there is broad support for the intent of AMR and the national framework. For example, Ai Group saw AMR 'as a positive improvement on current arrangements' and the Business Council of Australia saw it as 'a great step towards eliminating the barriers and bottlenecks that are holding back Australian workers, consumers and businesses'. The Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia 'supports the concept and goal of" AMR, and Master Plumbers Australia and New Zealand 'agrees with the intent behind the AMR principles'. Key benefits identified include increased labour mobility, reduced administration costs and fees, and greater productivity. PwC estimated that AMR could lead to additional economic activity of around $2.4 billion over 10 years as a result of savings to workers and businesses, productivity improvements and extra surge capacity in response to natural disasters. Over 168,000 workers would benefit, including 44,000 people who will work interstate that would not otherwise have done so. Consumers and businesses stand to benefit from improved access to skilled workers, lower prices and improved service quality as a result of increased competition. Businesses large and small will be able to bid more confidently for interstate projects and advertise without fear of breaching local licensing laws. For these businesses, the process and cost of working across borders will be more certain. Regions and towns near state borders, such as Albury-Wodonga, will particularly benefit, as will small communities who may not have access to registered workers locally. Further, as the nature of jobs change and more work is undertaken remotely, AMR provides for the framework for regulation to adapt as technologies change. Under the reforms, an architect living in Victoria and working remotely in Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia could save around $1,200 a year and no longer need to renew three different registrations. This bill amends the existing framework of the MRA to establish a new part 3A. Part 3A will enable a person who is registered for an occupation in their home state to carry on those activities in other states and territories. While registered workers will be automatically entitled to carry on the same activities in another state or territory, the bill contains measures to protect against significant risks. Stakeholders highlighted a number of risks and challenges with implementing AMR, including differences in licensing across jurisdictions. This could result in unintended consequences for consumers, workers and other groups within the community given the existing variations in licensing arrangements and related state and territory laws. The government recognises these risks and has enshrined a number of important safeguards in the proposed AMR arrangements to protect consumers, the environment, animal welfare and the health and safety of workers and the public. To step through some of these safeguards, consistent with existing arrangements, a person subject to disciplinary actions or who has conditions on their registration as a result of disciplinary, civil or criminal action will not be eligible for AMR. Information on cancelled or suspended registrations and disciplinary actions for people in the new scheme will be available to regulators. This will ensure non-compliant workers cannot move jurisdictions and continue to work. For some registrations, workers may need to notify the regulator they intend to work in their jurisdiction. Local regulators will also be able to access the information they need from interstate regulators, including any non‑compliant behaviour, to ensure AMR operates effectively. Material received by local regulators will be managed in accordance with privacy requirements. Any conditions a person has on their home state registration will apply, unless waived by the local registration authority. For example, a condition on a home state registration that requires a less experienced builder to work under supervision in a bushfire prone area will still apply in other states. The local laws of a second state will continue to apply to all persons carrying on the activity in its jurisdiction. This includes the need for workers to meet financial requirements, such as having insurance or making contributions to compensation funds. Interstate builders, for example, will still be required to rectify defective building work and interstate electrical workers will still need to comply with relevant local wiring rules as required under local laws. A person would also need to satisfy a working with vulnerable people character test, where required to by law. A local registration authority will be able to take disciplinary action, including suspending or cancelling a person's automatic deemed registration, consistent with the laws that local registration holders are subject to. Recognising that AMR may not be appropriate for all occupational registrations, a state or territory minister can declare specific registrations in their jurisdiction exempt from AMR, for up to five years, where they determine there is a significant risk, arising from particular circumstances or conditions in their jurisdiction, to consumers, the environment, animal welfare or the health or safety of workers or the public. Declarations to exempt a registration can only be made where necessary to address significant risks, to ensure that benefits from AMR can be realised. The declarations will need to include a statement of reasons explaining the risks to consumer protection, the environment, animal welfare or the health and safety of workers or the public. The declaration will automatically expire after five years, and a new declaration can be made following a review if the significant risk remains. As a transitional measure, state and territory ministers will be able to declare a specific registration exempt from AMR for a period of six months from the commencement of the bill, with an option to extend for a further period to 30 June 2022 if needed. This temporary exemption power gives time for implementation issues to be resolved, such as improving information-sharing arrangements between regulators and enhancing the information available for workers. The proposed amendments will not prevent a person from seeking mutual recognition under the existing framework nor will it disrupt existing national registration, state model law schemes or state based automatic recognition schemes. The bill also makes consequential changes to other parts of the MRA to ensure consistency and that mutual recognition and AMR operate as intended. In closing, this bill will make it simpler, quicker and less expensive for businesses and registered workers to operate across Australia and to help better use the skills of the Australian labour force. The AMR scheme will reduce the burden of unnecessary regulation, while maintaining the standards of protection for consumers, the environment, animal welfare, and the safety of workers and the public. AMR is an important national reform. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 6 COMMITTEES Regional Australia Select Committee 6 Membership 6 10:00 The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mr Zappia to be a member of the Select Committee on Regional Australia, in place of Ms LM Chesters. 10:00 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston by leave—I move: That Ms L. M. Chesters be discharged from the Select Committee on Regional Australia and that, in her place, Mr Zappia be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. BILLS 7 BILLS Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Bill 2020, Industrial Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (General) Bill 2020, Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Customs) Bill 2020, Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Excise) Bill 2020 7

Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Bill 2020

Industrial Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (General) Bill 2020

Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Customs) Bill 2020

Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Excise) Bill 2020

Second Reading 7 10:01 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the Coalition Government has consistently been slow to deliver on its announcements". Labor supports the passage of the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Bill 2020 and related bills because it is sensible to work towards a national approach to the management of industrial chemicals and their impacts on the environment. These bills will establish a national standard in relation to the management of industrial chemicals—like PFAS, but many others as well—and their risk to the environment. Labor hopes this national standard will help manage risks to protect the environment and to provide a nationally consistent approach for both governments and industry. Sadly, some communities know all too well the environmental impacts of the mismanagement of chemicals, including PFAS. The bills intend to address a gap in standards set nationally for the management of risks for the protection of the environment. While there are existing regimes for managing risks from industrial chemicals to public and worker health and safety, there is currently no national standard-setting framework for managing the environmental risks of industrial chemicals. These bills come after a lengthy period of consultation, spanning more than a decade, with agreement and consultation between the states and territories. It has now been more than five years since the environment ministers agreed to establish a national standard, and finally the government has introduced these bills into the parliament. It was back in 2015 that environment ministers agreed to establish a national standard to manage the environmental risks of industrial chemicals. A draft was developed and stakeholders were consulted over a three-year period, from 2015 to 2018, but draft legislation was only released in 2020. That's two years after the government's consultation. This government is consistently slow or fails to deliver on its announcements, and haven't we all seen that. It's a government that's all photo-op and no follow-up. It's a government that will turn up and make a big announcement and then wait for the caravan to roll on and never actually deliver on it. We've seen that in my portfolio, in the environment. We've seen it with the emergency bushfire money that was announced in January 2020, at the height of the national bushfire crisis. We got to the end of that financial year and they hadn't managed to spend all of that so-called emergency money. I was in the Blue Mountains just recently with our wonderful member Susan Templeman, who was showing me around. I was introduced to local environmental groups, who work on the ground—remember, this is a bushfire affected, in fact a bushfire devastated, area. These local environmental groups were telling me that they'd scarcely seen a cent of the bushfire money in the Blue Mountains. It was quite bewildering and gobsmacking, in what was in some ways ground zero—at least in that part of the world around Sydney, from the environmental destruction wreaked by the fires—to have the people who are there caring for such important forest, for such important country, tell me that they weren't seeing the money. It was pretty surprising, I've got to say. Look at water. This is a government in their eighth year. They're responsible for delivering on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—obviously, in collaboration with other basin jurisdictions, but you expect the Commonwealth to show leadership. We're now in a situation where the 450 gigalitres of up-water due by 2024 has seemingly no prospect of actually being delivered. In fact, in the First review of the Water for the Environment Special Account that was published last year, the panel bluntly said the 450 gigalitres is not going to be delivered by 2024. Why did the panel form that conclusion? Only 1.9 of the 450 gigalitres had been delivered—less than one per cent! This Prime Minister is just all about announcement and failure: announcement of policy and failure of delivery. I think it's really disgraceful. So it's no surprise that they've taken quite a significant amount of time to pursue this really non-controversial legislation that we're talking about today—that they've taken such a long period of time to bring into existence this framework for a national environmental standard for the management and storage of industrial chemicals. In respect of this bill, I note that some stakeholders flagged concerns about a number of issues. Those included the adoption and implementation of the national register being a decision for each state and territory jurisdiction, some trepidation relating to the charges bills and some questions about the timing and timeliness of the bills. So I call on the government to ensure that they actively engage with state and territory governments, in line with the relevant recommendations from the recent Senate inquiry into this legislation, particularly in relation to planning for the adoption of the register across the country, the cost recovery arrangements and the role of the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme. The current settings where individual jurisdictions must separately determine if and how chemicals should be managed to protect the environment could result in additional costs and duplication of effort for industry. The development and design of the legislative framework has been informed by consultation. We appreciate that, and that's why we are pleased to see this bill finally before the parliament to be passed. We know that the Commonwealth government has been collaborating on this reform with state and territory government and industry groups for over a decade. It's time the Morrison government got on with the job of delivering. We note the broad support for the national standard and its objectives, and we will watch the government closely to ensure they engage in further consultation, as recommended by the Senate inquiry, and especially when it comes to undertaking comprehensive consultation with affected businesses in developing a cost recovery implementation statement before imposing any charges. I commend the legislation to the House and I look forward to seeing it passed. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the amendment seconded? Ms Collins HWM I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Griffith has moved 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. 10:08 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise to lend my support to the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Bill 2020 and related bills. These bills would establish a national framework to manage the handling, use and disposal of industrial chemicals, which have the potential to cause serious health and environmental harms if mismanaged. Currently, there is no mechanism to implement the health and safety recommendations made by the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme to manage such risks, and that's a huge risk in itself. This bill will ensure that industrial chemicals are appropriately and uniformly classified based on risk and that this classification is based in evidence and the expert advice of an advisory committee on environmental management of industrial chemicals. Importantly, this bill also creates a mechanism for states and territories to jointly implement recommendations relating to the appropriate management of industrial chemicals to ensure national consistency. This bill has relevance to my electorate of Indi where poor regulation and management of PFAS, also known as a 'forever chemical', has directly impacted residents in East Wodonga. PFAS is a man-made persistent organic substance, meaning it does not break down easily and, therefore, accumulates over time and remains in our environment and in us. There are thousands of such chemicals. Wodonga is one of a number of regional cities across Australia currently tackling issues related to PFAS contamination in the environment. The Bandiana Military Area near Wodonga, like many military bases across Australia, previously used a firefighting foam that contained the chemical PFAS. Although it's no longer used and has not been used at Bandiana for around 10 years, PFAS can still be detected in the surface water and groundwater at the base and has leaked from the military base into the surrounding environment. A number of Wodonga residents are part of an Australia-wide class action that is seeking damages to compensate for impacted properties, land values and livelihoods. Similar claims in Katherine in the Northern Territory have resulted in a significant settlement for residents, amounting to $212.5 million. The Department of Defence conducted a series of investigations into PFAS exposure at Bandiana and in the community, concluding 'low and acceptable' levels of exposure. However, 'potentially unacceptable risks' were identified from activities that are not currently occurring in the area surrounding Bandiana, but could in the future, such as the use of groundwater for stock watering or growing local vegetables and eggs, as many people across my electorate already do. My constituents and all Australians should be able to do these things with confidence, without wondering whether they're putting their lives and the lives of their families in danger. Although the links between forever chemicals and serious health risks are not officially recognised by the government, the Department of Defence recognised in its investigation that 'important health effects for individuals exposed to PFAS cannot be ruled out based on current evidence', and exposure to these chemicals should, therefore, be minimised. With these types of findings in official government reports, I can empathise with community concern about the extent of the health risks PFAS might pose. Nicole Beach, whose family home borders Jack in the Box Creek where water samples have exceeded PFAS freshwater guidelines, is understandably concerned about any possible connection between Bandiana and extremely high rates of cancer and autoimmune disease in her family. And there are many more concerning stories like this. More research is needed, and PFAS is, of course, only one of numerous industrial chemicals that pose potential risks to human health. North East Water continues to monitor PFAS levels in drinking water for Wodonga, Wangaratta, Yarrawonga and Wahgunyah, thankfully, having found no alarming levels to date. This bill will not solve overnight the problems and concerns that communities like Wodonga are experiencing, but it is a step towards ensuring that it doesn't happen again. Australian communities deserve to be protected from the hazards associated with the use of chemicals of an industrial nature. Australian communities should have confidence that the government is doing its best to protect them from the hazards associated with the use of industrial chemicals, and this bill takes us a step in the right direction. Regulating industrial chemicals is currently the responsibility of states and territories. PFAS is regulated differently in Victoria, where my electorate of Indi is, than in Queensland or Western Australia. Under this bill, states and territories would continue to hold regulatory responsibility but would be coordinated by national standards to ensure dangerous chemicals are managed consistently, proactively and more effectively across the country than has been the case in the past. It's also important to note that just this month the New South Wales Liberal government banned the use of PFAS firefighting foam except in catastrophic circumstances. Firefighting foam is the main source of PFAS contamination in New South Wales, so the phase-out will contribute greatly to the reduction of this toxic contaminant in the New South Wales environment. It's a commendable reform by the New South Wales government and a sign that it's possible to remove these toxins from products that we need for daily life. I support this bill and hope it will improve the successful management of industrial chemicals to protect the health of Australians and to protect our precious environment. 10:14 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I rise to sum up on the Industrial Chemicals Environment Management (Register) Bill 2020 and associated bills. Firstly, I'd like to thank all the members who have contributed to the debate on these bills. This legislation will deliver groundbreaking improvements to the way that environmental risks from industrial chemicals are managed in Australia. This legislation will establish a national framework to manage the ongoing use, handling and disposal of industrial chemicals in order to reduce impacts on the environment and limit people's exposure to industrial chemicals. It delivers on reforms agreed by environment ministers from all Australian jurisdictions to drive consistency and high standards for environmental protection across the nation. I'd also like to thank the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills for their review of this package of bills. I table two amendments to the explanatory memorandum to respond to concerns raised by the committee. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Griffith has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 9 10:17 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Industrial Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 9

Industrial Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

Second Reading 9 Third Reading 10 10:18 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (General) Bill 2020 10

Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (General) Bill 2020

Second Reading 10 Third Reading 10 10:19 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Customs) Bill 2020 10

Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Customs) Bill 2020

Second Reading 10 Third Reading 10 10:20 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe by leave—I move: That this bill now be read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Excise) Bill 2020 10

Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Excise) Bill 2020

Second Reading 10 Third Reading 10 10:21 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe by leave—I move: That this bill now be read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021 11

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021

Second Reading 11 10:22 The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 10:22 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I'm happy to speak today on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021. This bill is really a tidy-up of the legislation rushed through parliament last year, when we were first trying to grapple with the coronavirus pandemic. It's not surprising that there are a few errors. That's what happens when you rush legislation through, but it was appropriate in the circumstances. Obviously we had to do it because we needed to support families. I will return to that in a minute, because the Morrison government didn't quite achieve its objective of supporting families. Nevertheless, it's important that errors which occurred during the rushing through of this legislation are corrected. The bill before the chamber clarifies and states the circumstances where an emergency or disaster can be declared by the secretary and where business continuity payments can be made. This will provide certainty that the actions taken last year were legal, and it will make business continuity payments an ongoing policy response that is available to the government. It also reduces the red tape burden on services during disaster events by removing the legal requirement to send weekly reports to the department. It will extend the tax return deadlines for the 2018-19 financial year to March this year, to provide a bit more time for people who have not lodged their returns during the pandemic. It removes the two-year cut-off point for people to be able to lodge their tax returns and still be eligible for the child care subsidy. It ensures that emergency disaster events do not count towards the 14-week period of nonattendance, after which a child's enrolment is cancelled. There are a few other minor tweaks in the bill that are necessary as well. Labor will support these changes. We'll do anything, obviously, to help families access services. This bill is necessary to effect those necessary changes, and I will be supporting it, as will my colleagues. Unfortunately, the bill before the chamber does not correct all of the Morrison government's mistakes when it comes to their support for families during the coronavirus pandemic. What has emerged, which has not been addressed by this bill, is that, during the recent snap COVID lockdowns in Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane, families were instructed to stay home, but childcare centres actually remained open as an essential service for essential workers. Remember, those essential workers could be people that were cleaning, they could be ambulance officers—all sorts of people can be essential workers. What that meant was that families staying at home were still being charged the gap fees by childcare centres, as the centres were legally required to levy the fees. The doors to the centres were open, but the kids couldn't leave their own homes to get through those open doors. The minister has the ability to give centres an exemption from charging gap fees. The minister did provide an exemption during the second Victorian lockdown in 2020 but, strangely, hasn't provided the exemption for the most recent lockdowns in Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane. In my electorate I don't have any families that have so much money that they want to pay for a service that they didn't receive. The shadow minister has moved an amendment to this bill—a sensible amendment that will take the exemption out of the minister's rules and put it into the act. This would mean an exemption would be triggered as soon as state or territory governments declared a lockdown. Let's hope that doesn't happen again, but I think that will be the new COVID reality that we live in. This sensible proposal put forward by the shadow minister means that families would not be slugged with fees for care that they were not receiving. It is a very sensible amendment and ensures parents are not forced to pay for care that they're not able to receive because the state government has told them to stay home for sensible public health reasons. The government should fix this now. A sensible government would support this amendment, and I should stress that there are no political points to be made in supporting this. This wasn't the only childcare bungle made by the Morrison government during the pandemic. As I said earlier, families were not supported as they should have been. Many families did like the free childcare announcement. There were lots of press releases and pressers by the Morrison government, but the delivery didn't quite live up to the hype. That happens so often with the Morrison government. Many families were locked out of the free child care, and many services were driven to the brink of collapse. Early learning centres had their funding slashed. Many were forced to cut opening hours, to cut staff. Remember, staff in these centres are not well remunerated at all. There is lots of evidence that they can barely afford to get into the housing market because they're barely above award wages, and they're charged with looking after our most precious commodity, our children. Some centres had to cut places to balance their books, just to keep their heads above some very troubled waters. Family day care educators are wonderful people. They're the people we trust to care for our children. They were forced to work for half the pay because they couldn't access JobKeeper. This was a disgrace. We know that a quarter of early learning services were losing money every day. The reaction of the Morrison government—remember, the Prime Minister himself designed this system back when he was a minister—true to form, was to blame the providers. They even encouraged families to dob in centres through a phone hotline that was specially set up. They really are 'dobbers united' over there, aren't they? Remember robodebt? We've now seen bosses rorting the JobKeeper thing, but the government don't go and say, 'Dob in a boss, set up a hotline,' no. But they are 'dobbers united' when it comes to normal, everyday Australians. A government member interjecting— Mr PERRETT HVP After it all went wrong—sorry, I missed that interjection from the minister at the table. A government member interjecting— Mr PERRETT HVP Oh, okay. I'll take that interjection. After it all went wrong and it couldn't be salvaged, the Morrison government's response was to snap back to the old, expensive, Morrison-designed childcare subsidy scheme—the one that he designed when he was the minister. We already have one of the most expensive childcare schemes in the world. What does that mean? On average, child care costs between 30 and 40 per cent of the average household income in Australia, which seems like a lot when you compare it to the OECD, where the average is just 11 per cent. This is because we have a system that has seen children as a burden rather than as something to be invested in. We know that childcare fees are soaring; they've increased 35.9 per cent since 2013. So that's on this government's watch, on the coalition's watch. We know that childcare costs are locking parents out of the workforce. That's bad for families, and it's bad for the economy. Why is it bad for the economy? Because there are simple productivity gains that come from giving women 'a room of their own'—putting women back into the workforce, tapping into the skills and expertise that our schools and TAFEs and universities have created. We have almost 300,000 Australians not participating in the labour force due to the fact they're caring for children, and many of them—most of them, I would suggest—are women. The number of parents who say they are not working mainly due to the cost of child care has skyrocketed by 23 per cent. We know it's too expensive and we know it needs to be fixed. But the Morrison government, sadly, has no plan to fix it. Maybe if the coalition government listened to women a little bit more they might have a better understanding of how families— An honourable member interjecting— Mr PERRETT HVP Maybe if you had 10,000 women out the front of Parliament House you might make the effort to go out and listen to them. Maybe they've got something to say. I don't know. An honourable member interjecting— Mr PERRETT HVP Who knows? There certainly seemed to be some pretty passionate people out the front of Parliament House on Monday when I went out there. So, maybe if they listened to women a bit more they would find out how families are being impacted by child care that is unaffordable. We know that paying for that fourth or fifth day can be a cruel burden on families. Labor has a plan to make child care more affordable for families, so more parents can get back into the workforce. Our cheaper child care for working families plan will scrap the $10,560 childcare subsidy cap, which currently sees women paying to work for the extra day of work. It will lift the maximum subsidy rate to 90 per cent and will increase the childcare subsidy rates and taper them for every family earning less than $530,000. It's important that the cost of child care goes down, but it is even more important that the cost of child care stays down. Labor will task the ACCC with designing a price regulation mechanism to shed light on costs and fees and drive them down for good. We will also ask the Productivity Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the sector with the aim of implementing a universal 90 per cent subsidy for all families. That's a good plan. It's a sensible plan. It will reward working families and allow more second-income earners, who are usually women, to work more and contribute to our economic recovery. We have a plan to fix Morrison's broken childcare system. The coalition government is just patching up a broken system. I support this bill and the amendment moved by the shadow minister, the member for Kingston. 10:32 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley It's serendipitous that my first speech on a piece of legislation—on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021—after coming back from the birth of my twins is about childhood education. Their diaries are full at the moment; otherwise, I could've had you maybe feed them a bottle from the chair, like they did in New Zealand! The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Why not? Ms WELLS 264121 Like with so many Northside families, access to a supportive care system comprising family, friends, early educators, colleagues—and a boss who loves babies!—has allowed me to come to work today. Child care is essential family infrastructure, and it is essential family infrastructure that I, like so many parents across the Northside, could not manage without. I would like to start by thanking our early educators for their heroic work throughout the pandemic. It really was brave of them to go to work every day, particularly with the kinds of conditions that this federal government currently allows them to continue to work under. While many workers had to stay home during the COVID lockdown, our early educators continued to go to work every day, on the front line, putting their own health at risk, so that other essential workers could get to work. Unfortunately, our childcare workers and early educators were not always treated like the essential workers that they are by this government. But, rest assured, on this side of the House, you are our champions. Labor will always support early educators. We welcome the changes which reduce red tape on services and families, and we will support this bill. It's nice to be able to debate this bill on child care at all, after the education minister introduced new childcare rules last year without allowing debate to happen. This bill retrospectively clarifies and states the circumstances where the secretary can declare emergency and disaster events and make business continuity payments, thereby providing a bit of legal certainty to actions taken last year and retaining the BCP as an ongoing policy response available to government. It removes the legal requirements for services to send weekly session reports to the department during emergency or disaster events, reducing the red tape burden on the services during these events. It extends the tax return deadlines for 2018-19 to 31 March 2021, to provide more time for people who have not lodged their returns due to the pandemic; removes the two-year cut-off point for people to lodge their tax returns and be eligible for the childcare subsidy; and ensures that emergency or disaster events do not count towards the 14-week period of nonattendance, after which a child's enrolment is cancelled. There are a few other minor tidy-ups, which have no adverse impact on families, so we support them. However, this bill isn't perfect, and it should be amended to work as efficiently as possible for educators, for service providers and for families. Labor's technical amendment to take the exemption out of the minister's rules and put it back into the act would trigger an exemption from fees as soon as the state government declares one, and it is an amendment that would do just that: make things more efficient. Whilst families have been instructed to stay at home during lockdowns, childcare centres have remained open as an essential service for essential workers. However, families staying at home have still been charged gap fees by centres as they are legally required to levy those fees. The minister has the ability to give centres an exemption from charging gap fees and did so during the second Victorian lockdown of 2021. However, the government has deliberately chosen not to grant exemptions for the most recent lockdowns in Perth, in Adelaide, in Melbourne and in my home town of Brisbane. It is ridiculous that the Morrison government would expect families to continue to pay gap fees during crucial lockdowns, and it is a real shame that this government isn't willing to work in a collaborative and bipartisan manner and accept Labor's proposed amendments to help early educators, service providers and families. It isn't surprising that we are here today fixing drafting errors and ambiguities in the COVID response legislation passed last year. The Morrison government bungled early education and care throughout the entirety of the pandemic, and it was the parents, children, educators and providers who paid the price every step of the way. First, their free childcare policy, like most announcements from this Prime Minister, was not quite what it seemed, and it left many providers struggling to stay afloat and families without access to care. I hosted a Zoom roundtable with early educators from my electorate of Lilley with our shadow minister for early education, the member for Kingston, and the early educators were exasperated—that's probably putting it politely. They were struggling to keep their doors open after their funding had been slashed. They had to cut their opening hours, they had to cut staff, they had to cut staff hours and they had to cut places, to try and balance their books. Family day care educators were excluded from JobKeeper entirely, leaving them to do the same job for half the pay. Families were being denied places, and that included healthcare workers at The Prince Charles Hospital, which was one of the foremost places for dealing with COVID on the northside. Then the government ripped JobKeeper away from early educators altogether—first off the boat—creating further pain for the sectors and for the families that they look after. This decision tells you everything that you need to know about how this government values work. The male-dominated construction sector received targeted taxpayer stimulus. The childcare sector, which is 97 per cent female, was the first to have its funding ripped away. This sent a very clear message to early childhood educators: you are not essential. What a slap in the face to them after everything they have done. To replace JobKeeper, we then had the exceptional circumstances fund, which was exceptionally good at refusing to approve funding applications. Only 39 per cent of those applications were approved. The government boasted that 98 per cent of early learning services stayed open during the crisis, but that doesn't really show the whole picture. The government's own limited survey found that a quarter of services were not financially viable and they were losing money every day. And when you think it couldn't get worse, the Morrison government resorted to their natural position, which is to blame everybody else but themselves. This time it was the providers' fault. This government sent strongly worded communications to providers threatening their funding if they didn't have enough places and enough hours, knowing full well services are not funded to do so. Shockingly, they set up a hotline and encouraged families to dob in early education providers. This is truly disgraceful. I don't know why this government is so gung-ho on dobbing, but it isn't Australian. A government member interjecting— Ms WELLS 264121 I'll take the interjection. If that was the case, why don't we set up a dobbing hotline for employers doing the wrong thing, or for the billions of dollars that have been paid out via JobKeeper in dividends and in executive bonuses? Where is the dobbing hotline for that? I'll leave it with you. The Prime Minister should come to the chamber now and apologise to our early educators for how they have been treated over this past year. Maybe send him a text. Government data and anecdotal evidence I've collected from northside families prove that our early education system is broken. It is vital, but it is broken. It was revealed last year by the department of education that 25 per cent of families were still waiting for their reconciliation of the 2018-2019 childcare subsidy. This means that the government has withheld money from some families for over a year, including during an economic recession. It's not a standard that they would accept in reverse and not a standard that they have ever accepted in reverse. In the same period, the government collected $130 million in childcare debts from families, despite ongoing concerns about the accuracy of their debt collection system. The hypocrisy is staggering but, at the same time, unsurprising. The government are gung-ho when they are accusing families of owing them money, but they are more than happy to move at an absolute snail's pace to hand money back where it is rightfully owed and needs to be returned to Australian families. Childcare fees are skyrocketing, and the federal government's support is failing to keep up. In the last 12 months, childcare fees have increased by 9.6 per cent in Nundah, 5.8 per cent in Chermside, 8.8 per cent in Everton Park and 6.2 per cent in Sandgate. Parents will soon be no better off under this government's once-in-a-generation set of reforms than they were under the previous scheme, which ended in July 2018. Childcare fees have soared by 35.9 per cent since this mob came to power in 2013. Documents from the Morrison government's own education department predict that childcare fees are going to rise by 4.1 per cent every year for the next four years, substantially outstripping inflation, which the childcare subsidy is pegged to. These fees are hurting families and locking parents, particularly women, out of the workforce. Data from the Productivity Commission has shown that almost 300,000 Australians are not in the labour force due to caring for children. The proportion of parents who say that they are not working due mainly to the cost of child care has skyrocketed to 23 per cent. According to ABS data, access to affordable child care is the main reason women can't increase their participation in the labour force. The Morrison government need to stop burying their heads in the sand and acknowledge that their system is broken—a system that was authored by the now Prime Minister back when he was Treasurer. There are a number of valid, progressive early education policy reforms that we should be legislating right now to fix these issues. We could be scrapping the $10,560 childcare subsidy cap, which often sees women actually losing money from an extra day's work. We should be increasing the childcare subsidy rate, and we should be lifting the maximum rate. But, instead of debating these measures that would actively improve the lives of Australian families, we in this chamber are constantly correcting the stuff-ups of the Morrison government. Labor is on the side of families. We always have been, and we always will be. We know what access to affordable child care means for our families. We know that affordable child care doesn't just benefit families; it provides amazing bang for the buck as economic investment. A review by PwC into the value of early childhood education and care in Australia found that, for every dollar we invest in child care, the country gets $2 back through increased productivity and workforce participation. That's amazing bang for the buck. While female workforce participation rates in Australia have been steady rising over the past four decades, they remain low for women with young children. I recognise that, in many cases, this is a matter of personal preference—more power to you. But I have also spoken to countless women who would like to work extra hours but are deterred from doing so by the high cost of child care and the little or no extra take-home pay they receive from those extra hours, after losing income support payments and paying personal income tax. Last year, I spoke with Chloe, a single mum in Chermside. When I asked her how the rising cost of child care was impacting her life, she told me that she had been forced to turned down increased work in the past because the income she would receive from that extra work would have been outweighed by the cost of putting her son into day care for the extra days. She said he was relieved that he would be going to school soon. For working parents like Chloe, Federal Labor has a plan to make sure that early education is affordable, accessible and high quality for every child. A federal Labor government will introduce the working family childcare boost to cut childcare fees and put more money into the pockets of working families straight away. Childcare fees in Australia are some of the highest in the world. Under this plan, Labor will scrap the $10,560 childcare subsidy cap, which often sees women losing money from an extra day's work; we will lift the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent; and we will increase childcare subsidy rates and taper them for every family earning less than $530,000. This reform would help 97 per cent of Australian families in the system. It would save somewhere between $600 and $2,900 a year for families. No family would be worse off. It is an excellent system, and it is a credit to the member for Kingston for coming up with it. Importantly, we will task the ACCC with designing a price regulation mechanism to shed light on costs and fees and drive them down for good—work that the now Prime Minister, then Treasurer, should have done years ago. Our plan for cheaper child care will reward working families and allow more second-income earners, who are usually women, to work more and contribute to our economic recovery as a nation. We will keep working to fix Australia's broken childcare system, which currently locks out more than 10,000 families because they just cannot afford it. We will keep working and we will keep fighting because we know that affordable early childhood education and care is not just vital infrastructure for parents and children but vital infrastructure for Australia's economic recovery. Australians needs an early education and care system that ensures early learning is affordable and accessible for families. It needs to keep educators in jobs and protect the viability of providers. I will continue fighting for northside families every day to make sure that quality of life improves for all, regardless of their income. With three children under five, we have three in child care this year, so we pay three sets of childcare fees every week, and I truly understand what that cost looks like on the family budget. I also understand what the difference would be if we could raise the rate and the cap so that people could access more work because they had access to more affordable child care. In my remaining time, I would like to give a shout-out to the educators who look after my young family, who go above and beyond helping me to manage all of this, this great privilege that it is to be the member for Lilley, whilst parenting very, very little children. They help me juggle. They meet me at the car park to bring in two capsules at a time. The logistics involved in having twins is very tricky—a shout-out to the multiple-birth parents out there. Next week is Multiple Birth Awareness Week and I'll have more to say about life as a multiple-birth parent then. But I could not do this without my early educators. I won't name the centre, but they know who they are. From giving me an extra block of chocolate when they know that I've had a bad day, because they're watching my social media, through to getting saturated by the rain helping me carry two capsules and a four-year-old out to the car—I couldn't do it without you. I thank you so much for everything that you do. I'm so disappointed that this government doesn't provide you with the working conditions that you deserve, and I will continue to fight for you every day that I have the privilege of being in this place. 10:47 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen One of the issues that concern me the most as a member of parliament is the cost of child care. In outer suburban electorates like McEwen, we have plenty of new families and young parents who already face tough times with high expenses on rent, electricity, mortgages and food. As a parliament we need to ensure that we are doing all we can not to increase the burden on young families, and that starts with child care. The median childcare costs for Victorian families rose to $546 per week last year at an accredited centre, the highest of all Australian states and second only to the ACT. That, I guess, fits with a federal government that has a strong record of putting Victorians last. Overall, the median cost of child care soared to $523 a week in 2020, a 5.6 per cent increase on the 2019 figures. But we have a government that has no plan to deal with this. Research shows that fee increases for child care will outstrip CPI for years to come, and that means too many expenses for local families. There are countless people in my electorate who get in contact with me every day to say they can barely afford to make ends meet. I remember a story from a woman in Mernda who works full-time and has a three-year-old daughter and an 11-month-old daughter in child care five days a week. She is paying $700 in out-of-pocket expenses, $1,400 a fortnight—or, as she puts it, the same amount as her mortgage. She said, 'It's a broken system. We expect families to work, to try and set up their future, yet we don't offer them enough to support them properly.' I'm sure that this constituent from Mernda was relieved when she heard the disingenuous Prime Minister proclaim that, during the pandemic, there would be free child care for everyone with a job. We all remember those words at a press conference—a photo op. But, like most announcements from this Prime Minister, it was all conference and no follow-up; all pictures and no substance. The most outstanding feature of the government's free childcare system was the number of people who actually got locked out of free child care. We have heard constantly from early learning services around the country who struggled to keep their doors open after their funding had been slashed. Services had to cut opening hours, they had to cut staff and they had to cut places to balance their books. But they didn't actually suffer a drop in enrolments; it was just that the government expected childcare educators to work for half the pay because they could not access JobKeeper. Some of the most important people in our communities are our early childhood educators. The first people the government threw on the scrap heap during the COVID pandemic were our early childhood educators. They were happy to look after blokes like Gerry Harvey, but, for people earning low wages and working in hard conditions, minding the kids for our police, emergency service operators, nurses and shop workers, the government decided, 'No, no, you're on your own.' They were having a go, but this government left them. It just dropped them. It scrapped them. It didn't care about them. It's pretty clear that this government considers some Australians far more essential than others. The government doesn't value early childhood educators. Ensuring childhood educators are properly remunerated is an essential part of what government should be doing. We're seeking to add technical amendments to this legislation to simplify it and to correct the mistakes made during the drafting process by a government that seems to damage everything that it touches. During the lockdowns, families have been told to stay at home, and childcare centres have remained open as an essential service for essential workers. But families staying at home were still being charged gap fees by childcare centres, as they are legally required to levy them. The minister has the ability to give centres an exemption from charging a gap fee, which the minister was forced to do during the second lockdown in Victoria in 2020. But the government has not granted exemptions from gap fees for the most recent lockdowns in Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane and Melbourne. Unbelievably, stakeholders have advised us that the minister gave a commitment to grant exemptions for these lockdowns but this was overruled by the Prime Minister's office. Think about that in the context of what we've been over in the last couple of weeks. The Prime Minister's office have been out there and were very clear to knock off support for early childhood educators. We would ask the Prime Minister when he knew about it, but, as we know, the Prime Minister and his office don't seem to talk on matters that are important. An opposition member interjecting— Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E That's a good interjection: 'You could probably ask Gaetjens.' But I think we already know the answer. It's a bit like the press conference yesterday, where the Prime Minister's answers were released 36 minutes before the actual questions were asked. That's the kind of deceit we have with this government and this Prime Minister. So I wonder: is this something else that the Prime Minister will claim he knows nothing about? To be clear, these levies are slugging families with fees for care they are no longer receiving. That's why Labor is proposing an amendment to take the exemption out of the minister's hands and put it into the act. The government have shown quite clearly that their ministers can't be trusted to act quickly and appropriately on this issue. The result of this amendment would be that an exemption from fees would be triggered as soon as the state or territory government declared a lockdown, without having to rely on the Prime Minister's office. That is good comfort for all Australian families—to know that they can keep the Prime Minister out and actually get benefits that help them. Another key feature of the government's exceptional circumstances fund, which they set up to cover the one-third of early educators not covered by JobKeeper, was that it consistently refused to approve funding applications. The latest data from the department shows that only 39 per cent of applicants got approval. The government stands there and falsely claims that 98 per cent of early childhood learning centres stayed open during the COVID crisis, but only 39 per cent of people were given access to support. As with everything this government does, the spin covers up the dark truth. Does the government know how many of those 98 per cent of services suffered a financial loss? According to their own analysis, 25 per cent of services suffered a massive financial loss. They were losing money every day that they were operating to support the children of essential workers who were out during the pandemic. The government might call that a win, but I certainly wouldn't, and I know early education services in my electorate don't consider that a win. I certainly know that my constituent in Mernda would not consider it a win. When asked about this, the government blamed the providers and threatened them with a new hotline where parents could dob in early learning providers who allegedly weren't providing enough places or hours. Just think about this. You've got early childhood educators struggling during the middle of a pandemic and the government's first response is: 'Let's set up a hotline to dob them.' That's one thing that's consistent with this government—blame the victims. That is the one thing that those opposite have been very consistent in doing. They won't set up a hotline to dob in people who are stealing wages from workers, underpaying workers or putting workers at risk. They will always blame the victim, not the perpetrator. This is the kind of small-minded, cruel politics that this Prime Minister excels at—punish the people and small businesses who are struggling; yank up the ladder instead of extending a hand in support. I remember when the Prime Minister stood up 2½ years ago and announced that the coalition's childcare policy was a once-in-a-generation reform. Well, let's hope so, because it fails children, it fails families and it fails our early childhood educators. For my constituent in Mernda, it means her fees will increase from $700 to $930 a week under this government. How does a family struggling to make ends meet afford this? Can the government stand up and say how its childcare policy has been good for parents? The truth is that the coalition's childcare scheme has been a complete fizzer and the benefit from the childcare subsidy has been almost completely eroded. On average, parents will soon be no better off under the Prime Minister's once-in-a-generation reforms than they were under the previous scheme, in 2018. Parents are getting locked out of affordable child care, just like they've been locked out of affordable housing and just like students have been locked out of affordable university and TAFE. Can you see the theme? It's quite clear. If parents are locked out of affordable child care, that will negatively impact on our economic recovery from COVID-19. The Prime Minister and Minister Tudge need to stop burying their heads in the sand and acknowledge that this system is broken. It's not working for the early childhood education centres. It's not working for preschools in my electorate. It's not working for the vast majority of parents, usually women, who have to stay at home and care for children because they can't afford child care. This government has shown time and time again that it views issues faced by women as a second-order concern. The time has come for that to end. The government should support Labor's reasoned amendment to this bill. Ultimately, only a Labor government will introduce cheaper child care for working families, scrapping the $10,560 childcare subsidy cap, which sees women losing money when they perform an extra day's work; lifting the maximum childcare subsidy to 90 per cent; and increasing childcare subsidy rates and tapering them for families earning less than $53,000. Labor's plan for cheaper child care will reward working families and allow second-income earners to work more and contribute to our economic recovery. Australian families know that only an Albanese Labor government will be on their side. Labor will fix the coalition's broken childcare system. 10:54 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley I rise to speak on this legislation, the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2021, on behalf of all the men and women in Dunkley who want to be able to progress their careers and also have a family. I rise to speak on this legislation on behalf of all of the men and women—predominantly women—who work in child care and early education and want to be able to pursue a career which sets up our children to have the best future possible. Before I turn to this legislation and to those people, I want to put on the record how proud it makes me to have colleagues and friends in this place who are walking the talk. In this term of parliament alone—remembering that we aren't even two years in—the members for Lilley, Canberra, Jagajaga, Bendigo and Kingston have all had babies and have all come back to work, both in their electorates and in this parliament, in order to stand up for their constituents and for people across the country. We're very much looking forward to the return of Senator Marielle Smith and the member for Bendigo, who will be coming back soon. Senator Smith has had her baby, and the member for Bendigo may well be giving birth as I speak. We all know that you don't have to have children in order to understand deeply how important it is to make sure that we have a childcare and early education system that sets up children for the future and that allows men and women, who are still predominantly the caregivers, to get back to work and have a career. You don't have to have children to understand that, to fight for it or to be passionate about it, but it doesn't hurt to have in the ranks of a party of government people who are living that experience. I want to put on the Hansard record that I am assisted every day by my friends and colleagues—the women who have given birth and who, even though they are often so exhausted they have to use toothpicks to prop their eyes open, are fighting to make sure that life is just a bit easier for other women and families. The Morrison government likes to talk about jobs—jobs, jobs, jobs. Very rarely, if ever, do we hear them talk about jobs in the early education and childcare sector. Very rarely, if ever, do we hear them talking about an industry which is predominantly staffed by women and which is chronically underpaid. We hear them talking about the industry when they think that they can fool parents across the country into thinking that they have the answer to escalating childcare fees. We heard them talk about the early education and childcare industry last year when the first workers to have JobKeeper ripped away from them were early education and childcare workers. But, when it comes to talking about the pay and conditions of the workers, there was a resounding silence—a little bit like the Prime Minister's silence in response to the march of thousands and thousands and thousands of women on Monday. So, like my colleagues on this side of the chamber, I want to take this opportunity to thank every single early educator and childcare worker in my electorate who goes to work every day to care for and educate other people's children and does so for chronic underpay because it is a feminised industry. And I want to promise you that the fight is not over to make sure that you are valued both economically and in the way you deserve with the praise you should get from a government that hears you and sees you. Sometimes it feels like the reason the Morrison government doesn't implement really great, progressive policies is that Labor advocates for them, or sometimes the reason the Morrison government doesn't accept that the problems exist is that we're the ones pointing them out. So, in this speech, I want to rely, firstly, on the Productivity Commission, which is an institution that the Morrison government and conservative governments often like to turn to for advice. In this case, though, they seem to turn to it for advice when it says what they want to hear but not otherwise, because we know that in 2019 the Productivity Commission put out a report on government services that showed that childcare costs are locking Australian parents out of the workforce. We know that the data reveals that almost 300,000 Australians are not in the labour force due to caring for children. This is an increase of 5.9 per cent. That really matters. Jobs, as we all know, are not just about earning money. Earning money is really important, particularly for a lot of low-income families where the second earner is locked out of the workforce because they can't pay childcare costs, but work is not just about money. Work is about dignity. It's often about worth. It's often about feeling like you're contributing to your community, to your country, to the world around you as well as to your family. When people are locked out of the workforce because they also want to have a family, that's just not right. It's fundamentally wrong. That's why it needs to be fixed. The number of parents saying they're not working mainly due to the cost of child care has skyrocketed by 23 per cent. Australian parents are really struggling to work the hours that they want to work. It's not financially healthy, it's not healthy for people's mental health, it's often not healthy for people's physical health, and it needs to be changed. That's why Labor has a policy to make child care affordable for Australians. When the median cost of child care soared by 5.6 per cent in a year, from 2019 to 2020, to almost $523 a week, we know we have a problem in terms of fairness and equity and access. Now, $523 a week might not seem very much to a lot of people in this chamber, on the other side, or to the people out there who have been lucky enough to have had opportunities in life to obtain a high-paying job, but I can tell you that, for people in my electorate, $523 a week is a lot of money. It's a lot of money. The Morrison government itself predicts that childcare fees will well outstrip CPI for years to come, so action needs to be taken and it needs to be taken now. I mentioned Labor's plan for child care. It is a well-crafted and well-thought-out plan. We'll scrap the $10,560 childcare subsidy cap because that's what often sees women losing money by doing an extra day's work. We will lift the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent. We will increase childcare subsidy rates and taper them for every family earning less than $530,000. Importantly, we would task the ACCC to design a price regulation mechanism to shed a light on costs and fees and drive them down for good. An Albanese federal Labor government would listen to the recommendations of the ACCC, unlike what this Morrison government is doing with the Productivity Commission review and other reviews. For example, the review of sex discrimination in the workplace that was carried out by the Human Rights Commissioner was left sitting on the desk for a year. The government didn't do anything about it until they were at the centre of a national maelstrom about sexual harassment in the workplace. That's just one example. Like many of my colleagues on this side of the chamber, last year, during the pandemic, I received call after call and email after email from families and childcare providers who were beside themselves about how they were going to be able to go to work if they couldn't pay the childcare fees or if their childcare centre couldn't stay open, and from workers and providers who couldn't understand why it was their industry that was being picked on by the Morrison government when stripping away JobKeeper. They told me in a Zoom meeting that I held in August of last year that even before the pandemic there were issues in the sector, like the affordability of fees and the low pay for educators, which I've spoken about. But the pandemic and the economic recession that came with it have made addressing problems with access to child care and insecure employment across the industry even more important. One of the questions I was asked in the forum—which the state member for Carrum, Sonya Kilkenny, also attended because she is so hardworking and so caring about women and children and their future—was a question from Kylie, which was, 'How can we get our government to respect our industry?' You know you're in trouble as a government when working people ask, 'How can we get the government to respect our industry?' The first answer, and the most obvious answer, is: at the next election, replace the current Morrison government with an Albanese Labor government which has a genuine plan for childcare fees and childcare workers. That's what we need to do. As I go around my electorate, as I've had the privilege to do since the restrictions were lifted—I visit Lang Park Early Learning Centre and Kindergarten; the Lyrebird Community Centre occasional care program; Frankston House Sanctuary of Early Learning, which is soon to open another centre in Seaford; and, most recently, Peninsula Grammar's three- and four-year-old kindergarten—I will continue to bring two messages. One is that everyone who works in early childhood education and care deserves to be treated better by their federal government; and the second is: 'I hear you, parents. You need to be able to afford child care so that you can get back to work, further your career and look after your families, and I'll be continuing to fight for you at every opportunity I get.' 11:10 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I rise to speak on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021 because it enables me to speak on an issue that is critically important not only to families in my electorate, for men and women and their children, but for the economic response that's required and for economic support for families right across the country. I'll be brief in my remarks today, because I'm aware of other speakers—including the crossbench—who want to contribute on this legislation, and I think it is important for all voices to be heard. In my brief remarks, I'll pick up a couple of points that other speakers have touched on. Child care was essential during the pandemic, and no one doubted that—except for the government, who barred a third of childcare businesses from accessing JobKeeper. These essential workers were expected to go to work and risk their health so that healthcare workers could go and save lives. They were expected to do all of this for half the pay. It's clear that the government considered some essential workers to be less important than others, and we know that, disproportionately, those were women. It's not as though everything was fine for childcare businesses before the COVID pandemic. Back in 2019 I spoke to locals who sent their children to an early learning centre in the suburb of Bellbird Park, and they said that workers were sounding the alarm back then and early educators were already raising their voices about what was happening in the sector. Businesses were struggling to pay their workers, and women, in particular, were living pay cheque to pay cheque. Whilst the government might boast that 98 per cent of childcare services stayed open during COVID-19, it won't admit the fact that a quarter of these services were losing money every day they stayed open, because they understood that they had a job to do and a service to provide. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, just knew how to make an impressive announcement, but he pulled it off at the expense of businesses who struggled to deliver this promise with a lot less funding. Then this government had the nerve to blame the providers, threatening their funding if they didn't provide enough places and hours, even though it knew it was financially unviable. So it set up a hotline and encouraged families to dob in early learning providers. This is not how you look after essential workers. I want to touch briefly on childcare fees. This is a critical issue that the Labor Party, under the leadership of Anthony Albanese and our shadow minister Amanda Rishworth, have been championing. I'm so proud to be part of a party that has outstanding leadership and is putting forward bold initiatives to change the conversation about child care, to change the conversation about how we look at it as an economic and productivity issue—about how we can see more people in the workplace and, quite rightly, see more women being productive in the economy and adding their skill sets and abilities to our society. I support the move to exempt childcare services from collecting the childcare gap fees from families during COVID-imposed lockdowns. If families choose to stay home and keep their children out of childcare during snap lockdowns, centres shouldn't be legally obligated to charge them gap fees. When Brisbane went into lockdown in January, a number of families came to me about this, saying that they felt that it was unfair and that they were being ripped off. The same thing happened after lockdowns in Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. When we raised these concerns, the minister gave a commitment to granting exemptions. The Prime Minister's office said: 'No, we don't care. If you're not paying for services you are not receiving, we're not on your side.' We know that childcare is becoming increasingly unaffordable in this country, we know that we have some of the most expensive fees in our region, and this is having a direct impact on household budgets. In the Oxley electorate, where the average income is a little over $1,700 a week, the average price of five days of child care is $523 a week. Around 15,000 children are currently in child care. If that goes up four per cent next year, families will be paying $543.92. Twenty dollars a week might not seem like much to those families but, when you calculate it, they'll end up losing just over $1,000 a year. For many of them, this will be enough to see one parent drop back to part-time work because they can't afford to have their child in care five days a week. They won't do this because they want to; they'll do it because the government is forcing them. We've all met with parents and we've all me with individuals who say, 'I'd like to do more but there's no point doing it because all I'm doing is paying the childcare fees.' We want to change that. We know, without a doubt, that for the majority of families, the person who will be forced out of full-time work will be the mother. Typically, women are the second income earners. The Prime Minister's supposed once-in-a-generation reform to make child care more affordable has failed. It's failed to support early learning centres, it's failed to support families—particularly female second income earners, discouraging them from working more than three days a week. On one hand, the government says it's all for a stronger economic recovery, yet it's crafting childcare policy that makes it harder for 50 per cent of the workforce to work full-time and contribute more to our economy. We know Labor's plan will scrap the $10,560 childcare subsidy to stop women from losing money if they choose to work that extra day of work. It'll lift the maximum childcare subsidy to 90 per cent and increase childcare subsidy rates and taper them for every family earning less than $530,000. Fixing the Morrison government's broken childcare system will put us on the right path to build a stronger economy and to have stronger and happier families. I'll continue to champion this on behalf of families in my electorate and I know every single member on this side of the chamber will continue to do so. 11:17 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark The Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021 is a good bill. I'll support it. Honourable members have spoken at some length about the merits of the bill. I'm going to take this opportunity to have a different response to the bill. It's good as far as it goes, but it's just another example of how, in this country, we're always fiddling around the edges. A bit of a change to early childhood education policy here, a bit of a change to early childhood education funding over there. We are just fiddling, when what we actually need to do is take a step back, look at the big picture and be prepared for bold reform, really bold reform, just like there was last year with the need to effectively make early childhood education funding free during a period during the pandemic. That's what we need to do. We need to take a big step back and we need to say, 'Let's really do early childhood education effectively by making it universally available and free for any member of the community that needs it.' I'll say that again: let's have free universal early childhood education in this country. Big and bold, a bit more like what happens in the Nordic countries and other countries. At the moment, it's hard to get, it's expensive and it's targeted for certain sectors of the community. No, let's have free and universal early childhood education. Let's make it free and readily available for people who are not in the workforce, for people on low incomes, for people on high incomes, because, let's face it, every sector of the community—this is about community, not economy—has needs that need to be met. For example, someone who's not in the workforce might need respite. They might need time without the kids so they can look for work. They might need time without the kids so they can be trained and educated to join the workforce. They might need time out of the workforce with their kids because their children have special needs, or just because they love their children and they want to have some extra time beyond what might be provided through the very short maternity leave provisions in this country. At the other end of the spectrum, successful people should also have a right to access child care. How else are we going to have equal representation of women at the top levels of the corporate sector? How else are we going to have an equal representation of women on boards of the big corporations? How else are we going to get equal representation of women in this place? How else are we going to let them all achieve their potential? Unless all women, from the most disadvantaged through to the non-working right through to the most successful women, have free, universal child care in this country. That will of course require a big expansion of the early childhood education sector, and it will cost big bucks. The question is though: can we afford it as a country? The answer is: of course we can. In a normal financial year—not a pandemic year—the federal government spends about half a trillion dollars. That is just a remarkable amount of money. It's such a large amount of money as to be almost incomprehensible. Where it goes is all about priorities for a government. I would have said having universal, free early childhood education in this country should be a top priority because it's good for parents, it's especially good for mums, and it's very good for the children. All the evidence shows that being in early childhood education is very beneficial for children—not all children, and there are a lot of good reasons why some parents would not want their children to go into early childhood education, but it's beneficial for a lot of children. It's certainly my experience with my own daughters. I really saw them bloom in the early childhood environment. So, yes, we can afford it. And it will give everyone the opportunity to work and, in particular, for more women to join the workforce, which is what many of them want to do. The Productivity Commission estimates that there's something like 165,000 parents in Australia who want to work but are not able to work because they can't afford early childhood education or they can't access early childhood education. That's 165,000 people we could have in the workforce growing our economy, growing our community and making our country better in certain ways. No wonder The Australia Institute estimates that with free child care our economy would be $140 billion bigger. In other words, it's not going to cost the federal government money; it's going to make the federal government money. So, even if the federal government is not really interested in giving access to free universal early childhood education to all the parents in the country, surely it should be worrying about the budget bottom line—a $140 billion bigger economy if we had free universal childhood education. Frankly, I think that's a slam dunk. Let's make a quantum leap with early childhood education. When we often refer to it as a way of achieving equality in this country for women, again, we're fiddling around the edges a bit here, because we tend to have those stovepipes. We talk about sexual assault—good heavens, haven't we spoken about that a lot lately?—and the sexual misconduct of men and the need for men to improve their behaviour, and we talk about early childhood education and we talk about gender ratios in the parliament and we talk about wage disparity, but we're talking about all these bits and pieces. Again, why don't we take a quantum step and say, 'We as a community, we as a parliament and you as a government need to have a holistic response to gender inequality, and we need to fix it as a country.' It's not going to be fixed by ticking all these boxes like better child care and committees in the parliament investigating allegations. What we need to do is have equality in our DNA and not to be a box in a department or a minister's office to tick when they're looking at a policy initiative. It needs to be in our DNA. Everything we say and do, every policy we formulate and every bill we pass in this place has to be aimed at the goal of genuine equality in this country, not some tokenism like having a Minister for Women. What has that achieved? I think that's tokenism, and it's even more obviously tokenism when the Minister for Women wouldn't go out and front that rally on Monday. What an opportunity for the minister to put her heart where her mouth is and to go out and to speak to the crowd! Yes, it would have been difficult. Yes, it would have been confronting. Yes, there would have been risks. But wouldn't that have been a strong demonstration! If it were in our DNA, the Prime Minister would have gone out there. Yes, there would have been embarrassing photos in the paper the next day. It would have been very awkward. But what a strong act of leadership it would have been! What a strong signal it would have given: 'Yes, we as a government, as a parliament and as a community are going to address the issue of the inequality in this country in the myriad of ways it occurs.' I won't keep the House too much longer. I just want to make this point really clearly: let's stop fiddling around the edges when it comes to early childhood education. Let's seriously have a discussion about the merits of universal free child care in this country and how it would unleash $140 billion of economic activity; how it would put 165,000 people, mostly women, into the workforce if that's what they want to do; how it would improve our community and our society through the fact that parents, if they wanted to, could have their children in early childhood education while they have some respite, which is very important, particularly if they're dealing with mental illness; how it would allow parents to spend time with their kids and develop their relationships; how it would allow parents to spend time with their children with special needs; how it would allow parents to go out and look for a job or be trained or educated for a job; and how, at the other end of the spectrum, we would find that, if everyone had access to the workforce on an equal footing and were able to stay at work for the full day and have a full career, we would have 50 per cent of senior management roles in our corporations being filled by women and we would have women in 50 per cent of seats in here, on both sides of the chamber. Oh, heavens! There is so much that could be achieved if we had that sort of vision, and it would not cost the government money, because the economy would grow so sharply and so strongly. The economy would be better off, and I reckon the budget would be better off. The other point that I made is that we need to think boldly not only about early childhood education but about achieving equality in this country. Yes, free universal early childhood education would be a building block of achieving equality in this country, but, again, it's just a building block when what's actually needed is for us as a community, and us in here in the parliament, and you over there in the government, not to think that ticking boxes and having tokenism such as a minister will solve the problem but to think about equality being in our DNA. Everything we say, every idea we get, every policy we formulate and every law we pass should all be with a mind to achieving equality in this country in all the countless ways it can be achieved. 11:28 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I rise to sum up and to thank those speakers who have made a contribution on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021. I acknowledge the children now leaving the gallery, because it's very appropriate and comforting to see kids returning to the chamber. God knows why they'd be leaving such a stimulating debate! In summing up, I'd like to take the opportunity to remind those opposite of some facts relating to the early childhood care space. Under our charter, women's workplace participation reached an all-time high pre COVID of 61.5 per cent in January 2020, up from 58.7 per cent when Labor left office. More than 280,000 more children are included in child care since we came to office. We're investing in record childcare funding to the tune of $10.3 billion this year alone. What a colossal amount of money, including, and notwithstanding, the $9 billion to subsidise the fees set by the services. That is 77 per cent higher than Labor's contribution when they were last in office. We know that what matters most to parents is their out-of-pocket costs. As members opposite know, our targeted investment means that child care is far more affordable now for low- and middle-income earners. Labor's childcare policy would spend $20 billion over the forward estimates, benefiting higher-income earners the most. A family earning $500,000 would receive a kick-along of in the order of $50,000 with two children if they were in child care—and with no active test. Parents would not even need to be working. Let's not forget that, the last time Labor were in office, fees went up by 53 per cent. The bill we're debating is about the support that we delivered to families at the height of the COVID pandemic. The key measures contained in this bill will benefit families and childcare providers by giving the government flexibility in how to respond to future large-scale disasters and emergencies, by providing a means to make payment to childcare providers during emergencies such as the pandemic. In terms of our changes to the childcare subsidy balancing requirements, the bill will also allow for better management of childcare subsidy debts that can arise when individuals are unable to meet their tax return lodgement requirements on time, and it will assist families who have been unable to meet those requirements due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The amendments in this bill also maintain appropriate safeguards to support the delivery of early childhood education and care relief packages, which operated from 6 April to 12 July 2020, ensuring that over 99 per cent of childcare services keep their doors open and provide free childcare services for children of essential workers, vulnerable children and others. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Rishworth has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question before the chair is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Consideration in Detail 22 11:34 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 8, column 1), omit "Part 8", substitute "Parts 8 and 9". (2) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 8), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 9—Exception to duty to enforce payment of hourly session fees because of stay at home directions etc. A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 54 After subsection 201B(1) Insert: Exception because of stay at home directions etc. (1AA) The provider is not required to take reasonable steps in relation to a session of care provided by the service to the child if the child is not able to attend the session of care because of a law of a State or Territory (e.g. a public health direction) that: (a) is enacted or made in response to the coronavirus known as COVID‑19; and (b) restricts the ability of persons to:    (i) leave their homes; or    (ii) travel a certain distance from their homes. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters mentioned in this subsection: see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act. 55 After paragraph 201C(1 ) ( a) Insert: (aa) if the provider is not taking reasonable steps in relation to the session of care because of subsection 201B(1AA)—the provider charged immediately before the coming into force of the relevant restriction mentioned in that subsection; or 56 After paragraph 201C(1A ) ( a) Insert: (aa) if the provider is not taking reasonable steps in relation to the session of care because of subsection 201B(1AA)—the provider charged immediately before the coming into force of the relevant restriction mentioned in that subsection; or 57 After section 201C(1A) Insert: (1AA) If the approved provider of a child care service is not taking reasonable steps in relation to a session of care provided by the service to a child because of subsection 201B(1AA), the provider must not charge an individual who is eligible for CCS for the session of care an hourly session fee that exceeds the hourly session fee that the provider charged immediately before the coming into force of the relevant restriction mentioned in that subsection. 58 Subsections 201C(2) and (3) After "(1A)", insert ", (1AA)". This amendment is quite important. While we have said that we will support the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021, this amendment before the House gives families relief from childcare fees during government directed lockdowns. It is a feature of the current childcare subsidy system that, under normal circumstances, providers are legally required to enforce payment of their hourly sessional fees. Section 201B of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 states that. But, in these unusual circumstances, what this has meant is that families are slugged with gap fees during pandemic lockdowns, unless the government chooses to grant an exemption. The minister has the power to grant exemptions now under section 54A of the Child Care Subsidy Minister's Rules 2017. When the government passed the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act 2020, it added a subsection 201B(1A) to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act. This subsection created the ability for the minister to grant exemptions from the requirement to charge a gap fee during particular events or circumstances. Section 54A of the minister's rules outlines the COVID related circumstances in which the minister is able to waive the requirement of the gap fee as set out in section 201B. Importantly, we need to recognise that the government had, and has, the power to give families relief when their state governments or the federal government direct a lockdown—that is, tells them that they cannot go to childcare centres and asks them to stay at home. The government chose to use this power during the national lockdown last year and the second lockdown in Victoria but unfortunately did not choose to use this power for more recent city based lockdowns in Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide and Melbourne. Under these public health lockdowns, most families were directed by their state governments to stay at home with their children to protect the community. The childcare centres, though, had to stay open to serve essential workers. These centres have been legally required to charge all the families gap fees during those lockdown periods. I was contacted by a centre director in Albert Park, Adelaide who was unhappy that he had to charge parents for care they didn't receive during the snap lockdown but was told directly by the department he had to charge the gap fees. I heard from Laura from Windsor Gardens in Adelaide who is an essential worker, who was charged fees for the days she was locked down last November. I heard from parents in Perth who were outraged that they were charged for care that they could not receive during the Perth lockdown a few months ago. They called Centrelink for advice, and they were told to contact their local MP. I think it's time to put a stop to this. While the government have the power, they have chosen not to use it. So what we are doing today is moving an amendment to add a clause to section 201B(1A) so that an exemption is provided in circumstances where a stay-at-home direction has been issued within a restricted area and families are directed not to send their children to child care. This is a sensible amendment. It removes the inequitable minister's discretion, as they've been using it, and it puts it in the bill so that the exemption is automatically triggered when a stay-at-home order is issued. In other words, it gives services an automatic exemption from charging gap fees as soon as a lockdown is proclaimed. Services will still receive a childcare subsidy during this lockdown period, so the government will still provide that money to centres to keep the doors open. But we need this amendment because the minister has shown that they cannot be trusted to act on this consistently. Parents shouldn't be getting a conflicted message where they're told they must stay home, yet then are slugged fees for not using the service. It is time for this parliament to act. This is a sensible amendment, and, if the government vote this down, we know that they won't be on the side of families. The SPEAKER 10000 The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.

The House divided. [11:43]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

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

Question agreed to.
Bill agreed to.

 Third Reading 25 11:47 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 25 COMMITTEES Joint Standing Committee on Migration 25 Report 25 11:48 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Interim report of the inquiry into Australia's skilled migration program. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr LEESER 109556 by leave—The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant effect on Australia's workforce. While 94 per cent of Australians who lost their jobs or were stood down to zero hours are now back in work, there are still significant skills shortages in our economy. As a result of COVID-19, over half a million temporary visa holders left Australia, resulting in significant skills shortages. The committee has heard that job vacancies in November last year reached 254,000, higher than at any point in the last 10 years. Business New South Wales told the committee that half of the businesses in New South Wales are currently experiencing skill shortages. In Western Australia, one in three businesses have skilled labour shortages. More than a third of businesses in the Northern Territory have identified their greatest challenge, over the next three to six months, as attracting and retaining staff. The committee has heard repeatedly that skilled migrants create Australian jobs. Australia needs to replace skilled migrants that left our shores. Without the return of skilled migration, Australia's economic recovery will be severely hampered and it will be harder to create more jobs for Australians. Employers have made it clear to the committee that they always prefer to employ Australians over migrants, but the skills they need aren't always available here. Skilled migrants are not replacing Australian graduates, nor are they replacing unskilled unemployed Australians, but they are filling the missing middle of our economy, including people who can train Australians and whose presence in a business can create more Australian jobs. Australia has always been an attractive destination for migrants, but Australia's excellent response to the health and economic challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and our lack of social unrest have given us a unique opportunity to attract the best and brightest talent to Australia, not only to fill skill shortages but also to invest in and create new businesses that will provide new employment opportunities for Australians. Our challenge now, as we enter the next phase of Australia's economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, is to ensure we have streamlined processes to make it easier to get the skilled workers Australian businesses need, enabling them to grow and create more jobs. So now is the time to attract highly talented individuals and businesses to Australia. This is an opportunity we will never get again, and we need to ensure Australia gets those settings right. The recommendations in this report are aimed at ensuring that we can take advantage of that opportunity. The terms of reference examined in this report focus on the immediate changes to the skilled migration program required to assist in the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and to attract talented individuals and capital to Australia. This report makes a number of recommendations to help businesses get the skilled migrants they need and to ensure that the program can best service Australia's economic recovery. The committee recommends streamlining labour market testing to ensure it's not an undue burden on Australian business. The committee recommends temporarily removing the Skilling Australians Fund, or at least streamlining its application process to ensure funds are paid into it when the business employs the migrant and to provide business exemptions when they provide training for their Australian employees. We also recommend greater transparency in the way the SAF is used. To remove uncertainty for employers and visa holders, the committee recommends greater transparency, improved processing times and clear pathways to permanent residency for employer-sponsored visa applications. We've also made some recommendations about expanding the Priority Migration Skilled Occupation List and reviewing the other skilled migration lists to ensure they are more responsive to the current challenges. In order to ensure we're getting skilled migrants to Australia, the committee has recommended reserving places on flights and in quarantine for skilled migrants. The committee recommended that the Business Innovation and Investment Program and the Global Talent Independent program provide for visas with automatic permanent residency and for temporary visas with clearer pathways to permanent residency. Finally, the committee recommends a marketing campaign to help attract highly talented individuals and businesses to Australia at this time. I note that Labor and the Greens have issued dissenting reports opposing these recommendations. Labor haven't read the evidence and they weren't listening during the inquiry. The truth is that Labor is divided on immigration. The dissenting report echoes the union inspired, backward-thinking, discredited, dog-whistling, Hansonite policies of Senator Keneally, which were rightly condemned by Labor luminary Bob Carr; the member for Cowan; and the member for Sydney, who said: One of the reasons that the Australian economy has been growing … at all frankly, in recent times is because of strong immigration numbers. The member for McMahon, in his recent book, accuses our side of the House of being 'anti-migrant charlatans', but the real charlatans are the Labor Party. Labor's actions show that Labor cannot be trusted to run either the economy or the immigration program. If Labor were serious about getting Australians back into the jobs, they'd be serious about getting skilled migrants here to create the jobs Australians need. I encourage all people who are interested in the skilled migration program to respond to this interim report, and I commend the report to the House. 11:54 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce by leave—Report tabling is normally a pretty sedate affair, where you try to reach bipartisan agreement. But not this time. This is outrageous, from the Labor Party's perspective. This is ill-conceived and appallingly timed. This government-controlled committee has made recommendations that will clearly undermine the ability of Australians to get jobs by making it easier for businesses to bring in foreign workers. There's a timing issue here. I'll be very clear at the outset: this is not an anti-migration speech, as has been alleged. I represent the most multicultural council in the whole of Australia. You wouldn't find anyone in the last four years who has spoken more in favour of migration and visa issues than me. But it is difficult to overstate the strength of Labor's opposition to this report and these recommendations. The context is critical. We have a hangover from the recession which continues. More than 1.3 million Australians today are surviving on unemployment benefits. That includes JobSeeker and the 'youth allowance, other' category. Two million Australians are looking for work, or they're looking for more work because they don't have enough hours to get by. And we're about to see JobKeeper scrapped. As the Prime Minister said, it's going to be a difficult couple of months, because he's pushing hundreds and thousands more people onto the unemployment queue. So, right at this very time—astoundingly—when millions of Australians are looking for work, the priority of government members of parliament is to put Australians at the back of the queue and make it easier for business to bring in foreign workers. To be very clear, Labor MPs oppose the government's desire. In the interests of time, I'll pick just four recommendations—ones that were highlighted by the government. The first is to streamline labour market testing. That's government-speak for reducing or removing the requirement for businesses to test the market, to advertise jobs, before they seek to bring in a foreign worker. That's all it is—trashing labour market testing, in effect. The second is scrapping the requirement for employers to pay the levy to the Skilling Australians Fund. This fund is to train local workers when employers are bringing in foreign labour. If you like, it's a price signal to a business, saying: 'Okay, if you really need this worker, and you've tested the market and we haven't trained enough, you're going to pay a bit of money into the Skilling Australians Fund on the way through.' This was the government's policy. I spoke on that bill and pointed out the perversity that they'd cut $3 billion from the TAFE sector since coming to office and would then charge employers money, when they're bringing in migrants, to fund the TAFE system. It's countercyclical and it's weird, and we've said all that, but at least it's there now and it's funding TAFE. These government members of this committee are proposing to scrap that. The third is the immediate expansion of the number of occupations on the skills shortage list: chefs; cafe and restaurant managers! There are no Australians who can do that job, apparently! Then seafarers—really, what they mean by 'seafarers' is 'Australians not prepared to work for the slave wages which have been implemented by this government' as they've trashed the Australian shipping industry and prioritised other occupations. Then there are cooks; carpenters; electricians—we didn't hear from the ETU about the inquiry, but I'm sure you will—hospitality workers and trades and manufacturing workers. Astounding! But this is my personal favourite: while more than 40,000 Australians are stranded overseas because the Prime Minister has turned his back on them, refusing to take responsibility for quarantine and borders, the government members propose special reserved seats on flights and places in quarantine for skilled migrants. That's astounding! You can see it now, can't you? Business class up the front of the plane for the migrants that business want to bring in, and cattle class down the back for the few stranded Australians who manage to get on the plane. Australians, again, are at the back of the queue. You couldn't make this stuff up. It might have made sense if they'd tabled it on 1 April. Then at least I could see a line of twisted logic. But government members seriously think this is good. This is in the context of a recession and on the very day that the government's priority in this parliament is to get a bill through the Senate making it easier to cut people's wages—a double whammy. I heard what the chair said, and I count him as a friend and I respect him greatly. But this is rushed. It is unbalanced. Shame on them! I'll make three final points. This is not the government flying a kite. Be very clear: this is what the minister wants. The member for Berowra, the chair of the committee, is a senior backbencher. He's an intelligent man. He doesn't just freelance—he's not the member for Dawson, like on the committee report that I just spoke on. He's on his way to the ministry; frankly, he should be there, when you see some of the muppets who are there. He knows what he's doing. I shouldn't give you the kiss of death with that! The minister built into the terms of reference a requirement for the committee to report on these matters by March—because this is what they want to do in the budget. QED; join the dots. Next myth: this is not about regional agriculture and farm workers, as the government members may pretend. There's a crisis there. Of course there is. We've supported action on that. We've done a report on that. This is not about that. You can still employ working holiday-makers, and there's the Pacific seasonal worker program and other seasonal workers programs. As I said, I'm not anti migration—far from it. I used to run skilled and business migration programs in the Victorian government. I'm actually a supporter of skilled migration. But it is hypocrisy for the government to say we were anti migration when we were in government! The government has presided over a massive cut to permanent migration while temporary migration blows out. What a nonsense! Then they come and say, 'Maybe we should have more pathways to permanency for migrants?' Of course you should. It's like they haven't been in government for the last eight years. The final point I'd make is that this comes in the context of a much broader mess that this government has made of migration in Peter Dutton's black hole of a department—partner visas blowing out; 100,000 Australians desperate to be reunited with their family, their loved ones; parents who've never met their children, like in my electorate where, 12 months on, they've never met their child; students; businesses; delays, blowouts; fees rising. And there's the mess they've made of the training system. If nothing else, this is an admission of abject failure by this government. Apprenticeships have been slashed in their eight years of government, and $3 billion has been cut from the TAFE and training system. And so their answer is panic, panic, panic, waive the skills fund, scrap labour market testing and reserve special seats on planes and places in quarantine for foreign workers and skilled migrants to come in now, while the Prime Minister fails to take responsibility and do his job on quarantine, as he should under the Australian Constitution. Let's be very clear, for the government: just like your industrial relations legislation and the wage cut bills, you're not going to sue for peace on this. You can't get out of this. We know this came from the minister. It doesn't matter if you crab-walk away; this is your agenda and this is what you want to see happen in this country as we try to recover from a recession. 12:01 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong by leave—I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 28 12:02 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 28 BILLS Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill 2021 28

Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill 2021

Second Reading 28 12:03 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition in relation to the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill 2021 and, in doing so, indicate that the opposition will be supporting this bill. Certainly, those on this side of the House know the scale of the impact of private health insurance cost increases under this government over the last several years. Just between 2013, when this government took office, and 2019, the average price of a family insurance policy increased by more than 30 per cent, or, on average, by more than $1,100, at a time when wage growth has been lower than at any other time on record, as measured by the ABS. This is part of a very serious squeeze on households, and the Labor Party has been loudly advocating any measure that would ease the squeeze on those households. As a result, as I indicated, we will be supporting this bill. The bill changes the way in which family policies operate, particularly in relation to dependants, and there are two elements of the bill that I seek to address. The first is a change to the definition of dependent young adults. Currently, as members of the House will know, family policies are able to cover dependent young adults up to the age of 24 years. That is the maximum allowable age under the existing legislation. The government announced as part of their 2020 budget that they proposed to increase the maximum allowable age of dependent young adults from 'up to 24 years of age' to 'up to 31 years of age'. The young adult must still, of course, be a dependant. It doesn't cover all young adults; they must be dependent young adults. The legislation currently doesn't define 'dependant' and it is not proposed to insert a definition of dependant. This is a term that's broadly understood in the community and a term that is defined in most rules of individual private health insurance products. This is an important measure that the Labor Party supports for two reasons. The first is that it eases the squeeze on private health insurance costs for dependent young adults in the community. This is, as I think members of the House understand, a growing cohort in the community, as a result of a number of factors in the economy. The first is the enormous increases over recent years in housing costs and the extraordinary difficulty young Australians have in breaking into that housing market. We've seen the vast increase in the number of young Australians who are not able to leave the family home at an age where, in past generations, they already would be starting to set down roots—certainly in the private rental market, and hopefully breaking into homeownership as well. Unfortunately, that is not the case for the current generation of young Australians as it traditionally had been in this country. Also, young Australians have been disproportionately impacted by the job losses that have flowed from the recession caused by the COVID pandemic. Industries with which I'm familiar—I represented workers from the hospitality industry for many years before coming into this place, and a number of other members of this House are very familiar too—have an overrepresentation of young workers and were disproportionately impacted by this recession. So, on the one hand, young Australians are being hit by the vast increases in recent years in housing costs—in the private rental market and in the ownership market—and on the other they are disproportionately impacted by the job losses we've seen as a result of the COVID pandemic. At the moment, when a young dependent adult turns 24, even if they are still dependent they are forced by the existing legislation to take out their own policy. They often choose not to. They simply don't have the financial capacity to take out their own individual policy, which will be significantly more expensive than their share of the family policy would have been only the year before. The second reason this is an important measure that the Labor Party supports is that, as a result of that increase in costs at a time when dependent young adults simply can't afford such an increase, those young adults become disconnected from private health insurance coverage. Obviously, that means they're not covered for an event that might happen in their 20s. Although, obviously, young people are less likely to have an adverse health event than someone of my age and above, it still does happen. As a result of the increasing costs, they might be disconnected from coverage and not covered for an event. More structurally, though, there is a problem that's been identified by the government and long articulated by the private health insurance industry. Because these young adults become disconnected from coverage in their late 20s, they are often not covered at a point in time when the lifetime health cover arrangements kick in, which is at the time of their 30th birthday. As members of the House know, lifetime health cover is a policy that was introduced 20 years ago by the Howard government. It is a policy that has bipartisan support. It operates with a mix of sticks and carrots, might I say, to encourage Australians from the age of 31 to take up private health insurance if they have the capacity to do so. The carrot is that there is a private health insurance rebate that covers a substantial portion of the cost of private health insurance, but there is also a stick, which adds an additional two per cent loading to the cost of an insurance product for every year that a young person remains uncovered from the age of 31. It's a two per cent penalty, if you like, or a two per cent loading, from the age of 31. It is in everyone's interests that, as far as possible, young people reaching the age of 31 are already covered by private health insurance policies. So we support the measure that the government is seeking to put in place in this bill that would have dependent young adults, those who are still financially dependent on their parents, still covered when the lifetime health cover arrangements kick in, which is on their 31st birthday. The second element of this bill is a really important measure that I congratulate the government for implementing. It allows dependent adult children with a disability to remain covered by their family's private health insurance policy, with no age limit. Currently, as with other young dependent adults, on their 24th birthday, a dependent adult child with a disability—still living at home, probably, with their parents—would have to take out their own insurance policy. We know that adult children of that age with a disability have an even greater need for private health insurance coverage to complement the benefits of Australia's public health system than young adults without a disability. So this is a very important measure. It means that young adults with a disability who turn 24 do not have to go and seek their own individual policy, which would be more expensive than the proportionate share of the family policy—easing the squeeze for a cohort in our population that we know are already under immense financial pressure. This bill defines an adult dependent 'person with a disability' as effectively someone who is a participant in the NDIS, the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This is, we're told by the government, a product of substantial consultation between the government, the insurance industry and disability organisations, along with the release of a consultation paper that was the subject of submissions made by organisations from the disability sector and the insurance industry. I know, because Labor has been talking to disability organisations, that there is an appetite to push for broader coverage. It's a great measure, via this bill, to cover people who are participants in the NDIS, but there are a number of young, and not-so-young, Australians who, because they have a disability, are still dependent on their family. There is a real appetite for them, even if they're not covered by the NDIS, to also seek the benefits of family policy coverage after the age of 24. The government tells us, through the explanatory memorandum, that it has told disability organisations that the definition of an adult 'person with a disability' connected to the NDIS is only a minimum and that private health insurance companies will be able to offer policies with a broader definition of 'disability'. It's won't just be dependent upon a person's acceptance by the NDIA for participation in the NDIS. This is a really important point to make, because there has been, over the last 24 hours or so, significant discussion within this building about whether the definition of 'disability' should be broader. We encourage that conversation to continue between relevant organisations and the government as this bill moves from this chamber to the other place, but I do make the point again that this is a minimum definition. Insurance companies are able to offer policies that continue to cover dependent adult children, with a broader definition of 'disability' than just participation in the NDIS. We're told—I'm told—there are insurance companies that intend to offer products with broader coverage. I make that point. By the time this bill reaches the other place, we look forward to hearing whether there have been any further conversations between the disability sector and the government about those arrangements. We look forward to having a mature conversation with the government about that in the event that there is any change. But we have been reassured by the fact that this bill provides only a minimum definition of 'disability'. Overall, though, as I indicated in my opening remarks, we think this is a strong measure. I congratulate the government for making these changes and easing the squeeze for private health insurance costs, particularly for, on the one hand, young adult dependent children over the age of 24 before the lifetime health cover arrangements kick in, and also dependent adult children of any age with a disability who are within the NDIS definition or any other definition of 'disability' that the private health insurance industry decides there is a market benefit to offer. I commend the bill and indicate that the Labor Party will support its passage. 12:15 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise to speak on the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill 2021. Australia has a two-tiered system of private and public health funding. The private health sector acts as both a complement and a substitute for the public health system. It is about ensuring we have a great quality safety net for all but choice and opportunity for those who want it. Australia's private healthcare system is community rated and relies on a mix of consumers with different risk profiles to remain financially viable. However, recently, risk profiles have been shifting, as young people have opted out of private health insurance. That is why I welcome this legislation. The imbalance that is occurring in the private health insurance industry needs to be addressed to ensure that the private health insurance sector can flourish and continue to offer choice and flexibility for consumers. That is why the Morrison government is working hard to make sure our nation's private health insurance is simpler and more affordable for younger Australians. As they say, it's about easing the squeeze for private health insurance. I'm delighted that young people right across Australia and those in my electorate of Higgins will be able to stay on their parents' private health insurance policy for longer, with our landmark reforms. That is good news for them and it's good news for their future. I'd like to provide an example of how this legislation will affect people within my electorate. There is a young constituent, a 24-year-old man, who lives in Higgins who has juvenile myoclonic epilepsy. He recently turned 24. This young man travelled overseas to spend time with his girlfriend and her family in Chile. He had been waiting for a public-listed appointment for his epilepsy. He had become independent from his family. He wanted to live in a way that enabled him to do things his way, and he was waiting for a public-listed appointment. He had a fit when he was overseas in Chile. It was quite a serious fit—life-threatening. He then came home to Australia and realised that his private health insurance had lapsed, and he was unable to get an appointment. This young man had been waiting for a long period of time in the public health system, and what he had done was not continue his private health insurance. That is because he had just commenced work. He had finished university and was in the first year of his job. It wasn't one of his financial priorities. That's very understandable for young people. When they first get a job, that job is very, very important to them and every penny counts. This young man decided that private health insurance wasn't a priority for him. But, as a result, he'd waited longer than was necessary. He ended up not getting the medication adjustment that was needed, and he developed a fit. That young man happened to be my son Monty Allen, so I was delighted to see that this legislation would apply to him and that, at the age of 24, he would be able to be brought under my family private health insurance until the age of 31. As a mother, it gives me comfort that he will be able to continue to have private health insurance, continue to have choice and opportunity, and access a quicker appointment to make sure that his epilepsy is kept under control. We also know that research shows that individuals who have been introduced to private health insurance have a higher likelihood of renewing their insurance in the future, and I'm hopeful that Monty will get used to having his private health insurance and enjoy the benefits, and that, when he gets to the age of 31 and can no longer be covered under our family private health insurance, he'll be at an age when he wishes to invest in his own health future through private health insurance. Now that we've had these sensible and reasonable changes to our legislation, young adults are more likely to take out insurance after making use of it on a family plan. It's at a time of their life when they're starting to look at starting their own family and taking on the private health responsibilities that they may like to have for their partner, whoever that may be, and their children, if they are to have them. As a member of parliament representing a vibrant, younger electorate, and as a mother of four young adults, I know how important reforms to ensure a successful private health insurance system are. We on this side of the House are firmly committed to strengthening and simplifying private health insurance and making it more accessible. We understand that we have a very unique health and education system in Australia, one that benefits from the private-public balance. Whether it's health or education, we take the best from the European system, which is more socialised, and the best from the private system in the US. We have a very good system which provides a good, high-quality baseline level of health and education, as well as choices and options for those who wish to pay more for flexibility and accessibility in their insurance. Under the reforms proposed in this bill, the maximum age of dependency for private health insurance policies will be increased from 24 to 31 years of age. It is a very practical measure to support the private health insurance sector. It means young adults will be able to stay on their parents' private health insurance policy for longer, at a time when many younger adults may consider opting out of private health insurance altogether. For the first time, there will also be an opportunity for insurers to offer policies with no age limit for dependants with a disability. Again, it's simplifying the system and making it fairer. As a paediatrician, I would hear, over and over again, about people with chronic health conditions and disabilities moving into the adult sector and how difficult it is for them to move into a sector which doesn't see them in the same way as the paediatric sector does. It is very encouraging that this change to our legislation is being proposed. Particularly for young children with a disability growing into adults, it's very important that they continue to have support, as they are often still dependent on their family and their parents. People with a disability can be confident they will be provided with the opportunity to access more affordable private health insurance without age limits, as they can be covered under a family policy at a lower cost, rather than having to purchase a standalone policy. I think both sides of the House should welcome this change to our policy and legislation, because it helps those who need help the most. Further to that, we have also simplified the definition of 'disability' for the purposes of private health insurance such that a person living with a disability is any person who is a participant in the NDIS. We're bringing the NDIS definition of disability in line with the PHI definition. That's been welcomed by the insurers and the sectors. However, private health insurers will have the flexibility to go beyond this to offer coverage to those who do not meet the NDIS eligibility requirements. It will provide the opportunity to those PHIs who want to step up and support the disability sector to do just that. While this reform primarily benefits younger Australians, who can remain on their parents' insurance policy for longer, it will also contribute to making our private health insurance more sustainable in the longer term by helping transition more young people to their own adult cover when they turn 31 years of age. This is good for the sector. It's good for the stability and the long-term viability of the sector. This bill reflects the Morrison government's ongoing reforms to private health insurance to ensure that it is more affordable, more accessible and more attractive to all Australians. Acting on our commitments, these reforms have delivered the lowest annual average industry premium rise for consumers in two decades. At just 2.74 per cent, this figure is over 50 per cent lower than it was under the previous Labor government. Young people particularly stand to benefit, with 425,000 people aged 18 to 29 receiving discounts of up to 10 per cent on their premiums since 1 April 2019, when those measures were introduced. With the Morrison government committed to improving private health insurance for all Australians, more than 13.7 million Australians have now bought policies, receiving a record $21.9 billion in benefits for medical services through the private health system. From the financial side of things, the private health system is really doing some significant heavy lifting with regard to our healthcare system. It's a very important part of the system, which includes the public and the private sectors. Private does do a lot of heavy lifting with regard to service provision for Australians. Further, as a doctor, I'm a passionate advocate for better health outcomes, which is why I'm particularly proud that this reform will further assist in the access to mental health services for young people. Almost half the population—45 per cent—aged between 16 and 85 will experience some form of mental health difficulty in their lifetimes. I don't think that's a surprise to anyone in this House; I'm sure it's not a surprise to anyone listening to this speech. We know mental health issues are on the rise. They're more recognised. They're more concerning. We need to do more to support people who need to access the services, both in a preventative capacity and in a treatment capacity. Typically, onset is around mid to late adolescence, with young people having the highest prevalence of any age group. So we need to do more to help our young. In these darkest moments, we must ensure access to vital psychiatric services, particularly as our younger generations have faced the challenges that the COVID pandemic has delivered. Supporting young people around Australia and their mental health is a priority for the Morrison government, and instrumental to this plan is lowering the cost of private health insurance for young Australians so they can use that in that way. The government's reforms to private health insurance are improving access to medical services for young people, including mental health services, and that is a good reason in itself to continue to support your own private health insurance, if you have indeed been part of a family private health insurance plan. This is in conjunction with our commitment as a government of $509 million towards the Youth Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan, the most substantial strategy of its kind in Australian history. We recognise the difficulties Australians face with regard to mental health, and we have Australia's back when it comes to delivering services for mental health. The coronavirus pandemic has shown us all the importance of a world-class health system. Indeed, Australia's health system continues to be one of the best in the world. I think Australians knew that before the COVID pandemic, but now they are certain of it. That is because we can see in our public health response, in our health delivery—whether it comes to PPE provision, COVID testing or now the COVID vaccine rollout—that the Australian healthcare system has what it takes to deliver great outcomes for all Australians. The private health insurance system is a very important part of that sector. The Australian government's longstanding and robust relationship with the private health insurance sector ensured that resources could be mustered in the response to the COVID pandemic. I know that in Victoria in particular there was a very good arrangement made between the private healthcare system and the public healthcare system, where both systems worked together in tandem to increase the capability of our intensive care beds—from 2,200, tripling to 7,500 in preparation for what never eventuated, in preparation for what was going to be if we didn't take the actions that we took to close our borders internationally and activate quarantine and contact tracing. If those hadn't worked, then we would have had a very rapid rise in our intensive care beds. The private and public healthcare sectors worked hand in glove, along with the national cabinet and the work between the federal government and the Victorian state government, to ensure that we could triple our ICU capacity in the event of a pandemic spiralling out of control here in Australia. Thank goodness that was not required, but the preparedness in the system—the preparedness to work together across the private and public health sectors and across the state and federal divisions—is to be celebrated. So I think that, as Australians, we can all feel very grateful. There was a recognition that COVID was providing us with very unique challenges, but Australia had a very unique response—a very good response; a par excellence response—to the pandemic as it was emerging around the globe. Australia responded in a very swift, a very effective and a very appropriate way with regard to both the health and economic issues that faced our country. We did this together, as a country. Continued investment by the Morrison government into private health insurance, with over $6.3 billion via the private health insurance rebate, proves our commitment to affordable and flexible options for all Australians when choosing private health insurance. This bill reflects the hard work of the Morrison government to ensure the improvement of our private health system as an accessible, affordable and fair system for all Australians. I commend this bill to the House. 12:29 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I certainly echo some of the comments already made by the shadow minister for health and now by the member for Higgins. Of course, I fully agree to support this bill, the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill 2021, which is a very, very important one. One can only ask why it has taken the government eight years to bring this measure in. We know that rates of private health insurance have been falling over the term of the present government and that we are seeing the development of a very fractured health system. Even though we have coped well so far in preventing the types of pandemic problems that have occurred in other areas, we are seeing increasing healthcare costs, more people dropping out of private health insurance, growing gap costs for out-of-hospital visits and, in New South Wales, the collapse of the public hospital outpatient system. So it's not all roses, and this measure will play a small part in trying to reverse the trend. We need to ask ourselves why it's taken so long for this legislation to be brought in and what we can do to try and make the system even better. This legislation, as has already been mentioned, will increase the age that dependants can be covered by family private health insurance, up to the age of 31. Most importantly it will allow people with disability, as defined by eligibility for the NDIS, to get lifetime private health insurance cover from their family, which is a very important change for many of the families I have cared for and continue to care for in my electorate of Macarthur. We do need to ask ourselves several questions about this legislation. The first is: why do we need to do this? This is a pretty dramatic change, compared to health insurance previously. When we were growing up, we could only remain on our parents' private health insurance billing until the age of 18, until we left school. It has gradually been increased to age 25, and now this legislation will increase it to 31. For anyone with a disability, the same definitions apply. So this has been a really dramatic change. We need to do this for several reasons. Firstly, younger people are needing to stay at home for much longer because housing affordability has deteriorated so much. It is very important that we try and improve measures to make affordable housing available to those on modest incomes. At present that is not the case. People are needing to stay at home longer because they can't afford to buy or rent accommodation, particularly in our capital cities, and little has been done to change that. In fact, it has been getting worse over the eight-year period of the present government. That's one thing. Secondly, younger people in education are accruing much higher debt than previously. With the increases in HECS payments required for many university degrees, many people are accruing HECS debts equivalent to the debts that we used to accrue for mortgages. It's a double whammy—housing affordability is poor and HECS debts are increasing. We know that, in the last five years, young people's HECS debts have increased by significant amounts around the country. So the affordability of housing and education has become much worse in the eight years of this government. Young people have been leaving private health insurance in droves. This legislation may do a little bit to change that trend, but it's taken the government eight years to bring it in. Why are 31-year-olds still to be seen as dependants? It's because of housing affordability, HECS debts and the fact that the jobs that young people are getting are often relatively low paid, and growth in wages, under this government, is worse than it has been for many decades. These three reasons are causing young people to need to stay at home for longer and be dependent on their parents for longer, and they have less ability to pay for private health insurance. Why is private health insurance so important? It is so important because private health cover and private health insurers provide access to volume based medical services very efficiently. Interventional treatments, ENT surgery, ophthalmology and gastroenterology are done very efficiently in the private system. We are lucky in Australia that we live in a system balanced between private health care and public health care. I believe that private health insurance is very important for people who can afford it, because private health insurance provides access to volume based care in a much more efficient way than does the public system, while the public system does chronic and complex care much better than the private system. So we need to keep this balance of health care if we are going to continue to have a healthcare system that is amongst the best in the world. This government has done very little to promote private health insurance. This is a small measure, but it's taken them eight years to do it. It's very important that we continue this balance of both systems. As a paediatrician, I have also seen the difficulties people with disabilities, particularly adolescents and young adults, have in accessing interventional care. I've been a paediatrician now for 40 years, and in those 40 years we've seen dramatic changes in the way that people with disabilities have been cared for. People are surviving longer. Their quality of life is improving. With the advent of Julia Gillard's NDIS, we've had really dramatic changes in people's quality of life and access to services. The one difficulty has been getting interventional services for people over the age of 18 with disabilities. For example, people with cerebral palsy have access to injections of botulinum toxin, or botox, which has proved very useful in managing spasticity and mobility issues for people with cerebral palsy. However, once someone turns 18, access to these services is very limited. People will now be able, if they stay on their parents' private health insurance billing, to get access as adults to botox and also to the orthopaedic surgery that they may require to maintain mobility. That has been very important in trying to get those sorts of services. We know, for example, that children with autism have a higher risk of mental health disorders. If they remain on their parents' private health list, they will be able to access mental health services in a much more timely manner than if they have to go on public waiting lists. This will be very important for some of the people I have cared for over many, many years and will really lift a great and dramatic weight from their parents' shoulders. So these are very important measures. They will be very important for children with neurological disorders, such as spina bifida, who throughout their lives may require ongoing neurosurgery and orthopaedic surgery to maintain their health and their mobility. So these are very important issues. One has to ask: why has it taken the government so long to bring this in? There are many challenges in our public hospital system for people with disabilities once they turn 18, and there's been an ongoing difficulty in transitioning care from the paediatric age group to the adult age group. It's been very difficult and has been limited by access to services. This will actually make quite a dramatic change to many of those kids and I thoroughly welcome it. Whilst I do congratulate the government on bringing this legislation in, I wonder about why it has taken so long. We know during the pandemic that there have been difficulties in accessing the public hospital system for elective and semi-elective surgery. Once again, these private health insurance changes will make dramatic differences to young people with disabilities accessing the private health system and the interventional and procedural type health care that the private health system does very well. I welcome the fact that this may well increase the number of young people staying in private health insurance and transitioning into their own private health insurance once they turn 31. I certainly know that I welcome it in terms of my own children, who are under 31, and getting them access to private health insurance. I welcome it on behalf of my many patients with disabilities, and I think it's something that we now need to be very actively exploring for those kids and their access to care. I support the legislation and I do thank the government for bringing it in, but I think we need to look at the reasons why it is so important and the fact that for many people in our economy, we are working at a two-tiered level. Some people are doing very well, and some people, particularly young people, are really struggling in a whole range of areas, including housing, education and work. In conclusion, I welcome the legislation, but I do think we need to look at why this legislation is necessary and the reasons why young people are finding it so difficult, even at ages that might seem quite old, to get into the housing market, to get adequate jobs and to provide for themselves. 12:41 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein It's a privilege to be able to speak in support of the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill 2021. The reason I speak in support of this bill is because it is such a simple but critically important measure in understanding the slipstream of young Australians' lives and the relationship and the bond that we have to each other. Many young Australians, logically, will be raised under the protection of their parents' private health insurance, they will finish school, go on to tertiary education or some other form of skills or trade or apprenticeship, and they will continue to be covered by their parents' private health insurance. Of course, once they hit the age of 21 or cease to study, they will then lapse out of the system, exactly when we need them to be taking responsibility for their health care as part of a holistic healthcare protection of themselves over their whole lives. Many young people only re-opt in to the system when they find there's a financial penalty if they choose not to around the age of 30. This legislation is bridging that divide, that gap, where young Australians who either continue to study, or whose parents are happy to support and assist them in the coverage of their private health insurance as dependants, can walk the bridge to the age of 30 and be able to pay for it themselves. I say that as the member for an electorate which has one of the highest concentrations of private health insurance in the country, where almost everybody, young or old, has some form of private health coverage. In fact, it was once was pointed out to me by the private health insurance industry that there are more private health insurance policies in my electorate than constituents, which shows you how much the people of Goldstein value their private health insurance. I suspect that's partly because there are non-citizens who have private health insurance as well. Many of those young people in the Goldstein community, from Bayside and Glen Eira, will go through their secondary education covered by their parents' private health insurance, they'll go off and live somewhere more proximate to tertiary education and, at that time, while they're there, they'll have coverage until they go into the workforce. While they are starting out with other competing pressures, as the previous speaker said, private health insurance might be the first thing on the chopping block because at that age of 21 or 22, all the way through to your mid-20s—I'm 41 and I still think I'm invincible—you're generally are less concerned about your healthcare unless you have a pre-existing condition. This legislation will help those young Australians bridge that divide so they can continue to be covered by private health insurance. If they need assistance and care at that time, they will be able to get it through the benefits of their parents, who continue to recognise them as dependants for this purpose. But the previous speaker made a critical point. If you've got private health insurance and you have a pre-existing condition, particularly if you are young, even as you are going into adulthood, you may need to continue to get that support and that service. So, for young people with a disability who may need extra assistance, we are here and we are backing them. If you have another condition, which may have occurred in your youth and continues through to your adolescence and young adulthood, you will continue to get the support from your parents' private health insurance, because the Morrison government is backing you in being able to access the services that you need. More critically, it will help the sustainability of the private health system for every Australian. Most young Australians contribute to private health insurance and don't need to draw much down on it until they get older. Of course, older Australians tend to need to draw down on it more. They've invested in their health insurance at a younger point in their lives, when they know there's a lower profile of risk, and carry that all the way through to the latter stage of their life, where they know there's a higher degree of risk. That journey is not dissimilar for the overwhelming number of Australians who are dependent on private health insurance. So this helps us in not just supporting young Australians today but supporting young Australians as they reach the age where they have children themselves, or get married, and have dependants. And, of course, it helps ensure there is sustainable private health insurance in the latter arc of their life, where they can continue to rely on a system that's affordable and accessible. The previous speaker actually did raise a legitimate issue, the economic challenges facing young Australians, which led me then to wonder whether, between the early ages of 20 to 30, private health insurance is at the top of young Australians' priority lists. Of course, this is because young Australians face challenges, particularly economic challenges, because of employment arrangements and needing to pay rent while they are concurrently trying to save to buy their first home. But, conveniently, the previous speaker forgot one factor, which is the compulsion of having 10 per cent of their wage taken from them and locked up into a fund controlled by—in many cases—those on the other side of the chamber and their allies. Of course, the more money that's locked away from them, the more of their savings that are taken away from them, the more it impacts on their wages today. It also means they can't save for the biggest and most important financial decision in their life, homeownership. That is because, by law, we have engaged in a form of economic social engineering where we have prioritised superannuation and the savings for your second most important financial decision ahead of your first. Whenever you hear the crocodile tears from Labor members who talk about how young Australians are finding it harder to buy a home, it is laced with hypocrisy, because Labor want more of the savings of young Australians to be taken away from them—whether it's to pay for their private health insurance or to be able to save to buy their own home—to build up the nest eggs from which their friends then profit through fees and bonuses. And they won't even report to this parliament what they're getting up to, even though they demand more of working Australians' hard earned cash. Of course, it does come at an expense. It comes at the expense of homeownership. And the hypocrisy doesn't just end there with their claims of concern for young Australians trying to buy their own homes when their money is locked up in superannuation. The hypocrisy extends further. The member for Macnamara this week wrote a paper about how young Australians' superannuation savings should be spent on building projects for houses that super funds own and that young Australians can then rent, to become serfs to their own super. This is the most despicable shift in economic power in this country's history, where we are seeing the concentration of economic power— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 The member for Goldstein has to relate his comments to the bill before the House. I've allowed him to go on for a little while, but I think he should bring it back to the bill. Mr TIM WILSON IMW Of course I am acting utterly consistently with the proposition that, when you take money from young Australians and lock it up in super, they can't do other things, like afford private health insurance or homeownership. When you concentrate a huge shift in economic power, it means the choices of young Australians are sacrificed in the process. It doesn't matter whether it's private health or saving to support their family and buy a home; the principle that sits behind it remains the same. That's why it's the biggest shift of economic power in this country's history, away from the many in the favour of the few, forcing the second-most important financial decision—or other important financial choices, like private health insurance—ahead of the most important financial decision that young Australians will make, which is to secure their own home, which is the foundation of their economic security during their working life and through to their retirement, so that, on balance, they have fewer costs in their retirement, so they can do things like support the ongoing payment of private health insurance. It reduces the volume of super that they would then need to be able to do things like afford their living costs and health insurance. That's why this issue is so critical. We're trying to bridge a gap between one stage of life and another. What this will do is to build a bridge across that gap for Australians across their entire life cycle, to secure their health. Now we need to do the same in other policy areas, to respect the natural progress of life. You're born, you get educated, you're raised; you then go into tertiary education, a trade or a skill or into the workforce; you find a spouse and have children; you wish to buy your own home, as the foundation—the most important financial decision you make in your life—and then, following that, you start to look at issues like how to secure your retirement, because of course you can save for your retirement after you buy a home but you can't afford to save for a home once you're in retirement. It's out of respect for that natural progression of life. This bill, in acknowledging the contribution of private health insurance, helps to bridge that gap on one factor: the security that people need in their life, not just in their working life but in their retirement, and it goes to the heart of their sense of physical security for themselves through their health care. I have consistently said that we need to do the same in other areas. But of course we have the Labor Party who are quite happy for young Australians' savings to be spent on housing that they can rent from super funds but who do not support young Australians using their own savings to buy their own home. They want Australians to be serfs to their super, like all other government systems. This is not a sustainable way for a country to go forward—unless, of course, you're part of the select few who enjoy the benefits, like IFM Investors, a big financial services firm that pays bonuses in excess of $36 million to single fund members. But we never hear any cries of outrage from members opposite. It's about time we got serious and a bit honest about what's actually happening in this country, where we're seeing the concentration of power going from individuals to big fund managers, and, of course, the political interests associated with them, and that makes it harder for people to afford private health insurance and to be able to afford their own home. That's why it should be home first, super second. But a critical part of that is private health insurance as well. 12:53 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I'm sure we all gained a lot from the ideological approach from the member for Goldstein—particularly the young people up there, who I welcome to Parliament House. It's great to see young people back in this place. Unlike the people he's been talking about, he left himself out of that. While he might describe himself as a 41-year-old and happy to be a parliamentarian, he's lucky to be on a very favourable superannuation system himself, and I'm not sure that he's taken the same view when it comes to his super as he has when it comes to others'. But, before you interrupt me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will contain myself to the bill. I think this bill is something actually worth supporting and something I think members of this House could be proud of in its passage. Therefore, to try to politicise it, with his long-held views—erroneous ones on aspects of superannuation in this country—I think really demeans him and, quite frankly, the people he purports to represent, the good burghers of Goldstein. I make my contribution in terms of the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill 2021. We support this piece of legislation because this is good and it's decent. The bill makes sensible improvements to private health insurance, effectively making it simpler and more affordable for all Australians. In essence, the bill makes two fundamental changes. First, it changes the maximum allowable age for people to be covered under a family private health insurance policy, taking the dependent age from 24 to 31. The increase to the maximum allowable age for those covered by the family health policy means that people have the option of family health coverage until they reach the age of 31, when the government's lifetime health cover policy applies. That is significant. That means we can have more people covered by private health insurance over that period. For many younger adults, this will mean that they can stay on their parents' health insurance policy at a time when they would otherwise be opting out of private health insurance. When that occurs, it is a problem for our general health system. For younger people, it would mean that those struggling with expenses—because many are still at university or in the early years of employment, which, if you're a young apprentice, does have an impact on your wages, so you would be struggling financially with private health insurance—are able to be included on their parents' private health insurance policy. On the face of it, the reform seems to be of benefit to younger people. The contributions of these young adults, once they turn 31, means they will have access to the government's lifetime health cover. Ultimately, the goal is to make private health insurance more sustainable for everybody, and being more sustainable for everybody means having greater efficiencies within our system. The second aspect of the bill, which is one I'm particularly pleased to see, is that it also makes significant changes in terms of private health insurance coverage for people with a disability. The bill allows people with a disability, regardless of their age, to be covered under the family private health insurance policy as a dependant. Effectively, this mean that people with a disability will be covered by the family policy at no or low cost, rather than having to purchase a standalone policy. This is a really significant development for everybody here, because, I imagine, of the 151 electorates represented in this chamber, we all know families with members that live with a disability. In my case, being in Western Sydney, my community's actually overrepresented with families with members living with a disability, which is not a reflection on the water we drink or the air we breathe but rather, probably, on the lower cost of housing in Western Sydney, which families that have to make compromises when raising children with disabilities gravitate towards. This is something that will be of significant benefit to many residents in my community. While I note that the amendments do not make it mandatory for private health insurance companies to offer increased coverage for family products, we welcome the readiness of many of the insurers to date that have shown their willingness to participate and offer these changes. Accordingly, I support the passage of this bill. I think it's commendable. For those here who take seriously their responsibility to represent everybody in their electorate, particularly those most vulnerable families living with disabilities, this is certainly a major development. 12:59 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin I'm pleased to speak in support of the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill. I want to start by acknowledging the incredible work which all those involved in health care provide to our country. It's been more acutely visible than ever over the course of the last 12 months. We, in Australia, have the benefit of a great system. It's not perfect, but it is so much better than in so many other countries. We have highly competent and well-qualified professionals. We have a well-regulated system which ensures quality of patient care is rightly prioritised. While the funding of health care can, at times, become the subject matter or focus of political debate, the truth is that governments of all varieties and at all levels are fully committed to ensuring a quality of care and service throughout our health system, and it is pleasing that this bill is being supported across the entire chamber. Our public health system is strong. It is stretched, but it is strong. Our private healthcare system is much the same; it is strong, but it is stretched. And we need both. Encouraging private health care for those who can afford it eases the burden on the public healthcare system and improves its capacity to deliver. It also gives scope for innovative new ideas and concepts to be developed and delivered through the public health system. One example of this is the medihotel, which has been established at Royal Perth Hospital. Developed as a pilot program, this facility, jointly funded by state and federal governments, provides short-term accommodation for people who have finished their hospital stay and are waiting for transport home to regional WA or need to visit the hospital for an appointment prior to their hospital stay. The overall goal of the medihotel is to ensure that there's appropriate care for people while freeing up the necessary beds for acute cases. We need to explore ideas such as these, and we need to continue to innovate to ensure that the quality of health care we enjoy in this country continues. This bill is designed to encourage private health care insofar as it addresses the reality that many young people are dropping healthcare cover and have been doing so at a steady rate for the past five years. As part of this reform program, the maximum age of dependants for private health insurance policies will be increased from 24 to 31 years, and there will be the opportunity for insurers to offer policies with no age limit for dependants with a disability. As other members have noted, it is pleasing that a number of insurers have already indicated that they are ready and willing to start offering this expanded coverage. What this means is that young people—students, apprentices—can stay on their parents' policy for longer. It will be easier for adults to transition from being on their parents' cover to buying their own lifetime health cover, which will commence at the age of 31. People with a disability will be provided with the opportunity to access more affordable private health insurance without age limits, as they can be covered under a family policy at a lower cost rather than purchase a standalone policy. And the definition of a person with a disability for the purpose of private health insurance will be a participant in the NDIS, but insurers will also have the flexibility to go beyond this definition when offering cover. Just by way of observation here, it's really relevant to note that the age at which young people leave home and become independent has, over the last two decades, been rising. According to the Housing, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey of 2017, 56 per cent of men aged 18 to 29 lived with one or both parents and 54 per cent of women of the same age group lived with one or more parents. These stats are similar to those produced by the Australian Institute of Family Studies. It's difficult to pin down exactly the median age at which people leave the family home, and I have to admit that when my youngest son was only eight someone told me that the average age for a man to leave home was 28, and knowing that my son will never watch this and will never read this speech, I can honestly say that I had a very mixed reaction to the thought that he would still be under the same roof as me for another two decades. He's now 15 and six foot five, and, if I still have another 12 years of him in the house, I'll have to either raise the ceilings or triple the size of the kitchen! There are numerous reasons as to why young people stay home longer—housing costs, staying longer in education and training, casual work and choosing to live a little before settling down. As with most things in this world, it's probably due to a mix of reasons and all very dependent on their individual circumstances. The reality is they do remain dependent and at home for longer. The reality is also that there has been a sustained period of decreasing uptake of private health care by young people, and it is something we need to address for the sake of our entire health system. This reform benefits the younger adults who will be covered as dependants, but it will also contribute to making private health insurance more sustainable in the longer term by helping the transition of more young people to their own adult cover when they turn 31. On that basis, I'm very happy to support this bill. 13:05 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise in support of this bill, the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill 2021. But this bill is good news and bad news. As the father of four daughters I can distinctly remember having the conversation with each of them that has gone on and become 'independent'—and I use that in inverted commas, as any parent would know!—about the merits of continuing with private health insurance, and each has complained bitterly about having to themselves fund what they once enjoyed for free from Mum and Dad's wallet. We all know, of course, that the more people—in particular, young people—we keep in private health the better it is for everybody. Young people are, by their very nature, less likely to need private health insurance because most of them don't get sick. But having it is very, very welcome when things go wrong, and sometimes they go badly wrong. I remember having a conversation with one of my daughters, who had left home and was over 24, who said, 'Dad, I just can't afford to pay for private health insurance.' The bad side of this bill is that we as parents all know we're going to pick up the tab. We want to make sure that our kids, whether they are dependent or independent, have that health cover for as long as they possibly can—for those parents who can afford it. So this is very, very sensible reform, and I'm very pleased to see that members opposite are on board with this reform, because, as I said, the more people, particularly young people, we have in private health insurance, the better it is for all of us. It keeps costs down. It keeps premiums lower than would otherwise be the case. For young people who are living as dependants, this reform will see the age at which they will be able to remain on the family health insurance policy go from 24 to 31. This will see, I believe, a significant number of families, mums and dads, being able to contribute and help out, and maybe the young people will be able to help as well to pay for some of their own health insurance—because we all know that a family health policy will be far cheaper, even when you add another person to it, than a standalone policy for a young person. One of the great reforms to come out of this bill will impact on the tens of thousands of families—and I'm very pleased to say it will actually help the Wallace family as well—who have a disabled child. These reforms will ensure that a child or a young person, a dependant who lives with a disability, will be able to remain on that private family health cover for the life of that young person or the life of the dependant person who lives with a disability. What does living with a disability mean? Clearly, in the first instance, anybody who's receiving benefits under the NDIA will be classified as someone who lives with a disability, but I understand that that definition could grow in time. This is, once again, very, very sensible reform, which I'm pleased is a bipartisan reform and which gives parents in particular, and not least also the person living with a disability, the sort of comfort that comes from knowing that the person who lives with a disability will have and enjoy the fruits of private health insurance. This is very, very important, particularly for people who live with a disability, so that they know that, if they fall ill, they can choose their own doctor, they can choose their own hospital, and the time in which they will be able to access that treatment is usually much quicker, particularly for elective surgery, than what it would otherwise be if they were in the public health system. As the father of a young lady who lives with a disability, I can say that this will bring great peace of mind to parents. It's hard enough being a parent with a child of any age with a disability, but, once a young person reaches the age of 24, without these reforms, parents would more than likely have to pay for a separate standalone policy, if they can afford it. Maybe they can't afford it. But this reform will enable parents to keep their disabled children on a family policy, and there will be very significant cost savings to them doing so. So I commend the bill to the House. It is sensible reform. I thank those opposite for supporting this bill. 13:12 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on this Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill 2021. Under this bill, the maximum age of dependants for private health insurance policies will be increased from 24 to 31 years. Insurers will be able to offer policies with no age limit for dependants with a disability. These are great outcomes for Australian families that are looking for ways to continue to assist with the health care of their children. Younger adults will be able to stay on their parents' private health insurance policies for longer, at a time when many young adults may otherwise consider opting out of private health. It'll be easier for adults to transition from being on their parents' cover to buying their own when the provisions of Lifetime Health Cover commence. People with a disability will be provided with the flexibility to access more affordable private health insurance without age limits, as they can be covered under a family policy at no or low cost rather than purchase a standalone policy. This reform benefits young Australians and Australians with a disability, but it also helps everyone with private health insurance, because, by increasing participation, it will contribute to improving the affordability and sustainability of private health care. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 38 13:14 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2020-2021 39

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2020-2021

Second Reading 39 13:15 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Despite some welcome news today on the jobs front, it remains the case that there are two million Australians who either are unemployed or can't find enough hours to support their loved ones. So, while we can welcome the pleasing developments in the economy, we also need to acknowledge those troubling aspects of what we're seeing as we emerge from the deepest, most damaging recession in almost a century. Those two million Australians should not be so lightly dismissed by those opposite, who are so keen to engage in this self-congratulation, when what we're really seeing today, with the recovery in some of these jobs numbers, is two things. The first is the dividend that belongs to the Australian people, the credit that belongs to the Australian people, for the way that they've worked together and done the right thing by each other to try and limit the spread of this virus. That has allowed state borders to reopen and all of that. But, secondly, we need to acknowledge that, for two million Australians, the economy has not recovered sufficiently to provide jobs or to provide enough hours for people not just to get by but to get ahead—to provide for their loved ones but also to have the opportunity to meet the aspirations that they have for themselves and for their families. So, as always, we can welcome what is pleasing but we need to recognise what remains troubling about the Australian economy. This bill before us now, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2020-2021, is essentially a budget bill, and the defining feature of the budget is that for the first time in Australia's history we've got well north of $1 trillion in debt. On this side of the House, we well remember that for some years in the aftermath of the GFC, another defining moment in the economic history of this country—in that case, recession was avoided, unlike this time around—those opposite engaged in a big national campaign based on a massive con, which was that somehow they could have avoided racking up a couple of hundred billion dollars in debt during the GFC. They described it then, when debt was a tiny fraction of what it is now, as a debt and deficit disaster. When it was $200 billion or $250 billion, they described it as a debt and deficit disaster. Now they preside over debt which is at $1 trillion and growing. What we've said all along is that when things are difficult, when there is a case for government to step in and to support people's jobs and livelihoods and get them through a difficult period, obviously there is a role for government spending. That's why we've been so supportive of the programs that the government has implemented. In some cases, we proposed them. One of them, the key one, JobKeeper, was dismissed by those opposite before it was adopted. We welcomed the change of heart. We didn't rub their noses in it, because we wanted to make sure that we could get those wage subsidies in place, and to some extent they have done the job that we have asked of them. So that's important to recognise as well. But one of the reasons why there's $1 trillion of debt in this budget and we don't have enough to show for that $1 trillion in debt is that, when you go through the budget, you discover that this is a budget riddled with rorts. Today, if the Senate allows the report to be tabled, we'll hear more about sports rorts, for example. We know about the dodgy land deals. We know about the billion dollars spent on advertising. We know about all the money that was spent on market research. We know about all the money that was spent on various other rorts and rip-offs. These things have meant that there is more debt in the budget than is necessary, or, put another way, that there is 'insufficient room'—to use the government's language—to do the right thing by people who are still struggling—those two million Australians that I mentioned at the outset. As the member for Kingsford Smith spoke about this morning, we got a really important indication of the damage done to the JobKeeper program and to the budget more broadly by the fact that the government, who were solely responsible for determining the eligibility for JobKeeper, have sprayed around hundreds of millions of dollars to companies that made substantial profits. The member for Fenner deserves a lot of credit here for investigating that wastage and staying on the case when it comes to this unnecessary spending of JobKeeper on quite profitable companies. We also know—and again my colleagues have done a lot of work here—that a lot of JobKeeper money has gone to puffing up executive bonuses. When the Australian people were asked to kick in taxpayer money to support each other's jobs and do the right thing by each other, I am certain that they were not signing up to pay taxpayer-funded executive bonuses. Mr Thistlethwaite 182468 Like Gerry Harvey's. He needs it! Dr CHALMERS 37998 I'm certain that if the government had said, 'We are going to spray this money around to companies whose profits will not only increase along the usual lines but actually grow'—companies like those the member for Kingsford Smith just mentioned—the Australian people would not have signed up to it. All we're saying is that, if the government hadn't wasted so much money on companies that didn't need JobKeeper, they would now be able to afford to do the right thing by the workers and small businesses that still need government support. I think that is an entirely reasonable point for us to make. I've spent a lot of time in recent days in Cairns, Launceston and other parts of Australia that are doing it a little bit tougher than the rest of the country. They are told by this government that there's no room and no blank cheque to support people's jobs in areas where things are still difficult; there's no extra money for that. This is at the same time—as we now know from the story in the paper and from the work of the member for Fenner, the member for Kingsford Smith, the member for Whitlam and others—as a lot of money has been wasted on companies that didn't need it. This is what that says about this government. This is a government that subsidises the strong and singles out and sacrifices the weak, and that's what we're seeing in JobKeeper. If you are a company which is already profitable, if you are a company which wants to pay, in some cases, exorbitant executive bonuses, then the government will throw money at you. If you are a small business in Cairns or Launceston or somewhere else and you're reliant on the opening of the international border, on the end of social distancing or on the government getting out the four million vaccines they promised by the end of this month, then you are being deliberately singled out and sacrificed. You're being left behind by a government which subsidises the strong and singles out and sacrifices the weak. We're talking about these appropriation bills, these budget bills. We have a massive amount of spending, with more than $1 trillion in debt, at the same time as we've still got those two million unemployed and underemployed. The reason for that is that we are not getting the bang for buck that we need from such massive government spending. On this side of the House, we understand the need for government to spend in difficult times. We've done it before and we've understood that. We've been remarkably consistent for all of the 20 or so years that I've been knocking around this place, in different roles. We've been very consistent. The government, on the other hand, says that $200 billion is a debt and deficit disaster but more than $1 trillion is manageable. All we ask is that we get genuine bang for buck from all of this money that the government is borrowing. The Treasurer has repeatedly said something I agree with wholeheartedly. He has pointed out time and time again that every dollar is borrowed. He usually says that as a justification for not doing the right thing by the small businesses of Cairns, for example, but it is true that every dollar is borrowed. Every dollar for sports rorts has been borrowed. Every dollar for dodgy land deals has been borrowed. Every dollar spent on taxpayer funded executive bonuses has been borrowed. Every dollar that has gone to businesses that turned out to be extraordinarily profitable during the pandemic was borrowed too. Every one of those billion dollars they spent on advertising themselves has been borrowed. Every one of those dollars they spent on market research has been borrowed. This is a good point that the Treasurer makes. We do need to remember that, when the budget is in the condition that it is in right now, we should be extremely focused on getting bang for buck. There would not be an independent observer of this budget anywhere in this country who would look at the budget and think that that money is better spent on companies that are already profitable rather than on companies that still need a little bit of help. At the end of this month—not far away now; less than two weeks—JobKeeper will be cut. Again the government says there's no blank cheque. There seems to have been a blank cheque when they were buying land around the airport, but there's no blank cheque to continue to support people. Imagine if we had a government that had the competence but also the compassion to say, 'We would be better off spending these hundreds of millions of dollars on businesses that genuinely need it and their workers rather than businesses that by any measure have not needed it and executives who by any measure have not needed extra assistance or extra executive bonuses.' It remains to be seen what the impact of the cutting of JobKeeper will be on the jobs market. Treasury says about 100,000 jobs could be lost, Commonwealth Bank says 110,000, and respected labour market economist Jeff Borland says 250,000. We don't know. We genuinely hope that the number will be nowhere near as big as that, but it remains to be seen. As the member for Monash, my colleague Mr Broadbent, has said in this place during the week, one job lost to cuts to JobKeeper is one too many. We have said repeatedly that the future of JobKeeper, the future of a million workers on the payment, the future of those most at risk of losing their jobs, is in the government's hands. That means that any jobs lost from JobKeeper cuts will be on their heads. It's not too late for the government to come forward and say: 'You know what? We shouldn't have sprayed all this money around on companies which were already strong, and we should do a little bit more for a little bit longer for those small businesses who are doing it tough.' As I said before, it's a government which subsidises the strong and sacrifices the weak. That's what we're seeing. So, in a couple of weeks time, unfortunately, when that JobKeeper payment is cut, we will learn who has been left behind. We have learnt which Australian workers and small businesses have been especially vulnerable. It would be one thing if the government had met its other commitments, such as getting four million vaccinations away by the end of the month—as we're reminded by others, they're almost four million short of their four million target in March. Remember, they had those two commitments next to each other. They said at the end of March they would cut JobKeeper and have four million vaccinations away. I notice they've stuck firmly to their announcement that they'd be cutting something for workers and businesses. The commitment that fell by the wayside—that big, yawning gulf between announcement and delivery that exists on that side of the parliament—is that vaccination commitment. What that means is that companies may have taken the government at their word that they were going to get all these vaccinations away and thought: 'We'll just hang in until the end of March. A big chunk of the Australian population will be vaccinated by then because the Prime Minister said they would be.' But they're now having to confront the JobKeeper cuts without the vaccinations out there. It's a government that's very quick to cut economic support but very slow to meet its commitments on vaccination. We've heard again and again—and I agree with the Treasurer on this point too—that the rollout of the vaccine will have big economic consequences. When the government was making these big promises about October and about four million by the end of March, they were saying at the time that there would be this big economic dividend from doing things that quickly. So there must be an economic consequence for doing things so slowly. So let's hear what that is. Let's hear what this consequences of the JobKeeper cuts will be. Let's hear what the consequences are of going slow on the vaccine and bumbling the rollout of the vaccine. Even though we have some Australians returning to work in this recovery, too many are being left out and left behind, too many have been deliberately left in the lurch, too many are subject to the bumbling of the vaccine. We owe it to the Australian people, who have done so much to get through this together, to do what we can to support their employment for a little bit longer. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 41 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Corpus Christi College 41 13:30 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Last week, I really enjoyed spending time with the year 9 humanities and social science students at Corpus Christi College, thanks to an invitation from their teacher, Lidia Di Giuseppe, who I know through the Fremantle Italian Club. The kids I met are studying the Australian political system, and they're pretty well versed in the key details of parliamentary structures and processes. The Q&A part of the session, I have to say, did go a bit wider than that and covered topics including what was the biggest conflict I have faced in parliament but also what my favourite fruit is, whether I have ever met Senator Pauline Hanson, what my opinion of memes is—I had to say about memes that I know they're important but I don't always understand why—and, of course, tomato sauce—fridge or pantry? I got quite a boo for that one, because I generally go pantry with the tomato sauce. I was grateful to Hannah Oversby, a member of the class, who wrote a short blog post to describe my visit and was kind enough to say that they had learned from our conversation some things that they wouldn't have got from a textbook. It's always a privilege to speak with school students about politics. It's always been important, and I think it's now more important than ever that young people take an interest in problem-solving and decision-making and how we do those things to the highest standard with the greatest degree of inclusion, and in how to be involved and how to make change, because that is what politics is about. So I say thank you to the bright and curious kids at Corpus Christi for having me as a guest at their school and for engaging with me in that kind of conversation. March 4 Justice 41 13:31 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I joined my coalition colleagues at the respect for women march because I believe we can do more to improve the lives of Australian women. Women deserve to be safe at home, in public and at work. I do not believe the marches alone will improve respect for women, and I do not agree with all the demands made or how the road to improvement has been politicised by the other side. It should be above politics, but at this stage in the election cycle, very sadly, it is not. I do believe that we, the government, can effect more and lasting change in this area, as we have in so many others. The truth is that it's the Liberals who, time and time again, have delivered real action for women. My late mother, my sister, my friends, I and some of my colleagues have lived experience of gender based violence and abuse, sexual harassment, inappropriate sexual innuendo and unwanted advances. It is simply not okay. Every woman in this place has worked hard to be here, and I take that responsibility very seriously. I've worked to gain the respect of my colleagues and my staff so that I can live the change all women deserve and be the voice of the women of Moncrieff. So I say to all the women of Moncrieff and all the women across Australia: I see you, I hear you, I believe you and I, along with my colleagues—men and women—am working to improve your lives. COVID-19: Vaccination 42 13:33 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro The empathy and understanding of the Australian people has been central in setting us up for success in post-pandemic Australia. The communities I represent in the mighty Eden-Monaro need a stronger recovery than most, following the triple whammy of drought, bushfires and COVID-19. At these critical flashpoints, people turn to their government for leadership, and right now there is a crisis of confidence. Until we get the vaccine in the arms of people, the social and economic security we all crave will be undermined. Yesterday, locations for the 1b rollout were announced. People want to do the right thing and get vaccinated. But this government is making it hard, and I'm worried that the most vulnerable members of our community are going to be placed at further risk. Under the current plan, if you're over 70 and have a disability or an underlying medical condition and you live in Cooma, Bombala or Jindabyne, you potentially face a five-hour round trip to Bega, Canberra or Narooma. This makes no sense in the real world. On top of that, I've had local doctors on the phone upset that they are being set up to fail and let their community down. My priority is to support people's desire to do the right thing, and I raise my community's concerns so that the Morrison government can make the necessary adjustments. There are almost a thousand eligible people in the Snowy Monaro alone who will have to jump through these hoops. A five-hour drive adds to risk and expense. Let's not blow the position of strength we find ourselves in by ignoring local voices. Moore Electorate: Volunteer Grants Program, Wheelchairs For Kids 42 13:34 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore As part of the 2021 Volunteer Grants program, I'm pleased to be able to deliver up to $132,450 in federal funding to assist volunteer based organisations in my electorate to provide better community services. Applications are now open. Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting the new premises of Wheelchairs For Kids at the invitation of Brother Olly Pickett AM, Gordon Hudson and David Hudson MBE. The respected local charity manufactures wheelchairs for disadvantaged children living in developing countries, with the involvement of around 800 dedicated volunteers, mainly senior citizens aged between 55 and 85. Up to 200 of these volunteers work in the professionally equipped and meticulously set out workshop—a highly organised production line of specialised manufacturing and assembly tasks. Over the years, the design of the wheelchairs has been improved through testing and redesign. They are built to World Health Organization standards to be fully adjustable and to be able to withstand use in rough terrain. Wheelchairs For Kids is supported by Rotary, private donations and government grants. The professionalism in its operation shows that manufacturing in Australia is alive and well, when there is the resolve and dedication to make goods locally. Later this year, the organisation— (Time expired) Immigration Detention 42 13:36 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills This week I met with the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, a wonderful organisation that does great work for asylum seekers and refugees in our communities. We know that the government has released 135 medevac detainees from detention. That's great, and we thank the government for that step. The fact is, though, that there are still 120 in detention, and I call on the government to do the right thing and release these detainees into the community. There is no particular rhyme or reason as to why they continue to remain in detention. There's no clear reason, whether it be a security vetting issue or any other issue, as to why these 120 have remained in detention. The ASRC has informed me—and, quite clearly, this is a very good news aspect to this story, apart from their release from detention—that many of these detainees are already working. They are so keen to get out there and contribute to our society after being so long in detention. That is something that we should be encouraging. They want to contribute to our society, they want to work and they want to make a difference. There is no reason that the remaining 120 should remain in detention. To those people who remain in detention who might be listening, I say: we will continue to advocate on your behalf. To the five women and all the men who remain in detention, I say: we will be your voice. Myanmar 42 13:38 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I wish to raise in the chamber the current situation in Myanmar and its impact on the almost 5,000 members of the Burmese community who now call Cowper home. Just last Wednesday, I met with three representatives from the local Myanmar community. They expressed their deep concern for the situation that is currently taking place and have also shared their concerns with their family and friends still in Myanmar. Part of our discussion centred on an e-petition that closed just this week. That e-petition was signed by almost 14,000 people and calls for immediate and necessary actions in response to the Myanmar military coup. I support their cause. Myanmar and Australia are longstanding friends. This government has taken, and is taking, action on a number of fronts. We will continue to strongly urge the Myanmar security forces to exercise restraint and refrain from violence against their citizens. We have also called for the immediate release of Professor Sean Turnell, along with State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi and President Win Myint and many others who have been arbitrarily detained since 1 February. The Burmese community holds a special and much-loved place in the Cowper electorate. I will continue to raise their concerns in this chamber, but I will leave you with a final word from Sunny, who I spoke to last Wednesday: 'Australia is such a wonderful country, among other privileged countries. I always say nowhere is perfect. At least Australia treats us the best.' JobKeeper Payment 43 13:39 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner The Morrison government's thrown a shroud of secrecy over the JobKeeper program, but a new report finds that half of the public companies that got JobKeeper saw their earnings go up, not down. One-fifth of the JobKeeper dollars went to firms that were more profitable than before the pandemic. This is waste on a colossal scale. The report suggests that $10 billion to $20 billion in JobKeeper payments may have gone to firms with rising profits—firms that never needed it, firms that gave it to billionaire shareholders and millionaire CEOs. The sudden cut-off of JobKeeper at the end of March could cost a quarter of a million jobs. The Morrison government say that Australia can't afford to keep it going. But if they hadn't put JobKeeper into the pockets of billionaires, like Solomon Lew and Gerry Harvey, Australia could keep the program going. Racehorse and yacht sales might go down, but that $10 billion to $20 billion in wasted JobKeeper payments would sustain the program for another six months. The Liberals like to talk about small government, but they've presided over the biggest blowout in corporate welfare in Australia's history. We're talking about hundreds of dollars for every single person in Australia. This is money raised from the taxes of hardworking Australians. Never before has so much been given by so many to so few. Tobacco Regulation 43 13:41 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls I rise this afternoon to talk about the rise of the illegal tobacco trade in Australia. My electorate of Nicholls is one of the worst affected by the sale, the production and, more importantly, the growth of illegal tobacco products. Recently we had a raid that seized $630,000. We had a raid that wiped out 35 acres of illegal tobacco—plants worth $20 million. We know the sites of 20 illegal retailers of these tobacco products. Recently there was a task force involving Victoria Police, Australian Border Force and the ATO which conducted a whole series of raids. I congratulate them for doing that. When you look at this issue, it's the state police that are best placed to have the capability to make a real dent in the illegal tobacco trade. This is a $3.4 billion loss in excise tariffs to the Australian people—to our workforce, to the taxpayers. We lose $3.4 billion every year because the illegal tobacco trade is as easy and as rife as it is. The slap on the wrist that these people get is disgraceful. I'm calling for a national summit, where we can get the states around the table, they can harmonise their laws, and they can make sure that the task force is put in place and that illegal tobacco is stopped once and for all. Insurance 43 13:42 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy The Townsville Chamber of Commerce has put out a document showing that we pay over $4,000 a year for insurance on our houses, whilst the rest of Australia pays $1,500. This would be justified if our insurance companies did not have an actuarial policy of looking backwards instead of forwards. All of the houses that could be destroyed have been destroyed, by a series of cyclones—which we have all the time—but the cyclones are not taking out the post-Tracy houses. All the houses that could go have gone. All the houses that are there have withstood Cyclone Larry, which had the highest wind speeds of any recorded cyclone in Australian history. It snapped telegraph poles in three. Twenty-five per cent of houses in North Queensland now aren't insured. People can't afford to insure their houses. Allianz has come forward and said, 'We will provide you with the same price as the rest of Australia, so long as we get reinsurance off the federal government.' I plead with the federal government to look at reinsurance. You've had seven years in which to look at this, and you've had report after report and inquiry after inquiry—seven years and still nothing. Do it now. Korman, Ms Rose 44 13:44 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt The pitter-patter of little feet in the Sauve-De Rose household will not be coming only from the pug called Chuck for much longer. I was recently overjoyed to learn that my long-serving electorate officer Rose and her husband, Rick, are soon to welcome their first child into the world—and it's a girl. Over the years, I have watched Rose grow into a confident, talented and impressive young woman and one that backs her own ability. I also had the absolute pleasure of being invited to their engagement party with my beautiful wife, Yolonde, shortly after Rick got down one knee and popped the question at Mission Beach. I also felt very privileged to be one of only a few select people that were invited to their wedding at Trinity Beach a short while later. In my office, my staff and their loved ones are like family. We're always there for each other. We share the highs and we certainly also support each other during the lows, whether that's inside or outside working hours. Both Rose and Rick will make excellent parents, and I sincerely look forward to seeing little 'Warren-ette' grow up to be an amazing young woman like her mother—but somehow I don't think Rick will let Rosie call their firstborn after me! But who knows? Stranger things have actually happened. Harmony Day 44 13:45 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin This is Harmony Week and Sunday is Harmony Day and the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. We recognise that multiculturalism is one of Australia's greatest achievements, with people from more than 200 countries speaking more than 260 languages. Australia's diversity is our greatest strength. No matter who you are, where you were born or the language you first spoke, everyone belongs in Australia. The richness and diversity of languages and cultures in Australia must be recognised and celebrated, not taken for granted. We can't afford to be complacent. At a time of rising racism, we must recommit to being a place where everyone feels that they belong and where no-one is left behind, so I welcome the Race Discrimination Commissioner's recently proposed antiracism framework. Labor has been calling for a national antiracism strategy for over a year because it's not enough for a government to simply condemn racism. This requires a strategy to tackle racism through leadership and with financial support. Words must be supported by action. So, as we celebrate Harmony Day, let us renew and strengthen our commitment to our multiculturalism, to ending racism and to promoting respect and inclusiveness for all. Water Safety 44 13:46 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar Nearly everyone on the Northern Beaches can tell you a story about how a surf lifesaver has helped them or someone they know. We have a special connection with the surf lifesaving movement, and some of the oldest clubs in Australia reside in my electorate. Generations of Northern Beaches residents have chosen to put their life on the line in the service of their community. We could not be prouder of, or more thankful to, these volunteers even as COVID-19 put further strain on our already stretched resources. The Prime Minister recently came to Collaroy to announce additional funding for our volunteers. This support is earmarked especially for training and equipment to help those on the front line of water safety. As Australians are choosing to travel domestically due to international border closures, we will be relying on our surf lifesavers more than usual. We have seen this played out with more water safety incidents this year than at the same time last year. This points to the desperate need to empower our local volunteers and honour their commitments by ensuring they have the tools to keep our community safe. If you want to see the modern embodiment of Australian values of mateship and community service, look no further than Surf Life Saving Australia. I'm always impressed by their professionalism, and we will give any support we can to empower our local heroes. On behalf of the residents of Northern Beaches, I'd like thank our surf lifesavers and commend their selflessness, which is the backbone of our community. Housing Affordability 44 13:48 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Lots of people are struggling to pay the rent. If you're one of those people, you might be surprised to learn that last year governments right across the country set up rent relief funds to help people who were struggling because they'd lost their job because of COVID. But you probably don't know about these funds because most of the money in them has never been given to the people who need them. The worst case is New South Wales. Almost 12 months ago, the New South Wales Liberal government made a big song and dance about a rent relief fund worth $220 million to help people struggling to pay the rent because of COVID. They called it a rental rescue package. Guess how much of this rescue package has actually gone out to help people struggling to pay the rent? Only 4.6 per cent of it. It's unbelievable! It's just a con. They made a big announcement and then did nothing. It is just like this government here in Canberra, this Prime Minister, this government. It was straight out of the same playbook. To make it even worse, the New South Wales government is now planning to fold this scheme up at the end of next week and pocket the remaining money, just as JobKeeper ends and as more people are expected to need help and more people are expected to lose their jobs. It's as if there were people struggling in the surf and lifesavers on the beach were packing up and going home. It's just wrong. The New South Wales government needs to fix this, not fold it up. Endometriosis 45 13:50 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby The month of March is Endometriosis Awareness Month, and today I want to give a shout-out to the incredible groups who do so much to support women with endo, which until recently was a much-neglected women's health issue. I will always be immensely grateful to the former member for Canberra Gai Brodtmann for starting the Parliamentary Friends of Endometriosis Awareness with me way back in 2017, and to the member for Bendigo, Lisa Chesters, who's currently on maternity leave, for taking up the fight when Gai retired. We wish Lisa all the very best. Ladies, we have been so powerful working together. I'm also very grateful to the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, for being the first health minister to take this issue seriously. Endometriosis is a serious condition. It causes cells like the lining of the uterus to grow throughout a woman's pelvis. It causes very serious period pain, which, it's important to understand, means pain that requires more than paracetamol, Nurofen or Naprogesic to get rid of. It causes heavy periods, flooding, clotting, obvious and uncomfortable bloating and bowel issues, bladder pain, pain with intercourse, and infertility. I say to any women out there affected by any of these issues: please get help. RANZCOG has a great new tool called the RATE. Check it out. Self-diagnose. Go to your GP. I want to specifically mention the following amazing groups: EndoActive, Endometriosis Australia, QENDO, the Pelvic Pain Foundation, Endo Perth Sisters and Endometriosis WA. Ladies, these groups provide the most amazing support. There are people out there to help you. Get the help that you need. Women's Safety 45 13:51 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie You can't fix what you don't talk about, so I'll talk about what my team, my family and I deal with. There are the Facebook comments, daily and derogatory, about personal attributes, not policy. I know I'm not alone, which is why I offered a social media self-defence for women online workshop just last week with the eSafety Commission. Of course, there's more. There have been the obscenely defaced campaign posters in every one of my four election campaigns and the attacks on my office windows. There are also the threats of violence and death—sometimes direct, sometimes veiled—targeted at me, my family or my staff. They can come via Facebook or Twitter, via email or in an anonymous letter. Occasionally, the threat's in person. No-one should face this—not in any work environment. I want to thank the Australian Federal Police and the New South Wales police, especially my local Hawkesbury Police Area Command, who respond so fast to my staff's calls of distress, and Springwood police and the New South Wales Fixated Persons Investigations Unit for their role in two recent court cases aimed at protecting my safety and the safety of some of my local colleagues. They have done an amazing job over a long period of time. These things shouldn't happen—not to me, not to my staff, not to my family and not to anyone. Newcastle Airport 45 13:53 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne Infrastructure Australia has this week launched its list of priority projects across the country, and I was absolutely delighted that the Newcastle Airport capacity expansion has now made its way onto this important planning document. As many in this House are aware, I have been a strong advocate of further investment in this nation-building project. As the report highlights, the runway at Newcastle Airport not only serves passenger and freight aircraft but primarily supports Royal Australian Air Force operations, including the new F-35A fighter jets. The terminal and runway, however, can't currently accommodate regular long-range code E aircraft. Using those code E aircraft would allow the airport to expand flight range beyond Oceania to Singapore, the Middle East and the Americas. The current limitations of the terminal and, most importantly, the runway impact inbound and outbound flights and restrict the airport to domestic destinations and destinations in Oceania. Therefore, many passengers and a lot of freight have to go through Sydney or Brisbane for international travel. Infrastructure Australia's report records that more than 1.27 million passengers used the airport in 2019, and this will grow to 2.6 million by 2036. Upgrading Newcastle Airport's runway will not only enable deep-cycle maintenance for Defence aircraft but mean extra passengers and freight for the whole of northern New South Wales. (Time expired) Women in Parliament 46 13:55 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan All women deserve to feel safe in public, in workplaces, in their homes. Criminal or abhorrent behaviour and comments directed at women is a serious issue that needs urgent action, and members of parliament are not immune. I shall refrain from using some of the more disgusting language as I read out some of the comments I have received. One user wrote: 'I can't wait till Fraser Anning is our new Fuhrer and you will be sent to the ovens. One day soon we will be at your doorstep. We will take you and your family away to be loaded on a carriage. I can't wait for the Final Solution—train carriages packed full of Muslims heading to the ovens. It will be truly wonderful.' Another wrote, 'Aly, go back to where you came from, you spawn of the devil.' Another called me a 'terrorist supporter' and stated, 'I'm predicting that you will be shot dead at your local shopping centre carpark in the near future. Ha, ha.' Another wrote, 'Get f-"unmentionable word" ya autistic c-"unmentionable word". I'd be ashamed if my daughter was with a brown import popping out mud sharks. Crawl back in your hole, and f-"unmentionable word" off.' I have somebody who regularly writes to me addressing his letters to the 'ISIS whore', sending me vile racist material directed at Labor female MPs. Enough is enough. (Time expired) COVID-19: Travel Industry 46 13:56 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling When coronavirus hit, the Morrison government got straight on the front foot, declaring it a pandemic two weeks before the World Health Organization and closing our international border. That necessary action of shutting the international border to limit exposure to the virus has come with challenges and consequences for many families and businesses. I've been speaking with Melinda and Justin from Sports Travel Managers in my electorate of Stirling, and they tell me that confidence in the market is the No. 1 thing. 'We need that,' they say, 'even more than any direct moneys.' In the absence of an international travel market for now, we need robust domestic travel arrangements, and Australians are starting to realise that they can now book travel whilst considering contingencies. So I welcome the coalition government's announcement of a $1.2 billion support package for the aviation and tourism industries. This includes assistance measures for some airlines, airports and their staff, as well as small businesses with the expansion and extension of the SME loan guarantee scheme. A key component of this package is our demand driven program for 800,000 half-price airfares to regions most impacted by the loss of international travel, including Broome in my home state of WA. It's the job of government to create the conditions in which its people can flourish, and that's exactly what the Morrison government is doing through not only this package but through our entire national economic recovery plan. Women in Parliament 46 13:58 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper Three years ago, almost to the day, I won a hard fought by-election, my first election. The battle brought out some undesirable tactics from supporters—I admit, on both sides. A number of rallies were held during that election. Placards with my face, in fact, corflutes of mine that were stolen for the very purpose, were defaced and painted over. Markings were drawn across my face making me look like a pig and a witch. Horrible slogans were plastered on them. These were carried through the streets, and chants about me were called. Words calling me 'baby killer' were sprawled across my electoral office. One poster attached to a pole outside the front door said, 'Open season on politicians,' with a picture implying that I was fair game to be shot. This issue is an incredibly important conversation. It is one of unquestioned solidarity from me and my Labor sisters to all women across the political divide. In fact, all women in all workplaces deserve to be safe. Nurses should not be abused. Shop assistants deserve respect. Hospitality workers should not be groped. So many of us have experienced the sexualised comments, the insults, the obsession with our bodies and our private lives, and expectation of sexual favours. The collective feminist tradition of the Labor Party gives women in it the strength to push through this nonsense. We need to fight alongside each other against women-hating everywhere. If this is happening to one, it is happening to us all. The SPEAKER 10000 With only a few seconds till two o'clock, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 46 CONDOLENCES Hurford, Hon. Christopher John, AO 46 Report from Federation Chamber 46 14:00 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the Prime Minister's motion be agreed to. I suggest that members show their support for the motion by now rising in their places. Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the House. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 47 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Workplace Relations 47 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister now admit that his industrial relations changes failed to meet the basic test of providing secure jobs and decent pay? Is this why he had to gut his own bill in the Senate today? 14:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook No. The bill—which we continue to seek to see supported, including the measures that the Leader of the Opposition has just referred to—was going to be voted against by the Labor Party. They were opposing the whole bill. They were opposing introducing tougher penalties to deter underpayment of employees. They told us very clearly that they did not want to support these measures. Now they say they do want to support these measures. You know what that sounds like? That sounds like an each-way bet. That sounds like another each-way bet from the Labor Party. They want to oppose it, then they want to support it and then they want to oppose it. It's a game of tennis. What's his next position? The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, Mr Speaker. 'Each way' is putting up legislation and then moving amendments to gut your own legislation— The SPEAKER 00APG That's not a point of order. Mr Albanese R36 That's what he just did. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister has the call. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, that is an abuse of the standing orders. There is no point of order at all. All that is is a guy that's trying to show off to his union bosses who are in the House. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McEwen! Members on both sides! The Leader of the House! The Leader of the Opposition, I'm directing this your way: whenever anyone rises on a point of order, they need to state the point of order. I won't put up with frivolous points of order. I also won't put up with— An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Let me finish! I also won't put up with people complaining about frivolous points of order by making them themselves. I hope that's clear. I think we should just let the Prime Minister answer the question. The Prime Minister. Mr MORRISON E3L The government sought to bring measures into this parliament that would create more jobs. That's what we sought to do. The Labor Party opposed all the measures, including those they now pretend to support. You can't have an each-way bet on this. That's what this leader of the Labor Party is famous for. We will pursue measures through the parliament, and, on a day when Australians have learnt that there are more jobs now in the Australian economy than there were before the pandemic, we're not going to give up on continuing to create even more jobs, even if the Labor Party is not as passionate about creating jobs as the coalition government is—even though it was this government that saw 1½ million jobs created under the policies that we put in place when we came to government. Those jobs that were lost over the course of the COVID pandemic have now returned. There's more work to do, but we will stand up for jobs each and every day. The Leader of the Labor Party and the Labor Party have demonstrated they're against job creation by opposing policies that support job creation. COVID-19: Economy 48 14:05 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please update the House on how the Morrison government's COVID-19 Economic Recovery Plan is strengthening our economy and creating jobs to chart our comeback from the COVID-19 pandemic? 14:05 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Boothby for her question, and I thank her for her courage, which has been on display in this chamber each and every day, and certainly in the most recent days, but none greater than the courage she showed at the last election. When she went to that election and faced that torrent, she did so for many reasons. One of the reasons was that she believes in Australians getting into jobs, like all the members on this side. It is our great mission to continue to do everything we can to put Australians into work. As we came out of that last election, we continued to see jobs created. We'd got to the point where 1½ million jobs in total had been created since we first came to government. We wanted to keep going, but then the global pandemic struck, and it struck hard. Hundreds of thousands of Australians—a million Australians, indeed—were reduced to zero hours. This was a great devastation for our country. But we learnt today, from the February data, that there are now more Australians in work than there were when the pandemic began. That is a comeback. That is a great Australian comeback, and we've done it the Australian way. What that means is: it has been the tenacity and the endurance of Australians, who have stayed in jobs and kept jobs open to Australians and have seen themselves through this terrible pandemic and recession. So, today, the 88,700 jobs created in February will take us back across that line— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will pause. The member for McEwen and the member for Fisher will leave under 94(a) and they can continue their conversation outside the chamber. The members for McEwen and Fisher then left the chamber. Mr MORRISON E3L Of those 88,700 jobs, 74,100 jobs—more than 80 per cent of those jobs coming back—were for women. Women keep getting into jobs, young people keep getting into jobs, Australians keep getting into jobs as a result of the comeback from the COVID-19 recession, because this government stood up for jobs. It stood up for Australians, and it backed in the businesses to keep Australians in jobs. Women's participation has returned to near the pre-COVID record level of 61.4 per cent. We are seeing Australians come back from this crisis. We are seeing Australia lead the world in the return from the COVID pandemic and the recession it caused. There is more work to do, and there are many parts of this country which still feel, and will for some time yet, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. That is why we put measures in last year's budget like the tax incentives for Australian businesses to invest, the continued support for key sectors affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and the tax cuts that are supporting individual Australians. I can tell you, in response to what's been said by those opposite, that tax cuts for people in jobs matter, and there are more people in jobs today than before. COVID-19: Vaccination 48 14:08 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to numerous reports today of Australians eligible for COVID vaccinations who are unable to book online, are unable to get through to their GP clinic or are turned away when they do. Gawler Medical Clinic Practice Manager Kate says: 'Our hands are tied. Our clinic and others are thinking about pulling out of the program altogether because of the stress it's putting on our staff.' Why did the Prime Minister focus on the announcement of his booking system but fail on the delivery? 14:09 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I'm delighted to inform the House that in fact we have now passed 22½ thousand vaccinations—yesterday, in one day. We saw a 10 per cent increase in vaccinations in that one day. In addition, with regard to the launch of phase 1b, I'm also particularly pleased to be able to say that yesterday there were 381,000 people who visited the vaccine eligibility checker, that we've had thousands of bookings around the country and that we are on track for over a thousand general practices to begin next week. As part of that, there will be approximately 250,000 vaccines made available for the general public, 150,000 for the states and then 100,000 for a combination of aged-care and other frontline and emergency service workers. In particular, it's important that there was a 98 per cent rate for people being able to get through, on their first attempt, to the vaccine information and location service, and almost all of those who sought to do so were able to do so on a second attempt. So 381,000 people were able to successfully connect yesterday. Importantly, today we've added over 100 Commonwealth vaccination clinics. These are what are called general practice respiratory clinics. They've been doing the testing for the nation and, as of next week, they will also be doing the vaccination for the nation. Bookings for those open tomorrow. Bookings for general practices are, on the basis of the individual practice, already occurring or will be occurring in the coming days. As we've done throughout the pandemic, we've laid out the plan and made sure that it's available. We've done this in relation to testing, to PPE, to ventilators—always planning and always preparing. What we've seen so far is a very heartening first-day surge of people who are interested—381,000. I think that that is immensely heartening. I want to thank our GPs. They have been the heroes of the nation over the last year, along with our nurses, our pathologists, our aged-care workers and our other health workers. So the simple answer is not only are we prepared; in terms of the doses to be delivered to those general practices, the advice I have is that, by the end of today, 870-plus of those practices will have received them and, tomorrow, over another 300 will have received them. The goal was to ensure that, by the end of Saturday, all of the practices have received them. We may well achieve that tomorrow. So, in terms of the rollout of those materials, we're ahead of schedule, on track and on plan for saving lives and protecting lives. COVID-19: Regional Australia 49 14:12 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls 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 is supporting jobs in rural and regional Australia as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic? Mr Husic interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Chifley will cease interjecting. Mr McCormack 219646 He's a big fan! The SPEAKER 00APG I haven't called you yet! The Deputy Prime Minister has the call. 14:12 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina And, talking of fans, we of course have got the 'FANS'—for our aviation network support program! Honourable members interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 You want it, don't you! Okay. We've got the regional airline network support. We've got RANS. We've got the domestic aviation network support. We've got DANS. So we've got DANS, we've got RANS; we've got the tourism aviation network support, so we've got TANS. And we've got fans—the member for Chifley, and so many others who are getting onto those cheap airline tickets! And of course we want to get people to Cairns, and other destinations as well. In the member's electorate, we've got SAM—that is, the Shepparton Art Museum. An opposition member interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I thought you were about to do a point of order on how good our measures are that we're rolling out right across the nation! Of course, we've got roadworks and we've got investment in fruit-packing sheds. Importantly, 16,751 employees in the member for Nicholls's electorate are no longer relying on JobKeeper. They've graduated from that important program. They're getting on with the job of building a better Victoria. They're getting on with the job of building a better Australia and a better life for themselves. They needed that support, of course; they've had it and they're now moving on. But our $110 billion investment right across the nation is supporting 100,000 jobs—100,000 workers—and that is so important. The Move to More campaign that is being put up by the Regional Australia Institute has been doing good work since 2012, and they've got a campaign to get city dwellers out into the regions. The RAI, headed up by Liz Ritchie, has identified 54,000 jobs in regional Australia right now. They're good, well-paying jobs, and not just in agriculture and resources and those sectors that are so important and vibrant in regional Australia, but, indeed, in law firms, accountancy practices, health and hospitality—so many areas of endeavour in regional Australia that are crying out for people to come to those regions and take those jobs and to have a better lifestyle, have a family home where they can live like a king or a queen, have a big backyard, have a swimming pool, have a three-car lock-up garage. There are opportunities in regional Australia now like never before. There are jobs. And, importantly, those areas have been largely COVID-free, because of the great work that regional Australians have done. They've listened to the best possible medical advice, they've followed the best possible medical advice and they've kept their communities largely COVID-free. We're getting on with the job of rolling out that infrastructure package, and I'm proud of the fact that a third of that infrastructure package is going to regional areas, because regional areas are keeping this country great, have always done, will always do. Members of Parliament: Staff 50 14:15 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat My question is to the Prime Minister. Given it has been 72 hours since Brittany Higgins told the women's March 4 Justice the Prime Minister's office had sought to undermine her loved ones, I ask, for the fourth time: has the Prime Minister asked his staff if this is true? If not, why not? 14:16 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I have nothing further to add to the answer I provided yesterday and I refer the member to the answer. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Sydney, the member for Clark is waiting patiently. Homelessness 50 14:16 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, in October last year the government committed to renewing the Equal Remuneration Order supplement for federally funded community services, yet homelessness services—which include domestic and family violence crisis accommodation—were excluded, and, nationally, are about to lose over $56 million in funding. This is the equivalent of over 500 frontline workers, the majority of whom are women. Prime Minister, this is obviously an absurd decision—not least because homelessness services are already turning away thousands of people, many of whom are, again, women and children fleeing domestic and family violence. Prime Minister, will the government protect vulnerable women and children and commit to including the homelessness services in the ERO deal? 14:17 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'll ask the minister for homelessness, housing and other matters to add to my answer. The member will probably be aware of the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement—and this goes back to a time, actually, when I was the Minister for Social Services. For many, many years—it's an initiative that began under the member for Sydney, which established a National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness—this was an agreement which was done on an annual basis. It wasn't permanent funding; it was just one-year-only funding that got rolled over one year after one year. As minister, I made that a permanent arrangement, and that meant that the many thousands of organisations across the country that are involved in supporting homelessness in this country have been given funding on an ongoing and permanent basis. This is principally the responsibility of state governments, but, through the national partnership agreement, we have continued to provide federal support on a permanent basis—and that includes to many of the areas, including the ones that you've identified in your question. I'll ask the minister to add further to my answer but simply note that the Commonwealth continues to provide $1.6 billion a year through that agreement to states and territories to support the provision of housing and homelessness services. That support is provided to the states so the states can do their job of supporting people who find themselves in these positions of homelessness. We provide support to that arrangement, but state governments are, principally, responsible for that, and we encourage them, through our significant funding support for them, to do that job. 14:19 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I thank the member for Clark for his question and for his long-term interest in these matters. In addition to what the Prime Minister has just said, yes, we made the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement more certain for all of the states and territories. What the Prime Minister also concluded when he renegotiated the agreement was indexation of the agreement. So not only is there more certainty with the funding, it has now been indexed. Indeed, the funding that you're referring to, which represents about three per cent of that agreement, resulted from a temporary measure that was put in place as a result of a Fair Work Australia equal remuneration order as a transitional arrangement many years ago. What the government has done instead is provide an additional $132.6 million over three years to increase base funding for DSS grant programs impacted by this cessation of those SACS supplement payments. This new ongoing funding— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. The member for Clark on a point of order. Mr Wilkie C2T On relevance, Speaker. The question goes specifically to the supplement which has been cut to those services. The SPEAKER 00APG The minister has the call. Mr SUKKAR 242515 The funding has not been cut. The funding is part of this agreement. The funding ceases. We've put in place $132 million— (Time expired) Economy 51 14:20 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt My question is to our Treasurer. Will the Treasurer remind the House how the Morrison government's strong leadership on the economy and its unprecedented levels of economic support are delivering on our commitment to create more and more jobs for Australians? And, more importantly, is the Treasurer aware of any threats to further job creation in our economy? 14:21 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question and note that he is a fierce and formidable advocate for the people of North Queensland. I thank him for his continued service to the people of Leichhardt. The Australian economy is recovering from the most significant economic shock since the Great Depression. Today we had confirmation of the strength and resilience of the Australian economy, with the unemployment rate falling to 5.8 per cent, with 88,700 new jobs created, with the participation rate being kept at around a record high and with employment levels getting back to their pre-pandemic levels. What was particularly pleasing about today's jobs numbers was that all of those 88,700 new jobs were full-time jobs, more than 80 per cent of those jobs went to women and more than 40 per cent of those jobs went to young people. So this was all about creating more jobs, creating more jobs across every sector and every region across the economy. The reason why the economy is bouncing back so strongly is the commitment of 25 million-plus Australians, with the strong support of the Morrison government, including $251 billion in direct financial support: JobKeeper, JobSeeker, the cash flow boost, the $750 cash payments. They've all helped the Australian economy to rebound. I'm asked whether there are any threats to our economic recovery. We know that we on this side of the House stand for lower taxes because we want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. But those on the other side of the House stand for higher taxes— Dr Chalmers interjecting— Mr FRYDENBERG FKL The member for Rankin, well, he stands for higher taxes because he was the co-architect, with the member for McMahon, of higher taxes on superannuation, higher taxes on income, higher education taxes on retirees, higher taxes on housing and higher taxes on small business. Just the other week, the Leader of the Opposition was given an opportunity to support the legislated stage 3 tax cuts, and do you know what he said? He refused to commit to it. He said, 'We'll have to wait and see.' A diesel mechanic earning $90,000 a year will be $1,100 worse off if the Leader of the Opposition doesn't support the legislated stage 3 tax cuts. The reality is that we on this side of the House stand for lower taxes and more jobs, and that's what we've delivered. Members of Parliament: Staff 51 14:24 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat My question is again to the Prime Minister. On Monday, Brittany Higgins stood at the front of this parliament and said: I watched as the Prime Minister of Australia publicly apologised to me through the media, while privately his media team actively undermined and discredited my loved ones. How can the Prime Minister hear a serious allegation from Brittany Higgins about appalling actions by his own staff and refuse to even check if it is true? 14:24 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I've already addressed this matter. I refer the member to my earlier answers. Economy 51 14:25 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer remind the House of how the Morrison government's strong stewardship of our economy is delivering on our commitment to generate more full-time jobs for all Australians? Is the Treasurer aware of any credible alternative policies? 14:25 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I acknowledge the experience of the member for Berowra in local government, in higher education and as a fierce advocate for mental health and Indigenous issues. I note that he is a real person of integrity. We on this side of the House are witnessing an economic recovery that is occurring twice as fast as, and six months earlier than, was initially expected. Australia has been able to maintain its AAA credit rating. We've seen business and consumer confidence reaching pre-pandemic levels. We saw growth in the December quarter of 3.1 per cent—the first time since records began, back in 1959, of two consecutive quarters of economic growth of more than three per cent. We've seen more than 2.7 million Australians graduate off JobKeeper, including more than 20,000 in the electorate of Berowra. Today, we've got another proof point about how the Australian economy is recovering and bouncing back strongly, with the unemployment rate falling to 5.8 per cent and 88,700 new jobs being created. Sixty-nine thousand new full-time jobs were created for women and, of the 360,000 full-time jobs created since May, more than 60 per cent have gone to women. Female full-time employment is now 1.8 per cent higher than pre the pandemic. Even with these job numbers, the former economic adviser to Julia Gillard Stephen Koukoulas couldn't hide his delight, saying: 'Some pretty good labour force numbers, whichever way you cut it. This recovery has been remarkably good.' I'm asked about alternatives. The member for Rankin is the most sombre person in this place today, because, at every opportunity, Labor has been talking down the Australian economy. We know that they want to hit the Australian economy— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Treasurer is not able to go down the path he's going down in this answer, because he was asked whether there were any credible alternative policies. So, unless he's going to address that, he needs to confine himself. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Mr Speaker, there are certainly no credible alternative policies from that side of the House. But what we do know is that our record, unprecedented commitment of direct financial support—the equivalent of around 13 per cent of GDP, $251 billion—is helping to get Australians back into work much earlier than was initially expected both by Treasury and by the Reserve Bank of Australia. Our job is to create more jobs, and that is what we are doing for Australians. Members of Parliament: Staff 52 14:29 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Have the Prime Minister's chief of staff and principal private secretary been interviewed by his former chief of staff, Mr Gaetjens, about their knowledge of the reported sexual assault of Brittany Higgins? 14:29 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question. Those inquiries are being made by the secretary of my department, the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Those matters are matters for the secretary. I don't involve myself in the investigations or inquiries that the secretary is making independently of me or my office. Those are matters for him. In fact, if I were involved in that process, that would be highly inappropriate. But I note the way that the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is referred to in this place, as if there is no secretary of a department who has never worked on any other side of politics. I invite the Leader of the Opposition and the members opposite to accord our department secretaries the respect to which they're entitled. COVID-19 52 14:30 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister please update the House on the status of the COVID-19 pandemic globally and how Australia's response is helping to save and protect lives? 14:30 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Chisholm for her support for the Australian people, and particularly for the mental health of young people, throughout the course of the pandemic. One thing that really strikes all Australians is the extraordinary results here, when we look around the world. We see around the world, sadly, 121 million cases. We see, in particular, over 480,000 cases in the last 24 hours. Whilst the world had been making progress for many weeks, there has been an increase in recent days and over the last two weeks, in terms of global daily cases. That's a matter for deep concern, as we discussed yesterday with regard to Papua New Guinea. At the same time, we've seen almost 2.7 million lives lost—over 9,200 lives lost in one day across the globe to COVID-19. In Australia, by comparison, when we compare, when we contrast, when we look at where we're at, we've had zero cases of community transmission in the last 24 hours. This is the 46th day this year of zero cases of community transmission. Thankfully, we are now again at zero Australians in intensive care. There was one, but that person has, thankfully, been able to leave ICU. And zero lives have been lost in Australia to COVID-19 for the entire 2021 year to date. That's an extraordinary, an inconceivable, an almost unimaginable result for this country. We thank all of our doctors and our nurses. We thank everybody involved—all Australians. Those twin strategies of containment and capacity have put Australia in this position, which I think we can safely say, when we look at the economic results and the health results, truly do make us the envy of the world. We see that closing the borders, as difficult as that was, has helped save lives and protect lives; testing is at over 15 million tests; tracing has been fundamentally important; there is the work being done with regard specifically to our distancing; and then there is the build-out of our capacity, including the rollout, which has now seen more than 220,000 vaccines, growing to over 240,000 vaccines today, which is providing that confidence. Very significantly, one thing happened on the weekend. There were two cases, there were two states and no borders were closed: two cases, two states, no borders closed. That confidence in Australia is growing every single day. We've shown we've done it once. We'll continue to do it, and we'll continue to save lives and protect lives. Members of Parliament: Staff 53 14:33 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Thirty days ago, the Prime Minister told this House that he asked his former chief of staff, one of the few people he's ever shown empathy for, to verify what his office knew about the reported sexual assault of Brittany Higgins only metres from where he works. Mr Gaetjens reported his findings on the Prime Minister's sports rorts within two weeks. Why is this report, about the Prime Minister's staff, taking so long, and will the Prime Minister release this report when it is received? The SPEAKER 00APG Just before I call the Prime Minister, I'm just going to say to the Leader of the Opposition, if it hadn't been he as Leader of the Opposition asking the question, I would have simply moved to the next question. Whilst questions can have preambles, that character inclusion really is inappropriate. And we're not going to have questions where there's a commentary about the person being asked the question. So I'm going to ask the Leader of the Opposition to rephrase his question. Mr ALBANESE R36 My question is to the Prime Minister. Thirty days ago, the Prime Minister told this House that he had asked his former chief of staff to verify what his office knew about the reported sexual assault of Brittany Higgins only metres from where he works. Mr Gaetjens reported his findings on the Prime Minister's sports rorts within two weeks. Why is this report about the Prime Minister's staff taking so long? Will the Prime Minister release this report when it is received? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, clearly the first part of that question is out of order, because it is not within the Prime Minister's responsibility to comment on behalf of the head of his department. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Mr Dutton 00AKI The head of his department has a process underway, and the Prime Minister— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will pause. Members on my left will cease interjecting—the members for Perth, Franklin and others. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 00APG No, just pause for a second. As I've said, interjections are disorderly at all times. But, when you're expecting the chair to listen to the point of order and rule on the question, I'm inclined to say to those on my left, if you create a wall of noise when I'm trying to rule on it, I'll just go to the next question. Really, it's the most counterproductive thing you could do. The Leader of the House will be heard. He will be heard now in silence, just as the Manager of Opposition Business is. The Leader of the House, if you could start again. Mr Dutton 00AKI Under standing order 98, the Prime Minister does not have responsibility for answering a question that is outside of his responsibility. The fact is that the departmental secretary has a process underway, and the question goes to the timing of that reporting. That is not possible for the Prime Minister to answer. It is a question for the secretary of the department, perhaps in estimates, but not in question time to the Prime Minister. That part of the question should be ruled out of order. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Sydney, I'm trying to listen to the Manager of Opposition Business. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call. Mr Burke DYW It's hard to know where to start. But on the point of order— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Just while we're trying to deal with this, the member for Goldstein is lurking, ready to ask a question. It's not going to happen straightaway. If you want to stretch your legs, do it outside. Otherwise, take your seat, please. You won't be asking it, if you keep doing that. The Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW I'll go directly to the standing order that the Leader of the House referred to. He referred to standing order 98, where the limitations on what you can be asked are found in subsection (c), where there's a list of three things: public affairs, administration and proceedings. Proceedings in the House is the first part of the question, because it references what the Prime Minister previously told the House. In terms of public affairs, I think it would be hard to argue that the government response to the reported sexual assault of Brittany Higgins has not become part of public affairs. In terms of administration, if there is any part of the administration of government that the Prime Minister should have a level of responsibility for, it is the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. We have previously had questions about all parts of the bureaucracy. If a question about the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is out of order, then there's actually not much you're allowed to ask about. The SPEAKER 00APG I'll just rule on this now so that we can move on, having heard both points of order. I appreciate the point the Leader of the House is endeavouring to make, but there is a long history of allowing these questions, even where, I have to say, in fairness, they might be difficult or impossible to answer. They can be asked, but, if they're unanswerable at this point, that's something that will become clear in the answer. And certainly the one thing we all agree on is that the last part of the question is clearly in order, because that's directly within the Prime Minister's purview. So I call the Prime Minister. 14:39 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook As I've indicated to the House before and I'll indicate again today, this work is being done by the secretary of my department. It's being done at arm's length from me. I have no involvement in that process, and nor should I. That would be inappropriate. The secretary should conduct his inquiries as he sees fit and without any interference or any involvement from me as Prime Minister. That would be highly inappropriate. He has not provided me with a further update about when I might expect that report, but I have no doubt the opposition will be able to ask questions of him in Senate estimates next week, which is the appropriate place where those matters can be raised with the secretary of my department. Yet again we see the rather personal, sledging way the Leader of the Opposition is asking this question. He wishes to get into this, whether it's me or, indeed, by trying to undermine the credibility of the secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. He's undertaken personal attacks, which is his form. On our side of the House, we will take a different approach. We will appoint people as secretaries of departments because of their credibility for those jobs, whether it's Secretary Pezzullo or former Secretary Moraitis, who once sat opposite each other in opposition in Kim Beazley's office. They are fine public servants and fine secretaries. Secretary Kennedy worked for the last Labor government and is a fine public servant doing a fine job. We will put people in those jobs because they have the credibility and the experience and the professional expertise to do those jobs. In the last 12 months, our public servants have done an extraordinary job in supporting our government, whether it's been through Border Force and the work done by Secretary Pezzullo, or through Secretary Kennedy and the amazing job Treasury has done to support the Treasurer and me in putting in place JobKeeper, or, indeed, through Secretary Gaetjens, who has led our Public Service through one of the most impressive times in their performance in the Commonwealth's history. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to get himself into a character assessment— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, Mr Speaker, on relevance. This question goes to his job and the job that his office is doing. The SPEAKER 00APG I'll just ask the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat. There are a number of elements to the question. I've allowed the Prime Minister to go down the track he's gone down for very good reason—because the question did have an inference in it, which itself could have been ruled out of order on a strict reading of the standing orders, about the secretary of his department. Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG It did, when it asked why the sports rorts inquiry took two weeks and why this is taking so long. If he's doing the inquiry, well, that is an inference. I'm allowing the— Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG And he's responding to it. I mean, I didn't write the question. He's responding to it. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L If the Leader of the Opposition wants to get into a character assessment contest with the secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, he won't come up very well on that one. He's saying he wants to be in a character assessment test with me. I'm happy to accept that challenge. I'm happy to have my character as an individual in this place and my personal conduct matched against this Leader of the Opposition's any day of the week. National Security 55 14:43 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government is working to combat foreign interference and espionage? What is being done to protect our nation and our sovereignty as a nation? 14:44 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. I really recognise the work that he does in protecting our country through his membership of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and I recognise the work of members on both sides of the aisle who are on the intelligence committee, who really do a great job. There is nothing more important to our country than our sovereignty and protecting our values and standing up for our beliefs. When you look at what the Australian Federal Police and the Victorian police have been able to do over the last 24 hours in disrupting what was potentially a catastrophic event, that is a great credit to them. It's not the first time in recent history that the AFP have been able to disrupt an alleged terrorist plot. We are still under threat. We've of course gone through a very unusual period, and we're still in it, in relation to the virus, but that doesn't mean that terrorists have gone away. It doesn't mean that the threat is not present. It doesn't mean that because people aren't travelling overseas or people aren't coming here there is not a threat in our country. People are being radicalised online. People are spending more time online, in particular young individuals, impressionable young minds. And we are very concerned about that threat. So when ASIO steps up and protects our country and our sovereignty and our values in relation to these matters of terrorism, we give them a great deal of credit. There's another side of ASIO's work and that is to make sure that they can counter the foreign interference that is present in this country. It has been for decades and will be whilst ever there are people that want to gather intelligence—understand what we're doing in relation to protecting and defending our country—national security secrets, and all of that which goes into protecting our assets, both here and internationally—our people, the efforts of the Defence Force et cetera. The director-general, in a speech last night, has obviously provided some detail to the public about concerns that he's had for a long period of time and action that has been taken. I'm proud to say that we have invested more money into ASIO over the course of the last 12 months and indeed over the period of this government than any time in its seven-decade history. ASIO has a 70-year history in this country. We should all be incredibly proud of the work that they do, much of which is not publicly disclosed, but of course, over the course of the last day, we have been able to recognise the work of those members of the Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce. The task force has already investigated over 30 cases, and the approaches and the actions that are alleged in relation to some of the individuals that have been identified by that task force remain incredibly concerning. The threat is still ever-present, and this government will do whatever it takes to keep Australians safe. Attorney-General 55 14:47 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister confirmed he had sought the advice of the Solicitor-General about the Attorney-General's portfolio responsibilities. Why is it that the Prime Minister doesn't ask the Solicitor-General about an independent investigation into the allegations of serious sexual assault but does ask the Solicitor-General about how the Attorney-General can keep his job? 14:47 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook They are two separate matters. The second matter relates to the conduct of business by the Attorney-General when he returns to his duties at the end of this month. Given the fact that he's bringing forward a defamation action against the ABC, which is also a government agency, it is important to understand where possible conflicts may arise, and so we have sought legal advice to that end. On the other matter, it is not in contemplation for the government to enter into such an extrajudicial inquiry, and nor have I received advice from my department that that is something I would need to seek advice on from the Solicitor-General. They are two separate issues. We believe in the rule of law in this country, and that's how we're dealing with that matter. I've already, during the course of this week, indicated that if that had been our practice, that wouldn't be the first extrajudicial inquiry we would have been involved in. We would have done one on a Labor member long before this. But we didn't think that was the right response on that occasion either. Women in the Workforce 56 14:49 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. Will the minister please update the House on the Morrison government's commitment to empowering women in the workforce and boosting female workforce participation? 14:49 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer It's a pleasure to take a question from the member for Reid, the first woman to represent the seat and one who owned and ran her own small business for 13 years before coming into this place. We're coming back from the COVID recession, and women are well and truly playing their part. The Morrison government recognises that increasing women's workforce participation is important for the economy as a whole—of course it is—but it's also vital for women's individual economic security and the choices that they're able to make for themselves and their families. We're committed to backing women like Edwina Gilbert, in the member for Reid's electorate. She runs Phil Gilbert Motor Group with 180 employees. We're supporting Edwina in a variety of ways. The Gilbert group graduated from JobKeeper in September and are now hiring 12 new apprentices through our JobMaker plan. We're supporting women like Edwina and so many others through all of the measures in our 2020 Women's Economic Security Statement. Coming as it did during COVID, this $240 million package over five years provides targeted support to women to strengthen their employment choices, close the gender gap, identify women as leaders and, of course, keep our economy strong. Many women were so worried during COVID. They lost their jobs, they were concerned for their family's future and they worried about their children and their elderly parents, but today's ABS figures show that our comeback plan is working. Out of the 89,000 new full-time jobs, 69,000 of those went to women, meaning we're now having record-high women's employment. These aren't just numbers and statistics; they're new jobs, and they're showing that our economic recovery is underway. The Morrison government is committed to improving these jobs figures through measures such as JobTrainer, which supports upskilling and career changes. We want to see women come out stronger, with new ideas, which we know they always have, with new job opportunities and new training. The CEO of the Canberra Institute of Technology described JobTrainer as a 'fantastic opportunity for women' and said, 'Sixty per cent of our enrolments are already being taken up by women.' There is always more work to do, and certainly we must include that we ensure women are well-remunerated and well-respected in safe and supported workplaces. As women come out of this challenging period of COVID, they can have the confidence that the Morrison government continues to back them and the choices they make. JobMaker, JobTrainer, our childcare package, our Women's Economic Security Statement and so many other initiatives are charting the way forward. Attorney-General 56 14:52 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said that 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 into sexual assault allegations, will the Attorney-General retain responsibility for defamation law reform? 14:52 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook As I said in the House yesterday, and I'll repeat again today, we've sought advice from the Solicitor-General involving these matters. I'll await the advice from the Solicitor-General, and that will inform our decision about how we will be able to address the issues that the member has just raised. Mining Industry 56 14:53 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is leveraging our nation's world-leading resources sector to create manufacturing jobs across Australia? 14:53 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank the member for her question. She understands just how important the resources sector is for our economy and, of course, for our jobs. And whilst today's job figures are absolutely amazing, with employment hitting 13 million, even higher than before the pandemic, our government is certainly not resting on its laurels. We know that there is more work that needs to be done, and we are out there doing it. So, while our resources sector is already a global powerhouse and job creator, we know that there's plenty of potential for us to further capitalise on our natural advantage to value-add, and that's exactly what we are planning to do and what we are already implementing. We are already very good, as a nation, at developing and implementing resources technology. What we need to do is commercialise so many of the good ideas that already exist out there, so that we can take new resources technology through to commercialisation and to markets. The same thing is, in fact, at play for our critical minerals. We have one of the world's largest reserves of these minerals, and they are used every day—for items such as batteries, smartphones, pacemakers and digital cameras. For too long we, as a nation, have been so good at digging our resources out of the ground, but, quite frankly, we've also been good at putting them on a ship, sending them overseas and then spending an extraordinary amount of money to purchase those resources back in a different form. That has been happening for more than 30 years. It is a longstanding issue in this nation. What this government is doing is changing that narrative, making sure that what we are doing is value-adding to our resources. We are doing that, in particular, in critical minerals processing. It was only the other week that the Prime Minister and I were in Tomago, visiting the site that Energy Renaissance is going to develop. It is about a $28 million project, and it will be the first advanced manufacturing facility producing Australian designed battery storage systems. Whilst this is the first, clearly it is not going to be the last, because the manufacturing strategy that we announced in October last year defined six national manufacturing priorities. We need to target these sectors so that we can grow manufacturing in this country and produce the jobs that are so needed. JobKeeper Payment 57 14:56 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra My question is to the Prime Minister. Lisa is a travel agent in my electorate, who, in 2019, fulfilled her dream of owning her own business. She says she will have to let her five staff go when JobKeeper ends, and she's excluded from the airfare subsidy scheme. Why is the Prime Minister ripping away JobKeeper while it's still needed by hardworking small-business owners like Lisa? 14:57 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'll ask the minister for tourism to respond further to my answer. Our response to the travel agent sector has been in the order of over a quarter of a billion dollars in additional support—over and above what has been provided through JobKeeper, which goes until the end of this month. In addition to that, one of the key things we've been working on with the tourism and travel sector is to ensure that the discounted flights that have been made available in the new travel package will be combined with other product packages, packaged up together, and distributed and sold through the travel agent network. When tourists are travelling and we can get them to travel agents, then travel agents, of course, benefit. There is also a significant further round of support being provided to travel agents, and I'll ask the minister to add further to the answer. 14:58 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I absolutely agree with what the Prime Minister has said. In stage 1, we provided $130 million worth of assistance for travel agents. Ms Templeman interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Macquarie will cease interjecting. Mr TEHAN 210911 Last week we announced a further $130 million to support travel agents right across this country. I'm happy to inform the House that, tomorrow, Austrade will be engaging with the travel agent sector on the final designs of that additional $130 million package. We want to make sure that we're providing the support that travel agents need in this country. So far, we've announced support of more than $260 million for travel agents, and I thank the travel agent sector for the good faith in the way that they have liaised and negotiated with the government. I look forward to Austrade's meeting with travel agents tomorrow as we look at the final design of this package, because we want to make sure that we can carry as many travel agents through this pandemic as we possibly can. As the Prime Minister has said, also, one of the key designs of our discounted flights is that we want to encourage Australians to book them through their travel agents. There are 46,000 discounted flights that are going to be available every single week. I say to all Australians: do your patriotic duty and get out there and book your discounted flights through your travel agents. That way, you can help support them and you'll help support the travel industry across the board. And the money you save on your discounted flights—make sure you spend that in the pubs, the clubs and the restaurants— (Time expired) Rural and Regional Australia: Innovation 57 15:00 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper My question is also to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister please outline how the Morrison-McCormack government is backing innovative businesses in regional Australia to commercialise new products so our regional businesses can compete in world markets and create more jobs? 15:00 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson Technology, innovation, science and research are really the keys to driving business growth. On this side of the House, we are firm believers in 'technology not taxes' as the way to create the jobs that we need now and the jobs that we will need in the future. But the key step in that is making sure that we are able to translate the good ideas, to commercialise them and take them through to market. Creating innovative quality products or new ways of dealing with challenges that businesses face will continue to position Australian industry at the cutting edge. It will grow jobs and it's going to drive our economy forward. We devised the projects stream of the cooperative research centres to help more businesses collaborate with industry and researchers, so that they can turn those good ideas into a job-creating reality. CRCPs are shorter in duration than the traditional CRC programs. They're more lean, they're more agile and they're more able to focus on the specific needs of our industries. Last year, in the member for Cowper's electorate, Cassegrain Wines received $950,000 for their research project into mitigating smoke taint in grapes affected by bushfires. This is a very practical way that we can help futureproof our wine industry. In the last CRCP round that opened last month, the Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education and I announced that there will be a particular focus on projects located in regional Australia. We're developing and delivering on our commitment to back our regions, and these grants are the first in a suite of decentralisation measures that are going to create more jobs and investment in country communities, and that is so important. We want to support ingenuity and innovation in our regions, and greater collaboration with industry leading to the commercialisation of research. That is what this government is about, because we believe that is central to making sure that we can drive our economy forward and create the jobs that we need here in this country. Regional CRCPs have to be located in regional Australia with at least one industry partner relocating from a capital city for the duration of the project. We know that there is a considerable wealth of talent in our communities, and we want to make sure that we are in a position to focus on that. Right across our government, we're ensuring that all businesses are supported to grow and to create jobs. Whether they're in Brisbane or Ballarat, Melbourne or Mullumbimby, Perth or Port Macquarie, Sydney or— (Time expired) JobKeeper Payment 58 15:03 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner My question is to the Prime Minister. How much of the taxpayer money used to fund JobKeeper has been spent on executive bonuses? 15:03 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong What has the member for Fenner got against profitable companies and what has he got against JobKeeper? Decisions by businesses about remuneration are matters for them. This side of the parliament supported the JobKeeper payment because it was an economic lifeline to Australians. Those opposite purported to support the JobKeeper payment. We know, from the RBA, that it helped support and save more than 700,000 jobs. We know that JobKeeper has been an economic lifeline. We know it's coming to an end, and we know that those opposite always want to take an each-way bet. Defence Industry 58 15:05 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government, through its investment in our defence industry, including through Australia's F-35 program, is creating jobs and driving our economic recovery from the COVID-19 recession? 15:05 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I thank the member for Lindsay for her question, acknowledging her great passion and interest in defence industry. I particularly want to congratulate her on her own local advanced manufacturing task force. It's a great local initiative. The Morrison government is investing an historic $270 billion in our defence capability, creating new jobs and new opportunities right across the country, particularly in regional Australia. We see the Hunter region as the real heart of our national endeavour, as we start to build a strong sovereign defence industry. A good example of that is the fact that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters from our region will now be sustained in Williamtown. I recently had the great pleasure to visit the BAE facility at Williamtown with the Prime Minister when they launched their Asia-Pacific regional sustainment hub. I don't know about the Prime Minister, but for me the great thrill that day was meeting some of the ex-Jetstar workers who had lost their jobs through no fault of their own. What a great thrill it was for them that they were able to secure work with BAE and were able to stay in the region that they love, where they and their family have grown up. I heard today that there are now 25 ex-Jetstar workers who have secured work with BAE. Well done to BAE and well done to those individuals who wanted to stay in that region with their families. It is because of our investments in the F-35 program that we are creating more jobs and backing Aussie SMEs in the Hunter region, like Bale. Bale are providing the landing gear for the F-35 program, but they're also manufacturing the aircraft maintenance and also deployable support cabins for the F-35 program. Bale support hundreds of jobs in the Hunter region. Lockheed Martin Australia, who are the prime for the F-35 program, are supporting some 165 jobs in that local area. The F-35 program alone is supporting some $2.7 billion in contracts with over 50 Australian companies, so I think we can see how significant the F-35 program is to securing job opportunities, especially in the regions. I'd like to recognise my colleague Senator Hollie Hughes from the other place, who has done an outstanding job in championing the defence industry in the Hunter region. Recently, Senator Hughes and I announced a government contract with Armor Composite Engineering. It's a contract worth $3.2 million to ACE. This will see them develop curved body armour and will give them more opportunities to export their product. We are getting on with the job of the defence of our nation, and we're providing more opportunities for regional Australians and regional businesses for our defence industry. JobKeeper Payment 59 15:08 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that if he'd not given JobKeeper funds to businesses that didn't need it he'd be able to continue supporting hundreds of thousands of workers who still need help? Why does his government subsidise the strong but sacrifice the weak? 15:08 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Much to the chagrin of the deputy shadow Treasurer, I can confirm that 88,700 new jobs were created in February. I can confirm today that as a result of the policies that this government put in place, which gave a lifeline to Australians in their greatest hour of need, over the course of this year, the million people who lost their jobs are getting their jobs back under the policies of this government. I know on this side of the House we know how to put in place policies that get people back into work, because 1.5 million people came back into work during the course of our government prior to the pandemic. When a million people were forced out of work because of the pandemic, this government showed up. We didn't take an each-way bet on the measures; our government was all-in for jobs and we remain all-in for jobs for the Australian people while the Labor Party continues, day after day, to undermine and whittle and gnaw away at the edge of every single positive measure that this government seeks to put in place to support the Australian people. It's a year ago today that the Biosecurity Act measures were put in place by the Governor-General in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. A year later, there are more jobs today in the Australian economy than there were when we went into this pandemic. That is a ringing endorsement of the coalition's economic policies, of the coalition's precise and timely action that has seen this Australian economy through its worst period since the Great Depression. We got no support from those opposite, all we got from those opposite was an each-way bet. On the one hand they supported, on the other hand they undermined. They were all over the shop. We couldn't rely on Labor's support. The public can't rely on Labor's support. The government has been delivering and held the back of Australians all through this crisis. Thank goodness they didn't have to rely on Labor, because Labor is completely unreliable. Indigenous Australians 59 15:11 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is empowering Indigenous women across the nation? 15:11 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I thank the member for O'Connor for his continued support and interest in the issues that impact on our people. I want to start with a comment from a survey of 4,000 Aboriginal families in Western Australia that was undertaken by the Telethon Kids Institute. The point they made that was the most salient was that a young girl who did not finish year 10 would live a life with all the detriments, she would experience violence and she would experience disempowerment. Education is important, and that's an important factor that we've been building into the work that we're doing as a government. Target 13 of the Closing the Gap strategy—it's is Closing the Gap Day today—targets activity around women and children to create safe environments. More importantly, we've got to go back to those year 10 girls that have left school and look at the ways of empowerment. There is $99.6 million to support education, leadership, health and wellbeing outcomes for girls and young women, because that builds the capacity. There is $72.4 million for the academic and mentoring projects to improve year 12 attainment and get students into post-school pathways. There is $25 million for the Indigenous girls' science, technology, engineering and mathematics academy. These all culminate together to make a difference. As the member for Barton would know, in our movements or in our communities, our women are our strength. But if they are disempowered and cannot participate, then they are disadvantaged. Professor Colin Bourke did a study that showed that when mothers were engaged in education, their children took the same pathway. The empowerment for their children came because of the modelling. That's the work that we need to continue to focus on. There is a further $75 million for family violence prevention legal services to allow our women to find the supportive measures that protect them and their children. There is a further $13.8 million invested in Indigenous women's programs, legal services and supplementary legal assistance because, again, it is important that we focus on family. But the other thing that's important is the work that Commissioner June Oscar has done. Through roundtables, 2,003 women were involved in providing their voices to identify areas that government must listen to, to allow women to be empowered, to break the circuits that are detrimental to the community, to their family and to their children. So we will work, as the other side has done, to strengthen our women, give them a voice and let them be active participants. Mr Morrison E3L Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 15:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—Can I associate Labor with the comments of the minister, on behalf of the shadow minister, and inform him that today Marion Scrymgour has been selected as Labor's candidate for Lingiari. She's someone with an extraordinarily proud history of representing Indigenous women in the NT parliament. I look forward to her joining this parliament to do the same. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 60 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Commonwealth Day 60 15:15 The SPEAKER 00APG As members would be aware, on 8 March, Australia joined 53 other countries around the world in celebrating Commonwealth Day. The theme, 'Delivering a common future: connecting, innovating and transforming', reflects the strong network of friendship and goodwill which connects the people, the parliaments, the governments and the institutions of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth's 54 members are diverse but united by shared values of democracy, the rule of law, gender equality, and sustainable economic and social development. Now, more than ever, promoting these values is important to delivering a prosperous future for all. As is customary, Her Majesty the Queen, as head of the Commonwealth and patron of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, issued a message for Commonwealth Day 2021, and I'm pleased to present Her Majesty's message to the House. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 60 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 31 of 2020-21 60 15:16 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 31 of 2020-21, entitled Award of funding under the Supporting Reliable Energy Infrastructure Program: Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018. DOCUMENTS 60 DOCUMENTS Presentation 60 15:16 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 60 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Homelessness, Housing Affordability 60 15:17 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Clark proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The need to solve Australia's housing crisis. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:17 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark Australia's housing system is broken, as evidenced by the fact that our 30-year housing affordability decline has been among the worst in the developed world. Moreover, according to the 2016 census, homelessness has increased 13.7 per cent in five years, and housing prices across Australia continue to rise, with a jump of 2.1 per cent in February this year, the largest national monthly rise since August 2003. In my home state of Tasmania, the median house price for first home buyer purchases hit a record high of $355,000 in 2020, compared to $335,000 in 2019 and $268,000 in 2015. Reports suggest this could be attributed to a serious undersupply of residential housing in Tasmania. Furthermore, Tasmania is now the most expensive place to rent compared to anywhere else in Australia, with rents rising 36 per cent in the past five years. No wonder the Real Estate Institute of Australia estimates the proportion of income required to meet rent payments in Hobart is now a staggering 29.5 per cent, 5.5 per cent higher than the national level. The consequences of this are very human, with over 8,000 households in the private rental market now in housing stress in Tasmania. For example, today an article in the Mercury newspaper reported that one woman was told by her real estate agent that her rent was rising from $220 a week to $350 week, a 59 per cent increase. Moreover, there are 3,373 Tasmanians on the waitlist for social housing, with priority applicants waiting an average of 64 weeks to be placed. Tasmanian people aged 16 to 24 account for one-third of this waitlist and, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, one in four Tasmanians accessing specialist homelessness services in 2020 were young people. In fact, on any given day, 499 young Tasmanians aged 16 to 24 are seeking housing services support. My office has been inundated with people who have been sleeping in cars and on friends' couches for over 12 months. Many of these people are mothers with young children who have either been turned away from crisis accommodation, which is also at capacity, or been unable to go to crisis accommodation because it's simply unsuitable. Obviously, these people simply cannot afford private rental and have nowhere to go while they wait for public housing. Furthermore, the National Rental Affordability Scheme, a federal initiative which offers subsidised rent at 80 per cent or less of the market value rent, has started to expire in Tasmania, leaving people unable to afford private rentals. Again, the consequences of this are very human. One person in my community, a disability pensioner, is facing life in a caravan park after losing financial support to pay the rent on his home via the NRAS. Then there is the impact of short stay accommodation, such as Airbnb, and the effect it's having on the rental market in Hobart. A report released by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute shows that, worryingly, Hobart has the highest short-stay density in the country and one of the highest Airbnb densities in the world. Obviously, the lack of regulation in this area in Tasmania has led to more people converting their properties to short-term accommodation rather than making them available as long-term rentals, something that is urgently needed in Hobart. In fact, I understand that about 10 per cent of residential property in Hobart is now short-stay accommodation. Significantly, the economic downturn resulting from COVID-19 has also placed many in the rental market at risk. Furthermore, the fact that JobKeeper and the JobSeeker supplements are finishing at the end of this month is going to cause a whole new level of trouble. A study by ANU suggests that winding back these payments will push an extra 740,000 Australians across the country into poverty. These people will be forced to choose between paying their rent and bills and feeding their family. This is clearly unacceptable in a country as rich as Australia. This research that we're seeing coming out is entirely consistent with recent research from Finder which shows that almost half of Australia's workers would run out of money in under a month if they lost their jobs and one in five people have less than $250 in their savings accounts. Clearly, federal and state governments—and, when it comes to short-stay accommodation, also local governments—have to do something about this housing crisis, which is across the whole country, not just in Tasmania. We need dramatic policy change at all levels of government, and we need more crisis accommodation. In Tasmania, we need more Housing Tasmania properties and other social housing. We need more supported accommodation for people with special needs. We need tax reform, including watering down negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions. We need to introduce rent-to-buy public housing in jurisdictions where it doesn't exist. We need a 30 per cent increase, at least, in Commonwealth rent assistance. We need permanent and improved grants and access to low-interest loans for first-home buyers. And, in my own city of Hobart, we need better public transport, such as light rail, to better link areas of new housing growth with jobs and with hospitals and other services. We must also return Airbnb and other short-stay accommodation to the original model, which was where locals could make a bit of extra money from their spare room or granny flat or having an airbed on their lounge room floor. That way, tourists could enjoy an authentic local experience, without permanent residents—in my home state, Tasmanians—being squeezed out of their own communities. What I am talking about will obviously cost money. It will cost a lot of money, but we're a rich country and we can afford to ensure that there is a roof over everyone's head. It's as simple as that. The GDP in Australia, just before coronavirus, was almost $2 trillion. I'll say that again. Australia's GDP just before COVID was worth almost $2 trillion a year. We're estimated to have the world's 14th biggest GDP and the 11th highest GDP per capita. Before COVID, we had had 28 consecutive years of growth, and we are one of the few economies in the post World War II period to achieve this. Mr Katter HX4 Mind you, we've sold all our mining companies, so most of it goes overseas. Mr WILKIE C2T Hear, hear! We are a rich country. We can afford this. Tasmania, compared to the rest of the world, is a rich state, as are all of the other jurisdictions that are represented by honourable members. Compared to the rest of the world, we're among the richest people in the world. We can afford the solutions. We can all afford more crisis accommodation, more public housing, more supported accommodation, sensible tax reform, and the introduction of rent-to-buy public housing. We can afford, if nothing else, to increase CRA by at least 30 per cent. Through you, Deputy Speaker, I say to the minister that these are the sorts of initiatives that are within the domain of the federal government, or there are opportunities for the federal government to work with the minister's counterparts in the states and territories to try and solve these crises. I refer honourable members to my question today, which is another relevant point—the fact that the government is ceasing the Equal Remuneration Order supplement for homelessness services at a time when, as we're discussing right here in this place right now, there is a homelessness crisis in this country. One of the fundamental duties of a federal government is to ensure that people have a roof over their head. With that roof comes security and safety, better job opportunities, better health and a better upbringing for our children. So much of it flows from having a roof over our heads. Yet, in this country, one of the richest in the world, there are way too many people who are sleeping rough, who are homeless, who are in tents in the park, or who are in their mate's laundry or on their couch. We could do so much better. 15:27 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I thank the member for Clark for today's MPI on housing. Whilst I may not agree with every single statement he has made in his contribution, I do thank him for his ongoing commitment to these issues. Indeed, the member for Clark's involvement was quite integral to a range of measures that the government took in 2019 with respect to housing in Tasmania, whether it was the Hobart City Deal or forgiving Tasmania's historic housing debt, which is delivering so much for his state. So I certainly thank him for his long-term interest in these issues, notwithstanding the fact that I don't agree with all that he has said today. If we look back at where we were 12 months ago, things were obviously very dire with the pandemic hitting, and a range of measures—such as the moratorium on evictions, the JobKeeper program, JobSeeker and, of course, in my domain, HomeBuilder—by the Morrison government, in conjunction with the states and territories, sought to address and alleviate many of the issues that the member for Clark has spoken about today. That range of measures has ensured that, during a tumultuous economic period in Australia and also throughout the world, we've been able to maintain stability in the housing market and we've been able to maintain stability for people in the private rental market. Notwithstanding many of the decades-long issues with social and affordable housing, we've still been able to make some headway in the right direction in conjunction with the states and territories. I think it's worthwhile reflecting on what we have been able to achieve in that 12-month period, when, quite frankly, many people in this place and around our country questioned what sort of certainty there would be for people. What the member for Clark and I agree on—and I suspect everyone in this House does too—is that having a secure roof over your head is a foundational building block for so many aspects of success and happiness in your life. That's why the government is so committed not only to first home buyers, which I talk quite often about in question time with respect to HomeBuilder, but also to everybody on the housing spectrum, whether we're talking about people in private ownership, private rental, subsidised rental, social and affordable housing or, down the housing spectrum, those who are suffering, or at risk of suffering, homelessness. In the context of some of the specific issues that the member for Clark raised with respect to Tasmania and around his seat in Hobart, I think it is worthwhile reflecting on what the government does do. The member for Clark recognises that the states and territories have primary responsibility for these matters. But the federal government has a big role in funding, supporting and assisting states and territories to deliver the programs for which they are constitutionally responsible and for which they have day-to-day responsibility. The member for Clark referred to Commonwealth rent assistance and his request to increase it. It's around $5½ billion a year now. That has risen quite substantially in recent years. One of the reasons it's risen is that, as tenants transfer from public housing stock into the community housing sector, they become eligible for Commonwealth rent assistance. We are encouraging, in some respects, the transfer of individuals who wouldn't otherwise be eligible for CRA. That's why we are spending $5½ billion. In question time, both the Prime Minister and I referred to the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, which commenced in 2009. I still think it is fair to say that, to this day, there are inadequate lines of oversight in the agreement, from a Commonwealth perspective, about what exactly that money is spent on by the states and territories. But it has $129 million of guaranteed homelessness funding. As part of renegotiating the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, when the Prime Minister was Treasurer and I was his assistant minister, one of the key things that we did, as the Prime Minister outlined in question time today, was to provide funding certainty. We also indexed the payments so that they grew in real terms and were able to take fluctuations of not only CPI but also population growth. All of those things work in combination to support the states and territories, which, again, have primary responsibility. The member for Clark rightly points out that the supply of housing is essentially the main game when it comes to every single cohort along the housing spectrum, whether it's the supply of housing through the private market, through public housing in the states and territories or through community housing providers. One of the things that the government has done in recent years, which members in the House are aware of, is establish the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. This was the first time that the federal government established a body to primarily support community housing providers throughout our country. It's been a remarkable success in the time that it has been in place. The two primary aspects of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation are its bond aggregator and the method it uses to channel government-bond-rate debt to Commonwealth housing providers, who sit on large portfolios of assets but are unable to deploy and obtain finance at the levels they can through NHFIC. That has led to more than $1.8 billion going to community housing providers. Let's remember that community housing providers not only manage their own stock of social and affordable housing; in many instances they are contracted to manage stock that's owned by state and territory governments. What that $1.8 billion has done is deliver over 2,700 new affordable homes and support the existing housing stock of those community housing providers—6,500 homes. So we're talking nearly 10,000 dwellings that are being supported simply through the mechanism of the bond aggregator which was established by this government—the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation is a creation of the Morrison government. We've also approved more than $227 million to support 4,500 homes through the National Housing Infrastructure Facility. We have also been a government that is remarkably focused on first-home buyers. It's pleasing that, in the midst of a pandemic, Australia has moved to first-home buyers being at the highest proportion in over a decade. It's a time when first-home buyers are displaying the confidence to take that huge step of purchasing their first home. We are unashamedly, and we are unquestionably, a government that is focused on supporting people who have the aspiration to purchase a new home. And the way we've done that, in the midst of a pandemic, is through a range of measures. One is the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. The member for Clark referred to a range of schemes, including the Shared Equity Scheme and others. The First Home Loan Deposit Scheme displays many of those characteristics. In essence, it allows first-home buyers to purchase a new home with a deposit of as little as five per cent. Those who have constituents emailing and calling them, as I do, would know that banks requiring a 20 per cent deposit is very prohibitive. Then, of course, there's HomeBuilder, which previously provided a $25,000 grant and now provides a $15,000 grant for people purchasing a new home. It was put in place to ensure that the million employees in the residential construction industry were able to remain employed, but it is also supporting people in purchasing a new home. Importantly, when we come to the biggest single issue of housing in Australia—supply—HomeBuilder has ensured that the supply of new housing is actually higher now than it was before the pandemic, which, again, is quite a remarkable feat. So there's a lot of work to be done. States and territories need to work on planning and zoning, making sure that the new supply is in, and making sure the money that's being provided by the federal government is spent well in supporting the people that the member for Clark has spoken about. In that, he and I can agree. (Time expired) 15:37 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I asked a lady called Alannah Tomlinson why she would run for us for a seat in the Queensland parliament. She said: 'Affordable living. I can't afford to live. I've got two kids and oftentimes the two stepkids as well. My husband has a good job, and I'm working every single night from half past five to 11 o'clock at night, managing a restaurant, and twice a day during the week as well, and I simply can't make ends meet.' And why would she be able to? The average cost of a house in Australia is $670,000. The enlightened policies of government, in this place and the state parliaments, have taken that from $62,000 in 1990, which was the start of the wonderful free market policies, to $670,000 now. There's no great secret about what the problem is. I am sorry, Minister; when you say that the solution is to provide more money so people can buy houses, you simply increase the demand. Far be it from me to quote Malcolm Turnbull, but Malcolm Turnbull and an Oxford don—he's an Australian, but he's a professor at Oxford—put out a paper and they said that the problem is not with increasing the demand. Giving everybody $7,000 to help them buy a new house will just increase demand, but the problem is supply. It is nigh on impossible to do a subdivision in this country, to jump through the environmental hoops and the economic hoops and to navigate the council charges, the state government demands, the headworks charges and every other cost that everyone wants to put on it by the time you've finished—if you can get it done in one lifetime. I'll quote the leading developer in North Queensland. He died recently. The biggest developer said, 'I have not got enough years in my life to do the subdivision at Tolga,' and he just sold the farm to somebody else, so we didn't have 200 housing blocks coming on the market to damp down the spectacular rising costs. The best case I can use is Charters Towers. It was under the Mining Act, so a clerk, a local boy, made the decisions if you wanted to do a subdivision. My wife went in and applied for a subdivision. She completed paperwork within half an hour and got the subdivision entitlement the next day. Cost? Twenty bucks. Now, if she attempts to do it today, the cost will be $20,000 and it will take her two or three or four years to get the process completed. So you've made the cost of government. I know it's a cliche, but it is a very accurate cliche. The great case is Port Hedland. When I went there, land was $12 an acre. If you wanted to buy a station, a property or a farm, it was $12 an acre. The cost for a housing block in Port Hedland was $72,000 for a quarter-acre, so the cost has been created by governments. And in Charters Towers, at the time when we last had the power and control over our own affairs in Charters Towers, the price for a block of land was $6,000. Within three years, it had gone to $70,000. It's come to rest at a bit under $100,000, as I quoted before. As for housing, when I was the minister for what they called 'Aboriginal affairs'—I don't like that word, so I will say 'First Australian affairs'—I had enough money to build 400 houses over a period of about 3½ years. Greg Wallace, a First Australian, said, 'We will introduce Work for the Dole.' People were sitting around doing nothing, and he got them working for the dole. Gerhardt Pearson, the brother of the famous Noely Pearson, said, 'Why don't we utilise Work for the Dole labour to build the houses?' Then Eric Law and Lester Rosendale said, 'All houses will be built exclusively by local Indigenous labour—no more flying in whitefellas costing us a fortune.' Instead of building 400 houses, we built over 2,000 houses, with all done, every decision done, by a First Australian. There lie your answers. Don't keep throwing money at the program and increasing demand. Start increasing supply. This is an empty country. (Time expired) 15:42 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I thank the member for Clark for bringing this MPI forward. Australia's housing sector is a pillar of resilience in our recovery from COVID-19. It characterises our nation's grit and determination and gives Australians confidence about what we can achieve and what is ahead. I recently congratulated a young woman in this building on buying her own home. She said to me that open homes were busy, they were flat-out, and it was quite daunting—this is in Queensland—but she kept going with the confidence of it being a good investment in her own future. Well done to her. She said: 'I knew it was setting me on the right path. I felt it was a step in the right direction.' I said: 'You had a great deposit. Who helped guide you towards that?' She thanked her dad as well, and she said her dad gave her great advice. I can relate to that; my dad gave me good advice too. For those people that might not have someone mentoring them in this space, the federal government also has the moneysmart.gov.au website. Every member—every opposition member, every government member, every Independent—should promote those sorts of products. That's moneysmart.gov.au for those people listening. It's empowering when people buy their first home, and it's shared by 20,000 first-home buyers in 2020. I'll repeat that: in 2020, 20,000 Australians bought their first home, and that was just under the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme alone. The young lady that I spoke about didn't need the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. We also have the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which I think is really important. My father taught me early the value of superannuation. As the Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services, I'm inspired by young people getting ahead and being assisted, through their superannuation, to buy their first home. To 31 January, the First Home Super Saver Scheme was used by 16,400 individuals, to the value of around $216 million. The opposition's policy is to abolish the First Home Super Saver Scheme. That's what they took to the last election. I think it's wrong, it's reckless and it won't help. I would ask the Independents to promote the First Home Super Saver Scheme as well. It's a great way for people to save tax and get into their first home. They don't have to buy a new home; they can buy an existing home as well. The Morrison government's commitment is that we will do all we can to help Australians get into a home sooner. The member for Clark's not here. It was good to hear from the member for Kennedy as well. But, to the member for Clark, I would note that the federal government has invested $30 million or so into the Hobart City Deal, which includes social housing. When I was the responsible assistant minister, I was working with the department to help deliver that. As for the NRAS, a system that's coming to an end, the only problem with that is that it was poorly designed, such that at the end of 10 years the price goes up. After 10 years, it ended. So what do you do with all those tenants that have been there for a decade? There you go! Airbnb has been an issue in Tasmania, as the member for Clark said. But we know, through COVID, that tourism sector was smashed and most of those homes in Hobart were put back into long-term private rentals, which was important. The price of a home down there is obviously a lot less than in the capital cities of Melbourne. The member for Clark also mentioned young people who have been couch surfing and so forth. The federal government does provide the Reconnect service for young people to help reconnect them with families. In my own electorate of Petrie, I recently assisted a young man who had been couch surfing. I rang up an employer in my electorate, Kennedy's Timbers, and said, 'Can you give this young man a job?' He was a good young man. He just needed a go. He received that job, and I want to thank Michael Kennedy from Kennedy's Timbers for putting him on. He's been there ever since, and he's actually helping to train others now. The key thing I would say is that the way we help those people in need is to get them back into work. That's why the federal government has come up with JobMaker, the JobTrainer scheme, the Transition to Work programs and PaTH. The IR changes that we're trying to get through parliament at the moment will help more people into work as well. These are important things. I'd say to the Independents: make sure you're across those and promote government policy where you can. Whilst you are Independents, there are a lot of good programs that the federal government is doing. We also have job fairs that, as the Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services, I'll be rolling out through the country. I'm happy for Independents to get involved. (Time expired) 15:48 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne A few years ago, I was sitting at one of my local listening posts, and someone called Penny came along and said: 'I've never before been to one of these things where you sit down and talk with your local politician, but I just wanted to come and talk about how tough things are. I just don't think politicians understand that things in Australia have changed so much that you can now do the right thing, look for a job, get a job, find yourself working casual arrangements and insecure work even after you've gone and studied and got a degree, and still not be able to afford a stable roof over your head.' She was struggling to hold back the tears as she said: 'Don't politicians understand? If you can't create a system where all of us are guaranteed a roof over our heads, what is the whole point of it?' She was right, and Penny's words have stayed with me throughout the years I have been in this place. Housing in Australia is absolutely cooked. In a wealthy country like ours, everyone should have a roof over their head, especially those lucky enough to find work. But we have a situation at the moment where, even if you find work, you can't be guaranteed to be able to afford to rent or even buy a house within a reasonable distance of where you work, let alone if you happen to find yourself being one of those two million people who either don't have a job or don't have enough hours of work. Why is this the case? It's the case because the government is taking billions of dollars of public money and using it to push up the price of houses in this country. First home buyers or aspiring first home buyers are going along to auctions and finding themselves outbid by someone who already owns two, three, four or five homes because they know they can write off the loss as a tax loss. If you already have a house—or two, or three, or four of them—the government will write you a cheque to go and buy more, which pushes up the price and makes it harder for first home buyers to get into the market. Meanwhile, the cost of rent goes up and up and up. One of the key things that governments could do to bring down rents and make sure housing is more affordable is to build more public housing. If you build more public housing, you deal with waiting lists. In my state of Victoria, it's getting towards 100,000 people waiting for a roof over their heads. Every day in my office I find myself talking to mothers who have been on the public housing waiting list for years, who are couch surfing with kids and are homeless—the definition of homeless. They are homeless, and they still cannot find a space in public housing because we haven't built enough public housing. If we invested in public housing, we'd not only create jobs and help recover from the pandemic by giving jobs to people and apprentices but we'd help reduce inequality in this country. It would also help bring down rents for everyone else because we'd be introducing a whole lot of stock at the lower end of the housing market, which would make rents cheaper for first home buyers and people who are looking to get into the market in the first place. So, as we recover from this pandemic, and as we deal with the housing crisis in Australia, what we need to do is to stop giving tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations and stop giving tax breaks and public money to people who have already got three, four, five, six or seven houses, and instead use it to invest to build large-scale public housing in this country. If we had the courage to invest to build a million new public homes in this country, if we were to wind back some of the unfair tax breaks for the big corporations and billionaires who don't need them and instead put that money into building public housing, it would create in the order of 80,000 jobs and 8,000 apprenticeships, help solve the housing crisis we have in this country and bring down rent for young people who are struggling to get into the market and save that deposit. There's a solution to all of this. It's a win-win-win. If you go to the doctor and the doctor says, 'You have three things wrong with you, and I can give you a medicine that fixes one or I can give you a medicine that fixes all three,' you take the medicine that fixes all three. That's why the Greens are saying that the key to recovering from the recession we are coming out of, reducing inequality in this country and ensuring that, in a wealthy country like ours, everyone has a roof over their head is to wind back the tax breaks, make the billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share of tax, and use the money to invest in nation-building, job-creating projects that will cut inequality, like building public housing. 15:53 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Secure and safe housing is absolutely essential and fundamental to strong communities, individuals and families for their aspirations and success. Having worked at a community housing provider, working with people experiencing homelessness, I understand that we do need a good mix of social and affordable housing in our communities. That's why the Morrison government is working on these particular issues in supporting community housing providers. Community housing providers could be managing public housing for the states, which is their job, or they could be building more affordable housing. We're supporting these community housing providers through the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation bond aggregator. I think community housing providers could be playing an even greater role in the supply of social and affordable housing across our country. The fact is that we're backing them, and also through Commonwealth rent assistance. I also think that, through the financial support we're giving, community housing providers could be looking into and providing a more effective product when it comes to supporting older women who are experiencing homelessness. This often happens because women haven't accumulated superannuation. They find themselves alone in older age, and they may be couch surfing. There does need to be more work done by community housing providers, particularly in this space. But the bond aggregator is working. I have seen it work in my community of Lindsay. I joined the Minister for Housing in 2019, just after I was elected. It was really great, coming out of a community housing provider, where I saw this work being done on the ground—to actually see it, as a member of parliament. I joined the minister at Evolve Housing. Evolve was one of eight community housing providers who were granted a first issuance of the bond aggregator, which enabled up to 300 new rental dwellings. One of the best parts about this was how it's impacted people's real lives—seeing a woman who had escaped domestic violence for the first time in a long time being able to feel safe and to have a place that she could call home. I've seen that in a number of ways. I saw it in my work in community housing, particularly when it came to women being able to renew their lives, to feel safe and to get on with their lives. One of the other things I found, working in community housing, particularly in this space, was that women who had experienced intergenerational welfare or who were escaping domestic violence sometimes weren't able to get into the housing market. I established a program to support and mentor women in the community in social housing on economic and housing independence. It is amazing how lives can change when somebody has housing independence. I fully support programs like that being done by community housing providers. As I said, public housing is predominantly a state issue, but the important role we play is supporting community housing providers to build more affordable housing and social housing in areas that are most in need. The other thing we're doing, in addition to the provision of support for affordable housing, is supporting first home buyers into their home and getting them into the market. That's a tremendous thing that we have done with the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. I saw that firsthand when I went with the Minister for Housing to a property in Lindsay to officially open the extended places for applicants, and we visited a house under construction in Mulgoa, where it was great to see there were 40 local tradies—and this was during the pandemic—working on the site. In this scheme we are not only supporting first home buyers into the home but also supporting local jobs. I really support that too. So there are a number of things the Morrison government is doing in the housing market, right across the housing spectrum: from supporting social and affordable housing to people getting their first home and beyond. 15:58 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I thank my colleagues across the House for this debate, especially my colleague the member for Clark, for bringing this important motion for debate. Surely, it is indeed a cry from the heart for a roof over our heads for all Australians. But I want to place my comments around regional Australia today. COVID-19 has changed us in many ways, but perhaps one of the most unexpected is that it has sparked a wave of migration out of the cities and into the regions. Last year, the ABS recorded the biggest internal migration to regional areas on record, with the net loss of 11,200 people from Australia's capitals to the regions. In many ways, this is really good news. More people moving into the regions is critical for our future. It is critical to sustaining our schools and health services and providing the employment base to maintain economic activity into the long term. But, if we fail to plan properly for an increased population in the regions, then simply adding more people and encouraging more people to move to the regions will be creating a whole new set of problems. The lack of affordable housing in many regional communities is perhaps the clearest example of that. Last year, house prices in regional Australia rose by seven per cent. In contrast, in the city, they rose by just two per cent. That's the first time in more than 15 years that house prices in the regions rose by more than those in the cities. Anecdotally, I see this right across my electorate. In towns like Mansfield, Wangaratta, Wodonga, Benalla and Bright, the availability of homes to rent or buy is going down and the prices are going up. I've met with many businesses who tell me that they're advertising for jobs but it's simply impossible to get somebody to move to town because there aren't houses available for them to live in. Last week, I heard from the CEO of Corryong Health that one of the reasons it's so hard to recruit nurses and mental health practitioners to Corryong is that they have absolutely nowhere to live there. This week, the Deputy Prime Minister said: You could live like a king or queen in regional Australia with, you know, five bedrooms, three bathrooms, three-car garage, huge backyard… This might be the case if you move from Sydney or Melbourne and you can work remotely in a high paid job. But for most people, the idea that just anybody can afford to purchase a palatial five-bedroom home in regional Australia is pretty ridiculous. I hear from people in tourist towns, like Bright and Beechworth, that, increasingly, many houses purchased by investors are being used for Airbnb. This could be great for tourism economy but it's really not good for the young family trying to find a family home, or the jobseeker looking to move to that town to take up work. I fear that, too often, the government seems to think that their role in developing regional Australia consists of simply spruiking about regional Australia. If we want regions that are growing, that have sustainable job creation, which are developing industries that will last well into the future and where people can afford to purchase a house and raise a family, then the government actually needs to step up. They need to make sure that we're building the mixed stock of houses in regional areas, that we're providing the education and health services, that we're building the roads and investing in things like child care that enable people to live and work and ultimately purchase a home in regional Australia. This week, the Regional Australia Institute launched its Move to More campaign which aims to encourage people to move to regional Australia. I commend that campaign and the work of the Regional Australia Institute in advocating for the regions and putting out detailed policy proposals to drive regional development. We need government to listen to voices like this and actually back up the big talk with big action. To solve the housing affordability challenges in regional Australia, we need to listen to people like the professors of housing, Hal Pawson from the University of New South Wales and Wendy Stone from Swinburne University, who tell us that we desperately need a national housing policy—we simply haven't had one since 1945. We need short-term rentals for seasonal workers and backpackers so that they've got somewhere to live for a ski season, a harvest season, a shearing season or, indeed, summer fruit picking. We need medium-term one bedroom rentals so that young single people can move to the regions for a few years on placement or take their first job. We need long-term rentals for people who are unlikely to ever be able to afford a home and we need pathways to homeownership for diverse demographics like younger families and retirees. All Australians should be able to find a home in the regions. I call on the government to do more than just talk but to act and really make it a reality. 16:03 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker The temptation in this palace of democracy is to think that every issue can be solved from here back out to community, but I think it's incumbent for us to acknowledge spheres of responsibility, and here is a classic example of where that sphere rests with state governments. Day-to-day housing and homelessness services are the purview of state governments—always have been, always will be—but that's not to say that the Morrison government isn't leaning in in respect of this challenge. Of course, $8.2 billion is expected to be expended by our government for housing and homelessness initiatives over the 2020-21 year alone. That includes a suite of measures, not the least of which is $5.5 billion for Commonwealth rent assistance. But I want to focus my time not on what we're doing in that space but on talking about the issue. The issue is effectively driven by stock. I hear those opposite say, 'The way you solve this crisis is to constrain supply.' That's a very interesting way to think about this problem, but it's completely wrong. The reality is we need to drive supply up. The issues around access to affordable homes and affordable rentals aren't going to be addressed by constraining supply but by increasing supply. I think we need to understand that this exercise occurs across a continuum. That continuum includes those people who unfortunately are not in a position to have secure housing, people who are renting, first home owners, and investors, who add to the supply. One of the things we ought to be doing, if we want to free up the housing stock for people who don't have access to stable accommodation, is to move people from renting to owning and to build more houses. What are we doing in that regard? The data is with us. First home owner-occupier loan commitments are 70 per cent higher than 12 months ago. There are more people transitioning from renting to owning. The HIA indicates that first home buyers now account for 43 per cent of homeownership loans. People are transitioning and leaving behind them access to other stock. More than that, HomeBuilder, which gets a lot of attention in here—it gets a lot of love from the relevant minister, of course—is pointing at exactly this issue. Ours is a government that wants to see Australians owning and occupying their own homes. But the runaway success that HomeBuilder has been has meant that a whole additional cohort of stock is being built. I can tell the chamber I know how much timber mills in my electorate are having to rise to the challenge. It is a 24-hour-a-day exercise to cut the timber that is going into the frames of these new homes. Talk to any timber worker in my electorate and they will tell you that the residential construction sector is going gangbusters. They know because they're all working additional shifts and production is at the highest level possible. We've heard from others who have contributed to this debate about the other very significant measures that our government has embarked upon, all of which I'd respectfully suggest to you are tailored to ensuring that people can get into their first home, because there are so many more benefits to the stability of the home unit than just economic security. We have the First Home Super Saver Scheme and the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. The member for Indi raised important questions about regional Australia while she was speaking, and I share her view that not everyone can jump into a five-bedroom home in certain areas. But I did a quick search for a town in my electorate I have really come to adore, Lameroo, which is deep in the Mallee. There is a critical shortage of workers in that community right now. You can get a three-bedroom home on a 1,000-square-metre block for $127,000, and, if that doesn't suit you—those who live in metropolitan communities won't believe this—you can buy a three-bedroom home with an eight-car garage on a 2,000-square-metre block for—wait for it—$39,000. 16:08 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Well, The Wizard of Oz got it right: there's no place like home. Home is the physical embodiment of the people who inhabit it. No wonder it's such a special place for so many. For most, home has taken on a special significance in the last year. The problem is that the COVID situation has actually exacerbated housing issues in the nation, particularly in my community. I would argue that we are facing a tsunami in the months ahead with respect to housing security and housing availability, both in the private rental market and in the home-buying market, for low- to middle-income earners. When I was in my early 20s and buying my first home—something that very few people in their early 20s can do now—the average house price in my community was around three times the average annual income. Housing affordability has stretched, and average house prices across the nation are now up to 12 times the average income. This is just not sustainable. As for rentals in my electorate, I can tell you there is no rental stock. Airbnb is huge in regional areas. It may not be huge in the town of Lameroo, in the member for Barker's electorate, which is clearly very affordable. I can tell you, if you have an electorate that has the ocean or that has wineries, Airbnb is huge. What that means is that it takes properties out of the usual rental market. Down in Victor Harbor, in the south coast area of my electorate, if you do a realestate.com search and you look for properties under $300, you can get a lined shed in somebody's backyard for $145; you can get a one-room—one room, not a bedroom plus a room—bedsit for $185 a week, which is like a motel room; and, in Port Elliot, there is one small two-bedroom unit for $220 a week. That's it, for a population of more than 15,000. There are just two three-bedroom homes, and they average around $380 a week. If you look in the Hills part of my electorate, the township of Nairne does not have one single rental property for under $400 a week—not one. In the Mount Barker area, there is not one single house or unit under $307 a week, which is the new JobSeeker amount. In fact, the cheapest place listed is a two-bedroom unit, at $340 a week. So, really, with the high cost of rentals and the lack of rental availability, is it any wonder we have more and more people in our communities who are living in tents, in caravan parks or in their cars? Families are living in cars. In 2001, just 20 years ago, I don't think anyone would have believed it would be commonplace for families to be living in cars, but it is in 2021. And it is not just families. Older women are the fastest growing group of homeless people. They are at such risk, with such vulnerability. The reason why I said there's going to be a tsunami in housing affordability is that the National Rental Affordability Scheme that the government, in their wisdom, decided to cut eight years ago—they thought there were rorts going on—was never replaced with another rental affordability scheme. That scheme meant that there was a stack of housing stock on the market, around 35,000, from memory, and they were to be available at no more than 80 per cent of market rental in the area. There was a 10-year agreement, so those properties were tied to that for 10 years, but they are ageing out. We just had 3,000 age out nationally last year, and another 33,800 are going to come out from now over the next five years. That's 33,000 rental homes that will no longer be on the market. Average house prices in Adelaide have skyrocketed. The average house price is now $510,000. Is it any wonder that young people can't afford to get in? So what do we need? I believe we need a new national strategy, a new version of the NRAS, perhaps with mum-and-dad investors involved as part of the solution to affordable rentals. We need the state governments around Australia to open up land. They don't do it, and so the price is skewed by your house build, where everything is in the land and not in the purchase of the house. We need to ensure that state taxes around stamp duty are reduced. And this government needs to have a plan for vulnerable older Australians, and it doesn't. Dorothy said, 'There's no place like home.' Let's fix this. We are capable of doing it. Let's stop just wasting time in this place, as we have for years. 16:13 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper We've all seen the recent media reports, and the current housing crisis in Australia is very concerning. Much of that coverage is about the extraordinarily high returns currently being experienced at property sales and property auctions. But, in my electorate, up in Coffs Harbour there was almost an auction for a rental. There were 148 applications for a three-bedroom home—to rent. We've never seen it before. The housing squeeze is not just a city-centric issue; it's now become a regional issue, one for all of us. In my electorate, COVID-19 has changed the face of housing in a short period of time—in 12 months. People were able to work from home. What we're seeing is people who had invested wisely in the beautiful locations around my electorate realising that they can do that from my electorate, rather than living in Melbourne or Sydney or elsewhere. So they're moving back, taking up those properties, and the people who had rented them for five, 10 or 15 years can't find anywhere. I had a teacher on the telephone the other day saying: 'Pat, I've been in this house for nine years. I've got six kids. Now I've got four weeks to find somewhere, and I can't find anywhere.' Fortunately, we worked together and we did find something, and that person was very grateful, but that person is not alone. I note the comments by the previous speaker about women over the age of 55. They are the highest represented people for homelessness in terms of domestic violence, particularly in Bellingen, in my electorate. I've been trying to work with the Bellingen council and other councils on this issue. It's a very, very real issue, and it's a very live issue. Yes, it is a state issue, but we can't say it's a state issue. We have to work together, we've got to take it all on board, and we have to meet with our state counterparts and our local council counterparts and say, 'What's the plan?' That's because the plan will be different for Coffs Harbour. The plan will be different for Bellingen. The plan will be different for Port Macquarie. We have to have a plan. We have to work towards that plan. Without one, you will have people living in cars. I was in Kempsey the other day. I pulled up in a car park. There were three cars, and people were living in those cars. In one of them was a family. We can't just say it's a state issue. We can't just say it's a state responsibility. We've got to work together. There are a number of really innovative ideas that we can work with. We've got to look outside the box. I recently met with the owner of Buildonix. He can put a house together—a one-bedroom, one-bathroom house—in three days. He was a recipient of a federal government grant. That's good work from the federal government in thinking outside the box. It's build and click, and it was a beautiful home. He can put that together in three days. There's not that cost of the delay in building, there's not the cost of the three-month or the six-month build, and there's almost that instant gratification of having a home. It was a home that, if I were a single person, I'd be proud to own. I'd be proud to live in it. And then, as your family grows—if you're a young person—you just click on another room and put the cot in there. They are strong and sturdy buildings. They're the types of things we need to look at, but we need to release land. The councils need to look at the way they operate. They need to reduce the red tape, allow that land to be released and reduce the costs of building. Councils need to not put so much pressure on developers—whether it be a big developer or a mum and dad who decide to divide up their block and put a granny flat on there or sell that block—that they turn around and say, 'We can't do it.' Until we do that, until we change our thinking and until we think outside the box, we won't be able to fix this problem. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The discussion has concluded. BILLS 69 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2020-2021, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2020-2021 69

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2020-2021

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2020-2021

Second Reading 69 16:18 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay It's my job, when I come into this place, to fight for my community. When I go home from Canberra, back to Penrith, St Marys and Emu Plains, people expect that I've been doing my job in fighting for them. That's why, throughout the pandemic, throughout this year, I've been particularly fighting for manufacturing—backing Australian manufacturing and backing local jobs. There are three things that have come out of my lengthy talks with manufacturers, seeing them out in their factories and talking to them as part of my advanced manufacturing taskforce. The top one of these is around IP theft. The more and more I speak to local manufacturers, the more and more they're telling me that this is a significant issue for their business. Here I'm particularly talking about a product being put into the market by an Australian manufacturer and it being ripped off completely by a foreign competitor, and we're seeing this significantly out of China. There was one local Western Sydney manufacturer who manufactures rail parts—in particular, a safety product. The concern here is that that rail part was ripped off by a Chinese manufacturer, and it wasn't until it became faulty—and the Victorian government, who'd used a contractor out of China, contacted the Australian manufacturer and got them to come down and fix that product—that it was then found that it was not the Australian manufactured product at all; it was a ripped-off product. Others tell me that, as soon as they put their product on the market online, their products are ripped off. So there is something significant that we have to do to protect our local manufacturers so that they can be successful, particularly if we want them to be successful at competing on quality and value, which is what we are great at in Australia. There is another part of backing Australian manufacturing, and that comes to the issue of energy. Lots of manufacturers in Western Sydney tell me that bringing down energy costs is really important to them in being successful. When I went out and visited ACO in Emu Plains, they told me about their gas prices coming down, and I was really pleased to hear that. ACO uses gas predominantly to power their plant, manufacturing items for use in the construction industry, and John from ACO noted that recent decreases in their gas costs had 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 earlier this year. He told me that this is allowing ACO to invest more back into their business. So the more they can invest into their business, the more their business can grow in Emu Plains and the more local jobs they can create. The third thing I've been doing is very much listening to our local manufacturers. The Advancing Manufacturing Taskforce that I've put together have been really assessing how our national policies are having an impact on the ground, and this comes to our six priority areas. So it was really great to bring the Prime Minister out to Lindsay just the other week. We sat down with around 30 manufacturers at one of our local manufacturers called Plustec, run by a magnificent woman called Tracy who manufactures energy-efficient doors and windows. Manufacturers there were talking to us about the impact of our policies, particularly the instant asset write-off. Tracy used the instant asset write-off to be able to purchase equipment to keep her going during the pandemic, which is fantastic. She also talked about the fact that our policies are enabling her to bring on more trainees. So this is what it's all about: our national policies—things that we're fighting for in this place—having a real impact on the ground, with local businesses, creating local jobs and supporting more people, which I'm really passionate about, into the jobs of the future. I have a last point on manufacturing: I've also been speaking to manufacturers about how we ensure our kids are educated and trained in the jobs that are coming with advanced manufacturing in Western Sydney with the investment into Western Sydney international airport, with all these great companies wanting to be part of Western Sydney, ensuring that these jobs go to local people. I commuted out of the area for over 10 years. I know how important it is. I know how much people in our community want our young people to live and stay in the area and not have to do that long commute. So it's essential that we're addressing the issues of training and educating our kids in the jobs of the future, and this is something that manufacturers are telling me about all the time. One of the other things people in the community of Lindsay want me to be doing while I'm here is to be working really hard to ensure that I'm delivering my election commitments, and that's absolutely what I've been doing. In 2019, during the election campaign, I stood alongside the Prime Minister in Western Sydney to announce that we were investing $63½ million into the upgrade of Dunheved Road, an important road in our community for people getting to school and work and home again. When I doorknocked communities around Dunheved Road during the election, they told me that an upgrade to Dunheved Road was well overdue, that there were many accidents on this road and that people were really concerned about safety. We see a number of really severe accidents on that road on an ongoing basis, so I was really pleased that I could deliver that funding, but it wasn't enough. That was only half of the funding required for the full upgrade to Dunheved Road that our community really deserves and really wanted. They told me they wanted the full upgrade. I fought for that full funding. I worked tirelessly with the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and with the minister for urban infrastructure, so much so that they got sick of hearing about Dunheved Road and gave me the money—$127 million—in the federal budget for the full upgrade of Dunheved Road. We couldn't have done this without our community coming together and supporting each other, without you telling me what you need, and without me working really hard in parliament to deliver that. It was very much a community effort. Penrith City Council now has the funding. They're undertaking the planning, and I want to ensure that council now delivers this for our community as fast as possible because that's what the people of Lindsay expect. Another election commitment of mine related to Penrith Whitewater Stadium. Just this week we announced that Penrith will be hosting the 2025 ICF Canoe Slalom World Championships. I was the event director for the 2005 world championships, and I know how passionate people in Penrith are about this sport. We've got Jess Fox, who is a great Olympic champion and world champion in this sport. She is a wonderful talent and a great asset to our community. She was right behind the bid. I was very pleased to provide my support in ensuring that Penrith once again got the world championships, and that will happen on the 25th anniversary of the Olympic Games. I look forward to cheering everyone on at our very own Penrith Whitewater Stadium. The significance of this is that I delivered $2.3 million for important upgrades to this iconic venue as one of my election commitments. So many people do treasure moments from the past and people in the community talk about this venue so often. It's really great that we are able to sustain its significance as a world-class facility in our community. I really am passionate about healthy, active living. Another election commitment of mine was an investment in the Penrith Valley Regional Sports Centre. I delivered $1.2 million for vital upgrades to this centre. This centre is used so much by people in our community for activities like basketball and indoor soccer. They've got great staff there, led by Luke Hepburn. Luke told me that he also used JobKeeper during the pandemic, but he told me that it was my election commitment funding and their ability to use that during the pandemic that really kept them going. They were able to do works, and they were able to employ local tradespeople during that time. I visited them again just a couple of weeks ago and saw how fantastic the venue is looking. Kids are back using it now. Really pleasingly, some of those upgrades have meant that it's more accessible to people in our community. Having these local facilities upgraded and in use is so important to healthy, active living. One of the things that concerns me greatly is that, in Lindsay, we have higher than state average levels of obesity in both our kids and our adults. Ensuring that we can get the best access to recreational facilities is one of the things that helps us to address this very important issue, and so I established in my community the Lindsay Healthy Active Living Network, launched by Minister Greg Hunt, to address these issues around healthy, active living and also to address issues around mental health. I was really pleased that one of my election commitments that particularly addresses mental health—$19 million going to our local PHN—will ensure that we have a local adults mental health hub. It's going to really transform the way that we work with people in our community who are affected by mental health issues. One of the best things about the establishment of this mental health hub is that we're working right across the community with hospitals, with mental health workers— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 71 ADJOURNMENT Newcastle Electorate: Volunteers, Domestic and Family Violence 71 16:30 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I'm very pleased today to launch the 2021 round of the Newcastle volunteer grants program. The Newcastle volunteer grants program offers grants of between $1,000 and $5,000 for eligible not-for-profit community organisations to support, encourage and increase participation in volunteering in local communities. These grants help community organisations support their volunteers by making their volunteering work easier, safer and more enjoyable. Funding can be used to purchase eligible small equipment for use by volunteers; contribute to volunteers' fuel or transport costs; or assist with the cost of training courses, background checks for volunteers and the like. Organisations can also use the funding to conduct activities to promote awareness of, and increase participation in, volunteering opportunities or to adapt their practices to support volunteer safety in the pandemic environment. Expressions of interest will open soon via a link on my website, and I encourage all my constituents to keep an eye out for that. I also want to draw the attention of the House to the consequences of the Prime Minister's ongoing inability to grasp or understand the consequences of power imbalances and structural inequalities in Australia that underpin gendered violence in this nation. Earlier this week the Prime Minister announced his government's new plan for women who might be able to fund their way into fleeing domestic violence, and that was to dip into their own already diminished and depleting superannuation funds in order to find a pathway out to safety. We already know that the fastest-growing cohort of people experiencing poverty, and homelessness as a result, are women aged over 55, and some of the most vulnerable in that cohort are indeed women escaping family and domestic violence. We know that women are already retiring with, on average, $90,000 less in their superannuation than men; that 23 per cent of women retire with absolutely no superannuation at all; and that at least 14 per cent of women have already cleared out their entire superannuation funds because they lost work during COVID-19. But we have a prime minister who thinks that, if women need to leave a family violence situation, they can simply draw down on their own diminishing retirement savings. So this government is, in fact, asking those very women who are at their most vulnerable, when they need to feel safe and secure, to dip into their own retirement funds—indeed, pushing them into poverty—in order to achieve safety. That is an appalling outcome for our society. It is appalling. I say to the Prime Minister: here's an idea you might want to think about. How about we hold perpetrators to account? How about we start making perpetrators responsible for their actions? This government must start putting its mind to how it might help women and children to flee this violence, to find safety and to re-establish their lives, by providing safe environments for them and their families without plunging them into poverty. We know there are ways of doing this. The Victorian government has had a terrific model involving flexible supported packages. The government might want to have a look at that. It would indeed provide a lot of comfort to women and children seeking safety now. We know, despite the Prime Minister and the government often saying that this is all about respect and we just need to be more respectful of women, that gendered violence in this nation is rooted in the structural inequalities between men and women, and violence against women and children isn't a political problem that can be resolved by the same tired old practices of business as usual in politics. It's time to start listening as the women of Australia say, 'Enough is enough.' (Time expired) Environment 72 16:35 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I would like to take this opportunity in the House to thank the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Sussan Ley, for visiting my electorate of Bonner recently and meeting with some of our passionate and hardworking environmental groups. Our first stop was to meet with Angela and her incredible team of volunteers at the Queensland Koala Society. Koalas are one of Australia's most iconic animals, recognisable around the world. But, sadly, we have seen a dramatic decline in numbers. Angela and her team have set up the Queensland Koala Society, a not-for-profit, volunteer organisation, solely for the benefit of koala welfare, education and training. Their rescuers are trained and experienced and have close links with Australia Zoo Wildlife Hospital and other wildlife hospitals in Queensland. Angela has a vision for her organisation: to establish a koala kindy that will help prepare rescued and rehabilitated koalas to be safely released back into the wild. Angela often rescues koala joeys if their mothers have been injured by cars or domestic animals, which means that these babies are handfed and cared for. Before they can be released back into nature, they need to learn the right skills to cope, and a koala kindy is the perfect way to do that. It was fantastic to bring Angela and Minister Ley together to discuss this vision, and I look forward to helping the Queensland Koala Society bring their vision to life. Our next stop was to meet Ian and the team at Ocean Crusaders, a charity organisation that specialises in waterway cleaning on a large scale. I've been able to secure them a number of federal grants to assist in their community programs that run major clean-ups of waterways and beaches, to help protect our oceans and rivers and the iconic Moreton Bay. Ocean Crusaders' entire campaign is run with a passion for the ocean, operating a social enterprise that sees them working for government organisations and large corporations to clean up waterways on a regular basis. They have the capability to go to many parts of our rivers and estuaries that are nearly impossible to get to, to remove tonnes of waste. With Minister Ley visiting, it gave Ocean Crusaders the chance to show the many programs that they run, from their cleaning station system to their Paddle Against Plastic community events and their Caps Crusade. They also recently purchased a new solar river cleaner, and it was great to see it in action. Minister Ley's visit to Bonner also fell on the same day that our government announced Australia's first-ever National Plastics Plan. Following last year's first-ever National Plastics Summit, I'm very proud of the Morrison government being the first government to deliver a national plan to reduce plastic waste, increase recycle rates, find alternatives to the plastics that we don't need and put a stop to plastic litter. As Ian from Ocean Crusaders has seen firsthand, plastics that make their way into our waterways and oceans have a devastating impact on wildlife. Well done to Minister Ley and well done to Assistant Minister Trevor Evans for launching the National Plastics Plan, which will have a tremendous impact on our waste, recycling and environment. The highlights of the plan include an end to expanded polystyrene consumer packaging fill and polystyrene food and beverage containers, a plastic-free beaches initiative, a new task force to tackle cigarette litter, a move to ensure that 100 per cent of all packaging is reusable or recyclable, and the phasing in of microplastic filters in washing machines. The Morrison government is setting out a strong plan for change. This is the plan that will help our environment; create jobs through recycling initiatives; and help get plastic waste out of our oceans, out of our waterways and out of our landfill. Thank you, Minister Ley, for visiting Bonner and meeting with our local environmental groups that share your passion for change and for improving our environment for all of us. Assange, Mr Julian Paul 73 16:39 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Julian Assange is an Australian citizen. He's never been convicted of any crime, yet he's been locked up and confined for years now, facing extradition to the USA and an effective death sentence on trumped up, politically motivated charges. Two months ago a UK court found, on humanitarian and health grounds, that he should not be extradited to the USA. Yet still, today, bail is being withheld and Julian is locked up and isolated in a maximum security UK prison with murderers and rapists, at risk of death from COVID-19 because of his health conditions. His health continues to deteriorate. As the Labor leader has said clearly, this has gone on for long enough. The Prime Minister and his do-nothing foreign minister need to act now to bring Julian Assange home and prevent his extradition to the USA. His health and his life depend on it. As the UK court found, if Assange is extradited to the US, he'll face extreme isolation for 175 years, and charges carrying the death penalty can be laid the minute he's on US soil. No national security defendant has ever succeeded in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Assange would be buried alive in the US justice system. Ironically, he would be treated worse than those responsible for America's war crimes in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, which he and WikiLeaks exposed. Should he even survive, his case would circle the US justice system for years and decades, as lawyers, academics and judges argued over whether the cherished First Amendment rights even extended to him. At the heart of this matter is a broken man, an Australian whose health is failing and who needs to come home. For years now, the Morrison government has used weasel words to avoid responsibility, but the persecution of Julian Assange must end now. President Obama commuted Chelsea Manning's sentence—the person who provided the material revealing war crimes—yet Assange, the publisher, is still in jail. With the right diplomacy, the Biden administration could conclude this immediately. The US is currently appealing the court's verdict, which could take months or years more. Australia must now ask our close ally and friend to accept the British court's decision and just drop the prosecution. Friends and allies must speak frankly with one another when our shared values are at risk. The treatment of Assange corrupts our alliance with the US and makes a mockery of the UK's justice system and international law. The British court's recent decision was the right decision for the wrong reasons, made on very narrow health and humanitarian grounds. As the court said: … the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America. The judgement should be concerning for any person who is worried about human rights and the rule of law. The Prime Minister has mouthed a recent interest in the rule of law over the past week. If he seriously cares about the rule of law, he could show it by bringing Julian Assange home. Political crimes should never form the basis of extradition requests, and this case is inherently political. It is designed to mute whistleblowers and investigative journalists globally. As the defence in the case said, it 'poses fundamental threats to the freedom of press throughout the world' and is 'a flagrant denial of his right to freedom of expression'. I don't personally agree with everything that Julian Assange or WikiLeaks have done, but that is not, and must never be, the point. People should not be prosecuted for their political beliefs. People should not be prosecuted for engaging in journalistic activities. Publishing embarrassing classified footage of war crimes in Iraq is journalistic activity and behaviour. It is astonishing to me that a UK court failed to see through the brazenly political nature of this prosecution. On almost every point, the judge agreed with the US government's arguments. In my view, this case has now set a dangerous precedent for others around the world, because, under the court's logic, anyone anywhere in the world who publishes anything embarrassing to the US government could be extradited to the United States. The judge's verdict has given the US what they sought. This situation now needs a political resolution, not a legal one. The Australian government must speak up for our citizen, not keep hiding behind their talking points about legal process and having his day in court. It doesn't matter if you agree with him. It doesn't matter if you like him or dislike him. Julian Assange is an Australian with the same rights as you or me, and he's entitled to the protection of his government. I call on government to do the right thing and save this man. Sturt Electorate: Adelaide City Deal 74 16:44 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt Today is a very significant milestone in the city deal between the Commonwealth government, the state government and the Adelaide City Council local government in my home city of Adelaide, with the announcement of the successful proponent of the entrepreneurial innovation centre to be built on the Lot Fourteen precinct. Quintessential Equity will build a $400 million, 16-storey, 35,000-square-metre icon on that site. This is private sector money, not funded by the taxpayer—a great show of confidence in the success of the deal and of the great ambition that people have for that precinct. Within a week of my becoming the candidate for Sturt, it was my pleasure to attend a signing ceremony between the Prime Minister, the Premier and the lord mayor for that city deal. The total taxpayer value is a little over half a billion dollars, but the precinct itself is more than a billion dollars of activity already, and it is now well beyond that thanks to the $400 million announcement today. We, of course, have the Australian Space Agency located in one of the heritage buildings, the McEwin Building. Five heritage buildings on the site have been restored—the fifth is almost fully restored, the Bice Building. The McEwin, Allied Health Services, Women's Health and Margaret Graham buildings are all restored. They're all full. Private sector startups in the space sector, in the cyber sector, in the defence sector and in the creative industry sector are exciting businesses that see this as a vibrant precinct where there's opportunity to collaborate with other like-minded people that are starting businesses and creating jobs in our economy. We're also working towards the Aboriginal Art and Cultures Gallery, which again is part of the city deal. The concept plans for that have now been developed, and I'm hopeful and looking forward to being part of another sod turning—which is a regular occurrence at that site—when we are ready to commence moving forward with that. One of the other exciting things on the precinct will be the culinary school, which is an initiative to relocate training providers that are currently based well out of the city at Regency Park, like Le Cordon Bleu and the International College of Hotel Management, as well as the state government TAFE, where they provide excellent courses for domestic and international students in all the various elements of hospitality. But it's time for that capability to be moved into the Adelaide CBD. That will transform the capability for us to provide domestic and international education in what is going to be a vital growth industry as we continue to grow our economy post the pandemic. This is a great story of transformation for the city of Adelaide. Lot Fourteen was the old Royal Adelaide Hospital. About 14 years ago, a decision was made to build a new hospital at the other end of the CBD, in what has become a flourishing biomedical precinct. We are happy to have that new hospital, that asset, and the ecosystem in biomedicine and healthcare that's developed around it. The SAHMRI and the SAHMRI II will be opening soon, thanks to Commonwealth funding, to be the first proton therapy unit in Australia. People who currently have to travel to places like Japan, North America or Europe for that kind of capability will be able to be treated there. We'll have it in Adelaide, and people will come from all over the country, in those unfortunate circumstances where they need that treatment. Moving the hospital left an enormous problem at the other end of the city. Hospitals, obviously, apart from the health care they provide, are also inherently a major economic driver, because they've got enormous numbers of people attracted to their precinct, whether they're patients or workforce or visitors et cetera. So it was important that we had a vision for that precinct so that we didn't have one end of the city essentially being left to rack and ruin for all sorts of businesses that for so long had relied on the enormous amount of foot traffic et cetera attracted by the hospital. Well, what we've achieved is beyond our wildest dreams. Now we've got a space agency, and we've got a space industry developing around that—defence industry, cyber industry and creative industries have all been attracted to that precinct because of the ecosystem that's been created. It's great to have the private sector flourishing, but we needed good government decisions to create the opportunity. That is what this city deal is delivering for Adelaide—a great example of two good Liberal governments, the Morrison government and the Marshall government, working together to deliver for the people of South Australia. National Security 74 16:49 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley In the last 24 hours, we've seen the release of the latest threat assessment by ASIO director-general Mike Burgess. It builds on last year's threat assessment, which dramatically signalled the growing threat of right-wing extremism. That was the first time that the agency had signalled their concern at the growth of right-wing extremism in such a public way. We saw terrible events, from Christchurch to El Paso, and plots disrupted in London, Paris and Madrid. The Christchurch events inspired other activity elsewhere. For example, the Ukrainian secret service raided cells of right-wing extremists and discovered translated copies of the Christchurch shooter's manifesto. This is all consistent with the charted rise in right-wing extremism. In 2019, the Global Terrorism Index revealed there had been a 320 per cent increase over five years in right-wing extremism. On home soil, we saw weapons caches uncovered, secret meetings being held, swastika flags flown, public displays of Nazi salutes, mosques and synagogues attacked, daubed with swastikas or graffitied with the term 'Saint Tarrant'. How has the federal government responded? Not by seriously acknowledging the threat, I would submit. They've had trouble saying the phrase 'right-wing extremism'. Their biggest reaction is to the label itself, 'right-wing extremists'. We've had senators hectoring the ASIO director-general during estimates—for example, Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells saying: 'Right' is associated with conservatism in this country, and there are many people of conservative background who take exception to being tarred with the same brush… …   …   … So I think the time has come, Director-General, especially from you, to ensure that you are very careful with the terminology that you use… That's from a coalition senator. On 4 December, the home affairs minister, backing this in, said that argument around the terminology of extremist groups is 'silly', 'stupid' or 'petty'. But they've never been that reticent in the past to embrace the use of labels. For example, in this House, we've heard the minister regularly use the phrase 'Islamist terrorism' and we've seen the Attorney-General do the same thing. The former head of the PJCIS, the member for Canning, wrote a very strong piece, titled 'Denounce Islamic violence or quit', saying, 'I think that we should be free to question the roots of Islamic terrorism,' and that it was 'time for the Australian Muslim leadership to systematically and clearly make the case that Islam is a religion of peace'. We had to make that proof. Now, we come back to the latest threat assessment, which says labels like right-wing extremist or Islamic extremism are 'no longer fit for purpose'. When I first heard that, I thought it was smart. I have enormous respect for the director-general and I have enormous gratitude for the work of ASIO. But I can't help but shake what I and other Muslims have had to live through. We abhorred what was being done by terrorists—the murderous acts. When we did call it out, we were told by conservatives that we had to do it louder, stronger and more regularly. I had former Speaker Bronwyn Bishop question me publicly on TV and say she wanted to know if I had been strong enough on the issue of 'Muslim terrorism'. That was said to me on air. But now, when conservatives are being asked to confront an errant, ugly streak within conservatism, this is now likened to being tarred by the same brush or, as the minister said, 'silly', 'stupid' or 'petty'. The power to name is a significant power indeed, and conservatives have never shied from using that power. In any other circumstances, I'd have no problem embracing the director-general's recommendation, but I look at our journey and I can't help but think: an agency that has lifted its concern level about this threat, that has dedicated 40 per cent of its resources and effort to this issue, has now had to redefine the name of the threat just to get the government to take this issue seriously. It begs a deeper, more serious question: does the coalition only take certain national security threats seriously if it's politically convenient or comfortable to do so? I state again: I don't care if they're Islamist or white supremacist—if they are a threat to Australians, they are a threat to be taken seriously. I would say to the minister and others that if we can be told to 'denounce Islamic violence or quit' then maybe they should denounce right-wing extremism and do the same thing if they can't, just like the member for Canning recommended. March 4 Justice 75 16:55 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson The last few weeks have been really tough for many, many people. The groundswell of anger around the nation that we all heard and saw in the women's March 4 Justice rallies must be addressed. In speaking today, I want to acknowledge that, while my own experience working in this place since first being elected in 2013 has been a good one, this is not the case for some of us, and that is simply beyond not okay—it is just plain wrong. We've got to do better. It's on all of us as Australians. In the past few weeks, I've felt my own rising tidal wave of anger inside as I've really grappled with the reality of what we as a nation face, of what we as women have faced, and as long buried memories have been disturbed of what I've faced. Even in preparing my words, I admit I haven't liked confronting this—any of it. But my own experience over my lifetime is far too common. And for too long a culture of silence has validated an unspoken expectation, at least for me, that, if I as a woman raise a problem, I will be made to be the problem. Perhaps that leads some of us to think that the best way to stay safe is to stay silent, but my own experience now tells me that it is not. When I look over my 30-plus years of working across many, many different roles, only a small handful were horrible experiences where I personally came to experience and learn this lie. I do want to make it clear that none of the following examples relate to this place, but, for instance, I wrote a letter of complaint—decades ago now, on behalf of another young woman—outlining unwanted sexual harassment by an older man in a position of power. The initial response was to be told: 'How dare you. Who do you think you are?' Many years ago, I was propositioned by a married man in a more senior role than me. I turned him down, and my work suddenly became unacceptable. I left; he stayed. Another time, after being constantly told by a different person that the degrading way he spoke was my fault, he repeatedly suggested I end my own life. He did say he was sorry afterwards, but only the first time. And once, just once, I raised an issue with a past boss to seek a positive change in a workplace. A campaign to make me the issue began that went way too far. I learnt brutally, through accusations and extreme actions—including a dead pig's head with a threatening note landing on my family's front doorstep—that when you raise a problem, too often, you are made the problem. The deep undercurrent of anger that culminated in a march of tens of thousands across Australia is very real. Today, I choose to use my voice to unite with other voices across the nation calling for change. Change requires all of us to face some brutal, hard truths, to take the time to listen, to validate, to understand and to give voice to those whose voices were silenced. In making our workplaces safe, including looking at relevant workplace and legal reforms, we also need to be prepared to fund more mental health services to deal with a long trail of damage that is left for those who have suffered the trauma of harassment, assault and being unsafe. Healing can take years, and government funding of counselling and support services must better acknowledge and reflect this. Let me be clear. People must be held to account for their actions, including through our justice system and genuine workplace reform. Alongside this, another issue we also need to consider as we grapple with how to create change for good is how the very real human fear of shame can sometimes inhibit the very changes a perpetrator needs to be able to face and address. Because for some people, even raising an issue with them is enough for them to defend by going on the offensive—deny, attack, blame the victim or the person who raised it, project, look anywhere but where they should look—which of course only entrenches the cycle and doesn't change it. So while we've got really strong messages around, for example, family violence, developing campaigns and providing support to ensure that those who perpetrate such behaviour can seek and receive help as well as all relevant help being available and accessible to those they harm should also be considered. Stop it at the Start is a good start, but we need more federal government funding for relevant services to encourage more perpetrators to seek and get help and engage in a genuine process of change that lasts their lifetimes. Because we not only need to end the cycle; we need to reverse it. It's taken a collective tsunami of rage sweeping across the nation for me to be able to acknowledge in myself that, for too long, I have tolerated the culture of silence, and I acknowledge that my past experiences somewhat broke my own voice as a means of self-protection. So this is my first step, but not the last, towards using my voice to call for the changes that are needed to ensure all of us are respected and safe in our workplaces and our communities. It doesn't start tomorrow. It's already begun. House adjourned at 17:00 NOTICES 76 NOTICES

Thursday, 18 March 2021

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ) took the chair at 10:00

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 78 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Myanmar 78 10:00 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin It's been more than a month now since the military coup of 1 February 2021 in Myanmar and the subsequent detention of political figures. We have seen deeply distressing and deeply disturbing images of the beatings and the bashings, and we hear stories of the kidnappings as well. The authorities have opened fire on protesters, and we have seen time and again some truly shocking events. These events are a direct attack on Myanmar's democratic transition. We want to see the democracy of that country progressed and advanced, not undermined. That's why the Australian government must do more to work with allied and aligned nations to make clear our expectations that democratic norms are respected and strengthened. In the immediate aftermath of this coup, we called on the government to review defence cooperation with Myanmar, and we have subsequently supported the steps that the government has taken to suspend that cooperation program at the defence level as well as the redirection of humanitarian aid. It's crucially important here that Australia and Australians aren't bystanders when it comes to this disgraceful coup. We need to stand in solidarity with the people of Myanmar and ensure that the bilateral relationship will not return to business as usual until democracy is restored and political prisoners are released. We need to look at other areas of bilateral cooperation and review those, and we need to consider additional targeted sanctions where they are appropriate. We want that country to be led in a democratic way following the democratic norms and institutions and processes on the path that that country was on before this coup took place. I wanted to put on the parliamentary record my appreciation for the opportunity—first in Logan last month at a meeting convened in my office, and then yesterday here in Canberra in my parliamentary office—to speak with representatives of the local communities who have been so deeply affected by what's happening to their loved ones in Myanmar. I wanted to assure them that we stand in solidarity with them in the aftermath of this unacceptable coup and seeing all of these images of the beatings and bashings and kidnappings, we want to see democracy advanced, not undermined and we should be considering ways to do more to support you. Charitable Organisations 78 10:03 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon Australia's 58,000 registered charities hold a special place in our communities. Day in and day out they fulfil a vital role in our society, delivering important and often essential services, responding to disasters, providing a helping hand, mentoring our future leaders and much, much more. Our government also strongly supports the right for peaceful protest and encourages everyone to engage in political discourse. This is a key pillar of our democracy and one I will always vigorously fight to uphold. What I can condemn, however, is illegal political activism in organisations that encourage and participate in criminal activities—particularly if they are masquerading as charities! Tasmanians have had enough of extremist organisations who threaten, harass and endanger the lives of workers who are simply trying to go about their legal, everyday work and provide for their families. Yesterday the Bob Brown Foundation invaded Venture Minerals' Riley Creek mining operation in my electorate of Braddon. Radical activists locked themselves to vehicles preventing access to the mine. This was a selfish and illegal act. They had no regard for the law, no regard for business going about their lawful activities, no regard for the safety of workers, no regard for the fact that their actions monopolised the region's limited emergency response capability for hours, potentially risking lives. Several weeks ago, the same activists targeted a group on the east coast, at McKay sawmill—same deal. This is a total disregard for the law and the rights of businesses to undertake their lawful enterprise and for workers to provide for their families. Our job-creating, low-impact mining sector and our world-leading sustainable timber forestry industry are the livelihoods and the lifeblood of many organisations and regions across the north-west and the west coast of Tasmania. Every time these extremists invade a workplace, good honest business folk, who are part of the broader subcontractor network, who employ locals, grind to a halt. The person driving the excavator, the boom gate operator, the mill worker, the truck driver—the whole supply chain stops. This illegal action is risking the viability of not only these businesses but the entire network of subcontractors. These extremists have made it very clear that they will not stop, and that is why I welcome the Morrison government's commitment to strengthen the laws to ensure charities are prohibited from engaging in or promoting theft, vandalism, trespass, assault or threatening behaviour. This will stop activist organisations like the Bob Brown Foundation from masquerading as charities and from promoting and engaging in unlawful behaviour. For Tasmanians who are fed up with this militant behaviour, the change hasn't come soon enough. March 4 Justice 79 10:06 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah What an important and historic week we have seen here in Canberra and around Australia. Monday's March 4 Justice was a defining point for me and I hope for our nation. It has led to a national conversation that many have tried to avoid or, worse still, repress for too long. It's a difficult and painful conversation but a necessary one. I want to share the words of one brave survivor from Warringah who has written to me as she processes the emotions and events of the last few weeks. She wrote, 'This is a conversation that we, as human beings, as a nation, need to have. We don't want to have it, but we need to. It's long overdue and it isn't going to be easy. There will be no winners in this. No-one will come out of this feeling good. But, hopefully, after this we can all move forward and create a safer world for our children to live in than we have had.' We owe it to this survivor and to the hundreds of thousands like her to ensure this painful conversation leads to real and long-lasting change. Over the last month or so, across our nation, there's been a build-up of frustration, anger and hurt but also a build-up of energy, of a desire to take action, of a demand for justice, respect and change. It was a truly humbling experience to step outside this place on Monday and join the thousands of women and men who had marched to our workplace, demanding that we, as their representatives, listen to them and take action. As I walked through the crowd, I was struck by the diversity of faces and experiences around me. There isn't a single sector of our society that isn't affected by gender based violence and that isn't demanding change. As we listened to the powerful words of those speaking, I could hear stifled crying amongst those gathered. For some they were tears of pain, as their own experiences and trauma were relived, for others they were tears and memory for loved ones who could no longer live with the burden of their abuse, and for others, they were tears of exhaustion, after decades of fighting for basic human rights and respect. I'm conscious that the national conversation at the moment is causing trauma and distress to many people. It's literally a triggering event. To them, please reach out and get support. To the government, I plead with you: now is the time for action. Listen to the frontline services, who are telling you what is needed to better support our victims and survivors and what is needed to prevent the violence from taking place in the first place. Enough is enough. For those who need assistance, please reach out to 1800RESPECT—that is, 1800737732. Barker Electorate: Citrus Industry 79 10:09 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise today to talk about an issue of concern to constituents in my electorate of Barker. It's trite to say, but I'll say it nonetheless, that since the pandemic the nature of work and employment has changed in this country. Some industries can no longer support the workers that they employed pre pandemic, while others have a dire shortage of labour. Citrus producers in my electorate in the Riverland are a perfect example of an industry experiencing a distressing shortage of workers. Our government, indeed citrus producers, would always prefer to see Australians employed in this local industry, but we have intervened by offering a number of incentives including the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program offering $6,000 for an Australian citizen or $2,000 for an eligible visa holder. We have encouraged year 12 students to take a gap year and work in agriculture through the $16.2 million youth allowance and Abstudy eligibility changes. These changes offer easier access to Youth Allowance and Abstudy once someone commences their university degree, benefitting from not only the money earned but those future allowances. Despite these generous programs, Australians, sadly, in sufficient numbers, haven't answered the call. So now, as in previous years, we need international workers to fill the chronic labour shortage. Our priority is to get the workers we need on farm. The Seasonal Worker Program and the Pacific Labour Scheme are two such programs to help us get the workers we need. At least 22,000 workers from the Pacific Islands have been pre-vetted and are wanting to come to our farms to do this work. It's a matter of all hands on deck right now. I have advocated consistently for the need to allow, like what happens in Queensland, on-farm quarantine but it doesn't seem that we'll be able to get there. I want to congratulate the South Australian government in establishing the quarantine facility at Paringa, but I also want to acknowledge the very significant work that's been done to allow Pacific Island neighbours, such as Fiji and Vanuatu, to establish in-country quarantine facilities. That seems like an eminently sensible solution to me. It's one that the South Australian government supports and it's one that we must expedite at the earliest opportunity. I think we'd all agree that there's nothing crueller than to think of an Aussie farmer who's invested capital, labour, energy, effort and, quite frankly, a whole heap of sweat into producing a good, in this case Australia's premium citrus products—to think that they'll rot on the tree. We need to put all shoulders to the wheel right now, get this fruit picked and do it in combination with international workers. 2020 Holt Community Spirit and Leadership Awards 80 10:12 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt On Monday 14 December I conducted the 2020 Holt Community Spirit Leadership Awards in what was a virtual presentation ceremony via Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Last year marked the 19th Holt Community Spirit and Leadership Awards. Thirty-four students from 33 local schools were recognised at this fairly unique awards ceremony. The students that received the award included Caplen Dexter from Barton Primary School, Eliz Szasz from Botanic Ridge Primary School, Lilly Hopp from Casey Grammar School, Scarlett Mills from Casey Fields Primary School, Desi Kohobange from Clyde Primary School, Cailin Farrington from Coral Park Primary School, Nastaran Mirzaie from Courtney Gardens Primary School, Shujaat Haidri from Cranbourne Carlisle Primary School, Frederick Kiellerup from Cranbourne East Primary School, Fatemeh Habibi from Cranbourne Park Primary College, Josh Bradford from Cranbourne Secondary College, Jamie Bryant from Cranbourne South Primary School, Brianna Boehl from Cranbourne West Primary School, Ineya Sudhakar from Hampton Park Primary School, Eddie Vusic from Hampton Park Secondary College, Harrison De Koning from Hillsmeade Primary School, Katiana Michael from Kilberry Valley Primary School, Lily Hughes from Lynbrook Primary School, Harrison Hand from Lyndhurst Primary School, Zoe Baltruschaitis from Lyndhurst Secondary College, Charlotte Pataki from Marnebek School Cranbourne, Charlotte Nicholls from Narre Warren South P-12 College, Alyssa Hansen from Pearcedale Primary School, Tearo Johassen from Rangebank Primary School, Jerry Cheap from River Gum Primary School, Daelan De Zilwa from St Francis de Sales Primary School, Tapuitea Li-Rina Passi from St Kevin's Primary School, Corey Coupar from St Peter's College Clyde North Campus, Emily Andrew from St Peter's College Cranbourne Campus, Siobhan O'Connor from Strathaird Primary School, Hershey Montemayor from Tulliallan Primary School, Blake Hewegama from Waverley Christian College, Bryn Howell from Waverley Christian College and Anishka Nanayakkara from Wilandra Rise Primary School. Those are a lot of names I read into the Hansard, but they're important because they are the names of young people who significantly contributed to improve community life in one of the most difficult years they will experience in their lives. I had great pride in presenting these awards to these outstanding young people, and I know their parents and community are proud of every name that I read into the parliamentary Hansard today. Flynn Electorate: SwarmFarm Robotics 80 10:15 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I'd like to talk about SwarmFarm Robotics, in Gindie, in Central Queensland. Ten years ago the SwarmFarm Robotics' journey began with developers Andrew and Jocie Bate in a paddock on a farm at Gindie, in rural Queensland, just 50 kilometres from Emerald, in my electorate of Flynn. Andrew is a former agronomist and has been farming for 18 years at Gindie alongside his parents, Ross and Jenny Bate. They've divided their farm into 10,000 acres of broadacre farming and 10,000 for beef production. Together with his wife, Jocie, he had a vision to create a better farming system. Using their own farming operations in Central Queensland as a testbed, they partnered with two universities and developed their first prototype ag-bot, Swarm bot 1, back in 2014. Swarm bot 1 was a three-wheel machine that weighed only 300 kilograms, a lot lighter compared to the weight of a tractor pulling a seeder or sprayer. These small machines can spray, fertiliser and mow. The sky's the limit for their future development. In 2016, the Bates welcomed over 400 people to their farm to release the first generation of their new technology. I was pleased to be on site at their property for this exciting release and milestone for Andrew and Jocie. Forward to 2021, SwarmFarm now have 22 robots and have moved to four-wheel machines. Swarm is building agricultural robotics and leading the world in innovation and digital savvy. Robots are assembled locally at the Bates' farm, Bendee, at Gindie. Components are fabricated in Emerald. Currently, SwarmFarm employ 17 in their team. Team members are based at Gindie and in the rural areas around Australia, not in the city. SwarmFarm consists of software developers, electronic engineers, design engineers, analysts and marketers. In January this year I again visited the Bates' operation in watched a robot in action spraying weeds and a new robot being assembled in their workshop. Accuracy for spraying is within millimetres. The precision greatly improves efficiency, sustainability and environmental impacts on the agriculture and on the soil. Over the past two years, SwarmFarm have weeded, sprayed and mowed over 200,000 acres of farmland not only in Gindie. They're now selling their machines into South America. Robots are autonomous, lightweight, flexible, and technology is always changing. These robots are client customised. (Time expired) Endometriosis Awareness Month 80 10:18 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur March is Endometriosis Awareness Month. Endometriosis is a hidden disease, in many ways. Although it affects close to a million Australian women, its symptoms, its signs and its treatment are often poorly understood, and the diagnosis is often missed. We have effective treatments, but many women have difficulty accessing them. It is very important that we understand the symptoms of endometriosis, which include things like fatigue; iron deficiency; intermittent abdominal pain; infertility; pain before, during or after sex; pain with bowel movements; urinary irregularities; incontinence; heavy bleeding or irregular bleeding, and these are symptoms that people often suffer in silence. I think it's time that this should happen no longer. We must be much more aware of endometriosis. We must be much more aware of its signs, symptoms and treatment. It's a fair thing to say that, even though this affects so many Australian women, many medical professionals tend to brush it off. They tend to pretend that there's some other cause. They tend to send people away without proper investigation and proper treatment. This should stop. The time has come where we must treat it properly. My daughter Amelia suffers from endometriosis and has had symptoms for many years. Her father's a doctor but, unfortunately, the diagnosis was missed for quite a long time. She's now received treatment and has much better outcomes. She lives overseas and came to Australia four years ago to get treatment. She's been treated. She had her first child 2½ years ago and she's about to have her second child in the next few weeks. So it's a really great outcome for her and for her whole family. To me, it's a sign that we must try harder. We must do what we can to recognise endometriosis and offer people appropriate treatment. I've spoken to many people in this parliament and I think there's an increasing awareness around the country of endometriosis and the importance of offering appropriate treatment. Sadly, many people struggle to get access to gynaecologists who have a good understanding of endometriosis and its modern treatment. We must improve that outcome for Australian women. In my own family it's now been recognised, since Amelia's diagnosis, that other family members have suffered endometriosis. This has helped awareness in my family, and in our community, and I will do all I can to promote the awareness of endometriosis, appropriate treatment and the good outcomes that can now come with appropriate management. Women in Sport 81 10:21 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde One of the great strides made in our community over the past few years has been in the growing involvement of women and girls in sport. Football Queensland has recently partnered with Bethania Rams in my electorate to run a free six-week program for women and girls within culturally and linguistically diverse communities. This program is designed to eliminate the unique barriers that members of culturally and linguistically diverse communities can experience when participating in football. From my years of playing sport, I know how valuable the membership of a sporting team can be for both physical and emotional wellbeing, and taking part in team sports can create bonds that last for many years. It is fantastic to see women's sporting teams sprouting at a grassroots level across my electorate of Forde and, more importantly, across the country. Unfortunately, research from Sport Australia shows that although girls and women are as active as boys and men almost half between the ages of 15 and 17 stop playing club sport at that age. This is a very disappointing statistic. I actively support our women's sporting teams across my electorate and regularly attend the terrific games of women's rugby league, AFL and football. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to some of the clubs in my electorate who host women's teams. Logan Lightning FC have a team in the Women's National Premier League and made the grand final last year but, sadly, were not successful. Ormeau Bulldogs and Beenleigh Buffaloes AFL clubs have both girls' and women's teams. Rugby league clubs Mustangs Brothers, Beenleigh Pride, Eagleby Giants and Ormeau Shearers all have girls' and women's teams, with the Ormeau Shearers women's team winning the 2020 SEQW Green premiership last year. These are all successful and thriving clubs. They are family and community based clubs run by generous and talented volunteers. It's fantastic to see our women and girls be part of these positive environments. A connection with sport gives far more than just physical fitness; it creates confidence, provides emotional support and broadens friendships. Suncorp's Australian Youth and Confidence Research shows that women who played team sport as children say it's helped them develop collaboration and teamwork skills, communication and social skills, flexibility and adaptability, confidence and resilience, the ability to give and receive feedback, and, importantly, leadership. As our young girls and women start out on the next season, 2021, I wish them all the best. Aged Care 81 10:24 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh This week in parliament I had the absolute pleasure of meeting and talking with some amazing people who work in our aged-care system. They came to Canberra via their trade unions—the United Workers Union and the ANMF—and during the previous sittings I met with HSU members. Their message to me was clear: aged care is in crisis. Those workers didn't need a royal commission to learn this truth, they live it everyday. Zelda, from my state of South Australia, lamented that she doesn't have time to sit with residents who crave a chat or any interaction beyond the strict tasks of institutional care. Others told me they are often so understaffed they're not able to clean in a timely manner residents who have soiled themselves, even during meal times. From our discussions with Zelda and Donna from South Australia, Ross and Amanda from Queensland, and Jude and Jirianti from WA, it's clear that, at a paltry $22 per hour, these workers are overworked and underpaid. They simply don't have enough time to care. Emma is a young registered nurse I met with yesterday along with the ANMF, her union. She was only three years into the long career she wanted to spend in aged care but the poor wages and conditions forced her to move to another part of the health sector, where she earns $10 an hour more than she did caring for many, many more people in an aged-care setting. Other nurses described the residents they care for as 'family'. Jocelyn said: 'This is their last journey. We owe them dignity.' These workers desperately want to know when they can tell residents in their care that they will have the time to care for them properly and safely. Their dedication to their work, and the love they feel for their residents, is just so powerful. Despite the low wages, inadequate staffing levels and strenuous working environment, they still turn up for work every day to perform some of our society's most important work. Importantly, they did that during the COVID pandemic, when so many of the rest of us were able to work from home. The time for bandaids, the time for relying on the 'above and beyond' ethic and the dedication of aged-care staff, is over. We have had a royal commission and the jury is in. The Morrison government must respond because the Australian community is watching. Zelda and her colleagues are watching. Jocelyn and her colleagues are all watching as well. It's time for real action, not more flashy announcements and platitudes. The problem is clear, the challenge is clear. It's time to fix it. Child Sexual Abuse 82 10:27 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest The Australian Federal Police and the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation have launched a new initiative called 'Stop Child Abuse -Trace an Object'. Trace an Object calls on the public to help investigators with cold cases. They've released non-confrontational images, taken out of the background of child sexual abuse material, hoping that any member of the public might be able to recognise these objects. They include really simple images of things like a hat, a curtain or even a bedspread. People may have seen or worn these objects in their local areas; they might know the origins of an object or where it can be bought. Any clue, no matter how small, will assist to piece together information. You never know, it could help rescue a child from great harm and lead to the arrest of an offender. Just go online and have a look at these images on the ACCCE website. Stop Child Abuse -Trace an Object is similar to an initiative run by Europol that led to the removal of 10 innocent children from harm. The production of child sexual abuse material is getting worse and it is on an industrial scale. In the early to mid-2000s, a child sex offender usually had around 1,000 images. That's now estimated to be between 10,000 and 80,000 images and videos. This is facilitated by online platforms, as we all know. In 2020, the AFP charged 191 people with 1,847 alleged child abuse related offences and removed 89 children from harm. I congratulate and thank them for that and for the work that goes in behind the scenes—and what that does to these people looking at this material. I want to thank them for that. The Trace an Object initiative follows the introduction of the Online Safety Bill into parliament last month, which will better protect Australians from harm online by setting out a modern regulatory framework strengthening the powers of the eSafety Commissioner to counteract cyberbullying, toxic online abuse, harmful content and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. It includes a world-first cyber-abuse scheme for adults that will assist victims of seriously harmful online abuse to have the material removed when online platforms fail to act. As members know, I spend a lot of time in my community talking to students and parents about staying safe online. I encourage everyone to have a look at this site. St Kilda 82 10:30 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I want to take this opportunity to talk about the revitalisation of one of the hearts of my electorate, St Kilda. St Kilda is an iconic part of Melbourne. We all love St Kilda—Luna Park and Acland Street, where my office is located. It's a place of tourist destinations. It's a place of activity and vibrancy, especially during summer. I couldn't be prouder to represent that area. But there's no doubt that, over recent times, St Kilda has had it pretty rough. A lot of the small businesses, the retailers, have had to deal with rising rental costs, lower patronage numbers and, of course, the pandemic. St Kilda has really taken a big hit. But I'm pleased to say that there is activity and that there are huge changes and huge efforts being made to revitalise St Kilda. Nothing encapsulates St Kilda quite like Fitzroy Street. Fitzroy Street is the home of night-life in Melbourne. It has some great places, like the Prince of Wales and the George, and great restaurants, like Cafe Di Stasio. Unfortunately, it's also been synonymous with people who are a bit dislocated, people who have been sleeping rough, and people who are facing poverty and social isolation. But that's changing. One of the big things that has happened on Fitzroy Street is the development of the St Kilda Pride Centre, the home of the LGBTQI community. It is a magnificent building that will stand extremely tall in the heart of St Kilda. One of the other things that's happening on Fitzroy Street is a project called Renew Fitzroy Street. A company has come in and taken over the leases of a number of St Kilda properties and brought in some creative businesses, some new start-up businesses. I was so pleased to go and visit them. I bought some goat's milk cheese. I bought some hanging plants as well. They are a fabulous collection of small businesses— An honourable member interjecting— Mr BURNS 278522 I'll take the interjection. They were kosher. But they were just wonderful. I would encourage everyone to head down to Fitzroy Street and go and check out the Renew Fitzroy Street exhibition. The other thing that's happening in St Kilda, which many people in this house would be familiar with, is the gallery of Mirka Mora work. Mirka Mora is iconically St Kilda. She came to this country, after escaping from France. Her family escaped Nazi Germany, or escaped from Europe, and she came to Australia. She would wander around St Kilda, bringing vibrancy and life. Her works are displayed in St Kilda, but at the Jewish Museum there is a special exhibition, which is just breathtaking. I would encourage everyone to go and check it out. Go and see the MIRKA exhibition at the Jewish Museum and come and enjoy everything that St Kilda has to offer. March 4 Justice 83 10:33 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash This week marked a moment in our history when many thousands of Australians took to the streets to demand respect, justice and safety for women. As both an elected representative and a man, I hear the anger and the hurt and acknowledge the disregard for women that has led to this fork in our road. I'm horrified at the levels of abuse, intimidation, harassment, discrimination and violence against women in this, our great south land. Women will drive this change. I hope more men will join them. Politicians need to be quiet and listen and learn. Actions, not words, count. I will play my part. I have written to the Prime Minister, requesting that two actions be taken immediately. The first is to convene a national gathering of women that represent women's peak organisations and every local government area to recommend to parliament the pathway to real and lasting change in our homes, in our workplaces and on the streets. Next I've asked the Prime Minister to introduce a gender impact statement for all cabinet submissions, new policies and legislation. It's a privilege to be in a position where we can affect change and commit to justice, safety and respect for Australian women of all ages and so enrich the nation. We are all responsible and accountable. It's no accident that we are here for a time such as this. For the women of Australia this is not negotiable. The tide has turned. This is just as I see it. National Disability Insurance Scheme 83 10:35 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to talk about the NDIS and specifically the introduction of independent assessments. This is the most fundamental change to the NDIS since it was introduced. What this means is that rather than using the advice of medical professionals who people with disability have worked with, perhaps for their own whole lives, this enforces on them an assessment by the government's own medical professionals that is compulsory. This really undermines the whole concept of choice and control. Perhaps obviously the disability community are extremely concerned about this and have raised these concerns. I want to note in particular People with Disability Australia, the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations and Every Australian Counts. They're all organisations that were involved in lobbying to get the NDIS set-up and have raised really serious concerns about this. The Commonwealth Ombudsman has also raised concern about these changes, these fundamental changes will change the way the NDIS works, being rushed through in this way. The minister has said that he is listening. He says that he's going around the country listening but he's also ruled out that there will be any changes to this proposal. Well, that's not listening. We need to listen to people with disability about these changes that are fundamental to their quality of life. I think so often the problem with the NDIS under this government is that we're not trusting people with disability to make decisions about their own lives. That was the whole purpose. The whole principle guiding the NDIS was supposed to be about—choice and control. But, sadly, I think the thing that we see so much is it is driven by cost cutting. It is driven by this ridiculous approach that seems to say that people with disability are trying to get something that they shouldn't be entitled to. Why would you want something that you don't need when you're talking about disability supports? We need to listen to people. This is insulting and disgraceful to people with disability. It is absolutely heartbreaking that this NDIS that was promised has not delivered that choice and control to so many people. For some people it has made a really positive difference but now they're living in fear that these independent assessments will come in and change the things that their own medical professionals have recommended for them. I urge the minister to genuinely listen to the disability community and to rethink these changes because it is very damaging. It is time that we saw people with disability have the actual choice and control that was promised by the NDIS. Calare Electorate: Australia Day Awards 84 10:38 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Today I rise to pay tribute to the citizens of Calare who were recently recognised for their service to our communities with Australia Day honours. They have made an enormous contribution to our region and these honours are richly deserved. John Kearns of Portland received an OAM for service to the community through a range of roles, including his work in community health and aged care and volunteering for a range of clubs and organisations. The Order of Australia medal was awarded to Dr Ruth Arnold from Orange for her service to medicine as a cardiologist. Dr Arnold and the cardiology team at Orange hospital service an area of some 250,000 square kilometres, providing vital health services to rural communities. In Canowindra there were multiple awards that recognised wonderful service to our community. Geoffrey Beath was recognised for his work as chairman of Canowindra health council and his extensive service to the Moorbel brigade of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service and other organisations such as Canowindra showground. David O'Dea was acknowledged for his role in establishing Canowindra's wine industry and volunteering within the community. Lew Bezzina was awarded a Public Service Medal for his outstanding commitment to Lithgow City Council's recovery efforts in response to the bushfires that devastated the region. Captain John Marshall of Cudgegong received an Australian Fire Service Medal. At the age of 74, John played a central role in battling the 2019-20 fires, saving lives, properties and livelihoods across the community. He is currently captain of the Bogee Brigade. The Emergency Services Medal was awarded to Glenn Hinton of Rylstone. As captain of the Rylstone-Kandos Rescue Squad, Mr Hinton's commitment and dedication was vital in protecting people in his community, particularly in response to last year's bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic. It's a tremendous honour to be nominated for an Australia Day award and an even greater honour to be a recipient of one. On behalf of our community, I'd like to place on the record the thanks of the Australian parliament to these wonderful community members who are making a real difference to the lives of so many in the Calare electorate. Congratulations to all of these wonderful members. In a future speech to this place, I will be honouring even more members of our community who were honoured on Australia Day. Myanmar 84 10:41 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Do you hear the people sing? That is a famous song from the world's most famous musical, Les Miserables. We download the track, we watch it in theatres, we listen to it on Spotify and other applications, and it's entertainment. It's a distant struggle about some oppressor that rests safely in the past, in distant history. For one summer of protests, it was heard on the streets of Hong Kong nearly every day. Right now, protesters are singing this song on the streets of Myanmar. They are very different streets to 1815 France, with a different oppressor but the same brutality. There are people today, not on the stage, who, right now, are facing tear gas and live bullets, and they are spilling real blood. This is not theatre. Over 180 innocent civilians have been ruthlessly killed. They're dead, killed in cold blood on the streets of Yangon, Mandalay and the villages and townships of Myanmar. This is the battleground for democracy and we are compelled to hear their song and their voice of protest. We cannot shut our ears, we cannot shut our eyes and we cannot close our hearts, because, while they are signing for their freedoms, their families and their lives, they are actually also singing for us. They are singing for our freedoms as well as theirs. So, yes, by all means, let's enjoy a great song in musical theatre, but when you hear that song, sung right now by those protesters on the streets who are putting their lives at risk for their democracy and their freedom in the face of an oppressor, let us not hear it as entertainment; let us hear them. I ask this chamber again and this government: do you hear the people sing? Member for Boothby 84 10:43 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby I have had a tough few days. I have tried hard to contain my emotion at my decision to leave the parliament at the end of this term, especially when explaining the reasons. Recounting, yet again, the treatment I suffered at the hands of GetUp, Labor and Extinction Rebellion, and the dangerous behaviour their actions have encouraged, is hard. I have tried not to cry during my speeches and during the TV and radio interviews I've done. At times, I have failed and I will probably fail now. As a woman, I get angry at myself for doing this. But, as I wrote in my opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald today, I'm tired of the political fight, I'm tired of pretending to be brave and I'm tired of having to defend the fact I'm a woman, yet here I am having to fight and defend myself again. The online abuse, trolling, victim shaming and blaming, the complete denial of things, I have suffered during my time in parliament and that has been aimed at me over the past 48 hours is disgusting. Those involved should be ashamed. I cannot believe that GetUp are claiming that the tens of thousands of phone calls their volunteers made calling me evil, and the groups of protesters following me around my electorate to hunt me down and intimate me—often with a man who stalked me—was acceptable behaviour. I can't believe that journalists like Paul Bongiorno are tweeting that my experience is merely a politically motivated smear campaign against GetUp. I've had women on Twitter who claim to be against violence against women tweeting that I'm playing the gender card. Senator Hollie Hughes' response to these sorts of attacks says it all: 'This is disgraceful. We believe all women except conservative women.' Johannes Leak's cartoon in The Australian today says it all as well. It's disgraceful, as are the many emails I've received, of which I'm now going to read a few. One says: 'Please do not complain about the treatment you are receiving, as obviously this is your weak characteristic and others will capitalise on this trait. If you are not strong, this place is not for weaklings and, please, do not use the female cry tactic'—I apologise for having done that again—'as it will not work. It's not that it's a male's world, it's that you're weak.' Another says: 'No wonder you are being stalked by someone. You deserve it. You're a piece of crap.' And there's this: 'I do not believe one word you said. The filth you're associated with, both in your past with Sky News and the LNP rape club with its continued lies and cover-ups, gives me the reason not to believe you. Don't insult my intelligence with denials or your false crocodile tears. I'm looking forward to seeing your demise.' Finally: 'You are a most rancid coward, an infamous and endless liar, a consummate shrivelled dirtbag, a ruling class s-l-u-t and intellectual disgrace. Now go lick your smirky's balls, you Liberal crim.' This has to stop. Chifley Electorate: Education 85 10:46 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I want to just say to the member for Boothby that, while we may be political combatants, our democracy is strengthened by being able to challenge ideas in a way that do not resort to what we have had to see experienced in this place. Certainly, as someone who has experienced it in their own way, as a result of their own faith, I do appreciate that this is a completely unacceptable standard and we must do better. We must strive for better. Year 12 is always a challenging period in students' lives, but imagine layering on top of that the impact of a pandemic. From remote education to uncertainty around exams, 2020 has been exceptionally stressful for a lot of schools, students, teachers and the families of those students, and what I admire is that amongst all the obstacles that were faced, students persevered and showed determination to get through those tough times. Full credit to them. I recently attended the Australian Islamic College's HSC achievement ceremony in Mount Druitt to congratulate the 2020 cohort on their results. Numerous students received band 6s and ATARs above 85, and over 35 students received early university offers at the end of last year. Congratulations to the dux, Hira Farid, Iman Khan, Imran Rather, Uzma Mansur, Hiba Farid, Aisha Shabbir and Fatimah El Dannaoui. They were all among the students recognised. I also want to send my gratitude and thanks to the hardworking teachers, led by Principal Sherin Mohamed, and to the supportive parents and families, without whom none of this would have been possible. Congratulations to you all. Chifley is full of incredible educators like Dr Amanda White. She is a business school academic at UTS and known to many accounting students, through her social media platforms, as 'Amanda loves to audit'. She was recently given the teaching excellence award for law, economics, business and related studies. Amanda runs her own YouTube channel where she provides 46,000 subscribers free resources to help teachers and students learn about auditing company financial statements. She creates learning environments that tap into the emotional and social aspects of that learning. Her approach is that failure in the classroom is part of the learning process and experience and is not something to be feared. Through her dedication and unique ways of engaging, Dr White's improved the employability of students, ensuring they have both the knowledge and the skills to be active team members in their graduate workplaces from day one. It was, then, only fitting that Dr White would receive this great acknowledgment of her contribution to education in this country. I want to say a massive thank you to Dr White. Congratulations to her on what she does in improving the lives of many in our local area and around the world. Clean Up Australia Day 85 10:31 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane Earlier this month I attended some Clean Up Australia Day events around my community, including: an early morning event in New Farm Park, a visit to the blue army event organised by Cleanaway at Auchenflower, an event in Victoria Park in Spring Hill, and a wonderful event organised by a collection of neighbours and students from Holy Spirit and New Farm state schools around Browne Street in New Farm. Now, in its 31st year, Clean Up Australia Day is Australia's largest community based environmental event. It's about Aussies putting on their gloves and taking some practical, real action to look after our local environment. In addition to the many bags filled with litter, there are always some surprise discoveries. This year, we found a surprisingly high number of shoes, and, while I doubt that anyone deliberately intended to leave their cocktail heels in a garden bed in New Farm Park, it is a reminder of a very serious challenge. We have a long way to go to achieve better outcomes for the recycling of shoes, clothing and fashion accessories, despite the very best efforts of some of our charitable recyclers. It's one of the reasons the government has been so excited to invest seed funding into a new product stewardship scheme called Circular Threads. It's about looking at how we can reduce waste around workwear and uniforms and the textiles within them. Another challenge with textiles can be the microplastics released from those textiles, including when we wash our clothes. That's why the government announced just a couple of weeks ago in our National Plastics Plan that we're working to bring in new standards around microplastic filters for washing machines and whitegoods. Last week I also had the pleasure of attending the launch of a social enterprise in Milton called the Styling Station. Their mission is to make sure that clothes, shoes and accessories that might otherwise end up in landfill are instead going to support women in need. I want to give a big shout-out today to the Styling Station founders, Benice Callanan and Kylie Muntz, for their hard work in helping some of the most vulnerable people in our Brisbane community. Everyone has a responsibility and a role to play when it comes to achieving a more sustainable and circular economy. We've all got a role to play, whether it's getting your hands dirty on Clean Up Australia Day, whether it's supporting sustainably focused charities like the new Styling Station in Milton or whether it's about designing better recycling systems or designing better products, such as putting microplastic filters on whitegoods. And, as a community all working together, that's where we can achieve real, practical changes every day. Griffith Electorate 86 10:52 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith It's good to follow the member for Brisbane, because I know he has, in his electorate, some real concerns being raised with him about aircraft noise as is the case in my electorate. I just want to put on the record that I have met with the Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance. Representatives of that alliance have been to see me about their campaign in respect of aircraft noise. I want to say that I expect the Brisbane Airport Corporation, Airservices and, of course, the government to listen to the advocacy from this group. I also expect them to take the steps they can to reduce aircraft noise immediately. For example, a lot of our mutual constituents would be saying that aircraft movements should be occurring across the bay, where that's possible, as opposed to over residential areas. I know that weather can affect the possibility of that happening, and, of course, we can't fix the weather, but, where the difficulty in flying over the bay is caused by too many movements per hour, that's something that can be addressed by scheduling. The Brisbane Airport Corporation, Airservices and the government should address that by seeking to ensure that scheduling isn't preventing aircraft from traveling in across the bay. I want to mention the Kangaroo Point APOD, the so-called alternative place of detention. It's really just a makeshift detention centre in my electorate of Griffith. It was put at Kangaroo Point without any consultation with me or the community. I was very pleased when 49 people were released from that APOD recently, and I want to congratulate all of the advocates, including Romero Centre, as well as many, many more who have been both calling for the release of people and supporting those who have been released. I myself have repeatedly called on the government to release people from detention where it's safe for that to occur, and I want them to really take a close look at this, because there are still 43 people in that APOD. It's important that those 43 people know there are people who are worried about them, who are thinking of them and who are very concerned for their welfare. I want to mention that the state government has released the South East Queensland Regional Transport Plans. I welcome the fact the state government has indicated in those plans that reviewing level crossings is important. Of course, we have a level crossing in my electorate at Cavendish Road, which I've been campaigning about for many years. I really want all levels of government to work together to address this issue. Labor took a commitment of $107 million to the last election and put that on the table for fixing this issue. We need all levels of government to make sure that they are working together, and we need the Morrison government to come to the table. They have put up money for the Linden level crossing, and we don't begrudge that, but we want money put up for the Cavendish Road level crossing, which will have an impact for my constituents and also for people who live further east of that crossing as well. Capricornia Electorate: Water 86 10:56 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I have spent a great deal of time in this place and in my electorate of Capricornia, talking about Rookwood Weir. This is a project very close to my heart because of the benefits it will bring to thousands of hardworking farmers, graziers and landowners in my electorate. I was thrilled to recently announce an extra $15 million of joint funding towards the construction of Rookwood Weir. This additional funding will allow the weir wall to be constructed approximately 0.7 metres higher, boosting the water capacity for this project by an additional 10,000 megalitres. Whilst I do acknowledge the Queensland government for finally seeing sense and committing more money to this important project, I would like to remind other members in this place that I have been fighting tooth and nail to get Rookwood Weir restored to its original size. The shameful reality is that in 2019 the Queensland government decided to downgrade the total water capacity. This should never have happened, but it is typical of the state Labor government, who seem unable to grasp the concept of do it once, do it properly. They remain a government that do not understand farmers, do not understand graziers, and do not understand landowners. Above all else, the Queensland state government do not understand regional Australia. Whilst this is a small change to the total capacity of the weir, I do welcome any increase in water capacity for this important project. Water, agriculture and industry are always on the mind of a coalition government. I recently spoke in Mackay at the opening of the Latitudes North conference. I said then and I will say now: a strong northern Australia is essential to our national economic growth, our prosperity, our security and our future as a nation. Water security is front and centre of our northern Australia agenda, as it is in my electorate of Capricornia. That brings me to Urannah dam, which has the capacity to transform the northern part of my electorate and revitalise the Whitsundays, Bowen and Collinsville regions. It will open up huge amounts of agricultural land, create more than 1,800 jobs, and see the construction of a large scale hydro power plant. It is crucial this project goes ahead. But Urannah does face some challenges. The extreme green activists are mobilising and, while this happens, the silence from the state Labor government is deafening. However, I will fight tooth and nail, just like I am with Rookwood Weir, to get Urannah dam done. The Morrison government have put forward $10 million in federal support for the feasibility study, and the ongoing campaign to make this project a reality continues. The Morrison-McCormack government are a safe pair of hands for regional Australia, not only because we care but because we deliver. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT There being no further constituency statements, the next item of business will be called on. CONDOLENCES 87 CONDOLENCES Hurford, Hon. Christopher John, AO 87 10:59 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, can I start off by saying thank you to you for relieving me in the chair in order for me to speak on this condolence motion. I rise to express my deep sadness and regret at the passing of Christopher Hurford, the former member for Adelaide, former cabinet minister, former federal minister, former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, a great person and an impressive man who held the seat of Adelaide, which I now have the honour to hold, through nine consecutive elections, and that is to be respected greatly. Chris entered federal parliament in 1969 after twice trying, unsuccessfully, for a seat in the South Australian parliament. He won the seat of Adelaide with a 14.3 per cent swing to Labor in the seat. That turned the federal seat of Adelaide into a safe Labor seat. Chris won enough votes on the first count in that first election to take the seat without the need for preferences. This isn't to gloat about Labor or how well we've done; it's to show the character of the man and the respect he garnered in the electorate. When you met Chris, you knew you were speaking to someone who was caring and who understood. He held Adelaide until his resignation in 1987. After his retirement from parliament, Chris was appointed Australia's consul-general to New York for four years. In his many years as the member for Adelaide he held many portfolios and shadow portfolios. But the most important portfolio for Chris, I think, was immigration. As the minister for immigration he really was able to change the way we did things in that portfolio. He had a great knowledge of our multicultural communities, a great knowledge of the difference ethnic groups that had made Adelaide and Australia their home. In fact, he paid an interest in the issues of immigration long after he had retired. I would often get phone calls from him in my electorate office when I was the member for Hindmarsh. He'd have people he'd come across who he thought were being unfairly treated through their visa applications et cetera. He would give me their whole background and ask me to help them. But in most cases he'd already done the due diligence, he'd already have a brief for me. Many, many constituents were referred to me. Chris paid a keen interest in immigration and changed the way we did immigration in this country. For example, the point system and skilled migration were things Chris Hurford brought to the forefront. It was as immigration minister, that role that he began in 1984, that Chris reformed Australia profoundly. He celebrated and protected our diversity and he had a great knowledge of the different communities in Australia. But he also reformed this area fundamentally. He brought in the points based and skills based immigration system that we still use today, making our immigration processes fairer. And he worked hard to encourage more women to run for parliament. In this, too, he was certainly ahead of his time. The character traits that you often hear associated with Chris—we heard them in the chamber yesterday from the Prime Minister and from the Leader of the Opposition and we have heard them in this place over the last couple of days—include decency, integrity, intelligence and humanity. He was a very good man. I had quite a bit to do with him, through the Republic Movement, in the lead-up to the plebiscite—the yes/no campaign for Australia to become a republic. He was a true republican. We worked on the committee together in that period leading up to the 1999 plebiscite. I recall his disappointment at drinks on the night as the results came through. He worked tirelessly on fundraising for the campaign in South Australia. He was a good man and he'll be greatly missed. My condolences go to his children and grandchildren. 11:04 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I join my colleague the member for Adelaide in making some brief remarks on the passing of Christopher John Hurford on 15 November last year. As the member for Adelaide and other speakers have pointed out, Chris Hurford was a former member of this place and a minister in the Hawke Labor government from 1983 to 1987. The details of Chris's personal life and his parliamentary service were comprehensively outlined in the contributions yesterday by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Birmingham, Senator Don Farrell—and, a moment ago, by you, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas—so I'll just make some brief remarks recollecting some of my own memories of Chris Hurford and his service to our nation. Australia in 1969 was a very different country than it is today. That was the year Chris was first elected to parliament. Our needs were very different, life was very different and there was a different class of politicians—old-school politicians who had lived through World War II and had invaluable life experience. With Chris Hurford, that was very much the case. He had lived in India and England and then migrated to Australia as a Ten Pound Pom. Even within Australia, he spent time in Sydney, Perth and Broken Hill, finally settling in Adelaide. That life experience, I believe, made him the very effective, very competent and highly respected politician that he turned out to be—and, indeed, a very competent minister. It is also what made him a very popular local member, winning eight consecutive elections in what has not always been a safe Labor seat. Perhaps Chris Hurford's most notable ministerial role—as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, pointed out just a few moments ago—was as immigration minister during a period when Australia experienced a substantial diversification of migration. He developed an affinity with the migrant communities, reciprocating the tendency for those communities to view him as their minister. Chris was also heartfelt on workers' issues, perhaps driven by his Catholic beliefs, his experience with large families and his time in the working town of Broken Hill. Within the Labor Party, Chris Hurford played a key and leading role in the formation of the Labor Unity faction in South Australia. After politics, he served as Australian Consul-General in New York from 1988 until 1992, and in 1993 he was awarded the Officer of the Order of Australia. From my recollections of Chris and my relationship with him, Chris was a man of stature and intellect. When he walked into a room, his presence was immediately noted. And he was always ready to share good advice with upcoming colleagues, including me. I recall having some discussions with Chris when I stood for federal politics in both 2004 and then shortly after when I was elected in 2007. I can only say that his advice at the time was something I very much appreciated. I extend my condolences to Chris's family—noting that his wife, Lorna, passed away in 2005—particularly to his children, Alex, David, Philippa, Kate and Richard; his sons-in-law and daughters-in-law, Marg, Jack, Mark and Emma; and his eight grandchildren, Sam, Georgia, Timmy, Tom, Tess, Clare, Matt, and Charlie. Finally, I thank Chris for his service to our country. May he rest in peace. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I thank the chamber. 11:09 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein by leave—I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 89 COMMITTEES Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth 89 Report 89 09:43 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins It's no surprise that the COVID-19 pandemic has affected trade worldwide. It's highlighted our need to diversify and solidify our trade portfolio. It has also shone a light on our internal strengths and limitations and, more importantly, our trading opportunities. As always, the fundamental principle should be about putting our national security first, and this remains so. I stand in order to thank the committee that I sat on, the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, including the chair, the member for Dawson, George Christensen, and the member for Cooper, Ged Kearney, who is the deputy chair of this committee. The committee has released the report, Pivot: diversifying Australia's trade and investment profile. The committee had originally undertaken an inquiry into the assessment of diversification of our trading services and it became very clear during that inquiry that, in fact, we needed to look more to diversification of trading partners, and that initiated the inquiry that commenced early in COVID, in February. This inquiry become even more important and even more urgent as COVID emerged. The recommendations of this report are focused around three key themes: diversification of trade, monitoring foreign investment, and protecting our national security interests. We know that trade has long been a driver of Australia's wealth, and exports are a key pillar of that. In fact, Australia is regarded as an export nation. We have long been beneficiaries of the opportunities created by trade through growth, jobs, increased competition and improved living standards. I have a bunch of women in my office at the moment—young women from the Australian National University who are in their first and second years and are here to talk as a female voice in the house of parliament. I have been listening to them about their excitement for their future and their excitement over their degrees. We were talking about how we want them to be job-ready for the future. It's important when they're at university that they think about what their future will be, but, as a government, it's equally important that we think about how to ensure that our economy is ready for 21st century jobs and that we improve and diversify both our trading services, to make sure the jobs are there, and our trading partners, so that we can be sure that we will continue to be a strong trading nation. We know how important international relations are in this modern and globalised economy. Our most important trading partner, as everyone knows, has been China in recent years. It has been a productive and fruitful trading partnership that has delivered prosperity for both nations. But our trading relationship with China has recently come under the spotlight. There are tensions in our trade relating to our exports, and this has been concerning not just for Australian exporters, not just for Australian businesses, but, indeed, also for the people of Australia. I'm certainly hearing that loud and clear from my constituents in Higgins. During the inquiry, we heard widely from experts versed in diplomacy from right across the political spectrum about our over-reliance on China as both a foreign investor and a trading partner. It was clear from many witnesses that we heard from that a prosperous relationship with China will undoubtedly and necessarily continue for decades to come. This is not about reducing that strong and prosperous trading partnership. We heard strong words of caution about being over-reliant on one single form of trading partnership, and that is what this report has been about: diversification of trading partners. What we heard from witnesses was the concept of a China-plus approach: continuing our strong trading interactions with China, but also developing alternative trading partnerships so that we have a China-plus approach to our trade and exports. Supply chain constraints revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic have made it abundantly clear that we need to diversify our trading partners and shore up our internal manufacturing capacity. This is important, and I think Australians know this, because there have been quite significant interruptions to our supply chain, including for PPE early in the pandemic. I'd like to congratulate the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, for the wonderful work he did in ensuring that we had enough masks and gowns to deal with a very rapidly-evolving situation, followed by ensuring that we secured our COVID tests. As we now know, we're also having to deal with a COVID vaccine supply issue. Again, because of his early work and his identification of this strategic threat, he was quick to move to have onshore manufacturing of our COVID vaccine. I'm very delighted to say that in the coming weeks the AstraZeneca vaccine will be manufactured onshore at CSL in Melbourne. That is because Australia recognises that we need to have formal and solid trade links and we need to make sure that our supply chains remain that way. On both points, Australia needs to not put all of our eggs in one basket. We understand that overreliance on any one trading partner is just not sustainable, particularly should the trading partner no longer need or want the same level of our exported goods and services. Recommendation 1 of this report suggests maintaining our current trading relationships as well as working to expand them with other major players. This recommendation also focused on diversifying our range of exported goods and services. Recommendation 13 in this report also speaks to significantly increasing our sovereign manufacturing capability. The Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, Karen Andrews, has been driving the Modern Manufacturing Initiative to ensure that the six pillars of our modern manufacturing future are front and centre of the strategic direction of our government. They include energy, space, defence, food and ag, health, and resources and critical minerals. This modern manufacturing capability needs to be a sovereign capability. We have already seen this play out through our demonstrating strong resilience and adaptability through the COVID pandemic, with pivoting towards the making of our own supplies of PPE and, now, as I said before, the onshore manufacturing of the COVID vaccine. This endeavour is further supported by recommendation 14 of the report, to ensure adequate domestic supplies of key resources such as fuel and medical supplies. I fought hard to make sure our supply of panadol or paracetamol from India was kept in line. We had to apply quite a lot of diplomatic pressure. I thank the Minister for Finance, who was the previous minister for trade, Simon Birmingham, for the excellent work that he did to ensure we would have critical medical supplies coming to our shores in a timely manner. The Australian community has also raised concerns about the level of foreign investment in Australia. I have heard this firsthand from some within my community. I know this is important, because people have been concerned about our interactions with other trading partners. Lastly, and perhaps most critically, is the consideration that must be given to all matters of national security. That remains a top priority in redesigning and reinvigorating trade and investment in Australia. Australia has worked hard in building a culture and a country we can all be proud of—one that is impressively multicultural and welcoming. This must remain and continue. In fact, every MP in this House, I would argue, enjoys the citizenship ceremonies right across this country, where in a bipartisan way we celebrate the multifaith, multicultural diversity and rich tapestry that is our nation. We need to support and continue this, but we also need to make sure that we are clear-eyed and open-minded about potential risks. Recommendation 6 of this report suggests taking steps to increase industry awareness of our national security and national interest risks in relation to trade and investment. I've also heard from my electorate that there is a growing concern about foreign influence in our world-class education institutions. That is why recommendation 9 of the report resonates. It asks the government to work with the states and territories, industry and the university sector to investigate new options to increase domestic funding for universities and university research. I'm proud of my advocacy in this capacity, having previously been a university professor and knowing that there is cross-subsidisation of universities from international student profitability into the research sector. I fought very hard to make sure that there is some funding—$800 million of funding—being put towards research to help the universities through this transition and overreliance on international students. But we also need to ensure that universities publicly disclose the receipt of funding, including for research, from foreign state linked bodies and individuals. We also need to make sure that the veto powers contained in the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Act 2020 allow restrictions on foreign state linked funding to Australian universities where such funding is considered not to be in the national interest. In conclusion, I thank the committee chair, the member for Dawson, the deputy chair, the member for Cooper, and my fellow committee members and all those who made submissions on this incredibly important issue. I commend this inquiry report to the chamber. 11:20 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I'm not a member of this committee, but I've got an interest in trade policy, and last term I did spend a couple of years on the trade and investment growth committee so I took at the report. Honestly, 12 months of work and this is what they come up with. You don't know whether to laugh or cry. It's great bag of platitudes, some motherhood recommendations but the most ridiculous thing, the astounding thing, is it reads like the Liberals haven't been in government for the last eight years. They've just discovered all these new problems and things that need to be fixed. It's astounding. It's almost like there isn't a trade crisis, like there are not still 53 ships stuck off the coast of China. The last time I spoke on trade we thought that was part of the comeback strategy—'Come back home. They don't want you!' We've stuffed up the relationship so badly they don't want the ships. They're still there. International education is smashed. It's our fourth largest export sector, worth more than 240,000 jobs in this country. There are more jobs from international education than there are from the mining sector or the agriculture sector. What industry support has international ed had? Zero. Last week we heard $1.2 billion of cheap flights to marginal seats to support bits and pieces of the tourism industry, if they're lucky enough to be in marginal seats, but not a dollar for the international ed sector—just platitudes in this report. Anyone speaking on this would run out of time to talk about the good bits, but let's just have look at diversification. The government have made a great new discovery. In their eighth year they've discovered that we're a bit dependent on China, our largest trading partner. The previous speakers talked about COVID—it was all revealed because of COVID. What nonsense. Since the government came to office our dependence on China for trade has increased, that's nothing to do with COVID. When this government was elected 26 per cent of our trade was with China. It's now 35 per cent. It's 35 per cent and they have discovered a new problem. Maybe the member for Dawson's strategy to deal with diversification is to do everything he can to talk down and insult our major trading partner. The report title here is: Pivot: Diversifying Australia's trade and investment profile. He's got a whole website calling it: 'the China inquiry: enough is enough'. That's his strategy for diversification, talk down our biggest trading partner and the others might look a bit even as the country gets poorer. It is true that we're facing a serious and growing trade crisis with China but the focus on this crisis—I should say the current short-term boost in iron ore exports—obscures the reality that trade performance under the Liberals has been patchy at best and has stagnated or gone backwards on key metrics in their eighth year. Export diversification in simple terms is: don't put all your eggs in one basket. Like I said, it has become more concentrated. The latest global data—they don't like hearing about data and facts; it confuses the spin and the marketing if you talk about data and facts—the International Monetary Fund's export diversification index, showed that Australia's export diversity is now ranked at 84th globally. That's a level that was last seen in this country in the 1960s. They have been in government for eight years and they have just discovered there's a problem. But let's have another look. This a good dot point, isn't it? Enhanced diplomatic capability to identify and secure new supply chains and markets—that's terrific, that would mean not cutting DFAT. The government cut another six diplomats this is year, including two from Papua New Guinea. I agree with the member for Dawson's dot point there. But what they have been doing in every year of government is cutting our diplomatic capability. It's like Fantasy Island. It's another universe. Enid Blyton might've been the ghost writer of this report. Then we get to recommendation 2—the government, so the committee thinks, 'should create greater trade opportunities for Australian exporters'. Well, that sounds like a good idea doesn't it? Good on you, government. But then we get to the first dot point: we're going to deliver on our India Economic Strategy. That's a terrific idea. It cost you $1.5 million three years ago, in 2018—commissioned from Peter Varghese, the former secretary of the foreign affairs department. Guess how many recommendations the government's implemented three years on from the report? Any bets? One out of 20. The only thing they have done is open a new office in Kolkata. They have done nothing on the other 20 recommendations, the serious meaningful ones. The Prime Minister announced this with great fanfare. He loved the announcement, but he hasn't actually delivered. But it's good the member for Dawson is saying, 'We should implement a report we got three years ago.' That'll fix the problem! He also says, 'We should encourage people to make greater use of free trade agreements and eliminate non-tariff barriers.' Well, that's a good idea, isn't it? But there is no honest auditing of the outcomes of these free trade agreements. It was Andrew Robb who stated, 'We don't have an economic policy, so let's do free trade agreements everywhere we can.' Anyone who knows about trade theory would tell you that you want global agreements, and, if you can't get global agreements, you want regional agreements. Only then—sometimes, maybe—do you go to bilateral free trade agreements. Trade economic theory shows they will actually often confuse the market and make things more complex and raise costs. But the government is scared to undertake a proper analysis of the impact of their free trade agreements. They just want to keep announcing them. They never go back and look at whether they've achieved anything or whether they have grown or harmed the economy. They just want to announce new ones. But non-tariff barriers are not a new issue. If you talk to any of the businesses in my electorate in the great Dandenong manufacturing precinct, they'll tell you, it's not free trade agreements they want. Tariffs are not the issue in the vast majority of markets; it's the non-tariff barriers, the cultural issues, the standards and the dodgy checks at the borders. This takes hard work and it takes agency capability. And yet, they keep cutting the departments that are supposed to do this work. It's just nonsense. Then we get recommendation 4. This is terrific! It says: … the Australian Government increase its encouragement of key Asian languages and cultures for K-12 students, to create better understanding and Asia-capability for future generations. It's good that we understand that flying to and from Manila all the time is not actually increasing the nation's aggregate Asia capability—that's a good start. But the hypocrisy is profound. This was the government that, eight years ago, scrapped the Rudd-Gillard government's initiatives that have been doing this very work for those six years. The Rudd-Gillard government, the former Labor government, had the National Asian Languages and Studies in Schools Program and they had the Becoming Asia Literate grants to schools, which actually did this work. This is the government that scrapped it. The Prime Minister has been in the cabinet for all of those eight years, and now we've got government muppets saying, 'It's a good idea to encourage people in future generations to learn Asian languages.' It is a good idea. But there is a say-do gap. You say it's a good idea, but all you do is cut the funding and not act on the reports and the recommendations. Why should any Australian believe anything is going to be different because of these nice platitudes and words? This recommendation is a good one too. It says we should: work with the states and territories, industry and university sector to investigate new options to increase domestic funding for universities and university research; We could have a raffle! We could start having fundraisers for universities! This is the government that, year after year and budget after budget, has done everything to cut and try to cut billions of dollars from university funding. Now they're saying we need to go and do more sources. I heard the previous speaker, the member for Higgins, say with a straight face, 'There's been an over-reliance on international students.' Well, that's because the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, two years ago, were out there telling the universities to go and recruit more international students as they took another $1.1 billion out of the university funding. What hypocrisy. You cut the university funding and then you said: 'You're too reliant. Go and recruit international students.' Then you said: 'You're too reliant on international students. What have you been doing, silly universities? Go and find some other money.' We could have a cake bake for the universities! That might be what he means. Who knows what he means? Maybe he means: do the only other thing the government has done, which is jack-up student fees. This is a government under which, in four years, we've seen student debt rise per average by student by 36.7 per cent. Their only university funding policy so far has been to cut the public funding and load the debt on to students and make the next generation pay. Maybe that's what they mean? We've got the Sovereign Manufacturing Capability—he said 'capacity' but I think he probably meant 'capability', but that's the member for Dawson. But it's not a bad idea either. He is representing an electorate where manufacturing is still the largest single biggest employment sector. But maybe they could have not chased the car industry out of Australia. That would have been a good idea. Then we would have a whole industry there with modern technology and a supply chain. But, no, they did that. This recommendation is good too. It says: provide incentives to stimulate the growth of 'industries of tomorrow' including inter alia Australia's video game development industry; and I actually think that's a good idea. I support the video game development industry. Mr Gosling 245392 Is that a new industry? Mr HILL 86256 It's not a new industry—well you may ask, member for Solomon! Indeed, the Rudd and Gillard government had a fund, a policy and an industry support plan for the video game development industry, which could be worth a lot more to this country. It's actually a critical enabler of defence technologies, education, mining, agriculture and all sorts of things. But guess what? Tony Abbott and this Liberal government cut all that support. Turning to the port of Darwin, and other people have spoken about the port of Darwin, what a good idea to buy back the port of Darwin! This was the government that presided over the lease! You don't know whether to laugh or cry at this government. Why should anyone believe a single word of this report when you have a look at the record of eight years of failure? 11:30 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon It's with great pleasure that I rise in the chamber to speak about diversifying Australia's trade and investment profile, because we are of course an island nation, rich in resources and ingenuity. We are a trading nation; we always have been. Since the early 1980s, those on this side of the House have been in favour of free trade. Trade is inherently political, and it's naive to pretend that it's not. We have experienced this firsthand over the past year or so, and it's taught us a painful but very important lesson: an overreliance on trade, either on the product being traded or on the end destination for our products, exposes us to political and market forces that are, obviously, often out of our control. But diversification brings us two things. It brings us greater stability in the face of these forces and it encourages innovation and growth here at home. Given how immediately important diversification is and has been for the last eight years, the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth is late but timely still. So I welcome this report, which recognises the urgent need for Australia to begin diversifying. Like my colleague the member for Bruce, I will remind those watching—because sometimes, with the vacuum of leadership in our nation, you forget—that those opposite have been in government for eight years. So, yes, they should begin diversifying. It's late, but it's needed. This report is a substantial piece of work towards that aim, and I do commend the committee for its efforts. The committee consulted widely, taking evidence from federal government departments and agencies, the NT government, unions, industry groups, think tanks, scholars and obviously the private sector broadly. The 21 recommendations of this report are sensible and constructive. The first recommendation of this report calls on the government to: … develop and release a plan for trade diversification, which includes: a focus on maintaining relationships with existing close trading partners as well as expanding trade with other countries; a plan for diversifying Australia's range of export goods and services; and enhanced diplomatic capability to identify and secure new supply chains and markets. More eggs, more baskets. Obviously, I completely agree with this recommendation. The government need a clear and public strategy to drive this trade diversification, but, as the member for Bruce has just finished saying, the government don't have a plan to do it. They love an announcement; they love announcing a free trade deal, but when it comes to the work, the policy work, the grunt work to actually drive that change, drive that diversification, drive more baskets and more eggs, they're a bit MIA—missing in action. Even after our economy, our producers and our businesses have been battered by a global pandemic and a trade war, there is still no plan to make us stronger and more prosperous. Obviously, before this latest disruption began, we needed to address the diversification issue. The government with almost eight years on the Treasury benches have had time to get it right, but they haven't even taken the first step in eight years. This report is a welcome small step. The government have dropped the ball. I want to give those listening a perspective that they may not be aware of. I had the privilege of chairing the Labor Party's Indo-Pacific trade task force, and I want to thank all the members of that trade task force once again. We reported to the Labor leader in December. In the introduction to the report, I wrote: 'Economic diversification can be more than a money maker, which is how the coalition has tended to treat trade. It was a nation builder under Labor governments, whose visionary Hawke-Keating reforms created our modern trading economy of today. Diversification is a national economic and strategic imperative on the same scale as this challenge, but it's a 50-year project under a government with a 280-character-long vision statement. Labor alone can transition our trade portfolio to build a wealthier, safer and more resilient Australia.' Our Indo-Pacific Trade Taskforce took evidence from 88 different groups and stakeholders—among them, business, industry, scholars and government departments. We came up with 13 considered, wide-ranging and robust recommendations. I'm pleased to note that many of our recommendations are in complete agreement with those of this report by the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth that we are discussing today. These recommendations are underpinning the important work we're undertaking on our side to prepare for government—and we've been undertaking that work for some time. We'll be ready to act swiftly on trade diversification when we form government because we've done that hard work, and I'm proud to have played a role in that process. Before I come to discuss a major component of the report of this joint standing committee, I will comment upon one other element that caught my attention. Recommendation 3 recognises the importance of having a full understanding of export markets to the success of any trade agenda. It states: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government commit to building the Asia-capability of Australian exporters and investors, including: greater development and/or utilisation of programs to boost Asia-literacy of businesses and training for jobs of the future; … … … Our Asia literacy is not a new topic but it's incredibly important for our nation. We cannot hope to survive and thrive in our region without being able to communicate with, and appreciate the perspectives of, our friends and neighbours in the Indo-Pacific. Australia's deficit in Asia literacy has held back many of our businesses from thriving and taking on opportunities. We can also see a distinct lack of Asia literacy in many of the decisions of this government. Successive Labor governments have funded and boosted Asia literacy—from primary schools to universities. Successive coalition governments have gutted these commitments. I have pursued the study of Bahasa Indonesian, which has given me a greater insight into the culture and philosophies of one of our most important trading partners. I wholeheartedly endorse recommendation 3 and call on the government to act on it. The part of the report that gained the most publicity is the discussion on the leasing of the port of Darwin to the Landbridge Group in October 2015. I have spoken and written extensively on this. The facts of the matter are largely in the public domain, but I'll repeat the three key points of this fiasco. Firstly, the lease is for 99 years—just short of a century. Secondly, the deal was done by the former Country Liberal Party government of the Northern Territory, with the full support of the coalition federal government. Those opposite have been in government for eight years. A part of their record—we wouldn't call it an achievement—that will be there, in infamy, forever is that, with a conservative Northern Territory Country Liberal Party government, they were part of leasing the strategic port of Darwin to a foreign company. Landbridge Group is known to have extensive links to the People's Liberation Army and the Chinese Communist Party. This is an issue I feel strongly about. I have spoken up about it from the start. I'm glad that this report has looked into it. The port is in my electorate. Like many, I have long held those deep concerns about the deal and the possible national security implications in the uncertain times we live in. It seems that the joint standing committee shared my concerns. Recommendation 19 calls on the government to: ... provide a report on whether the 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin to a foreign company will be subject to the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Act 2020 ... and if so, consider taking measures to have the Port of Darwin brought back under Australian ownership if current arrangements are not deemed to be in the national interest. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Order. A division has been called in the House. The chamber will suspend until such time as the division is complete. Proceedings suspended from 11:40 to 11:52 Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 94 ADJOURNMENT Climate Change 94 11:52 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to talk about the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's climate change forum, which I participated in via video link on Monday and Tuesday nights this week. The forum saw parliamentarians from around the Commonwealth meet, share ideas and offer solidarity and support in the fight against climate change and the vested interests that prevent meaningful action. I was also pleased to see my colleagues Peter Khalil, the member for Wills, Zali Steggall, the member for Warringah, Helen Haines, the member for Indi, Katie Allen, the member for Higgins, and Senator Janet Rice participating in the forum, as well as members of state and territory legislatures from around the country. Australians take the issue of climate change very seriously and, despite having a federal government that continues to embarrass us on the international stage, we can at least say that they have representatives in this place who do care and will stand up, here in this place, in these forums, to represent their views and fight for the action we need. I want to briefly share some of the inspirational stories I was lucky enough to hear at this forum. Andleeb Abbas, a member of Pakistan's parliament, spoke about her country's incredible climate change mitigation efforts, which led them to reach their 2030 climate change targets last year. One of the initiatives taken by the Pakistani government was their 10 Billion Tree Tsunami policy. The government have engaged the community. They have involved households and they have employed people who lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic to plant 10 billion trees around the country. That is an outstanding achievement and something that Australia might try to emulate. Andleeb also spoke about how governments often offer lip service to climate action, but then fall short on the follow-through, and she's spot on about our government here. The Morrison government love to brag about meeting and beating our international commitments. However, they only get there by using dodgy accounting tricks, while refusing to offer any real plans to lower our emissions. At our current pace, it would take us 146 years to get to net zero emissions. That is shameful. It is incumbent on us as parliamentarians in this place, in this chamber and in our committees, and also in our communities, to hold this government's climate neglect to account. I look forward to continuing to engage when this forum meets again next week. In the lead-up to the forum, I put a call out to my constituents to let me know what their climate action priorities are. The response was overwhelming and demonstrated once again how passionate Canberrans are about real action and how concerned they are about the lack of progress from the Morrison government. I want to share some of the ideas that my constituents sent to me in the lead-up to this forum. Sarah from Bruce said, 'We need to promote a green economic recovery from COVID by investing in initiatives that are positive for the environment.' This seems so obvious, and this idea has been raised with me by several of my constituents. Why on earth doesn't the Morrison government see this recovery as an environmental opportunity? Tenaya from O'Connor reminded me of the importance of embracing First Nations led environment and sustainability initiatives and ensuring that minority groups are proactively supported through any climate transition. Chris from Kingston said we need to more rapidly move away from using fossil fuels and said, 'Remember that the critics claimed that it would take up to four years to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. It ended up taking less than nine months. Surely we can do it again with climate change. Again, we have listened to the science on the pandemic. We should be listening to the science on climate change.' Canberrans once again reiterated their calls for strong action and their fear that we're not responding to the climate crisis as best as we should be. They put forward strategies for convincing their fellow Australians to vote for action and they outlined what they are doing, day in and day out, to make sure they are taking responsibility for their own emissions in the face of a federal government that is not acting in their interest. I am proud to represent these people here in the parliament and in any international forum I have the opportunity to attend. The climate crisis is real. The Morrison government's action to combat the climate crisis is pathetic. I will continue to bring the voices of Canberrans who want climate action into this place at any opportunity, and will work to ensure that a Labor government is elected at the next election. The fact is that the Labor governments are the only governments that have ever taken action on climate change. We're the only party of government that will deliver the action we need to combat this crisis. The fact is that Labor governments are the only governments that have ever genuinely cared for Australia's natural environment. Travel Industry 95 11:57 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper Prior to the pandemic, we had a booming travel industry. We had some 40,000 people working in the industry, 80 per cent of whom were women, and 60 per cent of those people were working in regional and rural Australia. This pandemic has affected us all. It has affected every industry, but none so much as the travel agents industry. We shut down our borders, which was the right thing to do. We shut them down early and we shut them down to protect our people, to protect our nation's health. But, in doing so, we have created a situation where one industry, the travel industry, has lost everything. Over 90 per cent of their income comes from the $60 billion worth of travel each year. About five to 10 per cent of that is domestic travel. This government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to support the travel industry, and they are very much appreciative. There was $128 million in the previous tranche of support for travel agents, for the employers, and $130 million in the last tranche. There has been hundreds of millions of dollars in JobKeeper for the employees. Sadly, despite those supports, over 17,000 people have left the industry. Of the 40,000, we now have 23,000. This is an industry we cannot leave to die. We must continue to support them. Over the past six months I have been out talking to employers and employees. They ring me almost on a daily basis and they email me on a daily basis indicating that the $130 million, whilst well intended by this government, and it is well intended by this government, is being misdirected. It needs to go to the employees. Employers are telling me that they're happy to take low-interest loans for a period of time to get through the next six or nine months to keep their employees. These businesses are businesses that were turning over, in some instances in my electorate, over $1 million a month. They're prepared to take that little bit more pain, providing that they keep their employees with them, keep their employees under the banner, because they are specialised professionals and if they go from this industry or if they go on to JobSeeker they'll be lost forever. The $2 billion or $3 billion in consumer credits which are currently being held and managed every day by these employees will simply vanish into the ether, as will our travel agency industry. It will vanish and it will not come back. It will go on to online travel agencies—none of whom are owned here in Australia. They're owned by the Chinese. They're owned by the Netherlands. They're owned by the USA. They don't pay tax here. They don't present a presence here. They don't care whether you enjoy your trip or not. They are faceless and they're not human. That's not where we want our travel industry to end up. We need to support the remaining 23,000 people. We need to redirect this $130 million with other supports for the next six to nine months. We're already getting travel domestically. We're approaching those travel bubbles in the next three to six months with Singapore or Japan or New Zealand. We can see the light at the end of the tunnel. They just need that little bit more assistance for the next six months. There will be throngs of Australians wanting to go overseas. There'll be throngs of international people wanting to come to Australia. We just need to get over that last hurdle. I urge my government, I urge them despite the fantastic work that we've done, to get them through this next six months to allow the mums and dads who work in my electorate, in your electorate and across the nation to keep their businesses and keep their jobs. I ask my government to listen to them and to ensure that that happens. Coalition Government 95 12:02 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley You can tell a lot about where this government's priorities lie by comparing their announcements with their follow through. We're about to wrap up the first parliamentary sitting week since the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety released their report, a report that the Prime Minister himself described as harrowing. In response to that report the Prime Minister announced immediate steps to address the negligence uncovered in that report. Eighteen days later, four of which this parliament has sat, and not one single piece of aged-care legislation has been tabled by this Morrison government, not a single measure has been tabled to make sure older Australians are not sitting in private aged-care homes suffering. Recommendation 13 of that report states: The Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) should be amended to … give effect to the following characteristics of high quality aged care: a. diligent and skilful care b. safe and insightful care c. caring and compassionate relationships d. empowering care e. timely care. How much time does the Morrison government need to decide whether high-quality aged care should be diligent and skilful with care and compassion? We aren't adjourned until 4.30 pm today. There is still time to table a provision, table a bill, that says high-quality aged care in this country must be caring and compassionate. What the Prime Minister has had time for this week though is to attack the rights of Australian workers as they continue to work to push through 'WorkChoices 2.0' through the Senate. I have just heard that they have now withdrawn the wage theft provisions, apparently in an act of vindictiveness, because they cannot get their own provisions that reduce workers' rights through the Senate. So now we must oppose WorkChoices 2.0 holus-bolus. I can't believe that what they're spending their time doing is vindictively punishing workers by removing wage theft provisions, which were agreed by all parties to go through the Senate, as an act of retaliation because they can't get their other reduction of workers' rights provisions through. It's amazing what this government can put their mind to when they've got the time and it's amazing what priorities they turn to when they have the levers of power in this place. Since 1997, we've had 19 reports commissioned to investigate problems in our aged-care system, and 11 of those reports have been since the Prime Minister himself was Treasurer. Elderly Australians are still being subjected to neglect and abuse as this issue has been kicked down the road again and again. Meanwhile, in 2018 and 2020, the Federal Court made two separate decisions that Paul Skene and Robert Rossato were wrongly classified as casual workers when they were permanent employees, and the government took immediate action to dismantle the rights of casual workers. As a heads up to the Prime Minister, when election time comes, Australians will remember where the Morrison government's priorities really did lie. The bungled vaccine rollout is another prime example of this Morrison government being all about the announcement and not about the follow-through. 'ProMo' and the Morrison government have put more effort into announcing the vaccine than they have into actually rolling it out. Twenty-five media releases and press conferences have been held in the last month. The member for Gellibrand put it best when he said, 'If announcements were vaccines, we would all be immune by now.' Scott Morrison announced that four million Australians would be vaccinated by the end of March and that the vaccine would get through the Australian population by October. But to date only 200,000 Australians have been vaccinated—not four million, only 200,000—and only an abysmal 25,000 Queenslanders. With only one week remaining in March, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health have a busy week ahead of them trying to vaccinate 3.8 million Australians. All we have are announcements. There is no real information and no real guidance. The Department of Health website states that 'GPs are critical partners in Australia's COVID-19 vaccine rollout strategy'. But the feedback that I'm receiving from my constituents is that when they call their GP for more information they're being told that they haven't been briefed on what's going on, that they can't provide any further advice themselves and that hopefully they will know in a month or so. This week, GPs were inundated with calls from patients looking to book in their vaccination after the government launched their national vaccine booking website. Maybe the federal government should have let GPs in on their plans first before they launched their website and before they had another 28 announcements and press conferences celebrating how good they are. Knowing how many doses of a vaccine your clinic is going to have seems like helpful information for an Australian. Of course, the website glitched just hours after it was launched—and it wouldn't be a Morrison government website or app if it hadn't. The federal government has four key responsibilities to protect the health and safety of Australians through COVID. They've got aged care, they've got international border quarantine, they've got the COVID tracing app, and they've got the vaccines. Somehow they seem to have managed to shaft all four of these health responsibilities to the state governments, or completely bungled them. It's not good enough, and they've got to do better. Euthanasia 97 12:07 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Today I rise with a heavy heart to speak about something that's happened to our country. We all make assumptions about the enduring values that underpin our society, and when those assumptions are shaken it rocks our very belief in the idea of Australia. I'd always believed that we were a society with a culture based on the Judeo-Christian ethic—one that believes in the sanctity of life and the dignity of the human person. Such a culture values individual human life and sees it as sacred, as I do. We see the remnants of a life-affirming culture across our society, from the campaigns to reduce our road toll to the public and private funding of medical research to find ways to help keep people healthy and prolong life. We see it in the commitment of all governments—$10 billion annually—to prevent suicide. But, despite all of this, across the Australian states we are seeing the progress of euthanasia laws. Soul by soul and silently its wretched bounds increase, first in Victoria and then gradually in Western Australia and Tasmania, and others will follow suit. In Victoria, they predicted there would only be 12 people euthanased in the first year, and yet there were 272 eligible applications and 124 deaths. The youngest was 36. The latest Victorian figures show that in the last six months of 2020, 94 people died from euthanasia. Is this really what we want as a society? And in a state where mental health presentations went up 23 per cent due to COVID, is it good that these laws are on the statute books? And, as each state joins the long march, the laws grow even looser and the access to death becomes easier. Who can ever tell us the safeguards are good enough when the outcome is final? One of the catchcries of modern politics is we should listen to the experts. Well, why are the same people who chant that mantra ignoring the Australian Medical Association, who have consistently opposed such laws? I want to express my frustration at a society and a culture that is letting this happen without much organised opposition and without the public outrage that greeted such laws only 23 years ago. Have we really changed that much in the space of one generation about something absolutely fundamental? I was at law school in the days of the Northern Territory euthanasia laws. Philip Nitschke came to address the students and I wanted to hear his point of view. What shocked me wasn't that Nitschke believed in the Northern Territory's laws but that he believed that if you were having a bad day you should be able to go down to Coles and by a death pill. The case for euthanasia is seductive—we should have control over our own lives, we should be able to die with dignity, people in pain should have choice—but Nitschke revealed the end game that day, and I became a deep opponent of euthanasia laws. I was always taught while there's life there's hope. We have all heard stories of people with terminal illnesses who wake up one day and are better. You can wake up tomorrow and respond to drugs differently. The cure may be just around the corner. I remember the Northern Territory euthanasia laws and the woman who was the poster child for those laws appearing in television advertisements saying, 'Please let me die.' She got better, she lived and she became an opponent of euthanasia laws. The existence of euthanasia law says very much about how we value the lives of vulnerable and elderly people. I cannot forget that the most civilised and enlightened society in Europe, which wiped out six million of my people in the Holocaust, began their program of industrial murder by euthanising vulnerable disabled people thought to be in pain. I cannot in good conscious know this history and say nothing. Today, those thought to be in pain are the vulnerable, the sick and the elderly. Everyone loves a new baby, so beautiful and full of promise, but a sick, vulnerable older person can challenge and frighten us. Those who have given us so much deserve to be well treated and valued right to the end, and yet the level of elder abuse is at an all-time high. People made to feel a burden on their families may make a choice from which there is no going back. The fact that the Western Australian laws were trenchantly opposed by my friends Ken Wyatt and Senator Pat Dodson indicates the danger these laws pose to vulnerable Indigenous Australians. We should listen to the wisdom of our elders. Activists have scared people about death and pain, and yet here in Australia one of the wealthiest countries on Earth with one of the best health systems in the world, people have a broad range of end-of-life choices which do not amount to euthanasia. Properly funded palliative care, including proper education about it for all doctors and nurses throughout their careers, must be a national priority. We should be able to achieve a society in Australia where almost no-one's final days end in pain. I devoted my maiden speech by the fight to prevent suicide, but today I feel the call to fight for life. As Dylan Thomas wrote: Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT I thank the member for Berowra for his very moving and wise words and contribution to the chamber. Honourable members: Hear, hear. JobKeeper Payment 98 12:12 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam If you're going to run up a trillion dollars worth of debt, then you want to have something to show for it. Today we learnt that not only has the government got nothing to show for it—not one significant infrastructure project to show for the trillion dollars worth of debt that this government has run up over the last nine months—but, worse than that, the JobKeeper program that was supposed to be put in place to save people's jobs has been rorted by some of the biggest companies on the Australian stock exchange to pump up their profits and pay executive bonuses and dividends. Over $10 billion has been funnelled from Australian taxpayers into the profits of these companies and into dividends of these companies that are making absolute bumper profits. That is bad enough, but when you look at what the government is not doing to address the desperate situation for those businesses in Australia who, in a few short weeks, are going to be left with no support, then that problem is a national disgrace! Over $10 billion to companies so they can channel it into bonuses and dividends, yet travel agents and those exposed to the international tourism industry are going to have to lay off staff. Last week the government made, in full Scott Morrison fashion, a huge announcement. The Prime Minister made the announcement, 'We're going to be providing money to save the tourism industry.' It was absolute nonsense. I welcome the fact that some people are going to be given incentives to spend money to get on a plane, but what it means for my electorate is there's going to be taxpayer-funded incentives for people from my electorate to spend their money somewhere else in the country but no incentive for people to come to my electorate and to my region—destinations in the Illawarra, Southern Highlands and South Coast—to spend their money on tourism. This is an absolute disgrace. Businesses are doing it very tough indeed. Last week I met with Leisure Coast Limousine Service. They have lost two-thirds of their business since the start of the pandemic. They have gone from 32 drivers to 23 drivers. This is a business that has been in business for decades, with three generations of the one family working in this business. They are currently facing the threat of having to close their doors. Scott Morrison—the Prime Minister tin ears— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT I'd ask the member to call the Prime Minister by his title. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B The circumstances facing people in businesses like this is absolute death. I also met with a representative of my local travel agent, Donna Jones. They are facing the situation where they're going to have to close their doors as well. Forty three per cent of travel agents believe they're unlikely to return a profit at least until 2023, if indeed they are even in business then. A recent survey of travel agents found that 94 per cent of them are dealing with a decline in revenue, and 99 per cent, at least, are experiencing a 70 per cent decline in revenue. They feel like they are this far away from having to close their doors. The Prime Minister and this government have not got an answer to the problems. It is adding insult to injury that, at the same time, this JobKeeper program has wasted so much money. It has been the life support for industries like Leisure Coast Limousine Service, travel agents and others in the tourism industry in my electorate and around the country. But they're about to have the rug pulled out from under them. Today it was revealed that these programs that we lobbied so hard to get in place under this government have been rorted and exploited—not by a few pennies, but by $10 billion. If that $10 billion had been put to use in a real program to support travel agents and to support the tourism industry all down the east coast, then in a few weeks time we wouldn't be about to see thousands of employees having to face the sack and lose their jobs. We call on the Prime Minister to do the right thing. We call on these businesses to do the right thing. How much of that $10 billion that has gone into fluffing up executive bonuses and dividends in businesses that were supposed to be on their knees could be rechannelled back into the tourism industry and back into those businesses that really need it? (Time expired) Papua New Guinea 98 12:18 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling I rise today to make some commentary about the very dire situation that PNG finds itself in—our great neighbour and friend to the north—and to talk a bit about the importance of Australia's support to PNG in helping our friends. Going through the Australian Defence Force academy and then the royal military college, there were a number of Papua New Guinean cadets who also went through at the same time, so I got to know a bit about how our friends and neighbours operate. On military deployments I also got to work with our Papua New Guinean friends. I note the member for Solomon here in the chamber today has also operated in our northern region and with our island neighbours. It was wonderful to deploy, along with the Papua New Guineans, for example, up to Solomon Islands and see some of the great work they do in helping their neighbours. We're here to do the very same. There's a term called Wontok, which means 'people who are of the one family'. I came across this term in serving with our Pacific Island neighbours, and I think it's absolutely applicable. That's what we're doing here: we're acting like good Wontok and helping our neighbour in a time of need. As Australia emerges through this recovery phase of the pandemic, not forgetting that it's still a risk that's very much alive, it is worth reflecting that we are in a very good position as a country. Thankfully, the Morrison government made very important, very early decisions. Indeed, we were right ahead of the pack in declaring this a pandemic—two weeks ahead of the World Health Organization. We also shut our borders, initially to China and then to other international countries progressively, to limit the influx of the virus into Australia. We have, unfortunately, still suffered both in terms of health and economics, but none would argue that Australia is in an enviable position globally. So this does put us in a position where, thankfully, we can get on and help others. We are working with PNG, where there are some really worrying statistics. About half of the total COVID cases in PNG have been diagnosed just in the last few weeks, with higher numbers of positive cases at the Ok Tedi Mine and Port Moresby and amongst frontline healthcare workers. The capacity for testing in PNG is also very far less than what that capacity is here in Australia. To echo the words of our Prime Minister and other ministers, Australia has a deep and close relationship with Papua New Guinea, and it's important that we do help them get this pandemic under control. Some of the ways we are doing that is the Australian government is working with the Queensland government to provide vaccinations in the Torres Strait. We're providing protective personal equipment to PNG, including one million surgical masks; 200,000 P295 respiratory masks; 100,000 gowns, pairs of gloves and bottles of sanitiser; 20,000 face shields; and 200 non-invasive ventilators. We're also sending an AUSMAT health specialist team to Port Moresby to assist with health emergency management, preparations, vaccine rollouts and other assistance we may identify. Significantly we're also providing 8,000 doses of our domestic vaccine stock to deliver to nurses and other frontline health staff. Australia has already made an $80 billion contribution to the COVAX facility, which will see 588,000 vaccines delivered to PNG by June. However, based on the numbers that we're seeing out of PNG in terms of infections, we can't afford to wait that long. So we are speaking with AstraZeneca and the EU about accessing one million doses which have previously been purchased by Australia to gift to PNG. I'm sure that that message is being delivered loud and clear—that these vaccines are not for Australia but for PNG during their terrible time of great difficulty. It's important also to note that last week we committed to working in further detail with our Quad partners—Japan, the US and India—on supporting vaccine rollouts across the Indo-Pacific. As a developed nation, as a caring nation, as a great friend of Papua New Guinea, it is right and it is critical that we continue this support to Papua New Guinea and that we look after our wantok as we always do. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:23