PRIVILEGE

2021-05-13 46 1 6 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 13 May 2021

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

PRIVILEGE 1 PRIVILEGE 09:31 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. The recent conduct of Facebook Inc. has resulted in the company's improper interference with the free performance of my duties as a member of the Australian House of Representatives, which I believe is a contempt of parliament due to its obstructing or impeding me in the discharge of those duties. I seek precedence to move a motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. In seeking precedence to move this motion, I provide the following particulars. Firstly, I submit that, by virtue of section 49 of the Constitution and section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act, there are two thresholds that I must meet to make a case of contempt of parliament: firstly, the conduct in question must directly or indirectly produce a result that obstructs or impedes a member of the House in the discharge of his duties; and, secondly, the conduct is intended or is likely to amount to an improper interference with the free performance of the member's duties. As per the provisions of section 5 of House of Representatives Practice, 'The Member's role' states that the primary duty of the member of parliament is to represent the interests of their constituents. It is self-evident that this requires free and frequent communication with constituents. Therefore, any conduct that obstructs or impedes a member's ability to communicate with constituents meets the first threshold of being in contempt. Facebook platforms today are a major tool for all members of parliament to communicate with constituents. Today, virtually all politicians communicate extensively through social media, which is dominated by Facebook. According to an analysis published by Genroe, 77.7 per cent of Australians aged 16 to 64 used Facebook in December 2020. In fact, on the official webpage of the Australian parliament, aph.gov.au, when you go into the search section for senators and members, the search result brings up a member with a connect function. For most members this includes the Facebook logo—on the official Australian parliament webpage—with an embedded link to that member's Facebook page. Also on the official aph.gov.au website, each member and senator has a page with a drop-down menu. You can select (1) office details, (2) connect and (3) electoral details. By clicking on the 'Connect' link, for most members, this again brings up the Facebook logo, with an embedded link to the member's Facebook page. A search for 'Craig Kelly' today on the official aph.gov.au website brings up the words, 'Connect with Craig Kelly' and underneath this there is the Facebook logo with an embedded link to my Facebook page, or what was my Facebook page. However, if a constituent clicks on the Facebook logo on my official parliamentary page to connect with me through Facebook, a message comes up which states: 'This page isn't available. The link you have followed may be broken or the page removed.' The conduct of removing this link has obstructed and/or impeded my ability to communicate with my constituents and my constituents' ability to communicate with me. I've maintained a Facebook page as 'Craig Kelly MP' since shortly after first being elected in 2010. I use the platform to communicate directly with my constituents and for my constituents to communicate with me in the discharge of my duties. This includes posting such things as videos and transcripts of my speeches in parliament and other proceedings in parliament; my contributions to the national debate on political issues before parliament, in addition to local electorate matters; details of private member's bills that I was proposing to introduce to parliament; the work of parliamentary committees that I was a member of, including calling for public submissions for inquiries being undertaken by those committees; informing constituents of government grants and programs; research and data on issues before the parliament. Importantly, the Facebook platform enables the above to be undertaken in real time, or near real time, with the ability of live broadcasts. In the language of an economist: 'There is no perfect substitute for Facebook. All other platforms are lesser communication tools.' Therefore, if a member is banned by Facebook, they are less able to discharge their duties compared to other parliamentary colleagues. The page that I have maintained has grown, with over 80,000 people liking that page and over 100,000 people following that page. Before being banned, I was averaging over one million interactions—that is, likes, comments and shares—per month, enabling me to fulsomely and vigorously represent the interests of my constituents. The Facebook platform also includes a 'Comments' section in each thread, which enabled me to communicate back and forth with my constituents and to receive feedback. The Facebook page also has a separate Messenger service, within which constituents would be able to send me messages and I would reply back to them as part of my duties to communicate with the constituents of Hughes. I'd often receive 20 to 50 messages per day through this platform—definitely more than I would receive through regular mail. The event that led up to my ban was that, on Monday 26 April, I received a text message from Facebook's Australian representative advising that my page had been banned. Shortly after, on the same day, I replied: 'Thank you for the advice. Is it possible to know what this alleged misinformation was, and is it possible to appeal against that?' To date, Facebook have not provided me with any particulars or any further information as to what they have unilaterally determined was so-called misinformation, and the period for seeking an appeal to Facebook against their ruling has now expired. Further, on 28 April, Facebook also issued a media release, which was widely reported by the ABC, which states, 'We don't allow anyone, including elected officials, to share misinformation about COVID-19 that could be'— The SPEAKER 10000 If I could just interrupt the member for Hughes. I'm reluctant to, but he's been speaking for quite a period of time. With a matter of privilege, the obligation is to set out the facts so that they can be considered, not to debate the matter with material that might be interesting, but the issue of privilege won't turn on it. I'm not sure how long he's planning to speak for, but it shouldn't be for very much longer. And, of course, he has the opportunity, as has been communicated to him, and is certainly there in the established practice, to table—and, indeed, I'd encourage him to table—any documentation that he considers to be supporting documentation, and then the matter can be considered. But, even with very, very serious matters of privilege, the speeches have not gone for this length of time. So, if there are any other pertinent facts, certainly raise those and table any documentation. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 I will do so. I will table the documents that support those facts at the conclusion of my speech. The simple fact is that I have been black banned and deplatformed from the Facebook platforms. I am unable to communicate through their Messenger service, which means that constituents have actually sent messages to me that I don't know even exist today, and I'm unable to respond to them. It is also improper conduct, which I argue as well. I will leave it there. I'm in your hands for further directions. I seek leave to table the documents in support. Leave granted. 09:40 The SPEAKER 00APG Those documents are tabled. I'll consider the matter in the normal way and report back to the House, but of course it won't be today. COMMITTEES 2 COMMITTEES Appropriations and Administration Committee 2 Report 2 09:40 The SPEAKER 00APG On behalf of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration, I present the committee's ReportNo. 21: budget estimates 2021-22. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). BILLS 2 BILLS Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 2

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021

First Reading 2 Second Reading 2 09:41 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 establishes a new annual charge for the risk monitoring and regulatory oversight activities of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework. This bill, along with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021, is required to enable an annual charge to be collected from higher education providers. The 2018-19 federal budget included increased resourcing for TEQSA, as well as a shift to increased cost recovery for TEQSA's regulatory activities from the currently very low level of partial recovery of around 15 per cent of TEQSA's total costs. This shift will occur through increased fees for TEQSA's application based regulatory assessments and a new annual charge to cover the cost of TEQSA's risk-monitoring and regulatory oversight activities. It is the annual charge that is the subject of this bill. The bill implements an annual charge on all higher education providers who are registered with TEQSA. The annual charge will recover from higher education providers the costs incurred by the Commonwealth each year for TEQSA's risk monitoring, compliance monitoring and investigations, complaint management, stakeholder engagement and other regulatory oversight activities. The bill does not set the amount of the annual charge, which will be prescribed by regulations. Prior to the introduction of those regulations, TEQSA will seek stakeholder feedback on a draft Cost Recovery Implementation Statement, consistent with the Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines. The annual charge will commence from 1 January 2022 and will be phased in over three years. Twenty per cent of the related costs will be recovered in 2022, 50 per cent in 2023 and 100 per cent in 2024. This phased approach will assist providers to budget for and transition to the new charge. TEQSA's move to increased cost recovery, which was originally announced in the 2018-19 federal budget but subsequently delayed due to other external pressures, including the COVID-19 pandemic, will ensure broad consistency and fairness of charging for regulatory services across the tertiary education sector. The annual charge is consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework and links the cost of services to those who benefit from them. The new TEQSA annual charge is expected to collect around $5.7 million annually. This is an amount that the general taxpayer will not have to bear. Associated amendments will also be made to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011, through the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021, to implement the annual charge. Subject to the passage of both bills, the annual charge will commence from 1 January 2022. I commend the bill. Debate adjourned. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021 3

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 09:45 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021, and the associated Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021, give effect to increased cost recovery arrangements for the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). The 2018-19 federal budget included increased resourcing, alongside a measure to increase the level of TEQSA's cost recovery from the current low level of around 15 per cent of total costs. This will be achieved through increased fees for TEQSA's application-based regulatory assessments and a new annual charge to cover the cost of TEQSA's risk monitoring and regulatory oversight activities. Application-based fees will increase from 1 January 2022. The new annual charge will be phased in over three years from that date. The new annual charge will recover the costs incurred by the Commonwealth for TEQSA's risk monitoring, compliance monitoring and investigations, complaint management, stakeholder engagement and other regulatory oversight activities. This bill amends the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act) to enable TEQSA to levy the annual charge created by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021. The amendments will require a higher education provider to pay the annual charge as and when it falls due, including any penalties for late payment. Failure by a higher education provider to pay the charge will constitute a breach of its conditions of registration. The annual charge will commence from 1 January 2022 and will be phased in over three years. Twenty per cent of the related costs will be recovered in 2020, 50 per cent in 2023 and 100 per cent in 2024. This phased approach will assist providers to budget for and transition to the new charge. The amount of the annual charge will be prescribed by regulations. Prior to the introduction of those regulations, TEQSA will seek stakeholder feedback on a draft cost recovery implementation statement, consistent with the Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines. TEQSA's move to increased cost recovery, which was originally announced in the 2018-19 federal budget but subsequently delayed due to other external pressures, including the COVID-19 pandemic, will ensure broad consistency and fairness of charging for regulatory services across the tertiary education sector. The annual charge is consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework and links the cost of services to those who benefit from them. Currently these costs are borne by taxpayers. Subject to the passage of this bill and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021, the annual charge will commence from 1 January 2022. I commend the bill. Debate adjourned. Higher Education Support Amendment (Extending the Student Loan Fee Exemption) Bill 2021 4

Higher Education Support Amendment (Extending the Student Loan Fee Exemption) Bill 2021

First Reading 4 Second Reading 4 09:49 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Extending the Student Loan Fee Exemption) Bill 2021 builds on the government's commitment to support students, providers and the broader economy through the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Schedule 1of the billamends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to extend the exemption from FEE-HELP loan fees for approximately 30,000 undergraduate students mostly studying at private providers for a further six months. This exemption originally commenced on 1 April 2020 and will now continue through to 31 December 2021. The Australian government is committed to supporting the higher education sector and ensuring that all Australians can access high-quality educational opportunities that provide the job-ready skills they need to enter the workforce. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the government understands that students and higher education providers alike have been put under significant financial pressure. The FEE-HELP loan fee exemption will encourage students to continue or commence study for the remainder of 2021 and, in doing so, will support providers to continue delivering the high quality education necessary for Australia to recover economically from the COVID-19 pandemic. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Financial Regulator Assessment Authority Bill 2021 4

Financial Regulator Assessment Authority Bill 2021

First Reading 4 Second Reading 4 09:52 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill will create the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority, which will be charged with assessing the effectiveness and capability of APRA and ASIC. This will fulfil the government's commitment to implement recommendations 6.13 and 6.14 of the financial services royal commission. The royal commission highlighted that, while APRA and ASIC operate within complex accountability frameworks, the regulators' effectiveness in delivering on their mandates is not subject to consistent and independent expert review over time. The FRAA will provide a robust framework for assessing the effectiveness and capability of APRA and ASIC. The FRAA will consist of three expert part-time members, including the chair, and an additional ex officio member of the Department of the Treasury. The members will be supported by a secretariat located within the Department of the Treasury. The FRAA will be required to conduct biennial assessments of the effectiveness and capability of APRA and ASIC. In addition to these biennial assessments, the minister may also direct the FRAA to conduct assessments on any matter relating to the effectiveness and capability of the regulators. To preserve the independence of APRA and ASIC, the FRAA will not be permitted to assess and report on single cases or on individual uses of their legislative powers. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Financial Regulator Assessment Authority (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021 5

Financial Regulator Assessment Authority (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021

First Reading 5 Second Reading 5 09:54 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill facilitates the disclosure of sensitive, confidential and protected information from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) to the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority (FRAA). This information will support the FRAA to carry out its main function of providing effectiveness and capability assessments of APRA and ASIC. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was notified in relation to the amendments, as is required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021 5

Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021

First Reading 5 Second Reading 5 09:56 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill will implement a number of urgent and important measures which are designed to provide relief and support to Australians in need. Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles, families, and seniors and pensioners, consistent with increases in the consumer price index. These changes will ensure that low-income households who did not pay the Medicare levy in the 2019-20 income year will generally continue to be exempt in the 2020-21 income year if their incomes have risen in line with, or by less than, the consumer price index. The Medicare levy low-income thresholds ensure that people who pay no personal income tax due to their eligibility for structural offsets—such as the low-income tax offset or the seniors and pensioners tax offset—generally do not incur the Medicare levy. The changes to the thresholds mean that no Medicare levy will be payable for individual taxpayers with taxable income that does not exceed $23,226 in 2020-21, which is an increase from $22,801. Single seniors and pensioners with no dependants who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not incur a Medicare levy liability if their taxable income does not exceed $36,705, which is an increase from $36,056. Further, in combination with the individual thresholds, couples and families who are not eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy if their combined taxable income does not exceed $39,167, which is an increased from $38,474. Couples and families who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy if their combined taxable income does not exceed $51,094, which is an increase from $50,191. The thresholds for couples and families go up by $3,597 for each dependent child or student, which is an increase from $3,533. The increase in thresholds will apply to the 2020-21 income year and future income years. Schedule 2 to the bill introduces an amendment to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act 2018—the NHFIC Act—to establish the Family Home Guarantee. From 1 July 2021, 10,000 guarantees will be made available over four years to eligible single parents with dependants—who are predominantly women—to build a new home or purchase an existing home with a deposit of as little as two per cent, regardless of whether that single parent is a first home buyer or a previous owner-occupier. The family home guarantee recognises the importance of housing in providing a foundation for social, economic and emotional wellbeing. By establishing the family home guarantee, the government is providing a pathway to home ownership for single parents with dependants who've struggled to save enough for a deposit while paying rent and/or restarting their lives, allowing them to purchase a modest home sooner, subject to the individual's ability, of course, to service a loan. The amendments to the NHFIC Act operate at a high level and will be supported by the amendments to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Investment Mandate Direction 2018. Schedule 3 to the bill will exempt eligible payments made by the Australian government to thalidomide survivors from income tax and from the social security and veterans' entitlement income test. The Australian government's 2021 budget measure Support for Australia's Thalidomide Survivors will provide $44.9 million over four years and $3.9 million per year ongoing to thalidomide survivors. Schedule 4 to the bill provides an income tax exemption for qualifying grants made to primary producers and small businesses affected by the February and March 2021 storms and floods, which had a devastating impact on communities in Australia. Schedule 4 provides that qualifying grants are category D grants provided under the joint Commonwealth-state Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements 2018 where those grants relate to the storms and floods in Australia that occurred due to rainfall events between 19 February 2021 and 31 March 2021. These include small business recovery grants of up to $50,000 and primary producer recovery grants of up to $75,000. These grants provide support in addition to other assistance that the Australian and state governments have provided to assist communities as they begin to build and recover following these devastating events. Impacted small businesses and primary producers are encouraged to apply for these grants. Further information on disaster recovery assistance is available on the Disaster Assist website. Finally, schedule 5 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to include the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom Ltd, the Andy Thomas Space Foundation Ltd, Youthsafe, RAS Foundation Ltd, the Judith Neilson Institute for Journalism and Ideas and the Great Synagogue Foundation Trust on the list of deductible gift recipients. Schedule 5 also extends the specific listing of the Centre for Entrepreneurial Research and Innovation and Sydney Chevra Kadisha. DGR status allows members of the public to receive income tax deductions for donations of $2 or more that they make to these eight organisations. Full details of the measures are outlined in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 6 BUSINESS Rearrangement 6 10:03 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney On behalf of the Leader of the House, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in order to facilitate the work of the Federation Chamber in considering the appropriation bills: (1) on Tuesday, 25 May the Federation Chamber to meet from 12.15 pm to 1.30 pm for government business in addition to its scheduled hours of meeting, and there to be no grievance debate; (2) on Wednesday, 26 May the Federation Chamber to meet from 10 am to 1.30 pm and from 4 pm to 7.30 pm, and there to be no constituency statements; (3) on Thursday, 27 May the Federation Chamber to meet from 10 am to 1.30 pm, adjourn without debate, and there to be no constituency statements; (4) on Tuesday, 1 June the Federation Chamber to meet from 12.30 pm to 1.30 pm for government business in addition to its scheduled hours of meeting, and there to be no grievance debate; (5) on Wednesday, 2 June the Federation Chamber to meet at 10 am and consider the following business: (a) Members' three minute constituency statements until 10.30 am; (b) committee and delegation business and private Members' business from 10.30 am to 1 pm; (c) 90 second statements from 4 pm to 4.45 pm; and (d) committee and delegation business and private Members' business from 4.45 pm to 7.30 pm; (6) on Monday, 21 June the period from 11 am to 1.30 pm and from 4.45 pm to 6.30 pm to be allocated to government business, and the Federation Chamber to adjourn at 6.30 pm; (7) on Wednesday, 23 June the Federation Chamber to meet at 10 am and consider the following business: (a) Members' three minute constituency statements until 10.30 am; (b) committee and delegation business and private Members' business from 10.30 am to 1 pm; (c) 90 second statements from 4 pm to 4.45 pm; and (d) committee and delegation business and private Members' business from 4.45 pm to 7.30 pm; (8) the Selection Committee to: (a) make determinations in relation to the selection, referral and timetabling of items of committee and delegation business and private Members' business, for the Federation Chamber in accordance with this resolution; and (b) report its determinations to the House in time for its decisions to be published on the Notice Paper of the sitting Thursday before the day being considered; and (9) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 7 COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Procedure 7 Report 7 10:03 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the committee's report, entitled A window on the House: practices and procedures relating to question time, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr VASTA E0D by leave—Before I begin my statement, may I thank my colleagues on the committee. To the deputy chair, the member for Oxley: we have known each other for over 20 years and it was a pleasure to work with you on the report. All committee members worked together extremely well, and this cooperative behaviour showcases the excellent but little publicised workings of parliament. I'd also like to thank my committee members—Ian Goodenough, Julian Simmonds, Joanne Ryan, Patrick Gorman and Gladys Liu—and of course our outstanding secretariat—Natalie, Kate and Penny—and all of those who worked behind the scenes on the report. Thank you so much. Question time plays an important, critical review function in the House. In 2019 the Procedure Committee decided to inquire into the practices and procedures relating to this unique and very visible part of the parliamentary day. We were keen to hear directly from the public as part of our inquiry. As well as inviting submissions, we launched a survey to ask people their thoughts. Almost 3½ thousand people responded to the public survey and we received more than 50 submissions. We also had a survey for members. I would like to thank everyone who made a submission or responded to the surveys. I would like to thank our current Speaker for his invaluable input. I would also like to thank state and territory speakers, current members of this House, former speakers, academics, parliamentary practitioners and school students who took the time to meet with us, make submissions or appear at hearings. We had hoped to meet with more members of the public face to face but, unfortunately, COVID-19 meant we weren't able to do that last year. Nonetheless, the message from the public survey was clear. More than 95 per cent of respondents thought the House should change how question time operates. In the surveys, submissions and hearings we heard many suggestions for change. While we couldn't consider them all, we explored a lot of them and we tried to address as many of them as possible in our report. Improving question time as a forum for accountability and scrutiny, having better questions and answers and lifting the standard of behaviour were key themes. We have developed a package of 11 recommendations that we consider would address these. We recommend a question time consisting of a minimum of 21 questions each day, with at least 10 questions from opposition members, five questions from government members on a rostered basis, five constituency questions from government members on a rostered basis and one question from a non-aligned member, and there could be one supplementary question from an opposition member each day. We also recommend new time limits of 30 seconds for questions and two minutes for answers, with no point of order on relevance allowed in the first 30 seconds of an answer. We propose curbing the use of tag questions about alternative approaches and also suggest that the Prime Minister should speak to any questions posed to him or her first, even if they then choose to refer it to another minister for a more detailed response. I note that the Prime Minister seems to have addressed this issue, judging by his current approach. This package of changes would encourage questions to be more focused and answers to be tighter and more relevant. We would also limit opportunities for Dorothy-Dix-style questions while still allowing all members to ask questions. The inquiry also heard concerns about the tone and tenor of question time. At the moment there are two options for managing disorderly behaviour: a one-hour suspension under standing order 94(a); or, more serious, naming, which can result in suspension for a minimum of 24 hours. We recommend an additional option so that the Speaker can direct a member who is disorderly to leave the House for a three-hour period. This would be served during question time and discussion of matters of public importance, and carry across sitting days if necessary. We also recommend a trial of very limited mobile phone use by members. We know people are concerned when they see members who are on their phones and don't seem to be paying attention to question time. But we also heard that phones are sometimes being used to communicate very relevant information. So we have proposed a trial to see whether limiting phone use would be workable in the longer term. We are very conscious that question time is the window through which the House is often viewed and judged. But it is not always representative of the serious and thoughtful way that members carry out much of their other work. We recommend more promotion to highlight the other work of the House. The House may also wish to consider making more use of the time immediately after prayers for condolence motions and matters on indulgence. Ultimately, responsibility for the operation of question time rests with the House itself. I hope it will use this report as a blueprint for change. I commend the report to the House. 10:09 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley by leave—I rise to make a short statement and to thank the member for Bonner, the chair of the Procedures Committee, for his thoughtful and very worthwhile contribution to today's debate. I thank him and members of the committee for their leadership in delivering a blueprint—a bipartisan blueprint—for change to question time. Question time is a visible opportunity to hold the government of the day to account and, due to its public nature, it can also be a moment for political opportunism. It's dynamic and a unique part of our democratic process, and is the most public part of the parliamentary day. But for most Australians, question time is the only work of ours they see. It's how the majority of people reach a judgement about this House and its work—and it's not a pretty look. For this reason, the committee wanted to begin this report by gauging the variety of attitudes towards question time. As we've heard, submissions were called for in 2019, and I want to read one submission—submission 16—to the chamber: When watching Question Time on television I see many highly paid people behaving extremely badly. Instead of thoughtfully and respectfully debating policies, MPs use Question Time as a political fight club: shouting at each other, being aggressive, bullying, name calling, mocking others, sledging and generally being abusive. … … … Instead of asking intelligent and probing questions on behalf of their constituents, the whole exercise has been dumbed down and 'weaponised' in order to score points. To 'answer' a question from the Opposition, the respondent stands up and yells something nasty for three minutes. This is not a one-off opinion. Discontent with the process was a common thread in submissions. The survey received 3,465 responses and we were shocked to find that more than 95 per cent of people surveyed indicated they thought the House should change the way question time works. Many feel that the process is not currently achieving its purpose, calling it a 'waste of time', 'just theatre' or a 'farce'. Concerningly, a strong theme that emerged in these responses was the perceived failure to answer questions. People also highlighted the need for ministers to answer questions truthfully and to keep their answers relevant to the questions. These are troubling and widespread attitudes, which spurred the committee to develop a list of bipartisan recommendations and guidelines that seek to improve the conduct of question time overall and, importantly, to restore public faith in our political process. We all understand that question time means different things to different people, but the committee found that the prevailing theme across submissions and comments were that the purpose of question time is to hold the government to account for its policies and actions. Many people don't believe that accountability is being achieved under the current structure. Accountability starts at the top, which is why I want to share with the House one particular recommendation that the committee is putting forward in this report. In recommendation 4, the committee recommends: The Committee recommends that the standing orders be amended so that the Prime Minister cannot refer a question to another minister to answer without first speaking to the matter of the question themselves. Media reports have shown that this Prime Minister has avoided giving an answer at question time approaching 200 times since taking office. The Hansard also shows over 62 times when he has given a part answer before deferring to someone else. It's these recommendations and other recommendations, such as banning the dreaded dorothy dixers and ensuring that there is a trial for mobile phones in this chamber, which will lead to more accountability and a better question time. In order for Australians to have faith in our democratic process they must be entitled to answers from their leaders, especially from the Prime Minister, who has shown consistent disregard for the transparent and informative process that the Australian public is calling for. The road to a better question time starts at the top, but it doesn't end there. This report details 11 key recommendations that I hope will lead the House to set a new standard for question time as a purposeful and relevant forum, one that benefits and is respected by the Australian people. Human Rights Committee 9 Report 9 10:14 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the following reports: Human rights scrutiny report: report 4 of 2021, Human rights scrutiny report: report 5 of 2021, Human rights scrutiny report: report 6 of 2021 and the annual report for 2020. Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e). Dr WEBSTER 281688 by leave—I'm pleased to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' fourth and fifth scrutiny reports of 2021, which were tabled out of session on 31 March and 29 April, as well as report 6 and the committee's 2020 annual report. As usual, reports 4, 5 and 6 contain a technical examination of legislation with regard to Australia's obligations under international human rights law. In these reports, the committee has commented on three new bills and five new legislative instruments and has concluded its consideration of seven bills. Over the total period, the committee considered 18 new bills and 296 new legislative instruments. Among other matters, in report 4 the committee concluded its consideration of the Data Availability and Transparency Bill 2020. This bill proposes a new framework for the sharing of public sector data and would override existing secrecy laws in specific contexts. While the committee considers that the bill seeks to achieve the important objectives of greater data sharing to support a tell-us-once approach to Public Service delivery, it has concluded that it is not clear that the proposed scheme is accompanied by sufficient safeguards to protect the right to privacy, and it has not been demonstrated that a less rights-restrictive option would not be equally as effective. The committee has therefore suggested a series of amendments that may assist with the proportionality of the proposed measure. In report 5 the committee concluded its consideration of the Online Safety Bill 2021, which would establish a new legislative framework for online safety in Australia. Overall, the committee has found that this bill is likely to promote a range of important human rights, including the rights of women, the rights of the child and the right to privacy and reputation. However, the bill also limits a number of rights, particularly the right to freedom of expression. The committee has made several recommendations to amend aspects of the bill to assist with its compatibility with rights. Also in report 5, the committee considered the Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Bill 2021. The committee is seeking further information as to whether this bill, to the extent that it may result in prolonged or indefinite detention of unlawful noncitizens who cannot be removed because a protection finding has been made in relation to them, is compatible with the right to liberty, the rights of the child and the prohibition against torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. I can also advise the House that, having requested and now received information from the minister about the Social Security (Parenting payment participation requirements—class of persons) Instrument 2021, the committee has resolved to undertake a short inquiry in relation to this instrument. This will consider in greater detail questions as to the human rights compatibility of making participation in the ParentsNext program compulsory for certain recipients of parenting payments. This inquiry is currently underway, and the committee intends to table its inquiry report in August. Finally, in relation to report 6, the committee has considered the determination that makes it a temporary requirement for international air passengers not to enter Australia if they have been in India within 14 days. The committee considers that this determination likely promotes the rights to life and health for persons in Australia but notes that it may limit other human rights, including the right to freedom of movement and the rights to equality and non-discrimination, and is seeking further information in relation to this. The committee has also tabled its 2020 annual report. This report details the significant volume of work the committee undertook during the 2020 calendar year. In 2020, despite the challenges posed by COVID-19, the committee examined over 2,000 pieces of legislation, reporting on 92 per cent of new bills prior to the passage of the legislation and 100 per cent of legislative instruments within the disallowance timeframe. The report also provides an overview of the committee's continued impact during 2020—for example, in its consideration of the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. The committee suggested the bill be amended to make clear that native title cannot be extinguished in the process of developing the radioactive waste facility. The minister acknowledged the committee's feedback and, accordingly, proposed amendments to the bill. This is just one example of the impact of the committee's work in informing the parliament as to the potential human rights implications of the legislation it is considering. I commend the secretariat for the immense amount of work that they have achieved and the committee for this bipartisan work. I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's analysis. With those comments, I commend these reports to the chamber. 10:20 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton by leave—I am pleased to speak to reports 4, 5 and 6 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the annual report of the committee. I thank the new chair, the member for Mallee, for her leadership of this committee. I enjoy working with her, the secretariat and the rest of the committee. I've always been very proud of the work of this important parliamentary committee. I've been particularly proud of the important scrutiny that has occurred over the last year in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Much legislation and delegated legislation brought in by the government was rushed and was sometimes confronting when it comes to human rights. Obviously we need an appropriate response to a pandemic, but it's also important for the human rights committee to make sure all responses are necessary and proportionate. I don't want to sound like Karen from Bunnings or the frustrated Karen from Brighton, but this is important work the committee does. The annual report details some of that work. I'd also like to mention a couple of matters contained in report 6 of 2021. The determination made by the health minister close to midnight to ban Australians from coming home if they'd been in India is an example of why scrutiny committees like this are essential. I note that the determination is not disallowable. As such, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights is the only scrutiny committee that can examine the health minister's determination. The committee has not concluded its examination of this determination in light of Australia's human rights obligations and has sought the health minister's advice on some matters, including whether banning travellers from India is reasonable and proportionate to the objectives sought, whether persons of Indian descent will be disproportionately affected by the ban, whether there are any less-rights-restrictive ways to achieve the stated aims of preventing and controlling the entry, emergence, establishment or spread of COVID-19 in Australia—in particular whether there are Commonwealth quarantine facilities available, like the Commonwealth government has for horses, that could effectively manage any risk posed by travellers returning from high-risk countries—and why there does not appear to be any procedure whereby an individual can apply for an exemption from the direction—for example, if they had a pre-existing medical condition that would mean they would die if they stayed in India. The committee looks forward to the minister's response to these questions. I also refer to the Telecommunications Regulations 2021, which were also examined by the committee in report 6. These regulations set out the matters in relation to which a service provider determination may be made with respect to a prepaid mobile carriage service, including verifying the customer's identity; obtaining, recording and keeping a customer's personal information; and preventing a customer using a prepaid mobile carriage service in certain circumstances, including failing to verify their identity. The committee has noted that this measure may limit the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, equality and nondiscrimination. I have particular concerns about the requirement of customers to provide documentary evidence to verify their identity. This may indirectly discriminate against customers with certain protected attributes, particularly the homeless, and significantly interfere with their right to freedom of expression if they do not have access to a mobile phone service. In the current digital age, having a mobile phone is a necessity, particularly if access to computers is also not available. Access to welfare payments, communication for job interviews and housing options all rely on the ability to be contacted or on access to the internet. Also mobile phones are used for tracing purposes and for entering buildings nowadays. The committee has noted concerns with these regulations. I draw these human rights concerns to the attention of the minister and the parliament. I commend the committee's reports to the House. I once again thank the member for Mallee. Road Safety Joint Select Committee 11 Membership 11 10:24 The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating a member to be a member of the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety. 10:24 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield by leave—I move: That Mr Conaghan be appointed a member of the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety. Question agreed to. BILLS 11 BILLS Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021 11

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

Second Reading 11 10:25 The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The member for Sydney has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. 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 Sydney 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. 10:26 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021. These measures seek to ensure or to extend Higher Education Loan Program, or HELP, eligibility to former permanent humanitarian visa holders. We all recognise in this place the value and importance of higher education, and particularly university education. This measure in particular allows those former permanent humanitarian visa holders who transition to a different visa, due to travelling outside of Australia, to retain their HELP eligibility. I think the Higher Education Loan Program is a program that has been of enormous benefit and value to many, many people over many, many years in that it has given them the opportunity, particularly people on low to middle incomes or lower socioeconomic means, to have the capacity to go to university and study. I know in my electorate of Forde there are parts of my electorate where people, through their socioeconomic circumstances, wouldn't ordinarily be able to go to university, if they had to pay to do so. The HELP scheme has been so valuable to them. For many of those who have come to Australia through our humanitarian program—in my electorate of Forde and, I would suggest, in that of the member for Moreton there are many people who have come to this country through our humanitarian program—the opportunity to take the step on that ladder of higher education is something that they had been would probably never have dreamt of in their home countries. To be given that opportunity here in Australia is of tremendous value, I think. Logan City is home to people of some 217 different cultural backgrounds. I know we have a very significant number of people who have come here through the humanitarian program. The problem has been that if they go overseas and travel, the travel component of the permanent humanitarian visa ceases after a five-year period. If that permanent humanitarian visa holder travels outside of Australia after that time, they would lose eligibility or access to their HELP eligibility when they apply for a resident return visa to retain their permanent residency status. In this bill, we want to ensure that those HELP eligibility requirements are able to be maintained for those students to ensure they can continue to study and take advantage of the great education systems we have through our higher education institutions. I'd like to use the opportunity to thank the team at Griffith University. I know the member for Moreton has the original campus of Griffith University at Nathan, but I also have their Logan campus. Also, many of those who live in the southern part of my electorate, in Upper Coomera or on the northern Gold Coast, would go to the Gold Coast campus of Griffith University. I know from my regular meetings with both campuses of the university about the wonderful work that they do in helping students from a wide range of backgrounds across our community to follow their dreams of obtaining a degree and going on to follow their dreams of a career in health, in medicine, in business and also in the science fields. Griffith University is a great example of what our higher education facilities provide across Australia. For those who have come from overseas, we know that some 4,300 or more permanent humanitarian visa holders accessed the HELP loan scheme in 2019 alone, and I'm sure that there are many more outside of that. This measure ensures that this cohort continues to hold its HELP eligibility and that it aligns with the eligibility of other Australian residents. In addition, the bill also makes minor technical amendments to the Higher Education Support Act, requiring higher education providers to refund upfront payments made by students and associated payments that are received from the Commonwealth in relation to a student's HELP loan where that loan has been re-credited under the Higher Education Support Act. It amends the definition of 'grandfathered student' to clarify that an ongoing course includes courses that have been restructured by a higher education provider and to ensure that students do not lose their status as grandfathered students as a result of the default by a provider. It also removes the requirement of conditions in part 2-3 that grant funding cannot be outlined in both the Other Grants Guidelines and ministerial determinations, and it also allows unspent grant amounts under parts 2-3 and 2-4 of the Higher Education Support Act to be rolled over automatically into the next calendar year unless otherwise determined by the secretary of the Department of Education, Skills and Employment. It also makes a technical correction to clarify that certain student protection provisions under the Higher Education Support Act refer to all assistance payable under chapter 3 of the Higher Education Support Act, rather than only FEE-HELP assistance, ensuring that these measures are extended to all providers, and it makes a series of other technical amendments, including to the Education Services for Overseas Students Act. It makes some minor amendments there. More importantly, these amendments, helping out students and clarifying those measures, are a reflection more generally of the work that we are doing in the higher education space. If we look at our job-ready guarantee package, which is also looking to generate 30,000 additional university places in 2021 and up to 100,000 places by 2030, the most important part of that is the fact that this government is bringing down the cost of degrees in key areas. Under the job-ready guarantee package, we've already seen the cost of agriculture courses go down 59 per cent, the cost of maths degrees go down 59 per cent, the cost of nursing and teaching degrees go down 42 per cent, and the cost of science, engineering and IT degrees go down some 18 per cent. When I look at the Logan campus, which has a very heavy focus on nursing training, given its proximity to Logan Hospital, I am sure that the students at the Logan campus of Griffith University are particularly pleased to see the reduction in costs for them to do their degrees. One of the things that I have spoken to the universities about is the importance of their relationship in engaging with the business community to ensure that their courses and their material are fit for purpose for the students when they leave study and enter the workforce. I'm pleased to say there is an increasing amount of work being done by higher education facilities in engaging with the business community to ensure that there's a better link between what students are doing in their courses at university—from an academic point of view, but, equally, understanding and working in the business sector in which they're studying to get that practical experience at the same time as they're studying for their academic qualifications. Speaking recently to somebody who is doing exactly that, they found that the benefit of doing that helps them to not only better understand and apply the academic knowledge that they're learning, but it also gives them the opportunity to take back to the classroom that practical knowledge. They feel it gives them a more rounded view of their potential occupation after finishing study, and it's clarified for them that it's actually something they want to do and pursue long term. That is a great benefit of those relationships and links, because we do know that there are numbers of students who get into their first year of their degree and discover that it is something they don't want to do. Even worse, there are some students who do a whole degree and then go into the workforce and don't wish to follow that career. If we can continue to see the universities and the business sector build those relationships, and ensure that students, when they come out of university, are satisfied that is the career that they want to pursue, there is far greater value to all concerned. I commend this bill in its original form to the House. More importantly, I commend the work that this government continues to do with the higher education sector to ensure that students right around this country get the benefit of higher education, can pursue their goals and dreams and the careers that they wish to pursue for the future. 10:37 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021, and to point out that Labor supports this bill. It is largely administrative in nature, as mentioned by the member for Forde. It's making some small changes that will fix some recognised issues. These small changes are welcome, and I repeat that Labor does not oppose these minor measures. However, this bill is typical of the attitude that the Morrison government have brought to education. They tinker around the edges without doing anything necessary to achieve lasting beneficial change for students. Fundamentally, the Liberal and National parties see education as entrenching privilege, rather than as the transformative opportunity that education is. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that this government is still not willing to support the education sector, as we saw in that brutal budget for universities on Tuesday night. More than 10 pieces of education legislation have been introduced by the Morrison government, but their main achievements have been to make students pay more overall for their education as well as managing to lock thousands out of university degrees. The Morrison budget this week almost completely overlooked the education sector. Our universities educate more than one million Australians and employ more than 100,000 Australians, but, rather than support an industry that has been our third-largest export sector, they are cutting funding at a time when universities need it the most. Page 170 of Budget Paper No. 1 clearly says that university funding will decrease by 9.3 per cent in real terms from 2021-22 to 2024-25. That's $1 ripped out of every $10 for our Australian universities. Think of all the damage that will do to our communities, particularly those bush communities that rely so much on their universities. Last year, in the face of international students being locked out of studying in Australia, the government provided extra funding for research. It would have made a lot of sense for that extra funding to be continued, particularly when the budget revealed that borders are likely to remain shut until mid-2022. But the latest Morrison-Frydenberg budget had nothing for universities. The ANU vice-chancellor, Brian Schmidt, is quoted in the papers today as saying: I am worried that we are going to lose huge capacity in the research sector that will take decades to recover. Professor Duncan Ivison, deputy vice-chancellor for research at the University of Sydney is reported as saying: My biggest concern is just the long-term viability of research endeavours as a sector because once it goes it's very hard to get back. You can't just turn research on and off like a tap. Our researchers have never been more important than they were last year during the pandemic. Researchers at the University of Queensland continue their important work in the fight against COVID-19. I particularly mention the work that they're doing on rockets. The space industry will be another important sector for us. I was there last week as part of a committee, and we saw some incredible work. The University of Queensland is currently calling for volunteers who have recovered from COVID-19 to help unravel why people respond so differently to the virus. Without important research like this, continuing our fight against this deadly virus, these things will take longer and they'll be harder to carry out. Now, we all know that quarantine is clearly a federal responsibility. It says so in our Constitution. The Morrison government has failed in its responsibility to set up successful quarantine locations in Australia for arrivals during this pandemic. There are over 9,000 Australians stuck in India right now who have been threatened with jail if they even try to come to the place they call home: Australia. There are tens of thousands more Australians in other parts of the world wanting to come home but unable to do so. The Prime Minister did say everyone would be home by Christmas, but I must admit I thought it was last Christmas, not a Christmas in the future to be determined. This has been a failure on part of the Morrison government. For the international education sector, Australia's third-biggest export industry, the failure to set up safe quarantine facilities has been a disaster. International students are an incredibly successful diplomatic achievement for Australia. They go home talking about the country that educated them. Sending students out into the world and back to their home countries is something that every trade minister would be aware of, particularly with our great trading partner China. They go with a greater understanding of Australia and its people, and that all came through the international student sector. Professor Michael Wesley, the deputy vice-chancellor at the University of Melbourne is reported in the Financial Review today as saying that the federal government should be responsible for getting international students back in the country, as it has responsibility for university funding and policy. He said: We have clear evidence that students are diverting to the UK and Canada, in particular, but also that demand for US-based education is going up. These are our competitors taking our third-biggest export industry. The situation is so dire that it is reported today that New South Wales has vowed to defy Canberra and allow significant cohorts of foreign students to return almost immediately. It was reported that the New South Wales Treasurer is seeking to minimise the damage coronavirus is inflicting on the state's $14.6 billion international education industry by quarantining international students in purpose-built student accommodation. The state is stepping into the space created by the federal government, despite the constitutional responsibilities clearly resting with the Prime Minister. New research from the Mitchell Institute reported this morning has found that a third academic year of no international students would cost Australia about $20 billion a year. I'm sure the idea of that trade loss would make the member for Brand weep. That is half of the prepandemic value of the sector. This isn't just a problem for universities. The economic value of international students is far wider than the university sector. They obviously contribute in many other ways, in terms of accommodation and the part-time work that they do. Most of the economic value of international students comes from students spending in the wider economy and from their parents coming to do tourism with them. They go to Cairns and places in other parts of Australia where they might not necessarily be studying but where they spend those travel dollars, making us stronger. The Morrison budget does nothing to help young Australians improve their educational outcomes and options. The Morrison government has already made it harder and more expensive overall for Australians to go to university. I don't want Australia to become more like the United States of America, where kids are educated but end up with a lifetime of crippling debt. For a basic degree, young Australians will end up with a debt of around $60,000. How can they ever save a deposit for a house with that debt before they even have a job? Forty per cent of students have had their uni fees more than doubled. Students at university right now are paying more than double what they would have paid but for the Morrison government hiking fees last year. The Morrison government is ramping up student debt and ripping away the lifelong dreams of Australian students. Already, more than 17,000 jobs at universities have been lost because the Morrison government changed the rules three times to stop universities accessing JobKeeper. They're groundkeepers, academics, cleaners librarians et cetera. There are all sorts of people in university communities. These jobs keep universities up and running, and now they're gone. Regional universities in particular have been devastated, including campuses being closed in Central Queensland. I can't understand why the Prime Minister did not support workers at these universities. I don't know what happened to him when he was studying that he has had such a deep hatred of universities since he's been Treasurer and Prime Minister. I don't know what happened to him, but I really think he should see a counsellor rather than taking revenge on universities, our third-biggest export industry. He was obviously comfortable to see thousands of livelihoods destroyed when he could have prevented these job losses. The Morrison government's record on education is abysmal, and budget 2021 did nothing to improve that record. In fact, it made it worse. 10:46 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I'm pleased to rise to support this important but technical bill, the Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021, that is dealing with three key things: tuition protection, higher education and permanent humanitarian visa holders. The member for Moreton's contribution just prior to me was such that I feel that I do need to respond to some of the important but perhaps erroneous points that he has made there. One of the key things that the member for Moreton said was that, in our DNA, we are opposed to higher education. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. If we go back to the days of Sir Robert Menzies, who deserves to be known as the father of modern higher education, you can see that it has been our side of politics, rather than their side of politics, which has transformed the higher education landscape. It's worth just reflecting on the position of the Menzies government and what Menzies himself did to demonstrate that the DNA is not, indeed, what the member for Moreton suggested it is. When Menzies first became Prime Minister in 1939, there were six universities in Australia and 14,236 higher education students out of a population of seven million. By the time he retired in 1966, there were 16 universities and 91,272 higher education students. In case people think this was just the baby boom, Menzies's achievements in higher education were direct and specific to expanding higher education opportunities more broadly, whether it was establishing the Mills committee in 1950; the establishment of Commonwealth scholarships, undergraduate in 1951 and post graduate in 1959; promoting the opportunity for higher education for non-school-leavers through mature-age scholarships for people aged over 25; taxation allowances for education expenses; or one of the Murray committee inquiries. The Murray committee was headed by Sir Keith Murray, who was a vice-chancellor from the United Kingdom who had had broad experience in higher education policy throughout the Commonwealth at that time. It's establishment was to ensure that Australia's higher education system, as it developed, would serve Australia's best interests as we emerged from the post-war world and engaged in post-war building of the country to put ourselves in a position where Australia could continue to thrive and continue to ensure that the next generations of students would have the quality education they needed. In 1961, he commissioned Sir Leslie Martin to devise a future plan for tertiary education which resulted in the creation of the colleges of advanced education which existed in our higher education landscape until the Dawkins reforms of the early 1990s. Menzies, towards the end of his long tenure, said: My life has devoted itself for years to the development of education in this country. Nothing old-fashioned about it. It's mostly brand new. He also said his government sparked the 'beginning of a revolution in the university world'. Quite simply, more than any other Australian, it was Sir Robert Menzies—not, as the mythology likes to pretend, Gough Whitlam—who laid the foundations for Australian higher education. Indeed, it is to be remembered that there were more people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who had the opportunity of a university education in the Menzies years than there were in the Whitlam years. To suggest, as those opposite have done, that there's been a lack of support for universities is just not correct. Today's government, the Morrison government, is providing a record $20 billion investment in the higher education sector this year. Total funding is up more than 37 per cent since we came to government—$903.5 million over four years for more places and support for students. One of the things that I think the Job-ready Graduates Package—which went through under Minister Tehan's watch—has done is focus students on those critical skills that we need, particularly agriculture and STEM degrees. The cost of an agriculture degree has come down by 59 per cent; the cost of a maths degree is down by 59 the per cent; the cost of nursing and teaching degrees are down by 42 per cent; and the cost of science, engineering and IT degrees have gone down by 18 per cent. I remember Minister Tudge, now the education minister, talking—in response to questions without notice in this place when we were last here—about the effect of those cost reductions in terms of enrolment increases. As someone who represents a peri-urban area which has horticulture and some small agricultural production, I understand the importance of encouraging more Australians into agriculture as a career and encouraging more Australians into agtech. Agriculture is one of the things that we do so well in this country, yet so few people in recent years have been taking agriculture degrees. The changes that we made have put more funding into the sector and have focused people's opportunities on the things that Australia needs for its future. I want to come to some of what the bill that is before the House is designed to do, having addressed some of the more broad points. People on permanent humanitarian visas have often faced extraordinary situations in their country of origin before coming to Australia. For many of them, educational opportunities were non-existent because of the nature of the country that they'd come from. Some of those countries have been in strife and war, and many of those people who are in the permanent humanitarian space have been persecuted because of immutable characteristics and so have not had access to education. For those people who have been granted permanent humanitarian visas, having access to the HELP, the Higher Education Loan Program, can be transformative for them. It gives them access to higher education opportunities that can change their life, ensuring that their experience in Australia is such that they can make a greater contribution to the economy, that they can get on with their lives and that they can have fulfilling lives. This is a really important measure for the way in which we settle permanent humanitarian visa holders, ensuring that they can contribute fully to Australia. A quirk of the legislation that has operated and that this particular legislation seeks to address is that, for the first five years that someone is on a permanent humanitarian visa, they are able to leave the country but, after that time finishes, they have to apply for a different visa. Under that different visa, a resident return visa, they are no longer eligible to access the Higher Education Loan Program. This has a number of serious adverse consequences for the permanent humanitarian visa holder. You can imagine some of them. The first is that they may not complete the degree that they have been undertaking in the higher education space and, therefore, they might not be able to contribute to the country in the same way that they had been hoping to. They might not expand the opportunities that they were hoping to benefit from as a result of their degree. They might not be able to contribute to society, and they might not have the educational and work opportunities. Secondly, they might end up being laden with debt that they just cannot repay, because of their meagre circumstances, given the nature in which they came to Australia in the first place. This legislation seeks to right the ship. It seeks to say that, if you are a permanent humanitarian visa holder and you've been here for more than five years and you leave the country and return, you can continue to access the Higher Education Loan Program. That is so important, particularly for those people who are midway through a program, but it is also important for people who may be commencing a program. This does not apply where somebody's visa has been cancelled, of course, but it does apply to many people. It is a good amendment; it's a good bill. It's a good technical measure which I think corrects an oversight that wasn't considered during the drafting of the citizenship and residency requirements for HELP. I want to commend Minister Tudge for addressing this and acknowledge the support of both sides of the House for the key provisions of this bill. I think it's worthwhile noting how many people have taken up the HELP program and are permanent humanitarian visa holders. Four thousand, three hundred and forty-six permanent humanitarian visa holders accessed a HELP loan in 2019. That's not a huge cohort, but this measure ensures that those people can continue to be eligible, along with other Australian residents, to access the Higher Education Loan Program. One of the other technical amendments in the bill that I think is worthwhile drawing attention to is the technical correction to clarify that Indigenous languages are included in funding cluster 3 of HESA and are not foreign languages. This is very important, and I say this as the chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs. It's very important that we encourage more Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians to study Indigenous languages. It gives us a deeper appreciation of Indigenous culture and a deeper understanding of their history, but, also, language is very important for Indigenous people in terms of their connection to tradition, their connection to land, their connection to their history, and so on. The proper acknowledgement in this amendment bill of the status of Indigenous languages is absolutely vital. The final elements to this bill that I will touch on are the measures in it that are designed to bolster the Tuition Protection Service. I've spoken in this House on previous occasions about the importance of the Tuition Protection Service and amendments that were made previously to the Tuition Protection Service that were suggested by the Broken Bay Institute. That is a higher education provider that operates in Pennant Hills, in my constituency. In fact, it's just across from my electorate office. The measures in this bill further bolster the Tuition Protection Service and remind us that it's a funder of last resort. They ensure providers who cease to be registered or go into liquidation continue to meet their obligations and ensure overseas students don't rely on refunds or placements from the Overseas Students Tuition Fund, administered by the TPS director. The TPS is a critical pillar of our international education legislative framework. These amendments bolster the sustainability of the Overseas Students Tuition Fund and reduce the likelihood of taxpayer funds being needed to replenish it in the future. These are good measures. These are sensible measures. These are measures that support people who have come to Australia to take advantage of educational opportunities and, through quirks of their own travel and circumstances or quirks of issues that have befallen the higher education provider who is providing them with educational opportunities, it provides the necessary protections. I commend the bill to the House. 10:58 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My remarks on this legislation will be brief. Nonetheless, I rise to support it and its objectives around making sure that those who seek to come to Australia to pursue opportunities for education are able to do so in a flexible framework. The government recognises and respects the visa classes and arrangements necessary for them to be able to do so. When I speak to people in the Goldstein electorate, I find that, as is true in any other part of the country, more than anything else, when Australians think about those who come to this country, what they want are the foundations to be laid for them to be good and responsible contributors to our country. Of course, education is a critical pathway that Liberals have always understood. It is essential to the development of successful and responsible individuals so that they are able to support themselves and their families. We have seen the potential of education, not just as an empowerer of people but also as an empowerer of a sector of the economy, to be part of the strength of export industries that can provide assistance and support and a mutual benefit to Australians as well. Currently, we have legislative restrictions which raise questions and doubts about the eligibility of people to access the Higher Education Loan Program based on their different visa classes. We want to make sure that for those Australians who are here and who have started the pathway to securing education by using that program that the structures exist to respect their decisions and their choices to study and learn and to take on the responsibility for the cost as it shifts with different visa classes, consistent with the legislative framework that this parliament has written out. Of course that means, particularly for permanent humanitarian visa holders, providing pathways for them to continue to engage with education so that they can go on, build themselves up and harden their contribution and capacity to contribute not just to themselves in Australia but wherever their life takes them. Also, of course, it provides a pathway to security for our great tertiary institutions to attract students who can utilise the knowledge and the skills that they can provide as a basis for engagement with a cohort of students who may otherwise be denied. This is the foundational principle on which the Liberals have always approached education: to see and to drive excellence in outcomes and to see and to drive opportunity in terms of the structures of education so that it's accessible for everybody, and also to address issues of equity so that those people who may be denied or held back have pathways to utilise education for their own success. This government is adaptable to the changing circumstances that people face when they're in Australia or when they take temporary pathways out of the country, for them to be eligible to secure an education that follows. With the other members in this chamber, that is the foundation on which I support this bill. We want to see those people who come to Australia able to realise the fullness of their ambitions, when they do so, wherever their life takes them—including through to the ultimate pathway of citizenship. The strength of our country is the sum of our people. If we have strong citizens then we have strong families; if we have strong families then we have strong communities; and if we have strong communities then we have a strong nation. That is the foundation of a Liberal vision for this country: one built on the foundations of strength, anchored in citizens, families and communities and not from those fiddling from Canberra down. That's why this legislation is important: because of what it will enable and what it will empower. That's what we wish to continue to see into the future. I commend the bill to the House. 11:02 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman These changes to the ESOS Act through this Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021 are important. It's an opportunity today to talk about the importance of international education. Obviously, the bill goes to the involvement of those on humanitarian visas and the potential interruption to their education where they have to leave the country. I believe there are just over 4,000 Australians who are permanent residents under protection visas who are affected and who will be better served as a result of these amendments. In a broader sense, though, my observations today are about how we run our immigration system and, in particular, Australia's proud record of having firewalled UNHCR places, second only to one other nation in the world in generosity. That's because Australia truly has a proud record of immigration in this country, being free of judgement by race or nationality—these are things that we have to be incredibly proud of. They're often not talked up though, and they need to be talked up more. Sadly, I don't come from an electorate that is highly ethnically diverse, but many in this chamber do. They can attest to exactly how our communities have been strengthened by our immigration. Of course, it's incumbent upon government to make sure that it's done effectively. We're aware of the stresses that can come with immigration and also the important role we have in welcoming those who arrive in this country on a citizen pathway, to have both the opportunity to study and to work. My point today is primarily noting that while education continuity is incredibly important—and there's no disagreement about that; it's why we are having this debate today—we can do better in making sure that families are connected into the economy even before they land. I'm arguing today that, while we may be amending this act to ensure that there is continuity of study, we can be doing way better even before people leave their origin locations, where they have been determined to be eligible, allowed a visa and due this protection. We could be making these educational bridges even before they arrive, potentially including English language courses before they depart and starting on the reading of resumes and identifying prior learning and experience to make sure that they are able to engage with the Australian economy as soon as they land and are ready to. Our immigration system doesn't do that as effectively as it should. The best data that I'm aware of is nearly a decade old, so we haven't really looked closely, by country of origin, at how successful we are at getting working-age people into study and work. I argue that, when it comes to immigration, we should have a very, very clear policy that there should be a 100 per cent success rate for people of working age and studying age to be able to do that, should they choose. At the moment, according to the research done back in 2012, we have some very, very poor outcomes for particular economies, although other countries do very well. We can do better, I believe, at the points of departure to be preparing those families or individuals for genuine connection not just to culture but to economy. I don't need to go into detail about the price this nation pays because we don't do that well. I don't need to go into detail about the potential social problems that can befall a household for which under that roof not a single person is employed. It's not impossible that up to 90 per cent of the cohort I'm describing on humanitarian visas can find themselves in that situation. The current arrangements, where you're directed to a Centrelink office and provided services such as offers of language training but are given no more expectation, fail the Australian value of mutual obligation. While I agree that many of our humanitarian arrivals come from very, very difficult places and have been subject to incredibly traumatic events, that doesn't prevent us initiating the journey towards education and employment assiduously and with the goal of 100 per cent success. Why would you come to Australia, other than for the protection we offer, if not for the opportunities this country has? To be not connected to either education or work puts our system under significant strain and actually undermines the immigration system and the way the rest of our nation views immigration. I think it's really important to take this work first, study first approach. So the tiny change here will prevent interruption and humanitarian visa holders falling out of eligibility for higher education HELP loans. That's great, and that addresses a tiny proportion of those arrivals. I will conclude where I started. We need to be doing way better, particularly with working-age humanitarian arrivals, to ensure that they have all services available to them even before they leave their points of departure. We need to do tailoring for work, identifying their skills, doing potential matching, identifying a workplace and ensuring they are living somewhere where they can easily get to that work, so they get the best possible start on their path to citizenship in this great nation. 11:09 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin I am happy to speak in favour of the bill put forward, the Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021. This bill makes a number of amendments to the Higher Education Support Act and the Education Services for Overseas Students Act, and while none of them are particularly large-scale changes, they will beneficially impact on a number of students and improve the efficient operation of the acts. The first and most significant of the changes which I want to focus on addresses an oversight that was not considered during the drafting of the citizenship and residence requirements under the Higher Education Loan Program. Permanent humanitarian visa holders are eligible for a HELP loan under the HESA, the Higher Education Support Act, which assists this vulnerable cohort of students to participate in and contribute to the Australian economy. It helps them to integrate. It helps them to get skills to participate. The travel component of a permanent humanitarian visa ceases after a five-year period. If a permanent humanitarian visa holder travels outside of Australia after that time frame, in order to come back into Australia they must apply for a resident return visa to retain their permanent residency status. Under the current legislation, a former permanent humanitarian visa holder in this situation would lose their HELP eligibility. It's this situation that's being addressed by the first amendment in this particular bill. It's based on the goal and the original intention that HELP eligibility requirements remain stable for students who have met the citizenship and residency requirements under the HESA and reside in Australia. This measure will allow former permanent humanitarian visa holders who transition to a different visa due to travelling outside of Australia—outside of the travel component of their visa—to retain their HELP eligibility. Correcting this oversight supports a positive outcome for both the student and the taxpayer, as it prevents a student from losing their HELP eligibility part way through their course. If a student loses their HELP eligibility, they might be unable to complete their qualification and work in their chosen field. Notwithstanding that, they would retain liability for their HELP debt, which would have already been incurred. Obviously, this is not a good outcome for the student or the taxpayer. The minister for education will determine the applicable visa subclasses that retain HELP eligibility for former permanent humanitarian visa holders through a legislative instrument. This will ensure that these amendments remain flexible and responsive to any future changes to the Migration Act so that we don't have to coming back and make further changes to the HESA. In 2019, 4,300 permanent humanitarian visa holders accessed a HELP loan. This is not a large cohort, but it's a significant cohort. Every student is important. Every person is important. This measure will ensure that that cohort will not have to worry about their continued HELP eligibility, and that their continued HELP eligibility is aligned with all other Australian residents. It's also important to note that this measure does not extend HELP eligibility to permanent humanitarian visa holders whose visas have been cancelled. There are other measures in this bill which are more technical in nature but, as I said at the outset, they go to the efficient operating of the bill. Just before I finish, I want to pick up on a number of comments about higher education in Australia, including the thought that this particular government doesn't support higher education in Australia. I note that a number of my predecessors have talked about the history of higher ed in legislation. I want to look at more recent times. In 20 years, the number of domestic students enrolled in higher ed in Australia has more than doubled. In 1988, there were 400,000 domestic students enrolled at universities across Australia. That is now more than one million domestic students at universities in Australia. Yes, the population in Australia has increased, but it hasn't increased by that number. We have seen a large-scale increase to the number of domestic students enrolling in higher education in Australia. In 2000, less than 16 per cent of Australians aged between 15 and 64 held a bachelor's degree qualification or higher. In 2018, that was 31 per cent. In the course of less than 20 years, the number of people holding bachelor's degrees or higher has almost doubled as well. As somebody who previously spent quite a considerable amount of time in higher education, I think, obviously, that studying higher education is beneficial. It's optimum. I think it's a wonderful opportunity for people to develop their education, knowledge, skills and passions and to find a profession—all of those things. But I also think that we're at a critical time in our country, where we're facing a period of transition when it comes to further education post schooling. All universities are looking at different models and different ways of offering qualifications, and that is what this government is supporting—different ways of achieving qualifications, such as short courses, add-on diploma courses to undergraduate degrees and allowing people to undertake lifelong learning so they can upskill and change professions. Gone are the days where somebody goes into the same profession, or even the same job, and stays there for life. I'm not talking about the gig economy here; I'm talking about the real—and the data, which shows that people follow different career paths and make changes. I have come across many of them in my own involvement with universities, with people going back and following a completely different career course after doing something for 10 or 20 years. That is to be welcomed and to be encouraged. But, in so doing, we have to keep reshaping how we offer higher education in this country. This government is seeking to allow universities that freedom to change and explore different models—different models of teaching, different models of delivering and different types of qualifications. I have just one word of caution on this, before I finish. At the end of last year a number of people in my electorate, knowing my background in universities, contacted me to talk about their children who had been studying last year throughout COVID. As we know, at many universities they had to move a lot of things online in the time of COVID. Online learning is great. Online learning brings education to a whole lot of people who otherwise wouldn't access it. But there are limits to online learning, and not everybody benefits from online learning. There are lots of people who have different ways of learning, and we've got to make sure we engage all of them in the learning process. The constituents who got in touch with me were very concerned. While they understood that online learning was a necessity for their first-year undergraduate children who had started university last year, they were concerned this was going to continue, because, in their mind, their children had not had the benefit of face-to-face instruction and hadn't had the benefit of everything else that goes with university undergraduate life, which is where you're supposed to learn about life a little bit more—and often it is outside the classroom where most of that learning happens. They were also concerned that their children had not been able to entirely embrace the whole learning experience because of the fragmented nature of and the distance in online learning. Parents raised with me their concern that the universities would continue to implement a fully-online approach for everything across the board. In response to these constituents contacting me, I contacted all five universities in Western Australia to outline these concerns and to ask for their feedback and their responses. They all responded, and they all re-emphasised to me that their prime goal is to make sure that their students get an excellent education. Yes, they noted that they were going to continue some online education, but they were also mindful of the fact that many students don't benefit from online education and that there has to be more face to face. I was really pleased with the five universities in Western Australia for acknowledging and taking the time to respond to that query about how they were continuing to look after their students, particularly those at undergraduate level. As I said, we're educating a lot of people at the moment and not all of them come as prepared as each other for university study. That step up from school, from year 12, into higher education can be a vast jump, and when you're not doing it face to face, when you're not meeting people around you, that can be a really big hurdle. I want to commend the five WA universities for their commitment to students and for their commitment to ensuring that the students that enrol with them are getting a high-class education. They are concerned about what is being delivered to their students and that their students get the best outcome. 11:19 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise today to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021. The amendments proposed in this bill may be small, but their impact is significant for those individuals affected by them. I understand that many who come to Australia do so to build a better life for themselves and their families, and a large part of this includes access to our world-class higher education system. The flow-on effects of this benefit the entire cross-section of society, from the individual getting a skilled post-study job to the family who are having improved living standards as a result to a better educated population who can then engage with the better paying jobs that are now proliferating in the age of the knowledge economy. The primary aim of the this education legislation amendment is to protect a vulnerable cohort of students, former permanent humanitarian visa holders, by helping them to retain their Higher Education Loan Program eligibility and therefore participate in the economy, an outcome where all of us will reap the rewards. Anyone who plans for the future needs certainty, and that need for certainty is no different for visa-holding students in the higher education sector. That certainty then leads to students' continued investment in the higher education sector, as well as incentivising new students now and into the future. Certainty allows all students to excel in their education and confidently participate in and contribute to the economy. That is exactly what this bill will ensure. The schedule 1 amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 are designed to help extend HELP eligibility to former permanent humanitarian visa holders, assisting a vulnerable cohort of students to participate in and contribute to the Australian economy. 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 after that time frame, they must apply for a resident return visa to return to their permanent residency status in Australia. This measure allows former permanent humanitarian visa holders who transition to a different visa due to travelling outside of Australia to retain their HELP eligibility. A former permanent humanitarian visa holder in this situation would otherwise lose their HELP eligibility. The measures in this bill correct the unintended consequence that was not considered during the drafting of the citizenship and residency requirements for HELP. Correcting this oversight supports positive outcomes for the student and also indirectly the taxpayer, as it prevents the student from losing their HELP eligibility partway through their course. We all know that, if a student loses their HELP eligibility, they may be unable to complete their qualification and therefore work in their chosen field. This means that they remain liable for their HELP debt already incurred. In this case, Australian employers and society lose out because of this untapped talent not realising their full potential. The minister for education will determine the applicable visa subclasses that retains HELP eligibility for former permanent humanitarian visa holders to ensure these amendments remain flexible and responsive to any future changes to the 1958 Migration Act. There were 4,346 permanent humanitarian visa holders who accessed a HELP loan in 2019. The measure in this bill will ensure this small cohort continue to have HELP eligibility and are aligned with other eligible Australian residents. Measures included in this bill also make minor technical amendments to improve the operation of the Higher Education Support Act. This small set of amendments will improve efficiency in the system, ultimately saving money for taxpayers. This bill will require higher education providers to refund upfront payments made by students and any associated payments providers received from the Commonwealth in relation to a student's HELP loan where that loan is recredited under the Higher Education Support Act. This bill will also amend the definition of 'grandfathered students' to clarify that an ongoing course includes a course that has been restructured by a higher education provider and to ensure that students do not lose their status as grandfathered students as a result of the default by a provider. Importantly, this bill will make a technical correction to clarify that Indigenous languages are included in funding cluster 3 of the Higher Education Support Act and are not classified as foreign languages but rather native languages. It's amazing that this wasn't the case previously—that Indigenous languages weren't regarded as native to this continent. Lastly, this bill will repeal sections under the Higher Education Support Act that are no longer required due to other amendments making other minor consequential amendments to the act. Another small amendment in this bill makes changes to the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000. The Education Services for Overseas Students Act provides important protections for international students by ensuring rigorous standards are applied to any course delivered to international students. This protects international students' investments in Australian education and upholds the integrity of the visa system at the same time. But, of course, it also speaks to the greater and higher cause of ensuring that our education system retains its brand of excellence. The tuition protection scheme is a critical pillar of our international education legislative framework. It aids international students whose education providers are unable to fully deliver their course of study and who may need to seek refunds. These amendments work to protect the role of the tuition protection scheme as a refunder of last resort. They will guarantee that providers who cease to be registered or go into liquidation continue to meet their obligations. This ensures that overseas students do not rely on government and taxpayer refunds. These amendments bolster the sustainability of the Overseas Students Tuition Fund and reduce the likelihood of taxpayer funds being needed to replenish it in the future. These amendments support the efficient operation of the tuition protection scheme and the Education Services for Overseas Students Act more generally and complement the 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 and deregulatory measures. We all know that COVID-19 is raging around the globe, but the Morrison government has stood firmly behind our higher education sector, whether it has been providing continuing and ongoing support to the sector through billions of dollars of investment in 2020 or increasing funding for research to help them through the transition that has happened because the international student intake has significantly decreased through no fault of the universities. We know that the higher education sector has suffered with the loss of international students throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. These amendments will work to promote long-term investment in our institutions by giving students the certainty that they require to commit to an Australian education and also by tightening up inefficiencies to open up more opportunities for higher education. Therefore, this bill is a triple win: a win for students, a win for Australian education institutions and a win for the taxpayer. The amendments proposed in this bill are reasonable, sensible and pragmatic. Though most of these amendments are minor in nature, I believe that the impact on the sector will be important. This bill not only helps permanent humanitarian refugee visa holders—a noble goal in itself—but also increases certainty, driving further investment in our higher education sector which in turn opens up funding for additional university research. Simultaneously this bill reduces the burden on taxpayers, through increasing efficiency and correcting oversights in the system. I'm particularly pleased that this bill finally acknowledges that Indigenous languages are native languages, not foreign languages, in this country. I commend this bill to the House. 11:28 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I have often said in this chamber that my electorate of Bennelong is Australia's capital of innovation, and it is. We're the home of wi-fi, Cochlear, Australia's first hydrogen refuelling station and the world's first granny smith apple. Behind these innovations is the massive centre of innovation at Macquarie Park. An honourable member interjecting— Mr ALEXANDER M3M You like an apple, do you? Macquarie Park is the home of dozens of multinational and local companies at the cutting edge of medical, transport and communications technologies. At the heart of this innovation precinct is Macquarie University, the driver of so many of our breakthroughs. We must always remember that behind these institutions, the breakthroughs, the companies and the university are people. No-one makes the exciting journey without the ability to attend classes and step on the first rung of the ladder and, more prosaically, without the ability to pay for it. This is why the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, is such an integral part of our education system. HELP allows people to go to university who wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise. It allows thousands of Australians to access higher education. Getting as many people from as many different backgrounds as possible is essential to bring together the different viewpoints that make our universities more dynamic and to create the outside-the-box thinking that provokes the next great breakthrough. So it is important that this act will extend the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, eligibility to former permanent humanitarian visa holders. Former permanent humanitarian visa holders who transition to a different visa due to travelling outside of Australia will now be able to retain their HELP eligibility. Permanent humanitarian visa holders are eligible for a HELP loan, which assists this vulnerable cohort of students to participate and contribute to the Australian economy. This is not a negligible cohort. In 2019, 4,346 permanent humanitarian visa holders accessed HELP loans. These students have the potential to see the greatest transformation of their fortunes through education, and the contribution they can make to Australia is exciting and inspiring. HELP eligibility requirements are intended to remain stable for students who have met the citizenship and residency requirements and who reside in Australia. The measure corrects an oversight that was not considered during the crafting of the citizenship and residency requirements for HELP. Correcting this oversight supports positive outcomes for the student and the taxpayer and it prevents the student from losing their HELP eligibility pathway through their course, which could have terrible outcomes, especially for this vulnerable cohort of students. The Minister for Education will determine the applicable visa subclasses that retain HELP eligibility for former permanent humanitarian visa holders through a legislative instrument. This will ensure these amendments remain flexible and responsive to any future changes to the Migration Act 1958. This measure ensures that this cohort's continued HELP eligibility is aligned with other eligible Australian residents, and is an important reform. The government is committed to our universities and particularly committed to STEM, which is the driver for everything that happens in our innovative corner of Sydney. According to universities and tertiary education access centres, new commencements across Australia are up 7.3 per cent, including 13 per cent in science, 12 per cent in IT and 10 per cent in engineering. This is very promising news. To build on this, we're creating up to 30,000 additional university places in 2021 and up to 100,000 places by 2030 and bringing down the cost of degrees in key areas. The cost of a maths degree is now down 59 per cent; the cost of nursing and teaching degrees has gone down 42 per cent; and the cost of science, engineering and IT degrees has gone down by 18 per cent. These are the degrees that will keep us growing, inventing, caring and learning. These are the degrees that will set our students up to compete around the world in new and exciting fields. We know that 2020 was a tough year for students and particularly for universities, that have not been able to rely on the funding from the international students who have been such a large part of their model. Obviously we can't open the borders soon enough for this and other sectors. But, with COVID cases spiking in many parts of the world, we must always balance our economic desires against the safety of Australians. So I'm glad to see that the Morrison government is providing a record $20 billion investment in the higher education sector in 2021. Total funding is up more than 37 per cent since we came to government. In the 2020 budget, there was $298.5 million in additional funding. This year for undergraduate places there is $252 million for up to 50,000 additional short course places. We also injected $1 billion to back university research during the pandemic. Our policies have already seen the youth unemployment rate recover by 1.7 per cent in December. We will continue to back young Australians to get into a job. Though 2020 was tough for unis and many young people, I'm confident that Australia's management of the COVID virus and the ongoing rollout of vaccines both locally and around the world will mean that our universities will soon be back to the cosmopolitan and international centres they have been in the past. Bennelong and Australia have a great innovation heritage thanks to the excellence of our universities, and I look forward to seeing them continue going from strength to strength in the coming years. 11:34 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to support the Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021. I would like to start by acknowledging that it has been a tough 12 months or more for the tertiary education sector, and, in my home state of South Australia, for the three universities there: The University of Adelaide, my alma mater, the University of South Australia and Flinders University. I've been staying very close to the leadership of all three of those institutions, meeting regularly with the vice-chancellors. I had the honour of addressing one of the graduation ceremonies at Adelaide university a few weeks ago. It has been a difficult 12 months, and the outlook is still concerning insofar as the international student market is concerned. That market is a significant part of most tertiary institutions' financial models in this country, and has been for many decades. There are critics of that. I don't happen to be one of them. I'm a strong supporter of the international student sector. Not just because, as an industry, it's an export earner—that's a happy economic outcome from engaging in that sector—but because it is excellent for the institutions and for the financial viability of them. They have the ability to invest more than they otherwise would in important research activities because of the scale that has been created by international students, and the fact that these students meet the entirety of the cost of their own studies and contribute into the funds available for our institutions to invest in research activities and the like. Obviously, with international borders closed, this has created a lot of stress for our institutions. In the first few months of COVID, there was an ability to hold things together as far as holding out hope that international students would return soon. It is now clear that will not occur, but I do hope that institutions are working through contingencies to make sure that, once we can safely bring international students back into this country, they're ready to take full advantage of that. I would hate to see the sector significantly deteriorate because of the challenges of COVID, and not see the sector bounce back as quickly as possible. Engaging in attracting foreign students, at their full cost, to come and study in this country again is important, and provides a benefit for those institutions, particularly in the ability to finance a lot of significant research capability in this country. There are broader economic benefits that come from the international student sector, and some of my colleagues, in contributing to this debate, have already made some of those points. It's not just the tuition fees and the benefit of those tuition fees for those institutions; it's clearly the broader expenditure that those international students undertake in the economies that they're engaged in. In my home city of Adelaide, it has been a significant sector for a long time. If I reflect on when I was an undergraduate, and also in my post-graduate studies—particularly in my post-graduate studies—the vast majority of my cohort were international students. I suspect that the course I undertook wouldn't have been provided by Adelaide university if they didn't have the international student cohort participating in it. If it hadn't been available to me, I would have missed the opportunity to make excellent friendships with people. Some are still in this country, some have gone back to significant careers in the countries from which they came. I would not only have lost that engagement but I would also probably have paid a lot more for my qualification, because it wouldn't have been supported by the contribution of international students. Some of the important elements that we're addressing here go to that, particularly the humanitarian side. I think that we can all accept that this reform is important, in many ways, to address some loopholes. I won't go through the fundamental detail of what has already been canvassed by previous speakers in that regard, but it is important that we address this. The principle of supporting those who are here on a humanitarian basis is important. We always intended to support them with FEE-HELP, so it's important that they still receive that support and aren't disadvantaged by way of a loophole. That's what we're addressing here, as well as some of the other important things related to international students and to Indigenous languages. One of the silver linings in the 14 months since the COVID pandemic struck us in so many ways, particularly the higher education sector, is that we've had to refocus on the importance of sovereign capability and, within that, how important it will be for our higher education institutions to engage with government and the private sector as part of the innovation agenda to restore fundamental sovereign manufacturing capability here in this country. Since the budget last year and some of the manufacturing investments that we'd already committed to as a government, I've had the opportunity to go to a number of collaborations between our higher education institutions in my home state of South Australia and a wide array of industry sectors, which have a very bright future because of the partnerships that are in place between the higher education sector, the Commonwealth government and industry. I'm excited about the further rounds of funding that have already been announced—but the projects themselves haven't been confirmed—around the collaborative research centres. I'm very passionate about one in particular, which the Adelaide university has put forward, but I'll wait for the merit based process of decision-making to find out, hopefully, that there's good news in regard to that project. But, of course, in the defence sector, in the space sector, in the cybersector and in the satellite sector, there are so many excellent partnerships now being entered into between the tertiary education sector, the Commonwealth government and the private sector. That's a great trinity of hope for future job creation in this country, addressing not just the challenges we've got but the opportunities as well. It's the higher education sector that's vital for that, and the important amendments that this bill puts forward will continue to support the strength of that sector. As I said earlier, I hope to see the international student market revived as soon as possible, because it makes a very significant contribution towards the research capacity of the higher education institutions. I know that, like every other higher education institution, it will benefit the three in my home state of South Australia—Adelaide university, Flinders University and the University of South Australia. I look forward to continuing to work with them on the other important undertakings that we've made in the recent budget and previous budgets to support them and work with them to make sure we're using them to enhance, expand and maximise the benefits of future industry development in this country. 11:42 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning I thank those members, particularly the member for Sturt, who spoke on the Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021. This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003, or HESA, to ensure resident return visa holders who previously held a permanent humanitarian visa remain eligible for Higher Education Loan Program, or HELP, assistance. This measure corrects an oversight that was not considered during the drafting of the citizenship and residency requirements for HELP. In doing so, the measure supports positive outcomes for the student and the taxpayer by providing continuity in study assistance support for permanent humanitarian visa holders. In addition, the bill improves the operation of the 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. These measures will ensure the efficient functioning of the HESA. This bill also makes minor amendments to the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 to ensure the efficient functioning of the Tuition Protection Service and the ESOS Act more generally. These minor amendments safeguard the role of the TPS and bolster the sustainability of the Overseas Student Tuition Fund by clarifying existing provisions and provider obligations in relation to overseas students. The measures are complementary to those the government has already put in place to support the international education sector through the impacts of COVID-19 and to ensure students who invest in an Australian education will continue to receive the necessary protections beyond the existing strong domestic regulations. I thank members for their contributions debating these measures that support continuity of access to HELP for permanent humanitarian visa holders and ensure the ESOS Act and TPS remain fit for purpose. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Sydney has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

The House divided. [11:50]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith

75 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Coleman, DB Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Haines, H Hamilton, GR Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hogan, KJ Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Marino, NB Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 66 NOES 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 Claydon, SC Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, G Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Mulino, D Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Payne, AE Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Thwaites, KL Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

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

Third Reading 25 12:56 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The SPEAKER 00APG Before I put the question, I just want to inform the chamber that this is the last time I'll do that. The bill is just going to lapse in the future. It's not a difficult process. It's identical for every piece of legislation. The question is that the bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. MOTIONS 25 MOTIONS Member for Bowman 25 11:57 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith Thank you. I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Griffith from moving the following motion immediately. That this House: (1) notes: (a) for two days, coalition MPs have voted to keep the Member for Bowman as Chair of the Standing Committee, Employment, Education and Training, which allows him to claim an extra $23,000 on top of his base salary— A government member interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I'll just say to the minister that the member for Griffith is entitled to move the motion. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs is warned. Members on both sides will cease interjecting or I'll start ejecting. I'm now going to ask the member for Griffith to begin again. Ms BUTLER 248006 Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Griffith from moving the following motion immediately. That this House: (1) notes: (a) for two days, coalition MPs have voted to keep the Member for Bowman as Chair of the Standing Committee, Employment, Education and Training, which allows him to claim an extra $23,000 on top of his base salary; (b) the Member for Bowman stated on March 27 he would "step down from all Parliamentary roles effective immediately", but has failed to do so; (c) the Prime Minister now appears to accept the Member for Bowman's defence of his behaviour towards woman; and (d) by voting to keep the Member for Bowman as Chair of this committee, the Prime Minister and everyone who sits behind him in this House is endorsing the Member for Bowman's behaviour. (2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to discharge the Member for Bowman from the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training immediately. This motion is important, because this goes to the treatment of women and the conduct of this House. 12:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I move: That the member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the member for Griffith be no further heard.

The House divided. [12:04]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

73 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Coleman, DB Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hamilton, GR Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hogan, KJ Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Marino, NB Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 65 NOES Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Champion, ND Claydon, SC Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Kearney, G Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Mulino, D Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Payne, AE Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Thwaites, KL Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

12:08 The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 12:09 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I second the motion. What does it take to be sacked from the Liberal Party? In any other workplace, Laming would be gone! He would be— 12:09 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I move: That the member for Lilley be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the member for Lilley be no further heard.

The House divided. [12:10]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

Question agreed to.

12:13 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the motion moved by the member for Griffith be disagreed to.

The House divided. [12:13]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

Question agreed to.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 30 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 12:14 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina by leave— The budget places regional Australians at the heart of our national recovery post COVID-19. A strong and thriving regional Australia is good news for all Australians. This budget delivers for regional Australians in spades—certainly with shovels in the ground. Last year's budget was the best budget regional Australia has ever seen. This year's budget builds on that record. Through this budget, our government is continuing to provide support as regional communities recover from a tumultuous period. This support is not just about immediate recovery; we are also working to help our regions prosper long into the future. Regional areas have been through it all in the past year and a half: drought, bushfires, floods and the health and economic impacts of a global pandemic. These events have challenged regional people, disrupted key regional industries and heaped great pressure on regional communities. Our people and industries have persevered against great adversity. As the Prime Minister said at Beef Week in Rockhampton just last week: During the course of COVID, it has been our agriculture sectors, our resource sectors, our primary industries in this country that have done so much of the heavy lifting economically for our country and they've been going through hard times as well before the pandemic. Whether it's the farmers in our agriculture industry who drove the value of agriculture in this country from $60 billion to $66 billion in the past year, or the tens of thousands of workers in the resources sector or, indeed, our small businesses, it is the regions leading our recovery. This is the spirit of regional Australia, the spirit this government celebrates. Today I deliver my annual ministerial statement to parliament on rural and regional budget outcomes. Last October, when I gave the first of these statements, I announced significant investment in our regions. This was a ground-breaking commitment to regional development, particularly providing much-needed support in the face of hardships and disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic. Today I update the House on the progress of these vital and timely efforts. I will also detail major new packages and individual measures we are delivering to support regional communities and industries in their recovery. Today I reaffirm the government's plan for strengthening our regions long into the future. This plan sees regional Australia as the ideal place to build a career, raise a family and launch a business—the place to lead a fulfilled life. The government's plan will help sustain strong regional communities, create jobs and grow regional industries. Last year's budget was about delivering support for regional Australians when they needed it most and about realising their economic growth potential. Now look at the statistics. In 2020, 43,000 more Australians moved from the city to the regions than the other way around. It's helping address the sharply-rising demand for jobs in the regions—on the latest account, more than 66,000 vacancies. COVID-19 has posed significant threats, but the silver lining has been to show how the infrastructure and communications improvements of this era are delivering a new regional quality of life. Our regions are the place to be. The Move to More campaign from the Regional Australia Institute, proudly supported by the Morrison-McCormack government, is bearing fruit. In last year's budget, we committed $4.6 million towards this campaign, because we believe that our regions remain some of the most vibrant, liveable and community-oriented places in Australia, if not the world—as I say again: big enough in which to find a great cup of coffee; small enough to still care. In March 2020, responding quickly to the COVID-19 pandemic, the government established the $1 billion COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Fund. From regional tourism to regional airlines, from small business counselling to export marketing, this fund provides vital and targeted support to industries hardest hit by the pandemic, many of which are vital to regional communities. Water is the lifeblood of our regional communities and industries. The 2021-22 budget has committed up to a further $258 million from the $3.5 billion National Water Grid Fund. As part of the $258 million, a new funding pathway within the fund, called the National Water Grid Connections pathway, will provide up to $160 million nationally over the next two years to drive the construction of smaller scale projects. Up to $20 million is available for each state and territory to deliver projects with an Australian government contribution of up to $5 million per project. An additional four new construction projects are being delivered to boost water security, build resilience in our regions, deliver jobs and grow our critical agricultural sector. We are committing $75.7 million to the construction of new and augmented infrastructure projects. This includes an additional $7½ million in funding for Rookwood Weir to deliver water security in North Queensland, bringing the total Australian investment in the Rookwood project to $183.6 million. It was inspiring, recently, to look out over the site. The excavators, 50 of them, were busy putting the footings down, which will ultimately result in a weir 200 metres wide and a spillway five storeys high. The site has a huge camp which will house up to 250 staff, project staff working 10 days on, four days off. Rookwood Weir will mean a new era for agriculture, manufacturing, resources and communities, with 86,000 megalitres of storage. It will support jobs—more than 2,000 jobs for Central Queensland. How good is that? We're building the new regional Australia. The commitments that we are putting in place in water infrastructure build on eight construction projects already completed since our establishment of the National Water Grid Authority in late 2019, bringing the total number of construction projects in this investment pipeline to more than 30. Delivery of water infrastructure is happening: the Scottsdale irrigation scheme in Tasmania, operational late last year. It started in October 2018, delivering 8,600 megalitres for 17,000 hectares of irrigable land and supporting 44,000 jobs; the South West Loddon rural water supply project in Victoria, completed in May 2020 and connecting an area of 120,000 hectares to the pipeline; the McLaren Vale treated water storage project in South Australia, finished this time last year, has boosted water security to farms right across the region; and the Warwick recycled water for agriculture project in Queensland is now operational, providing 73 megalitres a year of Class A water to boost employment in the Warwick Industrial Estate. These are just some of the projects already completed. But there's so much more to be done, and done it will be. We have committed a further $22.3 million towards the development of eight business cases, informing future investment decisions and the ongoing development of the National Water Grid. Each National Water Grid project means our regional areas are better serviced, more liveable and economically stronger. This budget further aids the COVID-19 regional recovery. We are providing more than $5.7 million in grant funding to the new Rebuilding Regional Communities Program, in partnership with the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal. We've announced an additional $1 billion for the highly successful, highly effective Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, delivering jobs and growth throughout regional council projects. The government continues to deliver proactive support for regional communities, from investing in the volunteer organisations to the big infrastructure projects. Duplication of the Pacific Highway, the $10.4 billion Bruce Highway upgrade and essential works on the Princes Highway are helping to bring us into a new era of road safety and efficiency. Road safety is a paramount objective. I've made this clear when I committed $2 billion over 18 months. Half of this money was for projects which are to be completed by the end of next month—around 700 projects approved, the majority in the regions. This budget delivers an extra $1 billion for what becomes the $3 billion Road Safety Program, and that will save lives. The budget delivers an extra $1 billion, as I said. That is such a commitment, and our regional communities are very heartened by it. Everybody has been touched by someone they know who has had, unfortunately, a road trauma or a loss of life on our country roads. This, in turn, creates a jobs benefit, making sure that we've got that investment, with the new funding to support 4½ thousand jobs, taking total jobs around Australia supported by the Road Safety Program to 13½ thousand. We've committed $100 million over two years for Regional Recovery Partnerships. These partnerships are coordinating investments with all levels of government to support recovery and growth in 10 regions across the nation, delivering jobs and economic diversification. Already, we've had some fantastic regional projects announced through these partnerships. In Gippsland, a number of projects will boost the region's tourist economy, including the East Gippsland Rail Trail—an investment in the future, as the good local member and Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Darren Chester, will attest. Last week I was in Gladstone, where two projects are being funded, totalling $10 million. The first project will create a more accessible and attractive waterfront and upgrade Auckland Hill Lookout near Gladstone port for locals and tourists. The second project will help develop a hub of expertise in renewable hydrogen, exploring both domestic and export opportunities. The opportunity for innovation embedded in our regions will help secure our long-term economic and social future. Aviation was hit first and hit hardest when COVID-19 came to our shores. The government stepped up to the challenge with targeted, sector-wide support to sustain the industry. In March this year, we announced a further $1.2 billion package of support for the tourism and aviation sectors. This means industry-wide assistance from this government for aviation is more than $4½ billion. It's a vital action for regional Australia to stay connected to critical services and networks in the face of COVID-19 challenges. Regional Airline Network Support, or RANS, has meant regional and most importantly remote communities have had face masks, respiratory equipment and, in particular, frontline health workers being able to come into their communities. Without RANS, regional communities faced being denied this vital support. The latest aviation and tourism package includes 800,000 half-price airfares to regions significantly impacted by the pandemic, with more than 663,000 already sold, encouraging a record number of Australians to enjoy a holiday at home this year—and why wouldn't you want to have a holiday in Australia and come to the regions? It's the best place in all of the world in which to have that break. Just this month, with Assistant Minister Kevin Hogan, I was pleased to unveil 46 more remote airstrip upgrades across far-flung areas of Queensland, the Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia. Throughout the pandemic, the government stepped in when it mattered and provided the right kind of support where and when it was needed the most. As regional health minister, Mark Coulton, shows, this government has delivered fair access to COVID vaccines, equipment and medical personnel to all Australians, including our vulnerable remote communities. The government recognises our regions need and deserve high-quality health care. In this budget we've invested across services in primary health, hospitals, aged care, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's health, and mental health. We're investing more than $65 million from 1 January 2022 to boost bulk-billing rebates and provide more affordable health care for patients in regional, rural and remote areas. More doctors in the regions is our goal. We're looking to the future and showcasing regional talent. Our communities shine at their annual shows, and we all know that. The $39 million Supporting Agricultural Shows and Field Days package is supporting these important industry and community events so they can not only survive but, indeed, so they can thrive into the future. Indeed, after the challenges of flood and COVID-19 disrupted their 2020 show, the Stroud Show north of Newcastle benefited from a grant, which was described by the show president as 'a game-changer'. A month before I visited in April, the showground was underwater, but this could not stop a determined show committee, so typical of the strength, resilience and dogged determination of regional Australia. The federal government's continued investment in regional infrastructure creates jobs and fosters economic growth. Our enduring investment in transport infrastructure buoys our commitment to a record $110 billion over a rolling decade-long program. Inland Rail will inject more than $18 billion into Australia's GDP during construction and the first 50 years of operation. Many supplies for construction are sourced from Australian and specifically regional suppliers, including ballast and capping from Parkes, culverts from Tamworth, steel from Whyalla and concrete sleepers from Mittagong and Wagga Wagga. Inland Rail is already helping to revitalise regional economies and attract new and expanded investment. The Building Better Regions Fund, the BBRF, is a monumental funding commitment to the regions. It backs community driven projects poised to deliver direct local benefit. It creates jobs. It drives economic growth, and it's just the right thing to do. As one example, Summerland Farm in the Northern Rivers area of New South Wales received $4½ million to expand its macadamia processing and packaging facilities. This is supporting 200 local farms as well as employment opportunities for local people with disabilities. Kingborough Council in Tasmania and Barkly Regional Council in the Northern Territory each have funding to build and to refurbish community facilities. BBRF funds projects which enhance community capacity and make regional Australia the best place in the world in which to live. In the 2021-22 budget, this government commits a further $250 million—a quarter of a billion dollars—towards a sixth round of the BBRF. This brings the total commitment for the program to more than $1.2 billion over the seven years to 2024-25. As the world changes, as digital connectivity becomes increasingly central to economic and social life, we are supporting communities in regional Australia to keep pace with these changes. This budget gives a $153.2 million injection to improve connectivity in regional, rural and remote communities, further driving Australia's regional led recovery. The government will build on the success of the Regional Connectivity Program by committing a further $84.8 million to the program. This includes up to $24.6 million in extra funding for meritorious round 1 proposals which were unable to be supported from within the initial funding envelope. The remaining funding will be available through a new competitive grants process. This will support new projects additional to the 81 successful projects I announced last month with colleagues Ministers Paul Fletcher and Coulton. The government is also providing $68½ million in dedicated funding to improve telecommunications infrastructure across northern Australia through the Regional Connectivity Program and the Mobile Black Spot Program. Over the past 18 months, many regions have faced droughts, fires and floods. A new national resilience and recovery agency will continue to provide ongoing recovery support for individuals and communities. The new agency consolidates and builds on the success of the National Bushfire Recovery Agency, the rural financial counselling programs from the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment and the disaster risk reduction and recovery functions of the Department of Home Affairs. It will use a network of on-the-ground advisers and coordinators who will work with partners and communicate with decision-makers. Agriculture, drought and emergency management minister David Littleproud is delivering much-needed drought support programs for regional areas. I thank him for that and for his ongoing commitment to improve the lives and lots of people who live in our country areas. In 2020-21 we began the rollout of the $5 billion Future Drought Fund, a continuous funding source for drought resilience initiatives. The next phase, from 1 July 2021, includes $36½ million towards harnessing innovation, $91 million for better risk management to help farmers plan ahead and $12 million for better and more accessible climate information. The government has extended the Drought Community Support Initiative and will provide assistance to farming households in financial stress in 117 local government areas, until the funding is exhausted. From 1 May 2021 this includes all local government areas announced as eligible for the Drought Communities Program Extension in 2020. We have funded eight drought resilience adoption and innovation hubs Australia-wide, collaborating with regional universities and the private sector. We have regional Australians' backs. The agriculture 2030 package supports Australian agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors working to achieve $100 billion in farmgate output by 2030. An array of specific actions includes funding of $160 million to the Western Australian agricultural supply chain improvements project to better connect our world-class farmers—the best in all of the globe—to domestic and international markets. Through strong representation from resources, water and northern Australia minister Keith Pitt, the government has committed $190 million to the next five-year plan for northern Australia—Our north, our future. The next five years will pilot focused investment in geographic growth areas, deliver greater digital connectivity, support businesses to scale up and diversify, and will gather data to support evidence-based economic growth. Business growth is a key to the future. Indeed, the regions will continue to take full advantage of the instant asset write-off provisions now extended into 2023. Go and buy a ute. Go and buy that header. Go and buy all those capital equipment expenditure items that you now want to improve your productivity. Last year we announced $41 million to support the regionalisation of Australian businesses, in line with the trend of more Australians making a tree and sea change. We remain focused on delivering these two programs, with announcements of projects to be funded expected in July. With strong advocacy from decentralisation minister Andrew Gee, we are continuing to support the regional decentralisation agenda through new actions. An independent study will identify the regulatory barriers to business relocation to regional Australia. This will have a particular focus on regulations across all tiers of government restricting, delaying or increasing the cost of business relocation to regional Australia. This government will also complete a scoping study on establishing Australian Public Service hubs in regional Australia. The study will inform consideration by the government of the feasibility, costs and benefits of the regional hubs. We will continue to work closely with our veterans Australia-wide. As Minister Chester says, Australians value the ongoing commitments of our veteran community, and the government is committed to providing support that recognised the significant contribution veterans and their families make in civilian life. The government invests more than $11.5 billion each year to support 325,000 veterans and their families, many of them in the regions. The 2021-22 budget builds on this with an additional $702.6 million to focus on wellness, support, suicide prevention and ensuring that the Department of Veterans' Affairs is appropriately equipped. In recent years the government has invested $500 million into the most significant reform of Australia's veteran support system in decades, which has achieved ongoing success in making it easier for veterans and their families to engage with the DVA. The 2021-22 budget includes a further $55.1 million to build on these improvements, making it quicker and easier for veterans and their families to absolutely get that support they need, as I say. We will continue to encourage the contribution to Australian society by our wonderful volunteers. Indeed, Assistant Minister Michelle Landry recently advised closure of applications for the latest Volunteer Grants round. Combined funding from 2020-21 and 2021-22 has made this a double grant round. We know smaller-scale grants such as these deliver large-scale strength to our communities, through our community champions. We couldn't do without our volunteers. The policies and programs I mention today are just part of the government's commitment to regional Australia. Our commitment will facilitate recovery from the hard times but equally it is about looking forward—making sure regional communities are places in which Australians enjoy the good life. This government is supporting regional Australians, building opportunities and investing in the future. Our budget announcements, across all areas of regional life—infrastructure and transport, health, digital connectivity and supporting local business and leaders—are meeting the needs of regional Australia. The 2021-22 budget ensures regional Australia continues its recovery and has every opportunity to thrive in the future. 12:38 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the opportunity to speak on the importance of Australia's regions and the contribution regional Australians have made and are making to our communities, to society and to the nation's economy. Since the beginning of COVID-19, we've seen something remarkable happening in our regions. Our communities have effectively suppressed the virus. Agriculture, mining and a whole range of different regional industries have underpinned the nation's economy. We've seen innovations in renewable energy, in manufacturing and in tourism. Despite making up only a third of our population, regional Australians continue to punch above their weight in accounting for half of the national growth over the past decade. During the pandemic, many of us have enjoyed the opportunity to base ourselves in our home towns for the duration and have discovered that working from home and connecting with people around Australia and the world is entirely possible, though, for many, it would be nice to have a more reliable NBN. Despite our political differences, highlighted just yesterday on infrastructure, the Deputy Prime Minister and I both recognise the beauty and the special sense of community that comes from living in regional Australia. The quality of life in regional Australia has begun to break through into the national consciousness. There are lists of the best regional towns to move to, and friends in the cities are looking seriously at a regional move. This is a welcome change from what is too often a very narrow cast view of regional Australia. Of course this success is not without its challenges, few more so than rising house prices. High house prices used to be the exclusive domain of the major cities, but not anymore. It's great that lots of people have discovered how wonderful life can be in the regions, and we welcome them. They will surely become fierce ambassadors for our way of life. But we can't ignore what this has meant for first home buyers and low-income earners trying to get their first home or trying to find affordable rental accommodation in our regional cities and regional towns. It is a social problem for families and individuals, and it is an economic problem for our businesses. Businesses are reporting not being able to open for late meals and not being able to open at certain times of the day because they simply cannot find staff who can afford to live in their area to be able to operate. The government could have done something about this in Tuesday night's budget, but they haven't. The measures towards housing in fact exacerbate the problem, and especially exacerbate the problems in our regions. Australia's regional policy today is still stuck in the tired frame of political expediency, one-off grant programs and 'one size fits all'. I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's announcements of additional funding for local councils and for road safety, both vital for the health and wellbeing of regional Australians. I was very pleased to see, buried a little bit in the budget papers but there for those of us who looked through the regional statement, the announcement to look into the feasibility of one of the ideas Labor has been pushing and talking about for a while now: the development of Public Service hubs in our regions. It would also be great for the government to restore the thousands of Public Service jobs they've cut from the regional towns and communities across this country. I also need to acknowledge the 21 new or topped-up slush funds outlined in the budget. There is $4 billion just sitting there, ready to be thrown at coalition-held or target seats. It is this approach that continues to underpin the Morrison government's approach to regions, where some regions do well and other regions are completely left behind. As well as topping up slush funds, the government's budget introduced infrastructure cuts of $3.3 billion over the next four years. They tried to hide it, but it is on page 84 of Budget Paper No. 1. That is $3.3 billion less for regional roads, for trains, for bridges, for tunnels and, more importantly, for jobs in regional communities. The Deputy Prime Minister told the House yesterday that there were no cuts, that the $3.3 billion less is because the government pays on delivery. It was refreshing to hear the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge, even if by accident, that they've not been delivering for regional Australians—not delivering to the tune of $3.3 billion over the next four years. Fifty-five per cent of the Deputy Prime Minister's newly announced infrastructure spend is not even in the budget. Instead, it's off into the never-never somewhere beyond the forward estimates. For Victoria, 87 per cent of promised new funding wasn't in the budget. For Tasmania, it was 30 per cent. For New South Wales, it was 43 per cent. For the Northern Territory, we heard in question time yesterday that, incredibly, 99 per cent of the new funding apparently announced on Monday was not included in the budget. These broken promises leave regional Australians driving on worn-out roads, leave regional businesses dealing with degraded infrastructure and reduce the quality of life for Australians in our regional cities, towns and rural communities right the way across the country. It is symptomatic of a government that is all about the photo op and never there for the follow-up. In few places is this government failure as stark as in northern Australia. As we all know, North Queenslanders are saddled with soaring insurance premiums. Despite promising, with much fanfare, a $10 billion re-insurance pool, the budget papers reveal that the Morrison government has only allocated $2.4 million to establish a task force to begin consultation on a re-insurance pool, which will not even start until 1 July 2022. It's a $10 billion pool promised but only a $2.4 million taskforce delivered—eventually. North Queenslanders need help, not a plan for a plan. And, while we're on North Queensland, we can't move on without reference again to the infamous NAIF. The 'no actual infrastructure fund', as it's widely become known. The government promised to spend $5 billion in five years supporting northern Australia infrastructure projects, turbocharging the economies in our north. It might have created a flashy headline or two, but in reality, over five years—remember that it promised $5 billion to be spent out the door into northern Australia in five years—it has only managed to spend just six per cent of the fund. Just last week, the government took the extraordinary step of using its NAIF powers to actually block a $380 million renewable energy project in North Queensland that would have employed 250 people. That was 250 good, long-term, secure jobs in regional Australia in North Queensland that this government deliberately blocked. Labor will always back energy workers in North Queensland and the households and the businesses that want lower bills, not play politics with regional jobs. The government also announced a new agency to replace the National Bushfire Recovery Agency months ago in response to the bushfire royal commission. The reannouncement of a new disaster resilience agency is yet more marketing from a government that has promised a lot on natural disasters but just has simply not delivered. Bushfire and flood victims who are still waiting to see money hit the ground will wait to see how committed to natural disaster recovery this government really is. Many people are still being forced to live in caravans and temporary accommodation years after the event has occurred. After all, this government still hasn't delivered a cent of the disaster funding it promised two years ago in the 2019 budget. It is a similar story on water infrastructure, too. A promise of 100 dams turned out to be a mirage. There was the promise of an independent, statutory water grid authority. Well, it's neither independent nor statutory and we're not sure yet whether it is in fact an actual national water grid or whether it is a National Party seat water grid. The Labor Party do have a very proud record when it comes to our regions. Our party was born in the regions and it is our party that built the regions. Every government formed by our party has taken steps to advance the regions. Back in 1942, well before Australia returned to peace, it was the Curtin government that understood that the regions were the place to drive postwar recovery. Gough Whitlam, in the 1970s, saw the regions as a place to confront entrenched social and economic inequality. The Hawke years saw the potential of Geelong, Newcastle, Mackay, Townsville, Bunbury, Launceston and Hobart, and we invested and built them into the wonderful, vibrant cities with strong local economies that they are today. The last Labor government, under the leadership of Anthony Albanese and Simon Crean, both in their regional ministerial capacities, sparked regional growth by building connections between regions and the cities. We are proud to have established and funded the Regional Australia Institute, and I'm grateful that the Deputy Prime Minister has continued to support this important initiative. We established Regional Development Australia across the country to drive economic growth and to improve liveability in each region. If we are to have a recovery truly worthy of the name then our regions have to be part of it—not just some regions but all of them. A responsible, responsive government would engage with local communities, listen to local leaders and work hard to find out what investments they need, what regulations can be changed and how we can build self-sustaining industries that grow out of a region's pre-existing strengths. That's because good leadership involves understanding that not all regions are the same and, in our own home towns or in Canberra, we cannot hope to understand all of them. The people who know best what a region needs are the people who live in that region. The local councils, the chambers of commerce, small-business owners and community leaders—all of them have ideas about and insights into what their communities need to grow. Labor understand this. That is why, under the Leader of the Opposition, we are not looking to decentralise; we're looking for smart regionalisation. Smart regionalisation means having a comprehensive understanding of each region's strengths and job growth potential and playing to those strengths. For Cairns and Gippsland that might mean tourism investments; for Shepparton, high-level food processing; and for Wollongong, hydrogen and renewable energy. It can mean investing in resources, renewable energy, health care, the service economy and exclusive tourism experiences of fine wine and food. It means investing where we can create the highest number of good, secure jobs, using the base of our existing industries to do so—harnessing those existing strengths and turning them into lasting engines of growth for our regions. Labor's national rail manufacturing plan is a good example of this. Designed to leverage government investment in rail infrastructure, the huge amounts of money that we invest in spending on rail will be used to grow secure manufacturing jobs and to build more trains here in this country. This would mean more jobs and investment in regional communities such as Maryborough in Queensland, Newcastle and my hometown of Ballarat. Lifting people out of poverty and improving living conditions are what we in the Labor Party are all about. With this in mind, we know that the current climate crisis we face is also Australia's jobs opportunity. That's why we have committed to net zero emissions by 2050 and why we have announced our policy to rewire the nation. This is a $20 billion commitment to modernise the electricity grid and to help facilitate the uptake of renewable energy across the nation. We have also announced Labor's 'Power to the people' policy, which will connect up to 100,000 solar homes to shared battery storage, reducing costs and emissions, creating jobs and helping to deliver new opportunities to our regions. Tonight our leader, Anthony Albanese, may have more to say about renewable energy jobs and harnessing the potential of young people in our regions. As I said earlier, we know that housing is an increasing challenge for more and more Australians, and our regions are no different. Despite the trillion dollars of debt the Morrison government presented on Tuesday night, not a single cent was invested in social and affordable housing in our regions. An Albanese Labor government will develop and implement a national housing and homelessness plan that will help more Australians to buy a home. It will help Australians who rent and will help to put a roof over the heads of more homeless Australians. If you want to hear more about it, tune in tonight. When Australian governments invest in Australian jobs it is often the regions that benefit first. Regional Australia does need a plan. It needs a plan that identifies what investments are needed, where they are needed and when they are needed. It needs a plan that identifies how we leverage infrastructure investments to grow local businesses and to grow local jobs. It needs a plan that treats all regions fairly, not one that prioritises those that vote for the coalition or the National Party. It needs a plan that looks at the long term, not just the next election cycle. An Albanese Labor government will develop and implement such a plan—a plan to ensure that our regions get their fair share; that they grow sustainably; that we address the challenges of rising house prices; and that we capitalise on the huge job opportunities from tackling climate change. An Albanese Labor government will work for the regions, not take them for granted. To all regional Australians I say today: the Australian Labor Party stands proudly on your side. BILLS 37 BILLS Competition and Consumer Amendment (Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme) Bill 2021 37

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme) Bill 2021

Second Reading 37 12:53 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme) Bill 2021 and I move the second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the Government's unnecessary delays in delivering a level playing field for independent mechanics have hurt small businesses and consumers". It was Mother's Day 2018, at JAX Tyres in Essendon, when the former Leader of the Opposition and I announced Labor's 'Your car, your choice' policy. We announced that, following the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's 2017 report—its New car retailing industry market study—Labor would put in place a mandatory code requiring manufacturers to share with independent mechanics the information they need to fix modern cars. We did so because it became clear in 2018 that the voluntary code wasn't working. The voluntary code had been put in place in 2014 and required manufacturers to share with independent mechanics the data they needed to fix modern cars. But mechanics simply weren't getting the data they needed. Visiting a vast number of independent mechanics, I would often ask them which manufacturer was best. I would get different answers. They would say, 'Well, sometimes this one's okay and sometimes that one's okay.' But, as Stuart Charity from the Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association put it, their industry was sometimes having to use workarounds that might take them four or five hours to find the information for an issue that they should have got in 10 to 15 minutes. Mr Charity said that sometimes cars are towed back to the dealership just to have a five-digit or six-digit pin code put in. He also said that it just doesn't make sense and it's not a level playing field. So, in 2018, Labor flipped the script. Where Australian politics normally sees the government in the front seat and the opposition in the back seat, we flipped those roles, took the wheel and took leadership on making it clear that Australia needed a mandatory code. We did so because it was in the interests of independent mechanics—23,000 of them, compared to just 3,500 dealers. Most Australians get their cars fixed at independent mechanics. But independent mechanics are increasingly finding that they don't have the tools to fix a modern car. If you've spent time in a mechanic's workshop recently, you'll know that much less of the work is done by swinging a large bit of metal against another large bit of a metal and a whole lot more of the work is done through scan tools: plugging in or connecting—sometimes by bluetooth, or wirelessly—to upload or download information. Often what your car needs isn't a bang with a hammer; it's an upgraded software patch. But if the independent mechanics don't have those new software patches, then they can't fix modern cars. And that's increasingly what we're seeing as cars are becoming computers on wheels. This is an issue across Australia, but it's an issue particularly in regional and remote Australia. When I visited Island Auto Repairs in Bongaree on Bribie Island, I learned about the many residents of Bribie Island who are older and don't feel comfortable driving their cars off the island. They're comfortable on the island—the traffic's a little slower and people go a little easier—but they don't go over the bridge to the mainland. The trouble is that there are no authorised dealers on Bribie Island. If you've got a car whose manufacturer won't share data with Island Auto Repairs, you face an invidious choice: either you don't get your car fixed or you take a dangerous drive that you don't want to do. So, for Island Auto Repairs, it's critical that they get the data they need to fix modern cars. It's a huge issue in regional Australia. Many regional areas don't have authorised dealers and, therefore, people are forced to drive tens or hundreds of kilometres to get to an authorised dealer. It's also an issue of affordability. Many Australians like to get their car fixed at a mycar, a JAX, an Ultra Tune, a Bridgestone or a Pedders—or, indeed, at a non-chain independent mechanic, such as Island Auto Repairs in Bongaree. Those independent mechanics tend to be cheaper—one study said that they were, on average, 25 per cent cheaper—and they have the right to be able to compete for business along with authorised dealers. But they can't do it if they don't get the data they need. Having made this announcement back in 2018, we didn't immediately see the coalition jumping on board. You'd expect that an announcement of this kind would receive bipartisan support. After all, Labor's policy flowed from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's independent report. It was backed by not only the Automotive Aftermarket Association but also the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, CHOICE, the Insurance Council of Australia, the Consumer Action Law Centre, the Capricorn Society, the Business Council of Co-operatives and Mutuals, and IAG. We also saw the Australian Automobile Association backing the policy, including members such as the NRMA, the RACQ and the RACV. All of these organisations recognise the benefits of a level playing field in car repair. They recognise that, as cars become more computerised, it is essential for independent mechanics to have that downloadable data. The government have moved at an incredibly slow pace. They have been stuck in a slow gear and for years they had the handbrake on—let's be honest—so this bill is greatly welcomed. It would not be happening were it not for Labor's advocacy, but it's happening much too late. Independent mechanics have gone to the wall waiting for this policy and are unable to fix cars that are brought into their workshop for want of software upgrades or a PIN. By the time this scheme takes effect on 1 July 2022 it will have been five years since the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission handed down their report and it will have been more than four years since Labor announced our Your Car, Your Choice policy. I would like to acknowledge the many people who have worked to make the case for these reforms, including Angelo from JAX Tyres in Essendon—one of our first visits to mechanics—Kelly from Island Auto Repairs on Bribie Island, and many of my parliamentary colleagues, including Anne Stanley, Milton Dick, Murray Watt, Lisa Chesters, Shayne Neumann, Matt Keogh, Susan Templeman, Catherine King, Ged Kearney, Joanne Ryan, Josh Wilson and Peter Khalil, among many others. I note that the speaking list presently contains many more Labor members than coalition members, reflecting Labor's strong advocacy on this issue. I see the names Thistlethwaite, Payne, Wilson, Dick, Templeman and Murphy on that list, as well as Jones and Keogh, but only three speakers on the coalition side. It reflects the fact that Labor is very serious about a level playing field for independent mechanics. I also want to acknowledge the important work done by the Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association—the vital advocacy of Lesley Yates and Stuart Charity in making a strong case to Labor and to the government for these reforms. I also acknowledge Geoff Gwilym and John Khoury from the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce; the Capricorn Society and Melina Morrison; the Business Council of Co-operatives and Mutuals, of which the Capricorn Society is a member; and Elyse Keyser from the AAAA for supporting a range of MPs' visits. Apparently, the Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association facilitated some 75 visits by members of parliament to independent mechanics. That huge amount of work was facilitated to a large extent by Elyse Keyser. There was the work of the Australian Automobile Association, specifically Craig Newland and Jason Smith, and the Australian Automobile Dealer Association and their CEO, James Voortman. People originally thought that the Australian Automobile Dealer Association would oppose this change, but they didn't. It is a credit to that great organisation for deciding there was enough work to go around for everyone—there was a role for independent mechanics and a role for authorised dealers. Authorised dealers have had their challenges in dealing with the multinational manufacturers. Labor took to the last election a policy for an industry-specific franchise code to deal with the power imbalance between multinational manufacturers and dealers and the fact that dealers will often put a huge amount of investment into a dealership only to suddenly find their agreement with the manufacturer rescinded. These dealers play a vital role. Holden dealers in particular were not treated well by General Motors in recent times. I acknowledge the Motor Trades Association of Australia and their CEO, Richard Dudley. I also acknowledge all of those independent mechanics whose workshops we visited. I should also mention a few more of my colleagues—Julie Owens, Deb O'Neill, Milton Dick, Michelle Rowland, Lisa Chesters and Pat Conroy. The fact that I am constantly adding to my list of Labor MPs who have backed this reform does reflect how strongly this side of the House feel about this bill today. The bill will require that manufacturers offer to supply information used for conducting diagnostic services or repair activities in relation to certain vehicles to all Australian repairers and registered training organisations. The registered training organisations piece is important too. Apprentices working for independent mechanics will get better training as a result of access to this data, and registered training organisations need to be able to train young mechanics in using the scan tools and to do the software upgrades that are so essential to maintaining a modern car. Manufacturers will be required to charge no more than the fair market value for the information—independent dealers don't want it for free, but neither should they be overcharged—and the information covered by the scheme will need to be supplied immediately once the repairer has paid the agreed price. One issue that has been discussed between the Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association and Treasury is around how independent mechanics will be able to update the digital service records of cars they work on. I understand that some resolution has been reached on this issue, the issue of so-called electronic logbooks. Minister Sukkar has undertaken to direct the so-called scheme manager to initiate a process of consultations between Treasury and stakeholders to find a satisfactory solution for this issue, and that will sit alongside the legislated framework in this bill. From my discussions with the minister, I understand he is going to make some formal statement to the House to that effect, which will give a great deal of confidence to the industry. If you can fix the car but you can't update the electronic logbook, then customers will, of necessity, feel as though the work might not have been completely done. It would be as though the dealer had the keys to the glove box and told the independent mechanics, 'Sorry, only we can unlock the glove box and write in the back of the manual that the service has been done properly.' No-one would think that was a reasonable solution, and I hope we are able to deal with the parallel digital issue so that independent mechanics, having downloaded the right software patches, having done the service, are able to update the logbook or the digital service record, as it's known. This is a very good bill. It is also a bill which has come very, very late. We should have been having this debate years ago. We made our announcement on Mother's Day in 2018. The member for Maribyrnong said he had a Mother's Day present for the coalition. They could steal our policy, take it straight into the parliament and get it done. If they had done that, then more money would be in the pockets of Australian customers. The 17 million Australian car owners would be better off. The 23 million independent mechanics would be better off. The 150,000 to 200,000 people who work in that industry would be better off. It is a shame that it has taken so many years to come to this point, but Labor support—nay, we champion—this reform. We will be pleased to see it implemented as soon as possible. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Thistlethwaite 182468 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fenner has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 13:09 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I am very pleased to speak in support of this bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme) Bill 2021, as brought forward to the House by Minister Sukkar, which addresses a very important issue in terms of the access to information for independent repairers in the automotive sector. Of course, in the automotive sector in Australia, there are a wide range of business models. There are dealers who are affiliated with particular manufacturers, and there are also a large number of independent repairers. It is very important that those independent repairers, who are so critical to the communities that we all represent, have access to the information that they need, because the playing field needs to be level. It's really important that a car dealer in a local community is not disadvantaged by a lack of information about specifications or approaches to specific repairs. That's what this bill will address. This bill will ensure that those independent repairers have access to the information that they need. So while there's a very important benefit for repairers, there's a really important benefit for consumers as well. This is about a more efficient marketplace. When you make information more available, you allow more people to compete. When more people can compete in the market, you get more competition, and more competition means better pricing and better services for consumers. We don't want to have a situation where independent repairers are, effectively, priced out of the market by a lack of information or put in the position where, because they don't have that information, they are required to follow a more inefficient process than other dealers. This is about a level playing field. It's about ensuring that independent dealers have access to the information that they need so that they can provide a quality service to Australians right around the country. It's a pro-competition reform, it's a pro-consumer reform, and it's a very positive thing for the car industry in this country. I commend the bill to the House. 13:12 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The Morrison government has, for too long, put a handbrake on delivering a level playing field for independent mechanics. Not only has that held back small businesses in our nation; it's also meant that consumers have been left worse off. This bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme) Bill 2021, is intended to promote competition between Australian motor vehicle repairers and to help establish a fairer playing field for independent operators competing with large dealerships. But why has it taken the Morrison government so many years, and why has it moved so slowly, to implement this scheme, particularly after the voluntary data-sharing obligations the government put in place in 2014 proved to be a failure? For a number of years now, Labor has been campaigning for this reform, visiting independent motor mechanics in local areas throughout the country and hearing their stories about the difficulty that they have in accessing data from the large car dealerships and accessing the codes that are vital to repairing vehicles, most of which, in these modern times, have complicated computer systems. This is about supporting small businesses. Many of these independent mechanics have three or four mechanics operating with them. They're part of Australian culture, in many respects. I think every Australian motorist understands and knows that they deserve the right to have their car serviced by their local mechanic. Let's face it, we're not experts on cars—very few of us are—and how they operate. You want someone that you can trust. The member for Mackellar might know how to fix a V8 Holden Commodore, but, I tell you what, most Australians don't. They want to know that they can trust the person that they're getting to repair their vehicle. That was the beauty of the local suburban mechanic. A relationship was built up over many years. In many respects it was handed down through families. Once you got a drivers licence you tended to go to the mechanic that your parents went to because there was a trust relationship that had been established over many years, and it was handed down through generations. What was going on in the industry was risking that because people were, in some respects, being forced to go to the dealerships that they bought the cars from. They were certainly encouraged by the dealerships on the basis that, 'Only we can do the repair for you because we're the holders of the patent, we're the ones that developed the technology and we have the codes to repair that vehicle,' when that wasn't true. It is actually illegal to force someone into the position of taking up their repairs on an ongoing basis with the dealer. This has been something that Labor has been trying to break down for many, many years. We have been campaigning to support those local vehicle repairers to ensure that we are not only protecting jobs in that industry, protecting those small businesses and providing them with a fair playing field, but also promoting apprenticeships because most of the apprenticeships in the automotive industry will go to people at a local level through their local car repairer. That is a great thing for our nation, and we wouldn't want to see that broken down by the advances that we have seen in the technology associated with vehicles. This bill does deal with that issue. We're thankful that the government has agreed to Labor's policy on this. Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act to establish a scheme that mandates all service and repair information be provided to car dealership networks and manufacturers, and preferred repairers be made available for independent repairers and registered training organisations to purchase. So they are not being asked to give away their intellectual property. The mechanics will pay a fair price for it, but it's about ensuring that they're not excluding mechanics from receiving that information. Labor has been calling for independent mechanics to get access to the same technical information which car manufacturers make available to their authorised dealers and preferred repair networks. We pushed this reform because it won't only deliver savings to drivers, who will have better choices, more choices and easier access to repairs, but will also create a level playing field of independent mechanics who will be able to stay in business as a result. A genuinely competitive market for motor vehicle services and repairs relies on all repairers having fair access to the information they require to safely carry out the tasks on customers' vehicles. The benefits consumers get are both through increased choice and through price competition. There is also an issue here, I think, of the speed of repairs. If you do severe damage to your car and you completely break down, you want to get it repaired as quickly as possible. Often, if you are in those dealerships to get in to get something repaired, there is a waiting list well in excess of a week. If you have a trust relationship that you build up with your local mechanic, you know that they can probably come and pick that car up that day and get it repaired as soon as possible. The benefits through this are not only with that price competition but also with that increased choice. As motor vehicles become increasingly technologically advanced, the information required to safely undertake those tasks increases. Manufacturers of vehicles generally distribute the majority of the information exclusively to their dealership networks unless they choose to make it available to independent repairers. But the car manufacturers have in many respects run a protection racket on this information by encouraging, and in some cases almost forcing, motorists to have their vehicles repaired through their dealerships. That, of course, pushes up prices for car services and limits the ability of independent mechanics to grow their businesses and generate more jobs. Whether you own a Toyota Corolla or Ford Ranger, you should be able to choose where you get your car serviced. That's why we have pushed for years to have a scheme that will require car manufacturers to share technical information with independent mechanics on commercially fair and reasonable terms with safeguards that enable environmental safety and security related technical information to be shared with the independent sector. The arrival of a legislated solution to the market imbalance created by restrictions on service and repair data access has been celebrated by the independent sector. However, this bill doesn't resolve concerns about how independent mechanics will be able to update the digital service records of the cars they work on. To address this concern, the minister has undertaken to direct the scheme manager to initiate a process of consultation between Treasury and the stakeholders to find a satisfactory solution for the issue that will sit alongside the legislated framework in this bill. Given that undertaking from the minister, Labor is satisfied with that element of the legislation as drafted. But it shouldn't have taken the Morrison government this long to take the handbrake off to deliver this level playing field for independent mechanics. I want to thank the independent mechanics I visited in the electorate of Kingsford Smith, who, on those visits, informed me of the importance of this reform and the challenges they've had accessing data from the big dealerships, and the pressure that that put on them running their small businesses and on the people they employ, particularly those apprentices. I give credit to all the independent mechanics throughout Australia for sticking to their guns on this and for running this important campaign. I give credit to the member for Fenner as well, who led this campaign for Labor, did the consultations and did the work in putting this policy together. It is a great example of Labor putting up a policy and the coalition adopting it. We thank the government for doing so. 13:21 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I apologise for not being present in the House for my allocated time. However, the fact that the member for Fenner only took 15 minutes to give a 30-minute speech is a demonstration of how special this particular piece of legislation, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme) Bill 2021, is. The member for Kingsford Smith makes fun of my mechanical capabilities. I'm reminded of the Seinfeld episode where, he says, every time a car breaks down they open the hood to look for the big on/off switch. I very much relate to that, and I'm sure the member for Kingsford Smith does too. I also agree with the member for Kingsford Smith that the member for Fenner has been consistent and ensured that this issue was brought to the fore of the public policy debate. Much of the credit for this piece of legislation goes to him due to his tenacity on this matter. It is, however, a matter of shame that what we have here, as the member for Kingsford Smith has pointed out, is market failure. We have asymmetric information and third line forcing occurring, where large overseas car manufacturers are simply denying independent Australian small businesses being able to provide goods and services to Australian customers. They denied them the capacity to do so by ensuring they were not able to download the data available in their cars that would enable those repairers to do that work. That is illegal. Not only does this bill make sure that that is unlawful and that it stops now; a question this parliament should be asking itself is, 'Why is this law necessary?' The ACCC has all the powers it could possibly want to pursue overseas manufacturers who behave like this and who cause damage to Australian businesses and Australian consumers. I cannot see, looking at the competition act, how this is not a textbook definition of third line forcing. I cannot understand why it is that the ACCC will pursue newsagents, builders and all sorts of Australian companies who, in some cases, have inadvertently transgressed laws they didn't even know existed, and fine them millions of dollars for doing so, but will not lift a finger to enforce the laws they have. This parliament now finds itself in the ludicrous position of having to pass a new piece of legislation to ensure the ACCC does what it was always meant to do—that is, protect the interests of Australian consumers. If not for the efforts of the member for Fenner, this probably would never have come to our attention. I for one know that I would have sat on this side of the House and believed that the ACCC had this under control. After all, it has in its toolbox the very laws to enforce that enable it to ensure consumers are protected in this country. This is a clear case of market failure. This is a clear case of denial of information and of asymmetric information being imposed on the Australian public—not as a design flaw, not as a simple and obvious outcome of the transaction, but because overseas producers of these cars have simply imposed asymmetric information on the Australian public and on the Australian economy. They have damaged businesses. Frankly, this law probably doesn't go far enough. Frankly, this law probably should be retrospective and ask those manufacturers overseas to compensate the independent workshops and the small businesses in country towns, in suburbs and in cities that have been unable to do work, have been unable to provide goods and services that they lawfully undertake—and are, in many cases, better qualified to undertake—because these overseas firms, these large companies, have ensured that they have dictated to Australian consumers who they can use and which companies they can go to to get the goods and services they require. Not only do I thank the member for Fenner for his efforts on these matters and the member for Kingsford Smith for pointing out my mechanical prowess; I also thank the many independent small businesses that did so much through all of these years to bring this to the attention of members of parliament, and all of us, to ensure that we understood the pain and deprivation they had gone through. We are talking about overseas manufacturers that deliberately got involved in designing software that was designed to trick government regulators and environmental agencies in terms of what their carbon output was in diesel cars. They're the people we're talking about. They're the people that basically said to Australians: 'You will use our repairers, our service people and no-one else. We will make sure that happens by denying you access to your own data, to the data that you own in your own car.' I go back to how I started this speech, by questioning what it is that our regulatory agencies were doing through this whole process. They're very good at coming in after the fact. They were very good after the North Americans found out that a particular motoring company, Volkswagen, had designed a piece of software to trick environmental protection agencies worldwide; when that discovery was made in North America, the ACCC was all over it. They'd actually done nothing up to that point to uncover the fraud perpetrated on this country through that trickery and that fraudulent software. They can't say that they didn't have the powers to enforce this. They can't say that they didn't know about this. This has been made apparent to literally every single person in this chamber, in this House, over many, many years. Still, those at the ACCC chose to pursue newsagents instead of pursuing the real economic damage that was being done to small businesses not only in places like the Northern Beaches of Sydney but right across this country—as well as the damage that was being done to Australian consumers, who were unable to have the choice, which they so rightly deserve, of where they got their cars repaired. Why? Because those manufacturers decided that they, not the people who bought their cars, owned the data. This is a significant and real issue for this economy as we move forward. Who does own our data? The ACCC was very happy to attack Google, Facebook and those high-profile companies, but they didn't want to take on the car manufacturers and they didn't want to stand up for Australians and Australian businesses. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 42 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Wills Youth Advisory Committee 42 13:29 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Every year I form a Wills Youth Advisory Committee to give young people in my electorate a seat at the policy table. I want to thank the 2020 committee for their work last year. Their report, 'Wellbeing in Wills during COVID-19', investigated the impact of COVID-19 on young people. Their survey asked how COVID-19 impacted their social lives, their jobs, their education and their physical and mental health. Here are just a few responses: 'The wait period for mental health specialists was way too long'; 'Young people want hope, and that starts with being able to afford a house'; and, 'Given the remarkable achievements of science in response to COVID-19, why aren't we taking the same approach with real action on climate change?' I'm continually amazed by the perseverance and optimism of young people. Too rarely has the impact of COVID-19 on young people been properly recognised. Unfortunately, young people were not recognised in this week's budget either, apart from the measly JobTrainer extension or JobMaker hiring credit. This government has forgotten young people. It's forgotten about unaffordable housing. It's forgotten about rising student debt. It's forgotten about stagnant wages. It's forgotten about insecure work. I want young people to know that not only do I recognise their sacrifices I remain committed to working on the things that matter to them. Thank you to the 2020 committee: Aaron Sharma, Kelsey Hayes, Olympia Tsaris, Liam Phillips, Annalise Rizza, Tara Denison and Jacob Gamble. I look forward to working with the new 2021 committee this year. Veterans 42 13:31 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay This year's budget has delivered a big win for occupational therapists caring for our veterans. The $61 million will see a significant fee increase for nearly 10,000 occupational therapists treating some 244,000 veterans and war widows across the country. This change is a direct result of a campaign by Occupational Therapy Australia, along with the many veterans who saw their occupational therapists being paid a lower rate when working for DVA than other government agencies such as the NDIS. For me, the push to fix this injustice began with Vietnam veteran Robert 'Blue' Bellis and his occupational therapist, Donna Griffin, who has made a profound difference to his daily life and independence. Veterans like 'Blue' never stopped fighting for their mates, and today their mates include the OTs who diligently and compassionately care for them. Veterans from all over the country wrote to my office, taking up the cause on behalf of their OTs. I took it to Canberra and I'm pleased that Canberra did listen. I want to thank Occupational Therapy Australia, Donna Griffin and 'Blue' Bellis. I really do want to thank Peter Dutton, the Minister for Defence; the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Darren Chester; and especially Assistant Minister for Defence, Andrew Hastie, who came to Wide Bay to hear from nearly 100 veterans when he visited last week. COVID-19: International Travel 43 13:32 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Since the borders closed last year, I've heard the distressing stories of Australians of Indian descent who have been left stranded by this government. Exorbitant air fares, constant flight cancellations and a lack of quarantine facilities here in Australia have meant that they've been unable to come home. We all understood the need to shut down and protect our community when the pandemic first struck, but by now, more than 12 months later, the government should have put in place the infrastructure and logistics to bring Australians home. The stories from India are heartbreaking. Ten thousand Australians are living in constant fear of catching COVID-19 in a nation with an overwhelmed and ever-collapsing health system. As one of my friends, Charishma Kaliyanda, who recently lost her grandmother in India, said: 'There's a real kind of anger about this. When you're a second-generation immigrant, you grow up here in the belief and the knowledge that you're a full and equal citizen. We talk about multiculturalism and diversity as a thing we're proud of. But when it comes to policies like this, it does matter where your parents come from because you are treated differently.' The federal government must take responsibility for quarantine. It must improve the vaccine rollout, and it must make arrangements to bring Australian citizens home safely and as soon as possible. Lindsay Electorate: Baker & Provan 43 13:34 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay In 1946 the world was undergoing a tremendous period of change but, meanwhile, two Australian mates, two diggers coming home from World War II, were about to embark on a different kind of adventure. Arthur Baker and Don Provan bought an optical profile grinder and set up shop in St Marys. Seventy-five years later, the Baker and Provan names are still standing proudly in our community. From their humble beginnings, Baker & Provan are now a powerhouse in our local manufacturing industry, in defence, rail and heavy industry. They employ over 50 people, including six apprentices. I know that Mal, the managing director and son-in-law of Arthur Baker, is also doing a great job, actively encouraging more women to get involved in our manufacturing industry and helping young people to get their start through an apprenticeship. You can see how proud people are to work there and be part of their story, from the new apprentices right through to staff who have been there for 30-plus years. On behalf of the Morrison government, I would like to wish Mal and the team at Baker & Provan a very happy 75th birthday. As the local federal member, I'm particularly proud to have Baker & Provan in Lindsay. You're a testament to the strength of our local manufacturing industry, right in the heart of Western Sydney. Thank you. COVID 19: India 43 13:35 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I want to acknowledge and express my sorrow about the circumstances facing the people of India. They are right in the teeth of this awful pandemic. The scale of the health crisis and the related fear and suffering at moment are simply terrible, and it's critical that Australia and other nations keep providing all possible support. I was fortunate to live in India as a kid, in Maharashtra, for a year when I was about eight, and it was the first country that I travelled to under my own steam as a backpacker when I was 20. At the end of 2019 I was in New Delhi and Mumbai on a committee delegation, and it was incredible to again see the diversity, energy and generosity of spirit that is distinctive of India at its best. Those qualities have come to greatly enrich multicultural Australia. Australians of Indian heritage are the fastest growing cohort of new citizens and already represent three per cent of our population. There are more than 2,000 constituents of mine who have that connection, including my friend Yaz Mubarakai, the member for Jandakot in the WA parliament. He migrated to WA 20 years ago. Knowing the gravity of the humanitarian disaster that India faces, it was a bad mistake to threaten with prison Australians who simply want to come home. What's really important to say, though, to the people of India and to all Australians with Indian heritage is we acknowledge the terrible crisis you're confronting, we're with you and we'll get through this together. Goldstein Electorate: Hampton Life Saving Club 43 13:36 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Inclusive and respectful communities build a stronger Australia by empowering all citizens to contribute their talents. Strong citizens equal strong families, strong communities and a strong nation. Recently, Hampton Life Saving Club celebrated the contribution of women to lifesaving. In a panel, we heard from Mia Osler, Sophie Pratt, Janine Mitchell, Brett Macaulay, Betty Macaulay and Veronica Croaker about the club's Pink Patrol Program, which is increasing female participation in lifesaving. Betty was the club's first female president and she reminded us that barely 40 years ago women weren't even eligible to work as lifesavers. Today, they make up a critical part of our lifesaving community. We're proud to acknowledge that Life Saving Victoria has an equal 50-50 representation of women and men across all the state's clubs. Following the panel, at the life members lunch, we heard from the club's young leaders, the future: Tom Horton, Samuel Marcus, Joseph Hetherington, Josh Laney, Savannah James, Elizabeth Auditore and Caitlyn Henry as well as Madeline Marcus, Matilda Clarkson and Sam Higgins. The road to equality and inclusion is hard fought and demands strong leadership in our communities to empower and encourage others to stand up and take responsibility. So congratulations to the Hampton Life Saving Club on the success of their initiatives and thank you for helping to build a stronger community and a stronger Australia. Economy 44 13:38 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser In the lead-up to COVID-19, this government presided over the most barren economic run experienced by Australian households for almost 100 years. Between 2013 and 2020, growth in real GDP was the worst since the Great Depression. Real wages in Australia were 0.7 per cent lower in 2019 compared to 2013. Under this government, Australian households aren't just treading water; they're being sent backwards. The single biggest failure of this budget is that this run of anaemic outcomes for households is set to continue for years to come. Despite the labour market showing signs of tightening, the wage price index is set to increase by less than inflation in 2020-21—households go backwards again. In 2021-22, the wage price index is estimated to be 1.5 per cent, with a CPI of 1.75 per cent. In 2022-23, real wages will see no increase. This government has racked up a trillion dollars in debt but has failed to invest in the training measures and labour market reforms that could see increased wages. This was a problem for eight years before COVID, and this government still has no answers. The budget papers are filled to the brim with statistics and self-congratulation but little good news when it comes to the living standards of the average Australian household. Male, Reverend Allan Charles 44 13:40 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman Recently in my community of Longman we lost a true legend. I'd like to take the time today to pay tribute to a man who not only was a loving husband, father, grandfather and great-grandfather but went above and beyond for the people of Queensland. His outstanding achievements and lifelong service will be forever remembered by many. It's clear that Reverend Allan Charles Male touched the hearts of many people in our Queensland community. When I posted a tribute to the reverend on my Facebook page there were plenty of wonderful comments from people sharing great stories about him. This speaks volumes about the kind of man he was and how deeply he will be missed by his family, his friends and the Queensland community. He was a husband of 62 years to Kathleen, a father to his four children and had 14 grandchildren and 13 great-grandchildren. Some of his many achievements include being Queensland father of the year; a member of the Order of Australia; a member of the Order of the British Empire and a knight of the Order of St John of Jerusalem. He was a Churchill Fellow, studying in the UK, Holland and the USA, and a Rotary Paul Harris Fellow. He received a Rotary International Presidential Citation. Allan was also an author and a former Director-General of Families, Youth and Community Care. He founded the Shaftesbury Citizenship Campus at Burpengary East, which is now Arethusa College, which is legendary in our community for the lives of the young people it has changed for the better. Thank you for your life of service Allan. Your devotion, achievements and passion will never be forgotten by your family, your friends or the Queensland community. Salmon Industry 44 13:41 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark We know the salmon industry plays an important role in Tasmania as a key industry and employer, but it's under siege, and if community confidence and support are to be restored then changes need to be made and made fast. Indeed, the aquaculture industry in Tasmania is facing a reckoning, turbocharged by the revelations last month of the shocking environmental damage being inflicted on some of the state's most loved places and reinforced by the alarming prospect of the industry doubling in size by 2030, despite the certainty that such unrestrained expansion will cause even worse environmental outcomes and community backlash. The best way to protect the industry, along with the jobs and economic benefits it provides, is to put it on a genuinely sustainable footing, overseen by a strong and independent regulator. This means an immediate pause on new farms and any expansion being genuinely offshore in deep waters, and only then as a stepping stone to closing the loop on shore farming. Without the salmon industry facing this head on, I have no doubt it will go the way of the forestry industry. Don't get me wrong, the salmon industry can have a bright future in Tasmania, but only if it's on a truly sustainable footing and only if it is overseen by an effective regulator. Barker Electorate: Truro Bypass 45 13:42 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise today to inform the House of the fantastic news that in Tuesday night's budget, our government funded the construction of the Truro bypass in my electorate of Barker. The Truro bypass was identified by me as a priority project some eight years ago, and it is fantastic that this piece of nation-building infrastructure has its funding now secure. Our government has allocated $161.6 million to the project and the South Australian government has allocated the remaining $40.4 million. The Truro bypass will result in more productive traffic flow between South Australia and New South Wales. It will be a boost for South Australia's competitiveness, particularly its agriculture sectors, and will create 555 jobs directly and indirectly in the meanwhile. It will also get the very heavy vehicle freight out of the township of Truro, making that community much safer for residents and visitors. I've been working with the Truro progress association to get this project to the top of the government's infrastructure agenda, and I'd like to thank sincerely them for pursuing this program with me. To the members of the Truro progress association and the residents of Truro, to all of them: this is a massive win that we achieved together. It will be safer, more productive and better for our nation. COVID 19: Vaccination 45 13:44 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara When the world heard news of vaccines being rolled out as part of this pandemic there was hope. Australians had a bit of hope. We really needed our government to step up to get this vaccine rollout right in Australia. Over there they had their little meetings. They had their little gatherings of the Liberal and National parties, but they weren't talking about how to effectively roll out the vaccines. They were talking about the politics of rolling out the vaccines. They were talking about the politics and the marketing. They even rolled out vaccine announcements with Liberal Party branding, but they forgot one thing and that's to actually roll out the vaccines after they put their Liberal Party branding on it. Four million vaccines by the end of March—well, that was a complete misfire. They had to walk back from that. Instead of committing down and saying, 'No, we got that wrong, but here's the new target', they stepped away from targets entirely. The Labor Party were saying back in January, 'We need to have vaccines ready for when the TGA makes approvals'. They said, 'That is dangerous'. They didn't actually organise the vaccines. The Labor Party said, 'You need to do more deals because we don't have enough deals to have a secure supply of vaccines'. They just shook their arrogant heads, did nothing and were only worried about the politics. Now Australians are going to be waiting longer for this mob to roll out the vaccines, our economy is going to suffer and Australians are waiting for their incompetence. Tasmania: Floods 45 13:45 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon Residents across the north-west coast of Tasmania will never forget the devastating 2016 floods and the enormous destruction that they brought to our region, particularly the Latrobe and Waratah-Wynyard regions. It is vital that all levels of government continue to work together to ensure flood mitigation measures are in place to mitigate the impact of future flood events. Today I'm pleased to advise the House that the federal government is playing its part as well. Both the Latrobe and Waratah-Wynyard councils have been successful in their application under the National Flood Infrastructure Mitigation Program. This crucial program is a key part of our government's long-term flood mitigation effort and ensures that local communities can invest in pre-disaster preparedness, resilience, disaster risk reduction and sustainability measures. When I spoke to both respective mayors just yesterday they told me how important this investment was to their respective communities. Flood mitigation has been a clear priority within their local region since the 2016 floods, and they were appreciative of the fact that the federal government recognised their priority. Congratulations to both councils on your successful applications. Like the Morrison government, you are committed to keeping your local communities safe and to minimising the potential losses that individuals, landowners and businesses incur in the event of floods. Budget 45 13:47 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley This budget does not deliver on two key issues for working people: insecure work and wages, because this is a government more concerned about looking after their own mates than working people. Forty per cent of Australians under 35 have never had permanent full-time work—never! And what is in the budget to help them with that problem? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Instead, individual taxpayers get to shoulder the burden of the Morrison government's generous tax breaks for corporations. Big business is receiving $17.9 billion in tax write-offs this budget. There are no pay rises for working people. The Liberals have abolished penalty rates for fast food workers, retail workers and pharmacy workers, and there is no wage rise for those people. Australia's miserable wage growth, which is now at its slowest pace since the 1930s, is going to get even worse. What is the plan? Nothing. There is no plan. This is just your regular reminder that there can be no economic recovery while there is no wage growth, while wages are in fact going backwards. What is the good of spending money on getting more people into work if they don't get paid enough when they are there? What are we going to do to fix our aged-care crisis if the wages that we pay the people who matter the most for that aren't enough to keep them in that job? For too many workers this budget is all about short-term sweeteners and long-term rip-offs. JobKeeper Payment 46 13:49 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey The end of March was a very important point in Australia. It was the end of JobKeeper. When I saw the figures for unemployment come in for April, that unemployment had actually dropped by another 0.2 per cent, it put pay to a few predictions that had been made in this place before the end of March—the last time we were here, in fact. It's wonderful news, of course, but it's worth pointing out that the member for Rankin said, when quoting a Gold Coast tourism business and speaking of the end of JobKeeper: 'What is the point of bringing everyone safely across the desert just to drop us off the cliff?' Then, at another time, he said, 'Any job losses which flow from the cuts to JobKeeper at the end of the month and subsequent months will be on their heads,' meaning the heads of those in government. It's a reality that if you cut JobKeeper in these uncertain times you cut jobs. It's as simple as that. Unfortunately, when it comes down to it, too many Australians will graduate into joblessness and onto the JobSeeker payment because of the actions taken of those opposite. It's worth noting that the member for Whitlam said, 'This bloke'—speaking of the Prime Minister—'doesn't have a clue about what he's going to do with the 1½ million Australians either out of work or looking for work.' The number is going to be added to by another 100,000 in a few weeks to come. I could go on and on. I spoke to the member for Boothby at the time and said, 'We should take note of these.' It proves that they're not Nostradamus; they're Cassandra. Black Summer Bushfires, Insurance 46 13:50 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro After a seven-month delay, the government has finally responded to the Senate's inquiry into the Black Summer bushfires. To the surprise of few, the Morrison government has yet again fallen short of actually supporting our bushfire affected communities. Of the 13 recommendations made, the government have refused to support nine. They've refused to support two-thirds of the recommendations, including all those in support of the insurance industry. Every day, I speak with locals and businesses who are unable to obtain affordable insurance, with many unable to insure altogether. The impact of uncertainty is crippling for many, whether that be for ski lodges in the Snowy Mountains, ecotourism facilities on the coast, most pubs in the region or simply individuals wanting to rebuild. The issues are prevalent right across the disaster affected areas of my electorate and they aren't going away. While the government may want to stick their heads in the sand on the issues facing Eden-Monaro locals, I certainly will not. Over the last few months, I've had the privilege of working with an amazing ANU student in my parliamentary office as part of an intern program, Jennifer Kerr. Jennifer has been working on a report into the state of insurance affordability and availability in the mighty Eden-Monaro following a string of recent natural disasters. Her enthusiasm in doing that, her excitement about the parliamentary process and her desire to make a difference is inspiring. I look forward to sharing the details of her findings in this place when she hands down her report at the end of the month. Thanks for your work, Jen, because you're doing what the government should. (Time expired) Wentworth Electorate: Floods 46 13:52 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth Members here would be aware that the recent flooding on the east coast of New South Wales and Queensland caused significant damage and loss of life, property, livestock and other animals. Very tragically, two people lost their lives in that flooding. I want to talk today about the bravery of some people in my electorate who helped save lives in those recent floods. The SES Waverley-Woollahra Unit, as well as the Bondi and Bronte lifesaving IRB—inflatable rescue boat—crews, led by the Sydney branch commanders James McLennan and Matt Spooner, were quick to assemble crews and equipment once the flooding started and travelled to Windsor and nearby areas which were facing a dire situation due to the floods. All teams did an amazing job on and off the water in assisting where needed during a flood crisis. I want to make particular mention of the Bondi IRB crew, especially Courtney Date and Richard Nicholas, and the Waverley-Woollahra SES members, Max Henderson and Michael Horn, whose heroic actions saved the lives of a family who were trapped underneath a marine rescue vessel that capsized on the Colo River during the family's evacuation. Upon seeing the unfolding emergency, without hesitation Courtney and Max courageously jumped in the cold and rapidly-moving water to rescue the adults and children trapped underneath the overturned boat. The adult evacuees were able to get out and were picked up by another SES crew, while Courtney and Max, in very difficult conditions and with near-zero visibility, ducked under the water and made several attempts, eventually successful, to rescue the children from the upturned boat. The other crew members supported the process by pulling evacuees out of the water and preventing the upturned boat from being washed away. This phenomenal rescue deserves our congratulations. Kingsford Smith Electorate: Bus Services 47 13:53 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The New South Wales Liberal government is cutting 25 bus routes in the community that I represent and is privatising the bus network in the east of Sydney. It is a disgraceful betrayal by the New South Wales Liberal government of the people of the eastern suburbs. Twenty-five bus routes will be cut and twenty-three routes will be modified, leaving commuters in the lurch. It shows that the Liberals don't understand the importance of good public transport services to the everyday lives of people in our community. A couple of weeks ago, I met Beverley, a pensioner who lives in Pagewood. Beverley doesn't drive. She relies on the 310 bus service to do her shopping and her monthly visit to the State Library—her outing once a month. The New South Wales Liberal government is cutting the 310 bus service. Students have been emailing me, telling me they won't be able to get to school anymore on the bus. Members of the community who use the bus to get to work and people who use it to do their shopping will be stranded. The New South Wales Liberal government has just made life a whole lot harder for people in my electorate by cutting these bus services. As many of the locals have pointed out, it means that they'll now just drive to get to where they need to go, increasing carbon pollution and congestion on our roads. It doesn't make sense. The New South Wales Premier lied to the people of our community when she promised before the last election that she would not privatise the bus network in the east of Sydney. She's gone back on that commitment. It's a disgraceful betrayal of the people of the east, and I call on the New South Wales government to reverse this awful decision. Climate Change 47 13:55 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan We beat our Kyoto targets by 459 tonnes, we met our 2020 targets and now we're on track to meet our 2030 targets. Australia's emissions are now 19 per cent lower than they were in 2005. This is the lowest level since 1995, and we are on our path to net zero as well. This week the Treasurer again confirmed our commitment to continue to take real action on climate change. In this budget, we are committing a further $1.6 billion to fund technology like clean hydrogen and energy storage. The CSIRO at Pullenvale in my electorate of Ryan is leading the way on hydrogen. They know how passionate I am about their work and renewable energy. Australians are doing their bit when it comes to supporting energy storage as well. We have the highest uptake of solar panels in the world. We will reduce emissions further with technology and with the support of all Australians. We will create new jobs with technology, not taxes. Importantly, we can do this because we are good economic managers. Whatever Labor and the Greens say, they cannot help our environment, because they simply cannot manage money. We understand the responsibility we have to care for our country and to care for our community. We will continue to protect our environment and our iconic natural assets. We'll do this because we have a strong economy, a strong plan and a rock-solid commitment to meeting our targets. Budget 47 13:56 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley On Tuesday it will be two years since I was elected to be the voice of Dunkley in Canberra. It is a privilege that I work so hard to live up to every single day, as I did this week when I brought the Frankston City Council mayor and staff to Canberra to lobby government ministers and opposition shadow ministers alike on the needs of our community. We are a community which is rich with talent and with compassion. We are rich with people and organisations that use those traits to benefit our local community and the broader community. What we need—what we deserve—is a government that will back us in. What was in the budget for Dunkley? There was nothing for the McClelland sculpture gallery, nor for the culture, the arts and the tourism that it brings. There was nothing for Emil Madsen Reserve or the other sporting precincts, nor for the young people and the old people and everyone in between who love and live sport in my electorate. There was nothing for Monash University, the peninsula campus of which has been so important to keeping my electorate going through COVID. There has just been extra money for already announced projects, because the government got their numbers wrong when they first announced them. I'm here fighting for my community while the Morrison government is here fighting to protect the disgraced and disgraceful Andrew Laming. The SPEAKER 00APG The member's time has expired. I will just say to the member for Dunkley and others: members need to be referred to by their correct titles. Milisits, Mr Vilmos 'Vili', OAM 48 13:58 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to pay tribute at the tragic passing of the iconic South Australian entrepreneur and businessman Mr Vilmos 'Vili' Milisits, who was, of course, famous in South Australia, across the country and in parts of the world for his eponymous Vili's pie brand. His is one of the great migrant stories in this country. Vili was born in Hungary. In 1956, after the Hungarian revolution and the invasion by Soviet forces, he fled Hungary and came to South Australia. As he would say, he came poor and starving. He made it critical to the rest of his life that he would never again have those two experiences of poverty and hunger. He was a great businessman who built his bakery into one of the most iconic food businesses in South Australia. He leaves such a legacy behind, not only in my home state but across the country. Most famously, he successfully supplied all of the pies and pasties for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. His business now exports to dozens of countries around the world. He was a great South Australian. He leaves a spectacular legacy in Adelaide and in this country. It was an honour to have known him for so long, to have called him a friend and to have been inspired by him. I pay tribute to him and to the success of his career. I pass on my sympathies to his family, particularly his beloved wife, Rosemary. Vale Vili. The SPEAKER 00APG It being 2 pm, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 48 CONDOLENCES Peacock, Hon. Andrew Sharp, AC 48 Report from Federation Chamber 48 14:01 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the Hon. the Prime Minister be agreed to. I ask all honourable members to signify their approval by rising in their places. Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Employment 48 14:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the government has spent almost half a million dollars to intervene in the Rossato High Court case in support of ripping away pay from long-term workers in insecure work? Why is the Prime Minister spending taxpayer money to cut the wages of insecure workers, including Queensland miners in the Bowen Basin? Doesn't this confirm the Morrison government will do everything it can to keep wages low? 14:02 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for his question. It's on the matter that went to the great uncertainty that arose in relation to the definition of casuals in the workplace that, if unresolved, could have seen job losses and loss of investment, and the loss of confidence in our economy at a time in the middle of the worst global recession we have seen since the Great Depression—a global recession 30 times worse than the global financial crisis. Uncertainty at any time, when it comes to these types of issues, needs to be addressed and needs to be resolved so that we can ensure that businesses invest and people get into work and people get into jobs. Prior to entering into the pandemic, Australia had already achieved, since the government was first elected, some 1.5 million people coming into work. We knew that we went into the pandemic, and when we went into the pandemic some 900,000, or thereabouts, Australians lost their jobs and another 300,000—and, indeed, more—had their hours reduced to zero. But we now know, on the other side of the pandemic, there are more people in work today than there were before the pandemic. Certainty— 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, it goes to relevance. This is about a coalminer. It's about same job, same pay— A government member interjecting— Mr Albanese R36 You're cutting their pay! Mr Dutton 00AKI You can't stand miners! The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House! The Leader of the Opposition will proceed with his point of order. Mr Albanese R36 The court case began before the pandemic, and it's about whether someone who isn't really working as a casual had their pay and conditions cut, and why the government is supporting that court case on behalf of employers against workers— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition has made his point of order. I say to the Prime Minister: the question was fairly specific certainly in the first part that was asked. But even in the broader part at the end I don't think it allows you to move beyond the issue of wages. Mr MORRISON E3L The Australian people know the Labor Party are no friend of coalminers. They are no friend of the workers in the resources industry. They are no friend of the workers in the construction industry. They opposed the HomeBuilder program. They bagged it. They rubbished it. They on that side are no friends of workers. The friends of workers are on this side, because it is this side of the House which has been creating jobs for the Australian people. We acted to ensure certainty to enable Australians to get employed, and that is what this government is about—getting Australians into work. When we took the measures through this House and the other place, the Labor Party saw workers' rights as collateral damage for their own political purposes as they voted against important improvements for those to be supported in casual work. They thought that politics was more important than workers. So I am not going to be lectured by a Labor Party whose form in this House is to oppose jobs for workers, particularly in the resources sector. Give us a break! Economy 49 14:06 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government's plan for economic recovery builds on what's been working to secure our way out of the COVID-19 pandemic? 14:06 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Herbert for his question. I also thank him for his service and I thank him for his great support of the resources sector in northern Australia. This budget is a plan to secure Australia's recovery in the midst of a global pandemic that continues to rage around the world. I notice the shaking of his head by the deputy speaker who sits up the back there. He may not know there's a global pandemic going on. It might be news to him. It certainly must be news to those opposite. But we know Australia's recovery plan in this budget is there to address the great challenges of this pandemic and the global recession that it has caused, 30 times worse than what we saw in the global financial crisis. The action our government has taken is to back Australians, because we see Australians as the key ingredient that has seen Australia come through this pandemic today and will see us go forward and ensure that we get through this terrible situation. I will quote none other than the governor of the Reserve Bank himself, who on 7 May indicated what is working in this country, how it is working and why we need to keep doing what's working. The RBA statement on monetary policy on 7 May said this: The Australian economy is transitioning from recovery to expansion phase earlier and with more momentum than anticipated. … … … … this snap-back in activity— Interesting choice of words from the Reserve Bank— has been supported by extraordinary fiscal and monetary support. We need to keep doing what's working in this country, because it is working. That is what the plan is doing—keeping taxes low so businesses and workers can keep more of what they earn. We know what the Labor Party want to do with taxes. They were pressed on this today. They can't give any guarantees, because we know how much they like to increase taxes on working Australians and hardworking small businesses. We are backing investment, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, boosting skills and apprenticeships, developing and supporting our manufacturing industries and supporting Australians build and own their own home through the very successful HomeBuilder program, which the Labor Party scoffed at and mocked. They were mocking Australians seeking to build and own their own home. Securing Australia's recovery—that's what this budget will deliver. Dr Chalmers interjecting — Mr Littleproud interjecting — The SPEAKER 00APG I will just say to the member for Rankin and the Minister for Agriculture that they can cease their conversation across the chamber now. Budget 50 14:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Can he confirm that, after eight long years of wages going nowhere, they are now actually going backwards? 14:10 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for his question. Nominal wages improved over the course of the budget in the forward estimates. We will have some aberrant figures on inflation this current year and next year, but wages will continue to improve in this country so long as the economic settings continue to be right, we continue to back Australians, we secure Australia's recovery through this budget and we continue to put Australians in work. When you put Australians into work, that tightens the labour market and supports wages. I will ask the Treasurer to add to the answer. 14:11 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong It's a bit cheeky to get a question from the Labor Party on real wages when they were falling when they were last in office and fell over in 2013. Budget Paper No. 1, on page 61, says the following: … consumers have maintained purchasing power with real wages growth in line with the 10-year average. We know that, under this government, real wages growth is higher, the unemployment rate is lower, the gender pay gap has been closing and more Australians are in work than ever before. Mr Stephen Jones interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Whitlam! Mr FRYDENBERG FKL This has meant that household income has continued to grow in every quarter, despite the greatest economic shock since the Great Depression. Ms Coker interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Corangamite! Mr FRYDENBERG FKL It is up 4.8 per cent over the year. Under this government, unemployment is now lower than when we came to government. Unemployment, after the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression, is now lower than when we came to government. The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer can just pause for one second. Have your concluded your answer? Yes. Before I call the next question: there is continual interjection. I haven't used 94(a) so far this week. I am just going to make very clear again that, if I have mentioned your name and you interject again, you will be ejected. Budget 50 14:12 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government is securing our future by investing in the infrastructure across regional Australia that will make our roads safer and save lives? 14:13 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Lyne for his question and acknowledge his advocacy not just for his community but indeed for the road safety outcomes of Lyne and, indeed, regional Australia right across the nation as well. He knows full well how important this is. He has worked tirelessly in his community to get the Harrington Road intersection in Coopernook, on the Pacific Highway, upgraded. This $60 million project involves the construction of a full-grade separated interchange. This will make the road safer for all who use it. In conjunction with the state government we now are fixing it, and it will be finished by 2024. Local community members were very pleased with the announcement, as the member for Lyne knows. Michael Parson said: 'Just the best news to wake up to'—he probably also listens to Moffee in the Morning!—'We have been lobbying for this for a long time now. Many lives will be potentially saved.' Councillor Kathryn Bell said: 'Excellent news. The Harrington community and motorists will be pleased. There may be dancing in the streets.' The infrastructure rollout is about making travelling around our great country safer, including, particularly, regional Australia. We have added another $1 billion to the road safety 'use it or lose it' program. These works include rumble strips, shoulder sealing, upgraded school-zone signage, separated cycleways, median and run-off barriers, raised pedestrian crossings, resurfacing, better road markings and the clearing of vegetation near the road—as well as those all-important audio tactile line markings. They're the things you'll hear if you stray slightly out of your lane: foomp, foomp, foomp, foomp, foomp. If you're going fast, it's foomp-foomp-foomp-foomp-foomp! That's what they do! And they save lives—I hear the member for Rankin—they actually do save lives. It's so important. I was travelling on the Newell the other day and they were laying those lines, not just in the daytime but at night-time too. It's creating work for local councils. It's creating work for local small businesses. It's creating opportunities and local procurement—and it's all part of the $110 billion infrastructure rollout across the nation over the next decade. The budget that Treasurer Frydenberg announced on Tuesday night facilitated an additional $15.2 billion of works, creating the opportunities for an additional 30,000 workers, already there's 100,000 workers, as part of the overall 10-year plan, because the government—the Liberals and Nationals—have a plan. We've got a plan for infrastructure. We've got a plan for a more secure future out of the pandemic. It has been very, very difficult. We all know that. It has been very, very challenging, but I commend the member for Lyne for his advocacy for infrastructure and particularly for getting the Newcastle airport off the ground. (Time expired) Budget 51 14:16 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer admit what the cut in real wages contained in his own budget actually means for Australian workers—that their bills will go up, but their pay won't keep up? 14:16 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong What will hit the wages of the Australian people is the higher taxes from the Labor Party! That is what will hit the wages of the Australian people. As I said to the House yesterday, in the budget there is a forecast that inflation will reach 3½ per cent in the middle of this year. That is above the wage growth of 1¼ per cent that is forecast, but the higher inflation number for the year is off the back of, in the previous year, negative 0.3 per cent. It was the first time in 60 years that we'd seen such a negative number, but, as I said recently to the House, the reality is that, under this government, real wages growth is higher, unemployment is lower, the gender pay gap has been narrowing and there are more Australians in work than ever before. In this budget, delivered on Tuesday night, we cut the taxes of low- and middle-income earners. More than 10 million low- and middle-income earners received a tax cut as a result of the measures supported by the Morrison government and announced in Tuesday night's budget. We also put in tax incentives for businesses right around the country. Our policies are to drive taxes lower, to enable Australians to keep more of their hard-earned money. The Labor Party stands for higher spending and higher taxes. National Security 51 14:18 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Defence minister, wouldn't a China oil embargo, cutting off our sources in Singapore and South Korea, combined with regular trading vessels disembarking crews into China's port of Darwin and then such crews transforming into commandos, put Western Australia, across to the China-owned air base at Merredin, and the Northern Territory under complete control by China? Minister, from ancient Troy's Cassandra to Winston Churchill, wouldn't you agree that those who didn't heed the warnings suffered the consequences? 14:18 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Putting it all together, I thank the honourable member for his question. I thank him for his passion for this country, for his electorate and for many causes over a long period of time in this chamber. He has worked very hard for people in regional areas, for people in northern Australia and for our country, so I acknowledge that. The government has, in this budget, made a very significant investment into the top of our country, particularly into Darwin over the next decade. We provide about $8 billion, much of it targeting our Defence Force personnel, including visiting US forces. We make sure that we upgrade the facilities. We provide the additional training facilities that will make it an even more attractive destination for our coalition partners to train from. So, we will bolster our strength in the north and in the west. We obviously have a very significant investment of $270 billion over this decade into the equipment that we will provide to our personnel to keep Australia safe. We've made decisions over the course of a number of years, not just in this budget, to put us in a position where we can keep our country safe. We have made decisions to secure our borders so that we can defend our country from the scourge of this virus. In this budget, we've provided support to Australians to try and keep them in jobs and to make sure that our economy grows, and we have invested in our Australian Defence Force personnel. We've also put in significant money, through the minister for energy's recommendations to the Expenditure Review Committee, into fuel security. It is a very important issue for our country. I know the honourable member has had a very significant interest in this issue for a long period of time. But it is more important than ever that we get fuel security right, that we get supply chain surety and that we make sure that, through defence industry, we have the best possible defences against whatever threat might come our way in the years ahead. I'm proud that we have been able to invest in the Defence portfolio in a more significant way than any government in recent history. The cuts to spending on defence during Labor's years, when money went to pay for boat arrivals—but the wrong boat arrivals, people arriving on boats— Opposition members interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI You can sigh, but you presided over a disaster on our borders. You surrendered our sovereignty and handed it over to the people smugglers. The SPEAKER 00APG The defence minister can pause for a second. Mr DUTTON 00AKI We secured our borders. The SPEAKER 00APG The defence minister will pause. The defence minister will resume his seat. I asked the defence minister to pause twice. I presume he didn't hear me. That's why I asked him to resume his seat. The question was not about alternative policies. If there is anything of relevance the minister has got to add in the next 25 seconds, he can have the call. Mr DUTTON 00AKI In conclusion, I thank the member and, on your indulgence, wish the Prime Minister a happy birthday. The SPEAKER 00APG That was nice, but it wasn't relevant. Budget 52 14:22 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the Morrison government's budget is going further in doing what works to secure our recovery in its longstanding commitment to cutting taxes for Australian businesses and families? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies? 14: Mr FRYDENBERG ( FKL Kooyong — ) ( ): I thank the member for Stirling for his question, and I acknowledge his experience in the Australian Defence Force. In the member for Stirling's electorate, more than 60,000 people will get a tax cut as a result of the measures announced on Tuesday night in the Morrison government's budget. Tuesday night's budget is going to help create more jobs. Tuesday night's budget will help Australia's economy grow more strongly. Tuesday night's budget will see taxes for millions of Australians lowered. We know that this side of the House stands for lower taxes. In fact, more than 10 million Australians are getting a tax cut as a result of the extension of the low- and middle-income tax offset for another year. If you are earning between $48,000 and $90,000, you will get an extra $1,080 in your pocket at the end of the tax year. There's also the immediate expensing, which we believe will support around $320 billion of investment, allowing businesses to write off new machinery and equipment that they purchase. From 1 July this year, small businesses will see their company tax rate cut to 25c in the dollar. We've also brought forward, by two years, stage 2 of the tax cuts. Stage 3 of our tax plan is legislated. That is an extremely important reform. It abolishes a whole tax bracket, the 37c-in-the-dollar tax bracket. It means 95 per cent of taxpayers will pay a marginal rate of no more than 30c in the dollar. It also remains a very progressive tax system. The Leader of the Opposition said in March of this year at the Financial Review conference that he would tell us the Labor Party's position on stage 3 of that legislated tax plan at budget. More than 12 million Australians who will get a tax cut as a result of stage 3 are waiting on the verdict of the Leader of the Opposition. We on this side of the House supported those legislated tax cuts, but we know that the Leader of the Opposition likes to have a bet each way. He said that he was for the tax cuts when they passed the parliament, but now he's got the member for Rankin, a shadow of a shadow Treasurer, telling us that he doesn't really like the tax cuts. For those Australians watching today's broadcast, if they are a teacher earning $70,000 they will be $620 worse off if the Leader of the Opposition wants to get his way and abolish those tax cuts. If a tradie is earning $80,000 a year, they will be $900 worse off if the Labor Party doesn't support these legislated— (Time expired) Budget 53 14:25 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the cut to real wages in the Prime Minister's budget a deliberate design feature of the government's economic policy or, once again, does the Prime Minister believe it is somebody else's fault? 14:26 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Our budget, which is a plan to secure Australia's recovery from the global pandemic, from the global recession, is all about increasing the number of people in jobs. It is all about increasing the ability for Australians to earn more in this country and to keep more of what they earn. In this budget we are delivering, once again, lower taxes for Australians, lower taxes for small- and medium-sized businesses, who, from 1 July, will be paying 25 per cent right across the board—businesses up to $50 million. Lower taxes means more money in the pockets of Australians to invest in the things that they want to put their minds to. What people can take home because of lower taxes, what people can take home because of a strengthening economy, what people can take home because of the fact that they are in jobs in an economy where, if you look around the world, you see that there is no advanced country that can speak of there being more jobs after the pandemic than there were before the pandemic— Opposition members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L But what I am concerned about, as the Treasurer just highlighted, is what we heard from the Labor Party today in their silence, in not being able to say that they won't increase taxes— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will pause. The question was not about any alternatives; it was a specific question about the budget. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L Our budget is about lower taxes. That is what our budget is about. A Labor budget, particularly one when he is in the habit of copying from the member from Maribyrnong— The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW The question is about the impact of the budget on wages. It is not about alternatives or taxes; it is about wages. The SPEAKER 00APG Yes, that's right. The question was about real wages. It had a tag at the end, but that tag doesn't allow the Prime Minister to talk about alternative policies or members of the opposition. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L Thank you, Mr Speaker. The budget is indeed about wages—the wages of Australians in work. Under this government, there are more people in work today than before the pandemic. The unemployment rate is lower than when we came to government. Our budget is about driving that unemployment rate down, and that will be achieved by the policies of the Liberal and Nationals, not the co-opted policies of the member for Maribyrnong carbon-copied onto the Leader of the Opposition. The SPEAKER 00APG No; the Prime Minister will resume his seat. Budget 53 14:29 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how this week's budget goes further in doing what works to secure our recovery by delivering on the Morrison government's longstanding goal of creating more and more jobs for all Australians? 14:29 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question and acknowledge her experience and background in small business, and the fact that the tax cuts announced on Tuesday night in the Morrison government's budget will see more than 70,000 taxpayers get a tax cut in the member for Moncrieff's electorate. That is the reality of the policy supported by those on this side of the House. Tuesday night's budget was our plan to create another 250,000 jobs. We've seen around 500,000 jobs created since last year's budget in October and we've seen the unemployment rate come down to 5.6 per cent. We've seen more people now in work than before the crisis began; we've seen the unemployment rate now lower—even after the COVID recession—than when we came to government; and we have seen Australia become the first of the major advanced economies around the world to have employment levels above their prepandemic levels. The budget has been very well received in a number of quarters. The Business Council of Australia said: This budget propels Australia out of the pandemic and lays the foundation for a jobs-led recovery. The Australian Industry Group said that the budget: … locks in the recovery from recession and shifts gears from emergency measures to investing in the economy for the longer term. And Fitch Ratings said that the budget: … confirms that the recent strong economic and labour market recovery has resulted in an improvement in public finances, … S&P global ratings said after the budget that Australia's success in containing the coronavirus and targeted emergency economic support is propelling a strong economic rebound. They are the words of independent voices. This budget was all about locking in the gains of our strong economic recovery and investing more in skills, extending the JobTrainer program to now provide 450,000 training places—including for 33,000 people in the care workforce. It was about extending our successful apprenticeship scheme, a $2.7 billion investment to create another 170,000 apprentices. It was about a record $15 billion of infrastructure spending to maintain that $110 billion 10-year pipeline. And, of course, it was about tax relief—tax relief for more than 10 million hardworking low- and middle-income workers, putting more money in the pockets of their families so that they can spend it as they see fit. (Time expired) Budget 54 14:32 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham My question is to the Prime Minister. Aged-care workers are some of the lowest-paid people in our nation. Attracting and retaining these critical workers is the only way older Australians will get the care they deserve. What part of the Prime Minister's budget pays aged-care workers more? 14:32 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders Indeed, there is $17.7 billion of additional value and investment in aged care— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will pause. The member for Hotham has asked her question. She will not interject, nor will others interject. Mr HUNT 00AMV Firstly, there are retention bonuses for nurses: $3,700 for full-time nurses and $2,700 for part-time nurses. Secondly, in relation to this, there is $3.2 billion which goes to the $10-a-day uplift fee, and that will flow through to our staff. Thirdly, there is $3.9 billion— Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will pause. The member for Lyons will leave under standing order 94(a). The member for Lyons then left the chamber. Mr HUNT 00AMV Thirdly, there is $3.9 billion—and this is an opportunity to go through pretty much most of the measures in the aged-care reform package—which goes to 200 care minutes a day. For the first time we are mandating that level of care, as recommended by the royal commission, which also includes specifically 40 minutes a day from our nursing staff— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will pause for a second. The member for Hotham on a point of order. Ms O'Neil 140590 Mr Speaker, it's on direct relevance. The question was specifically about aged-care workers' wages. The minister is listing a bunch of initiatives that are not going to do anything about that problem. The SPEAKER 00APG The minister has the call; he'll be relevant to the question. Mr HUNT 00AMV With great respect, Mr Speaker, this is absolutely directly about wages. I started with the $3,700 and $2,700 of direct wage supplement. In addition to that, there is $3.2 billion, which goes to the ability to provide additional support for our personal care workers and for our nurses. Honourable members interjecting— Mr HUNT 00AMV That's how they're paid. They aren't paid directly by government; they are paid by the people who employ them. That is providing support to the employers to support the employee. Honourable members interjecting— Mr HUNT 00AMV I have a feeling that they're not actually that interested. Mr Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hindmarsh! Mr HUNT 00AMV The third element, of course, is for the 200 minutes, or $3.9 billion. A fourth element is in relation to what we're doing with home-care support. The additional funding of $6½ billion for home care, which is 80,000 places, will be all about employing and paying those very people who are delivering the care to our aged-care sector. Ms Kearney interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Cooper! Mr HUNT 00AMV Fifth, we have 33,800 aged-care training places. This training is about bringing in new people who will be delivering the services, all of whom are going to be paid as a result of this. In addition to that, in the Indigenous community we have over $600 million that is being paid to support those who are working in rural and remote areas or to create the facilities where they will be working. In addition to all of those elements, we have the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, which will oversee over 4½ thousand audits. These will protect both the residents and the workers. All of these elements go towards ensuring that the conditions are better for both workers and residents. Budget 55 14:36 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. Will the minister inform the House what steps the Morrison government is taking to improve the safety of women and children, including through this year's budget? 14:36 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I thank the member for Boothby for her question. In this budget, this government is investing $1.1 billion to help keep women and children safe. This is the single largest Commonwealth investment in women's safety. It is a down payment, with further investment to come following consultations with the states and territories at the National Women's Safety Summit at the end of July. The goal is to stop it at the start so we can all live, grow and work free from violence. But we know that this is not yet our reality and that women and children are too frequently victims of abuse. We must do all we can to hold perpetrators to account and ensure that victims are supported in their pursuit of justice. That's why this budget is funding a new measure of $4.1 million for a coordinated enforcement and support to eliminate domestic violence trial. This trial will expand on the good work being done by jurisdictions such as New South Wales to identify and monitor high-risk offenders, keeping victims safe. Two weeks ago I met with the New South Wales Police commissioner, Mick Fuller, who told me about the work and successes of the high-risk offender teams instituted by the commissioner and the former New South Wales minister for the prevention of domestic violence, Pru Goward. Our frontline police are not only keeping victims safe; they're working to prosecute the perpetrators. Domestic violence liaison officers are truly the front line, making critical life-saving decisions to protect victims and to support them through to freedom and justice. We know that conviction rates for sexual violence crimes are unacceptably low. This budget is opening doorways to justice that have been out of reach for too many for too long. We're investing $85 million to more than double the number of family advocate support services, which not only provide duty lawyers but secure wraparound mental and social support to victims of family violence who are before the family law courts. We will explore the development and integration of specialist court capabilities for sexual violence offences. We must continue to have the difficult but honest conversations about curbing the scourge of domestic abuse—in our homes, in our hospitals, in our police stations and in our parliaments. As we develop the next national plan to reduce violence against women and their children, the Morrison government is determined to leave no-one behind. Budget 55 14:39 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Treasurer. On page 2-15 of last year's Budget Paper No. 1, the government said that a faster-than-expected COVID vaccine rollout would boost the economy by $34 billion. Where is the estimated cost of the bungled rollout in this year's budget paper? What is the cost? Honourable members interjecting— 14:40 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong As my colleagues point out—why is the shadow Treasurer smiling at the fact that it is important we roll out the vaccine as quickly as possible? More than 400,000 people received the vaccine over the course of the last week. There is a key assumption in the budget about the vaccine rollout. It is in Budget Paper No. 1 on page 36, where it states: It is assumed that a population-wide vaccination program is likely to be in place by the end of 2021. It's based on those assumptions, including around border closures, including about how we deal with and manage outbreaks when they occur, that we have made some of the other forecasts across the economy. But the key to Australia's economic recovery, as the Secretary of the Treasury and the Treasury maintain, is our ability to suppress those outbreaks when they occur. This is first and foremost a health crisis, and our ability to suppress the virus will determine the speed of the economic recovery, which is now well underway. COVID-19: Health 55 14:41 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister update the House on how further investment by the Morrison government is continuing to protect the health and safety of Australians against COVID and other potential pandemics to secure our future? 14:41 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Higgins. As she's pointed out in our discussions, we know that around the world the pandemic is not just continuing but is continuing to wreak devastating havoc. There have been over 750,000 cases and 14,000 lives lost in the last 24 hours. I hear almost a response of, 'Wow, so what?' from the other side— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs! Mr Hunt interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No, the minister will resume his seat. His microphone's off. Mr Hunt interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will now cease interjecting. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members will cease interjecting. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs will contain himself. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right will cease interjecting. I'm now issuing a general warning. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, on a point of order simply to assist the House, I think it's important for everybody to know that every member of this House on every side appreciates the gravity of what's happening around the world. That should simply be accepted and no games should be played with that simple fact of the integrity of members. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right! The minister has the call. Mr HUNT 00AMV Indeed, that is exactly the point I was making. There are 750,000 people who have contracted the virus in the last 24 hours. There are 14,000 lives that have been lost. In Australia, we are blessed with the fact that there were zero cases of community transmission. Of all of the different things that could be happening in Australia, this is perhaps the most important in the last 24 hours. The defences that we have built as a nation over the course of the last year are keeping Australia secure. They are continuing to keep Australia secure, and the investments which have been put in place as part of that are continuing. I note that the member for Higgins was one of 402,000 people last week to put her shoulder forward for the vaccination. There are many others who have done this in all parts of the country—82,000 in the last 24 hours. Very significantly, the budget contains an accumulated investment of over $25 billion in our COVID health response. That includes both our primary care, which is above $6 billion, and telehealth. It includes our vaccination program, which is over $7 billion. Very importantly, as part of that, I'm delighted to be able to say, as we announced earlier today, that the government has secured access to 25 million doses of the Moderna mRNA vaccine. As part of that, importantly, that allows us to have a medium-term strategy—where we are focusing next year on the ability to have booster and variant capacity. Now that the medical advice has indicated in particular this is important for the variant strategy—the ability to adapt—we've followed that advice and made that investment, but there are two other elements that are particularly important. The minister for innovation will help lead a process of securing mRNA investment and processing capability in Australia through an approach to market. Indeed, Moderna itself has indicated it is interested in participating in that process and potentially producing vaccine over the medium term in Australia. That means that we now have over 190 million vaccines, we have a new capability and we potentially have the capacity to produce the vaccines here in Australia. (Time expired) Budget 56 14:46 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Treasurer. Why did the Treasurer say on Tuesday that budget outcomes are based on an assumption that Australians will receive two doses of the COVID vaccine by the end of this year? 14:46 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong As I just said to the House, there was an assumption in the budget—in Budget Paper No. 1, page 2-6—that talks about a population-wide vaccination program likely to be in place by the end of 2021. As the minister for health said to the House just yesterday about first and second doses, there's a three-week period between the Pfizer first dose and the second dose. The key point that the member for Rankin and the House need to understand is that these are assumptions, not policy decisions, of the government and they are based on the best medical advice that we have. Morrison Government 57 14:47 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Housing. Will the minister inform the House how the Morrison government is going further in doing what works to secure our recovery by helping Australians achieve their goal of owning their own home and creating more jobs? 14:47 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I thank the member for Robertson for her question. She is undoubtedly one of the champions of first home buyers in this House. It was great to join her at Umina Beach and Woy Woy a few weeks ago to see up close what exactly the programs delivered by the Morrison government have done for first home buyers in her electorate. Of course, we heard already today from the Prime Minister about the success of the Home Builder program. The Home Builder program, which provided $25,000 grants for people to purchase a new home and supported one million jobs in the residential construction industry, has supported first home buyers. About 50 per cent of the people who accessed the Home Builder program were first home buyers, not, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested, people who would be investing that money in pearl taps and gold baths. There were no first home buyers, Leader of the Opposition, who were investing in pearl taps and gold baths. They were buying modest first homes. In addition, when I was visiting the Central Coast we met people who have taken advantage of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. In fact, I was very pleased to meet a young woman called Milwi, who had used the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme to purchase her new home with a deposit of five per cent, and hear her gratitude for the government. Not only could she buy a home with that five per cent deposit but she didn't have to pay lenders mortgage insurance, which would have been more than $10,000. What has this done? It has led to first home buyers being at the highest level for nearly 15 years. We've had 155,000 first home buyers till the end of March. When you compare it to the long-run average, it's 55 per cent higher than the 100,000 we would normally expect. What did we see on Tuesday night? The Treasurer outline to the House how we were taking further steps to support additional first home buyers and other groups in our community who we want to support. One that was outlined on Tuesday night that I'm most proud of is the Family Home Guarantee, a government-backed program which will allow single parents—84 per cent of which are women—to purchase a home with a deposit of as little as two per cent. I must say that we have been overwhelmed by the feedback that we've received from single parents who have said: 'The deposit hurdle is the reason I have not been able to purchase a home for my family. It's the thing that has stopped me purchasing a home for my children as well.' Allowing them to now purchase a home with a deposit of only two per cent, saving on lender's mortgage insurance, we'll get even more single parents either into the market for the first time or again. We're very proud to be taking even further steps to support homeownership. Budget 57 14:50 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Treasurer. On Tuesday the Treasurer said the budget was built on two COVID vaccine doses by the end of the year. On Wednesday, the Prime Minister overruled the Treasurer. Treasurer, that means either the budget's wrong or you're wrong. Which is it? 14:50 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong The budget is right about one thing, and that is that 250,000 jobs will be created under this government, off the back of 500,000 jobs that have been created since last October. The assumption is very, very clear in Budget Paper No. 1, and I repeat: It is assumed that a population-wide vaccination program is likely to be in place by the end of 2021. This is an assumption not a policy decision. If you are like the Prime Minister and you've already had one dose, then you have your second dose—because it's a few weeks after. It depends on when you have that vaccine as to when you have the second dose. But the other point that the Prime Minister made very clearly on 7.30 last night was that the budget does not rest on this assumption entirely. I think his words were: 'It does not rest on this assumption either solely or even completely.' That's what the Prime Minister said. The reason being is that the key factor that will help drive the momentum in our economic recovery is our ability to continue to suppress the virus. Central to that is that Australians continue to follow the medical advice and that state premiers continue to adopt proportionate reactions and proportionate responses to outbreaks when they occur. The gold standard has been the Liberal Premier in New South Wales, Gladys Berejiklian, because we haven't had a state-wide lockdown even though there have been outbreaks. So the key to the budget is that we continue to be successful and effective in suppressing the virus. That is what is important. That is what will help protect Australian lives and livelihoods. Small Business 58 14:52 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is going further in doing what works to secure and drive our economic recovery through continued support for Australian small businesses? 14:53 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I thank the member for Lindsay for her question and all her hard work supporting 15,000 small business and family enterprises in her electorate. This budget is backing small business 100 per cent. To quote ASBFEO, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman: The Federal Government's 2021 Budget is a clear acknowledgement that small and family businesses are central to the nation's economic recovery and future prosperity. It goes on to say: Tonight's budget represents a substantial financial and strategic commitment to making Australia the best place to start, grow and transform a business. The Morrison government is backing in small business 100 per cent. Right now, you'd be surprised to know, Cafe 7 at Paradise Point in my electorate have question time on because they want to hear how this government is backing small business in. That's what they want to hear and that's what Australian businesses want to know. All during the pandemic, the Morrison government has backed businesses in. Member for Lindsay, 5,800 of your businesses received JobKeeper, with 26,500 employees being supported. That's what the Morrison government has done for the seat of Lindsay. In terms of the tax-free cash flow boost, 5,200 of the member's businesses were backed in—$229 million paid. The measures keep going. As the Prime Minister said, from 1 July the tax rate for small and medium enterprises drops down to 25 per cent. That means $16 billion worth of tax cuts flows through to small businesses between now and 2023-24. The Morrison government is providing $16 billion to small and family businesses and $129 million to encourage entrepreneurship through the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme. We don't need six-year-old innovative bits of rubbish to come forward when it comes to policy. This government is stepping up and backing business in. The Morrison government is providing $1.2 billion in investment in the digital economy, 12 months extension for the government's instant asset write-off and of course the loss carry back—all that small business can use, backing in $16 billion worth of money in their pockets. There's a $10 billion guarantee of a reinsurance pool to cover cyclone and flood damage, which I know the member for Leichhardt has been backing in 100 per cent. We are backing small business in over the ATO. No longer will be the ATO be able to garnish and take away whilst a dispute is in train, because what this government is doing backing small and family businesses in. What small businesses know from this budget is they can trust the Morrison government to stand up and deliver for them. COVID 19: Vaccination, Budget 58 14:56 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Treasurer. On Tuesday he said, at his budget lock-up press conference, that Australians will get two doses by the end of the year. How is it possible that the Treasurer got this crucial assumption in his own budget wrong, in his official budget briefing, on budget day, surrounded by Treasury officials? 14:56 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong The shadow of a shadow Treasurer is here again. He has nothing really to come at. He hasn't asked questions about jobs. He hasn't asked questions about taxes. He knows that he has been outplayed. The reality is that there is an assumption. It's an assumption, not a policy decision. It's based on the best medical advice to us, which says—and I want to read it to him if he has struggled to understand it: 'The population-wide vaccine program is likely to be in place by the end of 2021.' We have seen more than 400,000 people receive a vaccination over the course of the last week. We now have 5,000 contact points around the country, whether they are GPs or state and territory clinics. The key to Australia's economic recovery is that we are continuing to suppress the virus. If we continue to suppress the virus we continue to maintain the momentum. The momentum will be continued by measures that we announced in the budget like lower taxes and increased investment in infrastructure and skills. When it comes to the vaccine rollout, we heard today that we've secured an additional 25 million doses of the Moderna vaccine. The assumption in the budget—one of a number of assumptions—based on the medical advice, with qualifiers like the word 'likely', says that, 'A population-wide vaccination program is likely to be in place by the end of 2021.' Our focus is on keeping Australians safe, keeping Australians in jobs and creating jobs for those who are out of a job. That's our focus. It doesn't seem to be the focus of those opposite. Budget 59 14:58 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is securing our recovery by building our national resilience through the national security measures in the budget? 14:58 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank the member for his question and recognise his very strong is interest in national security. Our government understands that a safer Australia means a stronger Australia. National security is essential to our economic recovery plan, and that's why we're investing over $2 billion in this budget to build a more secure Australia, a more resilient Australia. What this investment will do for us is, firstly, it will boost our national security. It will maintain our strong borders. It will improve emergency management. It will make our communities safer. It will help to protect our children from sexual exploitation. The record funding for our national security agencies means that we will be better equipped to combat the threats of terrorism, espionage and serious crime. Our $1.3 billion investment to boost ASIO's capabilities goes further towards securing our sovereign interests and improving our ability to counter the threats that we face in an increasingly complex world. To help us with that challenge, we're also delivering $40 million to protect Australia's critical infrastructure. Importantly, we're also tackling cybercrime and ensuring that security and trust are built into the foundation of Australia's growing digital economy. In an increasingly digital world, the threat of cybercrime has serious implications, not only for our economy but for our way of life. That's why I have elevated cybersecurity to a priority. We will continue to roll out our Cyber Security Strategy in the coming weeks and months. But, of course, it's not just the online world that poses threats to us. Our strong borders are more important now than ever before and that's why we're continuing to invest in Operation Sovereign Borders, providing an extra $7.7 million for the Australian Border Force to operate at international airports to disrupt threats before they even reach our border. With the investment in this year's budget, every single Australian can be assured that our government is focusing on what really matters: keeping Australians, our borders and our economy safe. Parliament House: Staff 59 15:01 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. When did the Gaetjens inquiry into what the Prime Minister's office knew about the reported rape of Ms Brittany Higgins in the ministerial wing recommence? The Prime Minister commissioned the inquiry three months ago; when will it report? 15:02 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question. When the Australian Federal Police commissioner indicated to the secretary of the department that he could continue the review, that was done. I understand that was done late last week. As a result, the secretary has informed my office that it will proceed. I haven't as yet been given a date by the secretary as to when he might conclude that, and I'm waiting for him to advise me of that. Business 59 15:02 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister please inform the House how the Morrison government is going further to secure our recovery by encouraging innovation that will support new jobs and business opportunities? And is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 15:02 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the member for the question. I know that the member, like the government, backs startup companies, backs new businesses and knows that the government is investing in policies that help fantastic innovative Australian businesses grow the economy. The examples are everywhere in this government's policy: the $600 million Entrepreneurs Program has helped 20,000 businesses innovate and commercialise. Each of those 20,000 businesses that have participated on average have created four new jobs for that business and generated an extra $1½ million in turnover. We've had tax incentives for early-stage investment that have seen about $630 million in early-stage innovation companies. In this year's budget, there was $124 million investment in artificial intelligence and also the patent box initiative, which is a $200 million commitment to Australian medical and biotechnological advancements through lower taxes. But I was asked about alternatives, and an alternative innovation policy did appear strategically in today's papers with this description: the opposition leader will use his traditional budget reply speech to launch 'Startup Year'. This is supposedly a brand-new policy which is designed to help 2,000 students with startup business ideas. Mr Speaker, as you'd be aware, the word 'innovation' actually, of course, means 'new idea'. The definition of the word 'innovation' is 'new idea'. The truly fascinating thing about the new idea from the Leader of the Opposition, the brand-new innovation policy, is that the new idea is exactly the same as a six-year-old idea launched by the former Leader of the Opposition in 2015 and then dumped before the 2019 election. In 2015, Labor announced a policy, in an amazing coincidence, designed to help 2,000 students. And would you believe it? It was going to help them with start-up business ideas. In what is perhaps the most remarkable of coincidences, the name of the 2015 policy was Start-Up Year. Imagine the lack of innovation it takes to not even be able to come up with a new name for an old policy. They could have called it 'restart-up year' or 'start-up year, again'! They could have called it 'start-up year 2: return of the start-up year'! But they weren't even innovative enough in a six-year period to come up with a new name for an old policy. Literally the best that the Leader of the Opposition can do in the space of innovation is to plagiarise a six-year-old idea of his predecessor. COVID 19: Vaccination 60 15:06 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh My question is to the Treasurer. Page 36 of Budget Paper No. 1 states as another assumption that 'most priority populations have been vaccinated'. Does the Treasurer maintain that most residents of disability-care facilities and most aged-care and disability staff have been fully vaccinated? 15:06 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong Over 10 per cent of the population has been vaccinated. Over 30 per cent of the population of those aged over 70 has been vaccinated. As the Prime Minister said on 7:30, that is expected to reach three million across the country at the end of this week. We are rolling out the vaccine as fast as possible. We are securing extra supply. We have 5,000 points of contact between the GPs and the state and territory clinics. In Tuesday night's budget, we put billions of extra dollars into new health measures to continue our COVID health response. National Security 60 15:07 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister inform the House how the Morrison government is going further in doing what works to secure our recovery by securing our nation and keeping all Australians safe? 15:07 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for Fisher for his question. I thank him also for his leadership of the committee here that deals with defence matters. He's a great supporter of veterans. I saw and met with some of them in Fisher recently. He has a particular passion for making sure that his local defence personnel and veterans are taken care of, and it's a great credit to him. This government has the same approach. We want to make sure that we can take care of the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. We want to make sure that we can protect our country not only today. Bearing in mind that the decisions we make today and the investments we make today will come to fruition in five or 10 years time, we need to keep an eye on what those threats might be. Similarly, when people have made decisions in the past whether to invest or not to invest, we live with those decisions today. When Labor were in power, they cut defence spending. They took money away from the defence department. They didn't put money into the Defence Force as was needed. We are now paying a price today because we bear the risk of a capability gap because the Labor Party spent money everywhere but in defence. They took money out of national security. Opposition members interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI They don't like it, but that is a fact. If you dispute the fact, stand up and point out where it's wrong. That is a fact. They did not support our defence industry. They did not support the Australian Defence Force. The fact is that this government has invested $270 billion over a decade into restoration of that support and making sure that we can support the security of this nation. We have $183 billion in the Naval Shipbuilding Plan, which represents the largest regeneration of the Navy since the Second World War. More than 70 vessels will be built in Australia. We're purchasing 72 F-35A aircraft to replace the Hornets, with 37 aircraft already received and more than 10,000 hours flown. We're investing $55 billion into modernising our land capability over the decade. We are putting money into strike weapons. We're putting money into helicopters, logistics resilience, robotics and autonomous systems. We're putting money, importantly, into cyberdefences. All Australians understand the risks that our country and other countries face in relation to those that would seek to exploit our systems. It is now more than ever important that we invest in those systems, and that is exactly what this budget is about. COVID 19: Vaccination 61 15:10 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh My question is to the Treasurer. I thank him for his earlier answer, but I ask again: does the Treasurer maintain that most residents of disability-care facilities and most aged-care and disability staff have been fully vaccinated? 15:10 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong The rollout of the vaccine has been gaining pace, including in disability-care places as well as aged-care places, and those opposite should support the rollout of the vaccine as we on the side of the House do. Veterans 61 15:11 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel. Will the minister inform the House how the Morrison government is going further in doing what works to secure our recovery by continuing to invest in a world-class system to support our veterans and our veterans' families that will focus on their wellbeing and suicide prevention? 15:11 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I thank the member for Braddon for his question and recognise his service in the Australian Army. I also recognise the way he's worked very positively and constructively to engage with veterans in his own community and throughout Australia. It has been my privilege over the past three years as the veterans' minister to spend a lot of time with our current serving personnel but also our veterans, and I have got to appreciate the amazing work they do. I want to take this opportunity today to thank the Department of Veterans' Affairs staff and the ex-service organisations and volunteer groups who do such amazing work to support their mates on their transition. There is a real partnership, and we can be proud of the fact that over the past hundred years in this place we have worked together to develop a system of support that does look after our veterans and their families upon their transition. I also take the opportunity to urge everyone in this place, and in the media as well, to please be part of the solution. The language we use when we talk about these matters is critically important. We need to be careful that we don't talk down the service in the Australian Defence Force. We need to be careful to make sure we don't talk down our veterans and their service to our nation, because the overwhelming majority of people who serve in the Australian Defence Force have a positive experience. They develop skills for life—things like leadership, problem solving, teamwork, resilience—and they are proud of that service. They have a difficult job and they do it remarkably well, whether it's in conflict situations or peacekeeping or humanitarian aid and disaster relief. They have a tough job and they do it very, very well. But, for those who experience a level of physical injury or mental ill-health issues after their service, we have some obligations as well, as a grateful nation, to make sure they are properly supported. I believe this budget does help to meet that obligation. It builds on the system of support that was previously in place, and, in this next financial year, in the order of $11.8 billion of support will be provided to 325,000 veterans and their families. So I do thank the Prime Minister and the Treasurer for the support they have given me as we've sought to focus more and more on the wellbeing of veterans, to focus on the opportunities for them on transition and to reduce suicide in the veteran community. This budget will deliver $775 million in new initiatives, and they'll be programs that will build on our world-class system of support for veterans and their families. The member for Braddon would be aware that there will be extra wellbeing centres for the Tasmanian community and South-East Queensland, and there will be an additional 440 APS staff added to the workforce, as we strive to reduce claim times for our veterans. I'm the first to acknowledge that our system is not perfect. It does need reform, and we're working in a very constructive and positive way with the veteran community to achieve those reforms. We see the impending royal commission as a chance to unite our veteran community. We really do need to stop talking our veterans down. We need to focus on providing for them the hope, the optimism and the confidence that will help those veterans transition well and succeed in civilian life. I urge anyone who is troubled by the conversation today to please contact Open Arms on 1800011046. 15:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—I associate Labor with the comments of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The issue of the mental health of our veterans is something that the whole parliament is united on. All of us owe a great debt to the men and women who wear our uniform, and we should look after them after they take that uniform off. We owe them that. Mr Morrison E3L I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his remarks. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 62 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Parliament House: Staff 62 15:15 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook To an add to an earlier answer I gave in response to the member for Sydney's question, it was 10 May. My recollection was late last week, but it was 10 May, which was early this week. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 62 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 15:15 The SPEAKER 00APG Before members leave the House, I want to give a short reminder about arrangements for this evening with respect to the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply speech. As outlined on Tuesday, the usual courtesies apply to the Leader of the Opposition's speech, as they did with the Treasurer's. With respect to this evening, the Leader of the Opposition will have the call, and he is entitled to speak without interruption. As with the Treasurer's speech on Tuesday, standing order 1 provides there is no time limit on the speech. The clock is used as a guide only. Again, whilst I haven't had to do this yet, if I'm required to make use of standing order 94(a), the member will be advised by written note. I ask all members to ensure that their guests comply with COVID-safe measures in place in the building and the standards of behaviour that apply in the galleries. I remind all those members with guests that they are personally responsible for their invited guests. I thank the House. COMMITTEES 62 COMMITTEES Northern Australia Committee 62 Membership 62 15:16 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a message from the Senate informing the House of changes to the membership of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia. As the list of appointments is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the list to the House. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 62 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Infrastructure 62 15:17 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Ballarat proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's cuts to infrastructure spending and its failure to deliver on its promises. I call upon those 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 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat This week's budget was a perfect example of everything wrong with this government's approach to infrastructure investments: big, overhyped announcements and a desperation for newspaper front pages. After eight long years in government, that is all they think infrastructure is good for. In Labor, though, we know that infrastructure isn't about the photo-op. It isn't about news packages or splashy, misleading front pages. It's about delivery. Infrastructure is about connecting Australians. It's about connecting people within cities, within states and across the nation. It's the road that gets our kids safely home from school. It's the train line that gets us quickly and efficiently to work in the morning, and home in time for dinner. It's the airports and the flight routes that allow us to visit our loved ones in distant corners of this vast country. It's the highway that allows truck drivers to safely transport our goods across the nation. It's the worksite where young apprentices learn their trade. It's the driver of growth where government investment is harnessed to grow Australian industries and to create new ones. It's about creating jobs in local communities. It isn't the photo-op that is important; it is the delivery. The announcement should be the smallest part of the infrastructure process, and it should be the least important, but it's the only part for which this government cares, and it's the only part that this government puts any effort into. On average, the Morrison government break their infrastructure promises by $1.2 billion each and every year. Last year, they broke their promise by $1.7 billion. In a year where hundreds of thousands of Australians lost their jobs, the Morrison government reached new heights in their failure to deliver. At least in previous years they have waited a bit longer to disappoint Australians; this year, it was only 36 hours. On Monday, the Prime Minister and his ministers told every Australian who would listen that the budget would include a new $10 billion commitment to infrastructure projects across Australia. It all sounded good—it made for great headlines on Monday—but it simply wasn't true. The government wasn't investing an extra $10 billion in infrastructure. In reality it was delivering $3.3 billion less—a cut to infrastructure spending over the next four years. Not a boost but a cut. The government might try to deny it, but it is right there on page 84 of Budget Paper No. 1: payments relating to the Infrastructure Investment Program, which are expected to decrease by … ($3.3 billion over the four years to 2023-24) … No amount of weasel words can hide this multibillion-dollar cut that sits at the heart of the infrastructure budget. Neither can the government hide that over half the funding for the new projects supposedly announced on Monday wasn't included in the budget at all. Monday's announcement, frankly, was a fraud. For the Northern Territory, for example, 99 per cent of the money promised on Monday is not in the budget. Only one per cent of the money promised in the budget will go to the Northern Territory in the next four years. How much do you think that might be, given the government's claim of $10 billion? It is $4 million out of the budget for the Northern Territory over the next four years. Instead of getting highway upgrades, now they are being pushed off into the never-never. Claiming that all this money is for gas roads is nothing more than hot air from this government. For Victoria, 87 per cent of its promised money isn't in the budget. The $2 billion commitment for the new intermodal freight hub in Melbourne's west is off-budget; it is not in the budget papers at all. We even know that the government is planning to fund it through equity investment, when or if it funds it at all. There is no location selected, and it isn't even expected to begin until 2027 at the very least. It is a mirage. In New South Wales, well over half the newly announced funding isn't in the budget. The biggest ticket item for New South Wales, the $2 billion for the Great Western Highway upgrade, is off in the never-never. It isn't expected to be completed until 2028 at the very earliest. In New South Wales, not a single cent of new money has been committed to public transport projects, despite public transport being a major priority for the state Liberal government. In South Australia, over a third of the money promised isn't in the budget. The biggest promise, the North-South Corridor project, is nothing more than a reheated announcement of a project that had already been announced in 2019 and won't start until 2023. Even the South Australian government has admitted that. It has been announced twice, and it got two headlines, but the government still hasn't done any work on building the thing. When it comes to Tasmania, I think I will do best to borrow the words of my colleague the member for Lyons, who told his local paper that the promise to upgrade the Midland Highway 'has been reheated more times than a dodgy takeaway'! Good on you, Member for Lyons! Queensland certainly got dudded. Not only is Queensland receiving less new infrastructure funding than any other state or territory per capita; Queenslanders will be left waiting years for any substantial money to flow to the projects they need. It's the same story for Western Australia, where only $81 million of new spending will go out the door next year. For the ACT, here in Canberra, it was good that the government remembered they actually exist. But they're going to need far more than the $123 million announced to complete the Canberra light rail. All this adds up to longer commutes, fewer safe roads, more crowded and inaccessible public transport and fewer jobs for Australians who need them now. After eight long years this government has no ideas left beyond making announcements it knows it won't deliver on and writing checks that will never be cashed. If you want to look for a really clear example of this, look no further than the Urban Congestion Fund. It is a $4 billion fund that was announced in the 2018 budget, and only $284 million has been spent. All the congestion across the country, and only a fraction of the money has gone out the door. Of the funding announced, 83 per cent has gone to Liberal or Liberal-targeted seats. In the Treasurer's own seat of Kooyong nine projects were announced—he must have been a bit worried that election year!—dating back to the 2019 election. I'm sure he had some fun with those announcements, but not a single one of those nine projects is actually under construction—in the Treasurer's own seat. This wasn't about getting Australians home quicker and safer. It was just about making the announcement. It wasn't about putting shovels in the ground or creating jobs. It was about grabbing a headline. Labor has a proud record on infrastructure. We didn't just announce things. We actually got on with the job of building them. Under the now Leader of the Opposition, our first-ever infrastructure minister, we delivered Tiger Brennan Drive and the Arnhem Highway in the Northern Territory. We invested a record $7.9 billion in the Pacific Highway and we built the Hunter Expressway. We doubled the federal infrastructure spend per Victorian and invested in the Regional Rail Link, benefiting my own hometown of Ballarat. We upgraded the M80 and duplicated long parts of the Princes Highway, east and west. In South Australia, we built the Northern Expressway, upgraded South Road and built new public transport, including the Noarlunga to Seaford rail extension and the Gawler line upgrade. We didn't break our promises by over $1 billion each and every year. We actually built things. We didn't have to make up announcements, because we had achievements to be proud of. Australians don't need more cuts and more delays when it comes to infrastructure. We need infrastructure delivery now. We need those jobs now, in every town, in every city and in every region across our community. Infrastructure boosts productivity. It improves public transport. It gets people home quickly and safely. It gets our agricultural goods to market, into our supermarkets and onto our tables. As we recover from COVID, we need more jobs. When it comes down to it, that is what these failures mean: fewer jobs, longer waits in traffic, more crowded trains and fewer safety upgrades—less time at home and more time behind the wheel. Infrastructure is important because it connects us. That is why governments absolutely must deliver on the promises they make when it comes to infrastructure. But this government doesn't deliver. It overpromises and underdelivers. In this week's budget, it cut $3.3 billion from Australian infrastructure. When it comes to infrastructure, as it is on every single front, this government is all about the photo-op and never about the follow-up. 15:27 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I'm very pleased to rise to speak on this topic. I want to start by reminding the House of this government's record on delivery of infrastructure. Let's look at the projects delivered just in the last 12 months. The Pacific Highway, Woolgoolga to Ballina, $3.745 billion—delivered in full. NorthConnex, running from the M1 at Wahroonga to the M2 at Pennant Hills, a $3 billion project with $412 million from the Commonwealth—delivered in full. The Mackay Ring Road stage 1 in Queensland, $398 million—delivered in full. Let me particularly acknowledge the local member there and his compelling video advocacy urging us 'to put a ring on it'. That was a shocking image, but it certainly produced the funding and the outcome. The Bringelly Road upgrade, $407 million—delivered in full. The Great Northern Highway Muchea to Wubin upgrade in Western Australia, $276 million—delivered in full. The North-South Corridor Darlington upgrade in South Australia, $210 million—delivered in full. In fact, since we've come to government, 440 projects have been completed and delivered by this government. We hear this ludicrous argument from the shadow minister that an underspend is somehow problematic. I'll tell you something that these guys on the other side of the chamber, who have zero experience of business, do not understand: if you announce a project, estimate it's going to cost X and it turns out to be delivered for less than X, that's not a bad outcome. That's a good outcome. Saving taxpayers' money is a good outcome, but this incompetent, commercially illiterate rabble simply would not understand this. We had the complaint from the shadow minister that somehow it's problematic if some of what is announced is beyond the forward estimates. We're running a 10-year pipeline. It's about long-term systematic planning, something that this hopeless rabble have no idea of. Let's look at the 2013 budget delivered by the then minister for infrastructure, now the Leader of the Opposition. What percentage of that was in the forward estimates? Thirty per cent. Seventy per cent of it was beyond the forward estimates. These people are completely inconsistent in the contradiction between what they're now complaining about and what they actually did when they were in government. While we're talking about contradiction, we had the suggestion that there's political bias in what we're doing on this side of the House. Political bias—this is from somebody who's on the most valuable players list as far as the Auditor-General is concerned. Remember her great performance in administering the Regional Development Australia Fund? What did the Auditor-General have to say about the member for Ballarat? He said: nearly half of the funding awarded …went to applications that had not been recommended by the panel … He said: … the recording of reasons for funding decisions did not adequately explain how the preference evident for projects located in Australian Labor Party (ALP)-held electorates had resulted from a merit-based process. That's what the Auditor-General said about you. The suggestion from the shadow minister that she is some kind of authority, some kind of paragon of virtue, when it comes to the basis for making decisions—this is a shadow minister who has absolutely no credibility on that subject. What have we committed in terms of spending? We've committed in this budget $15.2 billion of infrastructure spending, including $2 billion for the Great Western Highway from Katoomba to Lithgow; $2 billion for the Melbourne intermodal terminal; $400 million for the Bruce Highway, that's additional funding in Queensland; $237.5 million for METRONET in Perth; $161 million for the Truro bypass in South Australia; $250 million for the Monash roads upgrade; $380 million for the Pakenham roads upgrade; $178 million for the Gold Coast rail line from Kuraby to Beenleigh. That's $15.2 billion, part of a forecast $70 billion over the next four years. Now let's have a look at what Labor spent when they were in government and what's happened since we've come to government. Labor's average spending over the years they were in government was $5.2 billion. It turns out that, under the coalition government, actual spending is 15 per cent higher: almost $6 billion. The entire premise of this ludicrously misconceived matter of public importance debate this afternoon is completely without foundation, but where we find the absolutely yawning gap—the gap between the fantasy world that the shadow minister lives in and the reality—is when we go back and have a look at the record of Labor on delivery and infrastructure when, of course, the infrastructure minister was the man who now holds himself forward as an alternative Prime Minister of Australia, and what a chilling prospect that is. This is the man who committed $91 million to Sydney west metro in the 2009-10 budget. What happened? This project was cancelled by New South Wales Labor: Commonwealth money committed, project cancelled. In the 2009-10 budget, Commonwealth Labor provided $61 million to the Adelaide O-Bahn: also cancelled. What kind of record of delivery is that? It's a hopeless record of delivery. Let's not forget that the man who is presenting himself as the alternative Prime Minister of this country also has his fingerprints all over the hopeless failure of this lot when it comes to the implementation of the National Broadband Network. Here's what the then minister had to say. On 4 September— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The minister will pause for a moment. The level of interjections from members on my left is far too high. There will be no more interjections from members on my left. That is the last warning. The minister. Mr FLETCHER L6B This is what the then minister had to say in September 2013: We are rolling out the NBN as fast as it can be rolled out. This is the largest infrastructure project in Australia's history [and] you can't click your fingers and just get it done. Of course, they'd had six years in government by that point. Do you know how many residences they'd managed to connect to the fixed-line network by the time they left government? Barely 50,000. Do you know how many are connected now? Some eight million. So 11.9 million are able to connect; 8.3 million are connected to the NBN. To add insult to injury, do you know how many were connected in the now Leader of the Opposition's electorate as at September 2013? There were zero premises connected to the National Broadband Network. He described it as the largest infrastructure project in Australia's history, and Labor's record of implementation was beyond chronically incompetent. They'd spent $6 billion and barely 51,000 premises were connected. Let's look at Western Sydney Airport. Just for context, where are we on Western Sydney Airport? Right now, after we announced it in 2014, we are up to the point where half of the earthmoving has been completed. Thirteen million cubic metres of earth have now been moved. We are halfway through the earthmoving part of the project, and before too long we will be in a position to announce who has been chosen to build the new terminal. We are making systematic progress. We're on track to get the project delivered by 2026. What did the then minister for infrastructure say in December 2009? He said: The simple fact is that the Sydney region will need a second airport. I can announce that the Australian and NSW Governments have today established a joint planning taskforce which will identify strategies and locations to meet the additional aviation capacity which the Sydney region needs. I want to be clear: the current Leader of the Opposition has always been committed to Western Sydney Airport. I don't doubt that for a second. But I will tell you the difference between Labor and the coalition when it comes to delivery of this very significant infrastructure project. In six years, when it came to Western Sydney Airport, Labor delivered nothing. We are getting on with the job. There are 270 pieces of earthmoving equipment at work right now. It is a remarkable piece of delusion for our political opponents to bring up the issue of delivery and implementation when it comes to infrastructure. The reality is that Labor's record on delivery and implementation of infrastructure is hopeless. Ours is substantial. We're getting on with the job and we're happy to talk about infrastructure every day of the week. 15:37 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin 'Remarkable delusion'—nothing could sum up the contribution of the minister more than those two words. It was a remarkable performance. I'll give him chutzpah, though, because how could anyone who's been a minister for communications in this government talk about the NBN and compare our record to the record of this government? That is a remarkable thing to have done. We heard a lot in question time about going further. I don't know which focus group produced that slogan, but I think it must have been inspired by the pen of the minister for urban infrastructure, as he then was—and as he is now again, for reasons I just don't understand—when he described the decision to purchase the Leppington Triangle land as 'very sensible'. Seriously, this is the bloke who puffed out his chest about his commercial nous and poured scorn on that. What amazing commercial nous to purchase land for 10 times its worth! The minister was again showing more front than Myers when he talked about the Auditor-General, who will move into his department because of all the rorts that are buried within it. He didn't talk about the Urban Congestion Fund. I can't put my finger on why it might have been so. It's about to deliver a report. It's not the last damning report it will deliver, but one of many. What we've seen under this government are cuts to infrastructure, dressed up with language that persuades the front page of a newspaper one day but always falls apart soon thereafter. The member for Ballarat set this out effectively: $3.3 billion in underspends. In his parallel universe, the minister seems to think this is something he should be congratulated for. Now, an underspend might be fine if it meant delivering projects on time and under budget, but is that what he meant? No, it is not, because nothing is being built. It's moneys that were promised to puff up a headline, that make a claim but that don't see anything being realised. Speaking of things that aren't being realised, let's talk about the Commuter Car Park Fund. Let's talk about that signature project in the lead-up to the last election. Two years ago it was announced. Two of the car parks have been completed. Others, including the one that was promised at South Morang in my electorate, have been abandoned on the quiet. It, like so many others, could never have been built. Two are under construction. Forty-three are still only being planned. Less than 10 per cent of the moneys committed have been acquitted. Six of the projects haven't even been scoped. This is another underspend that, presumably, he wants to claim credit for. It is absolutely extraordinary. This government treats infrastructure simply as an election-claiming device in its marginal seats—or even its not-so-marginal seats, as when the Treasurer was clearly very, very anxious about his own seat in the lead-up to the last election. In Labor, we see things differently, and we always have. It was 50 years ago that Gough Whitlam said that a national government that has nothing to say about our cities has nothing to say about our national life. He was right then and he'd be even more correct now, because now even more Australians than then live and work in our cities. But the Treasurer and this government are blind to this reality. There were lots of words said by the Treasurer on Tuesday night, but he couldn't bring himself to say the word 'city' or the word 'suburb', nor could he talk about any agenda to boost productivity and employment in our cities—in particular, in our city centres, which need help to get our economy back and moving and to get people back into jobs, and good jobs. There isn't a word or a line item in the budget that deals with CBD recovery, despite the urgings of just about everyone. The other things that are missing in the budget are City Deals. Saturday 15 May will be the second anniversary of the then minister, Minister Tudge, announcing the north-west and south-east Melbourne city deals. It has been two years, and what has happened since then? Nothing. Like the Hobart City Deal and the South East Queensland City Deal, it is more announcement and no delivery, which is their signature. I wonder if this is another underspend that Minister Fletcher, with his commercial nous, can claim credit for. Around the world we are seeing governments, whether it's Joe Biden in the US or even Boris Johnson in the UK, take infrastructure seriously, underpinning recovery. Here it is nothing more than a slogan to wrap around more empty promises from a tired government with no vision for jobs or growth. (Time expired) 15:42 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde As much as I like the member for Scullin, typically of those on the other side, it's about actually looking at what they do, because, if you listen to what they say, you'd think they were going to pave the world in gold, but they never actually do that. They never actually deliver on anything. But I'm pleased to say that, in my time in office since 2010 and while in government since 2013, this government has actually delivered for its communities. The subject of today's MPI is infrastructure. I'm pleased to say that there is a whole lot of infrastructure that this government, over the last seven or eight years, has actually delivered for the electorate of Forde and, more broadly, for South-East Queensland and across the country. But that is just one aspect of the many things that this government, over the past eight years, has delivered each and every day to make the lives of Australians better, and that's what we're focused on doing. We are focused on making the lives of Australians better each and every day, and I'm proud of this government and what it has done in that space. Locally, as I said, we have delivered on infrastructure, starting with exit 54 at Upper Coomera. A $10 million investment was the final bit of the funding puzzle needed to get that duplication project underway and built. I can tell you that the residents in Upper Coomera and in Coomera, on the other side of the highway in the member for Fadden's electorate, are extraordinarily pleased at the success of that intersection upgrade. Being able to traverse the highway from either side has made life much easier for them. But, importantly, it has also contributed to tourism traffic going to Dreamworld. If anyone is going to Dreamworld, they use that exit. I can also report to the House a $16 million upgrade to the service road and intersections at North Maclean on the Mount Lindesay Highway. The member for Wright would well know that piece of road because his electorate is on the other side of that. This was a vital piece of upgrade for this community to improve the safety along that stretch of road on the Mount Lindesay Highway, which, as many in this place would know, is a road that is increasingly busy and, sadly, increasingly accident-prone, with people losing their lives. This upgrade has made a substantial improvement to that section of road. In addition to that, work is now well underway on the next major upgrade of duplication on the Mount Lindesay Highway between Stoney Camp Road and Chambers Flat Road—another piece of the Mount Lindesay Highway that was increasingly subject to accidents. I was out there recently to check the preliminary works. Given the fabulous weather we have in Queensland, work was proceeding apace, and I will be pleased to see the completion of that over the next couple of years. Another very important project that members of this House and certainly the member for Moreton would be aware of and very pleased that it's been finished is the Gateway merge to Springwood upgrade on the M1—a $115 million investment by the Commonwealth government in partnership with the state government, who put in another $90-odd million. It's made an enormous difference travelling from Brisbane down to the Gold Coast. We are now working on the bit from Daisy Hill or Slacks Creek north to the Gateway, which is a $375 million investment by the Commonwealth government. Work is well underway on that, particularly through the Springwood stretch where the M1 will be widened out to six lanes and there will be a new merging lane from Compton Road onto the M1, which will make that whole intersection a lot safer and a lot easier. They are just some of the practical examples of this government's delivery of infrastructure projects in and around the electorate of Forde. It just shows how nonsensical the motion from those opposite is, because this government is actually delivering for my community. I would add the $1 million investment in conjunction with the Gold Coast City Council for work along the Williamson Road and Days Road intersection, installing traffic lights at a very busy intersection that services a number of schools. I spoke to Principal Mark Sly, from Coomera Anglican College recently, and I know how pleased he was about the delivery of that intersection upgrade. This government is delivering every day for Australians right across this country. (Time expired) 15:47 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton It is great to speak on this MPI about infrastructure. It's quite an exciting week for me, because I am going back to Brisbane tomorrow, and there is a very big weekend for rugby league in Brisbane. It is the Magic Round. Every game of rugby league will be played at Lang Park. So you will be able to see all the teams that you want to see at Lang Park. I'm sure most Queenslanders will be excited about that, as will a lot of New South Wales people. But there will be one team missing. That team won't be playing. It has gone missing. It went missing on Tuesday night. It is 'Team Queensland'. Mr Ted O'Brien interjecting— Mr PERRETT HVP There is an interjection from the captain of Team Queensland. Remember when it was announced in February by the member for Bonner in the Sunday Mail that there was a coalition of federal MPs from Queensland lobbying their caucus to get infrastructure and jobs for Queensland. There was a big write-up—Team Queensland and the captain, the member for Fairfax, speaking. But, unfortunately, it is not a very good team at all. When it is setting out defence they have no-one at all on the left wing, one person in the centre and all of the rest of them over on the right fighting to stay on the right. And what happened? Their caucus colleagues ran over the top of them. I listened on Tuesday night for the Treasurer to announce all of these things for Queensland after Team Queensland want into bat for them. I thought they were going to have all of this stuff handed down because Queensland needs so much infrastructure. But what did we actually see in terms of announcements? Well, we really good dudded. In terms of new infrastructure funding, we are worse off than any state or territory per capita. Queensland—the state that delivered government for the Morrison government—is worse off than any other state or territory. So, Team Queensland, you're not fit to peel the oranges and be Team Queensland. That's ridiculous: you went into bat and we went backwards! Unbelievable! Queenslanders have been left waiting for years for any substantial money to flow. There was $1.6 billion promised—worse than Victoria and worse than New South Wales—but when you look through it we're only actually getting $18.8 million flowing in the next 12 months. That wouldn't even buy the ornamental gates on the Leppington Triangle—$18.8 million in 12 months. And over half of the new money promised for Queensland won't be delivered in the budget. It's unbelievable! Let's look at the $4 billion Urban Congestion Fund. It was announced in 2018, but only $284 million has actually been spent. Where were Team Queensland? Where was the member for Bonner? Where was the member for Bonner, going in there and saying all the things that he promised in the Courier Mail? They said they were going to have some tunnels from Acacia Ridge through to the Port of Brisbane. There wasn't even money in the budget for a shovel! That's what they delivered for that project, which is going to put trucks, trains and coal into the middle of my electorate in that disaster called Inland Rail. They somehow think that Inland Rail is going to go to the Port of Brisbane, except Acacia Ridge is where it stops, 37 kilometres from the Port of Brisbane. I need to give the Deputy Prime Minister an atlas or something. He promised that he would actually come to my electorate and look at the Coopers Plains rail crossing project, which has been a bane of my electorate's existence for 50 years. We really need to get the Coopers Plains rail crossing sorted out— A government member interjecting— Mr PERRETT HVP Well, your government made a commitment to it, Queensland captain! Government members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Members on my right will cease interjecting. Mr PERRETT HVP Your minister actually made a commitment to fund it, as did the Brisbane City Council and the state government. But the Deputy Prime Minister promised that he would come. He stood at that dispatch box and promised that he would come. He said in question time on 24 July 2019 that he would come to Moreton to look at the Coopers Plains rail crossing. I'm still waiting for him to come. He doesn't know where Queensland is. Obviously, Team Queensland hasn't told him where Queensland is— Mr Wallace interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member for Fisher will cease interjecting. Mr PERRETT HVP when it comes to actually sorting out projects that will save lives. The Coopers Plains rail crossing has been announced by the RACQ as being the most dangerous crossing. People have lost their lives at that crossing. The Queensland government has committed $66 million towards the crossing removal and Brisbane City Council—a Liberal city council—has committed $40 million, but still the Deputy Prime Minister hasn't arrived. So we have lots of concerns about Team Queensland. They should be sacked! (Time expired) 15:52 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I'm actually delighted to speak on this subject of infrastructure and absolutely refute the suggestions of the opposition that the infrastructure development put forward by this government and implemented by this government over years are not substantial. I would like to say that in Mallee in particular we have done incredibly well, and this budget is further evidence of the work that is being done by this government to value regional communities, particularly the community of Mallee. In this budget, Mallee has received $37.7 million in local roads and community infrastructure—$37.7 million! That will make a huge difference to our local councils, and I have spoken to some of the leaders in our councils about this incredible announcement. The Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Fund, a regional fund, means that councils can choose which projects they want to do. They listen to their communities, they listen to their local voices and they respond. Over the past two phases, significant works have taken place, whether they were roadways, streetscapes, buildings or upgrades to halls. This particular announcement is even more funding than the combined value of phases 1 and 2. My electorate is very excited. In addition to that, we have the Building Better Regions Fund. Mallee actually did very well out of round 4 of the Building Better Regions Fund. In Mildura we have $17.6 million dedicated to the Mildura South Regional Sporting Precinct. It is growing by the day. It is up in the sky now on, obviously, its foundations. The ovals are being built. It is a magnificent structure. From there, we move on to other projects around the electorate such as the livestock exchange down in Horsham and other worthy projects. The Building Better Regions Fund round 6 is now going to be implemented at a higher rate. It is something that I have lobbied the Deputy Prime Minister for, because the Building Better Regions Fund is fundamentally fabulous. Everybody in Mallee enjoys and benefits from the work that is being done with these funds. Not only are we seeing buildings, not only are we seeing roads; we are seeing people employed. There are jobs happening around the electorate. It is such an incredible thing for our regions to thrive and to see them thrive through this particularly difficult year. I have spoken about the Mildura South sports precinct and the Horsham livestock exchange. The Mallee Accommodation and Support Program in Mildura received $2.6 million for their hub. It's a magnificent building. They provide incredibly essential services for the homeless and those who are disadvantaged and vulnerable in Mildura. I was particularly thrilled that the Woodbine disability accommodation project in Warracknabeal received the money it did. We have done the sod turning for that project, and I am looking forward to seeing that project completed. It has boosted morale in Warracknabeal and will continue to boost the jobs in the region for trades and those who are providing the materials to build those buildings. The regional funds for infrastructure are incredibly important for every small building and every small road that is built. We are committing, in addition, $15 million to the Calder Highway, between Melbourne and Mildura, arguably the most important road in Mallee, on top of the $60 million that is already committed for this corridor. This is without doubt the most important road in my electorate. We are also committing an additional $1 billion to what is now our $3 billion Road Safety Program. This additional investment will deliver thousands of kilometres of upgraded roads in regional Australia. This government's infrastructure investments mean safer and more liveable communities for the people in Mallee. But they also mean jobs—thousands and thousands of them. The Road Safety Program alone is expected to create 4,500 jobs, while the government's entire infrastructure package will create an estimated 30,000 jobs. That is extraordinary. The Morrison-McCormack government is securing Australia's recovery with a record investment in infrastructure as part of the 2021-22 budget. We are supporting jobs, driving growth and helping to rebuild Australia's economy from the COVID-19 pandemic. 15:57 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan Yesterday I was asked what I thought of the government's budget that was delivered on Tuesday night. Like many people, I spent a lot of time trawling through the budget papers with a highlighter in hand, specifically looking for areas of interest where people in my electorate have raised issues with me and looking for funding for Western Australia, for the northern suburbs and for the electorate of Cowan. After that lengthy and, I must admit, at times unpleasant exercise, an analogy came to my mind. That analogy was that, if you were to take your kids grocery shopping and you were to say to them, 'Okay, you guys fill up the trolley,' at the end of it you would have spent $100—or, in this case, $100 billion—and all you would have is sweets and lollies but nothing to sustain you through the week. That's what this budget reminds me of. It reminds me of a trolley full of sweets and lollies and empty wrappers with nothing of substance, nothing to sustain you—no actual reform and no actual fixing of any substantive issues, whether it's around wage stagnation and wage growth or around poverty and social housing. It is, as the shadow Treasurer said yesterday, bereft of vision. There is nothing to address the fact that Australia is behind Senegal in the complexity and diversity of our economy. It purely is a budget of announcements and tinkering around the edges. This is no more evident than in the area of infrastructure. When you look at the budget, it's all in the detail. There is a real caveat emptor—buyer beware—that comes with this government. As the member for Sydney said earlier today, it's all in the Ts and Cs. It's in the Ts and Cs that you find the real budget. That's where you find it—in the fine print. That's where you find the truth about infrastructure. You find that 55 per cent—more than half—of the spend in the big shiny infrastructure announcement is actually beyond the forward estimates. In WA, just 15 per cent of the infrastructure spend is allocated beyond the forward estimates. On all the promises that this government makes the caveat emptor—the buyer beware—is don't hold your breath on the delivery. As members before me have said, over the eight long years that we've endured this government, the modus operandi of this government has been all about the announcement and not about the delivery. My good friend and neighbour the member for Perth, the shadow assistant minister for Western Australia, raised this earlier this year when the member for Stirling put out an advertisement that claimed that planning was underway and construction was starting on the Reid Highway-Erindale Road interchange. That was the claim made by the member for Stirling that was boldly announced in a newspaper advertisement. In Senate estimates, when questioned about this interchange that has supposedly been funded or is supposedly underway for construction, the department official actually said: … the … government has only made a commitment to the business case. The business case has been approved. It should commence later this month. The business case is due to be completed around September-October this year … Hello? There is currently no funding for construction—no funding. Wait a minute! There was a big ad in the paper that said it was already underway or starting soon. That's what happens when you look at the Ts and Cs and the fine print with this government. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 I call the member for Fairfax—sorry, the member for Fisher. 16:03 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Mr Deputy Speaker, I'll take that as a Freudian slip! This budget has been fantastic from an infrastructure perspective. Those on the other side of this chamber mustn't communicate with their state colleagues, like the Labor state government in Queensland, because if Mark Bailey, who's the Minister for Transport and Main Roads in Queensland, knew that they were going to put this up as an MPI, he would have said: 'Stop! Don't do it to us. They're going to cane us.' The federal government is spending $110 billion on infrastructure. During the week, $15.2 billion was announced in the budget. From the Sunshine Coast perspective, since I was elected in 2016, $3.5 billion has been spent on road and rail infrastructure benefiting the good people of the Sunshine Coast. Mr Deputy Speaker, you are a very worthy recipient of that. It's like the road from Cooroy to Curra is paved in gold! It's such a good quality road. It is a real exemplar. No doubt the good people of Gympie and beyond to the north think that that road is absolutely fantastic as well. Locally, from the budget, there's $172 million in road and rail infrastructure. Of that $172 million, $160 million is going to be spent on totally redesigning and rebuilding that deathtrap that is the Mooloolah River interchange. I can hear members on this side of the fence thinking and saying, 'But that can't be right, Andrew, because the Mooloolah River interchange is a state government controlled road. It's a state road. Why would the federal government be putting $160 million into a state road?' Let me tell you why we're doing that. The federal government, once again, is having to put $160 million into the redesign and reconstruction of the deathtrap of the Mooloolah River interchange—a road that is 100 per cent the responsibility of the state government—because the Labor state government are so incompetent and so inept, ruled and led by an absolutely incompetent transport minister, Mark Bailey. The federal government has one responsibility when it comes to infrastructure and roads and that is funding 80 per cent of the Bruce Highway, but, unfortunately, more and more money of federal government funds is having to be spent on state government infrastructure. It's like rewarding the poor behaviour of a child that is having a tantrum. You give them a lolly and, guess what, they will throw another tantrum. Every time we offer them more money to build state infrastructure what do they do? They complain. A couple of years ago we offered them $390 million to duplicate the North Coast railway line. What did they say? 'It's not enough. We want more.' I know why they're doing this: because they are broke. They are so broke. They are beyond broke. They are spending money. They are borrowing money to pay their public servants' wages. That's why they can't invest in infrastructure. That's why they had to come, cap in hand, to the federal government every day saying, 'Please, sir, can I have some more?' It's a really difficult position because the more we give them the less they spend. We just can't let the good people of Queensland suffer because of this incompetent state government. We saw an article in the Courier Mail just a couple of days ago about this incompetent state Labor government wanting to increase the costs of infrastructure through union sweetheart deals, to the cost of an additional 30 per cent, to look after their CFMEU mates. So not only are we paying an extra 30 per cent now—that's not good enough—they want to charge an additional 30 per cent premium. We are going to be right on top of this. If we win the Olympic bid we are going to make sure damn sure the Australian people get value for money. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Before I call the next speaker, I acknowledge the presence of the students up in the gallery from Catherine McAuley Catholic Primary School in Orange. 16:08 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon That's why I've got this tie on, to acknowledge that mob up there. As the shadow minister, the member for Ballarat, mentioned earlier, Tuesday night's budget was not a great one for the NT going forward. Once again the Territory were left behind by this government in terms of infrastructure. As she mentioned, over the next four years, over the forward estimates, only one per cent of funding. So 99 per cent of the infrastructure funding in the budget on Tuesday night was four years hence. So that led to a quick calculation of about $4 million dollars for roads funding—new funding. Four million dollars over four years in new roads funding. That's $1 million a year, a kilometre a year, in new roads funding from those opposite for the Northern Territory, which is one-sixth of the Australian land mass and has the ability to feed a big chunk of our near neighbours, has the ability to produce all sorts of energy and has the ability, and indeed the responsibility, to defend our nation. That's not much in roads funding, to say the least. That 99 per cent of the funding that was in the budget that is four years hence—there could be a couple of elections between now and then, so we're supposed to trust those opposite that, in the very unlikely case that they will still be in government after the next election and the election after that, they will be good for some roads funding for the Northern Territory. It's an utterly shameful figure. Yesterday, when I asked the Deputy Prime Minister to confirm that, because I was still a little bit in disbelief, he just talked about old spending, when we wanted to know about new spending for the next four years. He even started talking about defence spending, which is obviously different from infrastructure spending for roads for the agriculture industry, for the pastoralists out there and for economic development in the Aboriginal communities of the Northern Territory. The Prime Minister did much the same when he came to Darwin a couple of weeks ago and was re-announcing defence spending. I know as well as anyone how important defence spending is. It is important, but there is a lot more to the Northern Territory than the defence of our nation. As important as it is, as focal as it is and as needed as it is, there is a lot more going on, and that needs infrastructure like roads to unlock the potential. Don't take just my word for it, Louise Bilato, the executive officer of the Northern Territory Road Transport Association said, 'It's the Commonwealth's responsibility to maintain and upgrade the national highway network. Yes, it's very unfortunate that $150 million over seven years commencing in 2024 isn't really an exciting conversation for the road transport industry.' That $150 million would be welcome if it were in the next financial year, but it's not. It's well down the road, in 2024. The time is now for developing the Northern Territory and northern Australia in general, but unfortunately—well, the time was eight years ago, really. It is eight years that those opposite have been charged with the responsibility of running the country, and we're still waiting. There were promises made in the last federal election about Kakadu, and that Kakadu funding is still nowhere to be seen. These are really important economic development opportunities for the north, and they're being left to languish by those opposite. It's not good enough, and we expect better. 16:13 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on this MPI today. I thank the Labor members for bringing it forward, because it gives me the opportunity to talk about the most important thing for my electorate of Ryan, which is infrastructure and tackling congestion, which is what this government is all about. I have considered that, in fact, the most important issue for the Labor members is not anything that they have raised throughout this debate but is what occurred in question time, when the Leader of the Opposition was caught out blatantly recycling and plagiarising a previous Labor election commitment that the people of Australia have already thoroughly rejected twice. If that's the best that Labor MPs can do, then you know that they're not far away from recycling some of their other policies, such as the retiree tax, the property tax and the reckless spending they undertook during the GFC. That is of particular concern to my electorate because, at the end of the day, if you can't manage money, if you can't manage the budget, then you can't deliver infrastructure, and this is the pitfall that befalls every Labor government at every level. They simply cannot manage money, and that is the brick wall that we in Queensland are butting our heads up against with the Queensland Labor government. The member for Ballarat said something that I actually agree with. It was the only thing that she said that I agree with. She characterised this government's infrastructure spending as 'writing cheques that will never be cashed'. Well, that is the problem that we have in Queensland. We keep writing cheques to the Queensland state Labor government and they keep refusing to cash them. It is unbelievable. What do you have to do to get a Labor MP or a Labor government at any level to actually build infrastructure? Right now the Morrison government and the Queensland MPs are doing the heavy lifting. They are certainly putting the money on the table when it comes to projects—and I'll take you through a few projects in my electorate where we have done exactly that—but we can't get Mark Bailey to stop playing politics and simply cash a cheque and put a shovel into the ground. I do take umbrage with some of the comments from the Labor MPs that Queensland hasn't done well out of this budget. Queensland has done exceptionally well out of this budget, particularly—not only but particularly—because Queensland is the only state with a signed-up federal agreement to fund 50 per cent of an Olympics bid for our city and our region in South-East Queensland—50 per cent of the vital infrastructure that we will need to deliver. There is $5.8 billion waiting in the wings of this budget if Brisbane and South-East Queensland can be supported by the Labor state government to win the 2032 Olympic bid. That will see a new infrastructure boon for my city of Brisbane and my electorate of Ryan. It comes on top of a $110 billion infrastructure pipeline that the Morrison government is already investing in Queensland. It is significant. It is part of our road to recovery, it's part of creating jobs and it's part of reducing congestion. But what I expect to hear from the Leader of the Opposition tonight—and what we have been hearing from Mark Bailey and the Queensland Labor government for years and years—is the Albo 'go slow' on our roads. They will hold up the 'go slow' sign and they will just refuse to get on with putting a shovel in the ground, despite the funding that has been put forward and continues to be put forward by the Morrison government. For example, the last two years that I have been elected to this place has seen $230 million—in the space of two years—be committed to my electorate to fund the upgrade of local roads. Yet one of those commitments, $12.5 million for the Kenmore roundabout, is entirely a state responsibility. The federal government need not have got involved. The only reason we are involved is that the state Labor government has committed no money to the western suburbs of Brisbane for over a decade. We got involved and put $12.5 million on the table, and it took two years just for Mark Bailey to issue a press release to say that he had matched the funds. It took two years just to acknowledge that the funding was there. How frustrating! What a frustrating way for the Labor Party to treat the residents and the people of my electorate in Ryan and the Brisbane western suburbs. That is not how this government behaves. This government is about successfully managing our finances. We will keep pouring more money into infrastructure and we ask for Albo and the Labor Party to get out of the way and let us get on with the job. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The discussion has concluded. COMMITTEES 72 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 72 Report 72 16:18 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the following reports: Advisory report on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020—Report, May 2021; and Report by statement: A review of regulations re-listing Jaish-e-Mohammad as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code Act 1995—Report, May 2021. In accordance with standing order 39(e) the reports were made p arliamentary p apers. Mr DREYFUS HWG by leave—Under existing mutual assistance processes, it is not possible for Australian authorities to obtain information directly from foreign communications providers and vice versa. As a result, it can often take many months for Australian law enforcement authorities to obtain evidence that is held overseas, including text messages and emails stored on foreign servers. Under the framework proposed by the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020, it would be possible for Australia and foreign countries with which Australia has an agreement to effectively circumvent the existing and often cumbersome mutual assistance processes. In short, the international production orders bill would provide a framework for Australian law enforcement agencies and ASIO to obtain independently authorised international production orders to require designated communications providers located outside Australia to intercept electronic communications or access stored communications and communications data, and authorise designated communications providers located in Australia to comply with similar orders from foreign law enforcement and intelligence agencies. A so-called outgoing international production order could only be obtained by an Australian law enforcement agency or ASIO if the relevant communications provider were located in a country with which Australia had a designated international agreement. Similarly, a communications provider in Australia would only be permitted to comply with a so-called incoming international production order if it originated in a country with which Australia had such an agreement. There is no doubt that the existing mutual assistance processes are cumbersome for Australian law enforcement agencies wanting to obtain important evidence, much of which is increasingly held overseas by offshore data providers. It can presently take many months for information of this kind to be obtained by our police forces. All members of the Intelligence and Security Committee therefore welcome the fact that Australia and the United States are in the process of negotiating an agreement to address this issue, and we also welcome the fact that the government has introduced a bill to establish a framework under which such an agreement could be put into effect. However, the bill as currently drafted is seriously deficient. It is largely silent on a range of important matters, including the purposes for which a foreign government could seek information or request assistance under an international production order, the nature of the information that could be sought directly from Australian telecommunications companies under an international production order, and who a foreign government could seek information about under an international production order. The government says that all of these matters will be addressed in the agreements that it reaches with foreign countries, including the United States, but, with respect, that is not good enough. It is not the role of the parliament to write blank cheques to the executive branch of government. Under the bill as it is currently drafted, it would be theoretically possible for the current Australian government or any future government to permit, by agreement, foreign law enforcement or intelligence services to, among other things, obtain information from Australian communications providers for any purpose whatsoever and intentionally target Australian citizens or permanent residents. Nor is there anything in the bill that would prevent an Australian government from entering into and then giving effect to agreements with undemocratic authoritarian regimes—agreements that could have serious repercussions for human rights and the rule of law, both in Australia and overseas. While we all, on both sides of the House, hope that would never happen and while such agreements could theoretically be disallowed by the parliament, Labor and Liberal members of the committee do not believe that they should exist in the first place. I'm pleased to report that the committee has made 23 bipartisan recommendations to improve the bill. Some of the key recommendations include amending the bill to provide that, first, in order to qualify as a designated international agreement under the proposed framework, an agreement with a foreign country must prohibit the foreign government from, among other things, intentionally targeting an Australian citizen or permanent resident; second, foreign countries with which Australia has an agreement must comply with a range of conditions relating to the collection, use, handling and disclosure of information obtained under the proposed framework; and, third, any country seeking an agreement with Australia under the proposed framework must, at a minimum, demonstrate respect for the rule of law, the principles of equality and non-discrimination and applicable human rights obligations. The committee has also recommended that the bill be amended to include additional protections for journalists and media organisations consistent with the recommendations we made in the report that we tabled last year in respect of press freedom. I remind the House that the government accepted all the recommendations made by the intelligence committee in its report in respect of press freedom but has yet to implement a single one of them. I do not have time to go through the many other significant recommendations the committee has made in its report. I will say that all of them are important and that all of them should be implemented by the government. This report is yet a further reminder of the importance of the work that is done by parliamentary committees, specifically the intelligence and security committee. On behalf of the Labor members of the committee I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this report, especially the dozens of organisations and individuals who made thoughtful and detailed submissions. I would like to thank the committee secretariat for their professionalism and hard work. Finally, I would like to thank the Liberal members of the committee, especially the chair, Senator Paterson, for working constructively with my Labor colleagues and I to produce this report. BILLS 73 BILLS Competition and Consumer Amendment (Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme) Bill 2021 73

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme) Bill 2021

Second Reading 73 16:26 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to speak in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme) Bill 2021. I have long sought to help small-business vehicle repairers in my electorate and around Australia. Their businesses have been thwarted from working on new cars by the car manufacturers' refusal to share the information necessary to work on today's computerised vehicles. They asked me to push for a mandatory information sharing scheme. This bill is long overdue and very welcome. I know that this bill is supported by the House; many members have been pushing for this. While it has taken some time to consult the industry, costing Australian drivers over $1 billion every year, according to the ACCC, I commend the government for introducing a bill to achieve this aim, to bring Australia in line with the European Union and a number of states in the US. At the heart of this bill is consumer choice and support for local small businesses. When we buy a motor vehicle we should be able to have it repaired and serviced by a qualified mechanic of our choice, perhaps close to where we live or work, based on price or on the recommendation of others, particularly in rural areas. It is a fair and reasonable expectation. Once, vehicles were less complex to repair. I know my first car was much less complex to repair; I think it was made in 1969, and it didn't have a computer! But all of today's cars have computers in them. Today our choice of repairer has been, until this point, constrained by the limited availability of service and repair information. You need real-time access to digital files and codes for each car to conduct repairs or service. They are usually owned and controlled by the car's manufacturer, tying the consumer to the car dealer. It is monopolistic and plainly unfair to the qualified local small businesses and to the consumer. If you live in regional areas you don't necessarily have a large dealer to take your car to in any event, so it's particularly unfair for regional people. In 2017 the ACCC found existing voluntary obligations were insufficient to make car manufacturers share the same technical information provided to the dealers on fair and reasonable terms with independent repairers. This applied even to environmental, safety and/or security related information necessary for repair or service of a new car. This all equates to cost, delay of repairs and a lack of consumer choice. This bill addresses deficiencies in the voluntary arrangements. It will require manufacturers to promptly share all diagnostic repair and servicing information with repairers and training organisations at a fair and reasonable market price. It will allow consumers to choose their own repairer, which is so important in regional communities such as mine. The minister will be able to make disallowable regulations to update technical details or the scheme's operation and prevent any attempts to frustrate the scheme. Penalties will be provided for bodies corporate and individuals who fail to comply, and a new statutory scheme adviser will be established to administer the scheme and ensure this is effective. This is about fairness—fairness for consumers and fairness for small businesses. I thank the government for introducing a bill that seeks to address the great challenges that our automotive repair businesses have experienced for many, many years, and unnecessarily so. I commend the bill to the House. 16:30 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I thank the previous speaker for her contribution to this debate on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme) Bill 2021. Firstly, I would like to commend the member for Fenner, who commenced this procedure. Sometimes things just make sense, and that's why we work on a bipartisan approach—because this just makes sense. In fact, it should have happened a long, long time ago. So I do thank the member for Fenner. I also commend the industry for becoming so heavily involved. Whilst that is partly self-interest, but for them we certainly wouldn't have this outcome here today. I'll just deal with the machinations of what the bill is actually doing and then talk about the real-life results of what will happen after this bill is passed. The objectives of this bill are to promote competition between Australian repairers of motor vehicles and to establish that level playing field by mandating access to diagnostic repair and servicing information on fair and reasonable commercial terms. Secondly, it enables consumers to have those vehicles diagnosed, repaired, serviced, modified or dismantled safely—in case of need—efficiently by a repairer of their choice. It will also encourage the provision of accessible and affordable information to repairers from registered training organisations. Importantly, it will protect safety and security information about those vehicles and ensure the safety and security concerns of customers, information users and the general public. It will provide low-cost resolutions to disputes that would occur under the scheme and promotes competition. And, finally, to ensure the provision of accessible and affordable information, scheme information must be offered at a price that does not exceed a fair market price. What has been happening over the years is effectively a monopoly by manufacturers. Currently, around one in 10 motor vehicle repairs taken to workshops are affected by a lack of access to service and repair information. Effectively, that pushes costs up and so excludes some people from the market who can't afford those costs. It also creates delays in having vehicles serviced. The repair and service of new cars is increasingly reliant on access to the electronic service and repair information and data produced by the manufacturers. Independent repairers who are not authorised or affiliated with car manufacturers are reliant on manufacturers sharing such information voluntarily. Those are the machinations of the changes in this bill. What they mean in real terms is threefold, and the third one which I will speak to is probably unintended but most significant. But, firstly: it means that our repairers in regional areas, who haven't had the ability to access this information, will now be able to do so. That will mean that they can earn more money as they can get access to these vehicles. These are highly qualified and highly trained professionals who have been prevented from providing these services to the locals because of some overseas company. I know that I for one, in years gone by, thought, 'I can't take my car to my mate Joe who does a great job on my other car because the manufacturer says, "If you do that, you are going to void your warranty."' That's completely unfair. So that fixes that area. But what it also does for the whole of the economy is provide that competition. We know if there's competition anywhere—it doesn't matter whether it's in repairing vehicles or providing surfboards—then the prices will be lower and the options will be greater. That is exactly what is happening here. No longer will you have to wait three, four or five weeks to get your vehicle serviced because you can't get in or pay $1,000 because there's no competition. You'll be able to get in next week and it might cost you $400 because of these simple yet very important changes. I spoke about an unintended consequence. There are four pillars of road safety. Two of those pillars are safer vehicles and safer systems. This falls into both categories. I say 'safer vehicles' because I just spoke about the delay in the time one might have to wait to have one's vehicle serviced. Each year on our nation's roads almost 1,200 people die. In fact, last year, 1,127 people lost their lives on our nation's roads. The year before it was 1,188. Some of those accidents were due to mechanical faults of the vehicle. If there's no competition and you have to wait longer to have your car serviced, this may affect the safety of that vehicle. So, by making this small change, what the government has done—and it was bipartisan; I acknowledge that—is actually make our vehicles safer and contributed to the road safety message. Think about the very, very sad story that led to the Sarah Group, where a young lady's car broke down on the side of the road and she and a tow-truck driver who stopped to help her were tragically killed. That was Sarah Frazer. Her father, Peter Frazer, started the Safer Australian Roads and Highways, named after his daughter, Sarah. Imagine if that had been a mechanical fault that had been prevented and she hadn't stopped there. It would be a different world for Mr Frazer. It would be a different world for Sarah. I talk about the unintended consequence of this very small yet important change which helps the consumer, helps the industry and creates competition, but what it is also doing is potentially changing somebody's life. I again commend the member for Fenner and thank the committee for their work together and commend the bill to the House. 16:38 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'm pleased to speak in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme) Bill 2021 and to acknowledge, as the previous speaker did, the work that the member for Fenner has done on this issue over a period of time, considering the kinds of changes that were needed and how they might be framed and advocating for them in the media and in the public domain. I think it was good that the member for Cowper acknowledged that work, and it would be good if we could do that a bit more often in this place. There are a lot of things the parliament achieves through collaborative effort in the committee process and we probably don't draw attention to that enough, and that contributes to the view that people have that we all just shout at each other and don't apply ourselves always in the best spirit for the purpose that we are here to serve, which is to improve things for the women and men of Australia. But this is an important change, because it essentially takes away what could be rightly described, up to a point, as a monopoly. It's probably better to describe it as an ineffective and obstructive kind of vertical integration. We essentially had a situation where car manufacturers and related dealers controlled access to information that was necessary to allow vehicles to be repaired. They denied the ability for independent repairers to undertake that work. The best way to understand that is by listening to a quote from a member of the industry. In speaking about this some time ago, he said: The modern motor-vehicle is just basically a computer on wheels. Even simple things like changing a tyre, changing a component on that vehicle, checking the oil level and what have you is all now computerised. And the car companies are controlling the computer gateway into and out of the vehicle and how you communicate with that vehicle. And at the moment, they're shutting independent local mechanics out. It started off with intermittent issues on older vehicles, but as each model year has come out, the situation is getting more and more dire. Our industry are having to use workarounds sometimes it might take them four, five hours to find the information for an issue they should have got in 10-15 minutes. That's a loss of productivity and a loss of profitability. As the member for Cowper said, in some cases, it has probably resulted in people just not getting their cars repaired. That would have been particularly the case in rural and regional areas, where access to a large dealership just might not be possible—you've got your local business in country, rural and regional Australia and you want to get your car repaired but you can't, because the critical information in the computerised data and the various gateways, as just described, are denied to those businesses. It absolutely makes sense that we now change from what was a failed experiment. It was a voluntary arrangement that this government wanted to try back in 2014. It didn't work, as those kinds of voluntary arrangements generally don't. There's no natural encouragement for big business, who see a competitive advantage for themselves in squeezing out competitors and making more money as a result. There's no natural imperative for them to want to change that. If you ask them nicely or leave it to some sort of voluntary arrangement, nothing will really change. It's time that we made the change mandatory, and that's what this bill achieves. Who does it benefit? Of course, it benefits the 23,000 businesses that operate as independent motor vehicle maintenance outfits and repairers. It supports the 150,000-plus workers that are engaged in that sector. But, ultimately, it really benefits Australian consumers and households, because it means that car owners have more choice when it comes to getting their car repaired or maintained. It is a matter of choice. It's a matter of a fair, open and competitive market. In fact, I'd go a little bit further than that. I'd say that, when it comes to the kind of vertical integration that this bill takes away—the exclusivity of that vertical integration—there's an argument to be made that we actually want motor vehicles to be looked at by independent repairers; people who don't have a vested interest in the way that a particular make and model of car works. We know that motor vehicle products, like lots of products, are designed to be fit for purpose, but that's not always the case. We sometimes find that the airbag or the brakes or something else don't work. In the case of a motor vehicle, if that's the reality, the likely outcome is that someone is going to get very badly hurt. I know that the dealers who are associated with manufacturers would undertake their service and repair obligations with the utmost seriousness—I know that's the case. But it's actually healthy to have a service ecosystem that includes lots of independent repairers, who may be, on some occasions, just a little bit quicker to pick up on the kinds of inherent faults that need to be addressed on a larger basis. That's just a matter of having a system that works better, with some better checks and balances, than it might if the only people who are repairing and maintaining cars are the people who are also selling them and essentially depending, for their profits and their livelihood, on those vehicles being seen as problem free. I think that's another benefit this bill will deliver. It bears saying, on this issue, that properly effective and fair markets don't naturally occur. A mistake we make too often, and it's a view that some people would like us to have, is to think that markets are a bit like the law of gravity or other natural laws—they exist without human influence and the best thing we can do is just let them get on with their inner workings. Markets are created by us. They are something that human beings have brought into existence, and they only work well, and for the ends that we need them to deliver, if we take an active interest in how they're operating. The reality is that, if you want fair, open and competitive markets, you need to have carefully, rigorously and properly overseen markets, because participants in a market don't necessarily, as individual entities, have an interest in those things. If you're a market participant, you would actually rather get larger, have fewer competitors and dominate the area you're in, because there's a whole series of advantages that come from that. So that's what happens. You get people, in whatever market it is, who try to grow, outdo their competitors—and swallow them up if they can—and get bigger and bigger and bigger. When that happens, all the things that are supposed to help markets deliver efficient outcomes get taken away. As in so many areas of Australian life, you end up with two big players and they reach a relatively comfortable accommodation where they can maximise their own interests, which are not often the same as the interests of ordinary women and men in Australia. This is a case in point. Of course car manufacturers, with the dealerships they operate and the services they provide, would rather keep that all in-house; they would rather make it part of their large, vertically integrated business. It allows them to control the product, and it allows them to control price. That's not in the interests of ordinary women and men in Australia, and that's why we need this market intervention that comes along and says: 'You don't get to achieve that market power and inflict that market inefficiency on all of us. We're not going to have that. You need to provide that information on a fair, open basis so we can have proper competition and the market can do what we need it to do. And you will be paid fairly for that,' because that's how the bill works. 'You have to provide the information, and you'll be paid fairly for it, but then independent operators get to service the vehicles of people right around Australia, particularly in rural and regional Australia, and they get to have the benefits of that.' That market issue leads on to a broader issue termed the 'right to repair'. In a way, this piece of legislation is the first of what I hope will be more instances of government stepping in and seeking to provide an expanded right to repair. There are a range of reasons why that should be the case. There's a consumer interest in it; we can't have a situation where companies decide to design a product in such a way that the only choice a consumer has is to buy it, use it until it fails and then buy another one. That cannot be the way that the consumer world works. We cannot allow producers to design their products and then to operate in a way where the outcome is planned obsolescence, on the one hand, and then, on the other, the requirement to simply go and buy a new one because the battery's dead and you can't replace the battery. Surprise, surprise—the battery was only ever going to last 18 months. It probably could have been designed to last longer, but 18 months is what the focus group testing told them people would be prepared to tolerate before they'll have to go and buy a new one. We can't allow that to happen. It's not fair to consumers, but it's also not sustainable—in every sense. It's not sustainable for our environment. We can't just have a linear economy of using raw materials to make products that are thrown into landfill, are burnt or end up in the ocean. We can't have that in terms of the environmental impact, but, in fact, we can't have it from the point of view of resource sustainability. There's just not a limitless amount of stuff in the world. We need to use the materials that are here, at a time when the population is very large and is continuing to grow and at a time when resource consumption per capita is continuing to grow. It's not some weird Left alarmist statement to say that if we keep going on the path we're on then we're going to hit a brick wall or we're going to run off a cliff, because there simply, logically, isn't going to be more of everything for the way that we're using it and wasting it. The broader concept of the 'right to repair' fits within some of my responsibilities as the shadow assistant minister for the environment in terms of waste and recycling, because at the top of that hierarchy is that you reduce waste in the first place. You design goods so that you don't throw them away if you don't have to. You use them for as long as possible by repairing them as much as possible and by making sure that they're designed to be repaired. You ensure that manufacturers are obliged to consider that in their design process and that they make sure there are parts available. We need to make sure that there are processes whereby things within an object that are likely to wear out, which might represent only a tiny proportion of the object itself, can be replaced, rather than having the object designed in such a way that, when the one little thing comes to the end of its functional life, the whole object—the other 98 per cent of that material—just gets thrown away. We need to ensure that that sort of product stewardship gets stronger. Then we need to enable opportunities for other kinds of businesses and waste and resource management participants to be part of ensuring that we waste less, that we reuse more and that we recycle as much as we can those things that can't be repurposed, repaired or reused, so that, at the end of all of that, we are only left with the barest minimum of residual waste. Obviously there are going to be some things where, because of their hazardous nature or other aspects, we may need to consider something like waste to energy, but that should be for the tiniest, tiniest residue of the productive process. This fits into that, and I welcome that it's happening, but it's disappointing that it's taking so long. The voluntary arrangement was entered into in 2014. The issues with it were acknowledged in 2017. The Productivity Commission began to have a look at it in 2017 and said that the voluntary arrangement was not working, that the dealers and manufacturers were not cooperating and that independent businesses, including business in my electorate of Fremantle, were not being given access to the information they needed to repair cars for ordinary Australian citizens. Then, in 2018, thanks to the work of the member for Fenner and others on this side of the House, there was a commitment to making the change that we now see. But that was in 2018. It is now 2021, and this won't be introduced until 1 July. It would be nice for things like this—which is ultimately being done in a way that, I think, we on both sides of the House agree on—that the issue and the solution could be seen more clearly earlier and that we could make the kind of progress that this bill represents without the seven-year delay that has occurred between 2014 and now. I would like to see the principles at the heart of this bill around the right to repair considered more carefully in the future, and I would like to look at other ways in which we can ensure that we have a much more sustainable approach to resource use and a fairer approach to consumer rights. 16:53 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam As I rise to speak on this important bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme) Bill 2021, I want to thank the member for Fenner for the contribution that he made not only in the debate before the House but also in ensuring that this issue has stayed on the public agenda since it was first raised by Labor Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury back in 2011. Had it not been for the excellent work of the member for Fenner, this, like so many other issues, would have gone into the pile on the Prime Minister's desk, with a tag in front of it, 'Broken promises and undelivered'. The tireless work of the member for Fenner in ensuring that the public saw the benefits, that the industry was on board and that the government were tirelessly embarrassed because of their inaction ensured that this bill was brought before the House today, so I'm very pleased to be speaking on his second reading amendment in this debate. I also want to give a shout-out to a friend of mine from my electorate. He migrated to Australia as a young man. He and his wife started a small auto repair business. Originally, it was around the corner from my electorate office, on Marshall Street in Dapto. Felice Di Cesare, or Phil as we know him—if you are needing a talent to sing at your daughter's 21st or at an engagement party, Phil's your man. He's a champion bowler; he's a wonderful baritone; he's an outstanding human being. He's involved in the local Rotary club. He's involved in so many charities. He represented the district and the state in bowling. He is just an outstanding human being. If you need your car repaired, Phil is the bloke you want to get on the job. He has now handed the business over to his daughter and son-in-law, and they're doing a first-rate job at the business as well. They're a small operation, a small business, but too often businesses like this get squeezed out of the market. They have the talent, they have the ability, they have the expertise, but too often they get squeezed out of the market by the operations that are put in place—it's the equivalent of third line forcing , actually—by manufacturers or large retailers and distributors. This bill goes to that issue in the area of automotive repair. The government has broken some promises to the Australian people over the last eight years, but it's often the lesser-known promises it breaks that are the ones that whittle away at household budgets, and I will return to the issue of cost of living before I sit down. This is a scheme that should have come into place many years ago, but, because of the dithering of the government, the constant change in office holders—treasurers, assistant treasurers, prime ministers—it has never seemed to be a priority to bring it forward to the parliament so that car owners could have some relief and car repairers could get a fair crack at the business they so sorely need. It means that car owners have spent years paying more than they ought to have paid to get their new car fixed or serviced. It has also denied the independent mechanics a fair chance to compete for work, giving an unfair advantage to the big carmakers. Needless to say, those big carmakers are now all foreign owned because the government chased the last manufacturers out of the country, so it beggars belief that we are honouring and putting in place arrangements that actually give preference to the mob who left Australia but leave in place highly uncompetitive arrangements disadvantaging small businesses here in Australia. We live in an information age. Modern cars are no longer the rubbery, rickety-steering wheel, the seat belt that never quite fit, the bench seat that never quite felt comfortable and the electronics that were never quite reliable. We live in a modern age where cars are effectively a computer on wheels. And not too many years from now, the modern car will be a dirty big battery, driven by a dirty big computer with a driver more or less directing an intelligent driving system. That makes it all the more important that we have a robust market for the repair of these vehicles. We must not relax for a moment the level of standards and expertise that is needed to repair these vehicles and ensure that they are safe. We also need to ensure that we have a robust market and access to the necessary data and information that are going to enable those repairers to do the right sort of job to keep our vehicles and our roads safe. Under this government, the big carmakers have taken full advantage of their market position by keeping data to themselves, and not sharing it openly and transparently. Make no mistake, the abuse of market power is definitely on a par with what we've seen in some of the large multinational technology companies and it's consumers that are paying the price. New car owners were given no real choice about where to get their cars serviced or fixed, and anyone who has had a car serviced lately can tell you the results: higher prices. You thought you were going in for something pretty simple but you were paying through the nose. The Liberal Party approach to this has been somewhat of a mess. It pays to go through some of the history of it. In 2011, as I mentioned, David Bradbury, who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, requested that the Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council report on the consumer harm that was being done by the lack of access to service and repair information, the data. It had been locked up by the big manufacturers in exclusive arrangements with their preferred retailers. The path was cleared to ensure that we could have the right sort of legislation put in place to remove these anticompetitive practices. However, in 2014, under the Liberal government, key industry associations managed to convince the government that a voluntary agreement was going to be enough. They agreed, with the government, on an access to service and repair information for motor vehicles agreement, that placed voluntary obligations on car manufacturers to share, with the independent repairers on commercially fair and reasonable terms, the same technical information that they provide to their authorised dealers. We had a lot of doubts about this when it came into place. We thought there had been plenty of time for the manufacturers to put in place the right sorts of arrangements with the whole of the repair market. As it has turned out, our doubts were well placed. After two years of operation even blind Freddy could see that their solution was a failure. The ACCC, as well as the bigger independent operators like Kmart and Ultra Tune, condemned the voluntary code and forced the government to commit to a review of the code. This was all announcement and no follow through, as is so often the case with this government. The government's review never happened so the ACCC stepped in again. It was only when Labor, armed with the ACCC evidence, said that enough was enough that real action happened. The mandatory data scheme that we're debating today and we'll finally legislate will bring the major car makers to heel. It's a win for households, a win for the independent mechanics and a win for common sense. It's particularly a win for households, because when you look at a household operating sheet—the budget that a household puts on the kitchen table and they have to ensure they make balance at the end of every month—after putting food on the table, paying the mortgage and the electricity it's the cost of running the car which is one of the greatest expenses. The insurance cost, the maintenance and repair costs, the parking cost—let's not forget the initial purchase cost or the leasing cost. It's one of the largest expenses of a household when they put their budget together and they're trying to make ends meet. So anything that we can do to bring down the cost of having that car on the road—it's absolutely essential if you live in regional Australia, as I do—has got to be a good thing. This is budget week and you would have noticed—have a look at the budget papers—prices are going up. In fact, they're going up considerably faster than wages. It's why we say that the government has completely missed the point. In the budget they handed down on Tuesday night, we see it there in black and white, prices going up, wages going down. The government has not got a policy. The government has not got a policy for household budget relief. We're seeing wages going down, prices going up and the government trying to disown its own budget. If there is a weakness at the heart of this government, it's its failure to grasp the situation facing ordinary workers and ordinary households. Their plan for economic recovery is a plan based on wages going down and prices going up. There's not a strategy at hand to deal with that. We welcome the fact that the government has finally got on board and adopted a Labor policy from 2011. It was originally brought to this House by David Bradbury. It was put back on the political agenda by the member for Fenner in his former role as the shadow minister responsible for consumer affairs and competition matters. Finally, we find a bill before the House. After several failed attempts, we have legislation before the House, which we welcome. I speak in favour of the second reading amendment moved by the member for Fenner. I thank him for his work and I thank my colleagues for their work in keeping pressure on the government to see this matter finally brought before the House. I commend the bill to the House. 17:06 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I support not only the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme) Bill 2021 but also the member for Fenner's second reading amendment, which points out how this government has failed to act in a timely manner. Labor moved in 2018 to make these reforms, encouraging the government to act and implement this important initiative to ensure that Australians have the right to get their car serviced where they want and to boost competition in the car repair sector. It's pretty simple: if you buy a car, you should be able to access information to fix it and you should be able to choose your mechanic, and mechanics should be able to access the information they need to fix your car. I commend the member for Fenner for his persistent lobbying on this issue. The government could have chosen to support small business in 2018, when the member for Fenner first raised this. The government could have chosen to support Australian car owners in 2018, when the member for Fenner first raised this. They didn't and here we are four years later. The member for Fenner has persisted, and it is a testament to his determination that we finally have this bill in the House today. Labor knows that a better deal on car service and repair will put more money back into the pockets of car owners and also give 23,000 independent repairers a boost. It's good for households and it's good for business. That's why we've pushed for years to have a scheme that will require car manufacturers to share technical information with independent mechanics, on commercially fair and reasonable terms, with safeguards that enable environmental, safety and security related technical information to be shared with the independent sector. New cars are computers on wheels. Real-time access to digital files and codes, which vary from car to car, is needed to complete many aspects of a repair or service. Car manufacturers generally own or control this technical information and in many cases are the only sources. Whether you own a Toyota Corolla or a Ford Ranger, you should be able to choose where you get your car serviced. The car manufacturers' protection racket on this information pushes up prices for car services and limits the ability of independent mechanics to grow their business and generate more jobs. For many years now Labor have been calling for independent mechanics to get access to this critical information that car manufacturers make available only to authorised dealers and preferred repairer networks. We've pushed for this reform because it will not only deliver savings to drivers, who will have better choice and easier access to repairs, but also create a level playing field for independent mechanics, who will be able to stay in business as a result. Labor understands that it's your car and it should be your choice where you get it repaired. A level playing field on car service and repairs will deliver money to the household budget and give local mechanics a boost to their business. Small repairers should not be locked out of business because they simply don't have the information that they need to fix cars. This is a Labor win. Labor have been pushing this issue for a very long time—first in 2011, when the Hon. David Bradbury, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, requested the Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council report on consumer harm being caused by lack of access to service and repair information. In 2014, under the Liberals, key industry associations agreed on access to service repair information for motor vehicles—heads of agreement that placed voluntary obligations on car manufacturers to, in general, share with independent repairers, on commercially fair and reasonable terms, the same technical information they provide to their own dealers. The ACCC and independent mechanics, including Kmart Tyre and Auto and Ultra Tune, agree that this scheme was a failure, with very few car manufacturers—Holden being a notable exception—providing access to technical information. The government delayed a review into the voluntary agreement, breaking a promise to do so. The review was finally folded into the ACCC's new car-retailing industry market study, released in December 2017. Labor's 2018 commitment to create a mandatory data-sharing scheme and the advocacy of individual Labor representatives, in partnership with local small mechanics, forced the government to take action. Labor supports this bill. It is a good thing, but it should have happened sooner and it wouldn't be happening at all without Labor's advocacy and without the advocacy of the member for Fenner, who has been a tireless advocate on this issue which is good for business and good for people who drive cars, which, as we know, is the majority of us. 17:11 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Labor is driving a better deal to put more money back into the pockets of car owners and give more than 50 independent repairers in the electorate of Burt a boost with a plan to ensure vehicles can be serviced by any mechanic. New cars are computers on wheels. Real-time access to digital files and codes, which vary from car to car, is needed to complete many aspects of repair or service. Car manufacturers generally own and control this technical information and, in many cases, are the only sources. Whether you own a Toyota Corolla or a Ford Ranger, everyone should be able to choose where they get their car serviced. Currently, limited access to this vital information pushes up prices of car services and limits the ability of independent mechanics to grow their business and generate more jobs. A Labor government will 'require car manufacturers to share technical information with independent mechanics on commercially fair and reasonable terms'. Those were the words from a local media release that I issued after visiting the fantastic Kelmscott Autofix mechanics in August 2018. Labor committed to levelling the playing field for independent mechanics back then, following independent recommendations from the ACCC in 2017. This tired, eight-year-old coalition government is only just catching up now. The independent car repair sector has been crying out for years for reform. We are proud to say that the legislation being put forward now, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme) Bill 2021, is a step in the right direction—a step only being taken after years of campaigning by mechanics, car owners and Labor—for our local mechanics across the country. The first I heard of the need for this sort of reform was when I was being assisted by RAC Roadside Assist. This was during my first election campaign as a candidate. The technician mechanic shared with me the limitation on roadside assistance services that are a result of the limitations on access to car manufacturer information. This reform now sticks up for those roadside assistance services, as well as our local mechanic small business, and will not only deliver savings to drivers, who will have better choice and easier access to repairs, but create a level playing field for those independent mechanics and help them to create jobs and apprenticeships too. There is a real advantage to doing a mechanic apprenticeship at your local mechanic. You learn how to work with new cars, old cars and all types of cars. You're not just doing regular servicing; you're doing diagnostics and problem solving. This is a great apprenticeship opportunity and puts independent mechanics in a position where they have a level playing field and are able to take on more apprentices, and it helps solve one of the shortages often overlooked in this country—the dire need for more well-trained mechanics. Ensuring that independent mechanics have access to this added technology ensures that the education of these apprentices of tomorrow is exponentially better, because they will be able to do all the work that, at the moment, can only happen with a dealer mechanic. Not to mention that, if you live in a country town with only one mechanic or only one dealer and you have a car of a different brand, you might not be able to get it serviced in your home town. You may potentially have to drive hours to the next major town or to a capital city to get your car serviced, significantly disrupting the business of your likely multiple-generation family-owned local mechanic, let alone the time and effort involved in you getting your own car repaired. This will be a great change that will keep local small business local. This move follows similar reforms that have happened all over the world. It's nice to see now that Australia is finally catching up. Just as with vaccine rollouts, this Prime Minister is more 'SlowMo' than 'ScoMo'. It's your car, and where you get your car serviced should be your choice. This legislation before us today will enable consumers to have their vehicles attended to by an Australian repairer of their choice who can provide convenient, efficient and safe service. This bill will promote competition between Australian motor vehicle repairers and establish a fair, level playing field for those independent operators in competition with larger dealerships currently locked into monopoly provision—people like the Ditchburn family, who run Autofix in Kelmscott, who have been servicing my family's car for literally generations. I have a lot of siblings, so they've probably made quite a lot of coin out of the Keogh family, I can tell you! Their customer service is second to none, and it's that sort of service that should be championed and supported across the country in our metropolitan areas, in our cities, in our towns and in our regions. It is small businesses like theirs that we can help through this legislation to level the playing field. Under this legislation all service and repair information provided to car dealership networks and manufacturer preferred repairers will be made available for independent repairers and registered training organisations to purchase. This in turn will encourage the provision of accessible and affordable diagnostic repair and servicing information to Aussie repairers and to those RTOs, as well as for training purposes, which will be excellent for apprentices across the country. Franchise dealers have made huge investments in factory training and, indeed, in their property and in selling cars—they're qualified technicians—along with making sure they've got the latest tools, facilities and equipment, as is often mandated by those manufacturers. It has been good to see this government finally catch up to Labor's position of making sure there is a level playing field for those car dealers in dealing with car manufacturers. James Voortman, the CEO of the Australian Automotive Dealer Association, the peak industry advocate exclusively representing these franchise dealers in Australia, said: Independent repairers who choose to commit to similar levels of investment for their customers and are suitably qualified should be entitled to compete with dealers on fair and reasonable grounds and this legislation will give them the chance to do that. This is not to mention that a bit more competition in the market would be excellent for consumers and provide great opportunity for small businesses across the nation. A genuinely competitive market for motor vehicle service and repair relies on repairers having access to the information they require to carry out the work they are pitching for to us, the car drivers of Australia. As I said back in 2018, new cars are computers on wheels. They carry with them an awful lot of personal information about their owners. Because of that, we must also ensure that the personal information of drivers is secured. It need to be secure, and that needs to be assured. This legislated solution to the market imbalance created by restrictions on data to date helps level the playing field for small business. The government has been driving with the handbrake on to deliver this scheme. In 2014 it put in place a data-sharing obligation. That was an epic fail. This bill only exists because of the strong campaigning of Labor nationwide from 2018 and at the 2019 election. I want to commend the member for Fenner for the excellent campaign he has run on this particular issue across the country and with Labor members across the country. This will benefit consumers through increased choice, but when it comes to data sharing there have been some significant concerns about security. The data generated by modern cars can be worth billions to those who wish to harvest it. Vehicle makers, their competitors, insurance firms, researchers and big tech are among those wanting to harvest data and access it. Newer cars are increasingly accumulating data about engine performance and temperature, brake performance, tyre pressure, fuel consumption, speed, acceleration, cornering, kilometres travelled, oil level, battery charge level and steering. Data can be generated about the performance of individual components, and that of course is before we get to any records made of your GPS. There is potentially also personal data, such as your driving alertness, speed, routes, destinations, fill-up points, the restaurants you visit and, with sensors making their way into seat belts, the number of passengers. Cars might also provide real-time data about the environment, such as where it is raining, based on the use of wipers, or through sensors on an axle that alert road authorities to rough road conditions. As vehicle computers and sensors become more sophisticated, it's likely that the main beneficiaries of this data will be others, such as car makers, car component manufacturers, insurers and firms offering in-car entertainment and food ordering systems. The list goes on and is likely to be beyond some of our wildest dreams. One issue that has been discussed between the Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association and Treasury is about how independent mechanics will be able to update the digital service records of cars they work on. I understand that some resolution to this electronic logbook issue has been reached. The Assistant Minister to the Treasurer has worked with stakeholders to find a satisfactory solution to this issue, and that will sit alongside the legislative framework in this bill. For the integrity of this scheme, it will be important that independent mechanics have sound processes in place to protect vehicle data. It is in the interest of both manufacturers and repairers, as well as car owners, to ensure that the scheme carefully guards data privacy. Failure to comply with data protection obligations will result in hefty fines for organisations, which is entirely appropriate. Labor has been calling for independent mechanics to get access to the same technical information that car manufacturers make available to their authorised detailers and preferred repairer network. We pushed for this reform because it won't just deliver savings for drivers but will also level the playing field for small businesses, independent mechanics who have been able to put some skin into the game. It's your car so it should be your choice where you are able to get it repaired. I commend the legislation. 17:22 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I'll start by acknowledging all of the speakers and all their hard work. Following the member for Burt, I know how passionate he has been about this issue, as have been many speakers, because it is a pretty important issue. They say success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. Listening to this debate tonight it seems that everyone wants to claim a piece of the action. It is good to see that everyone is joining forces and supporting important local businesses in all our electorates. I want to pay special credit to the member for Fenner, who has really been the hero of this story in advocating and fighting for this. It is true that you can change things from opposition, and I am really pleased to have played a small role in this piece of legislation. As we know, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme) Bill gives independent mechanics the right to access service and repair data at a fair commercial price. The bill is intended to 'promote competition between Australian motor vehicle repairers and establish a fair playing field' for independent operators competing with the large dealerships, so it's really the little guys versus the big players in the market. I'm really pleased to say that this parliament will be recognising some of the smaller operators, to ensure that they equally have a share in this important service to community, and supply chain issues for other businesses in the community. Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 'to establish a scheme that mandates all service and repair information provided to car dealership networks and manufacturer preferred repairers be made available to independent repairers and registered training organisations to purchase.' This will, as we know, enable consumers to have those vehicles attended to by an Australian repairer of their choice who can provide efficient and safe services; encourage the provision of accessible and affordable diagnostic repair and servicing information to Australian repairers and to registered training organisations for training purposes; protect safety and security information about those vehicles to ensure the safety and security of consumers, information users and the general public; and provide a low-cost alternative dispute resolution mechanism. During COVID, small and family businesses shouldered much of the financial burden during the pandemic and, sadly, many are still trying to find their feet. I want to make sure that the around 15,000 businesses in my electorate of Oxley know that we as a parliament—and myself, who is privileged to be their representative—will do everything we can to support small businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy. Coming from a family-owned business, with my parents owning businesses for 30 or 40 years, I know how important it is government does everything it can do to make it easier for businesses to make a dollar. But it was often said in my family or within my Dad's business that earning the dollar was the easy part; keeping it was the hard part—that the dollars can come through the door but that it was important to make sure that you're spending them wisely, that your overheads are down and that there's healthy competition. That was always the case in my family's business as butchers in Brisbane. The bill enables 23,000 independent Australian repairers to give their customers a better deal on service and repairs. As many speakers have said, it really is a win-win, because it puts money back into the pockets of car owners and brings more customers through the doors of small and medium businesses—which is particularly important now during the COVID period, when they need it most. We've all heard stories about local residents wanting to shop local, buy local, and perhaps not travel too far from where they are, and wanting to remain in their suburbs or villages across the regions, and this policy enables that to continue. So, whilst the genesis of the reports and changes that we're dealing with tonight perhaps started before the pandemic, I think the pandemic showed, more than ever, that people do want to support local businesses. They do want to support the people who support them in their local communities. In the Oxley electorate there are 18 independent mechanical businesses. What they're telling me right now is they do need a level playing field to get the boost they so desperately need. They want access to the same technical information that car manufacturers make available to their authorised dealers and preferred repair networks. This, as we know, is an industry-specific auto dealership code. I'm delighted that the member for Macquarie has joined us in the chamber tonight, because she is a huge supporter of small business and I know has been a massive champion for her car dealers in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury area. There are growing businesses right throughout that region. I will take the chamber back to 2018, when I visited a local business in the Sumner precinct in my electorate. There is a large number of businesses and auto mechanics in the suburb of Sumner around Spine Street. It is well known that that is where you take your vehicle. There are smash repairs businesses and small businesses, and they do a great job and provide great services. I visited a business called Mr Spanner Automotive. This is a family business. Ian and his wife have run that business for many years. Back in 2018 I took the then Leader of the Opposition and then shadow Treasurer to sit down and meet with this business to hear what their difficulties were. It's a great family business in my electorate. We were able to meet with some of the mechanics: Ian, Grant, George and Luke, and some other people, and I'd like to say that this was part of that conversation that the federal opposition had. I was blown away after meeting with the delegation of mechanics in and around that area. The member for Moreton has got the large car dealers in his electorate—a huge, huge industry and development around that Rocklea precinct, which is the checkpoint before you arrive into the Oxley electorate. I know he has been a massive advocate for this policy. He has, perhaps, got the larger scale end of the matter and I have some of the smaller operators in my electorate. But with that visit to Mr Spanner Automotive I got it straight away. After meeting with those owners I understood straightaway exactly what they needed. The only bit of negativity I want to put into this debate is that it did take a number of years—some four or five year—to make this happen. These businesses are a huge part of the economy. It's a massive contribution to the local economy, but also the broader car maintenance businesses and mechanics across Australia. So I'm really pleased to support this piece of legislation tonight. I actually ran into one of those owners that I had the meeting with, with the organisation that was lobbying—I think Lesley Yates and her crew have done a fantastic job in advocating on behalf of their members. The AAAA organisation does amazing work in terms of representing their members. I met one of the mechanics who runs a business down in that Spine Street precinct at a Rotary Club of Jindalee meeting about two weeks ago and it reminded me that we had that meeting. The wider sector and wider industry has welcomed this change in policy and this piece of legislation. James Voortman from the AADA, who I've had a lot to deal with over the years, has also welcomed this announcement tonight. We know that we made that commitment in 2018 to create a mandatory data sharing scheme. With the hard work of our shadow ministers, and all of the local, small mechanics and their representatives, I'm really pleased that the government has taken action. We know that customers always go for value for money and best choice. Hopefully these changes tonight will ensure that. Congratulations to all of the local businesses, and many of them are small businesses, that have been fighting for this. It is a real win for the people who have been fighting—the little guy against the big companies—to make sure that they're getting a piece of the action, a slice of the pie so to speak, to make sure that their businesses continue to grow and thrive. This is a victory for their perseverance in fighting for their businesses. I'm looking forward to seeing a lot more businesses grow, a lot of businesses succeed and employ more mechanics and apprentices, so that they can continue to provide the wonderful service that they've done for many years. 17:33 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme) Bill 2021. I have a long history through or with the motor repair business. My dad, my dear old dad, my 87-year-old dad, became a motor mechanic at the age 14 to his dad who was also a motor mechanic. My dad was a motor mechanic for 73 years. It is almost bewildering these days to think that anybody could be in a job for that long, let alone a job that requires a lot of physical exertion of energy. I remember dad crawling under cars and trucks, coming home filthy every night, with oil and petrol all over him and up his fingernails, and always stinking of oil. From about the 1980s onwards, my dad would come home and he'd complain bitterly about being blocked out of the industry as cars became more technical. It's hard to believe the VL Commodore could be regarded as technical. I think the VL was released around the time when they first started introducing computers into cars. This was the way that car manufacturers were able to block out the small independent motor mechanics like my dear old dad. The large motor manufacturers basically withheld the intellectual property and certain tools from independent motor mechanics to stop them from being able to diagnose what particular problem a car might have. My dad, like many older motor mechanics, is absolutely amazing when it comes to anything mechanical. There's nothing that my dad can't fix, if it is mechanical. But, these days, someone rocks up with a fault in their car, the mechanic plugs a diagnostic computer into the car's computer and it spits out a fault or an error warning that tells the mechanic exactly what the problem is and what has to be done to fix it. This was a way of locking out small, independent, suburban motor mechanics. What we saw over a period of years was small businesses, small motor mechanic businesses, withering on the vine. It was really very sad to see, particularly the young apprentices who wanted to be motor mechanics having to be steered or pushed towards careers with the major motor manufacturers. Of course, we on our side of this House are very passionate about small business. We believe that small business is the engine room of this country, and we will back small business every step of the way. But this reform is not just about assisting small businesses like my dad's. I remember, a little while ago—maybe two years ago—my wife ringing me when I was in Canberra. She said that the battery in her car was flat. I won't name the brand of the car. It's a European car. I said: 'Okay, just go and get another battery—no big drama. What's a battery on a car cost—$150, 180? It'll be done just like that.' The manufacturer wanted $800 to replace the car battery in my wife's car. Of course, I rang the manufacturer and said: 'Mate, come on. I didn't come down in the last shower. You can buy a car battery for $150.' 'Not this car battery, Mr Wallace. This is a special car battery. It's a very special battery, and this is what the cost is—$800.' This reform will drive competition. Going back to my wife's car: you couldn't just put any old battery in this car. Not only did you need a new battery; the computer needed to be reset— An honourable member: Did you get rid of the car? Mr WALLACE 265967 I got rid of the car—in order to make this thing properly functional. So, through absolutely gritted teeth—I can tell you—we paid the outrageous sum for this battery. I sold the car, and never again will I buy that brand of car. This is where consumers are being absolutely held over the barrel by large motor manufacturers. It's only right and proper that people can get their car serviced or repaired at their choice of qualified motor mechanic. This is good common sense. I know that those opposite are very, very keen to try and take all the credit for this, but let me give the members opposite a bit of a history lesson. An honourable member interjecting— Mr WALLACE 265967 I'm not against it at all. As the member for Oxley said, 'Success has many fathers, and failure is an orphan.' In June 2016, the then Assistant Treasurer, who I believe is still the Assistant Treasurer, announced a review into information sharing for independent mechanics. That was wrapped up into the ACCC's market study. The ACCC's market study was released on 14 December 2017, after 18 months of investigation, 130 public submissions, site visits and a stakeholder forum. On 4 May 2018, the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer announced at the Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association conference that the government would design a mandatory scheme for the sharing of technical information with independent repairers. Two weeks after that, on 13 May, the member for Fenner, if I remember correctly, announced with the greatest of fanfare that the Labor Party would be supporting this policy—and now they're taking all the credit for it. I just wanted to put that on the record. I don't mean to be disrespectful. This is a good, commonsense policy. It's very pleasing to see that it has bipartisan support, but I think we need to remember the true and proper history of this matter. I want to applaud the efforts of the Assistant Treasurer, who's here to sum up very shortly. This is a sensible reform. I thank the Assistant Treasurer and I thank all those members on this side of the House and the other who supported it, and I commend the bill to the House. 17:41 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I do like history lessons, but I think the history on this issue probably goes back just a little bit further than a couple of years, and I'm going to take the member for Fisher through it. I am grateful that this is something that we are in furious agreement about. I think the real issue is why it took so long. So let me go back and give you some real history. In 2011, David Bradbury, who was then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, requested that the Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council report on the consumer harm being caused by the lack of access to service and repair information. This was when cars were becoming more sophisticated. It's been a long time since you've seen blokes under a car in their driveway on a Saturday morning changing the oil. It's something I grew up seeing, but it doesn't happen anymore. Back in 2011, the then parliamentary secretary—someone I knew well—David Bradbury, recognised that there was an issue. We then got to 2014 and, under the Liberals, key industry associations actually agreed to an agreement on access to service and repair information for motor vehicles. It was a heads of agreement. My maths isn't great, but I think 2014 was seven years ago. There was an agreement that placed voluntary obligations on car manufacturers to, in general, share with independent repairers. It was meant to be on commercially fair and reasonable terms that that information was shared, and it was to be the same technical information that they shared with dealers. You would have thought that, in 2014, this issue would have been over and that car repairers and services in my electorate of Macquarie, in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, would not have found themselves on an uneven playing field. But, unfortunately, that scheme was a failure, and it was recognised as a failure, with very few car manufacturers providing access to that technical information—because it was only voluntary. The only one who did was Holden. They were, I'm told, a notable exception. That's when the problem was well and truly identified. There was an attempt to deal with it, but then there was a very long lag. I give credit to the member for Fenner, who, from my very early days here, was talking about this issue and finding a solution to this issue. I'm very grateful that the government has listened to the advocacy from many members on this side. I can't speak for how many members on the other side have visited; I haven't heard them speak about it in parliament. The minister may be able to identify some who have. But today we've clearly demonstrated a long list of members on this side who feel very passionate about it. On this side, I think there's more than double or triple the number of people speaking in favour of this, because it is so important to us. I think it belies the idea that somehow small business is something that this side of politics doesn't understand. Many of us have run businesses, have worked in small businesses or are married to people who run small businesses. Personally, I had 25 years running my own business. I grew up in small business, in a newsagency. I grew up with a dad who worked seven days a week, and I know exactly what it's like when the playing field isn't level. That's what car repairers and service businesses have had. It's been an incredibly unlevel—there's got to be a better word than that—and terribly uneven playing field for them, and it is terrific to see this. It's for people like Heath and Hayley, who have Windsor Ultra Tune. They look for creative solutions but sometimes just have to say, 'You're going to have to take that to the makers of the car to get that particular thing looked at.' It's for people like Andrew in Blaxland, at Active Automotives. They very kindly have spent time with me, explaining the issue to me. I don't profess to have a great understanding of car repair processes. I'm very happy to hand it over to somebody, but I absolutely want to be handing it over to someone local, someone I can trust and someone I run into at the shops. That's been the real history—and success, I think—of local car repairers. They are part of our community. They're small-business operators who we know and build a trust with. That trust can pass from generation to generation. My children absolutely followed in my footsteps and had their cars serviced at the local providers that I used. I think that goes to the heart of why this shouldn't have been so hard fought for. It was recognised as an issue. I don't have an explanation for why it took so long, but I am grateful that finally, in 2021, we have this issue resolved. I hope we see the benefits of it. I think that is also the test: to see how this plays out with our local car servicers and to talk to them about it. Of course, that's what we do regularly on this side: engage with our local small businesses to find out how things are going. That's why I know that things are really tough for some of these people. For car repairers, things were pretty good during COVID, many tell me, but then they realised people weren't driving as much, so they're seeing complete shifts in their business models. They're the sorts of things we need to be very mindful of here as we think about support for industries when they're coping with a changing economy, when we think about how we support them to attract the new apprentices they need and how we support those apprentices to be able to go through a thorough training process. On this side, we are absolutely delighted to see that there is a real breakthrough for a category of small business that provides such an essential service in our community. I suppose it is an example, if one were unkind, of those opposite recognising a policy and borrowing it from us very heavily. We've seen that a bit this week. We take it as flattery. For this one, I note, it appears the whole policy has been incorporated in this legislation, not just cherrypicked, and that's something I'd also commend the government on. I really like to be able to congratulate the government when it does something right. I know those occasions are few and far between. On this one, I'm very pleased to be able to welcome this legislation and I'll be very pleased to be supporting its passage through this House. 17:49 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin It's wonderful that we are all in furious agreement about the virtues of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme) Bill 2021 and the importance of what it will offer to many thousands of small and family businesses—independent repairers—throughout Australia. I think we all understand politics and we all understand that oppositions need to try to inject themselves into good news stories wherever possible, and we all have a fairly high tolerance for that. But suggestions that these reforms, which the government initiated in 2017, are somehow borrowed from the Labor Party are wrong. I think it's important to point that out. Members earlier made it very clear that there was a government announcement in relation to these changes before the 2019 election—changes that were agreed to shortly thereafter by the opposition. We're obviously very happy that they accepted our policy, as we had announced it some two weeks before they did. But this sort of political gamesmanship, in trying to take credit for these things, strays into problematic territory only because it doesn't accept the hard work of our excellent public servants who have put this together. I can tell you, having led this work with a range of different industry bodies and with Treasury, that suggesting that we somehow have adopted this from the Labor Party sells short the hard work that they have put into putting together this scheme. This is very complicated work. It is an extraordinarily complicated bill and, when dealing with sensitive matters of intellectual property which, quite frankly, extend beyond our shores with foreign manufacturers, the Labor Party, in trying to take credit for what has been pretty painstaking work, may just be taking this a bit too far. I'm therefore very proud that we have agreement in this chamber on what I think will be a landmark Morrison government reform that, clearly, the opposition were unable to deliver when they were in government. In summing this up, for the benefit of the House, I'll recap. The bill establishes a mandatory scheme that will promote competition in our automotive sector by requiring motor vehicle service and repair information to be made available—importantly, for purchase at fair market price. Our scheme will be the first of its kind in Australia and, indeed, in the broader Asia-Pacific region. It has been noted by many that a genuinely competitive market for motor vehicle service and repair activities relies more and more in this day and age on all repairers having access to the information that they require to safely and effectively repair their customers' vehicles. As motor vehicle technology becomes more and more advanced, the information required to safely repair those vehicles increases, yet, sadly, around one in 10 vehicles currently taken to repair workshops is affected by a lack of access to the information that is needed. When this is the case, it inevitably results in higher costs for consumers. This is self-evidently because there's little choice as to where to take a vehicle, particularly newer models, to be repaired safely and efficiently. This new scheme will set out a framework for access to service and repair information, including who must provide the information, who's entitled to receive it and what access conditions will apply. This government is committed to ensuring that we have a competitive automotive sector and a level playing field for all participants: independent repairers, consumers, affiliated dealers and vehicle manufacturers. We will also bring Australia's automotive repair industry into closer alignment with existing arrangements in the United States and the European Union. As was said earlier about the specific work that has gone into this uniquely Australian scheme, the scheme adviser, as outlined in the bill, will play an important role in monitoring the scheme's implementation and will provide advice across industry in relation to its operation. I want to note that once the scheme is operational I will, as a matter of urgency, be requesting the scheme adviser to consult with industry and report to me on issues surrounding the accessibility of information contained specifically within electronic logbooks. This is because it's vital to the scheme's success that repairers get the information they need and that it is affordable, accessible and provided in an appropriate time frame. This scheme is designed to ensure consumers and independent repairers get a fair go when it comes to the servicing of motor vehicles. I want to thank all of the independent repairers throughout Australia whom I've been able to visit since the last election. In formalising and finalising the bill that's before the House today, I want to thank them in particular. I thank all the industry bodies for coming together in good faith, in putting together this scheme. I also want to thank all of the officials in the Department of the Treasury who have painstakingly worked to put together what is a uniquely Australian solution to a problem that is going to not just deliver benefits to consumers but, as is an article of faith for the Morrison government, level the playing field for small businesses—mum and dad businesses. I therefore commend this bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Order. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fenner 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. Third Reading 86 17:56 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 86 BUSINESS Rearrangement 86 17:56 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move: That order of the day No. 3, government business, be postponed until the next sitting. Question agreed to. BILLS 86 BILLS Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Bill 2021, Migration Amendment (Tabling Notice of Certain Character Decisions) Bill 2021, Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021, Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Fees) Bill 2021, Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Student Assistance and Other Measures) Bill 2021 86

Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Bill 2021

Migration Amendment (Tabling Notice of Certain Character Decisions) Bill 2021

Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021

Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Fees) Bill 2021

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Student Assistance and Other Measures) Bill 2021

Returned from Senate 86 Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021 86

Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021

Consideration of Senate Message 86 17:57 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move: That the amendments be considered immediately. 17:57 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words— "the bill be considered next sitting." We are dealing with this here, on the eve of the budget reply, because a dirty deal was done between Labor and the Liberals in the Senate earlier today to gag debate and stop the Greens and crossbenchers from speaking on a bill that will enable public money to be used for new coal and gas projects. That dirty deal was done by an opposition that here complains about getting gagged by the government. We in the Greens and the crossbench usually support people having the right to speak in this place, whichever way they end up voting. But, in the Senate earlier today—for fear of being embarrassed about their vote to hand over to this terrible government billions of dollars in a slush fund for new coal and gas projects in the middle of a climate crisis—the Labor Party joined with the Liberals to ram it through the Senate. While there were still speakers on the speaking list and amendments to be debated, they voted to ram it through the Senate and gag debate. So we should not support that gagging and that abuse of process here now, by having these amendments be considered immediately, because there was no opportunity to even debate them in the Senate and to get to the bottom of what these amendments and this bill would actually mean. This bill and the amendments that we're being asked to immediately consider open up the space for a government that have said they want to expand the Beetaloo Basin, which will light the fuse on a climate time bomb, expand gas projects in the Galilee, which will also make it near impossible for us to reach our climate targets, and support new gas-fired power stations and potentially new coal-fired power stations as well. The minister who is responsible for this bill and is seeking that these amendments be agreed to, just the other day, with respect to this particular fund, vetoed money going to a renewables project because he didn't like it, even though the fund itself said, 'Yes, we should be supporting renewables.' The minister said, 'No. I don't want money going to that. I just want money going to coal and gas.' The minister who is responsible for this bill and wants the amendments has stood up in this chamber and said he wants to take public money that could go to schools and hospitals and, instead, use it to expand new coal and gas projects. That is what the minister has said. If we do end up debating these immediately, then I want the opportunity to talk at some length about what these amendments will do. The minister has said he wants to take public money, which could go to schools and hospitals, and use it to fund new coal and gas projects. The amendments—again which I note I will speak to further—basically say that, when the government want to take an equity stake in a project, and potentially a new coal- or gas-fired power station, they're not even required to have a written agreement laying out the terms and conditions, putting publicly funded money at risk. This is an astonishing abuse of process done to fast-track the climate crisis. I urge the government and those in the government who think that the climate crisis should be taken seriously—there are not many of them, and we know the Prime Minister is not one and the minister is not one, but there are some in this place who say, 'We take the climate crisis seriously'—to not debate today a bill that was gagged and rammed through the Senate and is going to make the climate crisis worse. Allow us the time to look through the amendments that weren't allowed to be debated in the Senate because the Liberals and Labor did a dirty deal to gag the Greens and the crossbench from debating them and scrutinising the amendments properly. Don't debate them today and don't consider them immediately. Allow us the time to look at them. If we have the time to look at these amendments, which is what my amendment to the minister's motion will do, what you will see is this: everyone around the world is saying that we are in a climate crisis and we need a plan to phase out coal and gas while looking after the workers and affected communities. What we cannot do is build new coal and gas infrastructure. If you don't want to listen to the Greens, listen to the United States government and listen to climate envoy John Kerry, who has said there is no space left in our carbon budget to build new coal and gas infrastructure. It will become a stranded asset—that is, a very bad investment. If and when we get to the detail of the amendments, I will make this point at length. It will not only be a stranded asset, because you're exposing people to carbon risk; it will blow the chance of staying within our carbon budget. Not only should we not build new coal and gas infrastructure; we certainly shouldn't use public money to do it. I know that's not the government's position. The government's position is to do whatever the coal and gas corporations ask. That's who they take the donations from. These gas corporations took in $55 billion of income in the last recorded year and paid zero dollars tax. And, instead of asking them to pay their fair share of tax, this government says, 'Let's line up to give you even more money.' And it's public money. These so-called free-marketeers in this government are quite happy to dip their hand into the Australian public's pocket and give that money to gas and coal corporations who earn billions of dollars in income and don't pay any tax. How is that fair? How is it fair that these corporations that pay no tax are now going to get public handouts? I know how the free market dissolves, when it comes to the government, whenever the big coal and gas corporations come and ask for handouts. The government is very happy to give them handouts. That's what they want to do. I expect it from the Liberals. But, up until today, I thought it was Labor Party policy not to give public money to new coal and gas projects. I thought the Labor Party at least stood with us in saying that—whatever you think about whether or not there should be coal and gas projects, and the Greens want to see them phased out over the next 10 years and the Labor Party doesn't; okay, we've got that difference of opinion—you don't use public money to support new coal and gas projects. But, no. Apparently, today, the Labor Party's position has shifted. And, apparently, as we saw with the dirty deal in the Senate where this bill was rammed through, the Labor Party's position now is, 'We support the Liberals in giving public money to coal and gas corporations.' Liberal and Labor are now saying, 'Public money that could be going to schools and hospitals should now go to coal and gas corporations.' They are singing from the same song sheet. And these amendments that Labor now wants us to fast-track through this parliament say that, when the government's going to take an ownership stake and, potentially, own a new coal or gas power station or coal and gas infrastructure, you don't even need a written agreement or due diligence. That is now the Labor Party's position. I expect climate criminality from the Liberals, but I didn't know Labor had flipped as well and was now up for writing the minister for resources a blank cheque to fund whichever coal and gas project he wants to anywhere around the country. But so desperate are the Labor Party to bankroll new coal and gas projects and suck up to the Liberals that they will gag debate in the Senate and stop the Greens and crossbenchers from shining even the smallest bit of light on this dirty deal that is being done. No, don't come in here and give a budget reply speech and talk about climate change and talk about renewables and pretend you care on the same day that you vote to say it's okay for the Liberals to give handouts of public money to coal and gas. This should not be considered immediately. We should allow the time for debate that the Senate didn't have. But, if you do try and ram it through, we will hold all of you to account for the consequences of these dirty amendments. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Wilkie C2T I second the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne and reserve my right to speak. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that the amendments be considered immediately. To this the member for Melbourne has moved an amendment that they not be considered immediately but be considered at the next sitting. The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne be disagreed to. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 00APG As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Dr Haines, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 The question now is that the motion moved by Minister Evans to consider the amendments immediately be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 00APG As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Dr Haines, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no. 18:21 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move: That the amendments be agreed to. 18:21 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne It's important to understand what these amendments do and why they should not be agreed to. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021 itself requires that terms and conditions of financial assistance provided to companies be set out in writing and complied with. I'll talk in a moment about what those terms and conditions are. These amendments we are being asked to agree to exclude assistance in the form of equity investment from that requirement. What does that mean? That means that, when the government takes an equity stake in a project—potentially, as we know, a fossil fuel project—it is not required to have a written agreement laying out the terms and conditions putting— The SPEAKER 00APG Order! Members will not engage in conversation whilst someone is speaking on the bill. It's that simple. If you can't control yourselves, just leave the chamber. Mr BANDT M3C It means the government is not required to have a written agreement laying out the terms and conditions when putting publicly funded money at risk. What that does mean? What do these amendments that we are being asked to agree to tonight, as part of a deal that gagged the crossbench and the Greens from talking about this bill and these amendments in the Senate, mean? We had no debate on these amendments at all in the Senate—absolutely none—because Labor and the Liberals decided they would do a deal to gag the crossbench and the Greens from speaking. These amendments that we are now having a debate on—any debate on; this is the first time these amendments have been debated at any time in the parliament because of that dirty deal to gag debate—mean that if, under the NAIF, the government decides to use public money to invest in a new piece of coal or gas infrastructure, and it decides to do it by taking an equity stake—that is, it decides to part-own it—we do not need to have a written agreement available and disclosed that sets out the terms and conditions on which that equity stake is being taken. That is an astounding proposition when it comes to the use of public money generally. It is an astounding proposition that you can have public ownership taken in something without the requirement for there to be a written agreement. You would think that this government would be loath to take equity stakes in anything, given their supposed free-market ideology. Apparently that all falls away when it comes to fossil fuels. They are quite happy, according to these amendments, to take an equity stake in a coal and gas project. So it's, 'Let renewables fall over and use this fund'—as the minister just did—'to veto investment in a renewables related project.' Even though the facility itself said it was worth investing in, he said, 'No, we are going to veto that.' A government member: Hear, hear! Mr BANDT M3C But when it comes to coal and gas—I hear, 'Hear, hear!' as an interjection coming in. I'll take that interjection which says, 'Hear, hear!' Apparently it is a very good thing that the government vetos funding in renewables. So we have it very clearly that the government's position is not to fund and take ownership stakes, or any kind of investment, in renewables. Alright. That's what the government wants to do. But, apparently, it's okay when it comes to fossil fuels. In other words, the government says it is fine to have some form of public ownership of coal and gas stations. The Liberal government says, 'We are going to have some form of public ownership in coal- and gas-fired power stations or potential infrastructure.' We know the kinds of projects that the government has in mind with this amendment. We know them because the minister has spoken about them in this parliament. They're projects that include, for example, expanding the Beetaloo Basin. The minister has called that, without any hint of irony, 'the hottest play on the planet'. We know that, if that expansion is allowed to go ahead, we blow any chance of Australia meeting its climate targets and we put the rest of the world at risk, by lighting the fuse on a climate bomb. That is the kind of project that is envisaged by this amendment. This amendment would potentially allow the government to take an ownership stake in a corporation that it might set up, or it might go and support some kind of private— (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG The member's time has concluded. Mr BANDT M3C That is what this would permit: the government having some form of ownership stake in, for example, the expansion of the Beetaloo. The amendment would also allow—and this is why the amendment has to be opposed—the government to take some form of ownership stake in, say, an expansion of new gas projects in the Galilee. Not content with supporting the Adani mine, they now want to get some gas, potentially, out of there as well. It would also allow the government to take an ownership stake in new coal projects. Government members: Hooray! Mr BANDT M3C The government cheers this. By virtue of this amendment—which, I again repeat, the Labor Party is about to vote for and has gagged debate on in the Senate so that we could not debate this in the Senate; this is the first time this amendment is being debated—and as the government cheers, we are talking about publicly funded coal and gas. We are talking about, with this amendment, taking public money that could be going to schools and hospitals and using it for new coal and gas projects. The government cheers, and the Labor Party is about to vote for it. Up until this amendment was brought before this House—we didn't find out when we were in the Senate, because Liberal and Labor did a dirty deal to gag debate on this—we thought that the Labor Party's position was also not to use public money for new coal and gas projects. Up until today, they had told us that was their position. But then, in the Senate this afternoon, we find this amendment being rammed through with no debate allowed from the Greens or the crossbench. The opposition come in here and complain about the government gagging them and shutting down debate. Well, that's exactly what you did today. On the day when we're about to hear a budget reply speech, supposedly about how great renewables are, they have just gagged debate and are supporting a bill that will go through that will allow the government—cheered on right now—to have public investment in new coal and gas projects. Government members: Hear, hear! Mr BANDT M3C I hear, 'Hear, hear!' from the government benches. That is why this amendment must be opposed. Even if you think that government's taking an ownership stake in a new coal and gas plant is a terrific idea, as the government and Labor clearly think you should, this amendment says not only that the government can do it but that they can do it without having to have the kinds of written agreements that are required for other forms of investment. If you thought sports rorts was bad, wait till you see coal rorts and gas rorts. That is what is being enabled. This infrastructure facility as it stands at the moment is a slush fund, and this amendment gives the government even more leeway to dip their hands into the pockets of the Australian public, take money and give it to coal and gas infrastructure and corporations without even having to have the most basic principles of accountability. This amendment not only facilitates public money going to coal and gas but gives the government the capacity to not even have to tell the public how they're going to spend the money and what the terms and conditions of that investment are. This is astounding. This is an astounding diversion. It's a redirection away from accountability. It is a total abrogation of any kind of accountability and transparency. I repeat: the reason that we are here now, talking about this at length in this House—we were meant to rise at six o'clock, but they thought they'd try and sneak this through at the last moment—is that debate on this amendment and on this bill was gagged in the Senate. I don't want to hear any more from the opposition about how bad it is that the government are investing in coal and gas when it is enabling it. That is what you are doing with this amendment and this bill, Labor. You are allowing the NAIF—just this week you have been in the press complaining about the minister and about how he doesn't have any restrictions on his actions and how he vetoes renewables. You are now giving him a blank cheque to go and buy coal-fired power stations and generation without any accountability. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Melbourne's time has concluded. Mr BANDT M3C So we are dealing here with a very basic principle of accountability— 18:32 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I move: That the Member no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the member for Melbourne be no further heard.

The House divided. [18:36]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

71 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Coleman, DB Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hamilton, GR Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hogan, KJ Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Leeser, J Ley, SP Liu, G Marino, NB Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 46 NOES Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Clare, JD Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Haines, H Hayes, CP (teller) Husic, EN Jones, SP Keogh, MJ King, CF King, MMH Marles, RD McBride, EM Mulino, D Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Shorten, WR Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

18:40 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the amendments be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 00APG As there are fewer than five members on the side for noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Dr Haines, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no. Proceedings suspended from 18:42 to 19:30 BILLS 91 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 91

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022

Second Reading 91 19:31 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My fellow Australians, I grew up in a council house in Camperdown—the only son of a single mum on the disability pension. I stand before you tonight seeking the honour of serving as your Prime Minister. I'm here because of sacrifices my mum made to give me chances she was denied by disadvantage. I'll never forget that. I'm here tonight because good government changed my life. For me, and, I know, for so many people in similar circumstances, the policies and decisions of good government can make all the difference. A good government building a strong economy and a fair society opens the door to education, to employment, to decent housing, to proper health care and to a better life. I lived that as a young man, and I saw it firsthand as Deputy Prime Minister and the minister for infrastructure—creating jobs, connecting up communities, boosting productivity in our cities and our regions. I understand the value and the power of good government, and I know our country needs and deserves a good government again—a government that believes in your potential, a Prime Minister who shares your values, a Labor government that's on your side. Australians know that the last year has been unlike any other in our lifetimes. When we look at the devastation and heartbreak still unfolding in parts of the world, it's only natural to feel that things could have been a lot worse here. Yet, when I look at our country today, I also know we can do so much better: so much better than real wages declining over the next four years, after flatlining over the last eight years; so much better than three more years of scandal and a government treating taxpayers' funds as if they are Liberal Party funds; so much better than three more years of announcements that are never delivered; and so much better than merely coming back, rather than building back stronger. This budget offers a low-growth, low-productivity and low-wage future, and a trillion dollars of debt. Is that really the best we can aspire to? I want Australia to emerge from this crisis stronger, smarter and more self-reliant, with an economic recovery that works for all Australians. Throughout this pandemic, Australians have given up so much. Labor's plan is about rewarding and repaying the sacrifices that people have made. Tonight I will further outline Labor's alternative policy agenda—an agenda with three guiding principles that will drive Labor in government: one, an economy that delivers for working families; two, investing in Australia's future; and, three, no-one held back and no-one left behind. These three principles will drive our plans and policies to secure a better future, improve living standards and promote fairness. We have a once-in-a-century opportunity to re-invent our economy; to lift wages and to make sure they keep rising; to invest in advanced manufacturing and skills and training, with public TAFE at its heart; to provide affordable child care; to fix aged care; to address the housing crisis; to champion equality for women; and to emerge as a renewable energy superpower. That's the better future that I want to build for Australia as Prime Minister. But Tuesday's budget didn't speak for this country's future; it only told the sorry tale of eight years of Liberal neglect; eight years of wasting opportunities and running from responsibility; eight years of flat wages but rising costs; eight years of ignoring problems and cutting funding from the solutions; eight years of cushy jobs for Liberal mates but insecure work for ordinary Australians; and eight years of holding people back and leaving people behind. I measure the strength of our economy by how it works for people. So for me there's a simple test by which we can judge the last eight years. Do you feel better off than you did eight years ago? Do you feel more secure at work? When did you last get a wage rise? Are you finding it easier to pay your bills? Are you more certain of your future and, importantly, that of your children? The past eight years have been very good to the Prime Minister and his mates, but has it been good for you? After eight years in power, this Prime Minister is getting ready to ask you for three more. When Robert Menzies founded the Liberal Party, he spoke about the forgotten people. This Liberal government just wants you to forget—forget their failures, forget their broken promises and forget all their jobs for their mates. Make no mistake: the budget handed down on Tuesday night is not a plan for the next generation; it is a patch-up job for the next election. Remember that the centrepiece of last year's budget was JobMaker. That promised to create 450,000 new jobs. It fell short by 449,000. That's right: not 450,000; just 1,000—missed by 'that much'! Like so much with this government, it was all 'smirk and mirrors'. This week the chasm between announcement and delivery didn't even make it to budget night. Having told Monday's papers that the budget would provide $10 billion of additional infrastructure investment, their actual budget papers show a $3.3 billion cut to infrastructure over the next four years. This is a government that is all announcement and no delivery. See, for this Prime Minister, the announcement is all about him, always—the press conference, the photo-op—but, when it comes to the part that affects you, the delivery, he's lost interest. His only interest at that point is blaming someone else. When the Black Summer of bushfires raged, he said, memorably, 'I don't hold a hose, mate.' Now, with our tourism and education industries still locked away from the world and with more than 30,000 Australians stranded overseas, he says, 'Quarantine is a matter for the states,' and 'Getting the vaccine isn't a race.' He puts out a press release threatening to put returning Australians in jail and then blames the media for reporting it. Locked out or locked up: a message no Australian government should send to our own citizens. The Prime Minister's constant buck-passing and blame-shifting has become a handbrake on our economic recovery. The strength of our economic recovery is dependent on effective quarantine and vaccinations but, with more than a year to prepare, this government has bungled both. We should have expanded existing quarantine facilities and built new ones across the country which are fit for purpose and located near medical and other needed support. For example, Bladin Village, outside of Darwin, has the potential to house up to 1,000 people and is currently being used to quarantine US defence force personnel. Australian citizens, of course, were promised that they would be home by Christmas last year. We were also told that we were at the front of the queue for vaccines, when we in fact have one of the slowest rollouts in the advanced world. Now the Prime Minister and the Treasurer can't even agree on when Australians will be vaccinated. Australia should be making mRNA vaccines here. Our Labor government will prioritise support for this production through our national reconstruction fund. We believe Australia can be a world-leading pharmaceutical manufacturing hub. Never again should the health of Australians be put at risk by this government's refusal to invest in manufacturing. But it's not just in his response to vaccinations and quarantine that this Prime Minister has failed the test of leadership. A once-in-a-generation march by the women of Australia, in pursuit of respect and justice—ignored; courageous survivors shunned and then slandered. A once-in-a-lifetime statement from the heart from the First Australians, a clarion call for truth, treaty and voice—delayed and then dismissed; a generous statement to advance reconciliation that a Labor government will embrace and will advocate at a referendum. The government forced into a compensation payout in excess of $1 billion to the people it hounded through robodebt, yet now preparing for the same program of cuts and harassment for people on the NDIS. A new spirit of co-operation between unions and business, striving to improve conditions and productivity, and this government uses it to launch an assault on workers' pay, sick leave and job security. A new surge of momentum for global action on climate change, and Australia with nothing to offer—the Prime Minister literally stuck on mute in front of the world and a government frozen in time while the world warms around it. The Liberals offered up nothing but a show-bag budget, flashy enough to sell on Tuesday night but beginning to fall apart the very next day, when the reality of falling real wages, vaccination confusion, infrastructure cuts and productivity inertia become apparent. There was nothing built to last and no real reform, just a series of announcements to overcome political problems which the government had created. I believe that the economy should work for people, not the other way around. People have endured eight long years of stagnant wages, growing job insecurity and pressure on family costs like child care, rent, petrol and groceries. We know that Australians who are counted as employed can't get enough hours to pay the bills, or can't count on regular hours. We know that too many Australians are being exploited, or underpaid or subjected to an unsafe environment, hostage to their insecure work. And we know that this government will seek to undermine trade unions at every opportunity. At the first flicker of economic recovery, this government tried to cut wages and conditions. Instead of standing up for people who were being paid as little as two dollars an hour, they say that enforcing the minimum wage is complicated. Labor's plan for secure jobs includes: writing job security into the Fair Work Act; properly defining casual work; cracking down on the abuse by cowboy labour hire firms, to ensure that people who do the same job get the same pay; public reporting on the gender pay gap for large companies; and 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave. And we will make wage theft a crime. This should have been done. It could have been done, but the Morrison government actually voted to remove it from their own legislation. An eight-year-old government behaved like an eight-year-old child and threw a tantrum. And why were they cranky? Because Labor and the crossbench refused to support the parts of the legislation that would cut pay. Our approach stands in stark contrast to that of those opposite, who cut penalty rates and who posted that low wages were a deliberate design feature of our economic architecture. I know there is a better way. Boosting wages and lifting productivity are essential for economic growth. If you increase wages, workers will have more to spend in their local small businesses. If elected Prime Minister, I will always stand up for secure jobs and fair wages. Last year I outlined Labor's cheaper childcare plan, abolishing the cap and increasing the subsidy to lower childcare costs for virtually every family. The government dismissed our policy. They declared that they had already fixed affordability and they ridiculed the economic gain from investing in child care. Now the government have rushed out a half-baked policy announcement that they say will lower the structural disincentive to work that they told us just six months ago didn't exist. What this Treasurer hasn't worked out is that if you perform half a backflip you fall flat on your face. That's why the Liberals' new policy will only help one in four of the families who will benefit from our plan. The budget papers actually show that under their plan the workforce participation rate will fall. Labor's policy will not only deliver support to four times the number of families; it will boost the economy substantially and move towards the universal provision of affordable child care for every family. This is economic reform. It's good for working families, it's good for our economy but it's also good for our children. A Labor government will invest in Australian industry and our workforce, setting them up for success today and into the future. We'll create 'Jobs and Skills Australia' on the Infrastructure Australia model to advise on the future work opportunities and to ensure that Australians can benefit from them. And we will establish a national reconstruction fund to transform existing industries and the industries of tomorrow. We will partner with the private sector, including the superannuation industry, to revive our ability to make products and to be more self-reliant. Australia has always produced scientific innovations, but we haven't always been good at commercialising them: wi-fi, the black box, Google maps, the cochlear implant or solar technology. Not long ago, solar power was seen as a useful novelty: good enough to run a pocket calculator but too expensive, too inefficient and too unreliable to power a home or a workplace. Australians changed that. Australian researchers and engineers, Australian scientists in universities and Australian breakthroughs in solar power reshaped the global energy grid. Overwhelmingly, this did lead to manufacturing and job creation, but it was overseas, not here. If we don't get smart, if we don't get serious, if we don't get moving the same thing will happen again. We mine and produce every element needed to build a lithium battery, the power storage technology of the future. I don't want us to miss out on jobs and investment by sending those materials overseas for another country to manufacture and then export them back once value has been added. I want Australia to make our own future. To do that, we can't be afraid of the future; we have to shape it. The problem with this government isn't so much that they are stuck in the past, it's that they want the rest of Australia to go back there just to keep them company. The Liberals abandoned a fibre based National Broadband Network, claiming it would cost $29.5 billion. Then it became $41 billion, then $49 billion, then $51 billion and then $57 billion. Now, of course, they are having to retrofit back to fibre. Their love for copper has cost taxpayers a lot of brass. Their insistence on looking backwards on energy, communications, transport and so much more has driven our capability downwards but our costs upward. Ever since the Liberals drove Holden out of the country they've run up the white flag on manufacturing and skills and apprentices. I'm not going to see us surrender any more jobs in industries and the communities that depend on them. My Labor government will establish the 'Startup Year' program to help drive innovation and increase links between universities and entrepreneurs. Startup loans will be offered to students and new graduates with ventures attached to a tertiary institution or designated private accelerator. This will assist in the identification of opportunities for commercialisation of university research. The government has proven incapable of developing an energy policy or dealing with climate change. Positive action on climate change and moving to net zero emissions by 2050 will create jobs, lower energy prices and lower emissions. Labor has a plan to help families and communities play their part in achieving this critical target. It is a plan that will make electric cars more affordable and support the rollout of community batteries. A Labor government will create a new energy apprenticeships program to train 10,000 young people for the energy jobs of the future. This will support them with up to $10,000 over the course of their apprenticeship. These 10,000 new apprenticeships will be available in renewable energy generation; storage and distribution, including in emerging technologies such as green hydrogen; energy efficiency upgrades; renewables manufacturing like batteries; and relevant agricultural activities. The rest of the world has figured this out. Cutting pollution means creating jobs. Every one of us hopes to grow old. More and more of us will live long enough to need extra care in our later years, but right now, that thought fills a lot of Australians with dread. Our age pensioners and retirees should have confidence that support will be there for them. None of us can say we weren't told how to fix the system, with the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety delivering a comprehensive set of recommendations for change. The Prime Minister must now explain why he has rejected so many of those important recommendations, such as the recommendation to require a nurse on duty in nursing homes at all times, which seems to make sense, or support for increasing the appallingly low wages of hardworking aged-care staff; or why he has opted for fewer hours of care than the royal commission recommended and delivered them much later; or why the government is congratulating itself for funding new home-care places when they aren't even enough to clear the current waiting list. A Labor government will not allow older Australians to grow old alone, deprived of proper care and dignity. We will not forget the dedicated, mostly female staff—almost uniformly understaffed and underpaid—who care for our elderly. The Morrison government has not even managed to roll out the vaccine to these workers. Older Australians were there for us. They have paid their taxes, held communities together, raised their families and served their country in war—and in peace. Older Australians deserve to be respected, to feel safe, to be comforted and to be treated with the utmost dignity. This cannot be beyond us. We can achieve this; we must achieve this. A Labor government will deliver this. A Labor government will deliver that care by ensuring that every dollar spent in aged care goes to employing a guaranteed minimum level of nurses, assistants and carers, and to daily needs like decent food, rather than into the pockets of the more unscrupulous providers. We also support the Fair Work Commission moving quickly to meaningfully lift the wages of aged-care workers. We will ensure that dementia care management is core business, given that up to two in every three aged-care residents are affected. The security of a roof over one's head should be available to all Australians. Young people despair of ever affording a first home. Families struggle to meet rent payments and older women are the fastest-growing group subject to homelessness. I'm proud to say that Labor in government will create a $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, with the annual investment return to build social and affordable housing and create thousands of jobs. Over the first five years, this will build around 20,000 social housing properties—places like the home I grew up in. Our home gave us so much more than somewhere to sleep. It gave my mum and me pride, dignity and security, and it gave me a future—a future that led me here tonight. Our housing plan is good for jobs too. This initiative will create over 21,500 jobs each year, and one in 10 construction jobs created will be for apprentices. Last year 10,000 mums and their children fleeing family violence were turned away from refuges because there wasn't a bed. Tonight, women's crisis services across Australia will have to tell women fleeing violence they literally have nowhere to house them. They will sleep in their cars—or go back to dangerous situations. Imagine the impact that that has on children and how they feel at school the next day. Imagine the emotional toll on a mother, desperate, as mums are, to keep their children safe but unable to offer them more. We know this is happening tonight because it happens each and every day. We can, and we must, do better. That's why 4,000 of the 20,000 social housing properties that we create from this funding will be allocated to women and children experiencing domestic and family violence, and to older women on low incomes. We will also provide $100 million for crisis and transitional housing for these women at risk. We will build 10,000 affordable housing properties for frontline workers—the heroes of the pandemic; those nurses, police, emergency service workers and cleaners who are keeping us safe. Some of the worst housing standards in the world are endured by our First Nations people. As part of our commitment to Closing the Gap, the fund will provide $200 million for the repair, maintenance and improvement of housing in remote Indigenous communities. Two weeks after our country stood together on Anzac Day to declare 'Lest we forget', one in 10 of the people who will sleep rough on the streets in Sydney tonight is a veteran—one in 10. Australia must do more to care for the brave men and women who have worn our uniform. This fund will provide $30 million over the first five years to build more supportive housing and fund specialist services for veterans who are either living or at risk of homelessness. This is a future fund that will give more Australians a future. More than a year ago, the government received the Respect@Work report. Every woman should feel safe in every workplace, including this one. The report recognised employers' responsibility to eliminate sex discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation from their businesses. Labor, in government, will work with experts, employers and unions to make sure this responsibility is clear in our law, as was recommended by the report. The budget spending was very much focused on the political management of problems the government itself has created over the last eight years—aged-care cuts, childcare fee increases, ignoring of women's safety and economic security issues. Over these last eight long years the government has focused on itself, too often treating taxpayers' money as if it were the Liberal Party's and the National Party's money. Sports rorts, community safety rorts and abuse of infrastructure and regional funding have grown with each year. Even bushfire disaster funding was allocated with political bias. And then $1 billion was spent on government advertising promoting themselves. In Tuesday's budget they announced, or topped up, no less than 21 separate slush funds worth $4 billion of taxpayers' money to splash around in the lead-up to the next election. In addition there's an extraordinary $9 billion where the only information is 'decisions taken but not announced'. This is just red-hot abuse. They can't change. They won't change. They don't want to change. It's this simple: if you want to clean up politics, you need a national integrity commission. And, if you want one that's fair dinkum, it'll take a Labor government. My fellow Australians, none of us will forget this crisis that we have lived through. All of us are grateful that, because of the sacrifices and unselfishness of so many, we have avoided the scale of death and trauma that we see in many other countries. To the Australian people, I say: you have been magnificent, you have been brave, you have been resolute. Now you deserve a government that is worthy of your efforts. It would be a disaster if we emerged from this crisis having learnt nothing and not changed at all. What a missed opportunity if our economy comes out the other side with nothing to show for this transformational moment but the biggest debt and deficit of all time. If you see this pandemic as a chance to build back stronger, Labor is on your side. If you believe economic policies should deliver higher wages, Labor is on your side. If you want more security at work, Labor is on your side. If you support equality for women, Labor is on your side. If you support cheaper child care, Labor is on your side. If you believe that older Australians deserve dignity and care in their later years, Labor is on your side. If you believe a roof over your head is up to more than market forces, Labor is on your side. If you get that action on climate change is an opportunity for us to emerge as a renewable energy superpower and create jobs, Labor is on your side. If you share our ambition for advanced manufacturing, high-value industries and a world-class services sector in a prosperous, outward looking, ambitious Australia, Labor is on your side. And if you think sharing our continent with the oldest continuous civilisation on earth is a source of national pride and First Nations people should be recognised in our Constitution with a voice to parliament, Labor is on your side. I've never forgotten where I came from. I've never lost sight of the power of government to help people realise their potential. I've never lost faith in our country's ability to compete and win in the world. I truly believe this is a moment for Australia to make our own. What we need now is a government with the plans to seize this chance, a government driven by optimism about the future, a government powered by determination to create opportunity, a government that holds no-one back, that leaves no-one behind—a Labor government that is on your side. Debate interrupted. House adjourned at 20:07 The DEPUTY SPEAKER Zimmerman took the chair at 10:00.

Thursday, 13 May 2021

The DEPUTY SPEAKER Zimmerman took the chair at 10:00.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 97 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Canberra Electorate: Women's Forum 97 10:00 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise this morning to talk about the women's forum that I held in my electorate, on 1 May, with Senator Katy Gallagher. First of all, I want to thank everyone who attended. There were many women, men as well, and I thank them for sharing their stories, their experiences and their ideas. I've actually just had to leave Labor's women's budget statement announcement to give this speech, which is ironic, but it's good to be here. It was another proud day for Labor talking about our proud history of putting equality at the centre of our policies. Katy and I held the forum in response to the groundswell around the issues of women's inequality that we've seen over the last few months. The experiences of sexism and violence and inappropriate behaviour that have come out of this parliament have hit a nerve around the country, and that is because women around the country are experiencing these same issues in their workplaces, in their homes, in their community. We have a deep-seated cultural problem in this country that sees one woman killed, on average, every nine days by a partner or former partner, and we need to address these issues with urgency. It was around these issues that we held the forum. There were many Canberrans who had written to me and Senator Gallagher, so we thought it was a great opportunity to sit and listen and to pass on these ideas to the ministers for women and to our caucus. Since the forum, we have had the opportunity to put those ideas into letters and send them on. People are angry that these issues continue, and they are angry that they have not seen the parliament deal with this appropriately. We have seen, this week, every member of the government vote to maintain the member for Bowman in his position as a committee chair, in spite of the things that he has been doing that are completely inappropriate and have no place for a representative in this place. I want to talk quickly, in the time that I have, about the ideas that were raised by women in Canberra. The key themes of the forum were around keeping women safe, that our justice system needs to be centred more around survivors than perpetrators, the fact that we need to keep women safe when we know that they have a threat against them. Women's economic security is intrinsically linked with these issues, and we talked about the way that we can better support women and the complex issues that face women from diverse cultural backgrounds. We have a real moment here that we need to seize, and I look forward to pursuing the issues that my electorate have put forward on this matter. Grey Electorate: Budget 97 10:03 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I warmly welcome the budget and the input and effect that it has on an electorate like Grey, which covers 92 per cent of South Australia, over 900,000 square kilometres. The investment in roads, at the moment, is simply unbelievable. Virtually everywhere I travel across the electorate I need to add an hour to my travel time, and I mutter about Michael McCormack as I go along and run late for various appointments. But it is just wonderful to see this once-in-a-generation investment, which will pay dividends for all our industries, and tourist industry, that reside in the region. That is fantastic. Local councils are very happy that we've managed to secure another two years of the Supplementary Local Road Funding program for South Australia, which recognises an inequity in the fund-sharing arrangements under the FAG grants, as they refer to roads. They're very pleased to get that. It's a $20 million-a-year program and it's a top-up for local roads. Also there's the extra $250 million that's been announced for the fabulous Building Better Regions Fund. I can point to any number of projects across my electorate that have benefited immensely from this program. They're things that would never have got done, or not got done for years, that are providing real benefits for all of the people who live within Grey. I'm pleased to inform the House that 564 apprentices got a start under the first round of the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements scheme. We've announced that there will be another 70,000 places. I would expect to see a 70 per cent increase in that number across Grey. We are desperately short of skilled tradesmen. I expect uptake of that to be strong. We recently announced funding for an expansion of our on-farm water grants and more money for local shows. As most would know, through the worst part of COVID our agricultural shows got cancelled. They had ongoing expenses, and we've already stepped into that space. That was warmly welcomed. The announcement of more money for mental health is very pleasing everywhere in Australia. Specifically, there is more money for headspace. We already have four units in Grey—in Port Lincoln, in Whyalla, in Port Augusta and the RFDS flying outreach headspace unit. I'm really hopeful we can now also land one for Port Pirie, which is a major population centre as well. I recently announced some big local projects under the Regional Connectivity Program. It is very pleasing. There is another $84 million to go into a second round there to fix up some tight spots that might still be there under the NBN and with mobile phone connectivity. So it's a good budget for Grey. COVID-19: India 98 10:06 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta The past few weeks have been remarkable by any standard. For the first time in Australia's history, the government has made it unlawful for Australian citizens to return to Australia, with threats of heavy fines and up to five years in prison. An announcement was made on 30 April that applied only to the 10,000 Australians who are currently stranded in India, caught in possibly the worst humanitarian crisis of the pandemic. The threat at the time was that flights would be banned until 15 May and then reviewed. There has been an enormous outcry in Australia and around the world at the decision the Morrison government made, but it has now walked back from its threats of jail time and promised to resume repatriation fights on 15 May. If it was so dangerous on 30 April, has politics alone caused the government to change its mind? Or was the decision a bad one in the first place? It can't be both. There has been an outcry. The Prime Minister says we need this ban to keep our quarantine system strong and protect Australians. There is no doubt that the Australian government needs to follow the health advice—we don't want to put the whole population of Australia at risk—but it doesn't mean this ban is justified or that they shouldn't have seen the problem coming. The Morrison government was warned last year about the need for surge capacity in quarantine for emergency situations just like the one India faces now. None of the Indian Australians who have contacted me about this want to put the community at risk—of course they don't—but they simply ask: why were they targeted for criminalisation and where is the government's plan to help them and other Australians stranded overseas get home? And that's what it comes down to: the Morrison government needs a plan and, instead of coming up with one, they've threatened their own citizens with jail for trying to come home. Australians have been stranded overseas since the borders were closed in March last year. I have had hundreds of people contact my office trying to get home and being unable to do so. We know that there are still 175 children in India, without their parents, who can't come home on the repatriation flights because they're excluded. They have been in India for over a year—toddlers haven't seen their parents for over a year. This has been going on for a long, long time and it has been up to the Morrison government to do something about it for all of that time. The Prime Minister promised in September that he would bring them all home by Christmas. He knew it was a problem. He knew then it was becoming so drastic that he made a statement that they would make sure people got home by Christmas—and he didn't. They are still there. They are in this dangerous environment, in spite of trying to come home for months, because the government hasn't taken its responsibility for quarantine seriously. I have a petition here from my constituents asking the government to bring Australians home and I seek leave to table it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Has the petition been approved by the Petitions Committee? Ms OWENS E09 No. It is being tabled as a document. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Is leave granted for the document to be presented? Mr Ramsey HWS Yes. I would make the point that there is a protocol for this, but leave is granted. Ms OWENS E09 Thank you. I table the document. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 The document will be forwarded to the petitions committee for its consideration and will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms with the standing orders. Budget 98 10:09 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker On Tuesday evening, the Treasurer detailed our government's plan to create jobs and guarantee the essential services that will build the stronger and more resilient Australia of tomorrow. This budget delivers a critical lifeline to the Australian economy, which is dealing with the economic consequences of a one-in-100-year pandemic. In doing it, our budget reduces personal income tax for low- and middle-income earners. In Barker, 66,000 low- and middle-income earners will benefit from these measures. People earning between $48,000 and $90,000 will benefit, with up to $1,080 for individuals and $2,160 for couples. That's more money for the hardworking burghers of Barker to keep—money they earned. We're also continuing to incentivise business to invest, by expanding for a further 12 months the instant asset write-off scheme. That means tradies can buy a new ute; a farmer can buy a tractor or harvester; and many of the food manufacturers in Barker can have additional capex. That's in addition, of course, to the expanded loss cap measures, which will support around 4,600 businesses in Barker. To assist businesses in getting the skills we require, we extended the 50 per cent apprentice wage subsidy scheme. That has already supported a whopping 2,455 apprentices in Barker, but there is more work to be done. To make Barker an even greater place to live, work and raise a family, our government is building generation-defining projects, part of the $110 billion infrastructure pipeline over 10 years. The Truro bypass, at $161.1 million, is something I've advocated for almost all the time I've been in this place. There's an additional billion dollars for the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, including $17 million for councils in Barker. There's a further round of the Building Better Regions Fund, at $250 million, and, of course, the very popular Stronger Communities Program, providing modest but meaningful grants to community organisations. But, more than all of this, this budget secures our essential services. There is more funding for hospitals, schools, aged care, Medicare, mental health and disability support, which are always better guaranteed under a coalition government. There are too many wins for Barker in this budget for me to go through here today, but I'm pleased to say that the Australian government is supporting the Australian economy and people in Barker to roar back into action. Middle East 99 10:12 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I want to join my colleagues in expressing my deep concern at the current outbreak of hostilities in Palestine and, in particular, the situation in Jerusalem and the recent escalation of violence. The situation and timing of this escalation is no accident. It began during the holiest of days, amidst the holiest of months, in the holiest of cities in the world. Anyone who has walked its ancient streets knows how much pride of place Jerusalem has amongst the Palestinians who collectively celebrate the intersection of the world's Abrahamic faiths. In this spirit, today also marks Eid, and I want to take this opportunity to extend my warm wishes to all Muslim Australians and, in particular, those in my electorate whose celebrations have been clouded by the ongoing tragedies. At a time when the streets of Jerusalem and its ancient quarters are traditionally lit with festive lights, landmarks are instead being lit by the flashes and sounds of weapons. It's also a time which marks Al Nakba, referred to as 'the catastrophe', which symbolises the devastation of the Palestinian homeland and the continued displacement of its people, which, 73 years later, sees no just resolution for the Palestinian people. What is happening defies the international community and the resolutions endorsed by the United Nations; punishes, through draconian measures, a population exercising their basic human rights in East Jerusalem, recognised as Palestine's capital under international law; and belittles the international community in the face of its ongoing failure to deliver on its own resolutions. Statements by Israel's political leaders that this is just the beginning are not the statements of a member state of the international community that is seeking peace and stability. They are the hallmarks of the failure of the international community to bring justice and a lasting peace to this longstanding conflict, where we all have a collective responsibility—the United States, the United Kingdom, the Gulf States, the Europeans and Australia. It is our responsibility here in Australia to step up and serve as a diplomatic middle power, true to our values and to the international institutions on which we also rely on for our own peace and security. Never has there been a more critical time to ensure that justice, international law and the resolutions of the international community actually stand for something. And failure to do so means that we will all have to carry the consequences of this ongoing conflict. Tasmania: Industry, Charlton, Mr Brett 99 10:15 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon On Tuesday night the federal government continued to demonstrate its commitment to supporting Tasmanian industry, with the announcement of an extension to the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. The $89.3 million commitment will extend the scheme's assistance to include eligible imported goods that have no Australian-made equivalent. Quite rightly, this is a vote of confidence by the Morrison Government in the Tasmanian freight and logistics sector. Importantly, it will also provide greater assistance for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, manufacturing and mining industries as we continue to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the last year, industry in Tasmania has faced unparalleled challenges, including soaring international freight rates, infrastructure charges and general global disruption in the supply chain models. This is on top of the ever-present challenge that Tasmanian businesses face, which is the increasing cost of shipping across the Bass Strait. There is no direct international shipping service into Tasmania. All international shipping is trans-shipped via mainland ports. I want to take this opportunity to recognise the resilience and the dogged determination of world-leading businesses and that sector in Tasmania. Their response to the pandemic has demonstrated what Tasmania and its industries are capable of achieving, not only in the last year but also for the future. Led by the resurgent agriculture, forestry, fisheries, advanced manufacturing and mining industries, Tasmania is continuing to lead the way in our economic recovery. Despite all that has been thrown their way, Tasmanians have the most confident business sector in the country. Today I also want to specifically recognise Brett Charlton, Chairman of the Tasmanian Logistics Committee, and the work that he has done on behalf of his members to advocate for the extension of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. Brett himself said there is a story of sweat and tears that is often lost in these positive outcomes, but I can tell you that no-one has sweated more than Brett Charlton and his team at that committee. In Brett's own words, 'This extension is a moment for the Tasmanian economy that will shape our trading community for many years to come.' I can't agree with him more. Brett said the extension is something that I fiercely advocated for, and he paid tribute to my work in also achieving this goal. The flow of benefits to Tasmania and its economy at the time that we need it most cannot be overstated. This funding will drive Tasmanian industries' bottom line. It will potentially attract new industry and create in the great state of Tasmania increased investment and, crucially, increases in employment opportunities right across the great state. Gorton Electorate: Infrastructure 100 10:18 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton Another budget, another year of Gorton being neglected and forgotten by this government. We are now at eight long years of this government, with nothing of substance provided to my constituents in any of their eight budgets. The lack of investment locally by this government is disruptive, insulting and unacceptable. There are major road projects that the government should be funding in Gorton that would not only help local residents but would get the Victorian economy moving in the pandemic recovery. As I've said many times before in this place, the Western Highway, the major link to South Australia, is in desperate need of upgrades. The Western Highway between Caroline Springs and Melton needs extra lanes and new interchanges to serve not just the local community but also the 60,000 vehicles that travel in each direction every day. Upgrades to the Calder Highway are long overdue, particularly for an interchange at the Calder Park Drive area and more lanes from Keilor Park Drive to Melton Highway. The government promised a mere $50 million last election for these upgrades, with nothing delivered and nothing more promised since. This is one of the fastest-growing areas of Victoria and, indeed, of Australia, and yet the government turns its back on my constituents. When Labor was in government, we made significant improvements to Gorton not just locally but to the quality of life of our residents, and that is because that is what Labor governments do. The Deer Park Bypass was committed under Labor, as well as Anthonys Cutting Realignment and Kings Road interchange. Labor funded the Western Business Accelerator and Centre for Excellence, the Melton Library and the Caroline Springs Library. It was Labor that provided more than $100 million to every school in Gorton combined under the Building the Education Revolution program. Labor budgets focus on employment, improved health and improved education for the whole of Australia. Most importantly, Labor budgets display a vision for where we want to be as a country. Under this government, we see we have a budget that doesn't increase wages. In fact, we see wages fall over the life of this budget. It doesn't lift living standards nor set Australia up for the future. We will have $1 trillion of debt, but no legacy left by this government in terms of structural reform, improving the opportunities for Australians, or, indeed, dealing with the major challenges that we see ahead of us over the next decade and beyond. If you want good secure jobs and fair pay and conditions, Labor is on your side. If you want cheap, affordable child care for working families, it's Labor that is on your side. If you want an Australia that makes things and supports local jobs, it is Labor that is on your side. Only Labor is on the side of working families like those I represent in Gorton. Domestic and Family Violence 100 10:21 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for Women's Safety and Minister for Families and Social Services, the Hon. Anne Ruston, for visiting my electorate of Bonner and meeting with local groups from across the women's safety sector recently. It was a timely visit to address the topic of women's equality, economic security and health and wellbeing ahead of the federal budget this week. We started our day with a women in business breakfast event at Wynnum Golf Club. Individuals came from across Bonner to attend, including many of our female small-business owners, local community groups and student leaders from three of our highly regarded Bayside high schools. Over the course of the morning, we heard from the minister on the importance of prioritising women's safety and equality in our community. It was an overwhelmingly productive and insightful discussion with attendees. I would like to thank everyone who came along and contributed to the morning. Our next stop was an important round table discussion with local women's safety groups that I convened at the Beyond DV centre. Beyond DV provides programs for women and children who have escaped from a domestic violence situation and is a haven to many. This round table was also timely, as the month of May marks Queensland Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Month. It provided a chance for the minister and I to listen and engage with survivors of domestic violence as well as those working in local front line services. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg reiterated the urgency of domestic violence response and prevention during his budget speech this week, where women's safety was a key focus. The Treasurer noted that, sadly, one in four women experience violence from a current or former partner. These numbers are staggering and far too often women are being denied their dignity and personal and economic security. It must stop. All Australians have the right to be safe, which is why the 2021 budget contains an historic $1 billion for women's safety measures. Under the package, the government will provide $164.8 million to establish escaping violence payments to provide women with up to $1,500 in immediate cash, and a further $3½ thousand in kind for goods or services and direct payments of rental bonds, school fees or other items. I commend this government for putting these measures in place and demonstrating our unwavering commitment to ending violence against women and their children. The Morrison government's plan to not only reduce but eliminate domestic violence is ambitious and is exactly what our country needs. Thank you, for visiting our electorate and listening to the needs of our community. I'd also like to extend my sincere appreciation to Carolyn Robinson from Beyond DV and the brave domestic violence survivors who shared their stories with us. The time for change is now. Minchinbury: Environment 101 10:24 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon The suburb of Minchinbury in my electorate is a wonderful place to live. It is well-known and should be well known as one of Australia's first-ever vineyards. It's got the original crashing jet, which has been there for decades and which is a landmark for the entrance to Minchinbury. But, unfortunately, it is increasingly known as a place of smell. The good people of Minchinbury have been subjected to an odour which is utterly unacceptable. The good people of Minchinbury have been let down by the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority. The good people of Minchinbury have been let down by Bingo, the waste services provider, which has lost, in my view, public confidence, my confidence and the confidence of the state member for Mount Druitt, Edmond Atalla. For months now the people of Minchinbury have been subjected to a smell which has worsened asthma for children and for others, which has seen the cancellation of social events because they simply can't function with this terrible smell, which has caused sleepless nights and which has exacerbated sickness. It is not good enough. What has happened? The Environment Protection Authority has investigated. They've identified Bingo as the source of the odour, and this week it was revealed that Bingo has been fined $577. They fined it behind the couch. Then it was clarified: 'It's not a fine; it's an administration fee,' like that's somehow some sort of defence. I've corresponded with the chief executive of Bingo and told him that Bingo has lost my confidence, has completely lost any social licence to operate and needs to do better. The state member Edmond Atalla and I have taken the—I concede—unusual step of calling for the EPA to close Bingo down until this matter is fixed. This site should not be operating. To show Bingo how seriously this should be taken, this site should be shut down until and unless they fix it. They've now agreed, on threat of being shut down, to put soil on top of the landfill. They blame the rain. Well, if their processes are such that a rain event in March leads to this smell for weeks and weeks, then their processes are not good enough. I do want to acknowledge the New South Wales Minister for Energy and Environment, Matt Kean. I've rung him, texted him and spoken to him about it, and he has responded. This is not about Labor and Liberal. The EPA has been appalling. For the chief executive of the EPA to turn up at a self-congratulatory ribbon cutting at Bingo while my residents are being subjected to this smell was utterly unacceptable and offensive. It is not good enough. The EPA are meant to be the guardian of the environment in New South Wales on behalf of its residents, and they have let the people of Minchinbury down. We will continue to pressure, cajole and call for the EPA to take more action and for Bingo to lift their game. Middle East 101 10:27 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I'd like to support the member for Calwell's address to the House in the last 10 minutes or so. It is shocking news for Palestine and Israel. Israeli bombs have killed Palestinians in Gaza. In excess of 60 people, including children, have died. Hundreds of Palestinians have been injured in the West Bank by Israeli forces, and Israelis themselves are in fear of rocket attacks from Gaza. While we can all call for calm, we also need to call for the end of injustice that is at the core of the problem. The core of the problem is that Palestinians do not live in freedom and dignity. To live under apartheid-type rule is inexcusable. This week Palestinians commemorate Nakba—in 1948 the Jewish military depopulated and destroyed Palestinian cities, towns and farming communities, and it's still happening today. An estimated 750,000 Palestinians became refugees after fleeing from their homes, many of whom are still refugees today. I'd like to remind the House that Palestinian troops fought alongside Anzacs and British troops in World War I to repel the Turkish and German troops. The Battle of Beersheba in 1917 and the charge of the light brigade in Southern Palestine will always be remembered. Zeina Kilani, an academic legal researcher, mother and Queenslander, is the daughter of a Nakba survivor. Zeina's father was born in Akka to a family that farmed land near Nazareth in Palestine. His family grew olives and raised livestock for many generations. In early 1948 the military attacked towns and villages. Zeina's grandparents fled on foot with their children and what they could carry by hand. They became stateless refugees in Lebanon for the remainder of their lives, yearning to return to their land and livelihood, but they were never given that opportunity. It's time for the Palestinians to have dignity, human rights, civil rights and recognition. The right to live in peace and harmony with Israel is essential, and we all must work together to make this happen. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 102 CONDOLENCES Peacock, Hon. Andrew Sharp, AC 102 10:29 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I'm honoured to be able to make a contribution on this condolence motion for the late Andrew Peacock. As one of the few members of this place who served with Andrew, it's a particular honour to do so. Much has been said about Andrew's considerable contribution to Australia as a member of parliament, as a minister, as Leader of the Opposition and as our ambassador to the United States of America. He served in several ministries, including five years as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but he is best remembered for his critical role in the independence of Papua New Guinea when he was the Minister for Territories. It is sometimes said that a person's reputation is enhanced—or diminished—by comparison with whom they replace and with whom succeeds them. On any reckoning, Andrew Peacock had enormous shoes to fill in 1966, when, at the age of 27, he replaced Sir Robert Menzies, who had served as the member for Kooyong for 32 years, 17 of which were as Prime Minister of Australia. It is fair to say that Andrew Peacock filled those shoes as well as anybody possibly could. Much has been said about Andrew's love of the turf, a passion we both share. I clearly recall the 1974 Melbourne Cup, as it was the first time I attended that famous race at Flemington. As history records, Andrew's horse Leilani was sent out as favourite, having won the Turnbull Stakes, the Toorak Handicap, the Caulfield Cup and the LKS Mackinnon Stakes that spring. The New Zealand bred mare was given a perfect run by jockey Peter Cook, crossing the field to settle behind the runaway leader, High Sail, as the field swept out past the post the first time. As they passed the 1,200-metre mark, legendary race caller Bert Bryant observed: 'Leilani's getting a charm run if she's good enough. There should be no excuses.' But as followers of the turf know, the only certainty on a racecourse is the uncertainty. After hitting the front with 100 metres to run, Leilani was run down by her stablemate Think Big in the shadows of the post. Andrew never forgot that loss. Speaking many years later, he recalled: … I have had a lot of fun in my life. I have had a lot to do. I even got 52 per cent in an election once and lost it. I have had a few disappointments. I can tell you there is no more distressing, depressing moment than having the favourite that runs second in the Melbourne Cup. Whatever the tribulation in life may be, nothing is quintessentially as bad as that. It was 1974, and I still feel pissed off about it— Forgive the expression! I'm quoting— You put on a brave face and go through life saying, 'well that's it,' but it is part of that great allure that Les Carlyon calls 'chasing a dream'. Les had some phrase in one of his books that said 'If you believe that two and two makes four and everything that calculates always levels out like that, then forget about the turf because racing is about dreams and those fractions do not matter'. Little did I know, as I watched the two Bart Cummings trained horses fight out the finish at Flemington on the first Tuesday of November in 1974, that two decades later I would be a parliamentary colleague of the dapper owner of Leilani. When I arrived here some 30 years ago I encountered a warm, generous man interested in assisting a new member. By then John Hewson was the Leader of the Opposition. The old Howard-Peacock rivalry had seemingly run its course. I recall Andrew's advice at the end of my first week, as we sat together on the 6.30 am flight back to Melbourne on the Friday morning. Having sat until 11 pm the night before, as was customary at the time, I told Andrew I didn't know how I'd be able to survive the long hours. He said: 'Do something at about 5 pm in the afternoon. Have a cuppa or go for a walk and tell yourself that the day is only half over.' I'm not sure that the advice was very helpful, but to this day I recall him saying that. Thankfully the sitting hours are much more reasonable these days. Andrew had a serious interest in policy. He was the shadow Attorney-General in my early years, and we had many discussions about policy relating to the legal system and legal matters. He could also be a prankster. In those days the parliament's public address system was commonly used to message members. During one of Paul Keating's two challenges against Bob Hawke, several of us were sitting in the opposition lobby, in the evening, whiling away the hours until the 11.00 adjournment was reached. Andrew phoned the parliament's telephone switchboard, asking that a message be broadcast asking Mr Keating to come to the Prime Minister's office immediately. This was much to the amusement of Andrew's colleagues when it was broadcast around the House. Whether Mr Keating, who was challenging Mr Hawke at that time, took any notice of it, I don't know, but it was certainly amusing. I visited Andrew on several occasions when he was our ambassador in Washington. On the first occasion I was there it was as part of a delegation that attended a reception at the residence. As the group of us entered the residence Andrew pulled me aside and ushered me into his study, saying there was something important he needed to discuss, while the other members proceeded to drinks. What was so important, I wondered? Sitting down in a lounge chair he proceeded to play the taped replays of the previous week's races at Flemington—tapes, presumably, having been flown over in diplomatic bags to Washington—discussing the merits of various horses and how they might go in the next few weeks in Flemington. On another visit, Margie, who's here today, and I were invited to lunch at the residence. We'd just commenced the meal when a maid came in to tell Andrew he was wanted on the phone. 'Not now. Tell them to phone back later,' he brusquely replied. A few minutes later, the maid returned. 'Ambassador, it's Ms MacLaine,' she said. Looking slightly sheepish, Andrew announced that he had to take the phone call, leaving Margie and me to enjoy lunch together, for most of the time. There was a serious side to Andrew Peacock. I was at the embassy on another visit when he was negotiating to exempt Australian meat exports from proposed US tariffs, something he achieved in part because of his very vast and extensive contacts with so many members of the US administration and Congress when he was our representative in Washington. Contrary to what is sometimes perceived or conveyed as the popular image, I found Andrew more conservative on many issues than often thought. He was a considered, sincere man who contributed greatly to this nation. I express my condolences to his family and friends. May he rest in peace. 10:36 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein It is a great privilege to follow the member for Menzies in this condolence motion to the great late the Hon. Andrew Peacock AC. Andrew Peacock, among many of his distinguished achievements, was the leader of our great party on two occasions. He was the member for the federal electorate of Kooyong from 1966 to 1994 and he had an illustrious ministerial career as foreign affairs minister and, later, as ambassador for our great country to the United States. As foreign affairs minister he was distinguished in his role, particularly in taking strong stands in defence of free people everywhere. As the Prime Minister noted in his press release at the sad passing of Andrew Peacock: He was a distinguished minister for foreign affairs who built deep relationships across the region. He was vocal in his denunciation of the Pol Pot regime in Kampuchea, despising what he called that 'loathsome regime'. Andrew Peacock was also critical in discussions on the formation of the independence of Papua New Guinea. At every point, he was a man who understood principle and understood the importance of our common humanity. He also understood the very nature of centralised political systems and the risks that they pose. If you go back and look at his first speech in the House of Representatives, he made a particular point of talking about what was occurring at the time in Vietnam, particularly the relationship and objectives of China in the region. He said: 'In September 1965 Lin Biao, the Vice Premier of Red China'—as it was then called, at least by some, rhetorically—'and the Minister for National Defense said, "Win Asia, Africa and Latin America through wars of national liberation, and the United States and its Western allies will be surrounded, will be encircled, and will be overwhelmed." Where is all this to begin? It has already begun, and the place in which it has begun is in Vietnam.' What Andrew Peacock understood was that central political systems that are focused on empowering the state at the expense of individuals and families and communities only have one ambition, which is to bring other people encircled within their net, and to empower those central systems. That's one of the reasons, among many others, he was a Liberal. Andrew Peacock was a Liberal because he understood the power and empowerment of the individual and of families and communities as the ballast against the state but, more critically, as the foundation of the success of a nation. I only ever met Andrew Peacock once. It was at the farewell to my predecessor, Andrew Robb. Andrew Peacock and other luminaries attended the farewell at the Sandringham Yacht Club to say goodbye to Andrew Robb from his position as the member for Goldstein. The one thing that struck me when that occurred about five years ago was that everything that everyone says about Andrew Peacock was there: the panache, the style, the humanity and his warmth towards others. As people have remarked, he made others feel good. He also probably felt at home. Everybody knows full well that he was the 'Cult from Kooyong', something that the present member for Kooyong likes to highlight from time to time—or at least seeks to replicate. But everybody forgets—at least some of his obituaries properly acknowledge this—that Andrew Peacock's first primary school was Elsternwick, which is in the great electorate of Goldstein. He was a Brightonian at heart. He carried the values of the Goldstein electorate: a forward-looking, modern liberal vision for Australia, and the values entrenched in the idea of building the success of our nation from the citizen up. He was a forward-looking modern liberal who understood and was a successor in many ways to the great Menzies—not just in name and not just in office but also in the values that he aspired to and carried forward for the success of our great nation. That is one of the many things that we are indebted to him for. Andrew Peacock was known by many other titles, some of which sometimes seemed to be dismissive. But when you actually go through his speeches, it's quite clear that he was a man of substance, principles and values. It's just that at the time, perhaps, other people saw them as less important than other ones that came along. Again, going back to his first speech, and again talking about the context of Vietnam, he said at the time, 'We cannot learn from history unless we are free to learn and we cannot act upon these lessons unless we are free to act. The question that arises, therefore, is whether our freedom is in danger. That is the basic question and issue between the government and the opposition from which all other issues flow.' He was a man of principle who understood that public policy and the objectives of our country must flow from that foundational principle. That is something we should recognise and celebrate. In his first speech, he also acknowledged the intellectual traditions and foundations not just of our great party but of the liberalism that sits at the heart of the Australian compact, of the Australian social contract. He referred to John Stuart Mill, who, he made the point, embodied the principle that: The doctrine of non‐intervention, to be a legitimate principle of morality, must be accepted by all governments. The despots must consent to be bound by it as well as the free States. Unless they do, the profession of it by free countries comes but to this miserable issue, that the wrong side may help the wrong, but the right must not help the right. What Andrew Peacock understood was that Liberalism was a reflective proposition; it reflected on humanity and people's capacity to be able to live out the full success of their lives. He also understood the darker side of humanity and that we needed to recognise the threats that occurred and the challenges that have been faced as part of addressing the future of our country, but it should not come at the expense of celebrating our own nation's achievements. In one of his Australia Day messages he said, 'The building of modern Australia has been an extraordinary achievement to which the Aboriginal and European settlers have contributed unique qualities from their civilisations. It has been an achievement attained by hard work, courage and faith and not without pain. Racism and other forms of discrimination and environmental damage have been part of that pain'. The Speaker read out a note from Andrew Peacock's daughter Ann Peacock at the condolence motion in the House earlier in the week, making the point that Andrew Peacock demonstrated his values not just in the debates of his time when he served in this place; he continued to advocate for causes that he believed in and held dear following his time in this place, including on an issue that you and I were involved with, Deputy Speaker Zimmerman: marriage equality. At heart, Andrew Peacock lived that Menzien value of liberalism, which is for a 'lively mind and a forward-looking heart'. Those values continue on through his successors and his family, who hold those values today. I see them every day, living with a lively mind and a forward-looking heart, particularly his daughter Ann—not just on her Instagram page but when she visits the Goldstein electorate, as she often does. She is always welcome and we love seeing her at local events. Ann, as well as the rest of the family, continue the Peacock tradition, which they should be so proud of. While the memory of Andrew Peacock will live on in our minds and hearts, it lives on in practice in their values as a family, and we wish them all the best and offer our condolences through this difficult time. 10:45 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman I want to speak in this condolence motion for Andrew Peacock and perhaps contemporise his career a little, as well as recognise some of the foreign affairs contributions that he made. Andrew Peacock reached across from a political career to a career in diplomacy—something that very few of us manage to do effectively. Andrew Peacock was in the same year as my father at school in Melbourne. There is a bit of a story about that school. In 1838 my family moved onto the land that is now Scotch College and farmed that land for a period until the school was established. My father had a close connection to the school for that reason, and my family followed Andrew Peacock's career. At the age of four, I was in a very small outpost called Wakunai and my first political recollection of any type was listening to shortwave radio and getting the results of the 1972 federal election in Australia. I remember the oscillation of my parents moods as different administrations were voted in and out. Needless to say, 1972 was a tragedy for them and 1975 a cause of great elation for the tiny island of Bougainville, where I was going to school. At that time, you were either a Peacock supporter or you weren't. I think if Andrew Peacock were here today he would have a significant online following—an Instagram account to rival the member for Bonner! That kind of following wasn't possible back then, but I think it's not unreasonable to say that we hadn't exactly had among Liberal leaders anyone who would have been a YouTube sensation until we had Andrew Peacock, who had a huge personal following that I remember in the seventies—and I count my mother among them. Although many willed Andrew Peacock to be not only a leader but a prime minister, I think his greatest contribution came after politics. He took a really strong position against the Pol Pot regime. He visited Papua New Guinea, our nearest northern neighbour, dozens of times. The independence of Papua New Guinea must have been one of the most challenging foreign policy questions for this nation. Andrew Peacock was there at the time of independence, an extremely traumatic period when Australia, in a very short time, withdrew its support for and involvement with that country—many would say too quickly and at the UN's behest. And the result was significant convulsions and uncertainty in the period immediately after. At the time, I was an eight-year-old living in the very remote Southern Highlands administrative capital of Mendi. I recall Michael Somare visiting as I got out of school in grade 3. I used to get down and sniff the turbo engine fumes for something to do in a town of that size in the middle of New Guinea. They were crowding the airport and there was a huge local movement of people tearing up the new Papua New Guinea flag. This is what Andrew Peacock and, to an even more significant extent, Michael Somare faced in convincing that great nation that it could be independent, that it could be free of Australia. Many local people were instinctively desperate to keep Australia connected for a range of really interesting cultural reasons, but it was people like Peacock who would have worked with those PNG leaders at the time to convince them that independence, for better or worse, was the right thing to do—and sometimes you may have to go backwards slightly in order to go forwards. However we judge how it was done, it was achieved with the work of both sides of this chamber and Andrew Peacock doing his very important work politically and, subsequently, in a diplomatic role. My only other observation is that Andrew Peacock was one of the few Australian politicians who went on to get involved in American politics, and there he also had a significant impact. While I can't say I was a fly on the wall, I can imagine him being congratulated by George W Bush after his election victory. All presidents are surrounded by Americans who support them for obvious reasons. Andrew Peacock would have been one of those people George W Bush could have looked in the eye and said, 'I thank you for what you've done in helping me because I'm pretty sure you're one of the few in this room who aren't here asking me for anything in return.' And I'm sure Andrew Peacock probably said, 'Mr President, I am. I hope you can be a two-term president.' For his achievements in both diplomacy and politics, this entire building remembers Andrew Peacock. 10:49 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney I hadn't intended to speak on this motion, but I have to say that listening to the excellent contributions that have been made in memory of Andrew Peacock this morning has triggered some memories from my formative years in politics. It was during the 1980s that my interest in politics was taking shape and form. I have to say that one of my great inspirations in that journey was my grandmother who lived in Brisbane. It's fair to say that she was (1) an avid liberal; and (2) an equally avid Peacock person, if I can put it that way. With all due respect to one of my greatest constituents, former Prime Minister Howard, my grandmother was always fond of saying, 'Voters want to vote for someone who looks good, and that's Mr Peacock.' It was an incredible period in Australian politics. In fact, I recall—I stand to be corrected—that the very first polling booth I worked on was in 1984 as a 15- or 16-year-old. I just wandered up to my local Stanmore Public School and offered my services to help the rather thin array of volunteers in that dead red area of Sydney who were handing out for Mr Peacock. I had the privilege of doing so again in 1990, when I was then a signed-up member of the Young Liberals. On that occasion I was sent to a polling booth in the middle of the Glebe public housing estate. I have to say, it wasn't a booth that recorded a high vote for the potential prime ministership of Andrew Peacock! But it was also that election in 1990 when I think I attended my first major public campaign rally. It is worth reflecting on the fact that, in those days, election campaigns were more rambunctious and more open to community engagement. We saw our leaders in that day hold mass public rallies—or we hoped they were mass public rallies, depending on your success in getting people along. I vividly recall attending a public rally in Hurstville Westfield that Mr Peacock spoke at, and then subsequently one in Martin Place. It was events like the public rally in Martin Place which probably brought around their demise—which followed, I think, soon after the 1993 election, where we saw the difficulties of those big rallies. In Martin Place I vividly recall some Wilderness Society protesters dressed as koalas jumping on stage, attempting to bowl Andrew Peacock over, only to be thwarted by the then shadow minister for the environment, Senator Chris Puplick, who, in an usual display of physical prowess, managed to hold back those koalas from taking over the stage. It was an extraordinary time in Australian politics and an extraordinary time for the Liberal Party. I recall that even as a teenager. It's fair to say that it's often overlooked when we think about the legacy of the Hawke government, regarded as one of Australia's most popular prime ministers, that in fact in 1984, just a little over a year after his election, Andrew Peacock almost achieved the unthinkable, and that was to successfully at the ballot box depose Prime Minister Hawke. In 1990 it showed the variation around the country, because, again, Mr Peacock did exceptionally well—I think, from memory—in Victoria. If that vote had held across the country, he would have become Prime Minister in that year. But it was a difficult period for the Liberal Party because it was a decade where leadership divisions held back the party's potential. It was a salutary lesson for all of us, one I think has sadly been lost in more recent times, but hopefully remembered again. It also reflected a philosophical debate within the Liberal Party about its future direction, a debate that probably, after the end of the Fraser government, needed to be had. I want to conclude by saying that I think Andrew Peacock's contribution over the lifetime that he was involved in politics is one that's hard to see replicated again in this era, (1) because of its longevity; and (2) just simply because of the depth and breadth of interest that Andrew Peacock had. It was also unusual to see someone elected to public office and to have been involved in the Liberal Party at such a young age. I remember, as a New South Wales Young Liberal president, admiring the fact that he was originally a Victorian Young Liberal president himself, but went on to become state president of the Victorian division, still in his 20s, before he was elected to parliament not long after. That, to me, stood out as an extraordinary achievement. I also reflect on the fact that his career was not just a parliamentary one. He did go on to serve Australia with such great adeptness in the United States as our ambassador, in that extraordinary act of, I think, reconciliation and generosity on the part of Prime Minister John Howard to appoint him to arguably what is Australia's most important diplomatic role. Of course, he had a deep and strong affection for the United States because of its significance to Australia. He also had a deep and strong affection for Americans themselves, sometimes famously so. Of course, he was to spend his last years with the love and in the care of his American wife, in Texas. But, as one of the previous speakers alluded to, he was also famous for his relationship with a very prominent American actress, and I'll finish by telling this story of a federal council meeting in the early 1990s. I think it was held at the Sheraton in Brisbane. Much to the excitement of federal council delegates, Andrew Peacock arrived with Shirley MacLaine. There were a lot of celebrity-spotters hoping for the opportunity to meet this great legend of the United States. For reasons which I won't even guess at, Andrew Peacock and Shirley MacLaine checked into the Sheraton in Brisbane and were not seen again for the rest of federal council! I want to conclude just by saying that all of us have a lot to learn from the incredible example set by Andrew Peacock across his career. I know my predecessor Joe Hockey knew him closely and particularly reaffirmed that relationship during his own time as ambassador, and I am sure he would want to be associated with this motion as well. Rest in peace, Andrew Peacock. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 106 COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs 106 Report 106 10:56 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan As a member of this committee who helped put together this report, I wanted to really commend it to the government and to speak about a couple of key aspects. It's got 88 recommendations, it's quite a considerable document, and there are a number of aspects that I wanted to draw to the chamber's attention that I think are the most important. Those are the issues of coercive control and technology based abuse, and there is one important recommendation that I want to commend to the government when it comes to stopping this kind of abuse. I have to say that serving on this committee was a very important but at times very harrowing and eye-opening experience for all of us. We know scourge of domestic and family violence on our country, and it comes in many forms. Perpetrators are continually adapting their methods of asserting control over and using force on their victims. It is not just physical abuse but also other forms of abuse, particularly coercive control, that the committee heard about. This is an insidious form of violence. It doesn't show itself easily, like bruises or cuts or broken bones do, but it is probably an even more effective means of control and manipulation. It is behaviour that seeks to isolate victims and intimidate them, to ultimately control another person. We heard from victims who were put in states of complete fear, at the total mercy of somebody else's actions. Criminals who seek to use coercive control as a weapon withhold finances, access to health care and educational opportunities and even access to children. Importantly—and this is the key point about the importance of addressing coercive control—it is a major predictor of fear and physical violence, particularly homicide. This shows the seriousness of these crimes and the consequences of a path of coercive control. In my state of Queensland, we recently lost Kelly Wilkinson, a 27-year-old young mum from Runaway Bay on the Gold Coast, who died by the hands of her ex-partner. He set her on fire. Weeks before this horrific crime, Kelly had reached out about her ex-partner to both police and local support groups. She recognised his behaviour; she knew that he was exerting coercive control. She was let down. It isn't good enough. We cannot hear any more of these stories. The behaviour must be stopped, and the way we do that is by having proper legislation that captures coercion and coercive behaviour, and has consistency across all states. Police and other law enforcement need to have legislative powers so that, when they are contacted by the Kellys of this world, they can act very quickly to stop those perpetrators. At present, each state and territory approaches coercive control and the legislation to prevent it differently. Some have better legislation than others. Some, unfortunately, have no legislation. To truly capture all of the behaviours that involve coercive control and have them dealt with properly under law so that law enforcement can protect victims and survivors, the committee has recommended that the federal government work with the states and territories to establish 'shared principles to guide any future offences of coercive and controlling behaviour, with a view to ensuring consistency' across all jurisdictions. To that call for consistency, I would add a very strong call for states to get on with the job of legislating against coercive control. That leads on to aspects of how coercive control occurs. Some of it is well documented, but I wanted to take the opportunity to speak to the part of the committee report that documents, in particular, technology facilitated coercive control, which I think is a relatively new but unfortunately quickly expanding form of that offence. Technology is being used to commit some of the most horrific forms of coercive control. Criminals with the most insidious intentions are using social media platforms for all sorts of things. But, when it comes to domestic and family violence, devices and platforms are being used to further control, stalk and intimidate victims. A recent example is messaging on banking platforms. You'd think this would be a pretty innocuous form of technology—somebody is making an electronic bank transfer to another and they have an opportunity to write a short message about what that transfer relates to. Well, as we are learning, even these most innocuous forms of technology come with great risk. A month or two ago, I was in the Economics Committee talking to the major banks. In answering my questions, the Commonwealth Bank revealed that thousands of customers are sending hundreds of thousands of abusive and coercive messages to people, particularly in domestic violence situations, across this seemingly innocuous technology. It's only recently that the banks, to their credit, have picked up on it. Having done so, they're starting to fully understand and reveal the full scope of the horror, which we didn't understand before. One of the other most concerning developments is remote access Trojans, or RATs. RATs are purchased from online sellers and can be installed on victims' devices. If you were seeking to exert coercive control, you could purchase a subscription for a RAT—which is just a software program—just as you would purchase a subscription for Microsoft Word. You could install it on a victim's device and you would then have full access to that device, whether it's a laptop, a phone or an iPad. You'd see the keystrokes and you could observe banking passwords. You could stalk their diaries, often without their consent. It is used to assert control and instil great fear. Before this inquiry, I confess I didn't know what RATs were, how they could be used or, indeed, the prevalence of their use. But, having been briefed by the AFP and having served on this committee, I am now fully across the horror that these things pose. They are not in and of themselves illegal, but I have to say I can see no legal or reasonable use for such a technology. I think there's work to be done on, again, giving law enforcement more powers to crack down on those who use RATs to exercise coercive control. In particular, the committee has recommended a public awareness campaign on this technology so that victims-survivors and the general community are aware how they can be used for coercive control and how to recognise the signs of a device being monitored. I think this is a very important recommendation, and I commend it to the government to take up. Finally, if I could be so bold as to single one out, I would highlight what I think is the most important of the 88 recommendations. More often than not, when the committee heard this harrowing testimony, we heard the phrase 'If only I had known'. If only they had known how poorly he had treated a previous partner, that he was already subject to and had broken a previous AVO or that he already had a conviction which was part of a pattern of escalating behaviour, that victim-survivor could have protected themselves and their children. It is with that in mind that I believe the most important recommendation for government to take action on is the introduction of a register of convicted family, domestic and sexual violence offenders, similar to the proposed national public register of child sex offenders. What a powerful tool a public register would be. It would allow victim-survivors to take back some of the power from these perpetrators. It would mean that the crimes of these perpetrators and their escalating behaviour would follow them throughout their lives, as they should. In my mind, the moment that you engage in this kind of behaviour, you give up the right to some kind of anonymity and you deserve having your behaviour follow you as long as you walk this place. Others deserve the opportunity to be warned off you and warned of your behaviour. With a register like this, women could search the same of a prospective partner and be able to find if they have a history of violence or abuse towards other partners or women. Power would be handed back to them so they can decide and be informed about who they allow to enter their lives. It is a very simple idea and something we all take for granted. We control who enters our lives. We control who engages with our family. But we need the information to be able to make informed decisions, and the register would allow us to do that. The fact that it might also, hopefully, make these offenders think twice about committing this behaviour in the first place if this behaviour was to follow them for the rest of their life would be an even better incidental benefit. The main benefit is for victim-survivors to take back the power, but, if it deterred even one bit of offending, it would make the whole thing worth it. I commend in particular those three recommendations and the whole report to the government. 11:06 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I am very pleased to be able to speak on this report and this inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence. I'm pleased to see fellow committee members and the committee chair in the chamber with me and I acknowledge the work that we all did together in this very important inquiry. It was a privilege for me to be a member of the committee for this inquiry. Its work was at times heartbreaking in its findings. I want to acknowledge the contributions and the testimonies from individuals who shared their experiences of family, domestic and sexual violence, because their voices were so vital to this process and I do want to thank them for sharing their stories. Please know that your efforts were not in vain. I also want to thank all the service providers and the experts who shared their knowledge and their experience with the committee. The breadth and the quality of the evidence that we gathered made it clear just how much more work there is to be done in this country to address family violence. The national conversation we are having at the moment about violence against women is incredibly important. We know that, in Australia, one woman is murdered by her current or former domestic partner every week. Since this inquiry commenced in June last year, more than 40 women will have been murdered by their current or former partner. This just should not be acceptable in our country. If it was happening in any setting other than a domestic setting, it would rightly be seen and talked about as a national emergency. And so what is needed is an ambitious and urgent response. This inquiry went some of the way to working out what we need to do next. There were more than 350 submissions, 47 confidential submissions, 16 days of inquiries and 90 hours of evidence over many months. That culminated in the 88 recommendations which we hope will inform the development of the next national plan and which are grouped across five key themes: that the next national plan should involve a more uniform approach across jurisdictions, that the next national plan must seek to engender a culture of accountability and greater workforce support, that education is critical, that there remains a greater need for greater awareness and understanding of the many forms of family violence, that the welfare of victim-survivors and their children should be paramount and that the next national plan must continue to hold perpetrators to account for their use of violence. Those of us who are Labor members of this committee have some additional comments that we want to make, because the evidence taken by the committee was unequivocal. The scale of this problem is greater than either the resources or the resolve that the Australian government has currently brought to the task. We added to the committee's findings that there is the need for a proper policy process as the next national plan is developed. There must be adequate and informed consultation as part of the development of that plan. We must consider the implications of the federal government's inaction on previous inquiries and the need for us to learn from the mass of work that has already been done in this area, including the Victorian royal commission. As a member from Victoria, I must commend the Victorian government for the way it has been leading governments' responses in this space and for the work that is under way in my home state. We must recognise the Commonwealth's role and the ability of the Commonwealth to do more in areas that we have control of, including in particular the strong evidence received by the committee for the need for the introduction of 10 days paid domestic violence leave per year for victim/survivors. When you think about all of the impacts on a person's life when they're experiencing family violence, it makes basic sense that they would need space and time from their workplace to try and deal with some of those implications. There's a clear role for the Commonwealth to step in here. I actually spent last night watching the latest episode of Jess Hill's excellent documentary, See what you made me do. I think that documentary does an excellent job of publicly conveying many of the things that were highlighted to us during this inquiry: the pervasive terror that too many women live under and the massive gaps that remain in the systems that should support and protect them; the way that First Nations women disproportionately experience this; and the entitlement and sense of control that too many men seem to believe they have the right to exercise over women. We must be prepared to confront this. Our response to family violence must be about resetting the norms in our society that implicitly tell men they are entitled to harm women. While I welcome this report and believe its 88 recommendations must be urgently implemented, I do very much fear that this government is not up to the task, because this is a government that, for eight years, ignored and neglected women's safety. In fact, it's a government that, since coming to office, has spent as much on government advertising as they have helping to stop family violence. It's a government that seems to be playing catch-up now that it has realised it has a political problem in the women's space, with women feeling ignored, unheard and unsupported throughout its term. It is hard to feel confident that this is the government that we need to address the horrific levels of violence that Australian women are experiencing. It's hard to imagine that this government is going to address the underlying issue of gender inequality, and we see that in this place this week, where members who have targeted women in behaviour online continue to hold important positions in this place and are not being held to account by the government. What does this say around that sense of entitlement that I've been talking about? What does it say to men that they're allowed to do to women, when we in this place continue to condone this kind of behaviour? The government has put money into some of these services in the budget this week, and that is welcome. But it's not enough. A government member: $1.1 billion is a lot of money. Ms THWAITES 282212 It's a lot of money, but it's catch-up from money that hasn't been there in the past, and we do need more. We do need a greater commitment. We do need this understanding that funding of front line services is absolutely essential. Funding of our courts and the systems that sit around it, and of the training that we need that helps women get out of these situations, is absolutely essential. We need funding to solve the problems that get women into this in the first place. We need funding for education, for the things that will change men's behaviours, for the things that will change the structures in our society that creates these inequalities—that funding is essential as well. That's what I want to see more of from this government. That's what I know a Labor government would do, because we are committed not just to addressing family and domestic violence but to addressing so many of those things that are the driving forces of this, like the fact that women are so often unequal in financial security and the fact that most women earn less money than men. Again in this budget what we did not see was any substantial increase in wages for the areas where women predominantly work—that is, our childcare, aged-care and disability service sectors. These services are predominantly staffed by females and yet there was nothing in this budget that will raise their wages. By perpetuating these inequalities, we're perpetuating some of the structures that mean women are at risk of family and domestic violence at a much higher level than men. Some of the things that I'm been proud are in Labor's women's budget statement, and some of the things that Labor believes we need to address in these underlying issues, are a national gender equality strategy, so that we can look at these issues across the breadth of government and across everything we do, and work on this as a holistic issue. We do need gender-responsive budgeting. We should know how everything affects women and how it is helping women to get to a more equal position in our community. And, of course, we do need equal representation in this place, because I do not think that we would be having this conversation today and I do not think that this report would have been written in the way that it has been today if there were not enough women in this place who were helping to raise it as an issue and to make sure that it was front and centre. There has been support from the many men I know who also want to champion this, and many women outside this place have also been raising their voice. I have to pay tribute to the bravery and the courage of the women who stood out the front of this place and protested, the brave young women who came forward and told their stories and the victims-survivors who told their stories to this committee. I have to say again that, while I stand in this place, I will do everything I can to make sure your courage and your bravery does not go unnoticed, that it gets acted upon and that you get the response that you need. Our country needs to end this. Enough is enough. It is time to end the scourge of domestic and family violence. We need to do more. 11:15 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass I echo the sentiments of the member for Jagajaga. This was a difficult and confronting inquiry, but I did feel it was a great privilege to be able to participate in it. I'm very hopeful that it makes a start and is a step forward. As laid out in stark language at the foreword of this report, the facts tell us that, in the time since this inquiry was referred, more than 40 women will have been murdered at the hands of a current or former partner. Sadly, we now know the name Kelly Wilkinson—a name quickly etched into our memory as that of Hannah Clarke. Just like Hannah, Kelly was horrifically murdered by her former partner and father of her children. Just like Hannah, Kelly had tried to seek help in order to stay safe. These horrific details that have emerged since Kelly's life was taken by her abuser point to some of the very issues that the report and its recommendations are working to address—that someone can be going to the police every day and still not be safe. Like Kelly, like Hannah and like so many women, this culminates in the most horrendous of outcomes. Every day in Australia, countless women and children experience non-lethal family violence and abuse, the impact of which, as we heard time and time again throughout the inquiry, is profound and long lasting on victims-survivors and their families and friends and on the very fabric of our society. As the chair said yesterday, around 90 hours of evidence were submitted as part of this inquiry, and we must not let the stories we heard be in vain. With 88 recommendations—and it is my hope that all of them will be implemented—there is an opportunity to finally move the dial on this insidious issue that seeps through every corner of our society, sometimes so quietly that we do not hear the sounds of coercive control and sometimes so loudly that we're shaken awake when we read the story of yet another woman murdered by a current or former partner and ask ourselves, yet again, 'How could this happen?' Though I can't highlight each recommendation today, there are a range of measures which, beyond responding to the current crisis, also focus on addressing the challenge of the principal drivers of family, domestic and sexual violence—that is, gender inequality; stereotypical attitudes towards gender roles, characteristics and behaviour; and disrespect of girls and women. All abuse starts with disrespect, and until we begin to truly address this challenge we won't see the societal shift that we desperately need. I'd like to acknowledge the work of some Tasmanian organisations who provided evidence to the committee. Laurel House, based in the northern Tasmanian region, provide sexual assault support services, including counselling and crisis support to local women, children and men affected by sexual assault in our community. They also provide much-needed education services, including a new consent program, which is now being offered to schools in the northern Tasmanian region. I'd like to thank the team at Laurel House, and particularly acting chief executive Frances Pratt, for the important services they provide to the local community and for the submission that they made to this inquiry. In the two years since I was elected, I've also been working closely with Yvette Cehtel, CEO of Women's Legal Service Tasmania, and we've had many, many discussions on what the reality of family and domestic violence in our state looks like, how the federal government can play a role in supporting women and their families facing these situations and how we as a government can also drive meaningful change. I greatly appreciate their submission to the inquiry, particularly around the issue of coercive control. Thanks also to Engender Equality, a leading voice against family violence in Tasmania, for their submission and for the endless and tireless work they undertake every day, day after day, to end family, domestic and intimate partner violence. With this report and the budget investment of $1.1 billion, I am hopeful that we will begin to see movement in the area of women's safety. It is pleasing to see that much of the funding will go to addressing particular challenges that have been raised in this report. One such challenge raised at the committee was the high cost of legal support and the barrier that this creates for many victim-survivors in the justice system. The $120 million funding injection into specialised women's legal services will support thousands of women and children to safely escape violent relationships. This funding has been welcomed by service providers, including Women's Legal Services Australia. Additionally, there's significant funding to provide financial assistance to women escaping a violent relationship. We'll also provide relief to women in this incredibly distressing situation. There are positive steps being taken to look at responding to the current crisis, but we must continue to move towards long-term structural reform that will create meaningful change. This is a start, it is a step forward, but it can't stop here. It must continue. Debate adjourned. CONDOLENCES 111 CONDOLENCES Peacock, Hon. Andrew Sharp, AC 111 11:21 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong It is a great honour to speak on the condolence motion for the Hon. Andrew Peacock AC. Australia has lost one of its greats in Andrew Peacock. Combining style and substance, he left an indelible mark on the Australian political scene. As leader, minister and member for Kooyong for 28 years, he carried the baton of his predecessor, Sir Robert Menzies, championing liberal ideals and providing strong and good government. There was no more popular and respected liberal in the Victorian division. Andrew held a number of senior portfolios in the Gorton, McMahon and Fraser governments, including foreign affairs; external territories; industry and commerce; industrial relations; and Army during the time of the Vietnam War. His warm and sincere relationship with the people of Papua New Guinea was well known and saw him awarded the Grand Companion of the Order of Logohu, and with it the title of honorary chief. His role in Papua New Guinea's independence cannot be overstated. After his formal political career ended in 1994, he continued his public service as a distinguished and successful Australian ambassador to the United States. Andrew was authentic, tough and possessed a dry sense of humour. He will be remembered fondly by those on both sides of the political aisle, as he played his politics as he pursued life: with vigour, dignity and the upmost decency. I'll be forever grateful to him for his generous friendship, advice and support, and feel so proud to be part of his wonderful legacy in Kooyong, where he was an exceptionally popular local member. He had so many friends in Kooyong, like Geoff Bowden, his long time FEC chair; Pat Holdensen, his FEC vice-chair; and other Liberal stalwarts, like Jane Hargreaves and George Swinburne. I remember when he launched my first campaign in 2010 in Kooyong. He gathered among the assembled group and he said to them, 'Josh, if you're fortunate enough to be elected by the people of Kooyong, before you give your first speech in parliament, send a draft copy of your speech across to me for approval,' a bit like Sir Robert Menzies had said to him all those years before. I asked, 'Andrew, what happened?' And he said he wrote his speech and he sent it across to Sir Robert Menzies, and not long after that the phone rang. He said, 'Hello?' And he heard, 'Sir Robert here.' Andrew asked, 'Did you get a copy of my speech?' Sir Robert said he did. So Andrew asked, 'Sir Robert, what did you think of the speech?' And Sir Robert said, 'It's too long.' So Andrew asked, 'What should I do?' Sir Robert said, 'Cut it in half!'—to which Andrew asked the obvious question: 'Which half?' And Sir Robert said, 'It doesn't matter!' Andrew had a wonderful personality. He could be serious and he could be jovial. But he was always friendly, and incredibly decent. He will be greatly missed by his friends, by his former colleagues, by the Australian public. But that does not compare to how much he'll be missed by his family. Ann Peacock, together with her sisters, Caroline and Jane, and their father's grandchildren, Andrew, Woody and Christopher, shared a few words as part of the formal condolence motion in the House. These words I repeat, because they go to the heart of his legacy: What we are left with is the love in our hearts and in our souls of the greatest, most giving, most caring, generous and thoughtful father. He always prioritised us. He was a father, and a mother for many years, all whilst holding down some of the greatest leading positions of the government and the Liberal Party. He will not die. He will live on in us, and we will uphold all that he taught us. We will never cease loving him and, as we were his priority, he is ours forever. They are the most beautiful words, and my love and prayers are with Penne, are with Ann, are with Caroline and Jane and the grandchildren and extended family at this difficult time. We will have an opportunity to share some more words at his memorial service in Melbourne. But I take this opportunity, as the deputy Liberal Party leader, as the sitting member for Kooyong, as a dear friend of Andrew Peacock, along with so many others, to say: thank you for what you've done for our country. May your soul rest in peace. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I understand that it is the wish of the House for honourable members to signify their respect by rising in their places, and I ask all present to do so. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I thank the Federation Chamber. 11:28 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 112 COMMITTEES Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee 112 Report 112 11:29 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak to the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs on its inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence. I thank the committee members—in particular, the chair, the member for Fisher—for guiding what must've been a very difficult and emotional inquiry. I thank the 298 individuals and organisations who took the time to make submissions to the inquiry and, in particular, all of those who appeared at the 16 public hearings. No doubt some of the experiences were incredibly traumatic for those telling and for those hearing. I commend you for your strength and courage and I really hope your contributions will help inform us as decision-makers and assist other victim-survivors in getting the support and assistance they need. I thank the secretariat for their assistance and professionalism in supporting this vital inquiry. The report is extremely thorough and detailed, with 88 recommendations. My hope, though, is that the report is not just actioned but prioritised. Committees, witnesses, expert organisations and secretariat staff commit a great deal of time resources and energy into these inquiries, which produce well-research reports with a list of much-needed recommendations. But too often, unfortunately, the reports sit idle. So I call on the government to carefully consider the full list of 88 recommendations made in this report, particularly as they draft the new national plan to reduce violence against women and their children. The reality is that, in this place, we are acutely aware of the scourge of family, domestic and sexual violence. As community leaders, we see it in our neighbourhoods. We work with the shelters and the charities supporting the victims. We attend vigils., we send condolences, and we post about our thoughts and prayers. But what action are we taking in this place to really address the issue? As the chair highlighted in the foreword, in Australia, on average, one woman dies every eight years, making it statistically likely that, over the duration of this inquiry alone, 40 Australian women have lost their lives at the hands of a current or former partner. That is a shameful statistic and it cries out for action. We should note the origin of the inquiry, which was an embarrassment in itself. We had a complete failure by a Senate inquiry which was supposed to be into domestic violence. It wrapped up three months early, having not taken any submissions or held any public hearings. It was the public outcry that led to this inquiry being put in place. I commend the government for their response back in June to establish this inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. The terms of reference covered a range of areas and were specifically designed to inform the next national plan to reduce violence against women and their children. I was particularly pleased to see reference made to an examination of all forms of violence against women, including but not limited to coercive control and technology facilitated abuse. There were 88 recommendations in the report and they are grouped into five key things. Firstly, the next national action plan to reduce violence against women and their children should involve a more uniform approach across jurisdictions and one that is more inclusive of the various manifestations of family violence. This should include the development of a uniform national definition of family, domestic and sexual violence that takes into account the non-physical forms of violence such as coercive control, financial abuse and technology facilitated abuse. Secondly, the national plan must seek to engender a culture of accountability and greater workforce support, and all Australian governments should work collaboratively and transparently and be held to account through quantitative targets. It needs to be measurable. Thirdly, education is critical. There remains a need for greater awareness and understanding of the many forms of family, domestic and sexual violence, the causes and impacts of violence, and the ways in which it can be prevented. Fourthly, in response to family, domestic and sexual violence, the welfare of victim-survivors and their children should be paramount. The next national plan should seek to improve victim survivors access to Specialist services as well as housing, legal aid and financial assistance. Fifthly, the next national plan must continue to hold perpetrators to account for their use of violence. This should include increased penalties for breaches of domestic violence orders and improved information sharing about perpetrators. I strongly support greater deterrence through harsher penalties. I am astounded and quite outraged by this aspect. I contrast the response that we have to domestic violence with the response implemented by state governments to the spate of one-punch attacks which we saw in Kings Cross, Sydney, for example. We saw entire industries shut down with the introduction of controversial lockout laws. I note that Victorian and Queensland governments have also introduced specific legislation with regard to coward punch attacks. A one-punch attack—predominantly a male-on-male assault—has mobilised state governments to implement harsher sentencing and stricter liability laws, but domestic violence, where one woman is killed every eight days, on average, has not done the same. Domestic violence fails to attract anywhere near the same sense of outrage, censure and legislative action. Between 2000 and 2016, there have been 127 deaths from coward punch attacks. In contrast, the accepted statistic is that one woman dies every eight days at the hands of a current or former partner. So I've done the maths. In the same period as there have been 127 coward punch attacks, 730 women—daughters, sisters, wives, mothers and aunts—have been slain, but there has been no action. The statistics are even more horrific. Even when found guilty, only about 16 per cent of perpetrators will face a custodial sentence, and the average length of incarceration is 370 days for the most serious kinds of assault. On top of that, only 1.5 per cent of perpetrators will complete the full sentence in custody. That is outrageous, and it is so symptomatic. Because the victims of intimate partner violence are predominantly women, we are completely failing to have the same sense of urgency to act and put in place strong deterrence measures. I do not accept this. If we have harsher laws in relation to coward punch attacks, with mandatory minimum sentencing regimes, why on earth do we not have similar regimes for intimate partner violence? It must change. The point of legislation is deterrence, and we must send a clear and strong message to society that perpetrators will face significant minimum mandatory sentences. I truly hope the government can take on the integrated and holistic approach of implementing all the recommendations, particularly the recommendation to look at strengthening sentencing. I was pleased to see in the budget, released yesterday, nearly $1 billion over four years for initiatives to reduce the incidence, and support the victims, of family, domestic and sexual violence against women and children. I welcome the increase from the $150 million announced in the COVID response package in March last year. The budget papers note that violence against women is estimated to cost Australia $26 billion annually. Money certainly can't fix everything, but $250 million a year to fix a $26 billion problem seems like a very small investment to address the issue. Whilst I commend the government for addressing it, it's clear that a lot more needs to be done. The family law system needs reform, but, from my experience in the courts and on the family law committee inquiry, funding is a major problem when it comes to ensuring access to justice and appropriate protection. We need to do more in that respect, and I note that some funding was provided to that system as well. We cannot have a proper conversation about addressing domestic and family violence without the honest discussion of broader cultural change, and for that we need to make sure respect for women—respect for all—is above and beyond all else. There are many actions in this place where we've failed to uphold that standard, and that needs to change. Leadership is important. We will only get cultural change if it comes from the top, and it must come from this place. We must determine the standard that we simply will not allow to drop. We have to raise the standards. We have people in this place who have behaved appallingly, and that needs to stop. We have to act on intimate partner violence. 11:39 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley This was a really important inquiry that the committee, of which I'm proud to be a member, conducted. We shouldn't have had to have it. We shouldn't be in this country that we all love, repeatedly talking about the statistics that a woman dies every eight days at the hands of an intimate partner. We shouldn't still be having inquiry after inquiry after inquiry into domestic and family and sexual violence, because it shouldn't be such a pervasive and enormous part of our society. I think people throw around the term 'un-Australian' far too often, in all sorts of circumstances. But when you think about the way that we like to consider ourselves as a country and as a people, when you think about the characteristics that we like to portray as being very Australian, they are actually about equality—about an easygoing sort of attitude, 'How are you going, mate?' and everyone should be all right. That is fundamentally, diametrically opposed to a society where domestic violence is routinely described as a scourge and where, no matter which political party you're a member of, no matter which level of government you're elected to, no matter whether you're in civil society or a leader in the workplace, wherever you are, you're committed to eradicating this scourge on society and have been for decades and decades and decades—and yet. And yet we are still here today, on both sides of the chamber—and the chair of the committee is sitting across from me, and I know that he cares about this—talking earnestly about the reforms and funding and changes that are needed to make the amount of domestic and family violence that occurs in this country less disgraceful. The member for Warringah spoke before me—I didn't get to hear all of her speech—and, again, like everyone else in this chamber and in this parliament, I accept and respect her genuine concern for this issue. She focused in a bit of her speech that I listened to on deterrence and jail sentences, and, absolutely, the criminal justice system has a significant part to play in dealing with domestic and family violence. But what those of us on the committee know, because there was hardly a submitter or a witness that didn't refer to it, is that we have to look at primary prevention and cultural change—not just at the drivers of domestic and family violence but at the solution to reducing it. And we can't just rely on punishing perpetrators when it has occurred. We certainly can't just rely on the necessary, crucial and, quite frankly, often amazing support services that exist around the country to help women and children once they've been the victims of domestic and family violence. Of course we have to do everything we can to lift them up and support them and enable them to access those crucial services. But as a parliament and a government we also have to look at what we can do to stop it happening in the first place. That truly is about addressing the actual culture that exists in homes and workplaces and sporting clubs across Australia and changing it. That's why the committee's report, both the bipartisan, unanimous main report and the additional comments from the Labor members—of which I'm one—emphasised primary prevention programs and gender equality. They are at the heart of us becoming the country that we all believe we are and we all believe we want to be. It was, as our report said, the fourth action plan of the national plan which continued the increasing emphasis on primary preventive strategies and declared that primary prevention is the key. It said that the basic premise of the approach is that gender equality is the key to ending violence against women and their children and that women will never be safe if they are not equal. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:45 to 12 : 17 Ms MURPHY 133646 I've got a lot more to say, which I had prepared, but I can't help but note the irony that my speech was interrupted by voting on, in part, Labor's motion to remove the member for Bowman from the chair of the Education Committee, which he said he was going to do himself—because he had to stand down and get empathy training in order to understand that harassing women online, taking photographs of women in their workplace without their permission when they are bending over and their underwear can be seen—is unacceptable behaviour. And I can't help but note that, despite all the fine words from the government's senior benches over the past two days about equality and a 50-page—or 500-page, or whatever it was—women's budget statement and women's ministerial statement yesterday about respect for women in the workplace, every member of the government voted to keep the member for Bowman in his $22,000-a-year position as the chair of the Education Committee. So, they can talk the talk. But when it comes to actually demonstrating to all the women out there in Australia who marched for justice—who said, 'Enough is enough: we not only don't want to be killed at the rate of one woman every eight days but also don't want to be subjected to harassment; we don't want to feel that our worth is less because we're female and that privileged men can exercise their power over us whenever and however they want'—apparently they don't count, to this government. And I know that there are members of this government, particularly on the backbench, for whom that vote must have hurt, because they don't like his behaviour either, and they want to be able to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. But that's what this Prime Minister is forcing on his members of parliament. That's what he's forcing on the Australian people. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. And what this Prime Minister has accepted—today, yesterday and every day since a brave woman went on television, crying and disclosing that she'd considered killing herself because of the online harassment she was subjected to by the member for Bowman—is that if he thinks there's a vote in it he'll use the words, but if he thinks there's a chance that a member of his government might not vote for him and might put his parliamentary majority into some sort of jeopardy then he won't walk the walk. That's what's wrong. The first five minutes of my speech—which I wanted to follow up on with some really positive examples of programs that are empowering young girls and a change in the culture of Australia—was about the fact that women will never be safe until women are equal, and we will never change the culture until the people who are the leaders of this country demonstrate the culture that we all should be living. But every time there's a glimmer of hope that this Prime Minister and his government are starting to see, after eight long years of neglect, that something needs to be done, our hopes get trashed by things like a protection racket for the member for Bowman. I'm disgusted and upset. (Time expired) 12:22 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I rise today to speak in relation to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence and our report. At the outset, I'd like to express my gratitude to the committee's secretariat, particularly Shennia Spillane, Kathleen Blunden and Ashley Stephens, for their dedicated work in facilitating the inquiry and the report over the past almost one year. Their work has been incredibly invaluable. They put a lot of time into the report, and I'd like to acknowledge their efforts and commend them for their excellent work. A great deal of the evidence we received throughout the inquiry I found quite confronting, to be perfectly honest. Some of it was very distressing and very sensitive, and our secretariat and the committee members have worked with the highest levels of professionalism and sincerity throughout the process. I want to thank everyone who took the time to prepare a submission and give evidence to the committee throughout this very lengthy process. The information that was shared with us was sometimes very personal and sometimes, as I've mentioned, extremely confronting. It's been very valuable to the committee in finalising the report, and I appreciate the selflessness with which each and every one of the contributors provided our committee with their insights, their experiences and their views. Through its inquiry the committee received almost 300 submissions, and each of these were crucial in formulating the report's 88 recommendations. Many of these submissions were from survivors, and certainly many were from people who'd experienced long-term family violence. I want to express my admiration and utmost gratitude to those who presented to us. I also want to pay tribute to our committee members, including the chair, the member for Fisher, for his untiring efforts. It's been a pleasure to work with everyone on the committee. I want to pay special attention to our deputy chair, my good friend and colleague the member for Newcastle, Sharon Claydon, whose work I know has been absolutely tireless, even until very late at night and at all hours of the morning, in trying to make sure that our report was a valuable one. She worked very well with the member for Fisher, Andrew Wallace, to try and make sure our report was timely and had the most appropriate recommendations. The member for Newcastle, of course, is one of the hardest-working members not only of this committee but in this parliament, and she's truly dedicated herself to the rights of women and families during this report. Therefore we have a really important, well-researched and timely report. With the additional comments from the other members, I also pay tribute to the member for Bass, Ms Archer; the member for Dunkley, Peta Murphy; and the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, all of whom made very valuable contributions to our report. I also pay tribute to the member for Jagajaga, who, in spite of juggling a new baby, put a lot of effort into the report. The other members also made their contributions, but I think the ones I've mentioned deserve recognition. As we've said in our comments on our report, the report is a bipartisan one. It reflects our concern that there needs to be urgency about acting on our recommendations. This is not a report that should sit in a drawer to be viewed by successive parliaments as past history. It is urgent that we do something about this. One woman every week is murdered in Australia by a partner. Children are exposed to domestic violence and are victims of domestic violence. A significant number of children are murdered every year due to domestic violence. I myself have cared for children who've been severely injured and emotionally damaged and even gone on to be murdered by perpetrators of domestic violence. I think we can no longer in Australia pretend that this is something we just have to accept. The need for urgency has been mentioned by every other committee member who has spoken and is very, very important. The statistics paint a really harrowing picture of the state of our society when we see this as something that we can expect regularly. A woman is murdered every week and one child is murdered every month in Australia. This is just not what we should see in a developed country. The statistics don't tell the real human stories, and we certainly heard some of them in our committee. My heart goes out to the victims and families who've been exposed to these terrible crimes. It's a blight on our society, and it's incumbent upon us all to address the crisis and make sure that action happens on an urgent basis. I don't want to talk for too long, as I know other members have mentioned all the different organisations that have provided submissions and what they've done. I'd just like to mention the Macarthur domestic violence support group, who've been really terrific in my own electorate. I have sat on their meetings on a monthly basis, and I'm in awe of the work that they do to support victims of family violence. I pay tribute to the others involved in the healthcare system, in the law enforcement system and in the courts, but this report should now be taken as something that requires urgent action, and I implore the government to do so. Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 116 ADJOURNMENT Pacific Highway 116 12:29 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I'd like to take this opportunity to once again call on the New South Wales government to fast-track the design and planning of new interchanges on the Pacific Highway between Port Macquarie and Newcastle. This week I was delighted that the federal government was able to deliver $48 million in this year's federal budget towards the Harrington to Coopernook intersection grade separated interchange, commonly known as a flyover. This project will undoubtedly save lives. Fortunately some of the planning process and the preliminary earthworks have been done on this important project and, therefore, the federal government was able to allocate funding through the budget process to get this project underway. Many would be aware that the Pacific Highway, an artery of transport and tourism, is rapidly becoming busier and busier. The focus on the upgrade was, first and foremost, to duplicate the highway up to the Queensland border and to come back later to manage the major intersections with grade separated interchanges. With the significant population growth—and many centres like Harrington, Coopernook and that valley are growing rapidly—it is now all the more important that all the major intersections along the Pacific Highway between Port Macquarie and the Queensland border have grade separated interchanges. As we have done north of Port Macquarie, we should now address this in the southern section. I have called for a new phase of the Pacific Highway upgrade program which seeks further federal and state investment to complete the upgrade at the following major intersections: Italia Road, Medowie Road and Bucketts Way in the Hunter; further north, at Failford Road, which leads into Forster-Tuncurry; the one I just mentioned at Harrington and Coopernook; Houston Mitchell Drive leading into Lake Cattai and Bonny Hills; and further upgrades to the Oxley Highway interchange between Wauchope and Port Macquarie to improve capacity. After making many representations to both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister about this initiative, I'm absolutely pleased to see that $48 million of federal funding is coming out of the 2020-21 budget to make this project get off the ground. It's now absolutely critical that the New South Wales government—specifically, Transport for New South Wales—brings forward, as a matter of urgency, design and planning so that federal and state funding can get these intersections upgraded. It will not only significantly improve safety; it will also deliver an important economic boost to this region. It's a $60 million project to build this grade separated interchange. Currently, people are playing dodgem, playing chicken, weaving between four lanes of traffic to get from one side of the highway, at Coopernook, over to Harrington or vice versa. To leave Harrington and travel north you have to negotiate four lanes of traffic barrelling down the freeway at 100 kilometres an hour—and many people are going 110 kilometres an hour or more. For people going to Harrington who have a caravan or trailer, or if there are any B-doubles coming in and out, it's an absolute nightmare. It's the same around Bucketts Way, Italia Road and Medowie Road. Traffic coming down from the upper Hunter through Bucketts Way queues up for many cars. And then, if you've got B-doubles bringing freight and produce down—can you imagine how quickly a B-double can start from zero kilometres an hour at an intersection and get across four lanes? It's really dangerous. We need to work on this. Failford Road is incredibly busy in tourism periods. Every holiday, every long weekend, there are huge backlogs. They have done some work on it to have extra slipways and there are other slipways planned. But I think they need planning and design work, starting now, so that we can get the federal funds and marry it with the state funds and get these intersections improved. Hotham Electorate: Greek Community 116 12:34 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham It's so apropos that you're in the chair, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, for my statement this afternoon, because I want to talk about the enormous pride that I take representing the amazing Greek community in my electorate of Hotham. With your Greek heritage, you'll know much of what I'm about to say to the parliament. It's well understood that Melbourne has, I think, the highest Greek population outside of Greece of any city in the world. I have the enormous privilege of representing what I think is the second-largest Greek community in the city of Melbourne. It's centred around the suburb of Oakleigh. I represent well over 7,000 Greek-Australians in that suburb. It is also where my home is, so not only do I get to enjoy the amazing benefits of Greek culture through my work as a local member of parliament but also as a neighbour to so many Greek friends who live around me. We talk a lot about, in Melbourne in particular, how much multiculturalism improves our lives as Australian citizens. Sometimes I feel that conversation can take on a tone that is a bit frivolous. For example, we talk a lot about the food—although Greek food is amazing—and about things like dancing and that sort of stuff. We get to enjoy those things in abundance in Hotham, because of the great generosity of our Greek friends and neighbours. But I want to speak a little more about something deeper, which is the values and the mindset that this community really brings to my electorate. I don't think anyone will be in any doubt of the thought leadership that Greeks have brought to Australia, as the inventors of so many different kinds of thinking of philosophy, psychology and other areas. Something I think a lot of Australians do not know about is the very proud history that Greece has in fighting fascism. Luckily for me, every October in my electorate, we get to celebrate Ohi Day, which is a very important moment for the Greek community. In 1940 when Europe was in the throes of World War II, this was a moment where Greece was under threat from Italy, under the fascist Mussolini. Mussolini gave the Greeks an ultimatum to join him or to become an enemy. Ohi is the Greeks saying no. They said no to fascism and, instead, said yes to democracy—a pivotal moment in Greek history. It's something I know that so many of my Greek constituents are incredibly proud of. I'm proud of them for that too. One of the things that's also fantastic about the Greek community I represent is a deep interest in politics. It is a double-edged sword, of course. When I do my street stalls in Oakleigh, I certainly don't have any shortage of people to talk to. What I love about the engagement I have with the community is that we have these very well-informed and extremely animated and energetic conversations about politics, and then we hug and I get kisses and people talk to me about my children and my family. It's this beautiful passion for politics and an understanding of how important it is to our lives as Australians that I feel simpatico with my Greek-Australian constituents. It has also just been Orthodox Easter, which is the most important religious event on the Orthodox Greek calendar. I love this celebration. I get to enjoy so many delicious Greek treats. I get to dance and sing with my constituents. I had a wonderful time this year at the St Agnes' Parish in Springvale where I celebrated with their senior citizens. It's a senior citizens lunch, but, I have to say, they didn't look like that on the dance floor! It was wonderful. I want to say to my Greek constituents [Greek language not transcribed]. I've no doubt got that totally wrong, but I'm having a go. In closing I just want to say [Greek language not transcribed] to all my amazing Greek constituents. It's such a privilege to be you're local member for parliament. Thank you for all you do to make our community a better place. Budget 117 12:39 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore The federal budget is consistent with the Liberal values of reward for effort, enterprise and aspiration, by providing incentives for those who are prepared to work hard and have a go. They will reap a greater share of the benefits of their endeavour. This is in stark contrast to the extreme taxation policy announced by the Leader of the Australian Greens, the member for Melbourne, last night during the adjournment debate in the House, during which he clearly announced that the Australian Greens propose a one-off 50 per cent tax on the increase in wealth during the past 12 months of the most successful Australians. This is an extreme policy which belongs in a communist country, not in Australia. It goes against our Liberal values of private property rights and poses sovereign risk. We must oppose this measure. Joondalup city centre is the business hub of Perth's northern suburbs, a regional central business district which is still in the process of evolving to realise its full potential as a centre of digital technology globally connected with a highly skilled workforce. My commitment to the electorate is to see the greater city of Joondalup continue to grow, prosper and develop into a safe, vibrant regional city which provides locals with essential services and employment opportunities. A strong business community is required to achieve this vision. The budget supports businesses and their growth and expansion. Continuing tax incentives by the Morrison government will allow around 15,000 businesses in my electorate to write off the full value of any eligible asset purchased, such as productive machinery, office equipment, tools and commercial vehicles. Additionally, 4,400 businesses in Moore will be able to use the extended loss carryback measure to support their cash flow. This will help businesses invest more in the local economy, expand their productive capacity and create local jobs in Joondalup. A highly skilled workforce is required to build the economy. The budget increases opportunities for apprentices and trainees, with an extended and expanded JobTrainer fund supporting 500,000 new places to upskill young people. Seven hundred and eighty apprentices in Moore attending vocational education and training colleges located around the Joondalup Learning Precinct will benefit from practical on-the-job training, with expanded wage subsidies preparing the workforce of the future. To maintain a high level of health care, the Morrison government is providing additional funding for vaccination; respiratory clinics; pathology, testing and tracing; and the continuation of telehealth services. The use of video or telephone conferencing technology to consult with a medical professional was novel and took some getting used to; however, many found it convenient once they became accustomed to it. In Moore, there have been 223,211 telehealth consultations through Medicare since the start of the pandemic, and these services are now being extended in the budget. The population in Perth's northern coastal suburbs is projected to grow by 70,000 in the lead-up to 2030. Over the next nine years, approximately 9,000 new residents each year will move into our region. This presents both challenges and opportunities. Proper planning is required to ensure that the necessary services and infrastructure keep up with our growing community. The budget delivers funding to meet these future needs. The growth in population presents an opportunity to grow Joondalup as a regional city. The population growth will boost consumer demand, provided that the necessary infrastructure is built to attract people into Joondalup city centre and boost the local economy. There is still much more work to be done to unlock the economic development potential of our region through road projects such as the connection of Whitfords Avenue with a realigned Gnangara Road; the grade separation of the Reid Highway at Erindale Road; the extension of Lukin Drive to Wanneroo Road; widening of Flynn Drive; and bringing forward the construction of the Whiteman to Yanchep highway. I will not rest on my laurels. I will continue to advocate for more federal funding for these projects, which improve the east-west connectivity between our residential suburbs and our regional economic areas. Ramadan, Hindu New Year, Parramatta Community Migrant Resource Centre 118 12:44 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I rise to wish the Islamic community in Parramatta, and communities around, Eid Mubarak. Yesterday's sunset marked the beginning of Eid al-Fitr, the end of the holy month of Ramadan. For Muslims, Ramadan is the month in which the Koran was presented to the Prophet Mohammed by the angel Gabriel. From the first sighting of the crescent moon on 12 April until its return last night, Muslims around the world have been fasting from sunrise until sunset. It's a time of charity, being the best you, spending time with family and showing compassion and communal spirit. This year, it has been a joy to join the community in celebrations. Last year, of course, nearly all were cancelled, so it was a very quiet Ramadan, but this year I was able to attend iftars, including those hosted by the Sydney South Shapla Shaluk Lions Club and MUSIAD Sydney. I'm really sorry for those to whose celebrations I couldn't make it. Sadly, COVID restrictions in New South Wales were tightened last week, so one of Australia's largest Eid celebrations, the Chand Raat festival at Rosehill, was cancelled for the second year running. I love that festival, so I'm really looking forward to it next year. I also mention the Parramatta Mosque, which had its Eid this morning at Parramatta Park. I have been going for years. Of course, as parliament was sitting, I couldn't make it this morning. Neil El-Kadomi phoned me yesterday to remind me, and I had to tell him that I couldn't make it. I know it would have been a great morning. I wish I had been there. To all of the people of Islamic faith from around the world—from Sri Lanka, from Somalia, from Indonesia, from the Middle East and from just about everywhere—who have made Australia their home, to the descendants of the cameleers who were practising Muslims in the 1880s, and to the descendants of the Muslim traders to the north: Eid Mubarak. I want to wish Parramatta's South and South-East Asian communities a very belated happy new year. Festivals were held from 13 to 15 April, when parliament wasn't sitting, to mark the beginning of the new year in the Hindu solar calendar, including the Puthandu, which is the Tamil new year; Vishu, which is the Malayalam new year; Vaisakhi, which is the Punjabi new year, the harvest celebration celebrated by the Sikh communities; Pahela Baishakh, the Bengali new year; Bihu, the Assamese new year; Songkran, the Thai new year; and Choul Chnam Thmey, the Cambodian new year. Traditions for marking the day are diverse and varied, but, for all who celebrate, it's an auspicious day that brings families together to look forward with hope to the year ahead. I quite often find that in Parramatta we celebrate new year every day; someone is celebrating. It's an amazing thing. The old year was characterised by coronavirus and its consequences, and the new year has been troubled by the Morrison government's unprecedented decision to ban Australians from returning to India. But I join the community in looking ahead with hope for the rest of this new year. Twenty-one years ago, Melissa Monteiro and her young family moved to Australia from India. Soon after, Melissa, an experienced social worker, started working at the Parramatta Community Migrant Resource Centre. At the time, the CMRC was a small organisation with just seven employees. Today, with Melissa as CEO, the CMRC has 150 staff and contractors who speak a total of 47 languages, providing specialist support to newly arrived migrants, refugees and humanitarian entrants. CMRC has grown, but it's still a grassroots organisation focused on community capacity building, helping people and communities to identify and address their own issues. They've helped thousands of refugees and migrants build lives in the community, and this focus on the person and the community, the grassroots, is the key to their success. I've been so proud to witness this journey, and now everyone can, because Melissa Monteiro, at long last, has written a book about it. The Girl From Mumbai tells Melissa's story from her childhood in Mumbai, where she was inspired to become a social worker, to Parramatta, where she spent more than two decades building the CMRC. It's an amazing story, and all proceeds from the book go back to the CMRC so it can continue its wonderful work. That's one more reason to pick up a copy. I congratulate Melissa and the team at the CMRC. Thank you for all the work you do and have done for our community. I know it will go on for many years. Melissa, you aren't just the girl from Mumbai; you are The Girl From Mumbai. Congratulations. Budget 119 12:48 Mr IRONS HYM Swan Western Australia is a big winner in the federal budget, especially in my electorate of Swan, and I take the opportunity to update my constituents on what they can expect to see from the federal budget, with the Morrison government announcing a huge package of local road and infrastructure funding which will boost our economic recovery, keep our families safe, get people home sooner and back local jobs. Last week I joined with my federal colleagues Minister Michaelia Cash, Minister Ben Morton and Minister Ken Wyatt, along with the WA Premier, to announce that the Morrison Liberal government is committing funding of $1.3 billion for infrastructure projects in Western Australia. These local projects are going to support more than 4,000 direct and indirect jobs in Western Australia, which will boost local communities and back our small businesses. Residents in my electorate of Swan will directly benefit from a $385.5 million share in this $1.3 billion announcement. Projects funded include the Hamilton Street-Wharf Street grade separations and the elevation of associated stations, including Queens Park and Cannington stations. This is a major win for the residents in my electorate. Over the years, I have been campaigning for the removal of dangerous level crossings on the Armadale line. The crossings cause not only a large number of car crashes but also a large amount of congestion. When I took Minister Taylor out to the level crossing on Wharf Street a couple of years ago, there were cars that sat there at the lights for in excess of 15 minutes. There was actually a truck there where the blokes managed to smoke two cigarettes while they waited for the boom gates to come up. In 2019 I secured funding for the removal of three key level crossings, at Oats Street, Welshpool Road and Mint Street. This announcement of the removal of the level crossings at Wharf Street and Hamilton Street as part of the budget's infrastructure package means I have succeeded in my campaign on behalf of my constituents and I have delivered for Swan. I welcome the partnership with the state government, who, after years of delay and putting these projects on the backburner, have finally listened to the concerns of residents and are working with the federal government to remove the level crossings. Thank you to the over 1,000 people who signed local petitions to expedite action to remove these level crossings. The Morrison government continues to fund and deliver on transport priorities for Western Australia. The federal government is investing $2.3 billion across 11 METRONET projects in Western Australia. This week's budget included a commitment of $31.5 million towards METRONET high-capacity signalling, an addition to the $133.8 million already committed to this project. The investment in digital technology has been prioritised in the budget, with projects like METRONET signalling supporting more efficient use of road and rail infrastructure. One of the other key projects that residents will benefit from is the upgrade of the northern access to the Perth Airport precinct. Our government is committing $85 million to the construction of a four-lane bridge to replace the Kalamunda Road bridge. Construction for this project will start in late 2023 and is set to be completed by mid-2026. When completed, these upgrades will significantly improve access to Perth Airport. Perth Airport is ideally situated close to the CBD, in an area serviced by major arterial roads and rail freight. The interchange works will further enhance the efficiency of moving freight to and from this key economic hub. Other key projects in Swan as part of this infrastructure announcement include $10 million for the Orrong Road expressway. I can hear a sigh of relief from constituents on that, because it's like a car park in the morning and the afternoon. There is also an additional $21.5 million towards the Leach Highway-Welshpool Road interchange project. It is the busiest intersection in Western Australia. It's great that those two projects are going to be looked at, as they will get people home faster. This funding for my electorate will support local small businesses, which means jobs; keep residents safe on the roads; and cut travel times in our community. Through the budget, the Australian government has committed $1.6 billion for priority projects and initiatives in Western Australia to support economic recovery and jobs, increasing the government's total commitment to transport infrastructure in Western Australia to $17.3 billion since 2013. There is funding for many other major infrastructure projects, such as the Great Eastern Highway, the Reid Highway and the Toodyay Road, and $55 million for the Mandurah Estuary Bridge duplication. I'm proud to be part of a government that is providing record funding that will boost business. The Morrison government will continue to invest in the Western Australian economy in the coming years through nation-building projects, delivering the infrastructure Western Australians need now and into the future. Budget 120 12:53 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to talk about this week's budget announcement by the Morrison government. This budget is, largely, a missed opportunity to set out a vision for the Australian people and to help those most in need of support from their government, particularly in these turbulent times of a global pandemic. It is a political fix, rather than a strong policy vision for this nation. I want to run through some of the particular issues where I think this was a missed opportunity. The first was the opportunity to set out a strong plan to transition to a sustainable economy and see some real action on climate change from this government. Canberrans are telling me every day that this is what they desperately want to see from this government as Australia increasingly becomes an embarrassment on the world stage. This budget could have been an opportunity to really invest in renewable energy, to make Australia the renewable energy superpower that we know it can be. Instead, in his speech the Treasurer doubled down on not quite committing to getting to net zero by 2050, saying, 'Preferably we'll get there.' That's not good enough. We need a commitment and a plan to get there. Aged care is obviously a centrepiece of this budget, and rightfully so, as it is in crisis. The system has been neglected, and that has led to the neglect of our vulnerable older Australians—our grandparents, our parents, our loved ones—who have suffered in a system that is simply not acceptable in a country like Australia. But don't be fooled by the large headline figure, as it falls well short of what the royal commission actually recommended to fix the system. Yesterday I had the opportunity to talk to aged-care workers from the United Workers Union, and they were very disappointed to see that this money will not fix the crisis that they deal with every day. What was incredibly clear was that these workers are so dedicated to the residents that they serve every day. That is why they keep turning up to work, really up against it, trying to provide these people with decent care. This plan does nothing for their wages. It doesn't guarantee that we will have 24-hour registered nurses in facilities, which people have been asking for for years. We are still looking into the detail, but I think this falls short of what we needed to see for aged care in this budget. With child care also, there is nothing for the workers, who work so hard and do an incredibly dedicated and professional job caring for our youngest Australians and educating them each and every day. Labor's plan for more affordable child care will benefit 97 per cent of families, whereas this plan from the government does not go anywhere near that. It only benefits families with two or more children in child care at one time, and even families with two or more children usually don't have them both in child care at the same time, as families know. Then there are our universities. Representing the seat of Canberra, I represent a university town, a real centre of excellence, and I have seen it decimated by this government. There was no help for our universities through the pandemic. This is the time we should be investing in the future, investing in our young people to enable them to attend university, and investing in the universities to do the research that we need to tackle the emerging challenges. Instead we saw funding cut by 9.3 per cent again, confirming that the fee hikes, which this government has already announced and passed through the parliament, are actually to make up for other cuts in Commonwealth funding to our universities. We saw no support from this government for universities or their workers through the pandemic, and of course it's the casual workers at universities, mostly women, who are the first to lose their jobs all around the country, including in Canberra. Unsurprisingly, we've seen nothing for the poor, for low-income people, in this budget. Research shows that the low-income tax offset will actually benefit more mid- and high-income earners, as people on really low incomes don't earn enough to benefit from it. We've seen no increase to the JobSeeker payment, apart from the pathetic $3.50 a day that was already announced. We've even seen a four-year waiting period introduced for newly arrived migrants, including refugees, which means they will have to wait four years to receive the family tax benefit, a payment that is about addressing child poverty. This is a government that wants to see refugee children living in poverty, and that is an absolute disgrace. I look forward to tonight's budget reply from Anthony Albanese, which will set out an alternative vision for this nation, one about equality. Equality is the driving mission of the Labor Party, not something to do when we have a political problem to fix. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:59