MOTIONS

2021-06-01 46 1 6 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 1 June 2021

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

MOTIONS 1 MOTIONS Prime Minister 1 12:01 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House: (1) notes: (a) the Prime Minister had two jobs this year, to get the vaccine rollout right and to create a safe, national quarantine system, and the Victorian outbreak has shown he has failed at both; (b) the Prime Minister announced these aged care residents and staff would be vaccinated by Easter but has failed to deliver, leaving them vulnerable; (c) shockingly, when asked this morning, the Aged Care Minister could not even say how many aged care residents in Victoria had been fully vaccinated; (d) in November last year, the Government ceased its efforts to prevent aged care workers working in multiple facilities in Australia; and (e) this Government has failed its basic duty to protect older and vulnerable Australians; and (2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to attend the Chamber and make a statement of no more than 30 minutes in length accounting for these failures. Leave not granted. Mr BUTLER HWK I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Hindmarsh from moving the following motion immediately: That the House: (1) notes: (a) the Prime Minister had two jobs this year, to get the vaccine rollout right and to create a safe, national quarantine system, and the Victorian outbreak has shown he has failed at both; (b) the Prime Minister announced these aged care residents and staff would be vaccinated by Easter but has failed to deliver, leaving them vulnerable; (c) shockingly, when asked this morning, the Aged Care Minister could not even say how many aged care residents in Victoria had been fully vaccinated; (d) in November last year, the Government ceased its efforts to prevent aged care workers working in multiple facilities in Australia; and (e) this Government has failed its basic duty to protect older and vulnerable Australians; and (2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to attend the Chamber and make a statement of no more than 30 minutes in length accounting for these failures. The Prime Minister had two jobs this year, a speedy effective vaccine rollout and safe national quarantine facilities. 12:03 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I move: That the Member be no longer heard. A division having been called and the bells being rung— The SPEAKER 10000 Just for the information of the minister and the House, I appreciate that the motion is moving and that standing order, as I've said, is brutal, but I am allowing a sentence or two before I call him to the dispatch box because to move someone can be no further heard requires that they have at least been heard even for a few seconds. The question is that the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business be no longer heard.

The House divided. [12:08]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

69 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 Hamilton, GR Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR 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, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 66 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE 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 Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, G Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ Owens, JA Payne, AE Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ 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 Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

12:11 The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 12:11 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I second it. The Prime Minister has failed to do his job, putting older people at risk, and they are terrified for their lives. 12:11 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the member be no longer heard.

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

Question agreed to.

12:13 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is the that motion moved by the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business be disagreed to. In accordance with standing order 133, the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. The debate on this item is therefore adjourned until that time. MOTIONS 4 MOTIONS Minister for Industry, Science and Technology 4 12:14 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I seek leave to move the following motion: That this House: (1) notes (a) the Industry Minister yesterday stated the ABC had been forced to express regret at the outcome of their reporting concerning the Industry Minister and a historical rape allegation, but this is not true; (b) the Industry Minister yesterday stated that ABC had been forced to say the accusations could not be proved to a criminal or civil standard; but this is not true; (c) the Industry Minister yesterday stated that ABC had made a humiliating backdown, but this is not true; (d) this matter is not resolved, no matter how much the Industry Minister and Prime Minister wishes it so; and (e) now defamation proceedings have ceased, there is no impediment to an independent inquiry into the matter; and (2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minster to attend the chamber and explain why he is standing in the way of an independent inquiry into this important matter. Leave not granted. Mr DREYFUS HWG I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Isaacs from moving the following motion immediately—That this House notes the Industry Minister yesterday stated the ABC had been forced to express regret at the outcome of their reporting concerning the Industry Minister and a historical rape allegation, but this is not true; the Industry Minister yesterday stated that ABC had been forced to say the accusations could not be proved to a criminal or civil standard; but this is not true; the Industry Minister yesterday stated that ABC had made a humiliating backdown, but this is not true; this matter is not resolved, no matter how much the Industry Minister and Prime Minister wishes it so; and now defamation proceedings have ceased, there is no impediment to an independent inquiry into the matter; and therefore, calls on the Prime Minster to attend the chamber and explain why he is standing in the way of an independent inquiry into this important matter. This defamation case was a huge bluff by the former Attorney-General, and it has blown up in the Prime Minister's face. 12:16 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the member be no longer heard.

The House divided. [12:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

Question agreed to.

12:21 The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 12:21 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley It is. Workers wanting full-time manufacturing work have a part-time industry. They deserve better. The SPEAKER 00APG The member will resume his seat. The minister has the call. 12:21 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the member be no longer heard.

The House divided. [12:22]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

Question agreed to.

12:23 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the motion moved by the honourable member for Isaacs be disagreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. Debate adjourned. BILLS 8 BILLS Archives and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Bill 2021, Migration Amendment (Tabling Notice of Certain Character Decisions) Bill 2021, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2020-2021, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2020-2021, Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021, Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Fees) Bill 2021, Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021, Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Student Assistance and Other Measures) Bill 2021 8

Archives and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021

Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Bill 2021

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

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2020-2021

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2020-2021

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

Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Fees) Bill 2021

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

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

Assent 8 Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021 8

Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021

Second Reading 8 12:25 The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Hindmarsh has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words, so the question before the House is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 12:26 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash Before I get fully into this bill, the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021, I want to make a few comments about Australia's health system. I know that every member of this House will accept that Australia has one of the best health systems in the world bar none. We can go back as far as the pandemic of 1917, and the national response to that grew into other responses for improved health care, especially across the regions. I've told this story many times, but probably not to this House. In regional areas I represent, as many Liberals and Nationals do, the number of incidences of women dying in childbirth pre-Second World War and just after was in the high double-digit percentages in regional areas. In the cities, it was in single digit numbers, and low single digit numbers. The response from local government councillors and state members at the time—I dare say, inspired by their federal members—was to say, 'We need particular care for the women in our regions,' and they introduced a system of bush nursing hospitals. On the introduction of those bush nursing hospitals, driven by local government and state government and community, who then raised money for their hospitals, those figures came all the way down to the national figure of women who died in childbirth. How did this come to my attention? I was speaking to a farmer in my electorate, one of nature's absolute gentlemen who has now passed away. He was talking about his first mum and second mum and third mum. I was a bit taken aback because of the conservative nature of the area and the family, and divorce certainly wasn't it. He'd lost two of his mums in childbirth—two, in that one family—so it made me go back and inquire as to the nature of this. It's been part of the system where Australians have always responded when their backs were to the wall or they had a need. I believe in this case with COVID, while there'll be argy-bargy between both sides about who's done what and when they did it and how they did it and who should be blamed and who should not be blamed we are still running one of the best health systems in the world. We're a very wealthy nation per capita, and we're able to respond on behalf of our many, many communities. Australia is a nation of communities. We love to see ourselves as this one broad community, but we're a nation of small communities, and those communities will always band together in times of trouble, in times of fragility, in times when they're faced with a worldwide pandemic like we are today. This very day in Victoria we are living through it again. There will be encumbrances, disruptions and fatigue for many people across Victoria and for those that have suffered over this last 18 months across the nation. We identify with you. We're not standing in your shoes. We haven't experienced exactly what you have. Our disruption is minimal. As a parliamentarian, my disruption is minimal compared to yours—the restaurants who bought all the food last week and have had to throw it out, all the people that made preparations and plans, and had hopes for the next few weeks, who have had to change their plans completely and all the people running around now, trying to make sure that they've done the right thing by the health system with their vaccinations. To those that are struggling in deciding whether to take the vaccination or not, or which one, I certainly identify with you too. If I can just stay on the health issue, there will be people today in Victoria who, after a directive that if they are not vaccinated they can't work in certain areas, will be resigning their positions, and I feel for them too. Each one is making personal but sincere decisions about their future and their families' future and how it is to be handled. When we say we have the best health system in the world it's because of the strategic nature of the changes that I think Stephen Duckett made whereby if you do not have the means to pay for private health insurance you will still be covered in this nation. If you're in trouble, you can ring for help. You can ring triple 0 in Victoria and you will get help. You will be hospitalised and you will be cared for because of the national system that we have. But the wealthier you become in this country, the greater the amount you pay for your health care. That's the Australian way. We have always done it that way. Does having private health care give you priority for elective surgery? Probably. But if you need that care in any emergency situation you will be looked after. You will be catered for. You will be cared for. In so many countries in the world people cannot afford to get sick. Every parliament that I have been in since the Howard parliament has been the greatest friend of the Australian healthcare system. We as a nation should be thankful every day for this system that looks after our elderly, that looks after our most vulnerable, that looks after those that are in trauma, however that trauma comes, and that swings into action immediately we have any sort of threat to our society, be it bushfire, flood or pandemic, and is able to ramp up its service delivery to a nation in need. So, of course, we pay tribute to all of those who have contributed through the pandemic. We honour them and we thank them for what they've done and what we're calling on them to do again in Victoria. There have only been three cases of community transmission today, which is a blessing. Let's hope there are none tomorrow and then none the next day, and state governments around the country will be able to relieve their restrictions on how people can move around the nation, because, until we have that freedom to move and begin to move, we cannot sustain the economic wellbeing of this nation. If some are completely constricted in their ability to move, everybody suffers. We need the opportunity to be able to not just move goods but move people, because people are the greatest wealth that this country has. The national healthcare system has stood the test of time, from its introduction in 1970 until now, with all the changes that have been made. Is it expensive for government to run? Yes, it is. Is it contributed to by the broader community through private health insurance? Yes, it is. Is it supported by others who, under government direction, have to pay part of their wage in taxation that goes directly towards our healthcare system and, therefore, supports those who cannot support themselves? Yes, it is. I don't quite have the words for how important it is that a family knows that, if their child gets ill, the public health system will run in behind that family and care for that child, and it'll be the best care in the world, from the world's best specialists in every area of our health system. And, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, you know better than I do how important that is on the ground not just for the patient but for the parents, for the grandparents and for the broader family and for communities, who have great expectations. If you live in a regional area, you're not going to have the broad benefits of living in a city in this nation; we accept that. But we do then overlay that with the Flying Doctor Service, we do then overlay that with very strong and large regional hospitals and then we put extra money into making sure we get the services out to the people. This legislation makes private health insurance simpler to understand and more affordable for Australians. The government reforms have delivered the lowest average premium changes in 20 years, just 2.74 per cent in 2021. And wouldn't it be great if we could hold that even lower over the next two years so that families that do have private health insurance can have confidence in their own ability to gain access to hospital when needed? It would only be better for this nation if more people who had the funds were able to reduce the pressure on the public healthcare system by taking out private insurance, because that makes such a difference to the pressure on our hospitals. Even if you have private health insurance, you still may be treated in a public hospital because that particular public hospital may be where the best specialists are for the problem that afflicts you or your family. So we still ask people to make a contribution, and what the Australian government is doing through this legislation is trying to make it easier and more affordable for Australians to have that confidence of being able to buy and support themselves through private health insurance. On the other hand, we're asking the private health insurers to make a contribution to the nation, as well, by streamlining the services they have and finding ways to reduce costs. We're keeping the pressure on the private health insurers to make sure they're delivering the best service that they can, from the premiums that they are given, for real value for the Australian people. And, whether it be in hip replacements or knee replacements or the equipment needed for that, there has to be genuine oversight and pressure put on so that those particular items do not burst out in costs which then comes back on to health insurers but then comes back onto those people investing in health insurance. So the best healthcare system in the world, the best public healthcare system in the world, and the most generous governments of the day that support private health care. I remember having this conversation with Prime Minister Howard back before the 1996 election campaign. The changes he brought in then are still resonating with the Australian people today and supporting the Australian people today. This is another very good reason why the best place to be in the world at the moment is this great south land. 12:40 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise to speak on the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021. Importantly, the reforms outlined in this bill continue the current pause on the annual indexation of income thresholds for another two years, allowing for annual indexation thereafter. The pause provides stability for consumers and stakeholders regarding the operation of these important private health insurance incentives while a detailed study into the effectiveness of their operation is undertaken. The bill amendments continue to secure the future of private health insurance by continuing to incentivise high-income earners to financially contribute towards their own healthcare costs or pay the Medicare levy surcharge and continues to incentivise customers to purchase and maintain private health insurance cover. This bill will further promote Australians' freedom of choice when it comes to health. It is designed to support the sustainability of private health insurance and, accordingly, is intended to promote individuals' access to health services. The Morrison government has already delivered the most significant reforms to private health insurance in over a decade. The government's reforms have delivered the lowest average premium changes in 20 years, of 2.74 per cent in 2021. The government is committed to improving the affordability, value and attractiveness of private health insurance, particularly for younger Australians. It is demonstrating this through further reforms to private health insurance. The Australian government is investing $30.6 million over four years to continue to make private health insurance simpler and more affordable for Australians. This is in line with the Morrison government's commitment to delivering an even better post-COVID-19 healthcare system. We should be ambitious for our healthcare system. A dream for an even better healthcare system is why I served on a local hospital board, Cabrini Hospital, before coming to this place. Cabrini is the only hospital in Higgins and it is a not-for-profit private hospital. As I said in my first speech, our healthcare system is already undoubtedly one of the best if not the best in the world. In fact, rankings worldwide show we're No. 2 in the world, and that is no mean feat. It is a unique and effective blend of public and private, where the private sector provides innovation and choice and the public sector provides a safety net for all. In our two-tiered system, the private health sector acts as both a complement and a substitute for the public health system. We take the best from the European system, which is more socialised, and the best from the private system in the US. We have a very good system which provides a good, high-quality baseline level of health as well as choices and options for those who wish to pay more for flexibility and accessibility in their insurance. As a member of parliament representing a vibrant younger electorate and as a mother of four young adults, I know how important reforms to ensure a successful private health insurance system are, particularly for the young. The Morrison government is working hard to make sure our nation's private health insurance is simpler and more affordable. We on this side of the House are firmly committed to strengthening and simplifying private health insurance and making it more accessible. Our community rating system depends on these tenets. The 2021-22 budget improves the sustainability of and access to the private health insurance system. To this end, we've included five initiatives. Firstly, we will modernise the private health insurance prosthesis list by aligning prices paid by insurers more closely with public hospital prices to improve affordability. I cannot stress enough how important this major reform is and how welcome it is to the sector. The minister for Health, Greg Hunt, has worked very closely with the different players in the sector to make sure that we deliver an outcome that is going to be well received by everyone across the sector. Secondly, we will improve the private health insurance rebate modelling capabilities through better data and behavioural insights. By using the most up-to-date evidence and insights, ultimately we'll provide more value for money for consumers. Thirdly, we will optimise the private hospital default benefit arrangements by funding an independent study of the current settings, to ensure that access to and the cost of private hospitals is optimal for consumers. Fourthly, we will apply greater rigour to certification for hospital admissions, to resolve disputes between insurers and care providers when patients are hospitalised for care normally delivered out of the hospital—and I know how this issue does keep boards up at night. Fifthly, and importantly, we will continue the income-tier thresholds for the Medicare levy surcharge and private health insurance rebate for two years to 1 July 2023 and undertake a review to ensure that the settings of these important incentives support affordability of private health care. The bill means that, for the next two financial years, the private health insurance rebate income thresholds remain unchanged at $90,000 for the base single policy and $180,000 for the base family policy until 30 June 2023. This progress continues on our second wave of reforms to private health insurance, implemented over years. It is indeed a complex set of negotiations that the minister for health has pursued and delivered. We've already increased the age of dependents able to stay on a family policy, to encourage younger people up to age 31, and also people with a disability, to maintain their private health insurance. I'd like to provide an example of how this legislation has helped people in my electorate. A Higgins constituent waiting for public-listed appointment for his epilepsy had a serious, life-threatening fit when he was overseas in Chile. This was because he'd been a patient at a children's based public hospital and had not yet transferred his care to an adult based public hospital. This young man had been waiting for a long period of time in the public health system. He'd finished university and was in the first year of his job. Private health insurance wasn't one of his financial priorities. It's very understandable for young people, when they're getting their first pay packet. But, as a result, he waited longer than was necessary for an appointment. He ended up not getting the medication adjustment that was needed, and he had a seizure. That young man happened to be my son. So I was delighted to see that this legislation would apply to him and that he would be able to be brought under our family private health insurance until the age of 31. As a mother, it gives me comfort that he'll be able to have private health insurance and continue to have choice and opportunity and access to a quicker appointment to make sure his epilepsy is kept under control. We also know that research shows that individuals who've been introduced to private health insurance have a higher likelihood of renewing their insurance in the future, and I'm hopeful that my son will get used to having his private health insurance and enjoy the benefits, and that, when he gets to the age of 31, he'll be at an age where he wishes to invest in his own health future through private health insurance. We know that our community based rating system relies on the young engaging in a private health insurance scheme. We've also expanded funding for at-home and community based mental health care, so insurers can pay for non-NDIS services such as payments to mental health nurses and subscriptions to mental health apps. We know the explosion of mental health apps that are now available. It means that people can access them in their homes, remotely, in rural areas and across the suburbs and cities of our country. Mental health apps are a welcome addition to the digital health technology that is exploding around the world. This helps to make it easier for people to access mental health apps, particularly when they may feel they don't want to leave their front door in order to get help. We've undertaken consultation for expansion of home and community based rehabilitation, to encourage a shift from hospital to home and community based care when it is appropriate for the patient. This is something that I have been a great champion of, through my medical experience in my past profession. Patients do want to be treated in their home, and, if they can get home quicker after being hospitalised, that is something we should continue to support and welcome. In fact, as a paediatrician, Hospital in the Home was pioneered at children's hospitals right across this country and is now being taken up with enthusiasm by the adult sector and, as we can see, the aged-care home sector as well. People want to be in their homes. They want to be supported by the flexibility that home provides for them, and they do have a sense of wellbeing being at home rather than being in a hospital setting. We've invested $2.4 million for actuarial studies of private health insurance incentives, including lifetime health cover and risk equalisation, to investigate where the incentives to take out and maintain cover are, to encourage insurers to help patients prevent illnesses and so that hospitalisations are at the optimal level. The transparency of out-of-pocket costs has been improved thanks to the Medical Costs Finder website. The website will be enhanced through an investment of $17.1 million, with the Medical Costs Finder tool to collect, validate and publish individual medical specialist fees. I was at the launch of this just before COVID, and I think this has been incredibly welcomed both by consumers and by the medical healthcare system right across Australia. Since these reforms have been implemented, over 465,000 young Australians have received an aged based discount of up to 10 per cent on their premiums. Over 13,500 policyholders have benefited from improved access to higher benefits for psychiatric care through the government's mental health waiting period exemption, allowing people to upgrade their mental health services without serving a waiting period. Over $160 million in benefits have been paid to achieve this end. An additional 35,000 policyholders in regional areas have received a total of $3.1 million in benefits through improved travel and accommodation to facilitate access. The results speak for themselves. The act makes provision in relation to the setting and annual indexing of private health insurance income thresholds used to determine government funded rebates announced that may apply to consumers with eligible cover and the Medicare levy surcharge income thresholds and rates. The Medicare levy surcharge is levied on Australian taxpayers who do not have private patient hospital cover and earn above a certain income. The private insurance health rebate is an amount that government contributes towards the costs of singles' and families' private health insurance premiums. The rebate and Medicare levy surcharge are income tested, and that is as it should be. The act describes how annual indexation of private health insurance income thresholds is calculated using an indexation factor. Additionally, it specifies the private health insurance income thresholds for both singles and those in the family status. The act also specifies the formula for applying indexation across the income thresholds each financial year. The coronavirus pandemic has shown us all the importance of our world-class health system. Indeed, Australia's health system continues to be one of the best in the world. I know Australians knew that before the COVID pandemic, but you can bet your bottom dollar they certainly know it now. Continued investment and reform by the Morrison government into private health insurance proves our commitment to affordable and flexible options for all Australians when choosing private health insurance. This bill goes even further to support Australian families still recovering financially from the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns, and my heart goes out to those in Melbourne and Victoria who are actually working through the problems that they deal with in lockdown. This bill reflects the hard work of the Morrison government to ensure the improvement of our private health system is as an accessible, affordable and fair system for all Australians. I commend this bill to the House. 12:53 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise in support of the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021. In Australia we have a very hybrid system of health delivery. We have a large public health system through state-run public hospitals. We have the Medicare system, where people get a payment which can be up to zero dollars if they are bulk billed or where they get the cost of their medical care as an outpatient to general practitioners and specialists subsidised by the Medicare system. Then we have another arm, which is the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which is the envy of many First, Second and Third World countries, where the government subsidises the cost of drugs that are approved to go on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme which are proven to be effective and cost-effective and to deliver a quality-adjusted life-year benefit to the recipients. It's a very high threshold, but the scheme is respected around the world, because in Australia we get the benefits of some amazing, cutting-edge drugs that cost people in other countries—in North and South America, Europe and Asia—hundreds of thousands of dollars. Part of the success of the hybrid system that we've got is the private health insurance rebate, which keeps a lot more people engaged in private health insurance who are young or who have fixed low income—perhaps income support from the government through the age pension—and would otherwise struggle to maintain private health insurance. But the whole system relies on a certain number of people taking up private health insurance. The analogy I always make is with car insurance. If the only people who held car insurance were ultrawealthy people or people who are likely to have a car crash, you can imagine that car insurance wouldn't work very well. We have compulsory third party. We have lots of competition. Pretty much anyone with a car has got a minimum level of insurance. That's why it's important in our hybrid system to keep the private health insurance system affordable and viable. We have done a lot of reforms to make sure that is the case. One of them is the rebate system. It is a tiered system based on declarable income, and it is working. The indexation of it went into a freeze sometime ago, but this bill enables that freeze of the rebate levels and the thresholds to remain the same. As well as that, people should realise that we have done so much to reform private health insurance. We have introduced simplified clustering of products, into gold, silver and bronze, so that people can make headway in deciding what level they will choose. We have had reforms around the Prostheses List, which was good in intent but was being disruptive and counterproductive because some entities were charging the full cost for prostheses yet receiving them at a much lower price. There was quite a large price differential between the public hospital prices for prostheses and the private hospital prices. We've done lots to increase affordability of private health insurance and the involvement of young people in private health insurance, by extending the time that young people can remain within their family's cover. Historically you could remain within that cover until you were no longer dependent, but now you can remain within it until just over the age of 30. To cover for mental health, for young people there is a 10 per cent discount for private health insurance. We've done other things to reform the health system that people are probably now realising the true benefit of in the COVID world—it has changed everything. Telemedicine has been reformed and is now part of regular practice. It has developed efficiencies for both patients and the health system. In the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme a reform went through—not in this last budget but in the budget before—which was an extra appropriation so that there is leeway to get more new drugs onto the PBS. Old drugs drop in price because they've been around for a long time and their patent has expired, and there are competitor drugs. This reform has allowed it to be a much quicker process to get new drugs onto the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. But, if we didn't have the private health system, which is underpinned by private health insurance, our public hospital system would be overwhelmed. Everyone knows about waiting lists. In my electorate, in the last figures I saw a couple of years ago, 48 per cent of people in my electorate, the wonderful Lyne electorate, had private health insurance of some type. I have the oldest demographic in the country, I might add, and we know a lot of the health activity and economic costs are tail-ended. It's in your senior years where most of the big costs in your health expenditure as an individual and your family happen. There's a big bit at the beginning when you're first born, with obstetric cover, but then when you get into the replacement things like hips, knees, joints, cardiac surgery, cancer treatment, it's all weighted to the end. If we didn't have those people covered by health insurance, that would all be bundled onto the public health and hospital system. It is a hybrid system. Our waiting lists that are way too long in many public hospital systems would be much longer if it wasn't for the ability of people to take control of their own health and take out private health insurance. The amendments continue to secure the future of private health insurance. We incentivise people with high incomes, who can afford it, to take out private health insurance; otherwise, there is a Medicare levy surcharge to be paid. It's a bit of carrot and stick. Like I said, private health insurance must remain viable and that's why the prostheses list changes and reforms are in place. That's why we have young people staying in through their family cover. When I started my early post-university and employment career, private health insurance was more affordable. Everything was more affordable a long time ago, but these days people are trying to get rid of their HECS debt, pay their taxes, pay their high rents, which are incredible in the city. It's really quite scary the amount of money that young people now pay for rent in metropolitan cities. All of those things mean that often the first thing that falls off a young person's budget, because it's so far in the distance, is private health insurance; a lot of young people are dropping out of it. I have a lot of pensioners in my electorate who agonise over whether they'll keep their private health insurance going, and the rebates for them is a really big deal. The other thing is, those young people who choose to drop off, which means there are fewer healthy people lowering the overall cost of the system, we need them to stay. So that's why some of these figures, the lowest premium increase for ages—2.7 per cent, less than three per cent—have been a really good outcome. The Medicare levy surcharge is levied on people who have a taxable income threshold currently of $90,000 for a single person and $180,000 for a family policy. They're being frozen for another two years, from July 2021 to July 2023. The indexation amount that has been pre-determined across those three tiers will stay the same until that same time. These are really important issues because we want to have a stable, reliable, health system which, as I said, relies on all those arms. It is very important this bill passes to maintain that sustainability. I commend the bill to the House. 13:04 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I rise to speak on the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021, and I wish to contribute to the debate. During this debate I've heard members on both sides of the chamber telling people to get injected with COVID vaccines. I believe that unless we are a qualified medical doctor we have no position to tell anyone to take any medical treatment or not to take any medical treatment. All that we should be doing is advising that COVID vaccinations are provided free—that is, they are paid for by the taxpayer out of government revenue, or should I say currently borrowed government revenue—and you should consult with your doctor to make an informed decision. It should not be up to us as members of parliament or anyone else without the medical experience or qualifications or knowledge to be making recommendations as far a drug goes. What also has concerned me during this debate has been the perpetuation of the myth that, somehow, someone who is so-called fully vaccinated is immune and is totally safe from the COVID virus. We know from data from the USA that that is simply not true. So far, the US data from their Centers for Disease Control—firstly, they note what they call a breakthrough infection, they note that the number of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections reported to the CDC is likely to be an undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons. So they acknowledge that data they print is likely to be an undercount. That data shows that, so far, there have been 1,758 people hospitalised in the US specifically because of COVID infections. They have been so-called fully vaccinated. Of that number, 366 people have died in the USA who were so-called fully vaccinated. So the idea that being fully vaccinated gives you some sort of complete protection is a furphy. Yes, the evidence shows it gives you some protection, but it is not 100 per cent protection. Another furphy being perpetuated is that, somehow or other, high rates of vaccination in a population means that you can open up. Again, let's have a look at what the evidence is showing. From Forbes magazine: Countries with the highest vaccination rates—including four of— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 Order! Member for Cunningham, are you seeking to speak? Ms Bird DZP I'm just wondering about the relevance rule on debating bills. To my colleague, the member for Hughes: it's actually on private health insurance. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 The member for Hughes is reminded that it is about private health insurance. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 On the point of order, this is a subject that was widely debated by many other speakers earlier in this debate, and I believe I am totally able to raise these issues as they have already been raised through this debate. I'm quoting from Forbes magazine: Covid Surges In 4 Of 5 Most Vaccinated Countries … Countries with the world's highest vaccination rates—including four of the top five most vaccinated—are fighting to contain coronavirus outbreaks that are, on a per-capita basis, higher than the surge devastating India, a trend that has experts questioning the efficacy of some vaccines … It notes: Of the Seychelles, Israel, the UAE, Chile and Bahrain—respectively the world's five most vaccinated countries—only Israel is not fighting to contain a dangerous surge in Covid-19 infections. It goes on: Controlling for population, the Seychelles and Bahrain, alongside other highly vaccinated countries like the Maldives and Uruguay, recorded the highest number of daily coronavirus cases worldwide. So the idea that there is somehow a great correlation between high rates of vaccination and opening up your country and having low rates of COVID infection is simply not borne out by the evidence. Also, coming back to what has been discussed by other members of parliament during this bill, about recommending that someone should or should not have a medical treatment in this country—with many treatments, of course, covered by Medicare—I think we should note what a few doctors are saying. A Dr Damian Wojcik of New Zealand said only in the last couple of days, and I quote directly, that, in the five months to March, 4,434 deaths have been reported to the US adverse reporting system. This is more than the total combined number for all vaccine deaths in the preceding 10 years. It is 113 to 165 times the number of deaths than the annual flu vaccine. He went on—again, a direct quote: By way of comparison, the attempted rollout of the swine flu vaccine to 19 million Americans in 1976 was halted immediately after 50 deaths and … 500 cases of severe paralysis. He said that one would anticipate that, with this data, there would be an 'immediate halting of the COVID vaccination program, but it seems not'. He said some would say this is the 'price we must pay' to end the pandemic. To this he would say, and again I am quoting Dr Damian Wojcik: … not on my watch, not in my patients. My patients are living persons with names and families, not laboratory rats to be sacrificed in a global vaccine experiment. Professor Peter McCullough, MD, MPH, FACP, FACC, FAHA, FNKF, FNLA, a professor of medicine from the US, stated only a few days ago, 'I can no longer recommend the vaccinations to any individual.' Now, I don't know with these doctors are right or whether they are wrong. But I do know that I do not believe in the concept of ignorance is strength. We should be able to debate these doctors' views, not vilify them, not criticise them. We must look at the evidence calmly, with clear heads, and look at the data. Unfortunately, that is not happening in our society today, and we are all the poorer for it. I'd also note that, when it comes to the fantastic Medicare system that we have in our country—probably second to none anywhere around the world—the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship is absolutely critical to its success, and I have been greatly concerned that we have state government chief medical officers that have violated the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship. Nowhere have we seen that more than in the state of Queensland, where they have criminalised a doctor for prescribing hydroxychloroquine to a sick patient. That is the current state of play for a doctor in Queensland who looks at the evidence, studies the evidence, speaks to doctors overseas, sees the success that they are having with hydroxychloroquine as a treatment, understands that many countries around the world have that in their protocol, looks at the 29 early treatment studies of treatment by hydroxychloroquine, sees that 100 per cent of those studies report a positive effect and that the random chance of that happening is 537 billion to one. That's the random chance of it being an effective treatment. But, if a doctor in Queensland, using his ingenuity and his research and his skills and his ability, thinks, 'This treatment would be best for my patient,' there is legislation in place that threatens to send that doctor to jail. That is a violation of the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, and it goes against the principles of everything that Medicare stands for. We must do this on the evidence, on the research, on the data, on the science, not on the emotion and the politics because that is where this decision has come from. So I call on the Chief Health Officer of Queensland and the chief health officers of all states to look at the science, to look at the evidence, especially when it comes to early treatment, and to remove their bans from allowing doctors in this country to prescribe hydroxychloroquine. That is fundamental to the promise that we in this federal parliament give to all Australians with our Medicare system. I thank the House. 13:15 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'm happy to make a contribution to this debate on the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021 and to do so in support of the second reading amendment moved by the member for Hindmarsh. These are some relatively minor but welcome changes in relation to the indexations that are part of our private health system. Private health funds form part of our health system as a whole, which has always been a hybrid model. We have private and public health in this country, and together the public health system, at the foundation, and then the private health system on top of that seek to deliver three things to the Australian people. At the very top of that list is quality of care. I don't think there's any doubt that, in all of our lives, the building block of wellbeing, the foundation on which our ability to be at our best and to pursue our lives, our interests and achieve our potential, is good health. As far as public goods go, in my view, it's what comes first. When you think of the great public goods like education, our environment and public health, I think most people would agree that health is what you need to achieve first and foremost. So you want the best quality of care, and Australians have a right to expect that. It's entirely reasonable that people have choice in their health care. In the most dire circumstances, emergencies, essentially the system takes care of you. If you have a bad accident, you will be collected in an ambulance, you will go to emergency and you will receive the kind of high-quality care that's available in the Australian hospital system. You probably won't know too much about it and you won't have to make a choice. But there are other kinds of health care where choice is relevant, and people should be able to make some choices with respect to their health care. The private system does enable that. Then of course there's the issue of cost management. It's not just cost management for individuals, but cost management for the nation and the system as a whole. Someone, such as a primary school student when they first understand the health system and its public and private components, might be forgiven for thinking that the public part is the only part that draws on the public purse, and the private part is essentially paid for by the individual. That's not the case. We support, with Commonwealth assistance, those who choose to have private health insurance in one form or another. The cost picture, the cost to Australia as a whole, is made up of and the costs are drawn from both the public and the private system. It's interesting to note that, again, someone might think that if you had a system with a higher private-to-public mix then that would draw a smaller amount from the public purse, but there's actually evidence to the contrary. I think the United States is the best example of that. The United States has a significantly less universal form of public health than we have in Australia, and yet government expenditure on health in the United States is considerably more than it is here. So, I think there's not much doubt that our health system, as it has evolved, is a comparatively strong one, and people who've travelled to other parts of the world may well have had some experience of that. For it to remain strong, we need to keep tending to it. We need to keep looking at the various settings and costs and the way in which it changes over time, because health care is one of those areas of life that is changing all the time. There are new pharmaceutical treatments, new diagnostic treatments and new forms of surgery. It will come as no surprise when I say that most of them are at the cutting edge. The more innovative ones come with an appropriate price tag attached, and that's something that needs to be managed. The pandemic has allowed us to see various aspects of our life in Australia under the magnifying glass, as it were, and that includes our health system. When decisions were taken in March and April last year to prepare for and manage what could have occurred if the virus had really got off the leash in Australia, one of the decisions made was to stop certain kinds of hospital procedures, to essentially free up capacity in our health system and in our hospital system in particular for what might have been a more dire form of infectious spread in Australia. That meant cancelling elective surgery, and I think people understood the logic of that. For some private health providers, though, it put them in a very difficult position, because their model is dependent on providing services that are paid for by the people who go and have the elective procedures that are covered by their insurance. My understanding is that, in some cases, private hospitals not surprisingly gave indications that they might need to shut down a little bit more comprehensively than the health authorities were anticipating. Health authorities were hoping that everything would go dormant as far as ordinary healthcare activities were concerned and would be there ready and waiting for what might have happened if the virus had really spread throughout the Australian community. When the private health providers gave some indication to government that they might shut down a little bit more seriously than that, that was an issue. It was certainly true in Western Australia and I expect it was in other jurisdictions. But that was an issue that needed to be managed, and government had to find a way to encourage that private capacity to remain online. At that stage we were looking at ICU capacity and ventilators. I remember a conversation in WA when we were briefed about how many ventilators were available, and at that stage there were perhaps only a few hundred. They were trying to bring more online, because we know at the very acute part of the COVID-19 disease it is the provision of oxygen and a ventilator that can keep you alive. I do note that in what may have been phase 2 or phase 3—it's hard to keep track, really—at some point around April or May, all of us were dealing with the issue of cruise ships and shipping based infection. It seems like a long time ago now, but we had the Artania in Western Australia, a ship that had a significant infection issue for both passengers and crew. I think it was the Joondalup private health facility that was essentially put aside to deal with that, to be the dedicated facility for the passengers and crew who needed to be treated who were coming off the Artania. That whole healthcare exercise was seen through with an extraordinary degree of success. It was controlled. There was no infection outside of the hospital. I don't think that any of the healthcare workers were infected, and all of the people who needed care were provided with care. Many of them, I think, German and Italian citizens, were ultimately able to fly home, and the crew were able to in some cases fly back to the Philippines and in some cases be returned to the ship. That was an instance where our private health facilities or capacity was marshalled and drawn upon in a sensible and well-organised way to deal with that particular aspect of the pandemic. It's those kinds of things that we're likely to need to draw more on in the future. As we're seeing right now with the circumstances in Victoria, nobody can be sanguine about the progress of this pandemic, its future, how it will develop and what other challenges we will see. What has been clear is that when we think of health care it's not just the high-end medical expertise that is crucial; there are a lot of things involved in delivering health care that are in that practical or logistical category that probably aren't that different from many other areas of life. It's about anticipating what may occur, stocktaking the resources that you have—human capital, equipment and, in the case of hospitals, obviously beds, ventilators, oxygen machines, PPE, pharmaceuticals, all of these kinds of things—and then there's the scheduling and administrative side of it. We are seeing at the moment some aspects of that administration being examined because they haven't delivered what we may have expected, and we cannot have a situation where we're not able to say how many people have been vaccinated within a particular cohort. We must be more effectively proactive in reaching out to ensure that vulnerable cohorts are vaccinated, and certainly we must be able to have, pretty much at the tips of our fingers, the details as to how effective those programs have been. We can't have a situation where, as I understand, the responsible minister in Senate estimates today just simply isn't able to give some numbers about people in certain categories of aged care, whether it's aged-care residents or aged-care workers or people in residential disability care. If you're not on top of that kind of detail, it speaks to the administrative competence or the administrative solidity that is underneath our vaccine program. We need to be able to, using all the resources that we have—our public system, our private system, doctors and nurses, public servants in the relevant health departments—to identify what should be occurring. Obviously frontline workers should be vaccinated. People in residential aged care should be vaccinated. Their carers should've been vaccinated. That should've occurred already in almost all of those categories. We're discovering now that it isn't the case, and we're seeing some of the consequences. The numbers today are encouraging. I think we all saw 11 infections yesterday and some of the statements made by Victorian Health with a lot of compassion and concern and trepidation about what might be ahead, so to hear today that it's only three gives us some hope. And we can take hope from the way the Australian community has responded through the 17 outbreaks and lockdowns to date, because, however difficult they have been, we have managed to get to the other side. But we should learn the lessons when these things occur. This has shone a bright spotlight on some things that I think have surprised all of us. We expected that you wouldn't have aged-care workers working across multiple sites last year. That apparently changed, and then it apparently changed back, and it's very hard to understand why that's the case, not least because we know the consequences of that. And it's not on the aged-care workers; the only reason aged-care workers do that is because they're paid a pittance. They're not properly supported and remunerated in the vital work that they do, and they have no choice other than to work in multiple centres. This bill makes some minor but important changes to our health system as a whole—obviously the private health aspect of it, particularly in relation to the indexation of certain income thresholds, and we support it on that basis. Obviously I support the second reading amendment that's been moved by the member for Hindmarsh. 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 17 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Morrison Government: COVID-19 17 13:29 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen [by video link] Last week we asked a question of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Aged Care regarding aged-care facilities and vaccines. Australians have been shocked as we've seen the Prime Minister and the health minister mislead the Australian people with what they've said in relation to aged-care facilities and vaccinations for staff and residents. We now know that aged-care workers haven't been vaccinated—despite what we were told by the government—and that their lives are at risk because of the incompetence of this government, which has failed on the two thing it needed to do: quarantine and vaccinations. When the Prime Minister said he put the country on a war footing with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic, we didn't expect him to wave a white flag and head off overseas again. We need a government that is on the side of the Australian people, not looking after itself at the expense of vulnerable and elderly Australians, who have been left behind because of this government. Local Measure 17 13:30 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth Last month I was privileged to welcome the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, to Sydney to meet with the team at Local Measure. Local Measure is a technology business that's helping businesses connect to their customers through digital channels and artificial intelligence. A home-grown success story, it was founded in 2014 by the CEO, Jonathan Barouch, and has since gone global, with teams in the United States, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Cape Town and Singapore. Jonathan and his team are already taking advantage of the changes to employee share ownership schemes, announced in the 2021 budget. As part of our $500 million overhaul, employees are no longer required to pay tax on shares invested in the company they work for after leaving. For unlisted companies, the cap on the value of shares sold or lent to employees will increase to $30,000, up from the present $5,000. Australia's place in the world will be defined by how we adapt to digital technologies and modernise our economy. COVID-19 has accelerated the increasing use of digital technology and highlighted how it can enhance business and government operations. Local Measure is leading the way in Australia, and the Treasurer and I were lucky enough to test out their AI-driven customer service platform and hear from their passionate workforce about how the tech sector in Australia is creating jobs, exports and opportunities. Thank you to Jonathan and all the team at Local Measure for the important work they are doing in developing Australia's digital economy. We are only at the start of this exciting journey. Morrison Government: COVID-19 17 13:32 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I rise to speak about this government's main job this year. Those opposite had two jobs. One was to vaccinate the Australian population so we'd be free of COVID, and the other was to take care of quarantine. We've seen the Morrison government fail at both. They have failed on quarantine and they have failed on vaccinations, with less than two per cent of the population having been vaccinated. That's well behind other countries of the same standard as Australia—well behind the US, well behind Europe and well behind many other Asian countries. We've continuously heard mixed messages from the government, with things like, 'It's not a race.' Well, it's not a race if we're all vaccinated, if our quarantine is up to scratch and if we know that COVID has gone forever. That's when it becomes not a race. Otherwise it is a continual race. Today I had a message from a constituent of mine whose father went into aged care. He says: 'John is at St Anna's at Brompton. I'm struggling to get him his COVID-19 vaccination. The aged-care facility had their first vaccination the week before his admission. There is no catch-up plan. The head nurse advised me, "If you want John vaccinated, he'll need to leave the facility and attend a community vaccination clinic." He is too weak and frail to attend a vaccination clinic.' This is an area that is the sole responsibility of the Morrison government, which has failed us on vaccinations. Garrett, Mr Malcolm, Bonetti, Ms Ruth 17 13:33 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan I rise today to highlight the work of two outstanding and talented authors in my local community of Ryan who are ensuring that our local history is preserved. Firstly, there's Malcolm Garrett, the former president of the Mandalay Progress Association, who recently released a book titled The Roads to Mandalay. The book provides a historical road map of the development of Fig Tree Pocket and the estate of Mandalay. I was delighted to attend the launch and receive the finished product of the book, after months of thorough research by Malcolm and the MPA. The Mandalay Progress Association was established after the 1974 floods that hit Brisbane, to support residents and to develop community spirit in the area, and it follows that mission faithfully today. The current MPA President, Joseph Tam, has gone above and beyond to support Malcolm in producing the book. So I give my thanks to Joseph as well. I encourage all local residents from Fig Tree Pocket and the surrounding area to get a copy of Malcolm's book. It's a fantastic read. On Sunday I also attended the launch of Ruth Bonetti's new book, The Art Deco Mansion in St Lucia, which is about the heritage listed site on Hawken Drive—a local landmark for St Lucia. It is also about Ruth's grandfather, who was the mastermind behind the design of the home. She wrote the book to honour his life, his story and the contribution he made to the local community. The house was constructed in 1950. It was an architectural design well ahead of its time and still stands today. Both of these books are the love, sweat and tears of their authors. I commend both the talented authors and their wonderful books to our local community. Harriott, Mr Tony 18 13:35 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner In July, COMCAR driver Tony Harriott will retire after 50 years of service, making him the longest-serving driver in COMCAR history. He was 24 years old when he took the wheel of a Ford Galaxie, numberplate C*9. Since 1971, Tony has driven hundreds of politicians, including the fathers of the members for Kennedy and Hunter. Tony remembers picking up Graham Richardson when he first arrived in Canberra, fresh off his Ansett flight. When ministers had their own assigned drivers, Tony was driver to defence minister Kim Beazley. But he especially enjoyed his time driving Anita Keating and Hazel Hawke, who he described as 'just terrific ladies'. COMCAR drivers are famously known for their discretion, so I couldn't get Tony to tell me too much, but he did say 'we had some fun with Hawke' when he was Prime Minister. As a resident of Ngunnawal, Tony is one of my constituents; yet the irony is that almost all of my parliamentary colleagues are more likely to be getting into COMCARs than I am. But I know the extraordinary professionalism of the COMCAR service and how lucky we are to be looked after by them. Tony Harriott's 50 years is a record that may never be matched. Enjoy your retirement, mate; you've earned it. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Sturt Electorate: Magill Village Precinct 18 13:36 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt Firstly, I happily join in the member for Fenner's best wishes to Tony. That is an unbelievable contribution. Slightly as an aside, I'd acknowledge how much we appreciate people like those in the COMCAR service. We are very lucky to have that dedication from all the members of that team. I'm very pleased to update the House on progress at the Magill Village, in the heart of my electorate. We've contributed $2 million at the Commonwealth level to a project which will lead to the beautification of the amenity through Magill Road in Magill, in concert with the Burnside and Campbelltown councils and South Australian state government. This is an election commitment we took to the 2019 election. Happily, I'm updated by the CEO of Burnside Council that the tender has now been released for expression of interest over the next four weeks. I hope many people and local businesses, in particular, participate in that process and take the opportunity to put in a great application. I'm very proud of the support that we've been able to achieve for that project. It is going to be a great outcome for that part of my electorate, particularly for the local traders but, most importantly, for the local families and residents, who are really going to appreciate the transformation of that part of Magill Road. It is going to be a lovely place to wander down to, particularly on a weekend, to grab a coffee and take the kids. It will be great for local businesses and great for local property values, and I'm very proud to have been a part of delivering funding for that project. Migration 18 13:38 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce With no consultation, the government suddenly announced that Australia's embassy in Afghanistan would be closing in one week—this in a country where Australian soldiers have served for 20 years, our longest war; and a nation with which we profess an abiding friendship. The only explanation given is security concerns. If the outlook is that dire that we can't maintain any secure diplomatic presence, what does the government say now to the thousands of Australians desperately waiting for visas for their loved ones? Husbands, wives and children of Australian citizens have been stuck for years, waiting for the black hole of Home Affairs to process their visas. I call out discrimination when I see it, and these delays are blatantly discriminatory. If an Australian falls in love with someone from the UK, the US or Germany it takes about seven to nine months, it appears, on average, to get their partner visa. But, if an Australian falls in love with someone from Afghanistan, it appears to average nearly four years—or from India or China, about 18 months or more. I say 'appears to' as the government is desperately trying to hide the relative processing times. But a recent FOI reveals the truth: blatant discrimination. Partner visas should be processed in the order they are received, not according to which countries or ethnicities this government likes more than others. The map doesn't lie. For God sake; if the security situation in Afghanistan is so bad we have to run away, can you do something for Australians whose families are stuck there? COVID-19: State of Origin 19 13:39 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien, as you may be aware, Townsville will host the first game of the State of Origin. This is fantastic for people in the north. It's fantastic for the people of my community. It will do well with the footy fans—we're footy mad up there—but it will also do so much for our economy. There's one thing that's a little bit concerning. We'll get 30,000 people in a stadium sitting next to each other, having a beer, watching the game, eating a hot dog, cheering and watching Queensland win, but then you can't go to the local cafe, the local pub or the local shop down the road because they're only allowed to have 50 per cent capacity. So there will be 30,000 at a game sitting next to each other, but down the road you can only have 50 per cent. That is not really fair for the local businesses who want to capitalise on these tourists, people coming from throughout the north and coming from New South Wales to visit. Why can't they do what the stadium is doing? Why can't it be one rule for all? I'm not saying we risk the safety of anyone. They do exactly what the stadium does: they have QR codes, they have sanitiser and they wipe down everything. Why can't we all be treated the same? Why can't the state Labor government treat all businesses, big and small, exactly the same? Hobart: Defence and Veterans Workshop, Coughran, Mr Christopher 19 13:41 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I rise to acknowledge the great work of the Defence and Veterans Workshop in Hobart. Originating more than 20 years ago when a psychiatrist recognised that medication and counselling were not always the best responses to PTSD and other conditions suffered by veterans, the workshop has evolved and grown to be a genuinely inclusive and welcoming space for veterans—men and women—to socialise, to support each other and to learn new skills. Sadly, though, long-time member and then president Chris Coughran passed away earlier this year shortly after suffering a heart attack at the workshop. Suffice to say, this was a shocking turn of events not just for his family but for all of us associated with the workshop who felt a special affection, respect and appreciation for Chris—no wonder his funeral was packed and included a diversity of people, reflecting Chris's service to the Navy, public and community. I counted at least two former Tasmanian premiers in the congregation, and that alone says a lot. But today I seek not only to pay my respects to Chris but also to honour the promise I made to him late last year that somehow I'd be seen in the Australian parliament with the top that the members of the workshop had generously presented to me, and that I now do. Norfolk Village State School Community Health Hub 19 13:42 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It was my pleasure to officially open a new community wellbeing and health services hub at Norfolk Village State School a few weeks ago. The building was fully funded, with $500,000 from the federal government's Community Development Grants Program. The facility will provide high-level health services for students with complex needs. These will include assessment, diagnosis, development of management plans, intervention, supervision and professional health guidance. I'm pleased to say this is the second such facility in the electorate of Forde, the first being at Eagleby State School, and I know what a tremendous success that that has been in the six months or so that it's been open. The nearest hospitals are located some distance from Norfolk Village, resulting in many families having limited access to health providers by having to take time off work in order to take their children to appointments. The provision of a health hub at the school will make it far easier for students to receive care and to provide better outcomes for at-risk students. Initially, this investment will see more than 300 students and their families provided with these high-level health services, with room to grow into the future. To work with our communities to try and leave a legacy for the future is one of the great privileges we have in this role. I'd like to congratulate everyone at Norfolk Village State School, starting with former principal Sam Donovan, whose out-of-the-box thinking conceived this idea; current principal Steve Kummerow; Alana; Adi; and the whole team turning this into a success. COVID-19: Victoria 20 13:44 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I want to start by thanking my fellow Victorians. The daily test numbers and vaccine numbers in Victoria are extraordinary. Victorians are rising to this challenge. They are doing it not just for themselves but for their friends, their families and each other, and for all Australians. I want to thank each and every Victorian who has done the right thing. But it is extremely frustrating. This lockdown is devastating for businesses. There's absolutely no doubt about how all of the Victorian MPs in this place would be hearing from businesses about how difficult this lockdown is. But we are in this lockdown because we have a quarantine system which—even though the Prime Minister says it is 99.9 per cent effective—is still resulting in billion-dollar lockdowns because of that little bit that is leaking out. We need to fix it. It's also extremely frustrating that the vaccine rollout is being treated as if going slow were good enough. It is not. It is absolutely a race, and the Prime Minister shouldn't be echoing that ridiculous sentiment that it is not a race. It is a race for Victoria, right now, to get out of this lockdown. Finally, it is so frustrating for Victorian businesses that they have no safety net from this federal government to support them through this lockdown. JobKeeper was an outstanding health measure because it meant that people didn't have to choose between doing the right thing and going to work. We need support. We need the federal government to come and support Victorians and not ignore them like they are. Bonner Electorate: Men's Sheds, Mental Health 20 13:46 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner Last week, I had the pleasure of dropping in on the Wynnum, Manly and Districts Men's Shed. The shed recently completed upgrades to its facilities, thanks to $200,000 in funding from the Morrison government. The funding has enabled the upgrade of the shed's office facilities and shed equipment, including a laser cutter and dust extraction system, and the installation of solar panels. This funding boost will also support their growing membership base. Men's sheds do incredible work. Open to all men, they play a vital role in addressing social isolation and boosting men's mental health. As we know, mental health care is a top priority of the Morrison government. We've nearly doubled spending on mental health since we came to office. There are more than 1,000 men's sheds across the country, and I'm fortunate enough to have multiple men's sheds in the Bonner electorate, whose projects are often donated back into our local communities. The Wynnum-Manly men's shed has built model trains for our childcare centres and provided carpentry support to those in need. I'm always humbled by the kindness and generosity of the men's sheds towards our community. This funding boost to the Wynnum-Manly men's shed is a valuable investment in grassroots mental health care in our community. Our government is making mental health services accessible and providing safe environments for those seeking support. We are providing a helping hand to those who need it most. COVID-19: Vaccination 20 13:47 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell The Prime Minister says the COVID-19 vaccine rollout is not a race. But it is. It's a race to beat this virus and the dangerous mutations leading to outbreaks across the world and close to home. When the rollout started in February, five months after the first vaccine deal was signed, there were very few details. Now we know why. As a pharmacist and local MP, I'm increasingly concerned about the most vulnerable being exposed and at risk, and this risk is largely avoidable. Last week, the Commonwealth received 1.4 million vaccine doses but administered only just over 500,000. When hospital hubs were announced, I was asked why the closest were at Hornsby or the John Hunter. In phase 1a, frontline health workers asked me why the hubs were at RPA, Westmead and Liverpool. When aged-care homes listed in week 1 were in West Gosford, Point Clare, Umina Beach and Woy Woy, families asked me, what about their family members living on the north of the coast? When a senior GP put through an EOI, supported by the PHN, for a mass vaccination clinic, and it wasn't supported by the federal government, he asked me why. When a medical centre was waiting weeks for vaccines, the practice manager contacted me, desperate, asking why. And when people with disability living in supported accommodation are still waiting, their families are asking why. I've raised questions with Professor Brendan Murphy. I've written to Minister Hunt. I've written to Minister Hazzard. What my community needs is certainty, now. (Time expired) Fisher Electorate: Maleny Show 21 13:49 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher The Maleny Show is back. After a disappointing 2020, when COVID put an end to Queensland's greatest exhibition, last week I had the honour of opening the 83rd Maleny Show and helping to bring city and country back together once again. President Winston Johnston and the Maleny Show Society team put on a fantastic event, with the full schedule of pavilion sections, a full livestock program, all the usual arts and crafts and a brand-new entertainment program, as well as, of course, my own stall. This weekend my community showed more than just our products; we showed that the Sunshine Coast hinterland is back and that we are thriving and prouder than ever before. Though there was no show last year, the society were not idle. With the help of a Morrison government grant of $486,111, the team built a new workshop, a shed, extended office facilities and new accessible amenities, which are not only a big improvement on what we had before but make it easier for people living with a disability to join in. On behalf of my community, I say a big thankyou to show society president Winston Johnston, secretary Lois White, treasurer Karen Lusk, vice-president Tanya Pratten, new vice-president Colin Sinclair and all the dozens and dozens of volunteers who make the show a reality. COVID-19 21 13:50 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I am not a Victorian, but I stand with all Victorians in the midst of this latest COVID outbreak. If this government had taken seriously its responsibility to vaccinate Australians, more Victorians would now be vaccinated and they might well not be in the midst of their fourth lockdown. It beggars belief that this government could not even ensure that residents of nursing homes were fully vaccinated and they still have no idea how many residents have indeed been vaccinated. If there were a safe national quarantine system, this outbreak might well not have happened. I want to thank all Victorians for their sacrifices on behalf of their fellow Victorians but also on behalf of all Australians during a lockdown for which they are getting absolutely no help from this federal government. I urge all Australians to go and get vaccinated as soon as they are able to. If you are in my electorate of Brand, you can book your appointment at the mass vaccination clinic in Kwinana. Just give them a call and get your booking. If you are over 50, please go and get vaccinated. My husband has done it. I would get vaccinated if I could, but I am a resident of Western Australia who is under the age of 50, so, like everyone else under the age of 50 in WA, I do not know when I will get vaccinated. This government has said time and time again that the vaccination rollout is not a race. Well, it absolutely is a race. The world is racing to vaccinate itself against COVID-19, and this country has been left behind by this ridiculous, rotten Liberal government. Mallee Electorate: Business Reimagined Series 21 13:52 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I recently had the pleasure of attending the launch of the Business Reimagined Series in Horsham, with the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack. The event was held at the Cattle Shed, one of Horsham's hidden gems. As the name suggests, it's an old cattle shed, which has been refurbished and is now perfect for large events looking for some rustic charm. We heard some great speakers, including Marc Sleeman, CEO of Grampians Tourism; Stuart Benjamin, chair of the Grampians branch of Regional Development Australia; and Andrea Cross of the Horsham Agricultural Society. There were also great stalls held in the old stables, by Amy Brooksby and her business, Cupcakerella; as well as Chris and Sam Spence from Norton Estate Wines; Peter Beasley from Elizabeth Anne by Hand; and Bart Turgoose from Skyography. It was a great opportunity for business owners to connect and share innovative approaches to doing business and discuss challenges that they are facing as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Undoubtedly for many businesses in Horsham the key challenge is workforce. Many business owners are struggling to find the right people for the job. The good news is that many are accessing the boosting apprenticeships wage subsidy and the JobTrainer program provided by our government, measures that address workforce challenges for businesses in Horsham and throughout Mallee. COVID-19 21 13:53 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley I promised my community that I would spend this week fighting to fix the vaccine rollout, for fit-for-purpose quarantine facilities and for financial support for Victorians during our lockdown. I shouldn't have to do that, but I do, because we have a Prime Minister who likes to insist that the vaccine rollout is not a race. He does so because his government is totally and utterly losing the race. It's Australians, it's my community, who are the victims of that failure. We were told that all aged-care residents and workers would be vaccinated by March. Well, it's June, and the Prime Minister has well and truly lost that race. It's the frontline workers in aged care and disability care who are the victims of that failure. Shift workers who look after some of the most vulnerable people in our community have been abandoned by the Prime Minister, left to fend for themselves. If they were lucky and there was vaccination at their centre and there was some vaccine left over, they got it. Otherwise, they had to try to find an available GP when only 50 vaccines a week were being supplied by this government to GPs. Today we hear the minister doesn't even know how many aged-care workers have been vaccinated. It's like Yes Minister without the humour. Lucky it's not a race to provide Australians with a COVIDSafe app. Lucky it's apparently not a race to have fit-for-purpose quarantine, notwithstanding there have been 17 breaches and my community is in lockdown. The Prime Minister has abandoned my community and has not— (Time expired) COVID-19: Vaccination 22 13:55 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I'd like to congratulate the millions of Australian that have secured a COVID-19 vaccine and have shown responsibility for themselves, for the community and for the welfare of others. At this point, 4.362 million Australians have got a COVID-19 vaccine, but that means that there are many Australians that have not. All I can say is that, when we come into this chamber, our focus should be on one thing and one thing only: to encourage Australians to take that responsibility to protect themselves and others, and not to indulge in cheap politics. Of course, in my great state of Victoria at the moment, many Victorians are struggling with a lockdown. I would like to thank and congratulate the 494,037 Victorians that have got their vaccine doses, with nearly 20,000 having been administered in the past 24 hours. Finally, I would like to give a big shout-out to those people who are supporting others in this difficult time: the carers, the teachers, the nurses, the parent who are assisting children in their homeschooling. They deserve the best when they look to this parliament and to know that we are backing them, and that is exactly what the Morrison government is doing. COVID 19: Aged Care 22 13:56 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand Last year 655 Victorians died from COVID-19 infections in aged-care facilities, 64 of them in four facilities in my electorate. I've spoken with their grieving families. They aren't statistics. They're beloved mothers, fathers, grandparents, friends who died in appalling circumstances, scared and cut off from the physical support of their loved ones. My heart breaks for these families today as they ask themselves whether this government has learnt anything from the deaths of their loved ones. The Morrison government said that aged-care residents and workers were its highest priority in the vaccine rollout and that they would all be vaccinated fully by March. But today, in June, as Victoria faces yet another outbreak from hotel quarantine, aged care is still vulnerable, with just over half of residents fully vaccinated. We heard today in Senate estimates that, as far as the department knows, less than 10 per cent of aged-care workers have been vaccinated, this despite all of the aged-care outbreaks in my electorate having been caused by staff bringing the infection into the facility. There's no urgency. This Prime Minister says the vaccine rollout isn't a race. The aged-care services minister says he's comfortable with the rollout. That incompetent minister should have been sacked after last year's debacle, but this Prime Minister put his own political interests first, like he always does, and kept him. He refused to admit that any mistakes had been made last year, and now we have the same people making the same deadly mistakes all over again. It's indefensible and an insult to the memories of those loved one who have died. (Time expired) Budget 22 13:58 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor This year's budget commits over $1.1 billion to reducing family and domestic violence and making our community safer for women and children. O'Connor is benefitting directly from more than $3.75 million in safe places funding to expand Indigenous-specific emergency housing. Southern Aboriginal Corporation will receive over $3 million to establish a much needed new crisis centre in Albany. Their CEO, Asha Bhat, was here in Parliament House last week and said, 'This will help combat the homelessness of Aboriginal women and children in the Great Southern.' Their current refuge is at full capacity and many families are having to be housed in other towns where they do not necessarily feel safe or welcome. In the Goldfields, Merri Best of the Goldfields Indigenous Housing Organisation is thrilled to receive $780,000 towards four new three-bedroom houses to provide crisis accommodation for Indigenous women fleeing violent domestic situations. Chair Dianne Logan added they have 'just been scraping by', currently managing 48 houses and supporting many Goldfields Indigenous families. She stressed that many Aboriginal women fleeing violent situations are not comfortable in mainstream shelters, so having Indigenous-specific housing is critical to those who are otherwise living rough on the fringes of our Goldfields communities. In addition, GIHO has just qualified for federal funding as a Local Drug Action Team. This will further support them in addressing alcohol and drug related family harm and homelessness in Indigenous communities in the Goldfields. I commend and will continue to support GIHO and SAC in the great work they're doing supporting Indigenous communities across my electorate of O'Connor. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 23 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I inform the House that the Minister for Defence Industry will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Defence will answer questions on her behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 23 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE COVID 19: Vaccination 23 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister still say that vaccinating all Australians, including aged-care residents and workers is 'not a race'? 14:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for the question. The reference to 'not a race' was first said by Professor Brendan Murphy, the Secretary of the Department of Health and chair of the Science and Industry Technical Advisory Group, and I affirm his remarks. I affirm the remarks of the secretary of health because all the way through this pandemic our government, the governments around the country and, indeed, governments in other countries, have always been mindful of the expert advice informing the decisions we have taken. That reference was made by the secretary and it was affirmed by me in a way that was consistent in the way I have always considered very carefully the advice provided by Professor Murphy. If those opposite want to play politics with the advice provided by our medical experts and seek to call into question the references made by the secretary of health— Honourable members interjecting— 14:01 The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will pause for a second. From memory, there may have been a weekend since our last question time, but my attitude has not abated. I need to be able to hear the questions and the answers. When those interjecting wildly do so, it makes it difficult for me to do that. I'm not going to allow that to occur. Members will not interject or they'll be ejected. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L I share the view of the Chair of the Science and Industry Technical Advisory Group, Professor Brendan Murphy. I share his view. The question for those opposite is: why do they call into question the advice provided to the government? The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Mr Tehan interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Education will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW On direct relevance: the question asked the Prime Minister whether he'll take responsibility for his own words. You can't just flick past that and say, 'Reframe the question. Oh, Labor is wanting to criticise someone else.' He is the one who said it. The question asked him whether he would take responsibility for it. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister, in answering the question, has been very relevant up until this point. I call the Prime Minister. Mr MORRISON E3L Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. I do stand by my words and my words were based on the expert advice of the Chair of the Science and Industry Technical Advisory Group, Professor Brendan Murphy. But he wasn't alone. Queensland Health is also quoted on 3 March 2021 as saying that this is 'not a race'. That was from Queensland Health on their own Twitter feed. So it was the medical advice using that terminology at that time. I listened to the medical advice. Those opposite may want to call into question the advice provided by our medical experts such as Professor Murphy, but I certainly will not. Those opposite cannot run away from the imputation they have put into this place, right here and now, calling into question the judgement of Professor Murphy. 14:04 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I seek leave to table a document with quotes from the Prime Minister during a Today show interview on 11 March saying it's 'not a race'; from 14 March at a doorstop in Castle Hill, with the Prime Minister saying it's 'not a race'; and a 31 March 2021 press conference in Adelaide, with the Prime Minister saying it's 'not a race'. The SPEAKER 00APG Is leave granted? Mr MORRISON E3L Mr Speaker, he can table that, and I will table from 10 March, the day before those comments were made, the comments of Professor Murphy, the chair of the scientific and technical advisory group on immunisation, saying this is not a race. So, Mr Speaker, I affirm again, in addition to my earlier answer, in adding to my remarks, that the position taken by the government and by me as Prime Minister is informed by Professor Murphy— The SPEAKER 00APG No, the Prime Minister just needs to table the document. Australia-New Zealand Leaders' Meeting 24 14:05 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please update the House on his annual leaders dialogue meeting yesterday in New Zealand and how both countries are working together to address the shared challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic? 14:05 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Wentworth for his question and the great experience that he brings to this House on matters of international relations. Mr Speaker, it was a very successful meeting yesterday in Queenstown in Otago when I met with the New Zealand Prime Minister as part of our regular annual leaders dialogue. I'm very pleased that at that meeting we were able to reinforce our shared assessment of the regional security risks that Australia and New Zealand face and our joint resolve to address those risks and to always stand up for Australia's interests on our part and for New Zealand's interests on the New Zealand government's part. When it comes to our regional security and the threats that we face and that other countries face, we have a shared resolve. We are great trading nations, both of us, Australia and New Zealand, but we are not nations that would trade away our values and our interests, and we were able to share that resolve yesterday. I thank Prime Minister Ardern for her welcome yesterday and the opportunity to address those very important security issues. It was also a good opportunity, Mr Speaker, to discuss our respective responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, given we are two of only a handful of countries that have had success in suppressing the virus compared to other countries around the world, and to look particularly at our vaccination and quarantine programs, which are quite identical. In fact, they are quite identical except for a couple of differences. We're at some 17 cumulative doses per 100 population; New Zealand is at 11.7. Also, we both run hotel quarantine programs, and the success rate on our quarantine programs between New Zealand and Australia is identical. What we both understood is for countries that have been so successful in suppressing the virus there is the challenge to ensure that we work as hard as we can to lift those vaccination rates. That's why I was pleased that while it took us just over two months to get to two million cumulative doses, in the last month, in the month of May, we got to four million doses—66 days to reach the first two million and one month, 30 days, to hit four million doses. At the end of April, we had a seven-day average of 320,792 doses. At the end of May, that had lifted to 672,117. In the course of the past month, two million additional doses were delivered around the country. Importantly this means more than half of those in populations over 70, Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister's time has concluded. The Deputy Manager of Opposition Business. COVID-19: Vaccination 24 14:08 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that Senate estimates has today revealed that 12,873 aged-care residents in Victoria are still waiting for their second dose? Why then did the minister tell 7.30 last Thursday that the vaccination of Victorian aged-care facilities was '99 per cent completed' and would be '100 per cent tomorrow'? 14:09 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders Indeed, that is exactly right with regard to 100 per cent of Victorian Commonwealth aged-care facilities, on the advice that I have, and reaffirmed this morning, being completed by Friday of last week for first doses. That was always the reference, and I am certain that the member is well aware of that. More generally around Australia, what we've seen at this point in time is that across four states and territories 100 per cent of facilities have been completed with first doses. They are Victoria, the Northern Territory, the ACT and Tasmania. Remaining facilities are to be done over the coming days. The advice that I give is that, as of last night, there were 20 to be completed. I did make an error yesterday—my mistake, my apologies—nobody else's fault but mine. The department's advice was correct. My misreading of it was my fault. In fact, by close of business tomorrow, on the advice that I received just before coming to this facility, we will be down to five. I was expecting that was six. Having said that, 100 per cent of facilities in four states and territories, as part of a broader national rollout, which at this point in time has seen 272,000 vaccinations of aged-care residents around the country, and that has provided a very significant measure of protection. I would note that, for example, in Arcare Maidstone, a 99-year-old resident who was diagnosed as positive, albeit asymptomatic, has been placed in a dedicated COVID ward in hospital for observation has been vaccinated. That will provide protection. Of course, there is no guarantee in any case, but that is a very important measure of protection. That clarifies exactly what I said last week. Indeed, those figures which were provided to 7.30 were correct. Budget 25 14:11 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister informed the House how the Morrison-McCormack government's support for the transport sector as part of the economic recovery plan is delivering vital infrastructure and making regional Australia more resilient? 14:12 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for his question. He, like many other members on this side of the House, understands the full value of our $110 billion 10-year pipeline of investment in infrastructure. It's helping through the COVID recovery, and whilst we're a long way from being out of it yet, the work sites around the nation on our roads, on our bridges, on our rail and on our airports are making such a difference. The member for Cowper knows well what it means for improved road safety, particularly on regional roads, and the positive impact it has on regional communities such as the one he represents on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales. He is a former police officer and a former solicitor, and he is chair of the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety. He understands how new and improved infrastructure on our roads saves lives. It really does. The member would also be aware of the works being delivered under our $3 billion safety package. Another billion dollars went into it in the 11 May budget. In the member's electorate of Cowper, works including new safety barriers, audio-tactile line markings, new pedestrian crossings, rumble strips and shoulder sealing are improving road usage for every person who is on those roads. Every parent's worst nightmare is the knock on their door by a first responder saying that a loved one is not coming home. Part of our Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, part of our Road Safety Program, is to avoid that if at all possible. The five councils in Cowper received $26.9 million towards the LRCI projects, and Mayor Peta Pinson of Port Macquarie-Hastings Council has welcomed that investment. Her council received $8.9 million. She said: Our population is continuously growing, and we've seen more young working families move to our region in the last year. Having more jobs available, and improving our community spaces is so important for us to stay social and healthy, especially for young people— and especially, I would add, during the COVID-19 global pandemic. These projects are building resilience in communities such as Mayor Pinson's in the electorate of Cowper. At Hoxton Park in Western Sydney yesterday I was pleased to unveil the new Freight Data Hub prototype website. That network will also help truckies, who've been magnificent during COVID. Let's make no mistake, let's say it how it is: they have been magnificent, delivering the goods and making sure that supermarket shelves get stocked, and, whether it's in Cowper, whether it's right across the country, we owe truckies a debt of gratitude. The heavy vehicle rest areas and their use is mapped as part of this hub, helping them to avoid congestion. It's part of the network that was very well received at that Western Sydney site yesterday, as it should be. The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business, for those one or two members who are interjecting, apart from not noticing that no-one else is, you will be ejected. I thought it would tell you something! COVID-19: Vaccination 25 14:15 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh My question is again to the minister for health, and I refer to his previous answer. The minister's comments to the 7.30 program on Thursday night contained no mention of first doses only, so why did the minister use the term 'completed' in response to a question about a two-dose vaccine? 14:15 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders It has been absolutely clear, as we have talked about in question time and in multiple circumstances around the country, that the program we've been undertaking is to conduct the process of vaccinating aged-care facilities, working through first doses and working through second doses. It is absolutely and fundamentally clear, as Professor Murphy, Professor Kidd and Professor Kelly have all indicated in recent days, that the first dose is a fundamentally important part and, indeed, provides a critical protection and that vaccination program, which we have referred to on many occasions, refers to the total number of facilities which had those first vaccinations and second vaccinations. The advice that I have before me, as of last night, was 2,544 facilities have had first doses around the country, or 99 per cent—100 per cent, in those four jurisdictions— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister for health will pause for a second. Mr Butler HWK A point of order on relevance: the question was a very specific question in relation to advice the minister gave on Thursday night, not data now but advice about a two-dose vaccine. The SPEAKER 00APG I will just say the minister is being relevant. He's relating the material in his answer to the direct question. I'll keep listening to the minister. Mr HUNT 00AMV To add to that, the advice received from the department shortly before question time was 1,957 facilities, or 76 per cent of national facilities, have had a second dose. And we have at all times drawn the distinction and pointed to the fact we have a two-dose regime. Our immediate task—immediate task—was to set out and ensure that we were on a path to make every facility in Australia had that option of a first dose at the earliest possible time. Now we are at that point where 100 per cent of facilities in four states and territories, Victoria, the Northern Territory, the ACT and Tasmania, have received that, with the remaining four states and territories to have that one per cent gap closed in coming days. An expected 15 of the 20—possibly as high as 17, but at this stage 15 of those 20—are scheduled for the next two days. So, it is a very important thing, as the chief medical officer and the deputy chief medical officer and the former chief medical officer have emphasised, to have the first dose in place. There's been some discussion—and, indeed, I heard Professor Kelly make some very clear remarks on this front last week—that the first dose is absolutely critical, that it provides the balance of protection. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Mr HUNT 00AMV There was an indication that this was unimportant, that this was not a critical thing, and this was a discussion had in question time of last week. So, 100 per cent of facilities across those four states and territories are completed, as we said on Friday, and 99 per cent across the country. Pensions and Benefits 26 14:19 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services. Minister, the COVID-19 freeze on Centrelink debts has been lifted, and my office is taking calls daily from constituents confused and frustrated because they can't get a straight answer from Centrelink as to why they have a debt and how the debt is calculated. Moreover, the appeal process remains confusing and non-transparent, with people not receiving updates, being told different information every time they call and sometimes not even been notified of the outcome until money disappears from their bank account. Frankly, this reeks of robodebt. Why, even the local library provides more information about debts than does Centrelink. Minister, when is the government going to fix this? 14:20 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden Let me thank the member for Clark for his question. The government is committed to a very strong social safety net, as are all members in this House. Services Australia will pay over $125 billion this year in support payments, and, as at late May, 5.36 million Australians were in receipt of some payments. As the House is aware, we run a very targeted social welfare system. With that comes complexity. This includes complex interactions between members' income and their assets, as well as how much they earn. It's for these reasons that a key obligation of our welfare system is for individuals to update the department on their circumstances, if they change, to ensure that entitlements are accurately calculated. The department, of course, has an obligation to undertake substantial compliance activity to ensure the right people get the right amount of money at the right time. As the member has noted, debt raising was paused during the height of COVID and has recommenced from 1 February this year, because Services Australia has a lawful obligation to do so. From 1 February, the department has also included SMS notifications on changes to repayments and repayment plans, as well as nudges, in line with myGov messaging. Services Australia has used the debt pause to re-evaluate exactly how its approach to service offering is made with respect to overpayments and to make it as contemporary as possible. For example, the IVR, the interactive voice response, when you dial into Centrelink, now provides— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Clark on a point of order? Mr Robert HWT Yes, Mr Speaker, on relevance. The question is: when is the government going to fix the problems with the debt recovery process? The SPEAKER 00APG As I've said many times, when you take the entire time to ask that question—rather than asking it—as you did, there's a lot of other material the minister can refer to. So it's a regular point of order that's taken, but if you take the full 45 seconds all of that preamble is relevant to the minister's answer. So I make that clear, yet again. Mr ROBERT HWT Customers can actually stay in the IVR, in that voice channel, to get informed, specific information for them and have the information and the issue resolved. Likewise, the 'money you owe' service provides specific information now as to how a debt is raised and what to do with it. I've just taken the liberty to sign into myGov, and I will show the member. Simply go into myGov, move down to favourites, and there is money you owe. Go to the menu, move across to payments and claims, across to managed payments and money you owe. So the information is right there within two clicks for individuals to see. Over two million Australians are using that every single day; it is the largest authenticated platform in Australia with over 20 million users. So a user can see the debt that has arisen, how it's arisen and how they can move forward to deal with that. Furthermore, payment letters have been simplified to make the reason for overpayments and the next steps clearer. The government's also implementing changes to make it easier for customers to prevent overpayments in the first place, notably through the use of single touch payroll. So I encourage the member to refer their citizens to those areas where substantial improvements have— (Time expired) COVID-19: Economy 27 14:23 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer remind the House of the unprecedented scale of the Morrison government's economic support for Australian families and businesses, particularly in my electorate of Chisholm, during the COVID-19 pandemic? 14:24 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I acknowledge not only the experience of the member for Chisholm before coming to this place, as a speech pathologist and someone in small business, but also the significance to this place of the member for Chisholm as the first Chinese-born member of this House. The member for Chisholm and other members of this House today have all Victorians in our thoughts, as Victorians, more than six million of them, are now enduring a fourth lockdown. It's a painful reminder that the pandemic is still with us—a pandemic that saw Treasury last year fear that the unemployment rate would reach as high as 15 per cent and that GDP could contract by as much as 20 per cent or more, and that saw 1.3 million Australians either lose their jobs or saw their working hours reduced to zero. The Morrison government responded with an unprecedented amount of direct economic support, including in measures in this year's budget of $291 billion. That's more than twice what all the states and territories combined have committed. JobSeeker, JobKeeper, HomeBuilder, the cash flow boost and $750 payments to millions of pensioners, veterans and carers have helped strengthen the economy. In the member for Chisholm's electorate, more than 30,000 people were able to get a JobKeeper payment. In the member for Chisholm's electorate, more than 6,000 businesses were able to access the cash flow boost. The net result of this economic support has seen Australia have the strongest growth in the back half of last year on record and seen the unemployment rate fall in April down to 5.5 per cent. And, as the Treasury secretary confirmed today at Senate estimates, 150,000 people have come off unemployment benefits since JobKeeper ended. The budget delivered just over two weeks ago saw continued economic support, $41 billion in COVID related economic support continuing, including tax relief—including for more than 60,000 people in the member for Chisholm's electorate—immediate expensing, the loss carry-back measure and other economic support. On this side of the House we have shown that, when this crisis was at its peak, we provided an unprecedented amount of economic support. That has seen the jobs come back not only in Victoria but right across the country. COVID-19: Victoria 27 14:27 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Treasurer. Victorians wouldn't be locked down today if it weren't for the Morrison government's failures on vaccines and quarantine. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right! Members will cease interjecting. The member for Rankin will begin his question again. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Treasurer. Victorians wouldn't be locked down if it weren't for the Morrison government's failures on vaccines and quarantine. Why has this Treasurer refused to provide any additional support to small businesses and workers hardest hit by these failures? What kind of Victorian abandons Victorians in their hour of need? Opposition members: Hear, hear! The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! 14:28 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong This Treasurer, this Prime Minister and this government have provided more support to Victoria than any previous government. Mr Keogh interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Burt will leave under standing order 94(a). The member for Burt then left the chamber. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL I know the member for Rankin's maths isn't too good. He's been doing the numbers for some time and he still can't even get to two. But the reality is that the Morrison government has provided more than $45 billion already to families and businesses across Victoria. The state Treasurer in Victoria has confirmed that the state government has delivered $13 billion. That is less than a third— Ms Ryan interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lalor will leave under standing order 94(a). The member for Lalor then left the chamber. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL That is less than a third of what we at the federal level have already delivered. The people of Victoria have received on a per capita basis more from the Morrison government over the course of COVID than any other state or territory. We have provided more than $28 billion of JobKeeper payments to the people of Victoria. We have supported— Mr Conroy 249127 What are you doing now? The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Shortland will leave under 94(a) yet again. The member for Shortland then left the chamber. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL We have provided around $90 million of cash-flow boost payments to the people of Victoria. We have provided around $5 billion in JobSeeker coronavirus supplement payments to the people of Victoria and around $3 billion in direct payments to veterans, carers and pensioners across Victoria. I remind the honourable member that Victoria is not the only state that has gone into lockdown since the end of JobKeeper. His own state of Queensland, in Brisbane, saw stay-at-home orders in late March/early April. We know that the Perth metropolitan area and the Peel region also saw stay-at-home orders, between 24 April and 27 April. According to the Victorian government, this is a seven-day lockdown. It is a short lockdown, and we anticipated, at the time of the budget, that there would be outbreaks and indeed short lockdowns. That's why we provided an unprecedented amount of support, in this budget and in previous budgets, including $41 billion in direct economic support to support and strengthen our recovery in the state of Victoria as well as across the nation. Victoria: COVID-19 28 14:31 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister please provide an update to the House on the current COVID situation in Victoria and what actions the Morrison government is taking to assist? 14:31 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Higgins for her question and for her work. I also want to thank all of those in Victoria who have come forward in record numbers for vaccination. In the last 24 hours there have been 40,389 vaccines administered in Victoria. That has contributed to a record figure on Monday for Australia—119,139 vaccinations in the last 24 hours—which comes on top of a record week of 630,000 vaccinations in the seven days to Sunday. These are important steps forward in Australia. Victorians are stepping forward, and Australians everywhere are stepping forward. But we also know that Victoria is facing difficult challenges. At this point, the advice I have is that there are 54 active cases in Victoria. We know that we can manage challenges. New South Wales, for example, had over 200 active cases in a one-month period, from 16 December to 16 January, and was able to manage and contain those cases. Victoria is doing a very good and important job. The Commonwealth has stepped in with 130,000 additional vaccines and offered contact tracing and ADF support. I'm advised that 160 defence personnel are on the ground, as we said last week they would be. They are on the ground and they are available and being tasked, in conjunction with Victoria, for operations. We have activated asymptomatic testing from the Commonwealth respiratory clinics. In addition to that, the Chief Medical Officer and his team are leading meetings of the national medical expert panel, the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee. The Commonwealth medical officer declared a hotspot on 27 May, which was in concert with the Victorian government's announcement of restrictions there. As a result, that includes the provision of PPE from the National Medical Stockpile. In line with the advice of the AHPPC of 9 November last year, which was tabled at the national cabinet on 13 November last year, that also leads to the single-site workforce payments in Victoria, a system which was, as I say, endorsed by the AHPPC last year and tabled at the national cabinet. Furthermore, in terms of total vaccines available in Victoria, what we see is that the Commonwealth has provided approximately 787,000 vaccines, and Victoria, to their credit, have administered 494,000 of those. These are difficult and challenging times, but the nation is coming together to protect Victoria. We know how to do this and we will do it again. (Time expired) Victoria: COVID-19 29 14:34 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. The minister said that first-dose COVID vaccinations for Victorian aged-care facilities were complete, but I have confirmed this morning that residents in an aged-care facility in my electorate have still not have had their first vaccine dose. How can the minister's statement be true? 14:34 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I would be happy to receive the details of the facility, because I have confirmed on multiple occasions with my department that all Commonwealth facilities have been completed. We did have drawn to our attention one facility which was misidentified as a Commonwealth facility which in fact is under the responsibility of the Victorian government. I don't know if that is the facility, as the member has not named it, but the department has reaffirmed, in advice to Senate estimates today, that all Commonwealth facilities have been completed, including the Jewish Care house which was raised by the member for Macnamara last week. That was completed as we said it would be. I am aware that one case was raised on a television program last night. We have spoken with the granddaughter, I believe, of the resident in question, and it has been confirmed that it is not a Commonwealth facility. Our advice is express, clear and absolute from the department—that all Commonwealth residential aged-care facilities in Victoria have had a first dose. COVID-19 29 14:36 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workforce Skills, Small and Family Business, representing the Minister for Government Services. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government continues to support Australians affected by COVID-19, including people in the great state of Victoria? 14:36 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I thank the member for Goldstein for his question and for all his work in advocating for his constituents, who have received over $118 million in direct assistance from the Morrison government through the coronavirus supplement and, of course, the four economic support payments. It's a difficult time in Victoria, and the Morrison government continues to stand not just with Victorians but with all Australians, as we've done throughout the entire pandemic and as we'll continue to do as we chart our way through our economic recovery. As the House is aware, we'll continue to provide detailed support to Australians. Through the pandemic, we've provided four economic support payments, totalling $2,000 per recipient. We've also provided payments to support 2.5 million age pensioners and 750,000 family tax benefit recipients. We've also provided $32 billion in emergency support payments. On top of that, as the Treasurer has outlined, there has been $28.1 billion in JobKeeper payments to specific Victorians. Over 300,000 entities and over a million Victorians have benefited. Likewise, $9 billion has gone to Victorians in the cash flow boost, and $5.1 billion has been paid in the coronavirus supplement. On specific issues, when it comes to mutual obligation requirements all Victorians should be aware that the Morrison government has removed mutual obligations for Victorians impacted by the COVID shutdown. Mutual obligation requirements for jobseekers in Victoria have been paused until 7 June this year. During this period, jobseekers will not incur any payment suspensions or financial penalties if they don't meet their mutual obligations. Likewise, the pandemic leave disaster payment is providing support to Victorians who are unable to earn an income because they've been directed to self-isolate or quarantine, or to people who are caring for someone who has COVID-19. From 27 May there have been 1,700 calls that have come from Victorians, and $472,000 has been paid. It's a lump sum of $1,500 for a 14-day period to people who are at home due to the circuit-breaker lockdown. I remind all members to inform their Victorian constituents that the easiest way is to call 18002266. Likewise, people who are currently receiving an income support payment or who get Abstudy living allowance may be eligible for a crisis payment if they've been directed to self-isolate or quarantine. Again, it's a one-off payment equal to the maximum basic rate. From 27 May, 9,682 Victorians have claimed that, and I encourage all members to continue to apprise their constituents of the great support that's available. COVID-19: Vaccination 29 14:39 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham [by video link] My question is to the minister for health. The government announced that aged-care residents would be fully vaccinated by Easter, but it was revealed in Senate estimates today that there are still 21 aged-care facilities around Australia where residents haven't received their first dose and another 600 aged-care facilities where residents are still waiting for their second dose. Why is the government so far behind on its own announcement? 14:40 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders As I've indicated, at this point in time the Commonwealth is proceeding. We have delivered first doses in 100 per cent of facilities in Victoria, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory, and 99 per cent in the other states. That process has seen, to this point in time, if I may say, 272,000 doses to residents around the country. Within Victoria, we've seen, to this point in time, over 25,319 completions of first and second doses and 12,873 completions of first doses. That's approximately 86 per cent of residents who have consented. We do note that this is a program where consent by individual residents or their families is important. And that is occurring around the country. So we have, as noted already, completed, prior to yesterday, all but 20—not 21, on the latest advice that I had, coming into question time. It is expected that 15 more, if not up to 17, will be done over today and tomorrow, and that would mean the remaining five to three will be completed when those facilities have been able to accept—due to their circumstances, such as a gastro outbreak—the final visit. That visit will mean that, at that point, 100 per cent of facilities in Commonwealth residential aged care around the country will have had first doses, with the remaining to be done within a three-week period—the second doses. Domestic and Family Violence 30 14:42 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin My question is to the Minister for the Environment, representing the Minister for Women. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is increasing support to victims of domestic and family violence, including through the pandemic? 14:42 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I commend the member for Curtin for her question, and for her career before coming into this place as a university professor, a vice-chancellor and a champion of education for women. The Morrison government is committed to addressing all forms of family, domestic and sexual violence—a goal I know we share with all members in this place. Through the budget, we've committed $1.1 billion to addressing women's safety—the largest ever commitment by a Commonwealth government and a down payment on the next National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. Part of this budget was $146 million over two years to support women to leave a violent relationship, through a new payment, the Escaping Violence Payment—one-off and up to $5,000 per person. This budget measure is critical to support women leaving a violent situation and to help them get back on their feet. It will provide immediate financial assistance, because we know that financial insecurity is a key barrier to women leaving a violent relationship and one of the reasons why women return to an abusive partner. Research does show that it often takes a woman several attempts to leave a relationship permanently. In 2017, it was reported 64 per cent of women have experienced violence by a previous partner and had left and returned at least once. This is a critical period, when a woman's safety is at its lowest. As women attest, you lose your identity; you believe the lies you're told; you're isolated; you question whether you can even live an independent life. And you need immediate help and support. Importantly, this payment won't be a Social Security payment, it won't be means tested, it won't affect any Centrelink payments an individual may already be receiving and it won't count as income for tax purposes. It's estimated the Escaping Violence Payment will help 12,000 people annually. It will be able to be complemented with the DV stream of the no-interest loan scheme, up to $2,000, and provide women with additional financial assistance, again on top of any social security payments. We've listened to calls for further funding on top of the government's $130 million investment under the existing national partnership during COVID. We've committed an additional $260 million over two years to help state and territory governments to support their frontline domestic, family and sexual violence services. Also, another $343 million was previously committed under the fourth action plan, which is concluding. The Morrison government's sound economic position allows us to deliver jobs and guarantee essential services but also to make sure that we support women when they're at their most vulnerable and invest carefully in their safety. COVID-19: Vaccination 30 14:45 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the fact that just 15 per cent of aged-care workers have been fully vaccinated, even though the government announced that aged-care workers would be fully vaccinated by Easter. In April, the government announced that it would establish 13 dedicated pop-up clinics to vaccinate aged-care workers by the end of May. It's now June, but only three are operating. How many of those clinics are operating in Victoria today? 14:46 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook On workforce vaccinations, some 72,707 vaccinations of staff and non-residents have been completed through the Commonwealth's in-reach service, with 39,874 having received a first dose and 32,833 having received a second dose. One of the early decisions taken by the AHPPC, when asked to look into this matter by the national cabinet, was whether aged-care workers should have mandated vaccinations to be in residential aged-care facilities. When this was put to the AHPPC medical expert panel, they did not agree to recommend that. But I'll ask the minister to add further to the answer. 14:47 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders There are five avenues for aged-care workers to be vaccinated across the country: firstly, through— Opposition members interjecting— Mr HUNT 00AMV No, I'm addressing it; this is one of the avenues. Firstly, there is the in-reach program to which the Prime Minister has referred. Secondly there is the pop-up program. The SPEAKER 00APG I ask the minister to pause for a second. Leader of the Opposition, before I call you, I do point out there was certainly a preamble to the question. At this point, I'm happy to take the point of order, but that will be it, of course, because you're only allowed one per question. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Albanese R36 Speaker, there was a preamble that went to the figures that the Prime Minister has repeated, which is 15 per cent have been fully vaccinated. There was just— Government members interjecting— Mr Albanese R36 It is; that's what the figure, when added up, works out at. The SPEAKER 00APG I can hear the interchange. It doesn't matter whether the preamble is right or wrong; that's a matter for political debate that can be argued right through the week. Mr Albanese R36 That's right. The question was that they promised 13 dedicated pop-up clinics to vaccinate aged-care worker by the end of May. Only three are operating. There was just one question: how many of those are in Victoria today? I'll give you a clue: it's a really round number. The SPEAKER 00APG I say to the Leader of the Opposition, he doesn't need to add the commentary at the end. The Prime Minister had answered his portion of the question. The health minister had just begun. I think he was giving context. It was a very specific question, but it doesn't compel him to answer it instantly in the first three or four words. As he well knows from last week, I'll make sure that he's relevant to the question. Mr HUNT 00AMV Exactly, there are five channels for vaccination. One is Commonwealth in-reach. Two is the pop-up program around Australia, and 18,887 workers have been vaccinated through the pop-up program. Yes, those facilities are about to be established within Victoria. In addition to that, there is the general practice program. In addition to that there is the GP respiratory program. In addition to that, there are state clinics, and in particular, state clinics are providing priority to aged-care workers. These clinics serve the same purpose within the Victorian context as a pop-up in another context. Defence 31 14:49 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister please inform the House of the significant investment the Morrison government is making through its plan to secure our recovery and build a safer, more secure Australia and region? 14:50 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I want to thank the honourable member for his question. We had a great visit recently to Lavarack Barracks. Obviously there is a great deal of respect among the troops there for the honourable member, and he provides them with great representation in Townsville, so I thank him for that service. Obviously the government has made a number of significant investment decisions—$270 billion—over this decade to provide support to capacity-building within the Australian Defence Force. They have been very significant acquisitions and they are required. We do live in an uncertain part of the world and we do need to make sure that we keep Australia safe and secure, not just now, but into the decades ahead. The government has provided $15 billion over 10 years into Defence's cyber and information warfare capabilities. In March, the government announced it will accelerate the creation of $1 billion sovereign guided weapons enterprise, boosting skilled jobs and helping secure Australia's sovereign defence capabilities. This is a cutting-edge technology and investment, and it is important for us to acquire those skills and those assets to keep Australia safe. The manufacture and supply of those weapons in Australia will enhance operational capacity and ensure a supply chain security. The government will do whatever it takes to support the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. We put that $270 billion in. We know that when Labor was in government, they took $18 billion out from Defence, and that's unfortunate because we do face uncertain times and we do need to ensure that we invest properly into Defence. I'm incredibly supportive of the work of Australian Defence Force and I want to inform the House, on 14 and 15 May, HMAS Anzac, in partnership with AMSAR and the Department of Home Affairs, rescued 20 Indonesian fishermen in distress 670 nautical miles north-west of Perth. Two P-8s and a C-130 Hercules aircraft were also involved in the search. The rescue of all 20 Indonesian fishermen from their stricken vessel in the southern Indian Ocean was a very fortunate outcome. It was a perilous position that they were in, and Australia is incredibly proud of what we were able to achieve. I know that Indonesia was very grateful for the support we provided to them. Domestically, we have another 160 members of the Australian Defence Force, some of our finest in uniform, going to Victoria to provide support to the Victorian government to help people get through this period. We want to make sure we can provide whatever support to Victorian health and to Victoria Police. The Australian Defence Force has demonstrated over the course of this year and back that we have provided support at every turn to the Australian people. (Time expired) COVID 19: Aged Care 32 14:53 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper My question is to the Prime Minister: Why did the government end its program to stop aged-care staff working across multiple facilities in November last year before a single Australian had been vaccinated? 14:53 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I'm actually pleased to receive this question and, in particular, to address the advice of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee. It considered the single-site worker program was considered by the principal medical expert panel of Australia on 9 November and was tabled in the national cabinet on 13 November 2020. If I may, I will turn exactly to the words within the Updated National COVID-19 Aged Care Plan, adopted by the AHPPC and tabled at the national cabinet on single-site workforce arrangements. Single site workforce arrangements are a useful tool in mitigating the risk of COVID-19 being unintentionally transmitted across aged care facilities. It is acknowledged that: • Single site arrangements are complex and should not be required where there is a low risk of COVID-19 • It is important that the sector and government are prepared to implement single site arrangements quickly, where required, and • The design of single site arrangements needs to consider employment relations and workforce protections, workforce capacity, and coverage in terms of sectors … That was the nationally agreed aged-care plan that was adopted by AHPPC and tabled. The actions that were taken were precisely in line. The same single-site workforce arrangements were triggered by the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer on Thursday of last week when he declared a Commonwealth hotspot, precisely in line with the agreement across all states and territories. I would note that the Health Services Union took an aged-care provider to the Fair Work Commission in March last year and was successful in that case against an aged-care provider which had themselves wanted to implement a single-worker policy. So it was not supported by the union. I would also note in relation to that that one of the other things which has been— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left. Mr HUNT 00AMV I would add two things to earlier answers. Of course, there are 50 roving pop-up clinics which are being delivered directly into facilities this week. The Victorian model is different to the New South Wales model. So not one or two but 15 roving models are being delivered directly, as in reach, for aged-care workers in facilities as well as for residents. In addition, a question was raised by the member for Isaacs. I believe he is referring to the facility Grand Villa Mentone. That is not a Commonwealth residential aged-care facility. It is due to be done by the Victorian government. National Security 32 14:56 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is driving our economic recovery and creating a stronger Australia by taking action to combat organised criminal gangs and keep Australians safe? 14:57 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank the member for her question. The Morrison government knows that the safety and security of our families and communities is central to what makes Australia great. That's why we've maintained our strong borders, which has kept Australians safe and secure during this pandemic. But we also know that COVID is not the only threat to our community's safety. Organised crime gangs have found new ways to adapt and grow their evil trade in the COVID environment, whether it's preying on vulnerable people who are spending more time online or using the dark web to offer a range of illicit products and services, including child sexual abuse. Also, as our ports and airports have adapted to changing demands, they are being targeted by criminal gangs as gateways for drugs and weapons trafficking—drugs and weapons that can only end up on our streets, making them less safe for mums, for dads, for kids, for grandparents and, of course, for all of our individuals right through our Australian society. That is not the Australian way and not something that we will tolerate under our watch. That's why we are tackling organised crime and unlawful gangs across all our national security agencies, including through the specialised national task force Morpheus, which targets the highest-risk outlaw motorcycle gangs. It is also why we are delivering a funding boost in the budget of almost $52 million for the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and almost $60 million for the Australian Federal Police. We are getting results. Opposition members interjecting— Mrs ANDREWS 230886 Listen to those opposite, Mr Speaker. They just can't help themselves. They just have to start interjecting as soon as we start talking about making sure that we are— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left. Mrs ANDREWS 230886 As soon as we start to make the point that this government is absolutely committed to keeping our community safe, the interjections start from those opposite. That is a very good indication of the softness that those opposite have on crime and how the Morrison government has always had the strength to stand up to outlaw motorcycle gangs and to stand up to criminals in our community. We will not be taking a backward step, because we know that during COVID that activity has not stopped and there have been many opportunities for those that engage in that illicit conduct to actually escalate the work that they are doing in our communities. I would encourage those opposite to start having a good look around themselves and to make sure that they are standing up— Honourable members interjecting— Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs will cease interjecting. I'm going to say to the minister: I heard one or two interjections that I couldn't decipher, and the response to that has now caused a wave of interjections. She was asked a very specific question. We have instances where ministers say they will take the interjection. They have no right to take the interjection. If anyone is going to intervene, I will. There is not an opportunity to give those on the other side a character assessment. You weren't asked about that, because it's not within the standing orders. Mrs ANDREWS 230886 Okay. Thank you, Mr Speaker. COVID-19: Vaccination 33 15:00 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians was asked if the government was responsible for the vaccine rollout in aged care, yes or no. The minister replied, 'Well, it's not a yes-or-no answer.' So I ask the Prime Minister: is the government responsible for the vaccine rollout in aged care? 15:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The government is indeed responsible for the national vaccination strategy, right across the country. We're doing that in partnership with states and territories—of course we are—general practitioners and a whole range of others who are supporting these efforts, and hospitals and elsewhere. The national vaccination strategy was brought together by Professor Brendan Murphy, who chairs the scientific advisory group on immunisations. That national strategy was pulled together, which includes for aged care, and that was taken to the federal cabinet and endorsed and it was taken to the national cabinet and endorsed, and all the roles and responsibilities that all the various levels of government have in delivering that vaccination program. That's why I'm pleased that yesterday, again, we saw over 100,000 people get vaccinated in this country. In the course of May, more than two million Australians were vaccinated. Since the end of April, the weekly vaccinations have doubled. That followed the intervention that was undertaken by me as chair of the national cabinet, bringing the states and territories together. After we put in place that additional plan which addresses the challenges faced because of the ATAGI advice on AstraZeneca and the challenges on supply of vaccines—we put that plan in place together; we worked together—the vaccination rate doubled within a month. This is what the government does: it addresses problems, it gets people together, it focuses on the issue and it addresses the challenges that Australia faces. In Victoria we're facing challenges but we will overcome those challenges. The people of Victoria will overcome those challenges. The government of Australia will work with the Victorian government to ensure that our focus is on individual Victorians and to ensure that we open up Victoria as soon as we possibly can. From the data we see, I hope that is particularly true for regional Victoria. From what we see in the evidence that is there in regional Victoria, we look forward to regional Victoria being open as soon as possible, but we will work together, we will follow the health advice, we will listen carefully to it and we will continue to protect lives and protect livelihoods. That is the focus of my government. We'll keep fighting the virus. The Labor Party will just keep fighting us. Energy 34 15:03 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is securing the affordable, reliable energy Australian families and businesses rely on while at the same time reducing emissions? 15:03 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the member for Robertson for her question and for her steadfast commitment to affordable, reliable energy as we bring down emissions across her electorate. The member for Robertson has always believed in the transformative power of technology and research. That's why she supports and has advocated for the Central Coast research institute, which is very much something that she has led the development on. She knows that it's through technology that we deliver affordable, reliable energy, and we do that whilst bringing down emissions, and our plan is working. We've seen an 11 per cent reduction in electricity prices in the last year alone. We've seen nine consecutive quarters of electricity price reductions. But we need to continue to drive down pressure on prices. That's why when Liddell closes in 2023 we will see EnergyAustralia invest in a gas generator in the Illawarra and Snowy, with our support, invest in a 660-megawatt gas generator at Kurri Kurri. That project will create 1,800 direct and indirect jobs alongside supporting the jobs of customers in critical industries like the aluminium smelting industry—the Tomago smelter in particular. We're also delivering the essential energy infrastructure that's needed to bring down prices and keep the lights on, like the South Australia and New South Wales interconnector supported by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—$295 million. That will keep the lights on, put pressure on prices and create 1,700 jobs during construction. And we're doing all of this whilst we're putting downward pressure on emissions. In the latest data that we published yesterday on emissions reduction, we saw emissions drop to the lowest level on record—20 per cent below the 2005 baseline. We're on target to meet and beat our 2030 targets. At the same time as countries like New Zealand and Canada have seen their emissions barely budge, we are 20 per cent down. We're continuing to drive investment in clean energy technologies—$20 billion from the Commonwealth, a total investment of $80 billion—with 160,000 jobs from these investments. Our technology-first approach will see Australia meeting and beating our emissions targets and driving jobs and investment exports at the same time. COVID-19: Vaccination 34 15:06 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning the aged-care minister again said he was 'comfortable' with the pace of the vaccine rollout in aged care. Is the Prime Minister comfortable with his vaccine rollout in aged care? 15:07 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook We want to keep rolling out the vaccination program as quickly and as safely and as efficiently as possible. That's why it is a good thing, particularly for those aged over 70, that 53.65 of the population aged over 70 have received their first dose. That compares with New Zealand's 13.56 per cent. A key part of our vaccination strategy, which I referred to in my earlier answer, has been to focus on those particular populations that are most vulnerable, and they are those who are in residential aged-care facilities. The coverage of those residential aged-care facilities—the coverage of all those facilities with the first dose—has been significant, particularly as we go into winter months, and we must now move quickly to ensure the balance of those doses, the second dose, are provided to those in residential aged-care facilities. But, as we look around the world and we look particularly at countries like ours that have been successful in suppressing the virus and where the context for rolling out the vaccine is a similar situation, be it in South Korea or Japan and countries such as that, where the virus has been suppressed—New Zealand and Australia have equally suppressed it—we can point to a vaccination rate, particularly for over-70s, which is many times that of like countries. There is much more to do, and we'll remain very focused on protecting the most vulnerable in our community as part of a national vaccination strategy, which in the past month has seen us go from 320,792 vaccinations a week to 672,000 vaccinations a week. In one month, there's been a doubling of the total number of vaccinations conducted every week. This is where our vaccination program is heading, and that's to the great support and advantage of Australia. Biosecurity 35 15:09 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Will the minister outline how the Morrison government's sustained investment in biosecurity ensures Australia has one of the most robust and effective biosecurity systems in the world, ensuring primary producers can maintain their production levels and obtain premiums for their product in international markets? 15:09 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the member for his question and his interest in biosecurity, an important pillar in not just supporting the $66 billion industry that is agriculture in Australia but also protecting the over 300,000 jobs associated with agriculture. That's why it forms part of our seven pillars within our Ag2030 plan, supporting agriculture's ambitious goal for $100 billion by 2030. That's why we backed it with cold, hard cash not only in the October budget, with over $800 million committed in the forwards, but last month with an additional $400 million to support and to beef up biosecurity to meet the evolving threats that are facing up to Australian agriculture. Of that, $30 million is around eradication of pests—real eradication, getting rid of wild dogs, pigs and deer. But we are now also putting new boots on the ground—paws on the ground—and technology on the ground. We're investing in 89 new jobs in the front line of securing Australia's biosecurity. Twenty new scientists will be able to give real-time scientific data so that we can make real-time decisions about how we can eradicate a pest or disease that gets into this country. We're also investing in scholarships so the next generation that want to be part of the biosecurity story here in Australia can be. We're investing now also in the next stage of biosecurity defence in technology—3D X-ray technology devised right here in Australia, using artificial intelligence algorithms that Australians have devised to be able to go through the over 144 million parcels that go through Australia Post every year. They now also go over the bags that go through our airports to make sure that we can detect any organic matter, plant or animal, and even any live animal that may be there. Yesterday we announced a world-first partnership with New Zealand. They will adopt this technology in New Zealand for those passengers that are coming from New Zealand to Australia. They will use that 3D X-ray to scan those bags, and we will know what's in those bags before they hit Australia. We can deploy the resources we need in real time to make sure we can understand what's in those bags. That partnership will be extended around the world with other trading partners to make sure that we can reduce the threats of biosecurity into this country. We're complementing that also with new penalties for those that want to flout biosecurity laws in this country. We've taken on-the-spot fines for those that don't declare from $444 to $2,664. I'm proud to say that we've also cancelled 14 visas of those that have decided they do want to live up to our biosecurity standards. They are not welcome back to this country for up to three years. We're also saying to those that import that they also have a responsibility, and we're lifting the fines from over $400,000 to over $1 million. We are saying to those Australians in agriculture that biosecurity will underpin our future. (Time expired) Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 35 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Strange, Mr Ray 35 15:13 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook In discussion with the Leader of the Opposition, could I pass on the House's and the government's condolences to Ray Strange, a photojournalist who we lost very recently. Ray captured some of the most iconic images in Australian politics, which have made an extraordinary contribution to our national life. Who can forget his photo of not-then but soon-to-be Prime Minister Hawke in 1983, smoking a cigar on the plane, or, indeed, the photo of John Howard addressing the crowd at Sale, which I'm told the significance of which—the vest that the Prime Minister was wearing at that time—did not show up until he got back into the dark room that night? That was the nature of photojournalism at that time; it wasn't just looking quickly at the image that sits on the back of the camera, as they do today. I can only imagine as he looked into that negative image and saw what had been revealed through that incredible moment. That told a significant story all on its own. I think that is one of the greatest tributes to a photojournalist, because that's what they're doing. They're not just taking images; they are capturing key moments and they're telling a significant story about what is occurring in that moment, and that is quite a skill. That is a very rare skill. Ray Strange definitely was someone who possessed those skills. He covered eight prime ministers and a pope. He was a mentor to so many others in the gallery—other photojournalists who've come up and seen his fine work. He was so unobservable at the time, but that, I think, was his great skill that enabled him to capture those rare moments that told what was really occurring at the time. He passed away at age 72. He was originally born in New Zealand. He is survived by his ex-wife, Robyn, whom I understand he remained very close to, and of course his son, Monty, of whom he was extremely proud. On behalf of the government and this House, we extend our sincere condolences to all his friends and family and all those who loved and knew him, particularly those he shared this building with. But can I also convey our deep thanks that he has captured, for the cause of history, some of the most important images of what occurs in this place and the many very serious and significant issues we deal with in this place, with such respect in the way he conducted his craft. 15:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I join in paying tribute to Ray Strange. Not many photographers can lay claim to taking a photo that captures an entire political age; Ray Strange was a giant of this place and the former Parliament House, down the hill, and he took two of them. The first is that image in 1983 on Bob Hawke's plane, with Bob lighting a cigar, a silver-haired Jupiter orbited by a phalanx of advisers and journalists—all around him. It really captured Bob's presence in the form of a single photograph. The second, as the Prime Minister said, was of John Howard at that pro-gun rally in the wake of Port Arthur and John Howard's courageous decision when it came to guns. There, when you look at the photo, taken from behind, is the bulletproof vest outlined against his jacket. There was a battle after that photo was taken. The Prime Minister's office didn't want to draw attention to it because, to John Howard's credit, he didn't want to increase the threat that had been made; it wasn't about him. Ray had the photo and it was published, and it's a good thing that we know that that occurred at the time. As Ray's friend and former wife, Robyn Cook, has said, he loved his work and he loved his role in the media. Our photojournalists perform a particular role in politics. They can capture so much in a single image. I think, at a time when the world is so much 'throw away', and on our devices are images that don't last too long—we capture things on video all the time; they come and go through social media—the fact that a photograph, a still, can be so powerful, have such an impact, and tell a story is something that I think is quite unique. It is a great art form, and Ray Strange was one of the best artists in this building. So, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, I offer my condolences to his friends and loved ones, especially his adored son, Monty. Ray was someone who was a friend to many in this building. He always had a kind word after an event had happened, as well. He'd share a joke. We'll miss him greatly. May he rest in peace. Indigenous Marathon Foundation 36 15:18 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Mr Speaker, it was a pleasure to catch up with you in your suite this morning to discuss the work of the Indigenous Marathon Foundation. Since it was founded in 2009 by Rob de Castella, over a hundred young Indigenous leaders have gone through the program. I've been inspired by graduates such as Charlie Maher, the first to cross the finishing line in the New York marathon; Joyrah Newman and Hope Davison in this year's squad; and Nat Heath, one of the first Aussies to compete in the Hawaii ironman. Tomorrow morning, members and senators from both sides will be joining Rob de Castella and young Indigenous runners for a run to mark Reconciliation Week. This Sunday, I'll be lining up at the start line of the Cairns ironman—a 3.8-kilometre swim, a 180-kilometre cycle and a 42.2-kilometre run—to raise money for the Indigenous Marathon Foundation. I hope members and senators on both sides might follow your generous example, Mr Speaker, of making a donation to the Indigenous Marathon Foundation so they can continue their terrific work. 15:19 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson As for those of us who'll be having maybe a walk and a breakfast on Sunday morning, we'll be donating to this good cause. So I acknowledge the work of the member for Fenner. DOCUMENTS 36 DOCUMENTS Presentation 36 15:20 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson A document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 36 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE COVID-19: Vaccination 36 15:20 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hindmarsh proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failures on the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. 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— 15:20 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh Today is an important day to reflect on where the nation is at in relation to the vaccine rollout. Yesterday we reached 100 days of the vaccine rollout, and today is the first day of winter. As we know, any illness around the respiratory system is a particular risk in winter. That, of course, is why phase 1a was decided upon by the government and why the opposition and bodies around the country gave it support. So where are we, 100 days into the rollout? Well, we're still not in the top 100 nations of the world in terms of doses per head of population. We're still at around two per cent of the Australian population having been fully vaccinated, and, tragically, we have seen this dreaded virus reach back into the aged-care system in Victoria. So—in spite of the Prime Minister's attempts, repeatedly, to pat himself on the back over the course of this question time—we are not performing well. Phase 1a was announced in January for the priority populations: frontline workers in border and quarantine and in the hospital system, and, importantly, from the Commonwealth's perspective, aged-care and disability-care facility residents and the 318,000 workers caring for them. There was good reason why those populations were prioritised, particularly those living in residential aged and disability care. They are, we know, the most vulnerable to succumbing to this virus. We know this from overseas experience and we know it through our own bitter and tragic experience last year, in New South Wales and, significantly, in Victoria as well. So that is why those were prioritised, and the government promised to vaccinate those populations fully by Easter. The minister said it would be a six-week process; it would be done by Easter; we could then move on to the older populations in the community, to make sure that, by the time the first day of winter arrived—which is today—all of our very vulnerable populations in residential care and older Australians in the community would be fully protected. The Prime Minister was asked again—he just can't back down; he just can't admit he was wrong—by the Leader of the Opposition in question time today: 'Do you still think that this is not a race?' And he tried to blame the secretary of the department. He is always trying to blame someone else. Well, since that answer, the secretary of the department has been asked in estimates about his comments about whether or not this is a race, and Brendan Murphy's testimony to Senate estimates, over the last very little while, was that he was talking about the approval processes for the vaccine by the TGA. We all agree that that was not a race and that Australia should not follow the emergency approval process followed in those countries that were succumbing to very serious rates of infection, like the US, the UK and Europe. We all agreed with that. So the Prime Minister was again just trying to deflect to the secretary of the department, who said he was not talking about the vaccine rollout; he was talking about the vaccine approval process by the TGA. There are three areas of very, very concerning outcomes from the government. The first, obviously, is that there are incredibly poor vaccination rates for aged-care residents—and we're not even getting to disabilities; we're going to have to get to them at some stage. There are very poor rates of vaccination for aged-care residents, who were all promised full vaccination by Easter. We've talked about the two doses question a number of times. The government's own health website confirms that, in relation to Pfizer and AstraZeneca, you need two doses for full protection, and that full protection only emerges some days after the second dose. We've been told by the government's own information today that 587 facilities in aged care still haven't received their second dose and 21 facilities across the country haven't received a single dose at all. In Victoria, the epicentre of this latest outbreak, there are 13,000 residents of aged-care facilities who have only received a single dose of this vaccine. I asked the minister again why he told viewers of 7.30 that the vaccination process in aged care would be completed by last Friday. He wasn't asked when the first doses would be complete; he was asked when the vaccinations would be completed. I've read the transcript since the minister's answer. He wasn't asked by Leigh Sales: 'When will the first doses be done?' He was asked: 'When will aged care be vaccinated?' He said it was 99 per cent completed and would be 100 per cent completed on Friday. When we asked him about the one dose, two dose question he pushed back and said, 'You know, one dose is essential.' I think we understand that one dose is essential in a two-dose process. It's a pretty important stopping point on your way to full vaccination. But we should not pretend that one dose gives full protection. We should not. The minister keeps pushing up to the press gallery old research about the effectiveness of a single dose in relation to the original strain of this virus, when we know that Public Health England published last week through the British Medical Journal research that showed that a first dose of Pfizer or a first dose of AstraZeneca was only 33 per cent effective against what we now call the delta strain. I'm not raising this to be cute. I'm raising it because the community needs to know about the level of protection provided through a single dose and the importance of getting a second dose. It is the government that is seeking to evade a serious question about whether or not it has complied with its responsibility to fully protect the most vulnerable members of our community before we move into winter, given that we are continuing to experience an outbreak from hotel quarantine every single week or two. The other fall down is with staff. These people are heroes. For some of the lowest rates of pay in our community they have kept us safe. They were on the front line last year and in Victoria they are on the front line again, and the government promised they would be fully vaccinated by Easter. We've tried by hook and by crook to get an answer from the government about how many aged-care workers have been vaccinated. Today they said there were 33,000 or so. There are probably more than 200,000 workers in aged care. They conducted a survey of aged-care providers that found that less than nine per cent of the providers they surveyed were confident that their aged-care workers were fully protected. This is just not good enough. When it became clear that the inreach process to vaccinate residents was going to be complicated for staff the Commonwealth just gave up. They said, 'Go to your GPs. Go and find a state clinic. Go to a GP respiratory clinic.' Later on, the government said, I think to the COVID committee, 'We'll have 13 pop-up clinics running by the end of May'. The end of May was yesterday. They've got three clinics. All three are in Sydney. The minister said they'd be established soon in Victoria. After the minister said that, the department was asked about the pop-up clinics, and they said there are still no locations identified for the remaining 10 clinics and no arrangements had been agreed with particular state providers. Then they said they would provide a tender for companies to go into aged-care facilities—hopefully, having vaccinated their residents—and vaccinate the staff. The tender is out, but it doesn't close until 30 June. It's running for another four weeks. That's the other option the government has provided, a tender process that doesn't finish until almost the middle of winter. It is just not good enough. The government decided on 30 November to just stop the support programs that would prevent aged-care workers from having to work across two or more facilities just to make ends meet, just to keep their household budgets going. They'd say, 'Well, when a hotspot is declared will put that arrangement in place again.' It's too late then. What we've seen in Victoria because aged-care workers have had to work across different facilities is that five facilities now are impacted by this. This has been a debacle, and tragically it is now playing out again in a state that suffered so much last year. Again, we have a Prime Minister who cannot take responsibility, is genetically incapable of facing up to his responsibilities and his failures. I don't think anyone expected from the minister for aged care services a better answer than he gave today. He's just not up to it. He said last week he's very comfortable with the pace of the rollout in aged care and, when questioned about that again today, he stood by it. He couldn't answer a simple question of whether or not the Commonwealth is responsible for aged care. It so unambiguously is. The Prime Minister tries to blame everyone else. The Australian people, particularly those with loved ones in aged care, just want him to admit that he's got this wrong, he's underperformed and he's going to fix it. When is the Prime Minister going to do that simple thing? 15:30 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I'm actually delighted to take on this MPI because I want to start by thanking Australians who have come forward to be vaccinated in record numbers week after week after week after week: from over 300,000 to 402,000 Australians who were vaccinated, 436,000 Australians who were vaccinated, 512,000 Australians who were vaccinated and then 630,000 Australians who were vaccinated in the last seven-day period. As the Prime Minister indicated, when you bring that forward by one day it was a rolling seven-day average of 672,000. What we see is that rates of vaccinations being administered have more than doubled. We see this in a world where, in the last 24 hours, there were 403,000 cases that were officially recorded with 8,800 lives lost, so the global comparison with Australia, a country which this year has had 94 days of zero cases of community transmission, could not be starker or more obvious. There are challenges at the moment. We know that Victorians are facing a great challenge. But we also know that we can do this. New South Wales faced a challenge over the four weeks from 16 December to 16 January which, on current figures, was roughly four times greater in terms of community transmission. They were able to test and trace and distance, and there were areas such as the Northern Beaches which had significant restrictions. All of Victoria is under restrictions as we speak, and so I say to every fellow Victorian, I understand the deep distress and the challenge that is being faced at the moment. That's why we've stepped in. We've stepped in with all of the actions that have been taken: 160 Defence personnel, the support of asymptomatic testing, the declaration of the Commonwealth hotspot test. All of these things are occurring at the moment. In particular, we add that we know that in Victoria there are currently 787,000 vaccines that have been provided to the state, and to their credit they've administered 494,000 of those vaccines, with a significant inventory still available to them and another 172,000 vaccines to be delivered over the course of this week. These are very significant numbers, a rollout which is accelerating as was always intended and which is following a combination of both supply and now response in relation to public demand. One of the messages which is absolutely clear is: please do not wait. If you catch COVID, you could die. If you have not been vaccinated, your chances of losing your life are massively, massively higher. That's why any vaccination at any time is so fundamentally important. In the last 24 hours, there have been 119,139 Australians who have brought themselves forward to protect themselves but also to protect every other Australian, and I commend and thank them. That takes us now to 4,362,739 vaccinations, so a significant number and a significant acceleration. Very importantly, that number includes over 1½ million Australians beyond the age of 70 who've been vaccinated: 1.574 million Australians over the age of 70 have had a first dose, which equates to over 53 per cent, as the Prime Minister indicated, and over three million people over the age of 50 have been vaccinated with at least one dose, which is 34 per cent of the population in Victoria. I particularly want to commend Victorians for this—412,000 people have stepped forward over the age of 70, or 54 per cent of the over-70 population, and 817,000 over the age of 50 have stepped forward, or over 37 per cent of over 50s in Victoria, so these are very important. I particularly want to note what we have seen in aged care, as I've said in the course of question time, is 100 per cent of Commonwealth residential aged-care facilities have received first doses within Victoria, the ACT, Tasmania and the Northern Territory and 99 per cent in others, with an expected five as of the close of business tomorrow which are still to be completed and to be done in the coming days when issues such as gastro or any other impediments no longer apply to those facilities. These are exceptionally important steps forward. I want to respectfully but very much categorically take issue with the shadow minister's points in relation to first doses. Professor Paul Kelly, the chief medical officer, addressed significant questions which had been raised last week, last Thursday, about the value of a first dose. I note the next day many people are saying, 'Why don't we hold back second doses just to deliver more first doses?' On all fronts, for both the timing of first and second doses, we follow the medical advice, and that's the medical advice of both the TGA, which has approved the vaccines which are available for use in Australia, and the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation. In terms of the advice of Professor Paul Kelly—we know it from the clinical trails; we know it from the laboratory tests that have been done about antibody protections; we know it from real-world experience, particularly in the UK and Scotland where they have very good information now about the protection given by both the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Pfizer vaccine after the first dose—there's zero protection with no dose and very good protection with the first dose. Then, from next week, we'll be starting to see those second doses rolling out in relation to AstraZeneca, and those numbers of fully vaccinated people will rapidly rise over the coming weeks. That was the medical advice from ATAGI about that dose interval, and that was the very clear response of Professor Paul Kelly. I understand the job of the opposition is to provide difference. On this occasion, I don't think it's wise, I don't think it's responsible. I had strong views, which I expressed in question time of last week. I am both surprised and disappointed that the opposition has pursued a line which would indicate that this is not an important and fundamental protection. I think that this is the case, as we saw in the TriCare aged-care facility in the Sunshine Coast. It's a facility which I have recently visited with the member for Moncrieff. They had a contractor who was working within the facility precinct who was diagnosed out of Byron Bay. That facility had received a first dose some weeks before and, indeed, was given a second dose almost immediately because they were coming to the end. That is very similar to the situation of Arcare Maidstone, which had residents vaccinated on 12 May. There was one worker who was vaccinated who nevertheless tested positive and one resident, a 99-year-old, who was vaccinated and nevertheless tested positive. That resident is asymptomatic and, on the latest advice I have from the Victorian Aged Care Response Centre shortly before coming to question time, has been moved for observation purposes to a hospital facility and to ensure that they are isolated from the rest of the residents. On all the advice that I have, they remain in very good condition. Of course, anybody anywhere with COVID, no matter what the circumstances, is a person who is vulnerable to serious illness, but the vaccination process, first dose and then subsequently second dose, provides very significant measures of protection against serious illness and loss of life. Finally, I want to deal with this question of the single-site worker decision. In question time I specifically addressed the policy, which was endorsed by the AHPPC and tabled before the national cabinet—without any demur, I'm advised. That policy was very clear that single-site arrangements are complex and should not be required where there is a low risk of COVID-19. That was the view of the chief health and medical officers around Australia. It was also very much the view of the HSU in their case before the Fair Work Commission and it was a position which they took to the Fair Work Commission and which they were successful in prosecuting against an aged-care facility. Nevertheless, we have these arrangements in place. We follow the medical advice. We implemented them immediately in line with the medical advice when the hotspot was declared. All of these actions together are helping to save lives and protect lives and keep Australia as one of the safest countries in the world. 15:40 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham [by video link] I'm really pleased to make a contribution today from my electorate in Clayton. A lot of the work that we do in parliament can feel quite remote from the lives of the people that we represent. That's what our constituents tell us really clearly. But this is not one of those times. The minister has just made a contribution to the debate which I find very hard to hear, coming from Victoria. The truth is that there are a variety of enormous failings that are completely the fault of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Aged Care, and I'm still waiting for some type of contrition about some of the things that have led us to where we are today. Here we are in Victoria, in lockdown No. 4. I just want to say that everyone in parliament today should be—and, I hope, is—thinking of the people who are especially vulnerable in our community. These are terrifying times for people, especially those who have underlying physical or mental health conditions. I think of the people who live alone, for whom these periods of lockdown are intensely lonely and intensely difficult to get through. There are almost seven million people living in Victoria. It's very difficult for everyone here. What we really want is for the federal government to stand up and take responsibility—to break the habit of a lifetime and take responsibility for some of the things that have gone wrong on their watch, which have taken us up to this point today. The health minister said in very glorious terms that the federal government has 'stepped in' with respect to the situation in Victoria. Again, I would say: let's remember that we would not be in lockdown again in Victoria if we had a quarantine program that actually worked. If the federal government took its constitutional responsibility for quarantine seriously, did what is so obviously the right solution here and built purpose-built quarantine facilities around the country, then we would not be having the 17 outbreaks in hotel quarantine that we've seen over the last six months. Then, of course, there's the vaccination program. If we were anywhere near where the US and other comparable countries are, then there would not be this absolute sweep of fear blasting through the state that I live in. I know I speak for all Victorians when I say that my heart truly sank when I saw that the COVID outbreak in Victoria had found its way into residential aged care. What residents and staff went through in the last outbreak in aged care was nothing short of truly horrifying and terrifying. You cannot feel the intensity of that experience unless you go to these homes and talk to the workers and residents. I've talked to older Australians whose eyes have literally filled with tears as they've talked to me about the experience of lifelong friends of theirs dying overnight, of the terror of feeling a little bit sick one day and thinking: 'This is the end for me. I'm going to get COVID and die.' People were going to bed at night and wondering if they would wake up the next morning. That was the life of older Australians within these aged-care homes. And what the staff went through you wouldn't wish on anyone. It was weeks of not being able to hug their children, weeks of feeling guilty because they were going to work and hence exposing their families to danger, but also knowing that if they didn't go to work there would be no-one there to look after the residents they have so much fondness and regard for. We could have avoided the threat of this happening again. We have all the tools, resources and policies we need to prevent this from happening again. The only reason that we are back here is because of the total incompetence of the federal government when it comes to rolling out the vaccine program and, in particular, rolling it out in aged care. We know that the program of vaccinating residents has been very troubled, such that, when this outbreak first started in Victoria, there were 29 aged-care homes who had had no dose of the vaccine. I still cannot believe this. We need to think about the staff. The federal government promised us that all staff and residents would be vaccinated by March, but essentially they've allowed aged-care workers to be on their own. The government have told aged-care workers that it is not the government's problem and that they have to get vaccinated on their own time. As a consequence, firstly, the federal government can't tell us how many have been vaccinated and, secondly, their best guess is that it is somewhere in the order of 10 per cent. There are a lot of other failings going on here in residential aged care, but I want the federal government—the Prime Minister and his minister—to stand up tomorrow and deliver an apology, which is what Victorians deserve as we face another difficult week of a COVID outbreak here in Victoria. 15:45 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney I want to start by saying that this is a week when all Australians are thinking about our friends in Victoria as they endure yet another lockdown. All of us, through our own experience—thankfully, from New South Wales, never as severe as the lockdowns that Melbourne has endured—have some familiarity with the consequences and anxieties that these lockdowns cause, as necessary as they may be as we battle this pandemic. So all of us are united in our support for Victorians. But what disappointments me is that this is also a week in which the parliament could have been united in encouraging Australians to learn from what is happening in Victoria and to make sure that they are overcoming their hesitancy and participating in the vaccination program. Yet what we see from those sitting opposite is a desire to continue the fight of politics rather than the fight against this pandemic. We should be very disappointed, at this time when the pandemic is still raging, as bad as it ever has been around the world, that we are seeing this type of politics come to this parliament. I want to reflect in the first instance on three things—three things which I believe are the truths about this pandemic. The first is simply a statement of fact. There are very few nations on this planet that have endured the last 12 months as well as Australia has. You can name them on one hand, and I'm pleased that our cousins across the ditch in New Zealand are part of that small coterie of nations that have proved that, with the right policies, you can actually ensure that your citizens are protected from the worst of this pandemic. It is reflected in both our response to the health implications of the pandemic but also the economic consequences as well. We should be proud of the fact that governments, state and federal, and the people of Australia themselves have heeded the advice from the best of science and the best of our health experts and have been relying on that advice and that health expertise, which has seen us reach the point that we have in this nation. The second point I want to make is that today, as we stand here debating vaccinations, I think we should reflect on the fact that it is an incredible achievement of all of those scientists and all of those health experts that we can debate the rollout of a vaccination program for COVID-19. I well remember 12 months ago discussing this with some of our leading epidemiologists, who said that it was a fifty-fifty shot as to whether we would ever get a vaccine, let alone one that we are now able to roll out to so many millions of Australians as we have already done. The third point I want to making goes to what we as a parliament united together should be doing, and that is to urge all of our fellow Australians who are eligible to not hesitate but to get the vaccinations, which are our pathway back to an even greater level of normality in our community. I've had my AstraZeneca shot. I had it 10 days ago. I did not hesitate not only for my personal health—which is a real factor for all of us, I hope—but also thinking about my mum, my friends, my relatives and the support that we can provide to our neighbours and in fact our country by getting that vaccination shot. So I didn't hesitate for a second, and I'd encourage Australians to think rationally about how minute the risks of these vaccinations are compared to the huge advantage that they provide to us as individuals and to our community as a whole. I want to make one particular point about vaccinations in our aged-care settings. It is fantastic news that the vaccination program has now reached in Victoria, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory every single aged-care facility. Every person who has accepted the vaccine in those aged-care facilities and those jurisdictions has now had a first dose. In other states, including my own, that figure is at 99 per cent. I'm very pleased by the fact that in my own electorate, this weekend, this Saturday, the very last aged-care centre as part of the program will receive its second doses. So it will mean that, by this weekend, every-aged care centre in North Sydney will have had two doses of the vaccination, based on the information that has been given to me by my PHN. But what I do want to say is that we know that 15 per cent of aged-care residents haven't had that vaccination. There are some reasons for that; some are in palliative and it is not appropriate. But for those relatives who haven't given consent, I'd say please do so now. We have a vaccination program that is based on the best of science vaccination program that is based on the best of science. It is protecting Australians. It does continue to ramp up at an incredible rate—300,000 a week just a month ago and now 600,000. It is based on that great achievement of our own domestic capability and we would be up a creek full of excrement if we didn't have that AstraZeneca production here. So please, Australians, continue to get vaccinated for this important program. 15:51 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I have four children. When they were young they all played basketball, and I was given the job that many parents dread but do. I was given the job of organising 400 kids to get to two lots of training every week, dozens of games on a Saturday over maybe half a dozen venues. This was a logistical nightmare but it was my job and I did it. I did it well and I made sure that every kid got to every game that they had to get to and that every game was played with the full number of children needed. Lots of parents all around the country do that, all around the world, because they know when they have a job that people rely on them for, they do it. Now those parents, those families—lots of people who have a job to do—are looking at this government and thinking, 'You had a job—a job to keep us and our kids safe during the pandemic—and you have failed. Not only did we rely on you to stay safe—our lives depended on you—but our livelihoods depended on this government to do that one job: keep us safe.' The whole community of Australia is scratching their heads as to why our Prime Minister has failed in that job. Last year, 655 Victorians died tragically in my state in aged care. I know a lot of Victorians are asking today not only why have they not done their job but did they not learn anything from not doing their job properly last time? Well, they haven't learned anything. Just today, we saw just how shambolic the vaccine rollout is. Let's step through it. Minister Colbeck, the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services, told us that he is 'comfortable' with the pace of the vaccine rollout—comfortable! Well, I would like to tell you that the residents in aged care are not comfortable with the vaccine rollout; many of them are fearful. No aged-care worker is comfortable with the pace of the vaccine rollout; they are fearful. And definitely no family who has a loved one in aged care is feeling comfortable right this minute, particularly in Victoria; they are fearful. The Prime Minister has neglected aged-care residents and workers, particularly in Victoria. It was the government's job to protect them. We also learned that the government thought that they might have to just survey aged-care staff to find out if they had been vaccinated. Not only did they opt out of their promise to have all workers in aged care vaccinated but they didn't collect any records at all to see how the rollout was going. 'Oh,' they said to the workers, and this is bad enough, 'we're not going to vaccinate you. You go off and do it yourself, find a GP who can do it for you.' They neglected to keep records. That is unacceptable. I heard the previous speaker say, 'Oh, there's hesitancy out there about getting the vaccine.' Well, where is the public health campaign? Where is it—another job the government has not done. There should be a public health campaign. We have Dolly Parton in the United States and Elton John the UK out there, saying, 'Get your vaccine.' Singapore is running a brilliant campaign about getting people vaccinated. They know hesitancy is a thing. They are doing their job. This government is letting this country down. We heard from the shadow health minister that they can't get their stories straight. The inconsistencies around the vaccine rollout are absolutely outstanding. Is it 21 facilities to get their doses? Is it six facilities? Is it 70,000 aged-care workers that have been vaccinated? Oh wait, no it's only 32,000. Who knows? It seems that asking this government who knew what, where and when are questions they can never answer. This is unacceptable. We know the policy to prevent aged-care workers working across facilities was ended by this government in November before a single vaccination had been given. Have they learnt nothing? This was a major issue with the last outbreak. We would not be in this position—and I definitely understand this—if those workers had been protected. There's no point just saying you can work in one facility. We heard the minister say, 'The Fair Work Commission had this ruling here and there.' Why would you work in one facility if you're only going to get two shifts? You can't afford that. That is not going to give you a living. Quarantine is a monumental failure. I haven't got time to go into what a monumental failure it is, but we would not be in this position if the Prime Minister did his job. 15:56 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper Firstly, I acknowledge the frustration and the distress of the people of Victoria in having to go into a further lockdown. I've not been in the unfortunate position of being in a lockdown, but I've no doubt that it wouldn't be a nice thing and that it certainly would not be good for mental health. Having said that, we have to acknowledge the aims of the Australian vaccination program from the very beginning, back in January of this year. The aims of the program were to prevent death and severe disease; to ensure equity of vaccine access and uptake and, in order to do that, to protect those most likely to experience serious disease, maintain the functioning of healthcare and other essential services; to preserve health, social and economic security, and to extend vaccination to the general population as quickly as possible. That is exactly what this government has done. This was always going to be an accelerated rollout. This is not something where there is a handbook that you can check off as you go along. This is a one-in-100-year pandemic. Others can criticise the functioning of the government or the actions of the government, but we have to look at the cold hard facts of what we have achieved, not twist those facts around for our own political gain. Some 4,243,000 people have been vaccinated, 2,705,000 with Commonwealth vaccine doses. There have been 2,359,000 Commonwealth doses in primary care and 345,000 Commonwealth doses in aged and disability. Fifty-seven per cent of 70-year-old people and 37 per cent of those over the age of 50 have been vaccinated. In my electorate I have some 80-odd aged-care facilities. They have all received their first doses. We have a population of close to 30 per cent over the age of 65. The litmus test is when people stop you in the street, call you in the office or email you if there are problems. The overwhelming majority of people in my electorate are happy with the way this program is being rolled out. There are always going to be difficulties with these types of programs, these huge objectives by a government to ensure the health and safety of a nation That brings me back to cold hard facts. Two months ago, two million people had had their vaccinations. Over the space of the last month, that increased, as per the accelerated rollout of the vaccine, by two million—500,000 people a week. The seven-day average last week was 630,000; the week before, 300,000. So, two weeks ago, it was 300,000. Last week, it was 630,000. The government is getting those doses out, just as we promised, to ensure the safety and the health of our citizens. The previous speaker opposite started talking about quarantine. I'll be fair. Take a bow, Michael Gunner. Take a bow, Premier Palaszczuk. You got your quarantine right. You can pat yourself on the back. But, when it goes wrong, don't turn around and say, 'That's the Commonwealth government's fault.' Turn around and look at your own systems. Turn around and examine what you have done wrong on the last four occasions. When you get it wrong, take the blame. Don't turn around and try and blame the Commonwealth government for your failed processes—because that's exactly what has happened. The Commonwealth government will come in and assist you, as we are doing now, to clean up the mess that you have created by not having the right protocols in place, and we've done that through $48 billion in funding over the past 12 months. The state government provided a mere $13 billion. So we are there for the Victorian people, we will continue to be there for the Victorian people and we will continue the rollout. 16:01 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Today the people of Victoria, including all those in my electorate of Corangamite, remain in lockdown. Each day, we've seen a rising number of COVID cases and great uncertainty about when the lockdown will end. I stand with my fellow Victorians at this time of great anxiety, frustration, loneliness and heartbreak, and self-sacrifice, and urge you to stay strong. We will get through this, but it will be with little help from the complacent Morrison government that refuses to help Victorian workers and struggling businesses during this lockdown. Once again, it's the Daniel Andrews government that has stepped up and announced $250 million to support Victorians. But this dangerous complacency is not just about the Morrison government's failure to implement safe quarantine facilities. It's also about the woeful vaccine rollout. We are not even in the top 100 countries when it comes to vaccination rollouts. It's a scandal that, while all residents of aged care were promised full vaccination by Easter, there remain several hundred aged-care facilities in Victoria that have only received one dose; they need two. The result of such negligence is a fourth lockdown for people in Victoria, with students missing school, parents homeschooling, businesses struggling without the support of the federal government, and high levels of stress and heartbreak. Aged-care workers have contracted the virus because they've had to work at multiple facilities. It's been 463 days since the first domestic case of COVID-19. There are no excuses for the government's inaction. This latest outbreak comes from interstate hotel quarantine. It's the 17th outbreak of its kind. Hotels aren't designed for quarantine. They're designed for tourists. In October last year, the Prime Minister was handed a report by the former Health secretary, Jane Halton. The report was the National review of hotel quarantine. It outlined serious concerns about the potential for aerosol transmissions in hotels and poor ventilation in hotels—built for tourism, not medical quarantine. This was an issue that needed to be resolved. Several months later, nothing has changed. The Morrison government could have included funding for a national quarantine facility in the last budget—or in the one before that—but, hey, we had zero cases nationwide, so why bother, right? At every chance, this government has shirked its responsibility for quarantine, despite the Constitution stating quite clearly that it's the responsibility of the federal government. The Prime Minister only had two jobs this year. Firstly, it was to fix national quarantine. He failed that. Secondly, it was the timely rollout of the vaccine. We're now in June, officially the start of winter, and we're not even close to the population being vaccinated. The Prime Minister said, 'This is not a race.' He is wrong. It is a race against the virus, a virus that is shifting and changing every day, making it harder for us to defeat it and for us to enable 6.8 million Victorians to get out of lockdown. As it stands, there's no public health campaign to encourage people to get vaccinated. This government can't even vaccinate our most vulnerable and the people who care for them. For example, did you know that only 355, or 1.4 per cent, of Australians living in residential disability accommodation have been fully vaccinated? Residential aged-care facilities in my region report average staff vaccination rates of less than 30 per cent. Today in Senate estimates we learnt that 21 Australian aged-care facilities still haven't received a single dose. What is more, the responsible minister is misleading the Australian people day after day to hide their bad failings. Imagine that: prioritising spin over lies and livelihoods. This is a disgrace. We are dangerously behind schedule because this government has been incompetent and complacent. One only needs to look at the national cabinet. It was only in April that the Prime Minister triumphantly declared the national cabinet was on a war footing. Now, the country's second-largest state is being thrown into yet another lockdown, and the national cabinet is not even meeting until later this week. It's about time the Prime Minister stepped up and stopped blaming the states when things don't go well. You only have to look to Victoria where acting Premier James Merlino put it best: 'There is only one path to defeating this pandemic—that is, through the successful rollout of the Commonwealth vaccine program and an alternative to hotel quarantine.' Time to step up, time to show up and get things done, or perhaps it's time for another government to do the job. 16:06 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise basically to say it's about time we stopped talking down the COVID vaccine rollout, and that is because it's generating fear and anxiety in the community. This government has been open and transparent about the issues that we have faced, and those issues are well-known across this country. Despite the noise from those opposite, despite the noise generated by people who have a vested interest in saying things like, 'There should be another government running this country,' it is because we know the Australian community has trust in and respect for the government and knows that the Morrison government has its back. I would like to talk about some of the issues that this government has addressed, and has addressed calmly and openly, and made sure it's taken the Australian public with it. The first thing to talk about is the issue of supply. Perhaps people on the other side haven't noticed, but it's very clear that there has been a supply issue globally, and that is because COVID has been raging internationally. There is no doubt that the international agreements that this government had with countries in Europe, in particular, have actually not been supplied because those governments have been more concerned, appropriately, about their citizens and their risk of dying than they have been about their customers. That is very understandable. But what is important for the community in Australia to realise is that this government has the backs of Australians when it comes to supply. That is because this time last year, when we were facing the initial pandemic which was coming at us at speed, the health minister, Greg Hunt, had to deal with an initial supply issue, and that was a supply issue for PPE: masks, gloves and gowns. He dealt with that extremely well by ensuring that we stepped up manufacturing onshore, particularly of masks and gowns, so that we had a sovereign supply. He knew at that time that Australia was dealing with something that was coming at us at speed. I had local GPs in my electorate call me and say, 'I don't have enough masks to get me through the next few days.' Greg Hunt, the then Minister for Health, was able to step up that manufacturing capability at great speed and with great diligence. But he knew back then that our sovereign capabilities were incredibly important for Australia's future, so that, when other people were concerned that we weren't going to even have a vaccine, as early as September last year he organised an agreement with CSL to ensure that we had sovereign supply here in Australia of AstraZeneca. There is no doubt that using AstraZeneca as the backbone of our vaccine rollout has been incredibly important. I want to raise not just the issue of supply but the issue of side effects. I've been known to say publicly that I believe that the side effects of AstraZeneca are not a problem that we should be talking about in great depth because, when you look at the side effects of AstraZeneca, you're more likely to die going to your vaccination appointment than you are from a vaccine side effect. ATAGI, which is the evidence based group that has been providing the Morrison government with information, has recently released a statement that talks about the safety of the AstraZeneca vaccine. ATAGI has been informed by our world-class Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA. I think all Australians understand it is top-quality. We have always said, as a government, that we will make sure that safety comes first and that, with the rollout of this vaccine, we would put the health and safety of Australians first. There are now clear diagnosis and treatment pathways for responding to cases of clots that have been associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Previously, these clots were of unknown origin, and medicos were not sure about how to treat them. This has now changed, and the outcome and prognosis has considerably improved. There are 22 patients who have already recovered from vaccine associated clots and have been discharged from hospital. Unfortunately, one person has died from TTS in Australia, but the risk of side effects from clots from AstraZeneca are put at less than one in a million. This is a very low side affect. The good news is that Australians are understanding, as we look at the COVID lockdown in Victoria, how important the vaccine rollout is to their health and safety of themselves, their loved ones and all of Australia. I'm pleased to say that, now that the supply issue has been sorted out and we understand how to better treat the side effects of the COVID vaccine, the COVID vaccine is in demand and being embraced by Australians. We have some short-term scheduling issues that are being resolved as we speak, but, hand-in-glove, all governments are working together to roll out COVID vaccination for the good of the Australian people, and I commend the government's work in this area. 16:11 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I mean, honestly! Short-term scheduling issues? They dropped their entire targets for the whole rollout. They had targets and they dropped them. Now they're calling them short-term scheduling issues. It is so frustrating to listen to a government where their hubris doesn't match their output. Their hubris is at an all-time high. These people are patting themselves on the back at every opportunity that they possibly can, but they're not doing the work. They're not actually making sure that Australians are being vaccinated. Let's go back to the very beginning, shall we? Let's go back to the beginning where the Minister for Health did all of these quite colourful and flowery press conferences saying how Australians are going to be at the head of the queue. The eagle has landed—the three-word-slogan press conferences from this Minister for Health. He even put Liberal Party branding on an announcement for securing Pfizer vaccines—not Australian government branding: Liberal Party branding. These people wanted all the credit, but they weren't willing to do the actual work. When this rollout started happening, all of a sudden the targets that this government was meant to achieve seemed completely unachievable and were completely missed. They said there would be four million vaccines by the end of March, and they missed that by about three million vaccines. But this government didn't then say: 'Hang on a second. Let's try and fix this. Let's try and get this into the right place. We need it to work. We set these targets for a reason. We set them so that when we go into winter we don't have aged-care facilities completely void of vaccines.' Instead, what did we hear? They said, 'No, we're going to have all vaccines done by October.' Then the Prime Minister said, 'No, no, no—I only meant one vaccine by October.' Then the Prime Minister said, 'No, no, no—when I said one vaccine by October, I meant by the end of the year.' Then he said: 'No, no, no—not by the end of the year. Forget targets. We don't do targets for the vaccine rollout.' There couldn't have been a bigger walkback from where they started. The tragic thing is that aged-care facilities in Victoria are in lockdown right now because, instead of fixing their rollout to meet their targets, they just got rid of their targets altogether. Instead of fixing the rollout to make sure that aged-care residents were protected, they just got rid of their targets altogether. Instead of fixing the rollout to make sure that the disability care sector was protected, they dropped their targets altogether. Instead of making sure that their targets were met so that immunocompromised Australians were protected, what did they do? They dropped their targets altogether. They have not organised the vaccines in order to meet their own targets. They were willing to put Liberal Party branding on announcements, but they're not willing to put any level of government responsibility around the failure of this vaccine rollout. And now we are here where we are in Victoria, in lockdown and in a situation where vulnerable Victorians are exposed and vulnerable to this virus. You would think that the federal government would have an ounce of humility—an ounce of self-awareness—that, maybe, the federally run vaccine program should somehow be the responsibility of the federal government, but they haven't. The health minister comes in here and says that it's all going well and that it's going along as planned, even though they don't have targets for their own rollout. I've been in contact in the last 24 hours with one of the aged-care facilities in my own electorate which is locked down because the staff are working across multiple facilities. The CEO was completely infuriated by the fact that, when these staff at our aged-care facilities were told by the federal government that they needed to go and source their own vaccines instead of the federal government including them in the priority groups that they said they would originally, now we have a situation in which staff are working across two facilities—the federal government haven't fixed that—and they're told that they have to go and source their vaccines, just like any other member of society. This is the federal government's fault, this is their vaccine rollout, these are their failures, this is them removing all targets, and this is Australians paying the price. This is Victorians and the Victorian economy paying the price because of the government's failures, the government's inability to take any responsibility and this health minister's hubris that is not meeting the output that Australians need and Victorians rely on. 16:16 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I rise to speak on this MPI on COVID-19 vaccination today and send good wishes to all the people and all my family in Victoria. I grew up in Victoria, and most of my extended family, including grandchildren, are in Victoria. Fortunately none of them have rung me to complain about the federal government's position on this. I congratulate all the frontline workers and all the people who are doing the rollout for the work that they're doing. Yesterday was a record Monday for vaccinations. Overall four million vaccine doses have been administered. The Australian government is a strong supporter of immunisation as a safe and effective way to prevent the spread of many diseases in the community that can cause death, severe health conditions and hospitalisation. The COVID-19 vaccination is the best way to protect the Australian community. While the government supports immunisation, it is voluntary, and individuals maintain the option not to vaccinate. It is important that everyone who can benefit from a COVID-19 vaccine can access it to protect themselves and their community. The TGA rigorously assesses vaccines for safety, quality and effectiveness before they can be legally supplied in Australia. These are strict requirements, because vaccines are routinely given to healthy people in large numbers. The Australian government have committed $1.3 billion to the vaccine delivery, including workforce funding to states and territories; primary care, including general practice; Commonwealth vaccination clinics; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community controlled health services; pharmacists; and surge workforce. While I mention the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community areas, I give a shout-out to the Royal Flying Doctor Service for the tremendous work they're doing in rolling out the vaccines in remote areas, which we haven't heard anything about from those on the other side. Just to update them, the government has committed a total of $37.2 million to the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which includes an extension of the contract to 31 December 2021 to expand RFDS capability to undertake vaccine administration in rural and remote communities and continue early evacuations, medical retrievals, swab transfers, and fly-in GPRC services. In addition, the 2021-22 budget announced an additional $18.2 million to extend specific measures to support the successful COVID-19 vaccine rollout to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations to 30 June 2022, including an extension of the RFDS contract. The RFDS delivered vaccination administration under the contract for services at Eucla, WA, on Wednesday 19 May 2021. Eucla is a remote community located in WA, on the WA-South Australian border. The RFDS administered 51 vaccinations in three different locations—36 doses in Eucla, nine doses en route at Rawlinna, a small mining town 450 kilometres away from Eucla, and six doses at Forrest Airport, 154 kilometres from Eucla. Vaccine delivery was facilitated from DHL to the RFDS base in Kalgoorlie, WA, and supported from them within the department, using the Pfizer vaccine. Second doses will occur in the week of 14 June 2021, so, again, hats off to the RFDS, who are just doing a fantastic job in remote and regional areas with the vaccine rollout. The Australian government remains committed to rolling out the vaccine as promptly and as safely as possible, backed by medical advice from the TGA. The Australian government has secured 195.4 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine. This includes the newest agreement, to secure 25 million Moderna vaccines, and our focus will be on getting these doses rolled out over the year. The Australian government's COVID-19 vaccination public information campaign launched on 27 January and is rolling out across the country. The national campaign will support the phased rollout of the vaccination program. There will be further stages over the coming months, and different messages, as the program extends to other phases of the rollout. The campaign is working with more than 100,000 people, on average, each day, checking the eligibility checker. I, along with all members on this side of the chamber, encourage people to go to Australia.gov.au and check if they are eligible and find their local clinic and book right now. One point three million dollars has been provided for peak multicultural organisations to help reach culturally and linguistically diverse communities. The government will continue to fight the virus, while the opposition just fights the government and the vaccination rollout. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 The discussion has concluded. MOTIONS 46 MOTIONS Prime Minister 46 16:21 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 72184 In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for Hindmarsh on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with standing orders. No further debate is allowed. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the member for Hindmarsh be disagreed to.

The House divided. [16:26]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

72 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 Evans, TM Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Haines, H Hamilton, GR Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC 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, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 62 NOES Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE 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 Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ Owens, JA Payne, AE Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Minister for Industry, Science and Technology 48 16:29 The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for Isaacs on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The question is that the motion moved by the member for Isaacs be disagreed to.

The House divided. [16:33]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

Question agreed to.

BILLS 49 BILLS Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021 49

Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021

Second Reading 49 16:36 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin This bill, the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021, implements a 2021 budget measure. Importantly, it provides stability regarding the application of these two important private health insurance incentives to consumers and other stakeholders while a detailed study is undertaken to ensure the regulatory settings are appropriate to encourage participation and support affordable premiums. I want to thank members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. The bill amends the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 to extend the current income thresholds that apply to the private health insurance rebate and the Medicare levy surcharge for another two years and ensures annual indexation of thresholds recommences from 2023-24. The bill maintains indexation based on Australian Bureau of Statistics average weekly ordinary time earnings. The bill makes no changes to the Medicare levy surcharge rates or the private health insurance rebate rates. The Private Health Insurance Act 2007, as amended, continues to incentivise higher income earners to financially contribute towards their own healthcare costs by purchasing private health insurance hospital cover or pay the Medicare levy surcharge. The bill gives certainty for consumers who rely on these arrangements to choose and compare private health insurance policies and services that are right for them. The pause means that $90,000 remains the base income tier threshold for Medicare levy surcharge for a single's individual policy and $180,000 for a couple's and family's policy. The Medicare levy surcharge and private health insurance rebate tier arrangements continue to be income tested each financial year. The bill means that, if individuals' or couples' and families' incomes continue to be lower than the relevant income thresholds, they continue to be eligible to receive a government rebate towards their private health insurance policy premium. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hindmarsh has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question before the House is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

The House divided. [16:43]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

72 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 Evans, TM Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA 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, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 60 NOES Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE 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 Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ 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 Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

Third Reading 51 16:45 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021 51

Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021

Second Reading 51 16:46 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'm glad for the opportunity to speak on the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021 and, before going further, I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the Government's failure to adequately respond to growing calls to review and modernise Australia's national heritage protection framework for the betterment of our natural, built, and First Nations cultural heritage". Labor is supportive of the chief purpose of this legislation, while noting that it does not address broader issues in relation to heritage protection and how that is properly resourced in Sydney Harbour and elsewhere. But we support the fact that this bill secures the role of the trust in protecting and improving public access to the history, cultural significance and physical beauty of some very precious places in a harbour landscape that has no peer. I say that as someone who comes from and belongs to a port city that I love very much. But I accept that there is nowhere on earth quite like Sydney Harbour. This bill means that the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, which was created back in 2001, will continue to manage 11 key heritage sites in perpetuity, bringing to an end the idea that their management might somehow be devolved within more general state based structures in New South Wales. It's entirely appropriate, in my view, that these heritage places, which taken together are of national importance, should be managed through a specific Commonwealth level arrangement, remembering that the sites include the National Heritage Listed North Head Sanctuary and Cockatoo Island, which is part of the UNESCO World Heritage listed Convict Estate, which of course spans the Australian continent. Again, to emphasise the way in which our heritage is connected and the way that it makes connections, Fremantle Prison, in my electorate, is also part of that estate, and my great-great-grandfather was once one of its guests, having arrived in WA back in 1863. Those sites speak to a critical point in our history, a period replete with cruelty and dispossession, and it is right that we ensure those places can speak to that part of our history, warts and all, as they say, so that we continue to learn and make progress on the path to reconciliation. Sadly, the terrible mistreatment and incarceration of Indigenous people at the time of settlement has a modern day corollary, and in Reconciliation Week and, frankly, every week we should focus on and do something about the unacceptable and shameful rates of Indigenous incarceration and deaths in custody. On the reforms that this bill contains, I acknowledge the engagement of the minister and her department with Labor through the process to date. We're grateful that the government has agreed to our suggestion that a requirement be built into the act that will ensure that the trust consults the local community on any proposed leases of longer duration. As I have said, the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust estate is comprised of 130 hectares of land across 11 sites. A number of the sites are layered with stories of First Nations peoples of the settlement-convict era and of cultural, industrial and military activity. All those sequential and intermingled strata of history together make them remarkable places, as places that illuminate aspects of the Australian story. If we take Cockatoo Island of an example of the heritage riches within the Sydney Harbour foreshore era, it is worth noting that, for the Eora people of what we now call the Sydney Basin area, the island was known as Wareamah or the place of women, and it may have been a site of ceremonies and practices led and conducted by Eora women. In 1893, the governor of New South Wales, Sir George Gipps, chose what had come to be called Cockatoo Island as the site of a new penal establishment, and the physical structure of the island began to change substantially. Sandstone was blasted and quarried, barracks and prisons were built and, subsequently, when the island was converted into a major shipbuilding and sustainment precinct, land was reclaimed to accommodate some serious industrial manufacturing infrastructure. The Sutherland Dock on Cockatoo Island, when it was completed in 1890, was the largest dry dock of its kind in the world—210 metres in length with a depth of water over the sill at high tide at 9.7 metres. In fact, it was still the largest dry dock in Australia by the time we reached 1945. The island was the official docking station for the Royal Australian Navy from 1870 to 1913 and had a shipbuilding and maintenance function from 1857 to 1991. For the final 20 years of that period, it was responsible for the sustainment of Australia's submarines. Amazingly, Cockatoo Island was only opened to the public in 2007. To the extent that it was known to a wider Australian audience before that time was because, in the lead-up to the 2000 Sydney Olympics, it became an important activist site as a satellite of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, which has been established outside Old Parliament House since 1972. I note comments from the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights which point to current regulations of the act in question which provide it is an offence for a person to organise or participate in a public assembly on trust land. Surely that goes against some basic principles that we would expect to be observed almost anywhere and it is certainly a restriction contrary to the relatively recent history and tradition of Cockatoo Island. I'm glad the minister has said the government is in the process of reviewing the regulations to ensure they are consistent with Australia's international human rights obligations. We expect there wouldn't in future be any restriction upon the ordinary freedoms of expression and assembly. Across all 11 sites, the trust has the considerable satisfaction and the responsibility of welcoming 1.8 million visitors each and every year, and in that role is charged with conserving the environmental and heritage values of the land while improving the scope and forms of public access. I'm happy to say I'm personally a very big supporter of living and social heritage. It is not enough to only preserve buildings and physical structures, though it's important to do so; sometimes preserving physical structures can actually be the more straightforward heritage task, putting costs to one side. The harder work is to find a way to keep our heritage alive, and I would rather see a heritage building slightly and sensitively modified in keeping with the principles of the Burra Charter, if it allowed an appropriate use and occupation of that building than see it perfectly preserved in disuse, and that's because making a space alive in continuation in some form of its historic function can mean you get the best of social and built heritage. On that point, I am very conscious and supportive of the fact that the work of the Trust is not just about conserving and restoring these places; the Trust's work is also about making it possible to experience the richness, diversity and even the darkness of that heritage, making it come alive, drawing people to it, allowing it to be seen, heard, touched and understood as vividly as possible. Needless to say, that will only be achieved when communities are fully involved and have real agency in the process of seeking the best outcome. I don't like to say that the task I've just described is to achieve a balance between heritage and development because I think, unfortunately, the language of balance has been corrupted or hollowed out over time in a number of areas and has tended to mean there is an obligation on heritage or on our environment to always accommodate and give way to commercial imperatives, and that isn't true. Whether we're talking about heritage or our environment more broadly, we need to get away from an approach that is always prepared to compromise those values in the name of profit or private development. In any case, this bill will ensure that a set of critically important heritage sites within Sydney Harbour will remain publicly owned and managed by the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust in perpetuity. The reforms we are considering in this debate also revise the eligibility criteria for appointment to the board of the harbour trust to better ensure that members have the knowledge required for the future task and that includes heritage, tourism, military service and business development. There are specific requirements going forward that mean the board must include members with local government expertise and with relevant standing as a First Nations representative. As I've said previously, I'm grateful for the way the government engaged with Labor through the bill's development, including by making some changes that we proposed to improve the mechanisms for community involvement and input, especially around proposed leasing arrangements. It will come as no surprise that the present state of recognition and protection of Sydney Harbour trust sites was only achieved through decades and decades of community effort. There will always be pressures that work in precisely the wrong direction when it comes to saving community heritage and public land and amenity from the gravitational pull of private ownership and development. Back in the 1990s, when Defence was first considering the disposal of a number of these sites, a collection of local groups came together under the banner of The Defenders of Sydney Harbour Foreshores, and the work of all involved is to thank for the protection and restoration outcomes that have been achieved and that we enhance through this bill. Anyone can go to Cockatoo Island—as I was fortunate to do at the end of the week before last—and learn about its First Nations history and its convict, military and shipbuilding history, while taking in the incredible vantage that it provides, this great nugget of sandstone bound in fig tree roots soaked in the Australian sun, midstream in Sydney Harbour. The fact that anyone can catch the ferry and have that experience is thanks to a number of people who fought, campaigned and advocated for that outcome. I begin by acknowledging the work of Tom Uren. The trust was established by the Howard government at the turn of this century, but the vision for a comprehensive scheme to deliver protection of the harbour foreshore was first articulated by Tom Uren. He was the minister within the Whitlam government responsible for establishing the Australian Heritage Commission. Tom's often acknowledged for the stories he would tell about his love affair with the harbour and how that was translated into his tireless work to build support at all levels for the protection of these places. I can say, personally, that Tom Uren's role in recognising and helping to protect the distinctive heritage of Fremantle, especially in the area that we call the West End, is remembered with gratitude today. It will come as no surprise to anyone in this place that the member for Grayndler, the Leader of the Opposition, has, from his earliest representative days, been a champion for Sydney Harbour's heritage. He spoke on the bill that created the trust in 2001, and said: One of the great things about Sydney Harbour and one of the great things about the creation of green foreshore land that is accessible and available to everyone is that it makes Sydney a more egalitarian city. … … … Strong protection is needed here because at some point in the future governments under financial constraints will be under pressure to sell land. And that's spot-on. He and his office have worked hard these last 20 years in defence of those principles. I don't think the Labor leader would mind me saying that the nitty-gritty of the groundwork that gives shape to our values and commitments as representatives often falls to our hardworking staff, and in this case, recently, to the super diligent, focused and good-humoured Sue Heath. I also want to acknowledge the work of the member of Sydney, who has stood up and spoken out about the precious values of Sydney Harbour and the need for proper Commonwealth protection and management of these sites. What's more, in the debate on the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill all the way back in the year 2000, the member for Sydney expressed appropriate caution about the potential for heritage places to be sold or crassly commercialised, either through a failure of protection itself or through a badly framed expectation that heritage should mainly pay for itself. As the member for Sydney said in 2000: What I will not stand for, and what my constituents will not stand for, is the remaining parcels of bushland around Sydney Harbour being sold off or heritage buildings being overdeveloped to make them attractive for sale or lease. That is well said, and this remains a line that needs to be held. It is still the case that the trust is expected to be self-funding, yet the government has itself acknowledged how unrealistic and potentially harmful that expectation can be, by providing some $40 million in one-off funding last year alone for work over the forward estimates at North Head and Cockatoo Island. Those works are very welcome. In supporting this bill, Labor calls on the government to ensure that any future commercial activities that may be proposed with any sites are consonant with their heritage values and with the cultural interests of the including First Nations people. Heritage protection is an end in itself, a public good in itself. These sites were not saved so they could provide exclusive opportunities for enterprises that want prime land, prime real estate, for commercial purposes, especially where such activity is likely to harm or compromise heritage values that belong to us. All of us who get to argue in this place for environmental and heritage protection know that we do so on the foundation that is laid through community activism—local people, traditional owners, action groups, preservation societies, history buffs, bushwalkers, artists and amateur naturalists, one and all. It is local people who make the case for protecting the things we will share. That has been the case with these sites in Sydney Harbour, and I want particularly to thank community organisations like the Headland Preservation Group for their unstinting work. I acknowledge HPG's president, Jill L'Estrange, for her energy, commitment, patience and professionalism. I also acknowledge Linda Bergin OAM, who has been a tireless advocate for the protection of these sites since the trust's inception. Finally, it's appropriate in Reconciliation Week to conclude my remarks by acknowledging that the places we speak of in this debate have their deepest heritage in First Nations history and culture. That was a clear theme to emerge from the statutory review of the trust completed last year. Labor supports the imperative to deliver greater emphasis and recognition of the very significant First Nations cultural heritage contained in the site. That's why I've moved the second reading amendment. We should reflect in this debate, a year after the disastrous loss of heritage at Juukan Gorge in Western Australia, that Australia still does not have an effective national framework to protect First Nations heritage. It's more than three years since the government said they would achieve a review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act. They committed in their heritage strategy to achieving that by December 2017. It's nearly 3½ years since that commitment has not been met. We're still waiting for that review. We're still waiting for the government's response to the interim report of the inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia into the tragedy of the Juukan Gorge caves, and we are still waiting for the reform that must follow. Labor is pleased that this bill will strengthen and secure the ongoing primacy of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust as the custodian of 11 places of great cultural and heritage significance. We thank and acknowledge all the people who have fought to protect these places in the past and all those who without doubt will continue that vital community involvement in future. I encourage anyone in Sydney permanently or as a visitor to go and visit these places and make them part of your experience and your story. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Ms Butler 248006 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 17:03 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney It is with great pleasure that I speak about the bill before the House this afternoon because this legislation, this amendment of the legislation establishing the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, is one of the most important reforms, one of the most important pieces of legislation, for the future of the great harbour that is Sydney Harbour, a part of which I have the great pleasure of representing in this House. I say that for the single reason that through this bill we resolve years of debate about the ongoing role of the Commonwealth in protecting these sites in perpetuity for all Australians. With this bill that debate comes to a close, with the government making a determined decision to ensure that these sites do remain in the hands of the people of Australia, under the custodianship of the Commonwealth and the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, for all time. That is an appropriate outcome because the sites that are managed by the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust represent some of the jewels in the crown that makes Sydney Harbour the most incredible place and the most incredible harbour of any capital city in the world. The sites managed by the trust encompass the full suite of Australian history, starting with the incredible legacy of tens of thousands of years of Indigenous activity around Sydney Harbour. These are sites that were of significance both culturally and also in the day-to-day lives of the Indigenous communities of Sydney Harbour. It is appropriate for that reason alone that they're recognised for the value we place on them today. Over the last 230-odd years they have also borne witness to the development of Sydney as the city that it has become. Each of these sites has a unique and incredible story, representing the military history, the built history and the history of Sydney Harbour as a working harbour in a way that very few other sites around the harbour today reflect. I think about the broad suite of the properties managed by the trust. There's the incredible beauty and the military and Indigenous history of North Head, through to the places of Georges Heights and Chowder Bay in Middle Head, which again reflect those values. There's the Macquarie Lighthouse, in the eastern suburbs, and the Marine Biological Station, a place of incredible beauty in itself, representing some of the early marine science that was occurring in Sydney. In my own electorate, there are places like Sub Base Platypus, which started its more modern life as a gas station and has been a military facility—it even had a torpedo manufacturing factory—and a submarine base. And then there's the western-most property, the Woolwich Dock, which, again, has such a rich history of the life of our city. Perhaps the site that encapsulates all of those things in the most dramatic way is Cockatoo Island. This gem on Sydney Harbour has a rich Indigenous history and an incredible built heritage. There are convict facilities which today ring with the sounds of the convicts that endured their sufferance on this island. You can still visit the cells where people were held in solitary confinement in the most appalling conditions, but in buildings which today we cherish and value so much. It also had a role as a dock, particularly in the life of the military in Australia, and in its modern incarnation is attracts people for a range of activities, from the arts to camping and to events and functions which have brought this island alive in a way that merely 20 years ago would never have been dreamed of. These are phenomenal sites, and to have the opportunity to participate in the development of this bill, as I have, to ensure that these sites do become a perpetual part of the life of the Commonwealth of Australia is an exciting one for me, because it's a long-held view of mine that transferring these sites to others, be they local councils or the New South Wales government, would be a missed opportunity to preserve them as part of the nation's historical legacy, the nation's great gesture of inheritance to future generations. This bill is an important one for me, and I'm so thrilled that the Minister for the Environment has been able to accept some of my views but also engage with me throughout the development of this bill. The bill reflects the 20-year history of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. It is worth thinking about the fact that, as we consider and debate this legislation today, it is 20 years since the trust legislation was formally enacted. I really want to mention and pay credit to those that were involved in the early stages of the development of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, because, like so much of our harbour, these sites came very close to being lost. They came very close to being permanently alienated from Australians, and it was really through the incredible community activism of some great people, who were passionate about the suburbs they lived in but even more passionate about the natural environment and the built environment of these sites, that we saw community action reach a crescendo that knocked on the doors of this building and was heard by the Prime Minister of the day, John Howard, who established the trust. I think it is probably one of his most important legacies—it's certainly the most important legacy for the city that has been his home throughout his life. I know that Mr Howard is exceptionally proud of the role that the trust has played in the years since he established it. That community action was led by a number of greats. It's hard to list them all because it was really a mass movement, but I do particularly want to acknowledge people like Linda Bergin, Don Goodsir and Peter James, who were intimately involved in the Defenders of Sydney Harbour Foreshores and the Headland Preservation Group. I also want to particularly acknowledge people like Kevin McCann and Peter Lowry, who are great friends of mine. Kevin went on to become the first chair of the trust. He and Linda Bergin were the two that came knocking on the door here on behalf of their communities to advocate for the trust's establishment and the protection of these lands. I also want to acknowledge the great leadership that, in those early days, was provided by the trust staff. Gosh, they were visionaries; they really were. Led by Geoff Bailey, they established this small agency. When Geoff moved into the office first allocated to him, it was so small he didn't even have a key. I think he had to climb through the window to get into that office on his first day. But what he built was a nimble and vibrant and future-thinking organisation that recognised that it had a phenomenal opportunity to establish best practice in the use of these former defence lands. The whole establishment of the trust came about because the land was under threat. With all due respect to the Department of Defence, which does such a great job of keeping us safe, it's fair to say that it does not part with the lands it owns—particularly for no commercial return—all that easily. There were plans being proposed by the Keating government, I think, by then defence Minister Beazley, to sell off some of the lands for development of housing. There were other, less defined plans which would have seen these sites alienated from the community. The trust brought an end to any suggestion that that would occur. So I am thrilled that today we have the opportunity to make the life of the trust permanent. I want to thank, for its development, the modern iteration of those early activists, some of whom are still involved today. Your commitment to Sydney Harbour gets in your blood. It's that sea salt that flows through you that drives so many of you to fight battle after battle to protect what's so precious. Many of the names I just mentioned are still involved in the cause today, but I particularly want to acknowledge the work of the Headland Preservation Group, currently led by Jill L'Estrange, who engaged so effectively and so well with the Minister for the Environment on this legislation. What was really the genesis for this particular bill was the review of the trust's operations which was established by Minister Ley and led so well by Carolyn McNally and Erin Flaherty. I want to thank them for providing the foundation for the issues we're discussing in this legislation today. What this bill does is one simple thing—and it removes any suggestion that the trust is a transitional body and that this land would somehow be lost to the Commonwealth and transferred to other levels of government or maybe even the private sector. It says the trust is here to stay. It also has a number of other important reforms which will enhance the operations of the trust, and I want to mention three of those very quickly. Firstly, the bill does reform the board of the trust. It makes more explicit the skills that are expected of, effectively, the trustees of this land. It makes clear that the board must have experience in areas like environment and heritage conservation or heritage interpretation; Indigenous culture, where, personally, I think the trust can do so much more; land planning and management; business financial property or asset management; tourism or marketing; military service or the law. Some of these were part of the original specifications that were expected of the board, but I think that the clarity resulting from the review that was done is a really important step in making sure that we have trustees that are equipped to manage these sites for all their values. I'm pleased that, as part of that, the trust's membership still must contain someone of Indigenous background and also someone who brings local government experience. Another reform that is encapsulated in this bill is to do with the leasing of the lands. It makes clear that standard leases issued by the trust can only be for periods up to 25 years, including options that might otherwise extend those leases. But what it does do is recognise that, in some cases, there will be leases that involve capitalising on the interests of those outside government to restore, protect and use these buildings. On rare occasions, they might require leases longer than 25 years, so it envisages a regime where leases can exist for up to 35 years, but under very strict conditions. What this bill does is lock in a requirement—really, for the first time—for the trust to consult with the community before proposals for longer leases are developed, but still ensure that any proposals for longer leases are disallowable instruments by this parliament. But, as part of that, it makes the process more practical because it allows the trust to bring a proposal to the community and, ultimately, to the minister and the parliament so that those steps are gone through before detailed negotiations are entered into. It therefore makes it an easier process for the trust to negotiate with potential leaseholders. The bill also makes one very practical change, which is to reform, after 20 years, the threshold for which the trust has to seek ministerial approval for contracts. It extends the current $1 million threshold to $5 million, which will make the trust more effective in being able to manage these sites. I want to again thank the minister for the way in which she has engaged not just with me and others like the member for Wentworth, who's here with me today, but more importantly with the community. I know that the community have appreciated the fact that her door has been open and that she has taken on board their suggestions. Phil Jenkins from Hunters Hill, another one of the long-term defenders of these lands—and someone I haven't always agreed with on this or many other issues, I have to say—rang me as this legislation was being introduced and said, 'We really enjoyed the relationship that we were able to develop with the minister in the development of this legislation.' To all of those involved: thank you, not just for your involvement in this legislation but for what you have been doing on behalf of our community and on behalf of all Australians to ensure that these sites, dating back tens of thousands of years through to the modern time, will have a life and that we'll continue to protect the incredible natural, Indigenous and built values and history of these sites. In many cases, with the sites having been locked up as defence bases, many Australians are enjoying these sites for the first time. But it's not just for this generation. Every single generation of Sydneysiders, Australians and visitors to our city to come will be able to explore and understand these amazingly incredible parts of Sydney Harbour. I commend the bill. 17:16 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth I want to commend the remarks of the member for North Sydney, who has had a long involvement with the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust both during his time in parliament but also in the years beforehand. Indeed, he is one of the people here in this place who was present at its creation, so to speak. The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, the topic of today's legislation, is a remarkably enlightened and innovative piece of public policy. It was a transitional body that was established in 2001 by the Howard government to rehabilitate former defence sites upon Sydney Harbour and eventually open them up to public access. These sites include, in my own electorate of Wentworth, the Macquarie Lighthouse at Vaucluse and the Marine Biological Station at Watsons Bay, but also, of more significance, the sites at North Head and Middle Head, the former submarine base Platypus, Cockatoo Island and the docks at Woolwich. When this body was established 20 years ago now, it was designed to ensure that these lands would be held open and available for public benefit for current and future generations—that they would both rehabilitate these sites but also allow the public to once again access them. As the member for North Sydney said, these sites are some of the most iconic and picturesque upon Sydney Harbour, and if we were to lose the custodianship of these lands, if they were to fall into the hands of developers or private interests, they would be lands we would almost certainly never get back. Much has happened in the 20 years since the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust was established: the portfolio—the number of assets it has under its management—of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust has grown; the life of the trust has been extended; the trust has successfully opened all the sites to the public, with only some small areas still closed—but the bulk of these defence sites that were given over to its custodianship in 2001 are now open and accessible to the public; and it's done amazing work to rehabilitate and activate these sites, turning them into treasures for the people of Sydney, for visitors from interstate, across the country, and indeed, in normal times, for visitors from overseas. In non-COVID times, about 1.8 million people per year visit the lands and assets belonging to the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. I want to commend in particular the work of the outgoing CEO of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, Mary Darwell—she's now left—and also all her professional staff there, and the board, which has been led by Joseph Carrozzi for a number of years now. I was privileged to serve on the board of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust for a period, from 2018 to 2019, and I saw firsthand the dedication and the professionalism of the staff but also what an amazing asset they'd created from land that had been underutilised and inaccessible to the public for decades beforehand. The genesis of this legislation of course is the 2019 announcement by the government to commence an independent review into the trust's future arrangements. That made perfect sense, because the trust, in its 20 years of operation, had done all that was asked of it—it rehabilitated former defence lands and made them accessible to the public and activated it for the public. This review that the government announced was to map out the future pathway of the trust and to see what duties it should fulfil in future and, indeed, whether it should continue to exist as a body, because, when the trust was first set up and established, the intent was it rehabilitate these lands and pass them back to the New South Wales government. During the time of that independent review, there were over 177 public submissions received to those conducting the review, consultations were held with over 500 people and there were multiple public forums held with affected communities and stakeholder groups, who take a keen and healthy interest in these lands. The independent review, which was published in 2021, found widespread support for the work of the trust, and it made 21 recommendations to help ensure the trust was positioned well into the future. Some of those highlights were, firstly, to make sure that the trust continued in perpetuity, so rather than the 2033 repeal provision—this is when the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust was initially due to come to a close—the independent review recommended that the life of the trust, as the custodian and manager of these former defence lands, continue in perpetuity. Some of the other recommendations of this independent review included the development of an audit plan and a master plan for Cockatoo Island, probably the most challenging of the sites under the trust management; greater recognition of Indigenous sites; and increased focus on the military heritage, again both especially important for Cockatoo Island, which was a site of Indigenous settlement and ceremony in its early history and then an incredibly important naval facility for Australia during the Second World War, in particular. The independent review also recommended improved volunteer engagement and greater community consultation. The government agreed, by and large, with the central finding of the review, that the trust should become an ongoing entity and retain special responsibility for these sites. Upon the findings of the review being released, $9 million was immediately made available to the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust to help keep sites safe and accessible, at least as an interim measure. In 2021, in the budget of October last year, a further $40.6 million was provided over four years to provide the trust with support for its work in rehabilitating sites—an important capital injection. This bill that we're debating today, the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021, is the next major step in implementing the findings of this independent review. The bill takes forward four important recommendations from the review. Firstly, it implements the central finding of the review, that the trust should become an ongoing entity. The review found that there was wide community support to retain in federal hands the lands managed by the trust and to ensure that the trust managed these lands on an ongoing basis. And, as I mentioned, this is different to the original mission of the trust, which was to rehabilitate the land and then hand them over to state government custodianship. The bill also supports the recommendation for a refresh of the trust's membership to ensure that board members are equipped with the skills and expertise needed to steer the trust adequately and effectively into the future. In particular the bill lays out that board members must have expertise in one or more of the following fields: in environment and heritage conservation; in Indigenous culture; in land planning and management; in business, financial, property or asset management; in tourism or marketing; in military service; or in the law. In addition, one of the trust's board members must be a person of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage and one must have experience or expertise in local government. Furthermore, the bill before us today also updates provisions regulating the trust's commercial activities. The last two decades of the trust's operation have shown that sensitive commercial operations have an important role to play in bringing life and amenity and activity to sites and contributing to the cost of upkeep and maintenance. I think the trust's management of Middle Head has been an exemplar, where they've managed to provide a commercial activity for functions and events, for artists, for sports facilities and recreational facilities, whilst making sure the public has full accessibility to the site and full amenity of the site. This bill sets a new threshold for ministerial approval of contracts to $5 million from the existing $1 million under the existing legislation. This will ensure the efficient functioning and the operational independence of the trust and avoid the minister of the day becoming entangled in the day-to-day operational issues of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. The bill will also provide for an indexation of this amount. That original figure of $1 million has not changed since the bill was enacted almost 20 years ago, but this new $5 million figure will be indexed here on in. The bill also ensures that long-term leases are only available when it's clearly consistent with the overriding objectives of public access, amenity, conservation, heritage and environment. Currently under the legislation, any leases over 25 years must be contained in a disallowable legislative instrument. The independent review found this to be too blunt a tool and that it was unduly restraining potential uses of harbour trust sites that could help meet harbour trust objectives, including conservation and heritage. This is particularly true for Cockatoo Island, which is a difficult and capital intensive site and will require significant remediation and new assets in the years ahead. Under the new provisions contained in this bill, the trust cannot enter into a lease or a licence for a period longer than 35 years and, for leases of between 25 and 35 years, a proposal must be prepared and tabled for consideration by both houses of parliament with a statement of reasons. The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, in preparing this statement of reasons. must engage in community consultation and include their feedback in this statement of reasons. This proposal, which would be prepared and tabled before both houses of parliament, would be a disallowable instrument, which means that it would be subject to the same level of parliamentary scrutiny that these current proposals enjoy. But if, at the end of the disallowance period, the proposal has not been disallowed, the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust can proceed to negotiate the terms of this lease or licence. Then a final stage of approval must be granted by the minister before a lease or licence can actually be granted. Finally, this bill will provide support to the trust in an ongoing role by modernising the language of the act and including amendments related to the review of regulations under the act, which are due to sunset and which are now likely to be remade later this year, following community consultation. Passage of this legislation will be a very important development for all those who care about the preservation and conservation of Sydney Harbour's foreshore—our previous and unique foreshore—including those people in my own electorate of Wentworth, who take a close interest in these issues. The bill will give the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust the certainty to plan for the future, including making provision for the significant investments that need to be made in rehabilitating some of these sites. I wish to place on record my appreciation for the minister responsible for shepherding this process, the member for Farrer, but also those people who undertook the independent review, Ms Carolyn McNally and Ms Erin Flaherty, who did a tremendous job in engaging the community and providing a pathway ahead for the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. I would also like to acknowledge a number of parliamentary colleagues, past and present, who have worked closely on these issues over the years—the member for North Sydney, who I mentioned earlier; Senator Andrew Bragg, the senator for New South Wales, who has been closely engaged with these issues; the previous member for Warringah and former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who took a close interest in these issues during his time here; and the former member for Wentworth, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, one of my predecessors, who, similarly, took a very close interest here. With this legislation, we are ensuring that the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust will continue to do so well what it has done over the past two decades so effectively, and that is to be a steward and a custodian of some of our most precious and valuable lands. Anywhere in Sydney and, indeed, anywhere in the world, they are lands that are of tremendous significance for the Indigenous heritage value, for the settlement historical value and for the access, amenity and recreation they provide to citizens to this very day. It will ensure that the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust remains fit for purpose in the decades ahead, and I commend this legislation to the House. 17:28 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm pleased to make a contribution to this debate on the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021. I also want to acknowledge people who have participated in improving this legislation. I met with the chair of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, Joseph Carrozzi, on a number of occasions and also with local community groups, including the Headland Preservation Group president, Jill L'Estrange. This is important legislation because Sydney Harbour is an asset that is a jewel for the entire country. When you travel overseas and you look at what has happened around foreshores, be they ocean foreshores or harbour foreshores, it is hard to think of a comparison whereby the Australian egalitarian spirit is reflected by the fact that so many Australians have access to the land around Sydney Harbour. Whilst it's true that very few people can afford to live with harbour views, the truth is everyone can enjoy harbour views and can enjoy the amenity around Sydney Harbour because of that access, which is why it's so important that this national parliament continue to do what previous generations have done, which is to protect harbour foreshores. There are attempts from time to time to undermine that to essentially have Sydney Harbour and its beautiful assets, including the islands in the harbour—including Cockatoo Island, which is, of course, part of the Grayndler electorate—for sale. That would, I think, be a very retrograde step, because, if we get it wrong once, it disappears forever, which is why it is so important. My mate Russell Crowe said this about Sydney: 'The best things about Sydney are free: the sunshine is free, the harbour is free and the beach is free.' This is why you see such a reaction when you have proposals like the proposal to essentially privatise a bit of Bondi Beach. As an Australian doing the backpacker thing that young Australians do, I was quite shocked when I arrived in Europe and people wanted money to use the beach. Here in Australia that's not our way, and it's one that thank goodness we have and we need to hold onto. But here, of course, we could have privatisation. We went close with some of the proposals for changes to this bill that were advocated for at one stage. The proposal, for example, on Cockatoo Island to essentially privatise it—that's what it was; let's call it for what it was—into corporate hands, dressed up as a way of remediating the harbour but essentially using that island for a for-profit motel and other facilities, was just entirely inappropriate. It's important that they got rejected. It's important that the draft legislation has been changed to remove the proposal for 49-year leases and the free-for-all which would have been allowed under some of the proposals that were put forward. I pay tribute to the assistant shadow minister, the member for Fremantle, who advocated very strongly on these issues, because at risk wasn't just Cockatoo Island but North Head, the Headland Park at Mosman's Middle Head and the Platypus former submarine base at Neutral Bay as well. All of these assets are really critical assets. When we were last in government, something that would be anathema to those opposite who'd just look at the electoral map is one of the things we funded through the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, which was a major upgrade of the old industrial facilities at North Sydney that overlook the harbour. It was turned into an arts space and a space for the community, done along with North Sydney Council. It was a really good proposal. We funded the upgrade of the foreshore at Manly Beach. For neither of those did we look at the electoral map. Both of those have improved an asset that anyone can go to, because they're free, and enjoy the amenity which is in the great city of Sydney with its great natural asset of Sydney Harbour. That is really important. My mentor who would have turned 100 just a few days ago, on 28 May, Tom Uren, was a patron of the Defenders of Sydney Harbour Foreshores. As he put it, 'It really belongs to the people not only of Mosman or of Sydney but the nation as a whole.' That is exactly right. With this bill, the right decision has been made in the public interest and for the public good. The bill establishes the harbour trust as an ongoing entity. The harbour trust will be able to fulfil its obligation to rehabilitate, preserve and maintain trust sites for future generations of Australians. There's a cap on the leases at 35 years, with leases of longer than 25 years subject to a disallowance by the parliament. What that will do is provide for ongoing protection of public ownership and access. It will help ensure visitor access to more facilities, as they visit the harbour trust's historic sites, and establish operating frameworks that support the future viability of the harbour trust. There will be a need for more investment in some areas, and that includes Cockatoo Island. Cockatoo Island is a gem in the crown. Not many people, probably even those in Sydney, have been to Cockatoo Island, and that's really unfortunate. It should be a place that people can visit. I'm not of the view that you lock places up forever. I'm of the view that public places, particularly in a city like Sydney, are there to be used, to be enjoyed for community activity. Cockatoo Island's history is in its industrial history in terms of shipbuilding, in the role that it has played in defence, and, might I say, in the role that these sites, these harbour islands, have played in history going back not a couple of hundred years but 65,000 years. There are Indigenous art sites on most of the harbour islands. Indeed, if you look at the islands' history even in recent times, with the role that islands played for First Nations women, and some being for ceremonial use, there is a great deal there that we need to acknowledge and we need to celebrate. We do need to remediate some of the land there and open it up for people, wherever they live and not just for those who live in Sydney, because this is an international asset. At the risk of upsetting my friends and our US allies, an important alliance, I ask with due respect: San Francisco harbour? Seriously, you go there and, compared with Sydney, you think, 'Really? What's the big deal?' Sydney Harbour has those islands, which should be economic assets as well as preserved environmentally. Many years ago I attended All Tomorrow's Parties curated by Nick Cave on Cockatoo Island. People from all over attended, and that asset was used. It was a fantastic thing. We don't use those assets enough, and when you look at the assets that are available, some of which are in my electorate, whether it be Cockatoo Island or Callum Park, they should be used. Some argue and the Greens political party will regularly argue that they should just be there and no-one's allowed to use them, no-one's allowed to walk on them, no-one's allowed to access them. That's not my view. My view is that great public spaces should be looked after in a sustainable way but they should also be used in a way that promotes public use. I want to turn to Tom Uren's words to the Senate environmental legislative committee more than two decades ago, when the trust was being established. His words, as a historian of the harbour, are important. He said this: A public servant when issuing a land grant around Cremorne Point in 1833, stipulated that 100 feet above the high tide water mark should be retained for public access. Balls Head and Berry's Island were publicly acquired by the Lang Government in 1926. The open space on the Harbour shores around Castlecrag was created by the intelligent and visionary planning of Walter Burley Griffin. So this hasn't just happened. People have fought for these issues. Indeed, Tom Uren fought alongside Tony Abbott to protect some of our foreshore land—a great example of working across the political divide for a common interest for our nation. We can do much better. There have been visionaries who have done extraordinary things. One comparison, that will perhaps make up for my comments about San Francisco, is with our friends in the United States who created Central Park in New York, in 1853—what a vision for Manhattan, setting aside that public space for generations of New Yorkers and visitors to benefit from, as they have been able to ever since. That's one of the things that makes New York City such a great city. So it is important that we do the right thing by the harbour. This bill does do the right thing. It is true to the vision that that long-ago public servant had, way back in 1833. Imagine thinking that through—for that land above the high-water mark to be protected. It has made an incredible difference. It is something about Sydney. Like my colleague the member for Sydney, I know, when I cross Sydney Harbour Bridge with visitors, I point to the Sirius building—purpose-built public housing, particularly built for people with disabilities. The state government flogged it off. There won't be any poor people living there now. That was one of the great things about Australia. When we look at the nature of our cities, we have to make sure that things that should be available to everyone are available to everyone. That's why that sell-off was bad and that's why there should not be any encroachment on our harbour or on the other great assets that we have, like the Parramatta River, the Georges River, the Nepean River. They should be protected and preserved for this and for future generations. I commend the bill to the House. 17:43 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid There may be some disagreement in this House, but Sydney really is the best city in Australia. The winner really was, and still is, Sydney! There are many reasons for such an undeniable fact, but I say this while speaking on this bill as I am, of course, speaking about beautiful Sydney Harbour. I rise to speak on the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021. The government is acting to implement the recommendations of the Independent Review of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. Before I speak to the review itself, and the recommendations, I will briefly outline the important work of the trust. The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust was established in 2001, following the interim trust, which was established in 1999. Its function is to preserve and, where necessary, rehabilitate prominent former Defence sites on the beautiful Sydney Harbour. Most Sydneysiders would be surprised to know that so many public spaces and parklands across our beautiful harbour are owned and managed by the Commonwealth government, rather than by the state government or local councils. This is mostly because these sites were predominantly used for national defence, including housing fortifications and gun emplacements, as well as to construct armaments and house and repair naval vessels. Naval and military defence is the responsibility of the Commonwealth government, so each of these sites had to be legally acquired for their intended use. The trust sites are in part so scenic because they were selected by the Commonwealth for their strategic location, giving them panoramic views of Sydney Harbour and, in some locations, even out to the Pacific Ocean. These sites include Cockatoo Island, where my daughter has just told me she had a school excursion once before, North Head Sanctuary in Manly, Headland Park in Mosman, Sub Base Platypus in Neutral Bay, Woolwich Dock and parklands, the former Marine Biological Station at Watsons Bay and Macquarie Lightstation in Vaucluse. Even today, Sydney Harbour continues to host active naval facilities including HMAS Penguin in Balmoral, HMAS Waterhen in Waverton and HMAS Watson at South Head near Watsons Bay. If you've ever visited Sydney, you have probably been to one of these locations. If you haven't then I highly recommend that you do when you holiday here this year. Each of these locations are unique places possessing a rich heritage and magnificent natural beauty. It is our duty to ensure they are all well protected so we can pass them on to future generations to enjoy in the same way that we have. The federal government initiated a review of the Harbour trust and its financial governance and legislative arrangements last year. The review was led by Ms Carolyn McNally and Ms Erin Flaherty, and I thank them for their hard work throughout the process, as well as the dedicated secretariat team provided by the department. The terms of reference highlighted some particular considerations for the review, notably the considerable work required at some sites for which the cost would be quite substantial. The review was tasked with investigating the current management structure of the trust, as well as its funding capabilities. The terms of reference also dictated that the review should present multiple options for future arrangements for trust sites, including advice on community views, economic and social costs and benefits, costs to taxpayers and legislative changes required. The independent reviewers worked closely with the harbour trust, relevant experts and the community to identify the challenges and opportunities facing our beautiful harbour and the trust. Following a consultation period which included four public forums, the final report was released on 18 June in 2020. My own friend and colleague in the other place, Senator Andrew Bragg, made a submission to the inquiry. He outlined three key subject areas which needed review: governance, completion of rehabilitation and partnership opportunities, and conservation. He presented the arguments that the trust's expectations from the community have changed since its federation in addition to changing financial demand of its upkeep. It was initially meant to be a planning and rehabilitation agency. However, today, it is responsible for long-term management of cultural sites, bushland, heritage buildings, and open space for community enjoyment and recreation. Unlike most other parkland agencies and cultural sites, the trust does not receive ongoing financial support from the government and therefore must self-fund its own programs. An exposure draft on the bill was provided for public comment in the period 2 October to 13 November 2020. This bill responds to four of the recommendations of the review: the federal government will make the trust an ongoing entity rather than the remediate and hand over to New South Wales basis on which it was established; the bill revises the requirements for appointments to the trust to ensure the trust has the skills and experience needed into the future as an ongoing entity; the bill lifts the threshold for contracts that require ministerial approval to ensure that the trust has appropriate operational independence; The bill reforms protections against longer term leasing and licensing of the trust lands to greater than 25 years; and finally, the bill includes changes associated with the review and updating of regulations under the act, which are due to sunset on 1 October 2021. These proposals come following extensive consultation informing the development of the bill. The government has worked closely with key trust stakeholders in finalising the proposal, and I believe it deserves bipartisan support. I strongly commend the proposed changes in this bill as well as the overall work of the trust. It is critical the government continues to support these bodies as they preserve the cultural and historical significance of these beautiful locations in Sydney. 17:50 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Labor supports this bill, the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021. This bill will ensure that a range of nationally significant heritage sites within the Sydney Harbour area will remain publicly-owned and managed by the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust in perpetuity. These amendments will also revise the eligibility criteria for appointment to the board of the harbour trust to better ensure that members have the skills and expertise required for this important task in the future, including expertise in areas such as heritage, tourism, military service and business development. Insofar as these changes help protect Sydney Harbour, they are sensible and I welcome them. Sydney Harbour, as the Leader of the Opposition said, is a special place, not just for those lucky enough to live on its shores but for all Australians. I think tourists coming to Australia from around the world have that image of Sydney Harbour—the Harbour Bridge; the Opera House; our New Year's Eve fireworks; the beautiful jewel of Sydney Harbour—in their minds when they first think of coming to Australia. Labor's essential approach to our beautiful harbour is to make sure that that beauty can be available to as many Australians and as many visitors as possible. Lloyd Rees, one of our best-known Australian artists, did so much of his work around Sydney Harbour, and he said of the harbour: 'The first glimpse, a picture of a circular frame, opal blue water, a band of golden sand, another of silver-green trees; above them a skyline of coral pink, shimmering against the limpid air. In that first long look Sydney cast her spell and it remains with me ever since.' Lloyd Rees was an extraordinary painter of Sydney Harbour. He had a long friendship with Tom Uren, whom the Leader of the Opposition was talking about earlier, and one of the things that brought them together was that love of Sydney Harbour. It is a natural site that is close to the heart of most Australians, but we Sydneysiders are particularly in love with our harbour. It is a place of immense heritage value as well as immense natural value. Of course it has tens of thousands of years of First Nations history right along its shores: beautiful hidden paintings and carvings all along the shores—special places with thousands of years of history. It has convict history right along its shores, too. And it has an industrial history. Those of us in the Labor Party have always supported a working harbour. We are in love as much with the old machinery on Cockatoo Island and around the dry docks of Sydney Harbour on Garden Island—the beautiful old buildings—as we are with the natural history. And of course it has that naval history as well. I was again recently at Garden Island seeing the phenomenal work that's going on to upgrade the wharves and other facilities there. From the history of the Eora nation, to the first sight of British settlement, to the docks where immigrants arrived after World War II, to the global city that Sydney is now, the story of Australia can be told in Sydney Harbour, where natural beauty meets that very deep history. In supporting this bill, Labor calls on the government to ensure that any future commercial activities that may be proposed within these sites are strictly compliant with the values of the sites and the wishes of our communities around the shores of Sydney Harbour. Of course we believe that these areas should be used. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we've had great concerts on Cockatoo Island, there's camping, there's restaurants and there are all sorts of opportunities to use our harbour islands and to use our foreshores, but we have to do that in a way that is sustainable and sympathetic. These are public lands and the trust has a duty to keep them accessible and to keep them democratic. Sydney Harbour should be a place where any Australian can go, where they don't need a dollar in their pocket to enjoy the natural beauty of Sydney Harbour, and we want that for tourists as well. We want everybody, all-comers, to be able to enjoy our harbour, whether it's our New Year's Eve fireworks, one of the biennale exhibitions on Cockatoo Island, a Nick Cave concert, camping or whatever it is. We want those things to be available as equally as possible to all Australians. We in the Labor Party have a long history of fighting for this democratic accessibility to this beautiful natural gift. It was the first New South Wales Labor government and its Secretary for Lands, Niels Nielsen, who began the campaign against privatisation of our harbour foreshore lands, against the alienation of that land from public use, launching the Foreshore Resumption Scheme, which returned large tracts of harbour foreshore land to the people of New South Wales. Niels Nielsen inspired Tom Uren in his fight for the national estate and also for a working harbour. It was the Carr Labor government that so dramatically improved the water quality of Sydney Harbour that has seen a return to oysters and other molluscs growing in the harbour, that has seen the beautiful little seahorses that have been bred up and released again into Sydney Harbour and that has seen whales and even sea lions and penguins return to the harbour. It was the Carr Labor government that returned the land on Ballast Point to the people of Sydney. Also, more recently, my very dear friend and former colleague former Senator John Faulkner, and my very good friend Lachlan Harris helped launch a wonderful walk—and I think this will become one of the great walks around the world—from Bondi to Manly, going through all of those harbourside suburbs, passing historic homes, passing Aboriginal rock carvings and sacred places, passing through the industrial and naval historic sites and going through the remnant bushland that is so precious on the shores of Sydney Harbour. I believe that that Bondi-to-Manly walk will be—when we're allowed to travel again—one of those things that attracts tourists from all over the world to Sydney. That walk sees Bondi and Manly, two of the most iconic beaches in the world, linked by the Harbour Bridge, the Opera House, the historic homes and the bushland. What a marvellous opportunity for people to do that walk. Thank you to all of the councils and the private and public landholders who have supported this walk. We need to make sure that we continue to protect the remnant bushland along the shores of Sydney Harbour. When you look at those tracts of bush and think how fortunate we are to have kept bushland running right down to our beaches, to our coastal walks and to our harbour foreshores, honestly, we owe a debt of gratitude not only to the foresight of people like Niels Nielsen, Tom Uren, Bob Carr and John Faulkner, who have fought so hard to protect our harbour foreshore but also to the residents' groups all around the foreshore of Sydney Harbour and right up the Parramatta River who have fought so hard to make sure that our bushland is protected and public access to our beautiful harbour is protected. Can I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, much as I love Sydney Harbour, and I think you've probably picked up that I do, and as much as I value the opportunity for every Australian and every visitor to Australia to have the see our beautiful harbour, swim in it, view the fireworks and so on, there is one thing that I do believe is missing from Sydney Harbour. There is something that I would like to see either on one of the harbour islands or in an appropriate place somewhere on the foreshore of Sydney Harbour, and that is a national museum and cultural facility for First Nations Australians' culture and history. When you look at great museums like this around the world, the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian in Washington DC or the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa in Wellington, you think about what we could have on Sydney Harbour, particularly if it was on one of the harbour islands. I can imagine arriving by boat, as you quite often do at the Museum of Old and New Art in Hobart, such a fantastic tourism draw to Hobart. You can imagine Sydneysiders and people from around New South Wales, from around Australia and from around the world coming to this gateway to Australia and seeing the depth and the richness of 60,000 years of First Nations culture and history. I think Sydney Harbour would be an amazing backdrop for such a museum and I would hope that one day we will see such a museum in Sydney. 18:02 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise today to talk on the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021. The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust was enacted by statute in 2001 with the objective to preserve, protect and rehabilitate former Defence and Commonwealth lands in Sydney Harbour. Warringah's trust lands including North Head Sanctuary in Manly and Headland Park in Mosman. I acknowledge and pay respect to in the Borogegal people, the traditional owners of the Headland Park, and the Gayamagal people, the traditional owners of North Head. The trust is essential to the cultural character of our community. It has sites rich with Indigenous, colonial and military history. It has green fields and bushlands, and provides habitat for many flora and fauna and for people as they seek relaxation and respite from their busy lives. It must be protected and conserved. Today we debate this bill, which arises out of the independent review into the legislative, financial and governance arrangements for the harbour trust. Initiated in late 2019 by the federal government, the review is in line with the 10-year statutory review requirement under the trust act. I thank the reviewers, Carolyn McNally and Erin Flaherty, for running an open consultation process and for meeting with many members of the community to understand their views. The review made 21 recommendations to the federal government to improve the governance, the management and legislation of the trust. This bill, if passed, addresses four of these recommendations. There is no doubt that these trust lands are the jewels of Sydney Harbour and enrich the cultural life of our nation. That's why it's vital that the proposed bill helps to protect and conserve these lands for future generations. It was very clear that the community has an attachment through the involvement and vested attention there was in relation to the review. I consulted with the community extensively, the trust and the independent reviewers on the question of whether the trust should remain as an ongoing entity as custodians of trust lands. There was deep-seated concern in the community that some of these lands, in particular North Head, have not been rehabilitated or cared for in the way that they should be. They have been left to deteriorate, and the community is very concerned about that. I made a detailed submission to the review, but the overwhelming majority of the community members I spoke to, including the North Head Sanctuary Foundation, the Headland Preservation Group, Mosman Parks and Bushland Association and the friends of quarantine station were in favour of the trust remaining as an ongoing entity. There were fears—valid fears, I would say—that the transfer of land to the New South Wales government would risk commercialisation of trust lands and reduce legislative protections currently provided to the sites under the trust act and the environment protection and biodiversity act. So I welcome today's amendments that enable the trust to operate as an ongoing entity in line with recommendation 5 of the review. It is truly a win for the community that the trust will no longer be a transitional body and that the lands will not transfer to New South Wales after 19 September 2033. That was a very big fear for the community. Attention now remains on the Deed of Agreement for the North Head Sanctuary, which is due to expire in 2032, at which point the site would revert to the custody of the New South Wales government. Many in the community do not want this to happen and are still very concerned about it. With the recent release of the draft concept plan for the North Head, the community seeks an urgent update on discussions between the department of environment, the trust and the New South Wales government on the proposed arrangements for the Deed of Agreement for North Head. As acknowledged by trust chair, Joseph Carrozzi, in a letter to the Minister for the Environment on 31 July last year, the input of the community will be integral to this process. Board membership was a question that came up in the review. The trust act provides that the membership of the board is constituted by seven members as well as the chair. The board is an essential governance body and has a huge impact on the way the trust is managed. Section 10 of part 3 of the trust act sets out the requirements for membership, and during the review consultation many stakeholders expressed concern that the legislative requirements and the process of appointing members allowed the board to become heavily politicised as well as facilitate promoting members which lack the core skills necessary in areas like environmental planning, heritage conservation and military conservation. I hope the minister will address these issues and ensure that, in fact, the trust board should be de-politicised and should actually be focusing on having the appropriate skills. The review is clear that membership of the board should more clearly reflect the skills and expertise of the harbour trust's needs into the future. This was a recommendation very much supported by the community. Recommendation 6 of the review stated that the trust act 2001 should be amended to further specify that the appointment of each member of the harbour trust should be based on their expertise in one or more of the following areas: law, finance, public asset management, commercial leasing, architecture, public administration, Indigenous engagement, heritage, environment, tourism and marketing, so I welcome items 5, 6 and 7 of the amendment bill that implement that recommendation. Importantly, both the requirement of a representative of Indigenous Australians and a representative of local government remain. In light of these changes and with nominations for four upcoming vacancies on the trust board currently open, I look forward to the new appointees who have the required skills and knowledge to preside over these lands and ensure that in fact rehabilitation and conservation occurs. During the review, many in the community felt it was important that the trust remain true to its mandate to protect, conserve and rehabilitate the lands. These are absolutely iconic lands, not just for the community that surrounds them and the Sydney community but for all of Australia because of their heritage and cultural value. There were concerns that commercial interests would eclipse these goals. There were fears that long-term leases would be awarded to inappropriate landholders and alienate the land from the public. The review points to two examples, an aged-care facility at 10 Terminal and a proposal to turn Cockatoo Island into an art precinct. These proposals both brought a strong community backlash. So, to protect against inappropriate proposals, there are various levels of safeguards built into the governance of the trust, as well as the act. There is a proposal that leases over 25 years would be disallowable instruments, which affords the parliament an important oversight function. The review recognised the community concern and believed that leases of longer than 35 years should remain possible but be subject to parliamentary disallowance. However, following community advocacy, particularly by the Headland Preservation Group, on 16 March the government announced that it had halted plans to allow leases over 35 years on Sydney Harbour Federation Trust land. In my capacity as member for Warringah, and as a member of the trust advisory committee, I have been working with the Headland Preservation Group and have advocated strongly for the trust to remain true to its mandate and not allow leases for over 35 years. I congratulate HPG on their advocacy efforts. They have been working tirelessly in the background for almost 24 years to protect these lands. Items 4 and 8 of this bill implement these changes, and that is welcomed. The bill repeals section 64A and replaces it with a new provision that would prohibit the trust from entering leases or licences for a period of longer than 35 years. For leases between 25 and 35 years, HPG succeeded in guaranteeing strong safeguards on these proposals. The harbour trust will now have to set out a written statement of reasons explaining how the proposal is consistent with the act and plans approved under the act. The trust must also consult with the public and the community advisory committee. The final statement of reasons presented to the minister in parliament must include details of the community's feedback. The minister will then be afforded the discretion to judge whether the terms and conditions of the lease are consistent with the objects of the trust and the act and plans approved under part 5. There is no doubt that that is a win for the community and should go some way to alleviating concerns that these lands can be alienated from public use by way of long leases. It's an exciting time for the trust sites in Warringah as we look forward to the revitalisation of both North Head Sanctuary, with the recently released draft concept plan, and the 10 Terminal and Parklands Renewal Project. While some funding has been allocated, there is no doubt that it requires more. Unfortunately, since 2001 these lands have been allowed to dilapidate. Areas like North Head, of such rich cultural and military heritage, are falling apart. Whilst there are some uses available of these lands, they must be consistent with maintaining access and community engagement and use. I thank the government for the funding it has provided to these sites, but I will continue to advocate that there needs to be increased funding and continued support by the government to the trust. I have to thank the community groups very much. They have given so much of their time and their passion to ensuring these lands are protected. They have worked tirelessly, from shortly before Christmas in 2019, to ensure the community was heard, to ensure the community was mobilised and aware of the review, aware of the threat to commercialise these lands, and to ensure that their voice was heard. This is so important. It really highlights the importance of good communication between an organisation like the trust and the community in which it sits. For trust to develop, there needs to be broad consultation and open communication. The groups I would like to particularly thank are the North Head Sanctuary Foundation, the Headland Preservation Group, Mosman Parks and Bushland Association and the Friends of Quarantine Station. As a member of the trust community advisory committee, the North Head Sanctuary Bushfire Recovery Advisory Group and the 10 Terminal Reference Group, I look forward to continuing to work on behalf of the community to preserve these lands, protect them from development and maintain them as sanctuaries to be enjoyed and loved by all Australians. I thank everyone who contributed to the review of the trust. It has resulted in the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021. This bill works to further protect and preserve trust lands. I commend it to the House with my support. 18:14 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I'm very pleased to provide some summing-up remarks. Firstly, I thank the members who spoke passionately on this bill: the member for Fremantle; the member for Sydney; the member for Warringah, who we just heard from; the member for North Sydney—yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker; the member for Wentworth; the member for Grayndler, and the member for Reid. All recognised that these former defence sites are beautiful jewels in the crown of Sydney Harbour, remarkable for their Indigenous, natural and military history. This legislation demonstrates that the government is faithfully taking forward recommendations of the independent review of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. The legislation provides much-needed certainty for the trust to continue its works in protecting and preserving the values of its iconic sites by making it an ongoing entity. At the same time, it ensures the right governance is in place for the trust as it becomes that ongoing entity. The legislation will increase public confidence in the oversight of the trust by providing greater clarity around experience and knowledge requirements for the members. Importantly, the legislation reforms the review and approval processes for the long-term leasing and licencing of trust land and trust buildings. The changes will ensure that the trust has the flexibility to partner with others where it would clearly further the objectives of public access and amenity and that the public can continue to have confidence that the trust sites will be protected into the future from inappropriate commercialisation. I once again 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 Fremantle has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. So the immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

The House divided. [18:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

69 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 Evans, TM Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Hamilton, GR Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR 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, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wallace, AB Webster, AE Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 62 NOES Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE 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 Haines, H Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, G Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBain, KL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ Owens, JA Payne, AE Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

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

Consideration in Detail 66 18:25 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I have a question for the minister, in relation to section 24. Minister, it is the strong wish of the community that the trust lands remain in the hands of the Commonwealth. The government has committed to this, yet you are not amending section 24 of the act, which allows for the transfer of the trust lands to New South Wales or to an affected council. Could you please clarify why section 24 remains in the act and what protections the government gives in relation to this section being used at a later date, against the community's wishes, to transfer trust lands? 18:26 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I thank the member for Warringah for her question and assure her that the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill is faithful to the independent review but also to the wishes of the community. The independent review recommended that section 24 be retained. Recommendation 2 said: The Harbour Trust sites should remain in public hands. Existing protections to achieve this, such as s. 24 of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act 2001, should be maintained. The whole purpose of these amendments is to ensure that sites remain under Commonwealth protection and that the trust is an ongoing entity. Specifically, this bill removes from the original preamble the phrase 'as a transitional body' and the sentence 'The trust will transfer suitable land to New South Wales for inclusion in the national parks and reserves system.' I also draw the member's attention to my second reading speech on this bill, where I said: The independent review affirmed the community's strong support for these important sites to remain in federal government hands, managed by the trust on an ongoing basis. The government agrees with this proposition, and so the bill will ensure the sites remain in the hands of the trust into the future. We have consulted closely with the community on these important amendments, including those in the member's electorate, and I thank her for her own representations. I would particularly like to thank the Headland Preservation Group for their endorsement of this bill. When this legislation was introduced, the group said: 'Bearing in mind the great gains that have been made for the protection of trust lands, HPG wishes to support the amendment bill in its current form. HPG hopes for the passage of the amendment bill through parliament in a timely fashion, whereupon the trust is empowered to continue the nationally important works with which it has been entrusted.' The Morrison government has made it clear that it intends for the sites to stay in the hands of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust—by moving to make the harbour trust an ongoing entity, by tasking the harbour trust with refreshing the vision for Cockatoo Island and North Head Sanctuary and by investing $60 million in the harbour trust in our last budget. Bill agreed to. Third Reading 67 18:29 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 67

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

Second Reading 67 18:30 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021, which proposes to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to reduce the expenditure required by subscription television broadcasting licensees on new eligible drama expenditure from 10 per cent to five per cent, provide for subscription television captioning rules to be made by legislative instrument, remove the requirement that all frequency channels allotted or reserved in a digital radio channel plan be within the same frequency band, provide that a regional commercial radio broadcasting licensee does not breach a licence condition if it is only as a result of the Australian Communications and Media Authority making a new licence area population determination and extend the time frame for the ACMA to make grants under the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund beyond 30 June 2021. Once again this government presents piecemeal tinkering to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 when what we need is holistic reform. More fundamentally, this bill puts the incompetence of this coalition government and the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts up in lights, and it's not simply because the minister introduced this bill, on 25 March 2021, with an incorrect second reading speech—something I have never seen in my 11 years in this parliament—which necessitated a correction by the minister, who came back into the chamber two hours later. He can't even get a second reading speech right. It's not simply because this minister didn't appear to even know what his own bill did when he introduced it. More fundamentally, this bill highlights the government's ongoing policy failure and delay when it comes to securing the future of Australian stories on our screens, their ongoing failure and delay when it comes to ensuring timely support for public interest journalism in regional Australia and their ongoing failure to get long-term media reform right. I note this bill has been referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 June, and I welcome the scrutiny that process will afford. Likewise, I welcome the constructive suggestions of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and encourage the minister to address these satisfactorily. Labor will not stand in the way of minor regulatory housekeeping, which is much of what this bill presents, but we will not be a part of this government's attempt to dismantle bit by bit the Australian screen content rules without anything new being put in their place. Labor will not stand in the way of the changes to captioning rules, changes to digital radio channel plans, changes affecting regional commercial radio licensees or the extension of the time frame for the ACMA to make grants for original journalism. These measures may not be perfect, but Labor won't stand in their way. But Labor will not support the halving of Foxtel's Australian screen content obligation in the absence of new requirements to support the screening of stories on our screens. That is why Labor will move the amendment which has been circulated in my name, to omit schedule 1 from this bill. This amendment would excise the provisions relating to the new eligible drama expenditure scheme and allow the balance of the measures in the bill to pass with Labor's support. To be clear, Labor is prepared to pass all the measures in this bill save for the halving of Foxtel's Australian content obligation. The Australian screen content rules are the reason we have an Australian screen industry telling Australian stories to Australians and to the world. Content obligations have been a central driver of the production of Australian stories for years, but this government is watering them down bit by bit. The government has indeed been reviewing the Australian screen content rules—since 2017. That is how slow they have been, and they still haven't presented a full package of reforms to the parliament. On 6 May 2017, then Minister Fifield announced what he called a broad-ranging and comprehensive review of Australian and children's content. He said: The review will identify sustainable policies to ensure the ongoing availability of Australian and children's content to domestic and international audiences, regardless of platform. After all this time, there is still nothing to modernise Australian content obligations for the contemporary media environment, which now includes multiple streaming video platforms. It is now well over two years ago that Labor committed to Make it Australian. The Make It Australian campaign goes back 50 years, almost as long as this government has been reviewing the rules. With its most recent push, it reminds us that in the 1960s there was no government support for an Australian film and television industry, because there was no Australian film and television industry. In 1961, guess how much drama on Australian television was Australian? It was just one per cent. Admittedly, that was only a few years after the introduction of television, but unfortunately the imbalance persisted. In the 1970s, in response to a lack of Australian stories on Australian screens, the industry united under the banner Make It Australian to demand action on local content. This prompted a response in Canberra that saw things improve. The Australian screen sector, of which we are all so proud, didn't just grow out of nothing. It is not a naturally occurring thing. For all the deserved praise of Australia's world-class screen industry, the fact is that its success is underpinned by an enabling framework that includes subsidies, content quotas and other incentives. The modern-day Make It Australian campaign was launched by the screen sector in response to the growth of new platforms, services and technologies—new services which aren't captured by the policy and regulatory framework, but whose growth and uptake cannot be ignored. In 2012, the final report of the Convergence review, which was commissioned by the previous Labor government, noted this trend and recommended that significant media enterprises be drawn into a new policy and regulatory framework. The review proposed a new uniformed content scheme to apply to all content service enterprises that provide professional drama, documentary or children's content and that meet certain scale and service criteria. This: … reflects the view that those enterprises that stand to make the most from the Australian market should make the greatest contribution to the achievement of public policy outcomes. The review thought it appropriate to set a high bar for regulation in order to exclude small and emerging content providers as well as user generated content. Based on the information available to the review at the time, it was considered that a revenue threshold of $200 million and an audience threshold of half a million was consistent with sustainable investment in Australian content. At that time, there were no comparable enterprises to the traditional free-to-air and subscription broadcasters of sufficient scale to qualify for the scheme. But the review noted: In the future it is realistic to expect that this group of services will be joined by non-broadcast services as those services continue to expand in line with shifts in consumer preferences. How true that has become. Where are we now, some eight years later? Australians continue to love broadcast television but are embracing online, catch-up TV and, for those who can afford and access it, subscription services as well. Of course, nowadays subscription services include streaming, video-on-demand services as well as broadcasting services. On 15 February 2021, the department's Bureau of Communications, Arts and Regional Research released analysis that shows subscription video on demand services continue to boom. The analysis states: … Australians are continuing to subscribe to subscription video on demand (SVOD) services, like Stan, Netflix and Amazon Prime in record numbers. Over 70 per cent of Australians are now accessing SVOD services. Netflix remains the most popular platform, with over 13 million accessing the service by June 2020. That is to say, services regarded as small or emerging at the time of the Convergence Review have grown and firmly established themselves. Australians have a broader range of choices at their fingertips, and now creatives have an expanded range of opportunities. It is great news that these new platforms are sites where Australian content can be found and can be used to take Australian content to the world, but what is concerning is that the policy and regulatory framework has not kept pace. This government has wasted a lot of time and resources on the question of updating the regulatory framework to address the rise of streaming services. Since May 2017 the government has run repeated consultation rounds on these issues yet still has not resolved the question. The department, the ACMA and Screen Australia have been raking over these issues for years, and stakeholders have been living with the anticipation and uncertainty of multiple consultation rounds the whole time. The minister's green paper is the most recent consultation process to be conducted on the question, to which submissions have only just closed. While the government continues to balk at regulating streaming services, which other jurisdictions around the world have already done, the government removes existing regulation. Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act to reduce the expenditure required by subscription television broadcasting licensees on new eligible drama from 10 per cent to five per cent. The explanatory memorandum notes that this measure would have a 'modest positive impact' for subscription broadcasters by reducing content expenditure, regulatory burden and levelling the playing feel with unregulated online streaming services. However, importantly, it also notes it will have 'a moderate negative impact on the production sector' as current expenditure could drop from around $25 million to $12½ million. The bill proposes to halve Foxtel's Australian screen content obligation without putting anything in its place, such as requirements for streaming services like Netflix to produce Australian content. This comes on top of the government's recent decision to water down Australian screen content rules for commercial free-to-air television broadcasters. On 30 September 2020, the minister announced changes to the drama, documentary and children's content subquota under the Australian content rules for broadcasters. At the time, Labor said that these changes would mean fewer Australian stories on our television screens and fewer job opportunities for local creators. In response to this announcement, children's television producers wrote to the minister, saying they had been left 'stranded' by the changes. They wrote to the minister as follows: As children's content producers, we are businesses that move with the times. We recognise that our audiences have shifted their viewing to include VOD platforms like Netflix, Amazon, Disney+ and Apple and welcome the opportunities this shift provides. We strongly support a progressive outlook for Australian children's content in an evolving on-demand world and we agree with the Federal Government on the need for policy change that supports a market driven approach to the sector. But in abolishing the Free To Air quotas for children's content, with no corresponding legislation in place for the streamers or other adjustments, the Federal government has left the sector stranded. Remember, these are businesses. In many cases, these are small businesses. Supposedly a core constituency of those opposite like to refer to them as the 'engine room' of the Australian economy. Well, these people are the engine room of the Australian content sector, and they say they have been left 'stranded' by this hapless minister and this government. Ultimately, these changes did not come before parliament but were affected by the ACMA by standard, not subject to disallowance at the direction of the minister. These were the same subquotas that were suspended in 2020 as an emergency COVID-19 measure and then re-introduced in a watered-down form from 1 January 2021. The government continues to kick the question of regulation of the streaming platforms down the road, failing to follow the lead of other countries by requiring them to invest in local content and create local jobs, including for local small businesses. The minister has failed to make it Australian. He has failed the creators and small businesses that comprise the screen sector. He has failed Australians who want more Australian stories, and he's even failed his own test. The minister previously announced that he would harmonise the regulatory framework and address the disparity in regulation between broadcasters and online streaming services. The minister himself noted that the French, German and Canadian governments are moving to require platforms like Netflix and Amazon to invest in local content, but he has failed to utilise parliament's time to deliver on this today in this bill. Bit by bit, the Morrison government is dismantling the Australian content rules, again, I say, without putting anything new in place. The government has cut ABC funding, which has reduced the funding available for the ABC to invest in Australian content. The government has watered down Australian-content obligations for commercial television broadcasters, and now, as I said, with this bill, they want to halve Foxtel's expenditure obligation. Again, for streaming providers, there are no regulatory obligations at all. Similar to the sector, Labor is realistic and pragmatic. We recognise the need to modernise the screen content rules. We have consistently advised industry stakeholders since May 2017 that greater flexibility and modernisation are acceptable but that there must be something in its place. Labor will not be part of the dismantling of Australian content rules into a regulatory void. Labor acknowledges the challenging market conditions and the regulatory disparity between broadcasters and streaming services, but I tell you what: this bill is not the answer. Labor is prepared to reconsider its position on the proposed halving of the new eligible drama expenditure requirement if and when—and we're not holding our breath—the Morrison government finally gets its act together and introduces legislation to regulate streaming services. For this reason, Labor will move to amend the bill to omit schedule 1 relating to subscription broadcasters during consideration in detail on this bill. I now wish to turn to the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund. On 14 September 2017, the government first announced the Regional and Publishers Innovation Fund. The media release heralded a new era for Australia's media, claiming: The government is strengthening Australia's media industry, enhancing media diversity and securing local journalism jobs, particularly in regional areas. At the time Labor warned that the fund was ill conceived, ideological and inadequate and that it would be too little, too late for many media organisations. Fast forward to today and it is indeed clear that this fund was poorly conceived and inadequate. Scores of newspapers have closed. Hundreds of journalism jobs have been lost. This fund has had a very chequered history. It has been underspent, it remains underspent and it is expected to be underspent. The eligibility requirements have been altered as the government has made this intervention up as it went along. When the fund was originally introduced, departmental officials made it clear that they had not been involved in drafting the eligibility criteria, which were tainted with ideology. Later the fund was examined as part of the ACCC's digital platforms inquiry, which reported in June 2019. The ACCC found: … many stakeholders were unsatisfied with Round 1 of the Innovation Fund grants, which allocated only AU$3.6 million of the AU$12.4 million available for the round. Publishers expressed concerns that: the eligibility criteria were politicised and designed to exclude certain publishers the application and assessment process was too complex and not suitably targeted to small and regional publishers without the organisational expertise and resources to successfully apply the grants focused on 'innovative' technology-based projects rather than on securing the sustainability of struggling small and regional publishers. The ACCC ultimately recommended that the fund be repurposed. The fund was majority underspent when in April 2020 the government repurposed around $36 million of it and re-announced it as the $50 million Public Interest News Gathering, or PING, fund, which has since been allocated to regional publishers as well as regional broadcasters. Overall, the repurposing of the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund into the PING reduced the amount available to publishers. In the 2018 round of funding, only $3.6 million was allocated. In the 2019 round of funding, $9 million was allocated. Then, in 2020, $5 million was set aside for grants to regional and metropolitan publishers and content service providers of public interest journalism. At Senate estimates last week, the ACMA confirmed that it anticipates the 2020 funding round will too be underspent. On 27 May, the chair of the ACMA stated: 'There is $3.7 million yet to be committed, but we expect a small underspend as well, particularly in cases where grantees have asked to withdraw from the grant for various reasons of their own.' The chair then clarified that the small underspend would be under a million dollars. The failure to get this fund out the door in a timely manner is an indictment on this government and its failure to support regional media. It is a travesty that taxpayer funds intended for a sector in desperate need have not been put to work in supporting public interest journalism in our democracy. What's more, even if the amounts for this fund and the PING were combined, the total amount announced to support the media sector with direct funding grants is in fact less than what the ACCC recommended in the digital platforms inquiry. The ACCC concluded that $150 million over three years would be required before the program is reviewed in addition to stable and adequate funding for the public broadcasters. Labor considers that the minister should announce further funding in accordance with the ACCC recommendations to ensure that direct grants reach the media outlets in need. I now turn to the provisions impacting commercial radio licensees. Labor notes the concerns of the commercial radio industry with this bill. The nature of these concerns begs the question as to whether the sector was even properly consulted on this bill. Commercial radio has concerns regarding the proposed addition of a sunset clause in section 43C(4) with respect to local content and section 52 with respect to control of licences. The explanatory memorandum to the bill states that the addition of the sunset clause signals the government's commitment to undertaking a review of the exemptions, to look at whether they remain appropriate and relevant and how they affect the market, licensees and the community. However, Commercial Radio Australia has flagged that the protection offered by section 43C(4) and section 52 should be retained and should not be subject to review or sunset in five years' time. CRA states that commercial radio stations have no control over the determinations made by the ACMA under section 30 of the Broadcasting Services Act. They submit it would therefore be inequitable for radio stations to find themselves inadvertently in breach of the act and prescribed licence conditions simply because the ACMA varies a population determination. The Senate inquiry into the bill presents an opportunity for further consideration of these concerns, but I do note them here. Turning to the changes to captioning obligations, schedule 2 on captioning obligations provides for subscription television captioning rules to be made by legislative instrument rather than statute. The explanatory memorandum notes the benefit is to allow for rules to be amended in a more timely and efficient manner in line with the changing circumstances of industry and the views of Australians for whom captioning enhances their access to broadcast television. It is expected that future legislative instruments will be made following public consultation in which the views of persons with a disability are expressly sought. I understand that the disability sector is disappointed this amendment answers industry calls for a reduction in regulatory burden but not calls from the disability sector for enhanced captioning quality. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has sought and received further responses from the minister about these measures, as well as made constructive suggestions which we encourage the minister to address. In conclusion, this government is now into its eighth year in power. In this time, they have had ample opportunity to effect holistic media reform. They have had the benefit of multiple reviews, inquiries and reports, each making recommendations for holistic reform, from the Convergence Review to the report of the Digital Platforms Inquiry. But the bill before us is yet more piecemeal tinkering from this government, and piecemeal tinkering has not served the media sector well. Tinkering with broken analog-era laws drafted decades ago simply doesn't cut it when what is necessary is an overhaul for the digital age. When this government heralded a new era for Australia's media, back in 2017, Labor along with many others warned the government that its so-called media reforms were piecemeal and inadequate. We warned them that relying on secret deals with cross-bench senators to pass legislation, rather than on decent policy, wouldn't stand the test of time. Australia's media sector, particularly regional media, has weathered drought, cyclones, floods, bushfires, a mouse plague and digital disruption. In addition, government policy neglect left the sector exposed to external shocks, and it has been hard hit by COVID-19 and the recession. But one of the biggest obstacles facing regional media and the screen sector is this government, which feels no urgency to do its job to modernise and harmonise the regulatory framework. In response to the hefty final report of the ACCC Digital Platforms Inquiry, the minister committed in 2019 to starting a staged process to reform media regulations, covering both online and offline media. He even released a so-called road map for action, something Labor had been calling for for years. But, I tell you what, it's a road to nowhere. The map is blank. It makes no mention of regional media reform and has no media reform processes or time frames beyond 2020, let alone any guiding principles or markers. In response, the industry has just made submissions to the minister's green-paper process, itself proposing a road map that has for so long been lacking. The minister did commit to reviewing content regulation but, sadly, has squibbed on that, leaving broadcasters with watered-down regulations for Australian and children's screen content, while letting global streaming services like Netflix off the hook. As I have said, Labor will not be a party to the watering down of Australian content rules, and Labor urges the government to address the recommendations of the ACCC Digital Platforms Inquiry, including in relation to direct funding for regional media. To that end, I move the second reading amendment as circulated in my name. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes: (1) on 6 May 2017, the Coalition Government announced "a broad ranging and comprehensive review of Australian and children's content", yet over four years later there is still no sign of an Australian content obligation for streaming services; (2) the Government has relaxed obligations on commercial free-to-air television broadcasters for Australian drama, documentary and children's programs; (3) on 14 September 2017, the Coalition Government first announced the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, yet almost four years later some funding is still not allocated; and (4) the ongoing delay and uncertainty in Government support and reform is undermining jobs and content in the screen sector and public interest journalism industry in Australia". The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Gorman 74519 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Greenway 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. 18:57 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I'm pleased to rise to speak to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill. The amendments proposed in this bill are designed so that Australia's media can continue to provide services that are not only relevant but engaging for audiences in the metropolitan and regional, rural and remote communities right across the country. The changes will also enable our broadcasters to focus on what they do best, which is provide great local content without irrelevant, burdensome regulations. The bill will ensure that there's a level playing field for all broadcasters, whether they be free, or subscription and streaming services, as we have seen evolve over the past decade. Perhaps most importantly, this bill also ensures that Australians have a choice as to how and when they access media and broadcasting services. Broadcasting and subscription media have changed significantly since the current arrangements in the act were introduced in 2012. The introduction of subscription video-on-demand services such as Netflix; Stan; Disney+, for those of us who've got kids; and Optus Sport, and increased competition for advertising revenue from Google and Facebook, paid TV and paid news content have seen the industry evolve at an extremely rapid rate. It's fair to say that the current state of play in the market makes it extremely difficult for what we term the traditional media outlets, such as the humble newspaper serving its community, as an example, when compared with the rapid rise of these new digital services and streaming services. The size and the complexity of the existing framework is arguably excessive for an industry sector that's operating in a far different environment than when this legislation was originally introduced. We've got free-to-air broadcasting, radio and local newspapers competing with subscription and live-streaming services, so it's important these amendments be made to ensure that there is a fair and equitable playing field for all broadcasters. A key component of this amendment relates to the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund. This program provides individual grants of up to $400,000 to publishers to assist in increasing the sustainability of regional print and online news-publishing activities including news gathering, production and distribution. However, COVID-19 has delayed the delivery of the projects under this fund and the Australian Communications and Media Authority's administration of those financial grants to successful applicants by the closing date of 30 June 2021. If the proposed amendment to extend the time frame doesn't occur, the ACMA will no longer have legislative authority to award grants and make those instalment payments, which are so important, beyond June 2021. What that would mean effectively is that some regional and small publishers may miss out on the funding if they've not been able to meet their milestones before the expiration of that program, which would be absolutely devastating for them. This program is so important for regional publishers as many of them have struggled and will continue to struggle, as a result of the pandemic, from competition and other broadcasting services. Particularly in my region, local regional and rural news services are key to ensuring all residents, no matter where they live, have access to the latest in local news. The news outlets not only provide news but also provide jobs, encourage diversity of opinion, provide information for local communities on local happenings and keep older Australians connected with their communities. In my electorate, 30 per cent of residents are aged 65-plus. Very often, particularly in lower socioeconomic areas, their only source of information is via the local newspaper and local radio station or locally produced TV news content. Indeed, a large number of older Australians don't have access to digital services or paid subscriptions and live-streaming services. They might not have had the NBN put on, they might not want it or they might not be able to afford it. They may not be tech savvy enough to do it. These changes are very, very important, and we need to make sure that those older Australians don't fall through the gaps where traditional news services are winding back and leaving just the digital services. Sadly, in my electorate and of course in many regional communities, we've seen the demise of long-running newspaper mastheads and broadcasting services. Programs such as the regional and small publishers innovation program are designed to support them and to ensure that they have long-term sustainability. But the loss of local mastheads in my electorate on the Mid North Coast includes the Bellingen Shire Courier-Sun and the Nambucca Guardian News, and that's had a major effect not only on how residents access their local news but also during their day-to-day lives. For many residents, when they take a trip down to buy their daily paper or their weekly paper, it's not just a trip to buy the paper. They go down as part of their daily routine. They catch up with the person behind the counter or someone at a cafe, or they go and buy their milk or their bread, before they turn around and make that trip back home to read the latest news. So it does make a difference to their daily or weekly ritual. The Port Macquarie News is another publication that has altered the way it provides services. It continues to be published in the Port Macquarie-Hastings area, but, instead of tri-weekly, it's now published just once a week, while its sister publication, the Port Macquarie Express, is no longer printed at all. To see these historically important publications forced to cease or reduce printing shows the severe consequences of the existing uneven playing field. However, there is some good news for local readers—particularly those in the beautiful Nambucca Valley. Whilst a number of the local services in the electorate have closed down, encouragingly, in the last month, a new, independent newspaper has begun publishing. The Nambucca Valley's News of the Area is distributing approximately 5,000 copies across the region, to keep residents up to date with what's going on, and it is evening up that playing field. So the decision to publish in the Nambucca area needs the support of these proposed changes, so we can continue to see local people employed to produce local content. There is also a reducing percentage of Australian content being broadcast. It is so important that we don't lose that great Australian drama or those documentaries or access to local sport or children's shows or 'soapies', as we call them. That home-grown content is so valuable to our culture. It provides opportunities for Australians and young talent to be featured on the international stage. If I said things like, 'How's the serenity?' or, 'Tell him he's dreamin',' or, 'That's going straight to the pool room,' you'd know exactly what I was talking about. And that's the Australian content and the Australian talent that we need to support. This bill modernises Australian content rules for commercial free-to-air broadcasters. It provides greater support for the production and the distribution of Australian content across a range of media, whether they be the free media, subscription TV or streaming services. In conclusion, the measures in this amending bill demonstrate the government's commitment to reform and to streamlining regulation across the broadcasting industry. With the rapid uptake of digital broadcasting services and the impact that that has had on our way of life, it is vitally important for legislation and regulation to reflect the current environment. The bill will ensure Australia's media industry can and will continue to provide services that are relevant and engaging for audiences in the metropolitan, regional, rural and remote communities right across this country, and I commend it to the House. 19:08 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I think the member for Cowper and I might be reading different legislation, because, far from improving the situation for Australian creatives, this legislation contains one particular section that, on our side, we will not be supporting, and that is: undermining the existing content quotas for pay television services. The reason it's so important that these are not halved—which is what this legislation will do—is that, as the member for Cowper said, we do need to see Australian stories on our screens, but this piece of legislation is not going to make that happen. In fact, it will undermine it significantly. For a kid in the 1960s, when I was growing up, there wasn't a lot of Australian content. There was no government support at that time for Australian film and television. There was no real Australian screen industry. In 1961, it was something like one per cent of drama on TV was Australian drama, and the other 99 per cent was foreign. That only changed when, in the 1970s, there were decisions made to support the Australian television industry. There were actually marches in the 1970s demanding local content quotas. That's where it started. It was a direct result of that that we started to see Australian stories more and more on our screens. By the time my kids were born in the 1990s and watching television, they were able to see a lot of Australian stories, everything from the Adventures of Blinky Bill through to Bananas in Pyjamas—all the great Aussie kid stuff. As they have grown they have been able to be really nurtured and nourished by absolute quality Australian drama on our screens. The devices on which we watch these things have changed, but Australian drama remains one of the few things that allows us to see who we are in the myriad of genres that is there. I don't know if it was watching Australian drama that was one of the reasons, but I have a daughter who is an actor. She wants to tell Australian stories, and I despair when I see legislation like this that will hit people in the industry, people who for the last year have seen things dry up. There are foreign productions here and they're hiring people, but very few of them are telling Australian stories; they're telling international stories. That's not to say that we shouldn't be making our stories head overseas. I remember living in New York in 1988. Of course, that was the era of Crocodile Dundee and one of our Australian stories was being well and truly told across the United States then. We should be ambitious. We should be trying to share our stories with the world, but we should not—and we will not on this side—be supporting legislation that makes it harder for those stores to even get made. What we have here is a piecemeal approach to adapting to the changing platforms that we're facing. Whether it's people watching on iPads, whether it's streaming or whether it is the changes that are affecting pay TV, none of those things should be dealt with in isolation. Unfortunately, this is what the government has been doing time and time again, ever since it first talked about trying to bring our laws into the more modern environment. I think it was four years ago that they started talking about it. Yet here we are, in 2021, and we're getting little bits of stuff happening along the way. The reduction in expenditure required by subscription television broadcasting licences on new eligible drama expenditure from 10 per cent to five per cent, which is what this legislation contains, will, according to the creatives who live in my electorate of Macquarie, covering the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury—and there are many creatives who use the mountains and call the mountains home—be a death knell on their industry. That's not just actors and directors; that's writers, set designers, graphic designers, the composers who write the music et cetera—the ecosystem of creatives who are involved in getting something from someone's concept in their head onto a screen. So we cannot support this. We'll support every other thing in this legislation but, as the member for Greenway has moved, we're moving an amendment to excise that particular section of the bill. When I look at the bill and this part of it it really highlights the ongoing failure and the delay that the government has created when it comes to supporting Australian stories on our screens. Another area of the legislation that we're asked to pass here, which is around public interest journalism, also highlights a failure. I will speak about that a bit later, but it's basically a failure to get media reform in all its elements right. So, while we won't stand in the way of changes to captioning rules, the digital radio channel plans, the regional commercial radio licensees or the time frame for ACMA to make grants to regional journalism, we will not be supporting the halving of Foxtel's Australian screen content obligation without any new requirements being put in its place. I want to take you to these screen content rules in more detail, and just think about the time line that we've had since 2017. The minister—Minister Fifield at the time—very boldly announced a broad-ranging and comprehensive review of Australian and children's content. This was a review that would identify sustainable policies to ensure the ongoing availability of Australian and children's content to domestic and international audiences regardless of platform. That was a very noble ambition, and I wish that's what we were here talking about today. But, after all this time, there is nothing modernising the Australian content obligations for this contemporary media environment. The proposal in the bill to halve Foxtel's Australian screen content obligation without putting anything in its place—nothing such as requirements for streaming services like Netflix to produce Australian content—really means that when you combine it with other things that have happened there are very few opportunities for Australian stories to be supported. If anything, this throws a blanket, a wet blanket, over the creativity of telling those stories. It comes on top of the recent decision to water down the Australian screen content rules for commercial free-to-air broadcasters. You know, in the middle of COVID, under the cover of COVID, the minister announced changes to the subquota of drama, documentary and children's content on commercial TV. It was interesting that those changes did not come to the parliament but they were made by ACMA at the direction of the minister. Those same subquotas were then suspended as the emergency COVID measure and reintroduced in a watered down form from 1 July. At that time we said that the changes would mean fewer Australian stories and fewer job opportunities for local creators. Let me tell you what one of my constituents said about that change, about the plans to scrap quotas for local drama and children's programming: 'As a writer who's worked in the local industry for the past 12 years, I know how integral the current quota system is to ensuring that Australian audiences can see new quality content that both entertains and informs. Most kids shows are put together with money from a range of sources, both here and overseas, but a local sale through one of the major broadcasters has for every production company I've ever worked for provided the basis upon which the remainder of the finance is then secured. Without that linchpin, the viability of locally produced kids' content is very much under threat. The viability of my career as a writer and the careers of thousands of other creatives currently producing, engaging and enriching screen content that sells all around the world is under threat.' That's what the government did at the start of this year. That's the sort of impact that comes from decisions made by this government. The government continues to kick the can down the road on comprehensive changes, comprehensive reform. I don't think the government knows what reform is. There's just lots of tweaking around the edges, none of it being matched up with any commensurate changes. The current minister, Minister Fletcher, has failed creators and the small businesses who really make up the screen sector, and, let's be clear, this are small businesses. These are small, independent operators. The people who live and work in the Blue Mountains have an ecosystem of their own, and their work generates work for other businesses, but they are all small. For a party that is meant to be supporting small business, those opposite do a terrible job of supporting the creatives, and that's without even talking about how many people missed out on JobKeeper in the last 12 months. It does seem that there is a determination to destroy these businesses, because for some reason being creative does not in their eyes constitute a small business. I might add that the poor quality of the NBN in my region also adds to that effect. It makes it hard for people to get businesses and to get the bandwidth they need, especially the creatives, to be able to operate. The current minister has even failed his own test on these measures. He previously announced that he would harmonise the regulatory framework and address the disparity in regulation between broadcasters and online streaming services. At a time when the French, German and the Canadian governments are all moving to require platforms like Netflix and Amazon to invest in local content, there is an absolute vacuum on that issue here. That just says it all. The content rules are being dismantled effectively by this government, leaving only the ABC as a body that will invest, yet its funding is under extraordinary pressure and is being reduced. The content obligations for commercial TV are watered down and there is a halving of Foxtel's expenditure and nothing for the streamers. That is why we will not be supporting that component of the bill. I support the amendment that has been moved by the member for Greenway. In the couple of minutes I have left, I will touch briefly on the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, which has clearly been an absolute dud in supporting and helping to maintain local independent journalism. I draw attention to the decisions being made by ACM in my electorate, where the North Richmond printing facility has been closed. That doesn't directly affect journalists' jobs, but it affects the other jobs that go with that process. It means there have been job losses. What's more, a lot of people have been kept on casual arrangements, and they are not receiving redundancies that are commensurate with the years that they've worked, even though they've worked regular shifts and regular days for years and years. I've had women in their 50s who have had the same shifts for decades, yet they are being considered as casuals and are not receiving redundancies for that time. When I see that these sorts of publishers are being given incentives, the incentives have been the wrong ones. They haven't achieved the outcomes that we need, and that is independent journalism—I say this is a former journalist and a commercial broadcaster. We need those voices. We need a multitude of voices to hold governments to account. I don't care who is in government, that is going to be the job of journalists, but this government is getting rid of those voices, which is an appalling situation to be in for the sake of a democracy. This bill, this overall package of legislation, has many disappointments. It is disappointing that the government is having to extend and change the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund. They had to change it to the PING Fund and now want to bring about more changes to it. We will support those, but we will not support a watering down of Australian content on pay TV. 19:23 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to talk on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021. I mentioned No. 1, so I can only assume there is a No. 2 in the pipework somewhere. This is a really important bill that comes at a very critical time, a pivotal time, for traditional broadcasters. Other speakers have mentioned it earlier, but it has affected TV, radio and subscription TV services. Content producers, Australian screen producers and children's television show producers are all affected by this phenomenon. Digital disruption has been an existential problem not just for the traditional news platforms but for all of free TV, due to the growth of streaming services, video on demand and the social media platforms that we are all familiar with, like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and Google, which has got its own version of most things. They are all digital platforms that are disrupting traditional ways that Australians watch and listen to their media. Unfortunately, because most of this is commercially run, not government run, this phenomenon is not just diverting eyeballs and eardrums away from traditional media, including newspapers; it is taking away the advertising revenue. That's why these reviews and changes to the legislation have to be critically looked at. Regional news services in TV—the lifeblood of regional life—have recently closed. People are familiar with the announcement of WIN to close many of its regional news outlets. The announcement also included it merging with Channel 9. Recently, Prime new services have been reduced across eastern and southern Australia. It's been sad in the Lyne electorate for viewers of those TV news services. It's sad that so many high-quality journalists, cameramen, advertising sales staff and back-office support won't have the job that they were so proud of. This is not due to government regulation; this is due to disruption. The digital sweep through traditional media services takes no prisoners. It is ruthless in changing the pattern of what consumers do. The government is in a very difficult position. The current regulations have many anomalies, which I'd better quickly get to, because we're about to finish. We all want free TV to continue and we all like our traditional regional radio services, but there are some regulatory burdens that are not to do with the digital phenomenon; some of them are to do with population changes and population growth. There might be some concern about the TV captioning regulatory changes, but I will make sure that, for people with disabilities, there is always some captioning service that is still there. From what I can see from the legislation, that will be the case. There are also changes that need to be addressed in the digital radio space because now there is only one spectrum band for digital radio, so removing redundant legislation that covered many different bands is necessary for digital radio. There are some radio licensees who, just by virtue of population growth, will now have overlapping services, and they haven't done anything apart from being in an area of population growth. But that will put them in breach of their ACMA regulations and their statutory control regulations. Instead of having to provide 30 minutes of local coverage, they will have to provide up to three hours worth. Clearly that is not possible, so common sense has to apply. Just by being there and doing what they've always done, they will attract fines of up to $444,000. I would like to speak more, and I think I will be given the right to continue should I reach the limit of time allotted for this debate, but our screen industry is a treasure that must be cherished. How would we see ourselves if we hadn't had shows like Mad Max, Rabbit-Proof Fence, Kath and Kim, Muriel's Wedding, Bluey, Happy Feet, The Castle, Strictly Ballroom, Crocodile Dundee and, recently, The Dry? These movies and television programs define our culture. They're a tourism magnet. They show Australia to the world, and their makers need to be reassured that we're going to make the video-streaming-on-demand people meet the same content criteria that all the traditional media have to meet. There is a disconnect, because they have got a leave pass. Other countries are putting content and quota laws in place—in Europe, in Canada. I could go on for a lot longer, and I look forward to finishing this speech. ADJOURNMENT 76 ADJOURNMENT COVID-19 76 19:30 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga [by video link] Tonight I am joining you from lockdown in Melbourne. I must begin by acknowledging all the people in my electorate tonight who are doing it tough because this is an extremely difficult time for all of us. We are tired and we are anxious. We have a little bit of deja vu. We have a lot of worry about what is to come next. We are people doing home schooling and trying to juggle that against work. We are people worried about our businesses. We are worried about our relatives in aged care. As I said, we are people who do not know what is coming next. I know people in my community are doing everything they can to pull themselves and to pull those around them through. It is not made any easier by seeing government members on the other side failing to acknowledge their role in where we are right now. It is not made any easier to have a Prime Minister who told us it wasn't 'a race' to get vaccinated. Well, now we are not vaccinated and the virus is running through our community. Our relatives in aged care are vulnerable. We don't even know how many workers in aged care have been vaccinated. None of that is helping people in Melbourne at the moment. The failure from government members to acknowledge their responsibility, to explain how they are going to pick up and fix these gaps they have left, none that have is helping any of us in lockdown here in Melbourne at the moment. We are looking for accountability. We are looking for a government that owns the problems it has created and works out how to fix them and fix them quickly, because we can't do this for too much longer. We need a government that is acting on our behalf and a government that understands what we are going through. I do though want to try to look for some of the positives that may come from this pandemic. As we all adjust and continue to adjust to what the pandemic brings to us, there are things that we should consider as positives and things that may be useful for us to take forward. Tonight, for me, appearing in this way, one of the big things that I think is positive is our use of virtual parliament. It is an important update to the procedures and to the way that we run the parliament as a more modern and flexible workplace. I know, for me, there is no way that I would be able to do my job in the middle of this pandemic, represent my constituents and look after my family without this option of having virtual parliament. So tonight I have come back into the office to give this speech after ducking home to make sure I could support doing toddler bath time, baby bath time, getting them into bed, coming back into the office and giving this speech. It's really important for me to acknowledge that that's what I've done and that's what I'm able to do, because I think too often one of the things that stops people from seeing themselves in our chamber, that stops people from thinking that they might be able to put their hand up and be a representative in the federal parliament is that what happens in the chamber looks nothing like their lives. What happens in our lives is that we are in Canberra often for half the year. There are a lot of people in our community who can't set up their lives like that. They can't think, 'I can be away from my family, from my caring responsibilities for half the year.' Particularly a lot of women think like that because, let's be honest, it is women who do a lot of the caring in our community. I think that hurts us all because it means that our parliament can draw from a smaller group of people than it should be able to. When we look in our parliament, we don't have enough women. A lot of us are white. A lot of us come from certain backgrounds and the same backgrounds. We could only be improved by having more diversity in our parliament. Embracing things such as virtual parliament and the opportunities that it brings for people to be flexible the way they work yet still represent their community and still have their voice heard in parliament is really important. As I said, it's particularly important for women. We have seen this year what it looks like when we don't hear women's voices in our parliament, what it looks like when women are not in the ears of government, when women are not in the top positions in our community. What it looks like is a government that forgot women, a government that didn't get that women were being harmed in our building. We need to understand that the more representative, the more flexible our parliament can be, the more likely that women can see themselves there. The saying is you can't be what you can't see. I very much hope that we can find a way post-pandemic to keep some elements of the flexibility that we have introduced into the parliament during this pandemic. It has made a difference. It is making a difference to those of us who are there now, but I very much hope it will make a difference to the people who can see themselves being there in the future. South Australia: Energy 77 19:35 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey This week there's been some very good news for South Australia, with the agreement by TransGrid in New South Wales to build their end of the new Project EnergyConnect transmission line between South Australia and New South Wales. Of course, ElectraNet in South Australia have been keen proponents of this deal. This will build a new 800 megawatt line from South Australia to New South Wales. Currently we have two interconnectors to the eastern states, and they both run to Victoria. There is Riverlink, which is capable of transmitting 250 megawatts, and Haywood, which is 650 megawatts. Getting virtually a doubling of capacity here will not only give security to South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales but will also give us the ability to keep pushing that envelope on renewable energy. We shouldn't gild the lily. The $2.3 billion that will be spent on this project is a direct result of the transformation of energy production in Australia. We didn't need to have this backup from other states. We didn't need to have these other markets before we moved into renewable energy, which is by definition variable-rate energy, rather than large gas- and coal-fired power stations, which put out a constant amount of electricity. This, along with pumped hydro, batteries and investment in open-cycle gas power stations, is part of the transitional cost of getting to renewable energy. You can't keep building renewable energy unless you've got that backup capacity. So all of those things have an important part to play. In South Australia, we've reach the point now where last year about 60 per cent of our electricity came from renewable sources. A lot of that is coming from rooftop solar, which is difficult to manage, it must be said. There are some large investments in solar farms, about 250 to 300 megawatts, but the largest proportion is wind energy, with over 2,000 megawatt nameplate capacity. There are also projects under construction in my electorate at the moment, still being built, so that will add to that supply. Interestingly enough, AEMO decrees that no more than 1,300 megawatts of wind energy can be generated in South Australia at any one time, because it is too unstable; it is a risk to the grid. Already we have capacity which is turned off on windier days, and we're building more capacity, so this interconnector through to New South Wales is so important for the growth of that industry. What will happen is that electrons that are generated by renewable energy in South Australia will find their way into Snowy Hydro 2.0, where that energy will be stored and fed back into the grid at the appropriate time. Just a couple of weeks ago I attended a 'pouring of the concrete' for an ElectraNet project which is building a 150—upgradeable to 250—megawatt transmission line to Eyre Peninsula, replacing an old line. There is a lot of new demand coming on from Eyre Peninsula for projects that will need electricity, and it is one of the prime sites in Australia for wind energy. At the moment, the connector to the peninsula is overloaded. There are two wind farms on EP, and if they are generating at full capacity the line is full, so there has been no capacity to build more renewable energy on that very high-yielding coast facing the Southern Ocean. An older man once said to me, 'You always know when you get back to South Australia—the trees all lean one way.' Within 200 kilometres of the coast, he's pretty much right, and it's because all of our coastline fronts onto the Great Southern Ocean, which sends a lot of wind in our direction. That's sometimes for better and sometimes for worse, but in this particular case it will open up great new opportunities for investment in more renewable energy in South Australia. Because we have land that is comparatively cheap and available in the outback, where the building of these solar and wind structures that generate electricity is not so contested, I can see South Australia becoming a real energy giant when it comes to the generation of renewable electricity and feeding it back into the national grid. Petition: Inland Rail 77 19:40 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi by leave—I table a set of documents which contain a petition that seeks the abandonment of the ARTC's proposal for a railway overpass bridge and a proper and detailed analysis of an alternative for referral to the Standing Committee on Petitions for consideration. I'm proud to walk alongside the citizens of Euroa. They're on a journey to get a railway precinct upgrade that their community deserves. I'm honoured to be their representative both here in this place and home on the ground. Euroa is one of the towns in my electorate affected by the Inland Rail upgrade. The station precinct and the Anderson Street bridge will need significant work to safely accommodate double-stacked freight trains. Two options are under consideration: replacing the current Anderson Street bridge, or building a vehicle underpass—a road-under-rail solution. The community is being consulted on both options, yet this process is complicated by a deficit of trust. People feel like they aren't being heard. Messages are getting confused. Community engagement isn't hitting the mark. There's a historical precedent for local concerns being ignored by far-away decision-makers, who pack up and leave once the job is done, as far as they're concerned, leaving a disappointing legacy to be borne by those who remain. Because of this, the community is anxious to get it right, and rightly so. Euroa Connect is the community group behind this. They kicked it off in the midst of increasing concern about the bridge proposal and to reflect the local community's desire for proper consultation. In tabling these signatures tonight, I'm not siding with the road-under-rail or underpass proposal as the solution. I don't live in Euroa or drive past the station every day, so it's not up to me to say what solution is best. This is a decision for the community and the ARTC. The ARTC have told me that they're agnostic about the solution: it just needs to be safe, workable and fit in with the requirements of the community and the Victorian Department of Transport. Euroa Connect are passionate and highly organised. They have a strongly thought through perspective of what works. There are, of course, other views. The important thing, though, is that people feel that they are being heard in a meaningful way. This document is not just pages of signatures. It's been a remarkable catalyst for getting the community talking. People stopped and signed, sure; but more than that people engaged. They talked, they asked questions, they listened and then they signed. The conversations covered topics such as appropriate human-scale development; the importance of green spaces; climate change initiatives, given the urban-heat-island effect; the need to consider and promote our heritage; the tourism potential; and connectivity across Euroa—north, south, east and west. This is the Indi way: communities taking control over their own destiny, collaborating and coming up with the answer themselves. This document contains 2,777 signatures. This is phenomenal when you consider that Euroa has a population of 3,275 people. This petition is from over two-thirds of Euroa. People from Violet Town and Strathbogie and visitors who love the region also signed. The principal petitioner is Jim Shovelton, the spokesperson for Euroa Connect, who also presented it to the Deputy Prime Minister when he visited Euroa in March. Kate Auty and Charlie Brydon drew up the document. Phil Symes, Charlie and other members collected signatures at the farmers' market and on Binney Street. Anne Shuttleton organised a roster. Many shops collected signatures both in Euroa and in Violet Town. This document was handed into my Wangaratta electorate office and sent up via express post to land in my hands here tonight. I also want to recognise Janet Fogarty, John Simpson AM, Annie Mahon, Tess Egan, Kathi Clark-Orsanic and Zvanko Orsanic for their contribution to this important work. Too often, in rural and regional Victoria, we see what happens when people who make decisions do not understand us, and, too often, this happens without the community being asked. Well, Euroa has insisted they be asked. They're starting the conversations. And they're playing a role in finding the best solution. Afghanistan 78 19:45 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth Members here would be aware that the Prime Minister announced last week, on 25 May, that our embassy building in Kabul in Afghanistan would close—with effect from 28 May, a few days ago. That followed the withdrawal of our Australian Defence Force personnel from Afghanistan. I thought it timely here to reflect on the period—now, two decades—when Afghanistan has figured and loomed very large in our national security conversation in Australia. We first deployed to Afghanistan in October 2001. It was shortly after John Howard had invoked the ANZUS Treaty in response to the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, on our ally. Our SAS personnel were the first into Afghanistan, amongst the Australians, in October 2001. These SAS personnel returned in 2002, but we were back again in 2005, along with other ADF deployments, initially, as part of Task Force Uruzgan—that was part of the Reconstruction Task Force—from 2006. In fact, we've been there as a continuous presence ever since. Our defence commitment has had the name Operation Slipper, which covered the period 2001 to 2014, and then, from 2015, was known as Operation Highroad, which was the period when the Afghan National Security Forces took over responsibility for their security. We've had a resident ambassador now in Kabul since 2006, and, quite literally, tens of thousands of Australians have served in Afghanistan now on behalf of our nation. Each of them has given some of their lives to protecting and securing and advancing this nation on behalf of Australia. Many of them have ended up giving far too much—more than we should ever have asked of them. Many of them were Australian Defence Force personnel, tens of thousands of whom have rotated through Afghanistan, and many of whom, as individuals, did countless rotations through Afghanistan. Tragically, as we all know, here, 41 of our Defence Force personnel lost their lives in that conflict, but many more have, sadly, taken their lives since. Hundreds have been injured physically. Hundreds still carry the mental scars and wounds from their involvement in that campaign. Whilst we know of the Defence Force personnel, there have also been many of my former colleagues in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, diplomats and aid personnel—hundreds of them, who've served rotations there, either at our embassy in Kabul or at our provincial Reconstruction Task Force office in Tarin Kot or elsewhere. I've got many friends who've spent time there—people such as Richard Feakes, Joel McGregor, James McGarry and many other DFAT personnel who've served a number of times in Afghanistan on behalf of our nation. When I reflect back, there have now been six Australian prime ministers who have presided over our involvement in this conflict, starting of course with John Howard, then Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and now the current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison. So this has been a very large part of our national security conversation in Australia. I believe we should be and can be proud of what we have achieved. Al-Qaeda has been decimated. The senior leadership of al-Qaeda—Osama bin-Laden and some of his senior fellow leaders—were either killed or captured. Afghanistan is no longer a net exporter of terror. And, in a state that had been taken back to the Dark Ages by the Taliban, we've helped to create some light. Women are now educated. There are now functioning democratic institutions. There is civil society. Infant mortality is much lower than it used to be. Maternal mortality is much lower than it used to be. Women play a role in public life. Young girls get an education. None of this has come cheaply, of course, and whether it endures or not will now largely depend upon the people of Afghanistan. In my own view, there would never have been a good time to withdraw. There never is, when you're in the task of nation-building and conflict resolution, because the task of building a nation is, in and of itself, never-ending. But I think, at times, of our commitment to Bougainville, where we had a peace monitoring group for almost a decade, and the debates that I was involved in at the time about whether that group should stay any longer and whether the peace was sufficiently secure for us to withdraw or whether it was still fragile, but we took the decision then, as we've taken it in Afghanistan now, that, ultimately, the people who live in these countries, the people who this nation belongs to, need to be the custodians of that future. So I have some sympathy with the view that, after two decades, enough is enough and that we have to rely now on the Afghan people to keep what we've helped them secure. But, whilst the nature of our commitment will change, the fact of it should not. We'll continue to owe a duty to interpreters and security personnel. We will continue to pursue a relationship with the Afghanistan government, and I hope that we can restore a diplomatic presence soon. Australian Screen Industry, Outback Truckers: 100th Episode 79 19:50 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle The week before last I attended an event to celebrate the screening of 100th episode of Outback Truckers, a successful and distinctive piece of Australian factual television making that was developed and continues to be made by Prospero Productions, in my electorate. Prospero is just one example of the incredible skill, creativity and commercial nous that exist in the Australian filmmaking ecosystem with all its businesses and all its varied practitioners. Australian film does so much and could do so much more if only we supported it more concertedly and more intelligently—and I will come back to that. It's no small achievement for any series to reach the 100-episode mark. Julia Redwood described how it took four years and numerous rejections for Prospero to get the series going in the first place, and now it has run for nine series and has been seen by millions of viewers in over 120 countries. Importantly, the Outback Truckers juggernaut has supported 450 jobs in its life to date and provided some rare working continuity for a number of screen professionals. What I particularly loved about the celebration event—in addition to the Outback Truckers cap—was the way in which Steve Grahame reflected on the relationship that had developed between the workers in what might seem like two disparate professional worlds. It's not surprising that filmmakers learnt a loss about the stamina, perseverance and creative problem solving of truckers, and it shouldn't be surprising that the truck drivers came to respect the persistence, attention to detail and logistical management of the filmmakers. What Outback Truckersshows is that drivers are storytellers too and that filmmakers are devotees of the road and that both are running difficult businesses with more uncertainties than certainties. Steve Grahame remembered that, when he was first approached by the Prospero producer at the truck assembly park in Wubin, he thought to himself, 'Hello, this bloke is definitely on the bunk, on the run from something, and maybe looking for a ride,' but he finished by expressing gratitude to the show for helping people understand the reality of the freight trucking world, its many challenges and the hardworking, good-humoured characters who take on that work. Over years, the Prospero team and truckers like Steve, Sludge and others have formed a bond that has brought together workers that could easily be seen—if you're in the silly game of dividing Australians from one another—as living in unbridgeable worlds, but that was never true. Filmmaking is one of a number of creative industries that should be a foundation stone of Australia's economic diversification and job creation in the future. Screen industries, which include film and television but also gaming, are exactly the kind of sophisticated, high-tech and high-skill human capital dependent manufacturing that we should be looking to build. Without doubt, we live in the screen age and yet, in so many emerging areas of screen communication and screen engagement, whether that's telehealth or remote education, we do not make the most of the screen specific expertise that is out there, ready for us to optimise how we deliver and benefit from such essential services. Understandably, there is already a strong tie-up between filmmaking and tourism, and it should also be the basis of further collaborative filmmaking and co-production work in our region. The circumstances of the pandemic have emphasised many of Australia's strengths, and one of them is as a place where screen productions of the highest quality can safely happen. We can make more of this in future, but only if we enable it. For a long time, we've needed a balanced producer offset for film and television without cutting one to meet the other, and thankfully the government has abandoned its plan to cut the offset for film. We need strong and fair local content requirements both in Australia and especially for the streaming services that derive billions of dollars from Australian consumers. And there has to be proper funding for Screen Australia and for our national broadcasters, which of course this government has scandalously cut time after time despite promising that would not be the case. The measures I have described are the kinds of sensible things that other countries do. If we could make those changes, changes the industry has been crying out for for years, the Australian screen industry will grow, will generate export dollars, will employ Australians, will build links into our region, will accentuate our tourism and international education offices, will support the best form of screen communication in emerging and innovative service delivery and, most importantly of all, will allow Australian voices, stories, faces and landscapes to flourish loudly and in full colour or quietly and in black and white if it needs that kind of vibe. Queensland Corruption and Crime Commission 80 19:55 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan I rise tonight to talk about that most important of principles, the burden of proof. You should be innocent until proven guilty, and the world of people, democracy itself, should not be able to be overturned simply because of baseless allegations. Yet that is what is happening in my native Queensland under the auspices of the Corruption and Crime Commission, referred to as the CCC, and its current chairman, Alan MacSporran. As a former councillor—I spent almost a decade as an elected councillor in the Brisbane City Council—I know better than most just how democratically damaging the recent behaviour of MacSporran and the CCC has been. Before I proceed, I want to make it very clear: every person who holds an elective or public service office in Queensland needs to act with absolute integrity, and if you're found guilty of misconduct you should expect to feel the full force of those consequences. But just because the CCC is there to investigate misconduct, it itself cannot be above criticism or reasonable concerns about its behaviour. To have an accusation levelled against you by the CCC has dire consequences: after all, it can lead to you losing your role and the respect of your peers, your friends and your family. MacSporran should ensure his investigations are of the highest calibre, but that is not the case currently. The recent example of this, the case of the Logan City Council, has been the most profound. In 2019, seven Logan city councillors were charged with criminal offences by the CCC. The CCC under MacSporran had weighed in to what was essentially an industrial dispute and levelled criminal charges at the councillors, despite the charges never being properly tested in court. At the time the fraud charges were laid by the CCC, independent legal advice from multiple senior counsel all advised that criminal charges had no chance of success. This was all presented to the Queensland government of the time, but despite all that the democratically elected council was dismissed. What had happened to innocent until proven guilty? Track forward to 14 April 2021. Those fraud charges were withdrawn by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the Brisbane Magistrates Court. Why? Because of a lack of evidence. But what did that mean for the councillors? They were unfairly sacked. For two years they had a false claim hanging over their heads, no doubt affecting their mental wellbeing, certainly affecting their financial position—their employability, their careers—not to mention affecting their personal relationships. They get no justice, no compensation. In this time, a new election for the city of Logan had taken place and these councillors were denied the opportunity to recontest. This is an unelected body, the CCC, essentially achieving the overturning of a democratic election all on the basis of charges laid when it knew there was no prospect of them being proven in a court of law. This sort of behaviour should frighten and terrify anyone who believes in the sanctity of our democratic process. The dismissal of elected representatives and barring them from running in elections due to unproven and ultimately baseless allegations and charges is the type of thing you would expect to see in a tin-pot dictatorship, not in my beloved state of Queensland. Yet this is the situation that MacSporran's actions have created. The Local Government Association of Queensland has rightly called this a travesty of justice, and of course it is. I back their asking for an independent inquiry into this matter to occur as a matter of urgency. The Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Committee has recently confirmed that it will hold an inquiry, and chairman Jon Krause has said his committee intends to publish the allegations against the CCC made in a submission by the LGAQ. I understand the behaviour of the CCC will rightly be scrutinised as part of this inquiry, not just the Logan case but also other behaviour, including the difference of approach when it comes to state public servants, where the CCC often refers allegations back to the same departments the claims are made against, versus the star chamber-style investigations it runs against elected officials. Also deserving of scrutiny is their involvement in the regular political weaponisation of CCC investigations by Labor, like we saw against Campbell Newman when he was running for Premier and like we saw against Lord Mayor Graham Quirk at the 2016 Brisbane City Council election. It is my strong view that MacSporran should at the very least stand aside today while the inquiry occurs. That is the level of accountability he would expect of elected officials and he should hold himself to the same standard. I believe that the sheer overreach of the CCC under the leadership of Alan MacSporran means that good hardworking elected leaders are now so worried about this new paradigm that it is preventing them from doing the best job for those they represent. I am not alone. I join other eminent Queenslanders in their criticism of the CCC, including the clerk of parliament Neil Laurie, former Premier Campbell Newman, Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate, former police commissioner Ian Stewart, state MP Michael Hart and of course the LGAQ. Congratulations to the LGAQ for sticking to their guns to shine the disinfectant of sunlight on the behaviour of the CCC. As a former councillor and a current federal MP, I support their efforts wholeheartedly. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 81 NOTICES

Tuesday, 1 June 2021

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Freelander) took the chair at 12:31.

BILLS 83 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 83

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022

Second Reading 83 12:32 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon The Morrison government's response to the health and economic challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic has been world-leading. When we look at the challenges other countries have experienced, the impact that COVID-19 and the associated issues continue to have is sobering. Millions of lives have been lost, health systems have collapsed and many national economies are in freefall. Australia's position is the envy of the world, and this hasn't happened by accident. It's because of the strong, decisive leadership that Australia's health and economic outcomes have been amongst the best in the world. Nothing is more important than keeping Australians safe, and our government will continue to prioritise our health and our safety, whether you live in the city or the bush. I'm proud to be the representative for the electorate of Braddon in the great state of Tasmania, and I've often said that I represent the best people in the best region in the best state in the best country of the world. Strong management at both federal and Tasmanian government levels means that Tasmania is currently one of the safest places to live in the world. The Tasmanian economy is also continuing to rebound strongly. Since the outbreak of the pandemic, $291 billion in direct economic support has been provided across our nation by the Morrison government. Across the electorate of Braddon, which covers the north-west, the west coast and King Island, JobKeeper alone provided an economic lifeline to around 2,800 businesses and 12,100 employees. This payment helped to keep Braddon's great businesses afloat through the pandemic and kept workers connected to jobs and employers. I have no doubt that JobKeeper was the single most important economic support mechanism in the first phase of the management of the pandemic. It has provided the framework for our region's ongoing recovery. The tax incentives provided by the federal government have also helped keep local businesses afloat. The tax-free cash flow boost helped around 2,900 small businesses in my region, providing around $127 million in payments. Recent figures show that the Morrison government's economic support measures have worked well for Tasmanians. Recent ABS data shows that retail trade is now 2.7 per cent higher than in March last year, which is higher than the national average of 2.2 per cent. Tasmania has also recently recorded the highest number of building approvals in a 12-month period in more than 25 years. Preliminary job vacancy data for April, released by the National Skills Commission, shows that job vacancies in Tasmania are 71 per cent higher than the pre-pandemic level, which is the biggest rise in our country. Tasmania has a strong local economy. Our buoyant retail trade and historic building approvals, with the government backing our jobs on the ground, is rebounding our state and proving that the Morrison government plan for the region is working. Although Australia is in a much better position than the rest of the world, there is still a lot of work to do. Our government is committed to continuing to guide and support Australians through the COVID-19 pandemic and to respond to ongoing challenges as and when they arise. The federal government's 2021-22 budget focuses on that commitment. It builds on the success to date to secure our recovery and leverage off the opportunities that are ahead of us. It is a plan that creates jobs, guarantees essential services, and builds more resilience and security into Australia. Keeping Australians safe is the Morrison government's No. 1 priority, and that's why we are allocating $1.5 billion to this budget to extend our range of health responses to protect Australians, alongside the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines. Protecting Australians, especially our most vulnerable communities, from exposure to COVID-19 is critical. I am pleased to report to the House that more than 23 per cent of Tasmanians have now received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccines are effective, they're free and they're voluntary. Having your vaccine will help you to prevent death and serious illness within our local communities. I encourage all eligible unvaccinated people across the north-west, the west coast and King Island to please consider booking in for their vaccine today. Over the past 12 months, telehealth services have also helped and been life-changing for those living in rural, regional and remote areas. Since the introduction of telehealth in March 2020, nearly 230,000 telehealth consultations have been conducted across the electorate of Braddon. As part of the 2021-22 budget, the Australian government is investing more than $114 million to extend this critical service until the end of 2021. This extension will ensure that everyone across our region can continue to see their general practitioner, to renew their scripts and seek mental health support from the safety of their own home, if they wish to do so. This ensures that our vulnerable continue to be protected and supported during these unprecedented circumstances. The extension of telehealth includes services for regional practitioners, medical practitioners, specialists, consultant physicians, nurse practitioners, participating midwives, allied health providers and dental practitioners. Importantly, I also welcome the Morrison government's commitment to continue to work with peak bodies to co-design permanent post-pandemic telehealth as part of the broader primary care system. Tasmania has Australia's fastest-growing ageing population. That's why I welcome the Morrison government's record funding in aged care. Nearly 21½ thousand seniors living across the electorate of Braddon are now set to benefit from this important, once-in-a-generation reform. Our government is committed to ensuring that those who have contributed so much during a lifetime—our nation-builders, our parents and grandparents, our founders and protectors—receive the respect, the care and the dignity that they rightly deserve. In response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, the government's unprecedented investment will deliver more home-care places and more funding residential for aged care. Importantly, this funding also increases the amount of time residents are cared for, as well as strengthening regulators to monitor and enforce the standards of care. The funding will include $630.2 million to make the aged-care system more accessible for seniors with special needs, including people in regional, rural and remote areas, including in Braddon. This new support will include $397 million for aged-care providers to undertake capital works to build new facilities and improve existing facilities to make them more accessible, providing local jobs as well. Accessibility and affordability in child care is important as we strive to increase the number of people getting into jobs. As part of this support, our government is increasing the childcare subsidy for families with more than one child under six years of age in child care. It is estimated that this measure will benefit around 710 families living across the electorate of Braddon alone. The government will further support families with children in care by removing the $10,560 cap on the childcare subsidy. Investing in education and investing in our children is investing in our future. I have said many times in this place that everyone has the right to quality education, no matter whether you are five or 55, or whether you are looking for your first job or looking for a change of direction in your life. The Morrison government is continuing to demonstrate that commitment. As part of our 2020-21 budget our investment in our region's schools is continuing at record levels. Whether you go to school in Smithton, Shorewell, Moriarty, Miandetta, Currie or Cooee, the federal government is increasing funding at your school. Over the decade from 2009-10 to 2018-19, the Commonwealth funding for our schools grew in real terms by 47.8 per cent. The Australian government share in total public funding has increased from 10.8 per cent in 2009-10 to 15.6 per cent in 2018-19 for government schools and from 73.1 per cent in 2009-10 to 76.2 per cent in 2018-19 for non-government schools. For example, in my electorate is the East Devonport Primary School. It is estimated that the total Commonwealth recurrent funding for that school will increase from around $950,000 this year to over $1.2 million by 2029. If you look at the individual school level, the students at Wynyard High School will receive an increase per student from around $4,900 this year to $6,400 by 2029. The Morrison government knows the importance of local government, and that is why our economic recovery partnership between the Morrison government and our local councils has been further boosted in the federal budget. An additional $1 billion investment for phase 3 of the Local Road and Community Infrastructure Program has been allocated. The LRCI program is targeted to support the resilience of our local economies by delivering jobs directly into each of Braddon's eight great local government areas. It is important to remember that when government spends money, it's not the government's money that we are spending; it's taxpayers' money, and we are cognisant of that. That that is why the Local Road and Community Infrastructure Program is so powerful. It guarantees that everyone living across the electorate has a portion of their hard-earned taxes spent back in their local communities. This is crucial. It will continue to support our local businesses and create local jobs in our regional communities. What this program means is that councils can deliver more funding to upgrade roads; build bike paths; heat community halls; revamp playgrounds, parks and sports grounds; as well as improve access to public facilities. Across all three phases, over $18 million will have been distributed across Braddon's eight councils, in Burnie, Central Coast, Circular Head, Devonport, King Island, Latrobe, Waratah-Wynyard and West Coast. Across Tasmania, in total it is a figure of almost $74 million. This funding isn't a commitment that will appear one or two years down the track; it's there now. The money has already been delivered and, to their credit, councils are currently rolling out dozens of projects right across their municipalities. They are doing a great job. Our most important part coming out of this pandemic is to get people back into jobs or into their first job. I welcome the budget's key initiatives that are focused on achieving this goal, including personal income cuts, business tax incentives, encouraging businesses to invest in new apprenticeships and training initiatives, and more infrastructure investment. This means that our part in delivering this package will secure our region's recovery and drive our unemployment rates down. Putting money back into the pockets of hardworking taxpayers is important to our Morrison government. It means that individuals have an even greater incentive to get a job or pursue a better job or higher skills. It also means that individuals and families have more to spend at the local shops. Again, this helps our circular economy. It is estimated that the tax cuts announced in our budget will benefit around 37,900 taxpayers across the electorate. Further data also predicts that Australia-wide this measure will create an additional 20,000 jobs by the end of 2022-23. This announcement is on top of the $25.1 billion of announced tax cuts flowing into households from 2021-22 under the Morrison government's legislated personal income tax plan. With the additional year of the low- and middle-income tax offset, our personal tax plan will provide tax cuts of up to $7,020 for singles and $14,040 for dual-income households in total over the period 2018-19 to 2021-22. When stage 3 is implemented in 2024, around 95 per cent of taxpayers will have a marginal tax rate of 30c or less. The Morrison government is continuing to invest in our people and our communities right across my electorate. Everywhere you turn, local governments are spending that money wisely on projects that they are delivering—from roads to bridge maintenance and infrastructure projects, small and large, and from small capital grants to supporting volunteers in local junior sports. It's all important to our government. Thank you to everyone living in the electorate of Braddon on how you have responded to these challenges and how you are wisely spending this money. Our region have always had a glass-half-full approach to any problem that they have had. I look forward to working with everyone in the years to come as we continue to support you as we exit this terrible pandemic. 12:47 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt I rise today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No.1) 2021-2022, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022, which provide appropriation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the annual services of government for 2021-22. I do so as Victorians are again in a lockdown, the fourth lockdown due to the coronavirus pandemic. The incredible efforts of the Australian people can't be left unremarked, in particular the people of Victoria for their heroic and Herculean efforts in seeing off this pandemic. Ever since this modern plague hit our shores in early 2020, the Australian people have met this scourge head-on. They have made enormous sacrifices, barely imaginable by the public in a democracy and forecasters alike some time ago. It has been quite a remarkable transformation in the way in which people are dealing with the public health menace that we are confronting. It says a lot about the Australian people that, unlike in some other countries, they have adhered to the very onerous restrictions that they have been required to undertake to protect their fellow community members. Again, on behalf of all of those in this chamber, I thank the people of Australia and Victoria for the sacrifices they have made to keep each other safe, because we know what the consequences are. People can see it by flicking on their television screens at night when a country is not taking appropriate measures to protect its population. Some of the images that you see on television are very, very confronting. So Australians know that they need to take these actions to keep our community safe. I also think, though, that what our community wants when we've been asked to make these sacrifices—we have asked the Australian people to make sacrifices—is a government that gives them clarity. Where are we going to collectively? We ask collectively as a government through the national cabinet and through each state government for people to stay at home, not to send their children to school, not to attend work. What concerns me very greatly in watching the fourth iteration of this lockdown in Victoria and the apportioning of blame or people seeking to apportion blame—if I were a person in the outer suburbs in Cranbourne, Clyde, Narre Warren South or Hampton Park, I would be watching this and thinking, 'Can someone please tell me what's going on?' Where is the direction? This person is saying this has been done. This person is saying something else should be done. I am concerned from a federal perspective that the people in Holt, the south-eastern region of Victoria, Victoria generally and Australia don't have a clear sense of direction out of this challenge that we are confronting. We don't know when all of Australia is going to be vaccinated. We know that that is a key to protecting as much of our population as possible, but we don't have established timelines. Unfortunately, I saw something extraordinary today, with an aged-care minister not being able to identify how much of the workforce that he has some measure of responsibility for has been vaccinated. How many of the workers have been vaccinated? They were all supposed to be vaccinated by now. So I come back to the point. We ask, and the Australian people have delivered to us as policymakers and legislators who have put some of the most onerous restrictions on movement of the public, including a curfew. The very least that our people could have back is a clear sense of direction and responsibility taken for actions. There's nothing more demoralising for a democracy—and you see people losing faith in parliament and in governments—than when a government says it will do something but, when it doesn't hit a target, starts pointing the fingers. Responsibility has to be taken. Particularly given that I had been speaking to some government members post the challenges of the bushfire, I thought that, through the auspices of a national cabinet, there would be responsibility taken. The Prime Minister would speak to the premiers and the relevant health ministers, and there would be a national effort on the scale that we have seen in the United States, for example, where 50 per cent of the population has been vaccinated, and other countries like the United Kingdom and Israel, where there has been that focused, concentrated effort. America is a very porous, disparate and discombobulated political system. Even in that system they have got a 50 per cent vaccination rate, and yet we are still in the single digits. It may be a matter of conjecture whether it is somewhere between two and four per cent. Perhaps it is more than that now; say, five per cent. But it shouldn't be this way. Because of the sacrifices that the Australian people made, we had a great a window of opportunity to vaccinate a lot of people. But what really concerned me—what do the people say who are living around Cranbourne and who last year couldn't leave their houses after 8.00 pm in the evening, had to wear masks, couldn't see loved ones, couldn't attend the funerals of loved ones that had passed away and couldn't attend weddings? I think of the number of occasions where I had friends and people that I knew who were having virtual online ceremonies or had to postpone their weddings or who couldn't attend funerals. The incongruity and the thing that concerns me the most about this is what this government has asked of the Australian people versus what it has given to the Australian people. Have they provided JobSeeker and JobKeeper? Yes. The Labor opposition provided that as a pathway forward. It was taken up by the government. There are flaws. I'm not going to get into microdetail of criticising the government. They did that. But again, particularly with public health experts, we said to the Australian community, 'If you take these measures then the economy opens up.' So the public then say, 'Okay, government, then what do we need to ensure that we will have a standard of living and a certainty in this COVID normal?' That's another thing that I want to take issue with this government about. I can recall the Prime Minister saying effectively, particularly when he was at odds with the Victorian state government when they were easing out of the first lockdown, 'Get out from underneath the doona—business as usual.' How could it be business as usual? Do you think it's business as usual in the Northern Hemisphere, including in India, as we speak? Do you think that people within India believe that? We have a very large and wonderful diaspora of people from India in Australia. Do they think it's business as usual in India? Do they think it's business as usual here? We're going through the rigours, the torment and the struggle of another lockdown in Victoria. Do you think they got out from underneath the doona, went out and went their own way, with business as usual? It can't be business as usual, and a government that says that it's business as usual and pretends that it can be is not speaking honestly with the Australian people. It can't be. In every discussion that I have—and, I would suggest, in every discussion that other people, including this government, have—it is a COVID-normal. It's not business as usual. It can't be. Every time the government try to intimate that or criticise states that impose measures, they are damaging the national effort to defeat the scourge of this plague, this COVID pandemic, in the first place. It cannot be business as usual. It's the COVID normal. COVID normal doesn't mean that life goes back to what it was. It can't, until we have vaccinations that prove to be effective. We have a portion of the population, but we also don't know, with the different iterations and mutations of this COVID-19 virus, what might happen. So I think the government has to be straight with the Australian people. It's COVID normal. States have a right to take protective measures to protect their populations when there is an outbreak. It's quite remarkable, I think, that the Prime Minister is quite aware now. In the second lockdown, I'll never forget the Minister for Health and the Treasurer in this place savaging politicians like me, who were representing their constituencies in Victoria, and the Premier for taking measures to protect Australian lives. I will never forget that as long as I stay in this place. I was very heartened, in listening to the health minister speaking yesterday, that he may have learnt a lesson: that it's perhaps not a good idea for the federal government to be attacking the state government when it's taking appropriate public health measures to protect its population. What that did during that time, I think, is create confusion. When you don't speak with one voice as a government, what happens is that you allow confusion. You allow conspiracy theories. You energise conspiracy theories. We see some of the worst elements of when we look at the growth of right-wing extremism in this country and its connection in some ways with COVID conspiracy theories. When you have a government that's not firm, that passes blame to other levels of government, that doesn't take responsibility and that doesn't give direction, what do you have? You have confusion, fear and a lack of direction, and you create a vacuum, and vacuums will be filled, often by voices of hate, not by voices of reason or voices that want to bring the community together. That is what has been happening. It should be our daily mission to challenge that. The growth and proliferation of right-wing extremism in this country is a cancer. We have dealt with Islamic extremism. We've seen the horrifying consequences of that being unchecked, and we have devoted enormous resources to protecting the Australian community. I have been part of that through my role on the PJCIS. Equally, we must do the same with right-wing extremism. The danger with that, though, and the reason I raise this in the context of the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, is that some of the things that people say in this government and elsewhere energise some of those right-wing extremist movements, particularly when they dispute the science—the science of the COVID-19 pandemic and the science of climate change. The governments need to speak with one voice when we're asking the community to make a sacrifice to deal with a once-in-a-century pandemic. The government needs to remember this, particularly if they try to take cheap shots at state governments for taking measures to keep their borders safe and then retrofit their explanations after those measures have been successful to say, 'We always supported them.' No, they didn't. They didn't support the Premier of Western Australia, and they certainly didn't support the Premier of Victoria when he took the necessary actions to protect the Victorian population from the scourge and the ravages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Like I said—I could speak all day, Deputy Speaker Freelander, and I'm sure you're glad that I won't—the issue is that what Australian people deserve is much more clarity from this government about where they're going. I remember watching as Ford, Toyota and Holden left this country and thinking: 'You know what? Australians make things. They make great things. They make great cars. We used to make great washing machines. We used to make a lot more in this country.' I meet a lot of people. You speak about what used to be made in this country and the fact that, for example, there's still a design element of Ford's high-end vehicles in Australia. So, if the government is talking about this once-in-a-generation pandemic, why doesn't it do something like bring motor manufacturing back into this country? We live in a very uncertain region, but here's one thing that they could do to provide certainty. Whilst this government almost campaigned against electric vehicles at the last election, I would invite the government to have a look at President Biden hopping into an electric Ford 150 pick-up truck, which they said would never happen, and shooting down the runway in the US, which occurred about a week and a half ago. The future of motor vehicle transportation will certainly be in terms of electric vehicles and perhaps hydrogen. They should look at that. If they really want to do something, they should bring them back here. They should get Tesla to actually make cars here. GMH and Ford have said that they will move into the production of electric vehicles. Do it here; come and do it. I invite the Prime Minister: we have plenty of space in Cranbourne West. If they want to build something for the south-eastern region around the Dandenong region, bring car manufacturing back with electric vehicles. I'm quite sure there would be a number of very receptive voices. I know that some of the people that I've spoken to have an appetite for this. Australia is a stable beacon of opportunity for other countries looking to invest into south-eastern Asia on a stable platform. There's much more I could say. Let me say this to the government: be clear. Give Australian people a pathway out and not just an injection of money that doesn't last the distance and that will fade away. Provide direction, provide certainty, provide accountability, and provide hope. Continue to do that, and we will have a better Australia coming out of this COVID-19 pandemic. 13:02 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I'm very pleased to rise in the Federation Chamber this afternoon with regard to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 and the related bills that are before the House. It has been eight long years, and there have been more than eight reports now that have detailed the grave situation facing Australian women in terms of both their safety and lack of economic independence and security in this nation. In addition to those very detailed reports warning this government over the last eight years, we have heard the very powerful testimony from women like Brittany Higgins. We heard her allegations of rape just metres from the Prime Minister's office in this building. We have had tens of thousands of women around this nation march for justice—indeed, descending upon the lawns in front of Parliament House in this capital. We have seen Chanel Contos's petition, which was circulated amongst schoolchildren and schoolgirls in particular, and the horrific experiences she has been detailing. I defy anybody in government to say that they have not been suitably warned about the dire situation facing so many Australian women in terms of their safety and lack of economic independence. This government scurried around and there was a lot of talk going on just before the budget. Then someone rang up the PM's office and said, 'No joke, we've got a women's problem.' What was the solution? He amassed all his Liberal women and passed the problem on to them. He passed the burden on to his Liberal women to form a task force to try to figure out what to do. They made an effort to try to put some renewed focus on it. The budget before us was going to hit the reset button for women. But, on the night, my goodness, what a disappointment! Yes, we see the return of a women's budget statement, which is one very, very tiny step in the right direction. I say 'a tiny step' because this was not a women's budget as Labor would understand a women's budget statement to be. This was not a gendered analysis of the budget. This was not running a gendered lens across all of the revenue collection and spending decisions of this government, so it should come as no surprise to any of us that this budget, in the end, failed to address any of the structural inequalities for men and women in Australia. Why is it important that we should have a gendered lens on these budgets? I'll tell you what happens when you lose sight of monitoring and auditing of the way in which government spends its money. Some of you may recall in this House that Australia once led the world in gender-responsive budgeting. We led the world when Susan Ryan, the Labor minister for women at the time, lodged the very first women's budget statement in the Australian Parliament on budget night. That tradition and that analysis of budget expenditure and its differential impacts for men and women was continued right up until 2014, when, with his election as Prime Minister, Tony Abbott—who, let's not forget, made himself minister for women in Australia—decided we didn't need a women's budget statement anymore. We didn't need one. It was unnecessary. To the eternal shame of Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and, indeed, Scott Morrison, till this year they have never ever honoured that agreement to return proper gender-responsive budgeting to the Australian parliament. Why is that important? It is important because we have no way of tracking anymore how we're actually going internally here in the Australian parliament. But we do have global rankings about gender inequality, and I have to say that Australia has now plummeted to 56th position, I think it is, out of 156 nations participating in the global Gender Inequality Index rankings. This is the absolute worst we have ever been. Having once led the world, we are now No. 56 and going down each and every year. That should ring alarm bells for any woman in Australia listening today. There was the failure of the government to take an opportunity to ensure that, when we looked at the road to recovery out of COVID, we were going to not only adequately recompense women, who bore the brunt of the impact of COVID-19. Let's not forget all those female-dominated caring economy jobs that got lost and heavily impacted. Women lost jobs more quickly, they lost hours more quickly and they wore the primary caregiving and educative roles in their households—all of that. And what did we see out of this budget? We didn't see anywhere near the kind of backing we needed to see for Australian women. We didn't see our domestic violence and frontline services getting the adequate support they need, despite the spike in increased demand. Frankly, women now have nowhere to go. I've spoken in this parliament before about this issue. My crisis services are maxed out. You cannot get into a women's refuge in Newcastle and, once you are there, you can't move on to permanent forms of housing and accommodation, because there are zero properties on the rental market that you can afford to actually take up. So we have a massive housing crisis with literally nowhere to go for women fleeing domestic violence and family violence. I have a service called Jenny's Place in my electorate which turned away 558 women last year. Let that sit with you for a minute. We have a shortfall of 3,100 homes in social housing in Newcastle alone. People are waiting 10 years on average to get into a social housing property. As I said, there's a 0.3 per cent vacancy rate in the private rental market, which utterly fails vulnerable Australians. The government is not funding those frontline services to the degree they need to. I mentioned Jenny's Place turning away 558 women. They are seeking a very modest $300,000 in order to be able to run a telephone service. This government shoved it back to the states. The states are shoving it back. The Liberal governments in New South Wales and at the federal level don't care. They cannot find $300,000 in the so-called women's budget to help a frontline women's service run a telephone advice and resource centre. We have seen them cut the funding to the working women's centres in the Northern Territory. It's a diabolical situation. This cannot continue. You don't get to stand up and congratulate yourselves about delivering a budget for Australian women when you have failed dismally to address any of the deep, systemic, structural inequalities that have existed for decades, continue to exist and are getting worse under your watch. We are not seeing a dent in the gender pay gap. We are not seeing increased opportunities for women here at all. So it's a very, very disappointing budget on that front. I will end on this on the women's budget statement. For all the spruiking from the government, we actually saw less than one per cent of targeted investment into specific women's services. Let's not crow about counting $1.7 billion for child care, which is not a women's issue. It should be a parental and family issue more broadly. They are spending $1.7 billion dollars on childcare funding, which is delayed, as we know, until 2022, but they have given $18 billion in tax breaks to government business write-offs. So when you start to compare and contrast who gets what in this budget there is no-one that could in all good faith stand up here and talk about this having been a reset moment for the government in dealing with their so-called women's problem in Australia. We're not going to buy it. Australian women have got this government well and truly clocked. In the remaining few minutes I would like to talk a little about the shambles and the irresponsibility of this government when it comes to the national vaccination rollout and the quarantine issues in this nation, particularly as the vaccine rollout is playing out in the aged-care sector right now. This is not a Victorian problem. I want to make this very clear in this chamber. While we have a focus on Victoria and we indeed are thinking very much of our Victorian colleagues and the men and women in Victoria now, I know that in my hometown of Newcastle, while we have ensured that most of the residents in aged-care facilities have, after a very long and complicated process, been vaccinated—some fully but not all—it is most likely that less than a quarter of the aged-care workforce has been vaccinated. This is appalling. I cannot tell you how stressed out my aged-care facilities are at the idea. They know full well that they have workers coming and going across multiple facilities. Vaccinating residents but not their aged-care workers is deeply problematic. It fails to provide that protective shield that they are in fact seeking to do—and through no fault of their own. One of the aged-care facilities where they have managed to have their staff vaccinated—what was the solution? What did they have to do? They had to pack up all their staff and go to Sydney. It was a 2½ hour drive down the M1 to get to the mass vaccination centre to their staff vaccinated. That's what they had to do. What a shame. We have an aged-care minister being asked questions today, over in the other house, in the Senate, who has got zero idea how many workers are vaccinated or not. He hasn't got a clue. There is no national register. There is no way of tracking this. It is appalling. You had two jobs you had to do this year, Mr Morrison. What were they? A national vaccine rollout and quarantine. Well, we know our quarantine system is leaking and we've known this for some time. You have been warned time and time again about the airborne nature of COVID-19 and yet failed dismally to respond, to lift to the need for purpose-built facilities, to actually stand up and take responsibility for quarantining in this nation—as is your constitutional obligation. How dare you stand by and shirk off your responsibility in this place again and again and again. You cannot have this both ways. You made all the states and territories do all of the heavy lifting when it came to combating COVID-19. This is the Commonwealth's response. It is your job now to stand up and ensure that the recovery out of COVID is the best it can be. What are the two ingredients we absolutely must have in place and sorted out? One is the national vaccine rollout. Fewer than two per cent of our citizens are fully vaccinated. Shame on you. It's not an issue of supply anymore. We know that. So what is it? Why don't you come clean with the Australian people? Why don't you give access to some very transparent, open data about what is going on with vaccinations? Why aren't there mass vaccination hubs everywhere? Not everybody has access to a GP. We know that. Even if you do, not every GP gets to have access to this vaccine, not in any even-handed or orderly manner that's for sure. It is absolutely unforgiveable that this government has completely failed to protect our citizens. You've had 12 months to think about how you were going to ensure a secure quarantine system and ensure every citizen was vaccinated. You've failed. You've failed us badly. 13:17 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway In making some remarks about this budget I want to concentrate on the complete lack of support that is being given to infrastructure and, in particular, addressing the infrastructure deficit that exists in outer metropolitan areas and specifically, in my case, north-west Sydney. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be acutely aware of this with south-west Sydney's growth certainly comparable to north-west Sydney and, in particular, the importance of investing in health infrastructure in those growth areas. It was certainly disappointing, but not surprising, to see the headline in the Sydney Morning Herald on 16 May: '"Nothing" in the budget for public hospitals under pressure'. I quote from the Australian Medical Association President, Dr Omar Khorshid, who said there was 'nothing' in the budget for public hospitals. He agreed with that statement. He said: Although, yes, the government is spending 45 per cent of the cost of running public hospitals, and they seem to think that absolves them of any responsibility for how they're run, every state and territory has public hospitals in crisis. So regardless of whose fault that is, the only solution is a national solution. And nothing could be more true. Part of my frustration with this budget is that, despite racking up a trillion dollars in debt, spending $100 billion of new money, the Liberals and Nationals have not dedicated a cent to specifically improving health infrastructure in my community. As I said, north-west Sydney is one of the fastest-growing places in New South Wales, if not Australia, yet we have federal and state Liberal governments on an appalling go-slow when it comes to infrastructure spending. You can look at other projects in my area, like the Schofields commuter car park, which is a prime example of neglect and incompetence. It is a project that was supposed to be delivered in 2020 and is now, allegedly, to be delivered this year. It's not the multistorey car park that was promised but an at-grade car park, and we are still waiting for it. One of my biggest sources of frustration is the supposed Rouse Hill Hospital. I use inverted commas for 'hospital' here because I'm not sure you could even call it that, given it will not include an emergency department. It has been announced and re-announced so many times that we have lost count. It was announced, with much media fanfare, in the lead-up to the 2015 state election. This is so typical of the Liberals when it comes to essential infrastructure in our local communities: all announcement, no delivery. They're always there for the photos and the media opportunities, but when it comes to actual delivery they are nowhere to be soon. Once the posters and the bunting came down and the election buzz petered out, what were we left with? Just crickets. In the lead-up to the 2019 state election there was another announcement as the New South Wales Liberals finally decided on the site for the new hospital. You might think: 'Well, clearly they were spending those four years doing all of their due diligence. Surely they've spent their time working with landholders, engaging with the community, making sure they've picked a suitable site?' Alas, no. Jump forward to March this year, two years after the last state election, and the New South Wales Liberals send out another media release: 'We've picked a new site, ladies and gentlemen.' Why did they have to do that? Because they hadn't undertaken the studies necessary to making sure the first site was viable in first place. So what were they doing for those four years? It really makes you think. But get this: only in the last week was the New South Wales Liberal government forced to clarify that the proposed new site they'd chosen wouldn't clash with a major residential development proposed for the same site! You couldn't make this stuff up, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the same time the New South Wales Liberal government was hosing down suggestions that there was even a clash, the hapless local Liberal member was firing off to constituents a letter saying: 'Don't worry. We'll just acquire the land if we need to. Don't worry about it.' If you're confused, Mr Deputy Speaker, you're not alone; so are the people of north-west Sydney, whom this New South Wales Liberal government treats like absolute mugs. Locals have had enough and I've have enough. The frustration is also levelled at this Morrison government, which, it would seem, doesn't care much for improving health care in our community. Assuming the New South Wales government can get its act together—and that's a big assumption here—imagine what federal investment could do for a new Rouse Hill Hospital. It could maybe even broaden the project to include—God forbid!—an emergency department. We're talking about an important piece of health infrastructure that, in particular, will ease pressure on Blacktown hospital. We know, Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander, that it has its own specific challenges, which I've raised in here many times, and this government seems happy to ignore them. If you live in Grantham Farm, Riverstone or Schofields, you should not need to travel to Blacktown hospital in an emergency. That's why I've launched—and it is receiving incredible support—my Rouse Hill Hospital petition calling on the federal and state governments to get on with the job of delivering the health infrastructure that we desperately need in north-west Sydney. I have already had scores of locals joining this campaign to send the government a message, which is: 'Get on with it. Build the Rouse Hill Hospital you promised. Build it with the emergency ward that residents deserve.' Having had time to digest this budget, many Australians are no doubt scratching their heads about what the actual point of this government is. Where is the long-term vision? Where is the willingness to address complex problems with visionary policy proposals to take us to the next stage, beyond the pandemic? Where was the strategy to support local jobs and local workers? Unlike this stale, eight-year-old government without a plan, Labor does have a strong vision to support working and middle-class families and create an economy that works for everyone. Take, just as one example, Labor's childcare policy. Under this Prime Minister, childcare costs are going through the roof. It's placing serious financial pressure on families in my community. In fact, many parents in Western Sydney aren't able to work additional days without being penalised. We have all met that constituent who says, 'I would like to work four days a week. I would like to work an additional shift, but it's simply not worth my while. I end up losing money because of the cost of child care.' That should not be the case. This is an economic issue. This is a drain on Australia's productivity when you have citizens—and, by and large, they are women—who are forced to exit the workforce or not fully participate in the workforce as a result of childcare costs. Months later, after this announcement, this government woke up and, after eight years of being in power, decided, 'We'd better have something to say about this.' But, as with all things when it comes to this government, you always need to read the fine print. The fine print is that only eight per cent of families will benefit from the federal Liberal childcare proposal, compared to Labor's, where 92 per cent of families will be better off. It seems that yet again this so-called Liberal family-friendly budget is anything but. It is all smoke and mirrors. Further to Labor's vision of a fairer and more productive Australia is our Housing Australia Future Fund, a proposal developed by my good friend the member for Blaxland. An Albanese Labor government will create a $10 billion off-budget housing fund to build social and affordable housing and create thousands of jobs now and in the longer term. It is notable that in the first five years the investment return will build around 20,000 social housing properties, with 4,000 allocated for women and children fleeing family violence and older women on low incomes at risk of homelessness. I think those two points are really important. I have initiatives and community groups in my local area. In some cases they have been formed as part of specific cultural groups, but they cater to all people. In particular, I want to call out the Harman Foundation and House of Sakina, two groups I have been closely associated with. These are people who are often having to battle the impact of family violence in a culturally specific community. In many cases family violence is still seen as something taboo, as something that cannot be called out. In some cases, unfortunately, there are circumstances where someone trying to flee a situation is told, 'You actually can't. You have no rights.' It is really a depressing situation that I have seen in so many cases. The important thing to note here is these people who are running these organisations receive little or no government funding at a state or federal level. They are eligible for some grants here and there, and I want to thank the local councils—in particular, Blacktown City Council—but also many community organisations, including our local clubs. Blacktown Workers Club, for example, was a major sponsor of the Harman Foundation's recent fundraising efforts. The point is that these organisations are essentially renting on the private market to provide women's refuge services for at-risk, vulnerable women, who in some cases can't even speak English, who don't understand their rights and who are in an environment where they really do feel trapped. These are some of the most vulnerable people you can think of, and the only people they are able to turn to are these organisations that are receiving little to nothing in terms of government funding. That is why I think that targeting this is so important for those community groups to remain viable. Secondly—and I did not fully appreciate it until I was educated in this—I note the fastest-growing and unfortunately biggest group of homeless in Australia is in fact older women. That's for a variety of factors—women whose marriages may end later in life, who haven't accumulated savings or superannuation, who haven't worked for a while. They find themselves, literally overnight, sleeping on other people's lounges or sleeping in their cars. This is an area that I think has been overlooked for far too long. So I commend this policy for having the foresight to address these key issues. I think it's also really important that the fund will also go towards the construction of 10,000 affordable housing properties for the heroes of this pandemic, the frontline workers who have kept Australia running over the past 18 months or so. It will directly support over 21,000 full-time jobs across the construction industry— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Order. It being 1.30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 13 May. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour. The member for Greenway will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 13 : 30 to 16 : 01 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 92 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Scullin Electorate: COVID-19 92 16:01 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin Things are pretty tough in the northern suburbs of Melbourne right now, and I want to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts that my constituents are undertaking to support themselves, keep themselves safe and keep those around them safe. The Scullin electorate has been bearing the brunt of this latest outbreak, having also suffered terribly—particularly people in aged care—through previous outbreaks. Their efforts, as I say, have been extraordinary. But the people who send me here to represent them have been asked to do too much because they don't have a national government that's on their side. They know—and they're angry and I'm angry—that this is down to a fundamental failure to take responsibility when it comes to quarantine. It is a failure which has been on the books and on the heads of this government since October, when the Halton report was handed down, yet there's been no responsibility taken, no action, and people in Melbourne are dealing with this. Of course, this has been compounded by the second great failure of the Morrison government, which is that, in terms of vaccination, each day there's a new evasion, a new deflection. Each day, people in Melbourne are dealing with the consequences of the failure of the Prime Minister to do his job and to keep his promises, a series of promises: 'first in the queue', 'four million by the end of March', 'everyone in aged-care facilities'. A series of promises have been broken, each with damaging, real-world consequences. These are two failures which we have been talking about because they fundamentally go to our capacity to get through this, but there are additional failures that I want to touch upon on behalf of my constituents. One is an issue that people have been raising with me constantly in the past few days—that is, the failure to provide income support and support for small businesses through this incredibly challenging period. Perhaps the Treasurer, from Victoria but not for Victorians, could use the present tense when he talks about the support he's offering, because people—in particular, thousands of casual workers, so anxious, who just want to support their families and do the right thing to stay safe and keep those around them safe—deserve income support right now. Lastly, we need a government that is prepared to take responsibility. Instead, we have a Prime Minister who's always looking for someone to hide behind, as we saw in question time today. Fundamentally, he's got to acknowledge that this is a race and we're only going to win it if he admits that and he takes responsibility in the national interest. Edwards, Hon. Sir Llewellyn Roy (Llew), AC 92 16:04 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane Upon their passing, many leaders are described as great. Sir Llew Edwards is someone who richly deserves the epithet of being a truly great man. He was a giant of the Liberal Party and a champion of all things Queensland. Sir Llew started his career as an electrician, pursued a passion to study medicine, and became a well-respected doctor in Ipswich. Sir Gordon Chalk, Queensland Liberal Party leader at the time, landed in his surgery's waiting room one day in 1972 and convinced Sir Llew to stand for the state seat of Ipswich. So it came to be that, in the same year that Gough Whitlam stormed Canberra, Llew Edwards won the state seat of Ipswich and then held it through four elections until he retired, unbeaten. He remains the only Liberal over 1½ centuries to have held the state seat of Ipswich for more than a single term. Sir Llew was a popular and successful MP. He served as the Minister for Health, Treasurer, Leader of the Queensland Liberal Party and Deputy Premier during Queensland's booming 1970s and early eighties. After politics, he was equally successful as the long-serving Chancellor of the University of Queensland and as the chairman for Expo 88. There were many early detractors and sceptics when it came to Expo 88, yet it is now credited as being a catalyst for contemporary Brisbane. Sir Llew had strong beliefs, and he not only believed that Brisbane could do a better job than anywhere else in the world; he then made sure that Brisbane did. More than 18 million people went through the gates of Expo 88. The public artworks, transportation overhaul, and rejuvenation of the Southbank area are still celebrated in Brisbane today. Above all, Sir Llew was a true gentleman in politics. With an ever-present twinkle in his eye, he seemed to enjoy all his interactions with others. He notably avoided unnecessary conflict. He engaged with everyone honestly; he often reached out to work with those in other political parties; and he earned his significant achievements and his magnificent legacy through sheer hard work, perseverance and deft negotiation. I count myself genuinely fortunate to have enjoyed the encouragement of Sir Llew and Lady Jane since first being elected. In my view, his important legacy includes the example he provided of service in public life, conducted forthrightly and with dignity. I extend my heartfelt condolences for their loss to Lady Jane, Sir Llew's children and grandchildren, and family and friends. Veterans 93 16:06 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide For too long now we have not been listening to veterans. We haven't been responding to what they need as opposed to what we think they need, and this needs to change. I hope that the royal commission that's been announced does this. We need to ensure that the services, responses and assistance offered to veterans and their families actually hit the mark. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case yet. There were 33 suicide deaths among serving and ex-serving ADF personnel in 2018 and 465 suicides between 2001 and 2018. We know that the actual figures can actually be much, much higher than that. So we need to do everything we can to listen to veterans and their families. For example, I have been approached by the devoted wife of a veteran in my electorate who is very concerned about how the DVA communicates over payments and raises debts with veterans. Her husband is a veteran who suffers from a range of physical and mental health problems resulting from combat trauma. He struggles with PTSD and suicidal thoughts of self-harm, which is an ongoing battle for him, his wife and his family. He was recently sent a series of correspondence from the DVA alerting him to the fact that he had been overpaid and that he owed the DVA a considerable sum of money. Luckily, before he read the letters that were sent to him, his wife was able to intercept them from the mailbox. However, she has told me that the situation could have been dire had the husband, the veteran, seen the letters first. I have therefore written to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to ask what steps are taken to ensure that such correspondence does not cause more harm or stress to veterans. It is the ticking time bomb that can send them over the edge. I'd also like to be assured that these debts that are raised have been check and double-checked, as the case with this particular person was that the debts were wrong and were reduced, in the end, when they argued about it. We know that we don't have the best track record when it comes to debt recovery in this space, and the government certainly doesn't with robodebt. So I want to know that our veterans are being protected by ensuring that any correspondence is clear and has been thoroughly checked and, if requested, is sent to a family member first. Our veterans deserve better. They've sacrificed a great deal serving our country and ensuring the safety of our nation and the region. We must now do all we can to safeguard their health and avoid adding unnecessary stress. Bennelong Electorate: Pharmaceutical Industry 93 16:09 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong In the week before the budget, I was hit with the affliction which puts fear into the hearts of men, a condition that brings the powerful to their knees and lays all men low at some point. I am, of course, talking about the scourge of humanity, the dreaded man flu. While I was lying there on what I thought was my deathbed, there were a number of events I had to cancel—curiously, all of the same type. So I thought they deserved a mention today now that I have recovered. It seems, indeed, that I will prove that only the good die young. Firstly, I was forced to cancel my attendance at the opening of the refurbished offices of the pharmaceutical company Sanofi, a real shame as they have long been manufacturers of flu vaccines and probably could have helped me on the day. Sanofi have been in Bennelong for many years, employing a large number of local residents and contributing to the brilliant reputation for exciting innovation in our local medical hub known as Pill Hill. I'm glad that my colleague and co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Medicine, Dr Mike Freelander, was able to step up and fill the space. Thank you, Dr Mike. Two days later, I was sad to cancel my attendance at the newly refurbished Lundbeck offices, also in Macquarie Park. Lundbeck specialises in the psychiatry and neurology therapy areas and has a number of approved and PBS listed medicines in Australia to treat mental illness, including schizophrenia, depression and bipolar disorder. I have had less occasion to meet with Lundbeck, so I was very disappointed not to be able to attend. I look forward to working with them in the future. I was also due to open a third pharmaceutical company, Astellas, who have recently moved to the electorate, but that event was postponed by them to a date that I now can't make owing to the sitting calendar. Nevertheless, I wish them well in their new site and welcome their very wise decision to move to the medical capital of the country, Bennelong. While I am sad that I could not make any of these events, I'm very glad to see, from this trend of office refurbishment, that it is clear that the death of the CBD is greatly exaggerated. The benefits that come from proximity to Macquarie University and to other innovative medical companies in Bennelong are clearly worth maintaining. With so many employees of these companies living locally, the shift from working from home to working on site will hopefully not be too strenuous. It's great to see our hubs coming back to life, and I look forward to seeing the next generations of innovations coming down the line now that I have recovered. Macarthur Electorate: Broadband 94 16:12 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur Of course, Pill Hill is welcome to move to Macarthur. I'd make them most welcome. Eight hundred and fifty-six thousand years—that's roughly how long it would take the average Australian to amass $57 billion. Assuming work life is around 49 years, it would take 17,400 lifetimes for the average Australian worker to amass the wealth needed to establish our National Broadband Network. The Liberal and National parties like to profess to be sound economic managers, but in reality we know that's not the case. If they can throw away $57 billion on a second-rate NBN, can we really trust their judgement? In recent months, I undertook a survey of Macarthur residents to hear firsthand their opinions of the service they were receiving through the NBN. The results were absolutely staggering. The rollout of the NBN was really shambolic in Macarthur, to say the least. Even now, there are some families who cannot get an adequate NBN connection. When asked to rate their NBN speeds on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the worst and 10 being the best, 22 per cent rated their NBN connection as a 1. Thirty per cent of Macarthur residents who responded to my survey identified that they experience lagging or dropouts in their internet connection every day. A number of other residents identified that they experienced these shortfalls even more frequently than once a day, but 30 per cent saying it's effectively a given when they hop online is nothing short of an indictment of a very poor service. Macarthur residents are rightfully dismayed with the coalition government and their claims of perfection when nothing is further from the case. Eighty-nine per cent have stated that their internet connection does not meet their expectations of what a first-class NBN should be. Eighty-nine per cent think the coalition has failed to provide our communities with critical communications infrastructure, even more important now that many people are working from home. When I asked if local residents think that the coalition's delivered value for money, 90 per cent said no. Macarthur residents are rightfully concerned that the second-rate copper NBN is almost $30 billion over budget yet only provides a second-rate service. Much like the botched vaccine rollout, the NBN is something that is far from perfect and something that could have been done much better. Macarthur residents are being dudded by this government. I now frequently have to call the government to account for lack of infrastructure, the poor NBN and the poor vaccine rollout, and I'm very angry that almost 70 per cent of our residents are still experiencing a very poor NBN service in this technological age. Those opposite have been peddling mistruths for years and years, and we have very little to show for their mistruths. Imports 94 16:15 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash Back in 2007 or around then—the member for Hunter will remember this very well—we ran a very strong campaign to stop New Zealand apples coming into Australia. We did our very best, but we lost. The World Trade Organization made an appellate decision—no pun intended—so in 2017 we started importing New Zealand apples. I would have thought that, out of that experience, everything that comes into the country that is a consumable good and has any biosecurity around it would be a no-brainer: all would have country-of-origin labelling. But cut flowers do not. Did you know that? Cut flowers come in here with reasonable—the member for New England's been through this whole biosecurity issue. Is it reasonable what they do? With the country-of-origin label at least you can say the consumer will say, 'Fair enough.' I also didn't know that most of the flowers you buy in the supermarket are imported. I imagined they came from my rose grower down the road. Perhaps some of them do. But most don't. Nearly all of the flowers sold in supermarkets in Australia are imported flowers—fresh flowers—dipped in Roundup to make sure they can't grow here. Do my consumers actually know that their consumers have ben dipped in Roundup for 15 minutes before they arrive in the store? That's what they pick up in the shop. There are a couple of things I've been told—I've been told, so I don't know this for sure. Florists working with imported products report headaches, dermatitis and other issues, and the current trend for decorating cakes with flowers makes contamination a particular concern. To try to prevent the spread of insect pests, flowers are fumigated in their country of origin according to practices of the individual country. What are they using to fumigate them? There are no Australian controls there. So the flower industry requests that the country-of-origin labelling be made mandatory for all flowers and foliage imported into Australia, and I agree. I think the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, Christian Porter, will find out the whole of his party agrees that, when they go out to buy cut flowers or consumable flowers exactly like that, they'll want to know what they're buying. They'll want to know the dangers of it. They'll want to know how people who have health issues may be affected by what's on those consumable flowers and what they have been sprayed with. Is that not unreasonable, Member for Hunter, as a former agriculture minister? Rugby League, Indigenous Australians 95 16:18 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter It was a great pleasure and, indeed, a relief to be present for the Newcastle Knights victory over the Manly Sea Eagles on Sunday. The Sea Eagles have lifted the legendary Bob Fulton the week before and almost did so again this week. We were lucky to get away with the win. I pay tribute to Bob Fulton, my childhood footy hero. We will farewell him at a state funeral service on Friday, where we will extend our sympathies to his friends and his family. While the Knights' win was a highlight in my week, so too was the briefing those of us in the captain's box received from Professor Nathan Towney, Pro Vice-Chancellor Indigenous, Strategy and Leadership at the University of Newcastle. The weekend's games were part of the NRL's Indigenous round of events, a time when we both reflect on and urge more action on Indigenous disadvantage and we celebrate the very significant contributions Indigenous players have made and continue to make to the NRL. They are amongst the games biggest stars. The University of Newcastle has a proud history of participation and engagement with Indigenous Australians. It is committed to reconciliation and to its responsibility as educator in this process. The university has an outstanding track record in Indigenous education and research and is a national leader in Indigenous engagement. A total of 4.6 per cent of its students are Indigenous, the highest percentage of any university in the country. A total of 2.4 per cent of its staff are Indigenous, the highest percentage of any university in Australia. Newcastle has graduated more than 110 Indigenous medical students, the highest number in the country. It has graduated more Indigenous teachers than any other university in Australia. The uni has three pathway programs for Indigenous students. The University of Newcastle is a national leader in reconciliation, not only through the development of its own reconciliation action plan but also through supporting industry and businesses in the Hunter and Central Coast regions to develop their own reconciliation action plans. Since 1983, the Wollotuka Institute has operated as a support centre for Indigenous students studying at the University of Newcastle. The institute champions academically enriching and culturally affirming education across its campuses. I congratulate the university council, Vice-Chancellor Alex Zelinsky, Pro Vice-Chancellor Towney and all those at the university on their significant work and commitment to our First Nations people. COVID-19: Queensland 95 16:21 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson The Whitsunday region's two major industries, tourism and agriculture, have each taken big hits over the last 14 months. International border closures stripped tourism businesses of their customer base and farmers have struggled against mass labour shortages as a result of the lack of international backpackers entering Australia. Both of these issues were exacerbated by the unpredictable nature of state border closures, which left the Whitsundays feeling the full brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic despite only recording a handful of cases from returned travellers. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:22 to 16:38 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Again, some of those worst affected by the pandemic were marine tourism operators, who lost not only their high-end international tourists but also the working holiday backpackers who would work on local farms throughout the week and enjoy some of the Whitsundays' best experiences on days off. I'm pleased that last week the Morrison Liberal-National government announced that Whitsunday reef tour operators had been given an additional 12-month reprieve from the cost of applying for permits to access the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:39 to 16:48 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 As I was saying, the waiver, which was due to expire on 1 July this year, will now be extended to 30 June 2022, and that simple measure will go some way to easing pressure on tourism operators, who in the last few months have seen some light at the end of the tunnel thanks in part to the federal government's half-price airfares initiative. Another boost to the Whitsundays regions was the recent announcement of an Aquaculture and Agriculture Tech Skills Hub to be built in Cannonvale. The Morrison Liberal-National government's contribution of $1½ million in funding from the regional recovery partnerships programs means that Whitsunday locals can stay in the region and gain skills that are vitally needed and in high demand in local industries. The hub will deliver agtech programs and training to boost the sugar cane, aquaculture and horticulture industries. This is an investment in local agricultural and the local workforce, which will ensure the region can maximise its potential in the long-term future. Another $5.2 million from the Regional Recovery Partnerships program is allocated to upgrade the Mackay renewable biocommodities pilot plant, which will support the Queensland University of Technology's development of regional biomanufacturing industries in synthetic biology, green chemicals and future foods. This is a long-term investment in our agricultural and biomanufacturing capabilities which will increase our productivity and sustainability. It will also attract investors to the region and grow local business by grasping the real growth opportunities presented by globally in-demand biocommodity support for tourism—and support for farmers means support for the regions. These measures will strengthen the long-term future of two of our regions most important industries. Aged Care 96 16:50 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I rise today to recognise the enormous contribution of older Australians to this nation. Our older Australians make up a very significant portion of my electorate of Richmond and the population right throughout the New South Wales North Coast. They are the fabric of our strong and vibrant community. The experience, wisdom and knowledge they have is something to be valued and respected. We must never forget that it's our seniors who built this nation. They put in the hard yards, paid their taxes, raised their children and contributed to building our communities to be what they are today. I recently sent out my annual kit for pensioners and seniors, and the response from locals has been overwhelming. It contains useful information such as payment rates, safety tips and local contacts. Many seniors have told me it was important to feel acknowledged and appreciated, something they don't often feel under of the Morrison government. In fact, it makes me so angry to constantly see this government neglecting our seniors. We know from the royal commission into aged care that 30 per cent of Australians living in aged care are receiving substandard care. About 68 per cent of people living in aged care are malnourished or at risk of malnourishment. There's no other way to describe this but absolutely disgraceful. How dare this government, the Morrison government, treat the very people who built this nation with such contempt and such neglect. Make no mistake, this situation is a direct result of the Morrison government's severe funding cuts to aged care. After more than $1.7 billion in cuts to aged care, Australian seniors are hurting. More than 100,000 people are waiting for home-care packages, with some waiting up to three years. Also, the bungled vaccine rollout is hurting our seniors. So many in my community are still waiting because we haven't had enough vaccine supplied to our region. The Morrison government has also failed to establish quarantine facilities across the nation to keep us all safe. The vaccine rollout and quarantine are federal government responsibilities. They've failed at both, and the fact is they're putting our seniors' lives at risk. Today, of course, it was revealed that the Prime Minister doesn't even know how many aged-care residents or workers have been fully vaccinated. His government has neglected the residents and the workers. The government promised they'd be fully vaccinated by Easter; now here we are in June. The simple fact is that governments can change lives. They can choose to change lives and improve standards for older Australians. But this government doesn't. Never forget that, and don't let them forget it either. As I've said so many times before, we as a nation have a duty to ensure our older Australians are treated with respect and dignity. We must ensure they can access public services and support when they need those services. So I say to the seniors on the North Coast: I'm on your side; Labor is on your side. Labor is listening and understands your concerns. We listen to you because you deserve to be listened to. We respect you because you deserve to be respected. My door is always open, and I'm proud to say I'm on your side today and every day. I'll always fight for you. Cowper Electorate: Wastewater treatment, Make a Difference 96 16:53 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper In March of this year, many of the residents of Stuarts Point, just north of Kempsey, were evacuated from their homes in the middle of the night due to health concerns as a result of flooding into septic systems, which discharged into the yards, streets and, in some instances, homes of the residents of Stuarts Point. For over two decades the community of Stuarts Point have been waiting for the delivery of a sewer project and, thanks to the hard work of the members of the Kempsey Shire Council and the Kempsey Local Aboriginal Land Council, this project will now be realised. Last Friday saw the first-ever agreement between the shire council and the Indigenous land council to acquire the land in Stuarts Point to deliver this long overdue and much-needed project. The agreement is not just delivering better residential infrastructure but also creating a stronger bond with the Indigenous community. I'd like to acknowledge Kempsey Local Aboriginal land Council Chief Executive Officer Greg Douglas for his tireless efforts, along with Craig Millburn, Robert Fish and Mayor Liz Campbell. I also acknowledge Melinda Pavey, the Minister for Water, Property and Housing, for securing the $6.63 million to help construct the Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme under the New South Wales government's regional Water and Waste Water Backlog Program. On a completely different note, Deputy Speaker, you're probably familiar with such songs as 'Glory Days' by Bruce Springsteen, 'Old Man' by Neil Young and 'Forever Young' by Rod Stewart. Well, that was the musical backdrop as I strapped on my footy boots to play for the Wrinkled Horns Vikings rugby team last Saturday against the Port Macquarie Pirates. The Vikings hosted a special charity and sponsor day in front of a larger-than-normal crowd on what was a very cold day for Port Macquarie. The Viking first-grade team wore a special one-off set of jerseys which were later auctioned off at the Port City Bowling Club during the post-match function. Despite the freshly worn and not so freshly smelling jumpers, the bidding was aggressive and very generous from a healthy crowd of players and supporters. The auction raised more than $10,000 for the Make a Difference organisation, who are sponsors of the local Orange Sky Laundry Van and other charitable services. Make a Difference supports disadvantaged people living in the community and most recently stepped in to help with the flood relief across the Hastings. The fundraising from Saturday aims to complete the fit-out of a food and coffee van and to expand the Make a Difference service in the community. Congratulations to the Viking rugby club and thank you to everybody who was involved on the day. It was a lot of fun for a very good cause. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 97 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 97

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022

Second Reading 97 16:57 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I rise to speak on the coalition's federal budget because there are not too many on their side who speak about it anymore. We had this budget last month. The government hardly talk about it anymore, and the reason is that it's a budget that basically goes against everything that they portrayed themselves as for years. The coalition said for years, when we were responding to the GFC and putting the stimulus into the economy to make sure we avoided recession, that they didn't want to see debts and deficits for as far as the eye can see. They've now brought in a budget that will see debt climb to $1 trillion, with deficits as far as the eye can see. It's going to be at least a decade before we clear these deficits, and they have no problem with that. They've walked away from the debt and deficit mantra. It's no longer a big issue for them. They spend money every time. For any spending that's proposed by the opposition, by Labor, we get challenged on where we find the money. These people are operating a printing press. For every single promise that they're putting out, they're just cranking that printing press. There's more money going out the door. There's more debt that's being racked up. They don't care about it, because they've walked away from who they are. This budget is not a budget with some sort of central focus or theme or something that they're using to drive the whole shape of the budget. There's only one thing in there, and that is fixes—political fixes for all the problems that they have to try and get those off the table. There's no longer-term, genuine strategy about where they're going to head in relation to this. In the industry portfolio in particular, the portfolio that I cover as a shadow minister, we see a whole lot of ideas announced, but there is no central game plan about what they're going to do. In the last year or so, when we couldn't in the middle of a pandemic make the things that Australians would expect could be manufactured in this country, Australians have not been able to get those items and those products when they need them the most, because we pretty much decimated manufacturing in this country and this government does not believe in manufacturing things in Australia. They believe in manufacturing as a prop, as a slogan or as something to get them out of trouble, but they don't believe in it genuinely. Their heart is not in it. When they first came into office, the first thing they was to rip out everything that was in place to help work with industry to guide the development of manufacturing longer term. The then Prime Minister Abbott and co tore up all that funding, tore up all that work and decided that that was not something that they would support. They goaded the car manufacturers out of the place, and as a result we saw car manufacturing—and I'm proud to say Labor's side under Chifley had pushed for the establishment of car manufacturing in this country; it provided a lot of full-time, great work for Australians and a lot of small businesses and other providers. That was all gone. Now the coalition have brought in, hurriedly in the last six months or so, this whole mess of a strategy that they've got. They call it a Modern Manufacturing Strategy. There's a Modern Manufacturing Initiative, a Manufacturing Modernisation Fund and a supply chain program. There's a whole lot of stuff that is going to generate 80,000 jobs, 300,000 jobs or 2,600 jobs over 10 years. The spending is now. The spending is in 10 years. It's a complete mess. It is only designed for them to be able to say that they're doing something about manufacturing. There is no central cent. There is nothing at the core of this government that talks about what they will do to genuinely establish manufacturing in this country in terms of its renaissance and its longer-term viability. They crowed about the fact that all these jobs came back into manufacturing and then they tried to claim credit for it. It wasn't because of anything the government did. All their programs only just came in. It would be a true miracle if anything this government did actually worked. What does work is the stunt. What does work is the media announcement. What does work is the production of press releases that go out but not the stuff of substance, not the stuff that will see them through. They also announced, for example, this whole idea that we were going to have—and we've heard it a lot—patent boxes. Patent boxes were the big thing they were going to bring in under this budget, and we heard the Treasurer announce it with great flourish in the budget. Bear in mind that it is not the first time they've done it. In fact, in 2015 the Coalition announced that they were considering a patent box concept. They did a review. It went nowhere. That was 2015. It is 2021. In 2015 they announced that they were thinking about a patent box. They're now saying that from July 2022 the patent box will tax income derived from Australian medical and biotech patents at a 17 per cent effective rate. These patent boxes are not an idea that the government has come up with on its own. The big innovators have come up with stealing someone else's idea. They've been around since the seventies, introduced in Ireland in 1973. France introduced a form of them in '79. The UK has had them since 2013. In 2015 a European Commission report examined the effect of patent boxes on 2,000 companies in 12 countries from the year 2000 to 2011, and it found patent boxes benefited companies financially but had a limited effect on increasing local research and development capability. So would it run any differently in Australia? We'll wait to see what the government says, but so far it looks like the patent box is a great innovation for company products and does not do very much in terms of innovative output. We have to see what's going to happen there. The Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, who announced the patent box in his budget in 2021—I just remembered. As soon as he announced it, I was thinking, 'Where have I heard him mention it before?' In 2019 he had this bright idea that he was going to bring in patent boxes. That was two years ago. So they looked at it in 2015, they talked about it in 2019 and they announced it in 2021. There's the speed of action by the coalition. He talked about it at a business event in London. He said to the then Treasury secretary, Phil Gaetjens, he'd have a few tax policies to work on when he got home. That's the way innovation policy is devised in the Coalition. Like bowerbirds they collect an idea here and there. Then they just put it all together and think it's all going to work. Mash it altogether and somehow it will deliver for the country. That is not the way that legitimate innovation policy should run. It shouldn't be that the latest shiny thing is the thing you put on top of the pile. They should have a way in which they will genuinely work it through, because the jury is still out on the validity of these as a concept. For example, in their supplementary submission to the Inquiry into Australia's Future in Research and Innovation, IP Australia said: … patent boxes raise serious questions relating to tax competition, with governments effectively engaging in a race to the bottom… patent boxes do not necessarily induce research and development, and … may speed the trend for firms to separate patent income from underlying R&D activity, because of the increased tax incentives for mobile income. Further, in reviewing the patent box regimes of Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the UK: … the increase in tax revenue from a greater number of patents in each country is not offset by the reduced tax revenues from patent box tax breaks. I have a genuinely open mind. If there is a benefit out this we should look at it. What I'd urge people in the sector, who are attracted to the idea of patent boxes, to think about is: (1) we have a track record from a coalition government of making big announcements where the detail is light and they can't follow through and (2) this cannot simply be a method to reduce a tax bill. It has to have legitimate R&D outcomes that benefit the country. The coalition does not have an organised approach to innovation in this country. It basically runs from idea to idea and then drops the last one that didn't work. I don't have a problem if ideas don't work and you want to find something to improve, but there is no coherent thread through the work that they do. Where they are innovative is in stealing a lot of Labor policies. We've been arguing for ages that they should get their focus together on artificial intelligence, which is an economic and national security priority. We've been saying that for years. We announced in 2018 that this government needs to spend $30 million over four years on AI capability for the nation when our neighbours up north were spending five times that. We also called for the establishment of a national centre of AI excellence. In this budget they've set it up. We've been saying for ages that digital skills in this nation are an issue. Even in the latest digital pulse survey, done by Deloitte for the Australian Computer Society, they're predicting that there might be up to 520,000 more people with ICT qualifications needed by 2026. We need to see more work done on that. We have been pushing for skills in that area. Knowing of the massive skill shortages in the ICT and the tech space the government have finally announced that they'll do some stuff with regard to that in this budget. I am also surprised to see some moves to cut capabilities out of Data61. Apparently the future of core components within Data61 has been left up in the air. Seventy jobs are predicted to be lost as a result of funding cuts to Data61—within CSIRO. Significant staff cuts—despite the CSIRO receiving more than $100 million in extra funding for artificial intelligence efforts. In a recent announcement, the science agency would be investing a further $100 million over four years into priority research areas. We are seeing more happening in there which we will be pursuing as well. On Industry Growth Centres, apparently there was a secret report that backed the Industry Growth Centres. An initial evaluation of the six growth centres highlighted though that there was inadequate funding and that the centres had an inability to change the fortunes of the sectors in which they operate as a result of it. According to the report, in particular the growth centres lack of resourcing and structures to drive transformational change at a sectoral level was highlighted as an issue; their funding envelope is small, relative to that of comparable international programs, such as the UK's catapult program; and, finally, additional funding is required for the growth centres to achieve scale. This is the type of stuff we should be seeing money go into, rather than a quick knee-jerk reaction to embrace a new concept that is just basically—for example, patent boxes on the face of it look like a way to reduce someone's tax bill rather than create longer term, value-added innovation activity and we're not seeing it. While it's too soon to assess the magnitude of some of the changes in the reporting of the growth centres that have occurred, ACIL Allen considers that the growth centres have aimed high and the magnitude of their impact is likely to be large. However, the impact is company-specific and not industry-wide. This is an issue. We need to be able to see industry-wide impacts through serious funding of growth centres, particularly in advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity, food and agribusiness, med tech, pharmaceuticals, mining, technology, services, and oil, gas and energy resources. These all mean a great deal to the country. We should be backing them in and we're not. Again, we will be following this through. There have been a whole lot of announcements in the industry space from this government. But, as I said, beyond the announcement is deficiency of detail. I'll look quickly at my own area. In my part of Western Sydney, 200,000 people are moving in. The infrastructure cannot cope. We do not have the federal Liberal government and the state Liberal government working together on this. We had the government announce that they were spending an extra $10 billion on infrastructure—and, by that, I mean borrowing $10 billion extra—when it turns out they're underspending to the tune of $1.2 billion a year in their infrastructure budget. How can they underspend when areas like mine are crying out for major upgrades of roads or the use of smart infrastructure funding to help open up areas and give access to low-socioeconomic areas to get young people from those families jobs in high-economic and commercial growth areas? We need to see that happening more and more. This New South Wales government is completely terrible at infrastructure planning and delivery, and the federal government aid and abet them. So they have an underspend. The amazing thing is the government borrowed $10 billion to underspend $7 billion on infrastructure. They claim to be great economic managers when they can't actually spend the money on things people in my area need. On the issue of infrastructure, we particularly need to see a budget that actually delivers for people that are stuck on congested trains. There is no investment in public transport, there's completely underinvestment in road transport and there's a failure to deliver the infrastructure that people need. Again, the government are big on announcement and poor on delivery, and the Australian people will suffer as a result of that deficiency. 17:12 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I'm very happy to rise this evening to talk about the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 and related bills. It seems I'm following my colleague the shadow industry minister because government members have stopped debating the budget bill. That says something about the lack of confidence that the government members have in the budget. It sank without trace. Typical of the Treasurer, anything in it that might have been worth something was leaked beforehand. Then, of course, by the time he delivered the budget, everyone knew what was in it and no-one sought to prosecute the argument that it was of any use because, if you look to the budget, you see the government making clear that they are moving very quickly to a $1 trillion of debt as a result of their mismanagement. We should remember that most of the debt accumulated under this government was prior to the pandemic, something that the government is seeking to say otherwise about. There is a whole series of things about the budget that allow us to properly identify the deficiencies of the government—not just failure to manage debt prior to the pandemic but also a failure to provide sufficient support to defence capability. We have been watching the recent defence minister publicly speak up on the capability of the government with respect to defence capability. However, over the forward estimates there is a cut to the defence capital budget of more than $10 billion. Indeed, because of the failure of the government—remembering that this government has had six defence ministers in eight years—to properly manage the largest defence asset contracts in this nation's history, we are in a situation where we are seeing billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers' dollars being wasted. In the case of the Future Submarine program, we are seeing the expenditure blow out from $50 billion to $89 billion. With respect to the frigates program we've seen an estimated cost blowout of $10 billion. Returning to the Future Submarine program, we've seen the date of the first submarine being in the water delayed by up to a decade. Instead of the first submarine under this program being in the water mid-decade, it's likely to happen mid-2030s. That failure to manage these contracts means that we are left exposed in terms of our national security and defence capability. That is of course letting down the Australian Defence Force and letting down this nation. It's really up to the government to do better—to right the wrongs and rectify the deficiencies to the extent that they possibly can, given their remarkable dereliction over the past eight years—and to start to focus on the things that matter. With respect to national security, ensuring that the defence contracts are delivered on time and on budget is critical. As I say, these are huge expenditure items. Given the relative instability, the rise of anxieties and concerns in the region and globally, it is urgent that the government get on top of these matters. We've yet to see that play out sufficiently. It doesn't seem to matter whether or not there are changes to the ministerial line-up. There's no doubt in my mind, and in the minds of others, such as defence experts, that the revolving door of Defence that has been on show has meant there has not been a minister in the position over a sufficiently long period to manage these defence contracts. An opposition member interjecting— Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Yes. Thank you. A good colleague from Queensland is confirming my proposition that we do need to do better. Indeed, if we were to have a minister last a year or more, maybe it would help, but, frankly, there have been too many mistakes and too many commitments to the Australian public that have not been realised. Before the 2016 election, there was a commitment by the then minister, Christopher Pyne, that 90 per cent of the build of the future submarines would be in Australia. That did not materialise. After the 2016 election, having gone to the election with a promise of a 90 per cent local content spend, the government revised its commitment to local content and suggested there'd be a 60 per cent local content spend. Of course, that has not been realised either. It became apparent only some months ago that the defence contract that had been entered into with the French contractor, Naval Group, did not prescribe, through any enforceable provision, a minimum 60 per cent local content. We then had the spectacle of the head of Naval Group having to travel from France and quarantine for 14 days in Adelaide in order to meet the Minister for Defence, who was then not available to meet with him. That was for genuine reasons, but it has left the completely unacceptable situation where the largest defence asset contract in Australia's history has been mismanaged to such a degree. There's been a failure to get the subs into the water and a failure to keep the money in check, and it's therefore a terrible reflection of the government's inability to manage contracts. I say to the government and the minister: you don't get to boast about increasing defence expenditure if the increase is only because you've blown out the defence contracts. You don't get to say, 'We're spending $40 billion more on defence,' because your defence contract went from $50 billion to $90 billion. That is not a commendation of any good governance, and it's not really in the interests of the nation for overspends to be counted as very good spending, as the government seeks to do. There are grave concerns by many about this failure. There's a complete mismatch; there is a contrast between the elevation of the rhetoric by the government with respect to national security and the failure and deficiency to deliver the contracts, to deliver the defence capability that our Defence Force needs and that our country needs. This yawning gap between government rhetoric and defence asset delivery is getting wider and wider, and we don't see any efforts by the government to fix it. Rhetoric will not fix it. Today in estimates we witnessed some remarkable admissions made by the Secretary of the Department of Defence. Having promised that the submarines would be built in Australia, having promised that the hulls would be built in Australia, when pushed and asked and pressed, the Secretary of the Department of Defence had to admit that the possibility of the submarine hulls being built in this country is predicated upon our technical capability. And, of course, that is unknown. You don't get to say something is a surety subject to another matter, subject to X, but we just don't know what 'X' is. But that's what the government is seeking to convince the Australian public—that we will build things in this country. Yet we're not able to explain whether we have the technical capability to do so. That is a major problem. It is a fundamental breach of a commitment made by the Prime Minister and this government to the Australian people—over multiple elections, I might add—and it continues to be asserted by the defence minister. We need to reconcile the admissions made by the Secretary of the Department of Defence in estimates today with the rhetorical statements made by the minister. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister or the defence minister to suggest that the submarines that we've contracted the French contractor, Naval Group, to build will be built here or predominantly built here; yet, when we push on that issue, it is clear that it is not resolved. We don't know the answer—or, if the government does know the answer, they're not telling the Australian public the reality of that situation at all, and that needs to change. It is incumbent on this government to come clean. Historically, if you compare this government with previous governments, we know it is one which likes to hide many, many things, whether it's an on-water matter or there is some other reason why they can't tell the public why they're spending money in a particular way or how much they're spending. It's not good enough for the government to continue to hide behind vague, nebulous answers to simple questions about whether in fact our defence industry businesses and our defence industry workers will get the chance to benefit from enormous amounts of taxpayer money. It's not just about jobs and it's not just about businesses; it's about sovereign capability. We need a defence industry that can help build defence assets and maintain them, because that is good for our economy and it's good for national security. Without the capability, the skills and the know-how to build future defence assets, we are exposed. So this is an economic issue and a national security issue. The government have no answers to this question and refuse to come clean as to the situation with respect to these defence assets. They need to do better. We need to see the government account for the deficiencies in these defence contracts, because today's admissions are very, very disturbing. When asked precisely by Senator Wong, the Secretary of the Department of Defence could not unequivocally say that the three hulls, the first three submarines under the Attack class program, would be built here, notwithstanding that that was a commitment made by this government, this Prime Minister and this defence minister. That is not good enough, and the Australian public deserve to know what is happening with respect to that. So there are many, many questions that need answering in relation to that matter. We have, of course, issues with the frigate program, which I've gone to in earlier contributions in this place. We have questions around, for example, even the decision to have a royal commission into suicides among veterans and Defence personnel. We are glad that the government finally came to the position it did in relation to announcing a royal commission. I noticed, of course, that there is significant expenditure in the budget in relation to that commission, but there have been no terms of reference determined. There is no composition or architecture of the royal commission determined. We don't know who the commissioners will be. These are matters that really concern veterans and Defence personnel and their families, and we need to know answers to this. It seems to me that the defence minister is more interested in cancelling tea at a Defence site than in actually delivering future submarines. I think it would be better for him to focus more on delivering Defence asset contracts or getting the architecture of the royal commission on this blight, with the huge number of tragic suicides we've seen. That's the focus that the government needs to attend to, not this gratuitous waste of time on matters that are not important. They're ephemeral. They're not fundamental to the interests of Defence personnel or their families. They're not fundamental to the national security of this nation. They are distractions by a government that's lost control of the biggest defence contracts in this nation's history, and that has to change. So we say to the government that, if they want to be taken seriously, they need to start accounting for where the Defence assets will be built; when they will be built; whether they're built on time or delayed; whether, in fact, they can rein in the spending in relation to these huge Defence contracts; and whether, in fact, defence industry will be provided with sufficient business and employment following from the expenditure in this area. These are the questions that people want to know the answers to, yet to date we've had no answers from the Prime Minister or the defence minister, and for that they need to be condemned. This is a budget, of course, that's really underlined that the government has managed to put us in almost $1 trillion of debt, most of which happened prior to the pandemic. It also highlights the failure to properly manage defence contracts, which, of course, undermines our national security. 17:27 Mr BURKE DYW Watson As is known, during the approps—in this case, the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022—the relevance rule doesn't matter, so there will be a series of speeches that probably won't link together terribly well in Hansard. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM Thanks for your advice! Mr BURKE DYW But there are a few things that I want to get on the record. First of all, as I speak, Victoria, as we know, is in another lockdown. It's No. 6 of the snap lockdowns that we've had in the past year. What's becoming clear is that the federal government's botched vaccine rollout and its refusal to create a safe national quarantine system means that we'll be living with snap lockdowns like this for some time to come. Live entertainment and events businesses had only just gotten back on their feet. It's been great to see the social media and people going to events again, but I think a whole lot of people, and the government in particular, have not understood the commercial reality of these businesses. The government's response, first of all, was to design JobKeeper in such a way that, if you were going to exclude as many people in the arts and entertainment sector as possible, you'd design it exactly the way they did. Yes, it's true when the minister says, 'Oh, but the majority of the people in the sector got onto JobKeeper.' Yes, that's true: the majority did. But the entire sector was shut down, so that leaves you with many hundreds of thousands of people being left with nothing. Instead of having a systematic approach to dealing with it, which a wage subsidy would have been if it had been properly designed, the government have gone down the path of a grants program. A grants program does help some businesses—I get that—but it does not provide any help for what's happening with snap lockdowns. With snap lockdowns, businesses that have invested in an event going ahead then discover that they have to return the cost of the ticket sales and pay their liabilities. Now, that sort of model just says to people, 'You're better off not taking the risk.' These are commercial ventures. The only reason some of them are not currently commercial is good public health decisions that are being made by government. Think about it this way: when Bluesfest was cancelled last year, it had pandemic insurance because you could have pandemic insurance. You can insure against an event that has not yet commenced. You can't ring up during a cyclone and take out insurance for the current cyclone; they will only give it to you for the next one. Pandemic insurance works the same way. So when Bluesfest was cancelled the second time, they could get insurance against future pandemics, but not against COVID-19. Other festivals are now working their way through the question: do they go ahead at all? Going ahead means it may well be an event that is uninsurable, that is entirely outside their control, and if it occurs they will go bankrupt. There is a really simple policy around this. We've been calling for it for a long time. Some of the minor parties, including representatives in the chamber right now, have been calling for it. Industry has been calling for it as well. It's simply to provide for the events and entertainment industry the same as what's provided for the film industry. Now, for the film industry, the government understood and got it right. There's a whole lot of big-investment Hollywood productions coming to Australia, and if they get suddenly shut down because of social distancing, then that will cause a huge cost to them and create a risk that may prevent those productions coming to Australia in the first place. These are not businesses that need a grants program, but what the government did—we called for it, they did it, and we welcome it—was effectively provide an insurance program called a Business Interruption Fund; a fund of $50 million that effectively moves from movie to movie. To date, I'm not aware of a dollar of it actually being needed to be spent, but the fact that it's there means business can take the risk. Think about what has happened over the last week in Victoria. The RISING festival—a new festival just starting. It gets into its first day and has its first night under the blood moon. It's going brilliantly, then it's entirely shut down. It's not just the organisers that lose money. Think right down to every individual food stall. These are food stall businesses that set up their little marquees or drive in their vans, buy all the food and all the produce in advance, and suddenly discover there will not be a single customer—not because their product wasn't good enough, not because they weren't commercially viable businesses, not because they'd organised things poorly, but simply because of a public health order that was beyond their control. The government's answer keeps being, 'Oh, well, maybe we'll have a new grants program.' A grants program will never fix this problem. This problem can only be addressed by taking away the element of risk that is entirely beyond the control of business. These businesses have not said, 'How dare you put in a public health order that says we need to shut down.' They get it. They're good citizens. The people who buy their tickets are good citizens. But just think of the logic. The government's refusal to do for the events and entertainment industry what they have done for the film industry means live entertainment and major events are now asking a question that the film industry doesn't have to ask. They're simply asking: is it worth rolling the dice in the knowledge that there may be an event entirely beyond our control and uninsurable which, if it occurs, means we go bankrupt? That is the real-life commercial decision being made by major events organisers right now. It affects them, it affects every individual stallholder. It affects the bands and performers themselves. It affects the cleaning contractors. Whether or not they have that risk, it then affects the confidence of people buying tickets to events, because they're not quite sure if they'll get their money back if it's cancelled, all because the government won't do for Australian major events what it's willing to do for Hollywood. We welcome, because of the jobs associated with it, what the government has done for the feature film industry with overseas productions coming here. But what sort of cultural policy says, 'We'll provide the insurance to make sure that Hollywood is willing to take a risk in Australia, but we won't provide that opportunity for any of the festival organisers or the major events organisers?' It has had less publicity than the RISING Festival, but, on the same weekend, there was supposed to be an event organised by an entrepreneur I've met—a young woman who has been running major events for baby shower expos and wedding expos. The One Fine Day expo was meant to be held on the weekend. It was cancelled without notice for the second year in a row. It's not something she can get insurance for. At first, it looked like she had lost the venue because of the centres needed for the vaccination rollout organised by the Victorian government. She then found a venue. It was all organised, and then, for the second year in a row, the whole sense of optimism was taken away at the last minute. No-one is saying the public health orders are unacceptable. Labor is not saying that. We are simply saying: how can you expect a commercial operation to function if they in fact have a major decision that will determine whether they make money or are bankrupt that is entirely in the hands of someone else and if it's uninsurable? This can be fixed. If this is done in the same way as it was done for Hollywood feature films, you can be guaranteed these festival organisers will organise the major events and these expo organisers will organise the expos. Sometimes the events will be cancelled, but, most of the time, it won't cost the government a cent. They're not asking for grants. They're simply asking the government to step in where the insurance world, understandably, will not. This can be fixed. Because of what the government has done with the film industry, we know it can be fixed, and we simply make one appeal: show the respect for Australian entrepreneurs that has been shown to Hollywood entrepreneurs. If you do that, then we'll have a business interruption fund that applies to the live entertainment, expo and major events sector. I want to refer to an organisation in my electorate by the name of Lighthouse Community Support. One of the most remarkable things for me over the last 12 months has been seeing how many members of the local community came together to support each other in a time of crisis. Lighthouse Community Support is one of the not-for-profit organisations that was packing food hampers for bushfire affected communities. So, at the beginning of last year, there were big empty stores and people were in there packing boxes, loading them onto trucks and driving them down to bushfire affected areas. They went straight from that to organising hampers for people impacted by the pandemic. In my electorate, we have a significant number of people who are not eligible for JobSeeker or JobKeeper, when it was there, because of their visa status. A whole lot of these people were left with, effectively, nothing to live on, and, when the government wasn't feeding these people, organisations like Lighthouse Community Support did. When the government wasn't making sure that people had something to sustain them, the community just stepped in and did it. They showed the best of Australia. It wasn't only Lighthouse Community Support doing that, but they're the group that I want to pay tribute to today, for the very simple reason that they were recently recognised by the Canterbury-Bankstown council in the annual awards, taking out Community Organisation of the Year. Their work relies on the experience and expertise of their team working in my community in different sectors over the years. Together, Lighthouse run youth mentoring programs and youth leadership programs throughout the area and beyond. They also provide much-needed support for families and students in need and for people who are survivors of domestic violence. I know especially that Lighthouse do this work often without praise. They don't seek praise either. I didn't tell them I was going to make this speech, because they would have asked me not to. They are modest, good people. That's exactly why they were given Community Organisation of the Year. It reminds us that, when we uplift others in our community, we all benefit. I want to thank Lighthouse Community Support for always uplifting others and for making our community a better place. I want to acknowledge the medical centres and doctors in my part of Sydney for the extraordinary work that they have done during COVID. There are a whole lot of volunteers and other people who have gone to the nth degree. Medical centres have been in a very special role. We had at one point a significant outbreak in Lakemba, and at that moment we put the appeal out for people to put messages on social media in every community language, and it just happened. You started going through the different Facebook pages, and different people were there putting out messages in different community languages, telling people what they had to do for social distancing and telling people what they had to do for testing. Back then it was not as contagious a strain as what we're dealing with now the delta strain of the virus, but certainly the community got on top of it, and what could have been a horrific outbreak was brought back under control. In acknowledging all of the medical centres, I want to tell the story of one. Disclaimer: it happens to be my own doctor, someone who is known to many people around Parliament House, Dr Jamal Rifi. He asked me to come in to make sure I got my first dose of AstraZeneca from the start, because he wanted to make sure it was promoted to help build community confidence and to make sure that some of the people who have heard the different conspiracy theories were encouraged to take the vaccination. Since March of last year Dr Rifi has transformed not only his clinic but his home. His home is next door to the clinic. He effectively gave up his front yard and put up a marquee. That marquee was originally a testing clinic. Now there is another marquee to the side. There's one as a waiting area for the vaccine. Another is where you sit after you've had the vaccine. Then there's a drive-through section where people are still being tested. To my knowledge, if he's taken a day off, I don't know when it was, and I was very pleased only a couple of weeks ago to congratulate everybody who works there, from the receptionist to the nurses to the doctors to the administrators. Everybody there has done the most extraordinary work. They always help the patients with their health, but what they have done is keep the entire community safe. It is selfless work. It deserves to be acknowledged in every way. It's the one situation that has been so common over the last 12 months: where the work of our doctors, our medical practitioners and everyone who works with them hasn't been only to protect their patients but has been to protect the whole of Australia. 17:42 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs In July 2017 the Liberal government offered a company called Canstruct International Pty Ltd a contract for welfare and garrison services on Nauru without a competitive tender. At the time, the contract was worth over $300 million. Since then, the contract has been extended five times, each time without a competitive tender, and its value has ballooned to $1.4 billion. So why did Canstruct get this contract? Prior to Canstruct being handed this massive contract, the company had no experience of delivering welfare and garrison services to vulnerable people. Prior to Canstruct being handed this massive contract, the Department of Home Affairs had concluded that the company did not have, 'sufficient technical understanding to provide the required services.' Prior to Canstruct being handed this massive contract, at least two other, more qualified companies had told the government that they were interested in delivering the services. Prior to Canstruct being handed this massive contract, the Nauruan government told the Australian government that its decision to pursue a sole tender arrangement with the company—and again I quote from the Nauruan government's letter—'deeply offended us and, in our view, has damaged the sense of partnership and collaboration between Nauru and Australia.' So I ask again: why was Canstruct handed this megacontract on a platter without a competitive tender? And why has the contract been extended five times, also without a single competitive tender? What do we know about Canstruct? We know that Canstruct International is part of the Canstruct Group, a group of Brisbane based companies owned by the Murphy family—three brothers and their father. Thanks to a report in the Nine papers on Monday last week, we know that, since October 2017, executives and associates of Canstruct have made 11 donations to the Liberal and National parties. These donations were made in seven different names and none were disclosed under federal electoral laws. We have to thank legislation passed by the Queensland Labor state parliament for the disclosure of these donations. It is a matter of public record that Rory Murphy, the CEO of Canstruct, attended Liberal-National party fundraisers with the former Minister for Home Affairs, the member for Dickson, Mr Dutton, who was the minister responsible for the department that awarded these contracts. Rory Murphy attended these fundraisers with the member for Dickson in November 2018, April 2019 and October 2019. Those fundraisers took place either shortly before or shortly after the government extended its contract with Canstruct. The member for Dickson was at all relevant times the minister in charge of the department that awarded Canstruct the Nauru contract, and at all relevant times the member for Dickson was in charge of the department responsible for extending the contract with Canstruct. So, in short, we do not know much about Canstruct, but we do know that it is a major donor to the Liberal and National parties and we know the CEO of the company is very well known to the member for Dickson personally. Thanks to two Auditor-General's reports, we also know that: (1) in the year before Canstruct was handed the contract for the provision of welfare and garrison services on Nauru, the Department of Home Affairs had determined that the company did not have 'sufficient technical understanding to provide the required services' and did not offer 'value for money'; (2) at least two other companies expressed an interest in delivering the services on Nauru, including one company, Serco, which according to the department did offer value for money and did have the relevant technical expertise to provide the services; (3) Canstruct had no previous experience in delivering welfare or garrison services to vulnerable people; (4) the decision to award Canstruct the contract without a competitive tender deeply offended the government of Nauru and, according to a senior Nauruan official, 'damaged the sense of partnership and collaboration between Nauru and Australia'; and (5) at the time Canstruct International was awarded the contract it had no assets and generated no revenue and it appears that the government did not require any director or related entity of Canstruct International to guarantee the company's performance under the contract. So Canstruct has breached its contract and caused massive loss to the Commonwealth. It's unclear whether the government could have recovered anything from Canstruct on behalf of Australians. So there is a very long list of reasons why Canstruct should not have been awarded this contract without a competitive tender, and nobody—not the department, not the current Minister for Home Affairs and certainly not the former Minister for Home Affairs—has offered a single cogent reason why the company should have been handed this contract, let alone without a competitive tender. Let's just recall that this is a contract that to date has been worth $1.4 billion of taxpayers' money. That takes us back to the 11 donations. What role did those 11 donations play in the government's decision to award Canstruct the contract without a competitive tender, and what role did those 11 donations play in the government's five subsequent decisions to extend the contract with Canstruct, in each case without a competitive tender? But it's not just the Liberal government's decision to hand Canstruct this $1.4 billion without a competitive tender that raises questions and warrants scrutiny. Since October 2017, the value of the contract has continued to increase significantly, despite the dramatic and completely predictable decline in the number of asylum seekers on Nauru—from 1,094 to fewer than 150—and despite the government of Nauru taking over the provision of welfare services in mid-2019. Those service that have been taken over by the government of Nauru altogether are some of the services that Canstruct were previously providing. In December 2017, Canstruct was paid approximately $27.3 million of public money to provide welfare and garrison services to 1,084 people. That's approximately $25,000 per person In January 2021, the Morrison government paid Canstruct over $40 million to provide fewer services to only 145 people. That's over $320,000 per person for the month. I'll repeat that; that's over $320,000 per person for that month, January 2021. That's in addition to the $6 million the Morrison government paid to the government of Nauru in January 2021 to provide the welfare services that Canstruct used to provide under its $1.4 billion contract. In other words, in December 2017 the government spent $27.3 million for the provision of welfare and garrison services to 1,084 people on Nauru; some three years later, in January 2021, the Morrison government spent over $46 million for the provision of fewer services to only 145 people. This is the same government that likes to claim it's good at managing money. This is obscene. It's an obscenity with only one beneficiary: a company owned by a family of Liberal-National Party donors. According to the company's own financial reports, Canstruct International made almost $52 million in profit from the Nauru contract in 2017-18. In 2018-19 it made a $91.5 million profit. In 2019-20, its profit was $130 million. In other words, a huge proportion of the public money that the Morrison government is paying to Canstruct is going straight into the pockets of this family of Liberal-National Party donors. The Murphy family is laughing all the way to the bank, splashing out on expensive racehorses trained by Gai Waterhouse and $17 million houses in the suburbs of Brisbane, and the Morrison government thinks all this is fine. In fact, when my colleague Senator Keneally asked questions about this at Senate estimates, Senator Stoker accused Labor of engaging in the politics of envy. Imagine that! A Liberal government hands $1.4 billion in a contract without a competitive tender to a major Liberal-National Party donor who has not relevant experience and no assets, and when Labor asks questions about it the Morrison government accuses Labor of engaging in the politics of envy. This looks like yet another example of the Liberal Party using public money like it's Liberal Party money and helping out their mates. It's no wonder the Morrison government has no interest in establishing a proper national anticorruption commission, and, of course, the Murphy family are not the only Liberal mates doing well out of this government. I don't think I have time to do through the litany of examples, but I just want to say a few words about the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. At a time when many Australians are doing it tough, the Liberal government has handed at least 79 jobs on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to Liberal mates. That's at least 79 former Liberal Party staffers, failed Liberal Party candidates and Liberal Party donors and members who've been given secure and very highly remunerated jobs on the tribunal, and, for many of them, their only qualification seems to be a Liberal Party membership card. Members of the tribunal are paid between $193,990 and $496,560 a year. It's basically impossible for them to lose their jobs, even if they never turn up for work. Based on recent data provided by the tribunal, we know that some full-time members—people who are receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars a year—have been doing no work. We know that many other full-time members have been doing very little work, finalising fewer than 25 applications a year. We also know that, as a result of the very generous and potentially unlawful remuneration policies adopted by the tribunal, many part-time members of the tribunal are being paid tens of thousands of dollars more than full-time equivalents. I've asked the Auditor-General to look into that particular issue, and I look forward to his response. Let me be clear: membership of a political party is not a disqualification for appointment to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, but the Morrison government has been treating membership of the Liberal Party as the only qualification for appointment. How else can one explain the appointment of a man like Anthony Barry, a former Liberal Party media adviser turned big tobacco lobbyist who reportedly boasted about dropping out of law school and who continued to work as a lobbyist long after he was appointed to the tribunal. It has become so bad that former High Court judge Ian Callinan, who was hand-picked by the former Attorney-General to conduct a review of the tribunal, felt the need to recommend that all future appointments be made on the basis of merit. Of course, the Morrison government has not implemented that recommendation. It saddens me greatly to see the once-great Administrative Appeals Tribunal diminished in this way. Thousands of Australians rely on the tribunal to conduct an independent review of decisions by Commonwealth ministers and public servants—decisions that can have major and sometimes life-altering impacts on people's lives. This government doesn't care about those Australians. To the Morrison government, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is there to serve the interests of the Liberal Party and its mates, not the interests of Australians. This government is so shameless and so lacking in integrity that it has even appointed Liberal aligned lobbyists to the tribunal. In other words, under the Morrison government's watch, Liberal aligned lobbyists, whose job it is to influence government decision-making, have been paid to conduct supposedly independent reviews of government decisions. There could hardly be a more flagrant conflict of interest, and yet, as with every other outrage, the Morrison government waves its hand, says 'whatever' and moves on to the next scandal. What we're witnessing right now is a government that believes that it can act with complete impunity. The Prime Minister appears to believe that, no matter how disgraceful his conduct or the conduct of his ministers gets, time will march on, journalists will move on and people will forget. It's incumbent on all of us to ensure that the Prime Minister is wrong about that. Australia needs a powerful and independent national anticorruption commission, and only a Labor government will deliver one. 17:58 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I'd like to raise a few issues during this debate on the appropriation bills. Firstly, I would sadly like to greatly criticise the decision of our Paralympic movement to discriminate against the Paralympic athletes. We have one rule for able-bodied athletes going to the Games in Tokyo and we have another rule for Paralympians. If you are going to the Olympics in Tokyo, your decision to take a COVID vaccine is up to you. It is freely available, but it is not mandatory. There is no requirement from the Japanese government. There is no requirement from the Olympic movement. There is no requirement from the Australian Olympic movement. Therefore, athletes, who rely on their body for their income and their livelihoods, are able to make a decision freely and in consultation with their own doctor. They are not coerced; they are not forced. In contrast, our Paralympians have been told that, unless they take the new, novel, experimental genetic COVID vaccine, they will be unable to attend the Tokyo Paralympic Games. This is nothing other than shocking discrimination. I call on the Paralympic Committee: if you think that your Paralympians are somehow special and need special care and special treatment, and need to be looked after in this way, perhaps you are not the right people to be looking after and to be involved with our Paralympians. I've had the great pleasure of seeing our Paralympians at their basketball games and their touch football games. These athletes are as tough and as hard as any other athlete playing any other sport. You see them tumble over in their chairs—not on soft grass, but on hard wooden floors—and pick themselves up and go again. The fact that they are being discriminated against is a shame upon our nation and it's a shame on the organisers of the Paralympic movement. I call on them to please rethink this. We should not be using coercion to force someone to have a vaccine against their free wishes and to take away that freedom. They may have trained for 10 years for their one moment to go to the Olympics and to have that taken away is shocking and a disgrace. The Paralympic movement needs to find the science and the evidence and to end the shocking discrimination. The second issue: I would like to revisit the debate on hydroxychloroquine. We may remember on 28 August last year Australia's then Deputy Chief Medical Officer Dr Nick Coatsworth made some comments. He said: … I think Australians are very clear which Kelly should be listened to in COVID-19, and that is Paul Kelly— And obviously not Craig Kelly. He continued: And Paul Kelly, like myself, like all clinicians around Australia, understand that regrettably hydroxychloroquine is not effective for COVID-19. Well, let's look at some of the recent evidence to test this proposition of Mr Coatsworth that it is not effective. We have also had the Chief Medical Officer, on 13 January, saying: … subsequently there have been many, many studies on hydroxychloroquine for both treatment and for prevention of COVID-19. And at this point there is no evidence that it is useful for either of those things. Let's look at evidence. Let's look at what is actually happening. Last week, Dr Peter McCullough, MD, MHP, FACP, FACC, FAHA, FCRSA, FCCP, FNFK, FNLA—a gentleman that has more letters after his name than the alphabet! He is professor of medicine. He is someone who has had COVID himself and someone whose father has had COVID. He was asked the question during interview: 'In your practice did you find hydroxychloroquine to be effective?' Remember, we've got Mr Coatsworth saying, 'Like myself, all clinicians around Australia, understand that regrettably it is not effective.' So how did Dr McCullough answer this question when he was asked if, in his practice, treating real-life patients, it was effective? His answer was, 'Oh certainly. Hydroxychloroquine is the most frequently prescribed drug for this condition worldwide. It is the most studied drug. There have been over 200 clinical studies and the data is consistent.' He continued: 'It is enormously helpful and as part of a multi-drug regime. There are published studies that show it is a prophylaxis and it's about as prophylaxis as the vaccine. It can prevent about 90 per cent of cases. It is relied upon worldwide but unfortunately it has been politicised.' This is a complete contradiction to what our Chief Medical Officer and former Deputy Chief Medical Officer have said. It is not just Dr McCullough. On 5 February Australia's Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy, most likely a high credential immunologist in this country, said, Craig Kelly is 'absolutely right' in saying that hydroxychloroquine is useful in early treatment studies. Yet we have our Chief Medical Officer saying it is ineffective. What are we up to with some of the studies? We know that for hydroxychloroquine we have 29 early treatment studies. Remember, we have our Chief Medical Officer saying at this point there is no evidence. Well, why are they not looking at these 29 studies? And 100 per cent of those studies have found hydroxychloroquine effective. A random effects meta-analysis with the pooled results of these 29 studies has shown that there is a 66 per cent improvement. The probability of getting 29 out of 29 early treatment studies to show an effective result if it were an ineffective treatment is one in 537 million. Maybe all these people are wrong. Maybe our Chief Medical Officer has got the one in 537 million chance that he is right. What about some of the other evidence, some of the studies referred to? Interestingly, a study published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Medicine proposes an algorithm to treat COVID. In that algorithm, it includes treatment with hydroxychloroquine. So in this country we have Chief Medical Officer that says it doesn't work. In Queensland we have a Chief Medical Officer that is so convinced that had it doesn't work that she's criminalised it. In Queensland a doctor will go to jail for six months for applying a treatment that is published in a peer-reviewed journal—not just any peer-reviewed journal but the American Journal of Medicine. This treatment protocol, applied in the state of Queensland, would see a doctor jailed for six months. I could go on with all these studies all night, but there are another two that I'd quickly like to point to. First, they say these studies don't have big enough numbers of people in them. Again, this is a peer-reviewed study published in International Immunopharmacology. It looked at a study from Iran, a retrospective study, of 28,759 adult patients with mild COVID symptoms. In that study, no less than 7,295 were treated with hydroxychloroquine. This peer-reviewed study with 11 authors—what was its conclusion? Remember those numbers. They treated 7,295 patients with a treatment that in Queensland would end up with a doctor in jail. That study found it lowered the risk of hospitalisation by 35.3 per cent and lowered the risk of death by 69.7 per cent. A treatment that's found in a peer-reviewed study of over 7,000 people lowers the risk of death by almost 70 per cent. The same treatment will put you in jail as a doctor in Queensland. This is an outrage. This is an embarrassment to our nation, an embarrassment to our country. Deputy Speaker, if you add up all the studies on hydroxychloroquine, there are 246 to date and 185 have found positive results. The probability of an equal or greater percentage of that occurring is—wait for it—one in two quadrillion. Those are the odds it is an ineffective treatment. Yet today if a doctor in Australia banned from using it uses it in Queensland to try and save a life, he'll face six months in jail. This is an outrage. This is a disgrace. It's an affront to all the principles of medicine. It's an affront to our doctors, who we should trust with the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship. When our Chief Medical Officer was saying this drug wasn't effective, Professor Raymond Seet, from the University of Singapore, was conducting a randomised controlled trial, in Singapore, with hydroxychloroquine. What did that find? On 18 May, exactly when our health bureaucrats were saying, 'No, no, it doesn't work,' in Singapore they were treating over 3,000 low-risk patients with it, as a prophylaxis. What did they find, Mr Deputy Speaker? They found the risk of a severe disease was 35 per cent lower and the risk of contracting COVID was 32 per cent lower. The numbers of those studies were only low, they could have done better, but how can you have 32 per cent and 35 per cent improvement in a study in Singapore? I've heard other people say: 'These studies are in Asian countries. We should discount them.' Does anyone think that the medical authorities in Singapore are not qualified to carry out these tests? There you have it, Mr Deputy Speaker: 35 per cent lower risk of severe cases, and 32 per cent lower risk of getting infected. In the remaining minute, I'd also like to comment on the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne. The member for Melbourne and I don't agree on a lot. In fact, I would say that on maybe 99.9 per cent of the subjects that come along the member for Melbourne and I disagree entirely—even down to the art in this Parliament House! But on this occasion the member for Melbourne is right about the publicly funded JobKeeper wage subsidy. Companies that have made a windfall profit, that have got JobKeeper but haven't needed it or used it, should pay it back. And many companies have. I notice Nick Scali, the furniture retailer, have paid it back—and good on them! Many companies that have benefited have had their best period of sales and profitability ever because of changes in consumer spending habits during the COVID lockdown. Some of those companies that got JobKeeper have, correctly, paid it back. The other companies should. If the boot were on the other foot—if a Labor government had given JobKeeper to the unions for the unions to pay out, and the unions had pocketed that money for themselves and not given it to the workers—we would be coming down on them like a tonne of bricks. It should not matter; it is the principle. These companies should pay this money back, and that is why I support the amendment by the member for Melbourne. (Time expired) 18:13 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I'm pleased to speak tonight in reply to the budget. After budget night, I put together a detailed online survey to hear how this year's budget will affect the day-to-day lives of the people and communities of Indi, and in just under a week I had received a whopping 1,402 responses to that survey. The constituents who spoke up are diverse, from school leavers in Mansfield to aged-care workers in Bright and retired veterans in Wodonga. One-third of respondents came from our bigger towns of Wodonga, Wangaratta and Benalla, and two-thirds came from the smaller towns and districts right across the electorate. I'll be using this speech tonight to bring their voices to parliament, because, at the end of the day, that's what I'm here to do. I'm also proud to be using this speech to launch the publication of the Indi budget survey report 2021, which sets out the views of all those who responded. The top-line finding from the survey is pretty simple: big budget announcements mean nothing to the people of Indi until there is real change on the ground. Billions in mental health funding means nothing unless you can access mental health services close to your home in a timely fashion at a price that you can afford to pay. Big infrastructure announcements are useless if they're just announcements made over and over again for political points and sod is never turned. Income tax cuts mean diddly squat if fewer than one in 20 people in the community earn enough to benefit from them. As an Independent, I've got the privilege of calling things as I see them. I'm not a robotic cheerleader for the government; nor am I relentless critic. I'll be using the voices of the community collected in this survey when I'm deciding how to vote on bills and, when meeting with relevant ministers and the Prime Minister, I'll be sharing what they had to say. Firstly, on renewables and climate action, across the board the communities of Indi were disappointed in the lack of action on climate in this budget. Many listed it as their top concern, and over 80 per cent said the government should be doing much more to scale up renewables instead of propping up gas. As one constituent from Yea put it: 'The time for obfuscating and procrastinating on climate change has passed. We want concrete commitments to climate change now.' Two hundred and seventy billion dollars was announced for the defence industry in this budget and $110 billion was announced for infrastructure, while only $1.6 billion was announced for emissions reduction. The numbers tell you plain and simple that the government simply— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 18:16 to 18:28 Dr HAINES 282335 Regional Australia doesn't want to see a doubling down on dead-end gas projects and soon-to-be-stranded assets. It knows the longer the government stalls the more we'll see foreign renewable companies setting up wind and solar farms in our back yards and pumping the profits off shore. Regional Australia knows the real economic opportunity is in locally owned renewables. Later this month, the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy will inquire into my Australian Local Power Agency Bill, which will do just that: put the regions, like Indi, front and centre in what is an inevitable renewables boom. That bill is still on the table. It's fully costed, and it could have been lifted into this budget. I invite the government to listen carefully to the evidence community energy groups will give at that inquiry. The government also made considerable strides in delivering on the royal commission into aged care. But, while $17.7 billion over five years is commendable, it still falls way too short. The aged-care sector called for $10 billion each year to fully implement the royal commission recommendations, but this announcement really comes nowhere near that. The community of Indi knows what it's like to deal with a broken aged-care system. Almost half of the survey respondents were seriously concerned about the lack of skilled aged-care workers in the region. Constituents also listed unacceptable waiting times and staff-to-resident ratios as urgent issues of concern. One aged-care worker from Bright put it bluntly: 'The new requirement of 200 minutes of care per day will simply just not happen where I work as we are so chronically short of staff.' I've heard these implementation concerns right across the board. The people of Indi simply don't have faith that the government can deliver beyond these announcements. When asked to rate how confident they were that the government could fix the horrific failures uncovered by the royal commission, the average level of confidence was a measly three out of 10. The one-off payment of $1,145 payment per resident to aged-care providers in regional areas really is a drop in the ocean. The additional $630 million bucket for regional aged care also has no detail on how it will be spent on the ground and if the government will fill the gaps in thin markets, like the royal commission recommended. The more than $1 billion invested in the JobTrainer program doesn't specify how the government will make sure that newly qualified aged-care workers stay in or, indeed, move to the regions. While the extra 80,000 home-care packages are great, we've still got 20,000 people on the waiting list. How many of these will be in regional Australia? Who will the government prioritise? These are questions that I can't answer for my constituents, and I certainly won't get answers in the government glossies. Residential aged-care facilities across Indi—in Bright, Alexandra and Eildon—are vulnerable. Years of underfunding means facilities are often rundown and there simply aren't enough beds to go around. Some families have to make the heartbreaking decision to send their elderly loved ones to an aged-care facility hours away. This is a decision that no family should have to make. The process of fixing our fractured aged-care system has only just begun and we shouldn't congratulate this government for just coming to the table. I'll have my congratulations ready when implementation actually hits the ground. Indi communities also welcomed the $2 billion in mental health funding. It was an announcement, though, that they greeted with cautious concern. There were no specific measures in this historic funding package that target regional Australia. Recent bushfires and border closures mean regional communities like Indi have particular mental health needs. Almost three-quarters of survey respondents who've tried to access mental health services in the last year have experienced significant barriers, from waiting times to exorbitant fees or simply no services available in their towns or down the road—and that's just not good enough. I'll be watching closely to see how the government rolls out its 24 new satellite Head to Health centres and if there is equity for regional electorates in need like my electorate. The last thing we need is pork barrelling on mental health. I'll also be making sure the government isn't just giving lip service to job creation like it did with its job maker hiring credit last budget. This mental health package will mean nothing if we can't get skilled workers into the communities that need them, especially in areas such as mental health and especially when we have such a widespread housing crisis. I've already taken some creative solutions to the health minister. For example, there are huge opportunities to mobilise mental health nurse practitioners but fundamental structural barriers to making that happen. We simply can't afford to get mental health and aged care wrong, especially for communities like Benalla, which has the highest per capita level of suicide over the past decade in the state and one of the highest per capita levels of suicide attempts presenting to emergency departments. The people of Benalla are incredible. They are working so hard with community led programs to address this. This mental health funding needs to help communities like theirs or communities in the Upper Murray, who I have had to fight tooth and nail for to see bushfire mental health funding announcements made over a year ago finally delivered. I will continue to fight until we see affordable, local, quality mental health services on the ground in every country town. We have to act fast. I've spent my professional life working as a nurse, a midwife and a rural health researcher in north-east Victoria, and I know that the demand for health services will double over the next 20 years as the population ages and our chronic disease morbidity climbs. There was a lot of infrastructure funding in this budget, but there was nothing allocated for a badly needed investment in the Albury-Wodonga hospital. This is the busiest regional health service outside of Geelong. Surely it will be identified soon as a key priority in the regional deal. I absolutely hope so. One announcement that I know was welcomed across the electorate is the $600 million to establish a permanent National Recovery and Resilience Agency. Bushfire affected communities in Towong Shire and Alpine Shire have had great success working with the outgoing National Bushfire Recovery Agency, and I commend all of the good people who were working in that agency. The tale of recovery is long, as we know down in Indi. The 2009 fires are still in the minds of communities in the Murrindindi Shire, who experienced horrific fires at that time, and they tell me constantly that recovery takes a long time. I was pleased last night to welcome over $5.3 million in funding to 12 community projects across the Alpine and Towong shires in the latest round of the Local Economic Recovery Program funding. That funding is more than double the last round. It brings the total amount of bushfire recovery funding to Indi over the past 12 months to $79.6 million. I was particularly pleased to see funding for community halls. During and after the fires, I visited dozens of halls that became makeshift emergency relief centres and operational hubs in the most desperate of circumstances. The funding for the Tawonga, Corryong, Tallangatta and Harrietville halls will help these important places to become fit for purpose the next time an emergency comes around. It also recognises that our small halls are places for communities to come together to reconnect and rebuild after 18 months of drought, COVID, bushfires and border closures. The $1.5 million for the mountain bike park in the Mitta state forest is a game changer for the tourism economy of the Mitta Valley, and it will attract bike-riding, including mountain-bike-riding, enthusiasts from around the nations. I welcome them to Mitta, and I know they'll be very welcome at the Mitta Valley park. Survey respondents have strong views about the two different income tax cuts in this budget. The low- and middle-income tax offset will mean workers earning under $126,000 will get $1,080 in tax relief at tax time. This will benefit more than 80 per cent of workers in Indi, and that's welcome news at a time when low wage growth is hurting hip pockets. I'll be pleased to support that bill this week. The scheduled stage 3 tax cuts, on the other hand, will only go to workers earning $180,000 per year, and less than two per cent of people in Indi will benefit from these cuts. Some of them don't even want it. The policy gives no thought to the people of Indi and means less money to spend on things that matter to us. The survey theme I'd like to close on is the total lack of funding for a federal integrity commission. I was disappointed—but in no way surprised, I have to say—to see zero dollars and zero staff allocated to the government's toothless integrity commission proposal in the budget papers. The Prime Minister is kicking the integrity can down the road at a time when record billions are going out the door in the lead-up to an election. This is simply unacceptable. Every age group in the survey listed integrity in politics and government as a top priority, and every age group had near zero confidence that the government could pass a bill to set up a robust integrity commission that's equipped with the powers to actually do its job. As one constituent from Wangaratta put it, 'The integrity commission has well and truly been swept under the carpet, never to be spoken of again,' and she's right. On 8 September, it will be 1,000 days since the Prime Minister promised to deliver an integrity commission to this nation. It's an election commitment that it is becoming increasingly clear he will default on. But I'll tell you this: I will never default on my promise to the people of Indi to keep fighting for a robust integrity commission. Now more than ever, we've got to make sure that we're smart and effective about how we spend our money, and, most importantly, we need to be honest too. 18:39 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I rise to speak on the appropriation bills and on the budget for 2021-22, which is about securing Australia's recovery. I'd like to focus on creating jobs and rebuilding our economy and also on infrastructure within my electorate of Swan in Western Australia. The budget, in regard to creating jobs and rebuilding the recovery, has quite a few facets to it. There are jobs in the recovery. There are tax jobs to create jobs. There are business tax incentives to create even more jobs. There are global business and talent incentives, tax incentives to encourage innovation, building skills for the future, investing in our care workforce, COVID-19's impact on women, boosting workforce participation, getting unemployed Australians back into work, creating the right incentives to work, the digital economy strategy, digital skills for the future, deregulation, supporting construction jobs, growing our regions and targeting industry support. In regard to jobs and recovery, Australia's economic recovery means more people are in work than ever before. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Gillespie, the employment figure is 75,000 higher than it was before COVID-19 and almost one million jobs have been restored or created since May 2020. So Australia is on track for the unemployment rate to recover in around two years. That's five times faster than it did in the 1990s recession. As you would know, tax cuts are designed to create jobs and also to put more money in the pockets of those who earn it. The tax cuts will support household income and generate more activity supporting jobs growth. The government is delivering a further $7.8 billion in personal income tax to support more than 10 million low- and middle-income earners. This will be worth up to $1,080 for individuals or up to $2,160 for couples. This is on top of the $25.1 billion of announced tax cuts flowing to households in 2021-22 under our legislated Personal Income Tax Plan. With the additional year of the low- and middle-income tax offset, our PIT plan will provide tax cuts of up to $7,020 for individuals and up to $14,040 for couples, in total, over the period from 2018-19 to 2021-22. Lower taxes mean that hardworking Australians will keep more of what they earn, allowing them to spend more, help grow the economy and create more jobs. I'm in my 14th year of serving the good electorate of Swan. I see the member for Hindmarsh here. He joined me in parliament after the 2007 election. It has been a long journey and I know he has seen plenty of action, as have I in the time that I've been in parliament. It has been a privilege to serve Swan. During the term of my elections I have fought and advocated for congestion-busting infrastructure across Swan. My electorate of Swan is home to some of the largest highways and infrastructure in WA, so a major focus for me has been making our roads safer and getting people home sooner. Congestion has a real cost both on the economy and on the quality of our lives. I'm proud to be part of a government that has committed a total of over $1.66 billion towards infrastructure projects across the electorate of Swan. A major accomplishment has been the delivery of the Manning Road on-ramp, and I was reminded of that by a constituent who happened to be sitting next to me on the plane yesterday. He was lauding the outcomes of the Manning Road on-ramp, which is the first project on a piece of key infrastructure on the freeways of Perth in over 40 years. After a decade of advocating and fighting for this project, I'm proud that we finally delivered it. I originally raised this issue in parliament in 2009 and began my campaign for funding, securing $28 million in 2016. The funding was 80 per cent of the $35 million project. This project is an example of the commitment this federal Liberal government has to creating congestion-busting road infrastructure works. It displays the commitment that I have to local residents in Swan to take action and deliver what the community needs. The recent budget prioritises several key infrastructure projects in the state. Residents in my electorate of Swan will directly benefit from a $385.5 million share in the $1.3 billion infrastructure announcement recently made with the state minister for infrastructure and also the state Premier. A project included in this announcement is the Hamilton Street-Wharf Street grade separations and the elevation of associated railway 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 huge amount of congestion. There are times when it is like a car park. Back in 2019, I secured $207.5 million for the Mint Street-Oats Street-Welshpool Road level crossing removal as well. This further commitment of funds to remove two more level crossings means I've succeeded in my local campaign, which has taken many years. Over 1,000 people signed local petitions to expedite action to remove these local crossings, and I look forward to seeing the works commence soon. Other key projects in Swan as part of this infrastructure announcement include $10 million for the Orrong Road expressway, and I can hear a sigh of relief from constituents about that because it is like a car park in the morning and in the afternoon as well. There is also an additional $21.5 million towards the Leach Highway-Welshpool Road interchange project, bringing the total funding for this project to $68 million, thanks to the Morrison government. This highway is the busiest intersection in Western Australia, and it's great that these two projects are going to be looked at, as they will get people home more quickly and more safely. I drove past there on Sunday. The works have begun, and I look forward to the sod-turning with the local minister for infrastructure. I expect the Labor Premier will be out there as well to make sure he gets a piece of the action. This funding for my electorate will support local small businesses, which means jobs, and it will keep residents safe on the roads and cut travel times in our community. Other key road infrastructure projects I've delivered include $232 million for the Tonkin Highway gap, which is one of Perth's most congested roads; $85 million to upgrade the northern access to the Perth Airport precinct; $37.6 million in federal funding for WA's first smart freeway; $1.6 billion for the Roe Highway and Kalamunda Road interchange; and $490 million for the Forrestfield-airport link, which is near completion. I recently visited both ends of the link, which is the first ever underground tunnel project under the Swan River, so it's a great initiative. It was started by the previous Liberal state government, but the current state Labor government has supported it and continued with the project, with the $490 million we gave for that. There is also $13.25 million to bust congestion on Abernethy Road; $75 million to upgrade the bus interchange at the Canning Bridge; and $25 million for the Causeway Bridge upgrade, just to name a few. I'll continue to deliver congestion-busting infrastructure for the residents of Swan. As we come out of COVID, investment in infrastructure will play a critical role in the Commonwealth's JobMaker plan and help the Western Australian economy. Another project, Edward Millen House, secured funding of $4 million. I'm pleased to deliver that funding because the Edward Millen redevelopment project is also in my electorate of Swan. I worked closely with the town of Victoria Park to put this project on the agenda at the national level to ensure that the benefits of economic and social regeneration can occur right in the heart of East Victoria Park. Edward Millen House has been fenced off to the public for more than two decades, and I'm excited to see this historic state heritage asset restored and enjoyed by the local community. The $4 million I secured will help the town of Victoria Park kick off this project. Other community infrastructure projects I've delivered include $2.5 million for the upgrade of Mends Street in South Perth and $1 million for the creation of the Wharf Street Basin Next Generation Community Park, which is a smart park right in the middle of the city of Canning. As some members know, my electorate of Swan is named after the Swan River which borders the north and west of my electorate. The Swan River is renowned around the world and is a main tourist attraction. It's where hundreds of thousands of West Aussies gather to view the Australia Day Skyworks. It is also home to many local organisations in my electorate, including rowing clubs, sea scouts and yacht clubs. It provides a place for the community to get together and enjoy the beauty of the outdoors. It is home to many local species, including the famous black swan which features on our Western Australian flag. It is essential that we care for these waterways, and looking after the river has been a commitment of mine during my time as the member. I am proud to have been able to deliver three stages of the Swan-Canning River Recovery program, supporting local organisations to deliver practical community environmental action in looking after and caring for the Swan and Canning rivers. I'm sure the member for Hindmarsh, with his previous ministerial role, would appreciate how much work we have to do to look after our environment. Stage 3 of the project has seen funding of $2 million to improve the health of the Middle Canning estuary and will see the removal of terrestrial weeds across 50 hectares. The aquatic hydrocotyle was introduced as weed for fish ponds, and it escaped and went into the rivers. The program is to get rid of that weed and also to reduce sediment and nutrient run-off from this vital Western Australian waterway. Over the next three years, environmental and community groups will engage volunteers in a series of projects funded by the Australian government under the Swan-Canning River Recovery stage 3 project. As well as delivering practical environmental outcomes, these programs are helping to educate people about the importance of the Middle Canning waterway's natural values and the ways we can work together to enhance our environment. On my election, I set out to make the electorate of Swan a hub for sport with the best recreational facilities in Perth. As both a former director of junior development for the Perth Football Club, which is based at Lathlain site, and a former player in the WAFL, I know the benefits sport can bring to the area. The investment is focused on local participation, upgrading local facilities at reserves and within local sporting programs, and delivering the multimillion-dollar Recreation and Aquatic Facility in the City of South Perth. The Morrison government is committed to providing modern, equitable and long-lasting facilities for grassroots sporting clubs up to the elite level. That's why we have committed $16.25 million towards the construction of the WA State Football Centre. We know that football, or soccer, is one of the most popular sports in WA, with more than 230,000 Western Australians playing the global game. This project has been a key goal of the West Australian football community for the better part of the last decade. With our support, Football West will finally have a state-of-the-art home in Maniana Reserve in Queens Park in my electorate. This is critical because the recent successes of Perth Glory in the A-League and W-League mean more and more young people in the west are signing up to local clubs. A big focus of my local priorities has also been to upgrade and enhance local sporting grounds. I've secured nearly $400,000 to upgrade the sports lighting facilities at Wyong Reserve and Scott Reserve. Multiple amateur and junior sporting clubs call these reserves home, with a new focus on enticing girls to play at these sporting clubs as well. Proper lighting is important for the clubs to play or practice in low light or at night and increase community participation. Because of this lighting, they are actually now able to bring the girls in to play on a Friday night at their home ground. Another project I delivered after surveying local residents and working closely with local clubs and coaches was to upgrade the facilities at the Aqualife Centre in East Victoria Park. These upgrades included installation of new starting platforms and installing a submersible wall. These upgrades enable better use by many school groups that have used the centre, as well as ensuring disabled athletes have proper facilities. The upgrades were completed last year, and I'm glad they are still being enjoyed by the community. The coalition has been a strong supporter of the Lathlain development, delivering the vital investment that has enabled the development to get underway, including $10 million in 2015 for the West Coast Eagles' new home at Lathlain oval and the $3 million investment in 2016 to support the co-location of the Wirrpanda Foundation to assist Indigenous youth. $4 million was also invested in the redevelopment of the Perth Football Club grandstand at Lathlain oval, which helped to benefit 10,000 children directly involved in football related activities. The latest multimillion-dollar project underway is the new Recreation and Aquatic Facility that will be completed in the City of South Perth. I've led the local campaign for this $20 million project since 2011, and it has actually now turned into a $65 million project, with $20 million from the federal government. The business plans have recently been passed by the South Perth local council and it has the backing of thousands of residents who were surveyed. Local sporting groups are also supporting this facility. The design concepts include three state-of-the-art swimming facilities, six to eight indoor hard court stadiums, and facilities for women and disabled sports, hydrotherapy and spa facilities. This regional-scale facility at the Curtin University precinct will be enjoyed by the community at large. To finish off, I support and congratulate the Morrison government on their new budget, securing Australia's recovery. 18:54 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh It was a pleasure to listen to the member for Swan undertake a 'this is your life' of his own career since 2007. Congratulations to the member for Swan. It's a great pleasure to rise and talk on the appropriation bills for 2021-22. This was an extraordinary budget in so many ways: a government has been able to rack up $1 trillion in debt and yet right through the budget papers there is the sorry reality for working families across Australia that, with $1 trillion of debt and $100 billion or thereabout in new spending, their wages will actually go backwards. Wages will actually go backwards over the next four years. It is just an extraordinary indictment on this government's budget—and probably no surprise, because we remember the former finance minister, who I think takes over as Secretary-General of the OECD this week, who pointed out that low wages and low wage growth were a deliberate policy feature of this government. We see it right through the biggest-spending budget anyone can remember. The extraordinary thing about this budget, to my mind, is the complete lack of any fiscal discipline in the spending. I think everyone here in the parliament and across the community understands that stimulus spending required to get the economy through the pandemic recession, spending required to roll out the vaccine and suchlike, spending particularly associated with the emergency is going to be spending essentially borrowed and will be paid back when we get through this emergency, as we will. But the extraordinary thing about this budget is the recurrent expenditure baked into the budget for which there is no fiscal discipline whatsoever. The breezy way in which the Treasurer essentially overturned four decades of fiscal orthodoxy in this country by putting in place big new spending programs—some of them quite worthy, and I'll talk about that—without any sense of how they would be paid for is just extraordinary. Gough Whitlam did it. Fraser did it. But since the early 1980s it has been a fundamental understanding in this place that, where there is recurrent spending—good, bad or indifferent—baked into a budget, the government of the day has a responsibility to tell the Australian people how it will be paid for. Bob Hawke took a Medicare levy to the people in 1983 and put that in place to underpin the fiscal sustainability of that wonderful reform. We did it more recently in relation to the NDIS. The two big features of new spending in this budget were in aged care and mental health, two areas I'm quite familiar with. The last two substantial packages in both of those policy areas were put in place while I was the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing a decade or so ago, and I can tell you that, of the almost $4 billion of new measures in Living Longer Living Better, a big new aged-care reform package, every single dollar was offset. There was not a single new dollar of spending in that, because we understood that we needed to put in place a better aged-care system and be able to look the Australian people in the eye and say, 'This is how we are paying for it.' And that's hard. It's hard work going through a system, finding efficiencies that regear a system that at that stage was heavily geared towards residential care and gearing it more towards home care. In the mental health package, about the same quantum as the package announced in this budget in nominal terms—not real terms; in real terms our package was bigger back a decade ago—80 per cent of that package was offset. These were hard measures that I had to wring out of the MBS system by changing the way in which GPs were remunerated for mental health plans and suchlike. None of it was easy and none of it was particularly popular, but I was able on behalf of the government to say, 'This is a new package of measures and this is how we are paying for it.' It's just extraordinary, to me, the breeziness with which the Treasurer has stood up and baked in quite considerable new spending into the budget, feeling no obligation to tell the Australian people how they will be paid for, because they will be paid for at some point. I want to talk a bit about the aged-care measures that were announced a few weeks ago in the budget. I think everyone understands the depth of the crisis that aged care was experiencing—and still is experiencing because none of the announcements have actually changed the facts on the ground. As I said, 10 years or so ago the Gillard government put in place a very substantial body of reforms, under Living Longer Living Better, that responded to a very good Productivity Commission report that was the subject of deep engagement with the sector—with providers, with seniors' groups, with aged-care unions, with clinicians—over a period of about 12 or 18 months. Out of that we came up with a package that all players, if you like, within the sector were able to get behind. It was a foundational reform. As I said, it shifted very substantially from an overwhelmingly residential care focus to home care. It tried to come to grips with some of those workforce issues that have bedevilled this sector for many, many years: poor pay, high turnover, variable training arrangements. It also came to grips with the growing incidence of dementia in our community broadly and in the aged-care sector in particular. It moved to a model of consumer-directed care so that the consumers and their choice about the services they received, and the way in which they received them, would lie at the heart of the system, replacing an overwhelmingly provider-centred model that had really characterised aged care since its inception in this country. This was really a parallel process of putting consumers at the centre of new models of social service in the aged-care system, which was an existing Commonwealth system, and the new National Disability Insurance Scheme, that the member for Maribyrnong—who is here—played such a central role in setting up. These were foundational reforms. They were not expected to change the system, in and of themselves, but they were expected to regear the system to allow a decade of change that would ensure, first of all, that Australians receiving aged care through that decade, and now in 2021, were receiving the best possible care, but, just as importantly, that the system would be ready for the very big demographic shift that will happen when the baby-boomer generation starts qualifying or reaching the age where they start to use aged-care services. It's probably in the next five to seven years for home-care services and a couple of years after that for residential-care services. This is a very big lift in demand, and the sector is—and frankly even 10 years ago—struggling to deal with the existing demand from the pre-boomer generation. There is no way it is going to be able to deal with the boomer generation and the demand that that involves numbers-wise if it is not regeared. As a foundational set of reforms it was intended to be followed up. It was legislated to be followed up by a five-year review in the middle part of the last decade. We'd lost government by then, unfortunately, but David Tune, a very highly regarded public servant, who had been secretary of the finance department when we were in government, was commissioned by—I'm not sure whether it was Tony Abbott or Malcolm Turnbull at that stage, probably Tony Abbott. He delivered a very good five-year report for the next stage of the reforms and that report went absolutely nowhere. The government did not act on a single recommendation from that report. Instead, the now Prime Minister, who was then the Treasurer, followed the report up with $1.7 billion of cuts in the 2016-17 financial year. So a sector that was already under enormous pressure had money ripped out of it by the now Prime Minister, then Treasurer. It was not redistributed elsewhere through the aged-care system but instead returned to consolidated revenue. We also saw the growth of the Home Care Packages scheme, which was a scheme that we set-up through Living Longer Living Better. At that point, about 10 years ago, there were 60,000 Home Care Packages in the system—obviously not enough so in the 2012 budget we put in place arrangements to increase that through the decade and add 85,000 packages to that so that by the end of the decade there would be 145,000 packages as a base investment. We added 85,000 places to the home-care system in one budget, in 2012, and in the eight budgets after that this government added 50,000. So 85,000 in one budget and from this government 50,000 stretched across seven different budgets. That pathetic contribution disregarded the core of what older Australians want, which is the capacity to stay at home for as long as they possibly can—if at all possible, for the rest of their lives. It was disregarded by Tony Abbott, by Malcolm Turnbull and by the current Prime Minister. So we saw, unsurprisingly, home-care waiting lists blow out. Members—certainly those on this side of the Federation Chamber—know that they've been structurally set at about 100,000 people for years now. A hundred thousand people have been approved for a home-care package by an aged-care assessment team and are just not able to get it. The Productivity Commission, in their most recent Report on government services, say that, on average, people are waiting for a level 4 package—the highest level of need, a substantial package of funding from taxpayers to the tune of about $55,000 a year—more than two years. Again unsurprisingly, and so tragically, people who need that level of care but don't get it either die waiting for it—and every single year thousands of older Australians die having been approved for a home-care package but not having received it—or have to go into residential care. The whole purpose of that scheme, to keep people out of residential care, is falling down because of a lack of investment by this government. So we had a system in crisis that was pushed into even deeper crisis by the current Prime Minister ripping $1.7 billion out of it in the 2016-17 budget and MYEFO. Unsurprisingly, we saw the sorts of experiences, the travesties, that were first portrayed through the very brave Four Corners report on aged care and then revealed in the follow-up royal commission, which we finally dragged the Prime Minister kicking and screaming to. We heard about maggots in wounds, about 68 per cent of older Australians either malnourished or at risk of malnutrition. We heard people talking about the emergence of scurvy in the aged-care system again. There had been just appalling neglect—and that was the title of the interim report, Neglect—of older Australians, who had built this community, worked hard, paid taxes, raised their families. The royal commission, to their credit, set a very clear pathway out of that crisis and into a system we could be proud of. It's not easy, it's not cheap, it will take years to implement, but the pathway is clear. The package announced a few weeks ago does not keep faith with that pathway. It includes very poor transparency and accountability arrangements. Providers we saw through the royal commission and Four Corners, who in some cases—a minority of cases but egregious cases—were pocketing taxpayer funds to buy Maseratis, put into stock options and such like will be under no more pressure to make sure that the additional money the Treasurer announced a few weeks ago goes to care and not into their pockets. There were no additional accountability mechanisms of the type that were recommended by the royal commission. The government have made insufficient effort to clear the home-care waiting list: 80,000 packages over two years to clear a home-care waiting list that's already at 100,000 and that we know, through demographics, is going to grow over the coming four years. They've done nothing about wages, in spite of the fact that everyone with even a casual understanding of aged care understands that poor wages, high turnover and variable training arrangements are at the core of the quality question in aged care, as they are in so many different parts of the social services sector which have essentially been outsourced, through the Commonwealth government, to private organisations. Lastly, and most importantly, they've done nowhere near enough on ratios that were recommended by the royal commission, and have been recommended by experts for some time now, to ensure that a sufficient number of minutes of care are provided to people in residential care by people of particular qualifications. The most perplexing thing for me, I have to say, is that the government did not accept and implement the royal commission's recommendation that there be a registered nurse on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. To me, it's emblematic of the government's failure to follow the core recommendations of the royal commission: minimum minutes of care every day; minimum staffing ratios for registered nurses, enrolled nurses and personal care assistants, or assistants in nursing, as they're called in some jurisdictions; a proper effort to lift wages for some of the lowest paid but most important workers in our community; and more transparency and accountability from providers for the enormous funds that they receive. 19:09 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I congratulate the member for Hindmarsh for his very accurate description of how we've got into the mess that the nation is in on aged care. In my address on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 and related bills, I've been asked by constituents who have been seafarers to perhaps talk about part of the national debate which doesn't always get the attention it deserves. As I come from a family of seafarers, I thought I might make my contribution in that vein. It may interest members and other Australians listening to this that in two days it's the 79th anniversary of the sinking of the Iron Chieftain. The Iron Chieftain was a vessel of 4,812 tons, and it was sunk by a Japanese torpedo 45 miles east of Sydney. In two days time it'll be the 79th anniversary of the sinking of the Iron Chieftain. Australian seafarers died on that vessel. Indeed, throughout the Second World War, Australian seafarers suffered horrendous casualties, and it is to this function of the role of our shipping lanes and ships that I wish to address my appropriation remarks. I do it in the spirit of the 79th anniversary of the sinking of the Iron Chieftain 45 miles off Sydney. Australian seafaring and Australian shipping are in a parlous state, not least because of the policy neglect of successive coalition budgets. Labor is yet to fully articulate its policy for the next federal election, and our very capable shadow ministers will be talking about that. But, reflecting the wishes of Australian seafarers in my electorate and across Australia, I thought I might remind them of some of the policies that we took to the 2019 election which provide, I think, very good ideas going forward for the principles of future policy. I acknowledge in the development of the 2019 policy the work of our current leader, Anthony Albanese, who was then transport spokesperson, and myself. There are three principles which I think the budgets of the coalition and, indeed, Labor could afford to look at. We need to enhance our economic sovereignty and national security. What we suggested doing in 2019 was to create a strategic merchant fleet to secure our access to fuel supplies even in times of global instability. Australia relies on shipping to move 99 per cent of our imports and exports. It is in Australia's economic, environmental and national security interest to maintain a vibrant maritime industry. But, worryingly, Australia's own merchant fleet, as well as the skilled workforce it trains and employs, is fast disappearing. Over the past 30 years, the number of Australian flagged vessels has shrunk from 100 to approximately 14. It is in our national interest to change this direction. In successive coalition budgets, under Prime Ministers Abbott, Turnbull and now Morrison, they've stood idle as large multinationals have dumped Australian flagged and crewed vessels so they could hire overseas crews. This has destroyed the jobs of Australian seafarers and created a situation where none of our vessels that our nation relies upon to deliver its essential supplies of crude oil, aviation fuel and diesel are registered in this country or crewed by Australians. Whilst the steps by the government to secure the remaining two refineries were a welcome development, supported by Labor—suggested, indeed, by Labor before the last election—one thing we did suggest at the last election is that there should be a task force appointed to guide the establishment of a national strategic merchant fleet which could include up to a dozen vessels, including oil tankers, container ships and gas carriers. The Australian flagged and crewed vessels under the policy pre 2019 were to be privately owned and operated on a commercial basis, but they were to be available to be requisitioned by the government in time of national need. We suggested before the last election that a strategic fleet task force would examine the fine details of the establishment of the fleet. We believed that that task force could include representatives of oil companies, ship owners and operators, the industry body—Maritime Industry Australia—the maritime unions and, of course, the Department of Defence. But this wasn't the only proposal which was put forward. We need to have legislative reform. We said then that the reforms introduced in 2012 should be enforced to prevent further undercutting of the Australian flagged fleet. Our leader, when he was transport spokesperson, promised to stop the abuse of temporary licences that occurred in breach of existing legislation and ensure that the national interest is prioritised when it comes to licensing foreign ships working in Australia. We need to enforce these laws around coastal shipping. Merely because the economic activity takes part just beyond the breakers doesn't mean that it's not relevant to the Australian economy. We should require firms to seek out Australian operators and, where none are available, foreign flagged vessels should be used, as long as they pay Australian-level wages on domestic sectors. We wouldn't have aeroplanes flying overhead doing Australian flagged work in our air. But, somehow, because it's at sea, we assume that anything goes. I think that a strategic fleet, whether it is of the nature that we outlined and I took to the polls in 2019, or indeed subsequent work and reforms suggested by others, would put an end to the unilateral economic disarmament whilst providing a platform for the training of more Australian seafarers. We also should re-establish, perhaps, the maritime workforce development forum. It was abolished by the coalition short-sightedly after they took office in 2013. We must make sure that the issuing of temporary licences, allowing foreign flagged and crewed vessels to work around the coasts, is properly enforced. This is not just an appeal to the defence of our nation or economic sovereignty. Other First World nations have re-established shipping fleets. Australia should, too. We are an island and custodians of an island continent. In the past 30 years the number of Australian flagged vessels has fallen, as I've said, from 100 to around just 14 vessels. Somehow, Norway, with a smaller population, has 519 vessels carrying the Norwegian flag; the United Kingdom, in 2019, had 1,157 British flagged vessels; and China, of course, never short to observe economic advantage, has 4,608 flagged vessels. We think that the abuse of the licensing system, providing licences for work that isn't temporary, and in cases where Australian vessels have been available, is a black mark on the coalition's credentials to be interested in national security. The reforms outlined in 2019, the reforms suggested in collaboration with the Maritime Union of Australia, with the marine and power engineers and deck officers, are also about taking advantage of the blue highway. The blue highway around our continent is without a doubt the most effective and cheapest way to move cargo and freight around Australia. Indeed, there have been employers from the ports who have said that, without strategic intervention, Australian shipping will disappear. Gone will be our industry's ability to train Australians to run some of our most nationally significant infrastructure, its ports. Ports are major employers of Australians, with maritime skills filling roles as harbourmasters, pilots, tug masters and hydrographers. There is a national and global shortage of specialised mariners. Part of the problem is that, in our maritime industry at the moment, over 60 per cent of the skilled people in the sector are over 45, whilst the number aged under 30 is reducing. Regional ports will struggle to attract adequately skilled people for specific roles. These aren't just my words; they're the words, in 2019, of Mike Gallacher, the chief executive of Ports Australia. As I said at the opening of my address in this appropriations matter, shipping is an area, because it's beyond the breakers, that doesn't attract the same attention as other matters, but we need a strong and revitalised Australian flagged shipping industry with a securely employed Australian workforce. This is important for our economic security, for our national security and for environmental protection. As I said at the opening of my words, in two days time it'll be the 80th anniversary of the sinking of the Iron Chieftain. The Iron Chieftain tragically wasn't the only Australian vessel or, indeed, allied vessel sunk off the Australian continent in Australian territories in the Second World War. Contrary to some popular beliefs, Australia's merchant seamen at that stage were not well paid, they did not have comfortable working hours and their living conditions were often very poor. The seafarers were accused of untoward industrial action in the Second World War, but the Australian seafarer actually almost always entered the Second World War on the basis of poor pay, extreme danger and poor working and living conditions. In 1972, the Seamen's Union of Australia researched that 386 members of their union lost their lives during the Second World War. Given the union's claim of a total membership of 4,500 at the beginning of the war, the overall fatality rate amongst Australian seafarers in the Second World War was 8½ per cent, a higher fatality rate than any branch of the Australian military forces. Australia is an island nation. Labor will no doubt have a strong, pro-maritime policy at the next election. There was a lot of good work done prior to the last election on our maritime policies. But this isn't even a question of Labor or Liberal. We're an island country; we need to understand and appreciate that the blue highway that surrounds us is an economic opportunity but also a national security challenge. We've seen in the time of COVID that, all of a sudden, supplies and things which we take for granted in our shops have not been able to be shipped to Australia. We've seen vaccines not shipped to Australia because we don't make them here and other countries put first claim upon them. We've seen our own supplies taken from this country overseas by other countries seeking to take our resources in times of economic difficulty. A island nation without ships is a nation that is defenceless. There are more ways of undermining Australian sovereignty than simply by force of military arms. If we ever get into a conflict, we will wonder where our seafarers, our ship's engineers and our skilled maritime crews will come from? On that basis, one of the matters which appropriations should be dealing with in the future is our economic sovereignty, and one of the ways we will do that, along with the other policies already announced by the Albanese Labor opposition, is by having proper Australian seafaring ships. 19:22 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I rise to make a very brief contribution about the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-22 and particularly to go to the aspects of this bill that deal with the impact of COVID, because that has been the main focus of parliamentary debate. As a non-Victorian in the House, I want to say that I stand in solidarity with every single Victorian at this moment. They are going through a horrible period through no fault of their own, a period created because of the failures of this federal government. Let's be clear about it: they are dealing with issues created by this government's failure on two fronts—(1) to have an effective national quarantine system; and (2) to have a vaccine rollout worth its name. On the national quarantine system, the fact that we had reports today of another outbreak of COVID—an internal hotel infection in Perth—just demonstrates that the states are doing their best but this is a responsibility solely of the federal government. If we had a federal government worth its own name, it would be doing something about it. Secondly, these community outbreaks, which are inevitable because of this government's incompetence, would be dealt with so much better if we had a proper vaccine rollout. We saw utter mendacity from the Prime Minister and the minister for health today, where they got it wrong yet again about the facts and figures. Minister Hunt has had to correct himself many times, but the fact remains that a significant portion of aged-care residents still have not received two jabs, most aged-care workers haven't received two jabs and, quite disgracefully, the vast majority of disability care residents have not received two jabs. These outbreaks will continue while this government's incompetence continues. That's why we urgently need for this government to do its job, implement an effective national quarantine strategy and implement a national vaccine rollout worth its name. Until those two things are fixed this government will preside over a COVID pandemic that will get worse and worse. Its attempts to blame the states will not succeed, because the Australian public understand who's responsible for this mess, and that is the federal government. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:25